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.

A Review

The Food Of The Gods

by

H.G. Wells

by

R.E. Prindle

Texts:

Wells, H.G. The Food Of The Gods.

Wells, H.G.  In the Day Of The Comet

Wyndham, John: The Midwich Cuckoos

Wyndham, John: The Day Of The Triffids

Movie:  The Village Of The Damned  (based on The Midwich Cuckoos)

The Food Of The Gods is one of the Wells novels included in the Omnibus titled Seven Science Fiction Novels of H.G.Wells  Of the seven the three most read are The Time Machine, The War Of The Worlds and The Island Of Dr. Moreau.  Within the lesser read three are The Food Of The Gods and In The Day Of The Comet. 

While I have had a copy of Seven Science Fiction Novels ‘forever’ I first read Food only about fifteen years ago, (I’m eighty-five.)   I’ve thought about it frequently over the years, but had it sharply called to mind within the last few days by an incident that occurred in India.

Apparently a dog killed a monkey.  One wouldn’t consider this a matter of Darwinian natural rejection but it probably is.  As we all know the human population of the globe now nearing eight billion is expanding rapidly preempting the land leaving little room for other species.  I thought then that the monkeys that had always shared the land amicably with the humans are now finding their living space impinged upon.

When the human population that was only 250 million when the British arrived in the eighteenth century is now fast approaching a billion five hundred million almost equaling China.  Elephants and tigers and probably otherspecies are facing extinction in the wild.  Perhaps monkeys and dogs are facing competition in more settled areas.

Other species that haven’ yet been exterminated or nearly so are also crowding the landscape.  At any rate, the monkeys were so enraged at the unjustifiable monkeycide that a turf war between monkeys and dogs has begun.  Up to this writing monkeys have exterminated a confirmed kill of two hundred fifty dogs.

Their method of murdering the dogs, since they don’t have guns or atom bombs is to carry the dogs to high places and chuck them over.  Now this is systematic, so the monkeys have apparently evolved a plan, that is that they got together and communicated with each other.  In addition it is possible that the monkeys have also begun to kill human children.  Would it be possible to label these killings as race wars?

Not knowing the circumstances around the first killing I can’t confirm that the monkees reaction is justified.  Isn’t it possible that a monkey tried to steal the dogs’ food and the dog retaliated appropriately?  If true this would be an inter-species matter to be adjudicated in court.

The form of execution used by the monkeys struck me as odd.  They mainly attacked puppies.  If so this may indicate a genocidal war to exterminate dogs.  The Jews in WWII proposed to castrate all male Germans in a massive genocide.  But perhaps the monkeys have come up with a more devious plan.  That of killing off the younger generation, more easy kills for monkeys, thus leaving the older generation to slowly die off.  Are monkeys capable of devising such a plan and acting in unison?  Apparently so.  Having been quietly observing the behavior of humans for a few thousand years who knows what curiosities of behavior they may have ingested.

So, genocidal monkeys led my mind back to Wells’ novel The Food Of The Gods.  Wells was well up on evolutionary theory having studied under Thomas Huxley.  Wells hypothesized that the Gods introduced a super food that developed a new advanced human super species that upset the social balance much as has happened in modern times.

Those infants raised on the stuff, something like Bulwer-Lytton’s Vril from his novel The Coming Race, are exceptional in all ways, physical and mental with IQs off the scale.  This of course creates a problem because it makes the intelligence of all other races look stupid, stupid to the point of non-competitiveness.  Thus those who benefited from the food of the gods are not allowed to propagate, there won’t be room on the planet for all the races.  Quite clearly the losers of the contest will be the smaller less intelligent old races.

Genocide of the new race is the only solution.  Life does have its problems doesn’t it?  The story then concerns how the New Race can be protected because, after all, they are the most beneficent of Nature’s creatures, the most highly developed.  Humanity Fifth Gen.

As the story has it the Earth has been fully occupied.  In the old days the New Race could have moved away from anti-New Race settlements much as the Whites must obviously have done when they evolved from the Africans somewhen, as modern ideology would have it.  This situation then creates the debate of what to do.  Listen to Wells as the Superhumans discuss the issue.

Quote:

What then?  Will this little world of theirs be as it was before?  They may fight against greatness in us who are the children of men, but can they conquer?  Even if they should destroy us, every one, would it save them?  No!  For greatness is abroad not only in us, not only in the Food, but in the purpose of all things. [Evolution toward a goal.]  It is in the nature of all things; it is part of space and time.  To grow and still to grow; from first to last, that is Being, that is the law of life.  What other law can there be.”

“To help others?”

“To grow.  It is still, to grow.  Unless we help them to fail…”

“They will fight hard to over come us.” said a voice.

And another, “What of that?”

“They will fight,” said young Redwood.  “If we refuse these terms, I doubt not they will fight.  Indeed, I hope they will be open and fight, after all if they offer peace, it will be only be the better to catch us unawares.  Make no mistake Brothers, in some way or other they will fight.  The war has begun and we must fight to the end.  Unless we are wise, we may find presently to have lived only to make them better weapons against our children and our kind.  This, so far, has only been the dawn of the battle.  Some of us will be killed in battle, some of us will be waylaid.  There is no easy victory—no victory whatever that is not half defeat for us.  What of that?  If only we keep a foothold, if only we leave behind us a growing host to fight when we are gone!”

Unquote,

So, the problem of evolution is that the less evolved must disappear.  That is genocide to make room for Nature’s best.  That is evolution.  The monkeys may have realized that.  There is no room on this planet for both dogs and monkeys, say the monkeys.  The only good dog is a dead dog.  The dilemma plagues mankind.  There is no room on the planet for eight billion people consuming resources as fast as they can.  If we continue on at this pace resources will be consumed and mankind will collapse in on itself resulting in fierce race wars…unless the world collapses on us first.

Interestingly Wells inspired a mid-twentieth century writer by the name of John Wyndham who was writing away unsuccessfully until when rereading Wells he discovered that he could lift plot and all directly from Wells and by altering the details the stories would be unrecognizable to the casual reader who may not have read Wells thus having nothing to compare.  His first attempt was a major sci-fi success.  He called it The Day Of The Triffids  and that was a retelling of The War Of The Worlds.

Then he had a great idea.  By combining  The Day Of The Comet and The Food Of The Gods he had a terrific story.  This resulted in his novel The Midwich Cuckoos which, unfortunately was a wretched title.  The novel came off much better, and that’s saying a lot, in its movie version The Village Of The Damned.  Terrific movie.

In Comet Wells postulated that a comet passed through the Earth’s atmosphere [this was the time of the return of Halley’s Comet] trailing a green gas that enveloped the planet.  The gas was some sort of ether type gas that put everyone away for a few hours.  When the sleepers wakened it was a brand new world and the peoples of the Earth were transformed into virtually a new species and everything was…perfect.

Wyndham borrowed the gas bit from Comet so that in Midwich the women of child bearing age fainted for a spell and while unconscious invisible extraterrestrials impregnated them.  Sort of like a hypnotic drug.  When the women awoke they remembered nothing but all the women in Midwich were pregnant at the same moment so that their children were all born on the same day.  In their wombs were a generation of super intelligent tow heads [Great White Beasts] who might perhaps have been mistaken for Nazi’s at first glance.  Perhaps the movie The Boys From Brazil might have received some inspiration from Midwich.  In Boys, ten boys were boys were cloned from Hitler’s DNA.  That movie involved tracking the boys down and murdering them.  Sort of a variation on the idea of going back in time and murdering Hitler in the womb.

Wyndham then borrowed the gas bit from Comet so that certain women fainted for a spell and were impregnated by invisible extraterrestrials.  In Comet the women and men woke up to a world of free love.

I think you have an idea of the solution of the problem of the Towheads.  Yep.  Genocide.  These kids had to be exterminated lest they take over the world and eliminate all the rest.  There is no explanation of why this would be a bad thing.  Perhaps it would be an improvement.  Maybe they were peaceful extraterrestrials sent by Klaatu, if you’ve seen The Day The Earth Stood Still you will understand.

We’ll never know because their extinction was successful and total.    There had been three colonies.  One in Siberia, one in Australia and the one in Midwich.  The other two had been discovered and exterminated also.  It is now up to England, which has always welcomed fugitives from oppressed peoples, to protect the dumboes and destroy the super-intelligent.  Something like what’s happening in the US at the present time.

The easiest method would have been to off them in their sleep but, given a choice between the easy way and the hard way humans will always choose the hard way.  A teacher had been selected to make these small kids well informed, educated to post-PhD standards.

What to do?  A suicidal mission by Teach.  He loads his briefcase with dynamite which is a start.  The kid geniuses are not only intelligent but telepathic.  They can read minds.  Charlie, our teacher, determines on an expedient of imagining a brick wall.  He does, the students detect the wall and directing powerful beams from their eyes begin to demolish his mental wall. A brick flies out, then another, a small hole created, than a larger.  Too late.  The leader, perhaps modeled on Hitler, shouts “It’s a b….  One more successful genocide.  And thus the world was saved from intelligence and left for the dumbasses.

An excellent book it was a great movie.  Very memorable.  Rotten Bananas gives it 100%.  And I do too. My own recommendation for the world is to relax.  The world cannot possibly survive eight billion people and rising.  Even if we all are going to die the world will be left to…THE HAPPY FEW.

Disraeli/George W.M. Reynolds

Western Civilization After Jud Suss

by

R.E. Prindle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Unquote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unquote.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Unquote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolution In The Forties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Towards Supremacy In England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Killed George Bentinck?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s my interpretation of that scene.

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Additional Thoughts And Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Unquote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that point England ceased to be a Christian State.

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

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

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

Henry Hetherington: The Revolutionary Life of a Radical Printer (1850) | G. W. M. Reynoldsby Stephen BasdeoThe following biography of Henry Hetherington originally appeared in Reynolds’s Political Instructor, accompanied with a portrait of Hetherington on the front page. Likely written G.W.M. Reynolds, it has been transcribed by Stephen Basdeo.[1] Henry Hetherington as featured in Reynolds’s Political Instructor (folio size, Stephen Basdeo Personal Collection)The name of the late Mr. Hetherington is no doubt familiar to our readers as that of a man who was ever engaged in the good work of political and intellectual progress, and who suffered severely by advocating those rights so tenaciously withheld from the humbler classes in this country. Henry Hetherington was born in the year 1792, in Compton Street, Soho, and was apprenticed to the trade of a printer, serving his time with the father of that well-known charitable gentleman, Luke Hansard. When his apprenticeship had ceased, the trade being dull and overstocked, Hetherington went to Belgium, where he worked for a considerable period. On returning to England he established himself in a shop situated in Kingsgate Street, Holborn, from whence he issued the first number of the Poor Man’s Guardian. This was in the year 1831. At the close of 1830 he was appointed by the working men of London to draw up a circular for the formation of Trades’ Unions; and that document being sanctioned by a meeting of delegates, formed the basis of the “National Union of the Working Classes,” which ultimately led to Chartism.Three convictions were obtained against Hetherington for publishing the unstamped Poor Man’s Guardian, and warrants were issued for taking him into custody; but he contrived for a long time to frustrate the endeavours of the Bow Street officials to capture him; and might have done so much longer in the country, had he not resolved upon returning to London for the purpose of having a last interview with his dying mother. He reached the door of his house, knocked hard, but was not answered; before his second summons was heard, the Bow Street runners had pounced upon him, and he was their prisoner. Hetherington was then conveyed to Clerkenwell Gaol where he remained for six months. The Guardian was carried on all the time. In the year 1832, before he had been many months at liberty, Hetherington was again imprisoned in the same gaol for six months, during which period he endured the most rigorous and cruel treatment,—all for the high crime of selling a penny paper without being stamped.A regular system of persecution was adopted by the government to suppress unstamped publications and crush cheap literature for ever. Heywood of Manchester, Guest of Birmingham, with about five hundred other news venders, were imprisoned for selling the “Unstamped.” In the year 1833 Hetherington removed from Kingsgate Street to his well-known shop in the Strand; he fearlessly persevered in his efforts to obtain for the people the immense advantages attendant upon cheap literature. The Destructive, ironically styled the Conservative, was issued from the Strand; and the London Dispatch followed, at one time obtaining a weekly circulation of twenty-five thousand. In 1834 Henry Hetherington was again tried for publishing the Guardian, he defended himself and obtained an acquittal; but was convicted for the Conservative. He, however, contrived for some time to elude the vigilance of the officers employed to capture him, by entering and leaving his house in the disguise of a Quaker. But the government revenged themselves by seizing in his shop for two hundred and twenty pounds, in the name of the commissioners for stamps, on the ground that he was not a registered printer: his premises were cleared out; but Hetherington, nothing daunted, purchased another printing-machine, and as no printer had courage sufficient to undertake his work, continued, in spite of the government’s persecution, to publish his unstamped periodicals until they consented to reduce the newspaper stamp to one penny, when he issued the Two penny Dispatch, a journal, edited by Mr. James Bronterre O’Brien. Mr. Hetherington had thus, by his persevering courage, achieved a triumph that should endear his name for ever to the poorer classes in England: he defied the law, he suffered imprisonment, and lost his property in struggling for a right which eventually was partially conceded; and to his energy, ability, and per severance are we indebted for the immense benefits de rived by the masses from the circulation amongst them of cheap literature.Henry Hetherington was one of the earliest and most energetic of working-men engaged in the foundation of the Mechanics’ Institute, and his zeal and intelligence procured for him the friendship of Dr. Birkbeck. Upon the opinions in respect of religion entertained by Mr. Hetherington, it is not our intention to dwell; holding it, as we do, an arrogant assumption on the part of any man to censure or denounce the honest conviction of his fellows on a question that alone rests between man and his Creator.The subject of this sketch represented London and Stockport in the great convention of 1839, of which the martyr Frost was a member; and his latter years were devoted to advocating the principles of Socialism and Chartism. In the parish of St. Pancras, where he was a director of the poor, he was universally esteemed for his benevolence, ability, integrity, and good sense, even by those who dissented from his views. His strict temperance warranted him in believing that he was not very to fall a victim to the prevailing epidemic—the cholera, and when first seized with it he refused to call in medical relief. Professional advice was subsequently summoned, but it was too late; Hetherington’s hours upon earth were numbered, and his useful life drew rapidly to a close. He sunk under the disease, and expired on the morning of August, the 24th, 1849, aged fifty-seven years; leaving behind him one son and a widow, who carries on her lamented husband’s business in Judd Street, New Road. Several orations were made over the grave of Hetherington by friends who had known him long, and appreciated the excellence of his intentions.[1] [G.W.M. Reynolds], ‘The Late Henry Hetherington’, Reynolds’s Political Instructor, 2 February 1850, 1–2.

This is a post from an associate in Yorkshire. We are investigating the life of the early nineteenth century novelist George W. M. Reynolds. Reynolds is a terrific story teller well deserving a revival. The below piece by Thomas Hood provides depth and context to the social environment within which Reynolds wrote. This is a cute little story. Well done.

Reynolds’s News and Miscellany

HISTORY, LITERATURE, POETRY, AND LITERARY CRITICISM

THURSDAY, AUGUST 26TH, 2021SEARCH FOR…

19TH CENTURY

A Tale of the Great Plague (c.1840) | Thomas Hood

BYSTEPHEN BASDEOON  • ( LEAVE A COMMENT )

Thomas Hood (1799–1845) was born in London and, his father being a bookseller, grew up around books. He went on to become a poet, novelist, and satirist. Most famous for his poetry, William Michael Rossetti in 1903 declared him “the finest English poet” between the generations of Shelley and Tennyson.” Although by their nature pandemics are very serious affairs, this particular short story takes a somewhat lighter approach to portraying a pandemic.[1]


“This is one of the pest discretions.”—SIR HUGH EVANS.

About five or six years after that deplorable great Plague of London, there befell a circumstance which, as it is not set forth in Defoe his history of the pestilence, I shall make bold to write down herein, not only on account of the strangeness of the event, but also because it carries a moral pick-a-back, as a good story ought to do.

It is a notoriously known fact, as collected from the bills of mortality, that there died of the plague in the mere metropolis a matter of some hundreds of thousands of human souls; yet notwithstanding this most awful warning to evil doers, the land did nevertheless bring forth such a rank crop of sin and wickedness, that the like was never known before or after; the City of London, especially, being overrun with bands of thieves and murtherers, against whom there was little or no check, the civical police having been utterly disbanded and disrupt during the ravages of the pestilence. Neither did men’s minds turn for some time towards the mere safeguard of property, being still distracted with personal fears, for although the pest had, as it were, died of the excess of its own violence, yet from time to time there arose flying rumours of fresh breakings out of the malady. The small-pox and the malignant fever being the prolific parents of such like alarms. Accordingly many notable robberies and divers grievous murthers having been acted with impunity during the horrible crisis of the pest, those which had before been wicked were now hardened, and became a thousand times worse, till the city and the neighbourhood thereof seemed given in prey to devils, who had been loosened for a season from the everlasting fetters of the law.

Now four of these desperadoes having met together at the Dolphin in Deptford, they laid a plot together to rob a certain lone mansion house which stood betwixt the Thames marshes and the Forest of Hainault, and which was left in the charge of only one man, the family being gone off to another mansion house in the county of Wiltshire, for the sake of a more wholesome air. And the manner of the plot was this: one of the villains going in a feigned voice was to knock at the front-door and beg piteously for a night’s shelter, and then the door, being opened, the other knaves were to rush in and bind the serving-man, or murther him, as might seem best, and so taking his keys they were to ransack the house, where they expected to find a good store of plate. Accordingly, one Friday, at the dead of the night, they set forth, having for leader a fellow that was named Blackface, by reason of a vizard which he wore always on such errands, diverting themselves by the way with laying out each man his share of the booty in the manner that pleased him best, wine and the women of Lewkener’s Lane coming in you may be sure for the main burthen of the song. At last they entered the fore-court of the house which they were to rob, and which was as silent as death, and as dark, excepting a glimmer from one window towards the top. Blackface then, as agreed upon, began to beat at the door, but being flushed with drink, instead of entreating for an entrance, he shouted out to the serving-man, bidding him with many terrible oaths to come down and to render up his keys, for that they were come to relieve him of his charge.

“In the name of God, my masters,” cried the serving-man from the window, “what do you want here?”

“We are come,” returned Blackface, “to relieve you of your trust, so throw us down your keys.”

“An that be all,” said the serving-man, whose name was Adams, “wait but a little while and you shall have the keys and my place to boot. Come again but a few hours hence, and you shall find me dead, when you may do with me and my trust as you list.”

“Come, come,” cries Blackface, “no preaching, but come down and open, or we will bring fire and faggot to the door.”

“Ye shall not need,” answered Adams, “hearken only to what I say, and you shall have free passage; but I give you fair warning, though I be but a single man, and without weapon, and sick even unto death, yet shall your coming in cost you as many lives as ye bear amongst you, for within these walls there is a dismal giant that hath slain his thousands, even the plague.” At these dreary words the courage of the robbers was taken somewhat aback, but Blackface spirited them on, saying it was no doubt an invention to deter them from the spoil.

“Alas,” answered Adams, who overheard their argument, “what I say is the solemn and sorrowful truth, and which I am speaking for the last time, for I shall never see to-morrow’s blessed sun. As for the door, I will open it to you with my own hands, beseeching you for your own sakes to stand a little apart, and out of the taint of my breath, which is sure destruction. There is one child herein a dead corpse, as you shall behold if you have so much courage, for it lieth unburied in the hall.” So saying he descended, and presently flung open the hall door, the villains withdrawing a little backward, and they saw verily by the light of a rush wick which he carried, that he was lapt only in a white sheet, and looking very pale and ghost-like, with a most dismal black circle round each of his eyes.

“If ye disbelieve me still,” he said, “look inwards when I draw back from the door, and ye shall see what was a living child this day, but is now a corpse hastening to corruption. Alas! in the midst of life we are in death: she was seized at play.” With these words he drew aside, and the robbers looking through the door, perceived it was even as he said, for the dead body of the child was lying on the hall table, with the same black ring round its eyes, and dressed in brocade and riband as though death had carried it off, even as he said, in its holiday clothes. “Now,” said Adams, after they had gazed awhile, “here be the keys,” therewithal casting towards them a huge bunch; but the villains would now no more meddle with them than with so many aspics or scorpions, looking on them in truth as the very keys of death’s door. Accordingly, after venting a few curses on their ill luck, they began to depart in very ill humour, when Adams again called to them to hear his last words.

“Now,” said he, “though ye came hither with robbery, and perchance murder in your hearts, against me, yet as a true Christian will I not only forgive your wicked intents, but advise you how to shun that miserable end which my own life is coming to so very suddenly. Although your souls have been saved from sin, yet, doubtless ye have not stood so long in this infected air without peril to the health of your bodies, wherefore, by the advice of a dying man, go straightway from this over to Laytonstone, where there be tan pits, and sit there for a good hour amidst the strong smell of the tan, and which hath more virtue as a remedy against the infection of the plague, than even tobacco or the odour of drugs. Do this and live, for the poison is strong and subtle, and seizeth, ere one can be aware, on the springs of life.” Thereupon he uttered a dismal groan, and began yelling so fearfully that the robbers with one accord took to flight, and never stopped till they were come to Laytonstone, and into the tanner’s very yard, where they sat down and stooped over the pit, snuffing up the odours with all the relish of men in whose nostrils it was as the breath of life. In which posture they had been sitting half an hour, when there entered several persons with a lantern, and which they took to be the tanner and his men, and to whom, therefore, they addressed themselves, begging pardon for their boldness, and entreating leave to continue awhile in the tan-yard to disinfect themselves of the plague; but they had hardly uttered these words, when lo! each man was suddenly seized upon, and bound in a twinkling, the constables, for such they were, jeering them withal, and saying the plague had been too busy to come itself, but had sent them a gallows and a halter instead, which would serve their turn. Whereupon, most of the rogues became very chop-fallen, but Blackface swore he could die easy but for one thing upon his mind, and that was, what had become of the dead child and the man dying of the plague, both of which he had seen with his own eyes. Hereupon, the man with a lantern turned the light upon his own face, which the rogues knew directly to be the countenance of Adams himself, but without any of those black rings round the eyes, and for which he explained he had been indebted to a little charcoal. “As for the dead child,” he said, “you must enquire, my masters, of the worshipful company of Barber Surgeons, and they will tell you of a certain waxen puppet of Hygeia, the Goddess of Health, which used to be carried at their pageants, and when it fell into disuse was purchased of them by my Lady Dame Ellinor Wood, for a plaything to her own children. So one head you see is worth four pair of hands, and your whole gang, tall, and strong knaves though you be, have been overmatched by one old man and a doll.”

The Light Of The World

August 20, 2021

The Light Of The World

by

Dr. Anton Polarion

Been reading some silly stuff about the Bible by some silly people.  A corrective necessary.  Let’s start from before the beginning.  There was only God, a universal god not a Jewish god.  God was universal and created all the peoples of the world.  Then, for some inexplicable reason he chose the Jews for his favorite people.  There must have been many peoples to choose from or he couldn’t have chosen the Jews.

This was the Old Dispensation and it went on for a while.  Then God got tired of having singled out the Jews as he now wanted to include all the peoples of the world for his subjects.

How to go about it?  I have it, he said, I will send a replica of myself, a son, to tell the Jews that they’re no longer special.  This raises the question:  was that son a Jew?   The question must be answered in the negative; he wasn’t a Jew.  Why not?  Because he was the son of God and God wasn’t a Jew.  God sent his Holy Spirit to implant his replica, his son, in the womb of the Virgin Mary.  God can do things like that so it’s not impossible.  Right? 

Mary delivered God’s son named Jesus.  Jesus was on his own.  No identifying marks, no passport, nothing.  He had to convince the Jews when the time came that he was divine.  The Jews when the time came would find this laughable.

First Jesus had to be prepared to have at least a half way convincing argument.  What did Mary do?  She didn’t turn him over to the Rabbis for educating, no, she sent him to Egypt to be educated and trained.  Thus, not only is Jesus not Jewish he wasn’t even educated in Jewish ideology.  Egypt was the Light of the World, the home of all wisdom.

If you’ll note Israel’s great teacher was the Egyptian Moses.  Moses did a lousy job, even gave them a cardboard god named Yahweh.  Separated them from the real God.  Probably why the Jews didn’t recognize Jesus.  Different image.  Jesus then was trained in Egypt, inculcated with the New Dispensation.  Enough of the old, new is the way.

And the New Dispensation?  For God so loved the WORLD that he sent his son to tell the Jews that he no longer wanted a special people so they were just like everyone else now.

Well, you know, that’s a tough message to take.  What do you do when you don’t like the message?  You kill the messenger and that is just what they did do.  So it is clear that God wasn’t Jewish and neither was The Light of the World, his son. Just like it says right there in the Bible if you read it right.

Bob Dylan, Edie and J.C.

August 20, 2021

Bob Dylan, Edie and J.C.

by

R.E. Prindle

I read that Bob Dylan is accused of  statutory rape…back in 1965.  While I fail to take the sixty-eight year old woman’s claim seriously I have no doubt Bob acted cavalierly with women at all times.  At that time in 1965 Bob was courting a Playboy Bunny named Sara Lownds who he married in November of 1965; he was having an affair with Suze Rotolo that began in 1961, he was keeping Joan Baez at bay and more importantly and shamefully he was persecuting a young heiress named Edie Sedgwick.

Edie was a celebrity personality at the time.  Bob was in competition with another celebrity, Andy Warhol, for Edie’s favor.  And as usual Bob put his personal affairs into song:  Like A Rolling Stone and Positively Fourth Street.  But as to his accusers complaint:  She claims she was sexually and mentally abused by him in April-May for six weeks.  If this in the case her memory misremembers the dates.  April is completely out as Bob was in England at the time however May/June is open.

A Dylan sycophant named Clinton Heylin in England who has written numerous books and biographies while living his life as a shadow Bob, has offered his services as an expert witness if the suit goes to trial.  He is willing to testify that Bob wasn’t even in New York for six continuous weeks in 1965.  Oh my, and this guy considers himself an expert on Bob’s life and whereabouts.  Let’s look at the facts.

Bob met Edie in December of 1964.  She stunned him so terrifically that he apparently forgot wife to be Sara Lownds to pursue Edie.  He came on strong, very strong, seemed to be doing well, but in January 1965 business called him away.  He extracted promises from Edie to remember him.

Subsequently in January Edie met Andy Warhol, who was a bigger celebrity than Bob at the time.  Here the feud between Bob and Andy begins.  Andy made Edie what she considered an attractive offer to be in his silly movies.  Edie snapped at the bait.  Remember that Bob thought he had a prior claim on her affections.

Several months later, May of ’65, Bob returned, it isn’t recorded that he went to see his betrothed Sara first, but he was astonished that Edie had defected for Andy.  Bob went ballistic.  In June he confronted Edie at one of Andy’s parties.  They went off into a corner to discuss matters.  Edie explained the movie thing.  Bob told her that he was going to make movies too leaving her to understand that she would be his co-star.  Oh, Bob.  Edie refused to budge as she was already connected to Andy.

Bob became half crazed.  He charged home trembling in every limb, grabbed a pen and in near frenzy filled several sheets of paper vomiting out lines for something called Like A Rolling Stone all about what a bitch Edie was.  I used to have this written in great detail on a post in my blog: Exhuming Bob 23a, Bob and Edie.  Someone has broken into my post and obliterated the contents.  I don’t know who would have done this except Bob.  Not nice Bob.  That was my copyrighted intellectual property not unlike your songs.  You may be liable.  That wasn’t nice at all.  Sort of like you treated Edie.

Andy and Edie then had the summer of their lives filling the pages of Time and Life magazines while Bob fumed.  Tidying up his lyrics he blasted them across the airwaves.  Andy and Edie may have been the only people who got it as the lyrics were so disguised l can assure that none of us on the other side of the radio got it.  Then Bob sat back down and penned a blast at Andy titled Positively Fourt Street.  More mysterious lyrics as a screed directed at Andy.

Bob would not leave Edie alone.  Pestering about the movie he had in mind, but failing to deliver so Edie was caught between two posts.  Then in November while Edie was begging him to make the movie deal and possibly marry her, who knows, Bob let the bomb drop that he was already married to his Bunny.

Bob wrote another couple vicious songs about her then passed her to his sidekick Bobby Neuwirth.  Edie’s fate after Bobby is too painful to relate.

Bob then was in town for most of ’65 contrary to Clinton Heylin’s expert testimony.  I have to discount Bob’s accuser until definite facts emerge.  As this woman claims that she apparently resisted Bob’s blandishments until he ‘groomed’ her with alcohol and drugs plus physical abuse I find that difficult to believe; I don’t think Bob would have had to use booze and drugs.  This was Greenwich Village in the Hippie days in NYC for Chrissakes.  The free sex capital of the world.  Every weekend hundreds, thousands, of girls flooded into Washington Square looking for action.  I doubt there was a single musician lacking as much sex as he wanted.

And Bob, you shouldn’t have messed with my intellectual property, my sacred words.  That Bob is an actual crime.

Bob Dylan, Edie and J.C.

August 19, 2021

Bob Dylan, Edie and J.C.

by

R.E. Prindle

I read that Bob Dylan is accused of  statutory rape…back in 1965.  While I fail to take the sixty-eight year old woman’s claim seriously I have no doubt Bob acted cavalierly with women at all times.  At that time in 1965 Bob was courting a Playboy Bunny named Sarah Loundes who he married in November of 1965; he was having an affair with Suze Rotolo that began in 1961, he was keeping Joan Baez at bay and more importantly and shamefully he was persecuting a young heiress named Edie Sedgwick.

Edie was a celebrity personality at the time.  Bob was in competition with another celebrity, Andy Warhol, for Edie’s favor.  And as usual Bob put his personal affairs into song:  Like A Rolling Stone and Positively Fourth Street.  But as to his accusers complaint:  She claims she was sexually and mentally abused by him in April-May for six weeks.  If this in the case her memory misremembers the dates.  April is completely out as Bob was in England at the time however May/June is open.

A Dylan sycophant named Clinton Heylin in England who has written numerous books and biographies while living his life as a shadow Bob, has offered his services as an expert witness if the suit goes to trial.  He is willing to testify that Bob wasn’t even in New York for six continuous weeks in 1965.  Oh my, and this guy considers himself an expert on Bob’s life and whereabouts.  Let’s look at the facts.

Bob met Edie in December of 1964.  She stunned him so terrifically that he apparently forgot wife to be Sarah Loundes to pursue Edie.  He came on strong, very strong, seemed to be doing well, but in January 1965 business called him away.  He extracted promises from Edie to remember him.

Subsequently in January Edie met Andy Warhol, who was a bigger celebrity than Bob at the time.  Here the feud between Bob and Andy begins.  Andy made Edie what she considered an attractive offer to be in his silly movies.  Edie snapped at the bait.  Remember that Bob thought he had a prior claim on her affections.

Several months later, May of ’65, Bob returned, it isn’t recorded that he went to see his betrothed Sarah first, but he was astonished that Edie had defected for Andy.  Bob went ballistic.  In June he confronted Edie at one of Andy’s parties.  They went off into a corner to discuss matters.  Edie explained the movie thing.  Bob told her that he was going to make movies too leaving her to understand that she would be his co-star.  Oh, Bob.  Edie refused to budge as she was already connected to Andy.

Bob became half crazed.  He charged home trembling in every limb, grabbed a pen and in near frenzy filled several sheets of paper vomiting out lines for something called Like A Rolling Stone all about what a bitch Edie was.  I used to have this written in great detail on a post in my blog: Exhuming Bob 23a, Bob and Edie.  Someone has broken into my post and obliterated the contents.  I don’t know who would have done this except Bob.  Not nice Bob.  That was my copyrighted intellectual property not unlike your songs.  You may be liable.  That wasn’t nice at all.  Sort of like you treated Edie.

Andy and Edie then had the summer of their lives filling the pages of Time and Life magazines while Bob fumed.  Tidying up his lyrics he blasted them across the airwaves.  Andy and Edie may have been the only people who got it as the lyrics were so disguised l can assure that none of us on the other side of the radio got it.  Then Bob sat back down and penned a blast at Andy titled Positively Fourt Street.  More mysterious lyrics as a screed directed at Andy.

Bob would not leave Edie alone.  Pestering about the movie he had in mind, but failing to deliver so Edie was caught between two posts.  Then in November while Edie was begging him to make the movie deal and possibly marry her, who knows, Bob let the bomb drop that he was already married to his Bunny.

Bob wrote another couple vicious songs about her then passed her to his sidekick Bobby Neuwirth.  Edie’s fate after Bobby is too painful to relate.

Bob then was in town for most of ’65 contrary to Clinton Heylin’s expert testimony.  I have to discount Bob’s accuser until definite facts emerge.  As this woman claims that she apparently resisted Bob’s blandishments until he ‘groomed’ her with alcohol and drugs plus physical abuse I find that difficult to believe; I don’t think Bob would have had to use booze and drugs.  This was Greenwich Village in the Hippie days in NYC for Chrissakes.  The free sex capital of the world.  Every weekend hundreds, thousands, of girls flooded into Washington Square looking for action.  I doubt there was a single musician lacking as much sex as he wanted.

And Bob, you shouldn’t have messed with my intellectual property, my sacred words.  That Bob is an actual crime.

George W.M. Reynolds, James Malcolm Rymer And Some Etceteras

17. Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

by

R.E. Prindle

Reynolds: Corpus

Rymer, James Malcom: Varney the Vampire, Valancourt Pubs, Dick Collins Introduction.  Originally 1847

Rymer, James Malcolm:  A String Of Pearls or Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street  Originally 1847

Smollett, Tobias: Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle, Ferdinand, Count Fathom, Humphrey Clinker. 1740-1760

There seems to be a continuum in English literature.  A mentality that descends from generation to generation.  The same fictional character types appear and reappear.  This situation can only exist in a relatively small homogeneous population dealing with the same societal situations.

In many ways the Romantic era can be seen as the last of this concentrated mentality before the Industrial Revolution transformed English society; the population began to grow almost exponentially to the present day and the experience of the confusion of different cultures were introduced into the country.  Today there is no cultural uniformity in England, only a mélange of competing cultures.

George William McArthur Reynolds then can only be understood in reference to this cultural continuum and his place in the authors of his time.  The society in which he labored perhaps began to be shaped by the restoration of the monarchy as Charles II Stuart returned from France.  They came from the era of absolute monarchy.  Absolutism had been destroyed by Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution and could not be restored.

Charles II nominally accepted the Protestant religion but his successor James II insisted on Catholicism which could not be tolerated so absolutism was then completely replaced.  William and Mary succeeded, followed by the last of the Stuarts, Queen Anne.  Modern England began to form with the ascension of the German Georgian dynasty.

This period from 1714 to 1837 formed the mind of late Romantic authors that included George Reynolds.  A whole body of writers would rework the period with shared, if differing, perspectives.  They would be succeeded by mid-century writers such as Anthony Trollope, George Elliot and others for whom the results of the Industrial Revolution would displace the mind set of the late Romantics.  Perhaps the Great Exhibition of 1851 could be set as the end date of the Romantic period.

George Reynolds, for instance, who lived through the railroad boom seldom even mentions the railroads, even though his contemporaries were affected by them, preferring  to live in the days of the stage coach.

He does acknowledge steam but the telegraph and photography never enter his stories.  His is a storied career, a career that was very short.  If one begins his successful career in 1844, he was only thirty years old.  When his career effectively ended sixteen years later in 1860 he was only forty-six, but he was done.  His wild ride was over.  He wrote nothing after that point at which he had nineteen years left to live perhaps dreaming of earlier glories.  One might ask, what happened?  Why did he stop cold?  Why did his magazine, the Reynolds Miscellany, disappear, folded into his publisher and printer John Dicks magazine Bow Bells.  Why did he sell his copyrights to John Dicks losing control of his incredible sixteen year effort?  Shuffling off his life so to speak?

I think the answer is politics and the key to the politics is John Dicks, Reynolds’ printer, friend and partner.  While there is no biography of Reynolds extant there is a fair amount of information about Reynolds contained in a volume by Guy Dicks (don’t ever look that name up on the internet) entitled The John Dicks Press self published by Guy.  While its primary subject is John Dicks, he and Reynolds are inseparable.

Their association seems to have been an unlikely one.  The two minds were far apart.  Dicks was a conventional middle class mind while Reynolds was a Bohemian questioning all authority.  Dicks born in 1818 was four years younger than Reynolds.  Our biographer here, Guy Dicks, was an amateur writer so he doesn’t always provide sufficient information.  It appears that John Dicks had a minimal formal education.  He may possibly have attended Sunday School for a couple years.  If so he must then have been self-educated, perhaps only been taught a minimal amount of reading and writing.  Nevertheless he became a printer beginning his career sometime at the Queen’s Printers a large organization employing hundreds.  Guy then skips to 1841 which finds him working for Peter Perring Thoms…

Quote:

…the Sinologist (China expert), publisher, printer, and stereotyper to the trade at Warwick Square…

Unquote.

Dicks would become his chief assistant.  It would appear that he knew how to apply himself.  So John proved himself to be a master printer somewhen at twenty-three or shortly after.  In 1844 Dicks married so he had a wife and family by 1847 when he took a flyer leaving Thoms to join Reynolds as his printer.  A seemingly chancy move as Reynolds was coming off the success of his Mysteries of London but no proven record as a businessman.  This might have proven perilous to Dicks as Reynolds was in bankruptcy court in 1848.  However Reynolds pulled through and thus began a lucrative successful partnership.

If Reynolds was a successful writer Dicks was a great printer who fully complemented Reynolds.  Guy Dicks quotes Victor E. Neuburg’s  Popular Literature: A History and Guide, concerning Dicks:  The scope of the vast publishing empire over which Dicks presided in the second half of the nineteenth century awaits investigation. 

And one might say, still awaits.  Dicks was a real innovator.  His relationship with Reynolds was two sided:  a great writer on one hand and a great printer on the other.  However there was a problem.  Reynolds was an advocate of violent revolution in the same manner as France in 1793.  He advocated that and that would cause problems with the authorities, especially after the failed revolution of 1848 in which Reynolds played a prominent part in England.  One wonders if John Dicks wasn’t a government spy used to monitor Reynolds.  Apart from slighting references to Reynolds association with the Chartist Movement his political activities have not been investigated.  There can be no doubt that Reynolds favored violent revolution as in the French Revolutions of 1789, 1793, 1830 and 1848 all of which were bloody and in sequence disinherited thrones and aristocracies.  The British Government could not have looked on Reynolds complacently.

It would have been essential to place an informer inside the organization.  The Sinologist Thoms who spent years in the East, primarily in Macao, where he was instrumental in publishing a Chinese-English dictionary, thus the government must have referred to him on Chinese matters.  Who better to have insinuated Dicks into Reynolds’ organization?  As we will see, Dicks disinherited Reynolds from his company while at the same time destroying his very successful magazine, Reynolds Miscellany, acquiring his copyrights, and his newspaper essentially pushing Reynolds out the door into the street at the very young age of forty-five.

All that was left of his copyrights was Pickwick Abroad that he republished in 1864 by another publisher.  Was that his last effort?

By the time of his exit his reputation as a revolutionist was fully established.  There was a loyal body of followers who revered him.

Dicks himself who had established his empire, as Neuburg puts it and was publishing series such as Dicks’ English Novels and others, as well as six a shilling, later three shilling, complete Shakspere, as he spelled it, that sold a million copies.  In his ad at the back of Reynolds’ Mary, Queen Of The Scots, Dicks notes six Dickens, all early, at the top of the list; five Ainsworth titles, he even published first editions of three of the titles that the author couldn’t place elsewhere at that time in his career d of which was Ainsworth’s excellent novel The South Sea Bubble.  It is noteworthy that Dicks demeans Reynold titles in his English novels.  It would seem that the severance of the partnership was one sided and complete.

So what was Dicks thinking when he left Thoms for Reynolds.  One should not put Dicks in the background in the combination.  Dicks was obviously an ambitious guy and perhaps he saw Reynolds as a stepping stone to found an empire he had already projected in his mind.  Of course, originally Reynolds’ work was his function as a printer.  Still he started out as Reynolds’ employee and yet many of the titles state:  Printed for the author by John Dicks.  So Dicks must always have considered the printing division his and compelled Reynolds to accept him a full partner later, probably to gain title to the printing plant.

All of this is going to transpire quickly, thirteen years is a blink of an eye, yet in those years Reynolds and Dicks made two fortunes, one for each.  At their deaths they left a combined 50-60 thousand pounds to their inheritors.  The Dicks empire was the printing and publishing plant,  probably equaled that.

It appears that the firm prospered from the beginning.  Guy Dicks says that each received one hundred pounds a week in salary for several years, probably beginning in 1854.  Thus both men were earning 5,200 pounds a year.  Whatever they might have gotten from outside sources would be in addition.  The acme of an attainable annual income at the time was 10K a year.  Ten thousand would be over a million pounds in current coin.  The year end division of profits might easily have reached five thousand pounds so that both Dicks and Reynolds may have been 10K a year men.  Very successful.    

Eighteen fifty-four was the year that Reynolds removed his family to Herne Bay.  We have a picture on the gwmreynolds.com website of the house they lived in which was handsome but not palatial.  Today the same house might sell for a million pounds.  The move may have been prompted because George’s wife Susannah was ill and in decline as she died in 1858 at which time George moved back to London with twenty years left to his life.

A question to be asked is what John Dicks was doing all this time?  As Reynolds was presumably absent from the plant most the time while living in Herne Bay, probably visiting London for only a few days a month Dicks would have been in full control of the plant and the accounting department.  By 1854 the business would have required a fairly large office staff including compositors and a shipping and sales force. Dicks would have been running the company and perhaps enjoying it.

Perhaps, on returning in 1858 Reyolds may have found himself something of an outsider.  By 1858 his writing career was in noticeable decline.  The books after 1858 are running toward recapitulations with a noticeable decline in mental energy.  Princess Eugenie’s Boudoir, for instance recapitulates three of Reynolds favorite stories that he doesn’t want forgotten.  The rest are pitiful compared to his star in full flame. They’re OK, don’t get me wrong but they’re not worth the study as are the 1844-56 corpus.  Twelve stunning years.

Another aspect to consider is how Reynolds fit into the literary scene.  During this period the primary literary salon was run by Harrison Ainsworth from his house in Kensal Green.  Kensal Green is North of Chiswick.  The Kensal Green cemetery was used by many of these writers as a last residence.  Of course as Charles Dickens was a member of Ainsworth’s salon George Reynolds was barred while none of the Penny Dreadful writers ever belonged.  Time dispersed  the salon by the Sixties as the next wave of writers led by Anthony Trollope dominated the literary scene.

Who did Reynolds associate with?  Ever since he came back from France he was involved with the literary scene.  As a young twenty-three year old he was given the editorship of the Monthly Magazine and turned it from a nearly defunct magazine into a new success.  The success itself may have been a problem as with George’s wild enthusiasm for the continuing revolution in France he may have been attracting a more unwelcome readership than his more staid employers approved..  Then his appropriation of Dicken’s character Mr. Pickwick ‘may have been the last straw so that he was relieved of his duties.

While he issued several titles subsequently to 1837 he was not having success.  When George Stiff tapped him as the writer for The Mysteries of London in1844 he was given an opportunity to work within a framework in which he could display his talents to maximum effect.  Obviously he must have been known in literary circles.  Making a success of the Mysteries Stiff then tapped him to edit his London Monthly that Reynolds successfully did while writing the Mysteries at the same time.

Certainly he must have known the Edward Lloyd stable of writers including James Malcolm Rymer.  Rymer’s serials Varney the Vampyre and Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, were sources for at least four of Reynolds’ titles while many incidents were lifted whole.

We’ll get back to that while we consider another of Reynolds’ sources and that of the Romantic school. That writer would be the eighteenth’s century’s Tobias Smollett (1721-1771).  While not a prolific novelist what he did write was influential.  His first novel was the wonderful Roderick Random followed by Peregrine Pickle and next the superb and monumental Ferdinand, Count Fathom, these three being the heart of his production.  The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker terminated his novels while two minor novels intervened  The History of the Atom and Launcelot Greaves.

Charles Dickens has been said to have been influenced by Smollett.  However you might as well be reading Reynolds in The Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom.  The resemblance is astounding.  The Man of the World and the Man About Town replaced Smollett’snot  eighteenth century Adventurer.  The resemblance is astounding. 

While Rymer may have read Smollett, after all one criterion of education of the period was to be read in your country’s literature, I have not read enough Rymer to recognize it.  I’m sure it’s there.

Peregrine Pickle and Humphrey Clinker seem to be thought Smollet’s best novels.  While I admire all his work I am especially knocked out by Count Fathom.  The novel was not well received on issue.  Indeed, the character of Count Fathom is quite repulsive.  Even Smollett says that it pains him to have to relate the acts of his character.  While I was exasperated at the selfishness and self-interested obtuseness of Fathom I found the novel extraordinary and a mine of historical information.  Perhaps the depiction of Fathom and his situation is too realistic for most people to handle.  Indeed, I found the novel somewhat sickening but so is reality under the magnifying glass.

So, this essay brings us to an examination of Rymer and Reynolds..  It is perfectly obvious that Reynolds read and appreciated both Varney The Vampyre and Sweeney Todd.  If Count Fathom was tough reading, Sweeney Todd almost makes you vomit, but in a good way.  Gawd, what a story.  Dick Collins wrote the introduction and provides background.  The story is a simple one.  Sweeney Todd, a barber, wants a lot of money, thinking he will be able to pass as a gentleman if rich.  He, therefore, forms an alliance with a Mrs. Lovett to produce the fortune.  Sweeney kills the victims, chops up the bodies and Mrs. Lovett bakes them into meat pies that become the rage.  At the time Mr. Gillette had yet to perfect his safety razor, that will come in the twentieth century, so, unless you had the courage to use a straight razor and shave yourself, you employed an expert in the use of one, that is a barber.  When Sweeney Todd shaves a customer who confides the fact that he has valuables on him, Sweeney murders him divesting him of valuables and baggage.  He then butchers the body into gobbets and cuts and forwards them to Mrs. Lovett who turns them into delicious meat pies.

According to Dick Collins there is no factual basis for the story although many think there is.  I’m with the many on this one.  While as Dick Collins says, if there ever was hard evidence for the story its gone now, however, he says that there was a French model for the story while providing no details.  While speculating now, there is a true account during World War II in France which gives credibility to the possibility.

There is a true story of a French barber in WWII Paris who almost exactly replicated Sweeney Todd.  The man was known as Dr. Petiot.  There are several books available including Thomas Maeder’s The Unspeakable Crimes of Dr. Petiot and some visual treatments.

During the war there were many people seeking to escape Europe from France through Spain.  Dr. Petiot ran a barbershop to which people wishing to exit Europe were directed.  Dr. Petiot negotiated a price guaranteeing to get them through France into Spain. 

 Petiot takes his victims to his house, secures their money and baggage and kills them.  He then butchers the bodies into pieces and burns them in his furnace.  Thus replicating Sweeney Todd. He did this to hundreds of people, retaining the baggage in storage, hundreds of suit cases and effects.  Note the baggage.

Dr. Petiot falls behind in burning bodies so he overloads his furnace creating a huge stench in the neighborhood bringing in the police.

Sweeney Todd murdered his victims in subterranean passages that ran under St. Dunstan’s Church creating a nauseous stench that permeated the church alerting the police.

Dr. Petiot absented himself from the house returning to find a mob and the police milling around the street.  His gig is up.  He is arrested and sentenced to be hanged.  On the scaffold he is asked if he has any last words to which he calmly replies in black humor:  “No. I’m the kind who takes my baggage with me.’  Very funny line.

Sweeney Todd was arrested, incarcerated  and hung himself taking his baggage with him.

So, the stories are almost identical.  In our time Jeffrey Dahmer in the US was a cannibal and like President Sekou Toure of Guinea kept his human flesh in the refrigerator.  Toure said that human flesh is very good; there are some things that the West just doesn’t understand.

As incredible as Sweeney Todd’s story is then it is more than possible and quite probable.  After all, Rymer didn’t invent the story.

Reynolds read the story, much admiring it, and while he didn’t replicate the cannibalism in his story of Princess Amelie’son abducted by the Monster Man, the son was placed with the master criminal of his time who ran a barber shop where the actual princeling was brought up to a detestable criminal. That’s quite evil in itself.  There is a direct line of descent from Todd to his successor.

In this case when the boy was about twelve Amelie discovered his presence and has Reynolds’ master detective, Larry Sampson take the lad under his wing to reform him.  It proves impossible to reverse his criminal indoctrination and conditioning.  Like all good criminals the lad was shipped to the United States.  Many of Reynolds criminals are exiled to the US.

There is however no solid evidence to Sweeney’s and Mrs. Lovett’s pies.  Remarkably there is evidence of a predecessor in French history along the lines of Dr. Petiot.  Must run in French culture.

Varney the Vampyre and George W. M. Reynolds

It is quite clear that George read Sweeny Todd and was obviously very impressed.  Rymer also wrote another enduring title from which George profited greatly, and that was Varney the Vampyre.  Both Varney and Sweeney have survived into the present, Sweeney more than Varney.  Not a bad record for Rymer.  Both stories were first published in 1847.  Varney being much longer than the published text was begun almost at the same time as Reynolds’ Mysteries of London while running as long.  Thus in terms of popularity they must have rivalled each other.  That means that Edward Lloyd, the publisher, and Reynolds were in competition.  When Reynolds began publishing the Miscellany in 1846 he might have been an equal to Lloyd while soon having a much better publishing and printing arm.

At present I can find only one reference to Sweeney in Reynolds’ work and that is in The Mysteries of the Court of London written in 1851 or 52.  On the other hand I find four titles that reference Varney.  The most obvious is Wagner the Wehrwolf.  Varney the Vampyre-Wagner the Wehrwolf, a direct appropriation.  So Rymer had co-opted the vampire,  Reynolds would obviously have to co-opt another European legend, that of the werewolf.  Further next he would co-opt the legend of Faust and of the Holy Vehm.  He still wanted a crack at a vampire story but not so obvious as to be noticeable.

For that Reynolds retreated for a couple years to consider then mythologized Varney to come up with the third best of his novels, The Necromancer.  Now, in Varney Rymer has this passage (my copy is the Illustrated Varney the Vampyre published by Pulp-Lit Productions, Corvallis, Oregon pp.1181-82):

Quote:

…There was the grave of Mr. Brooks with its circular mound of earth, all right enough; and the Mr. B was known to have been a respectable man.  He went to the City every day, and used to do so just for the of granting audiences to ladies and gentlemen who might be laboring under any little pecuniary difficulties, and accommodating them.  Kind Mr. Brooks.  He only took one hundred pounds percent.  Why should he be a Vampyre?  Bless him.  Too severe, really.

Unquote.

As concerned with usury as George was, he must have given a sardonic chuckle over that passage.  The passage clearly unites usury with blood sucking or Vampirism.  George then was prompted to work over Vampirism, usury and the Jews in his subconscious.   Thus in 1851 he created the character of Lionel Danvers who, while not described as a Vampire he did appropriate the souls of six women as a blood sucker or soul devourering usurer, allows Reynolds to write a Vampire story while avoiding the imputation of copying Rymer and Varney as he had Dickens and Mr. Pickwick in his Pickwick Abroad.

He also makes a controversial association with a burning question of the day, the character of England’s Jews.  In 1851 Lionel Rothschild was head of the Rothschild dynasty of the Jewish Shadow Kingdom not only in England but all of Europe.  Thus the empire of Lionel Danvers is not only in England but the whole of Europe.  Reynolds expertly combines all three strands.

At one point Rymer says that Varney only wanted the blood of young virgins who said they loved him.  He doesn’t adhere to this tenet in his story but he says it and Reynolds obviously picked up on it to use.  Thus George has Danvers, or Lionel Rothschild and the Rothschild family, sell their souls to the devil for worldly success.  A popular theory for the unresolved and mysterious success of them was that the family had sold its soul to the devil.  Thus, Danvers did in the fourteenth century before the rise of the Rothschilds.

Danvers obtained a caveat from the Devil that he could redeem his own soul if he could find six young virgins who would love him body and soul and die for him, thus giving the devil six souls as the price of his.  After each conquest Danvers then sacrificed the girl to the Devil.

As the story of The Necromancer opens Danvers has just sacrificed the fifth girl, Clara Manners, and begins the conquest of the sixth girl, Musidora Sinclair.  The Sinclair family was closely associated with the Knights Templar and its successor: The Freemasons.  George was a Freemason, actually getting Rymer to join his lodge.  His grade isn’t known, but I would imagine that he was well on the way to the highest grade, the thirty-third.  I don’t know what that has to do with the story but the Sinclairs are central to the Freemasonic story.  Perhaps Sinclair vs. Rothschild gives the triumph to the Sinclairs thus preserving English superiority.

It may be that since the Jews or Rothschilds were struggling  for preeminence in the kingdom that Reynolds translated that struggle into a Masonic contest of Danvers vs. the Sinclairs.  In The Necromancer, the struggle for the soul of Musidora, the real Henry VIII is captivated by Musidora and intends  to marry here, as he  is temporarily without a spouse, but he excuses himself for the necessity of attending to the cares of the realm.

In his absence Danvers/Rothschild transforms himself into a replica of Henry wooing Musidora in Henry’s place.  In this he succeeds, the carries Musidora off to his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight that just happens to be next door to her father’s, Sinclair, estate.  Kingdom and Shadow Kingdom.

He conducts Musidora to his abattoir where the five maidens were sacrificed.  Still he hasn’t captured her soul; in fact Musidora recognizes him  as the seducer of her girlhood.  She repudiates him, as her father and her local idolizer burst into the chamber.  Having failed Satan Rothschild/ Henry VII/ Danvers’ hundreds of year old body crumbles into dust.  Supposedly England is freed from the vampirism of the Jews  much as when Edward III expelled them from the kingdom in 1290.

Compare this to Trollope’s The Way We Live Now of 1875, a mere twenty-five years later.

It appears that Reynolds and Rymer had a fairly close friendship during the fifties.  When Lloyd collapsed Rymer switched to Reynolds’ stable while attending a company picnic or two.  At any rate Reynolds makes a couple of  other references to Varney.  For instance in Varney, the Vampyre has a conscience, regretting his existence so much that he ascends Mr. Vesuvius and throws himself in.

Bulwer Lytton’s novel The Last Days of Pompeii of 1934 popularized Vesuvius and its eruption that destroyed Pompeii in 79 AD.  The novel was a great success and most deservedly so as it is as perfect a novel as can be.  Vesuvius has since remained the epitome of the erupting volcano so Rymer has Varney pitch himself into the boiling cauldron.  In George’s novel Faust also of 1847 which couples Europe’s legendary Faust character with the equally legendary Holy Vehm, thus co-opting those two story lines, emulates Rymer by having Faust step off the ridge of Vesuvius thus terminating his contract with Satan.

Faust take place in the Holy Roman Empire in which the Holy Vehm was instituted to take up the slack of the legal justice system.  They sought out, arrested and tried criminals the instituted authorities couldn’t find grounds for prosecution.  Reynolds imagined they became a criminal organization somewhat like the Mafia today.  Faust and Wagner were both written in the same year of 1847 while the Mysteries of London were in progress.

One might suppose that Reynolds was so threatened by the success of Rymer and his Varney that he pulled out all the stops and tried to drown Rymer in a sea of prose.  Eighteen forty-seven must have been an exciting year for the reading public.

Reynolds The Bronze Statue of 1849 may also have some reference to Varney.  By 1851 then  and the Necromancer George had worked out the perfected reaction to Varney

One wonders if Rymer was his only serious competitor.  Other than Thomas Prest I’m not sure I could name another Penny Dreadful author.  I’ll have to check that out in the Wildside Press Catalog.  Wildside and Valancourt seem to be the leading publishers of popular literature of the nineteenth century.

Previously in this essay I mentioned the seventeenth century author Tobias Smollett.  Smollett’s 1753 novel Ferdinand, Count Fathom had a large influence on these late Romantic authors.  Charles Dickens is said to have been highly influenced by him although I find little resemblance.  Count Fathom is virtually a template for George Reynolds.  Like Reynolds Smollett was much concerned about usury.  In Chapter 47 his Count Melvil in desperate straits attempts to borrow money.  None of the English usurers will have anything to do with him because he is not a qualified borrower.  He has no collateral or obvious means of repayment while he intends to leave the country.  As no English borrower could enforce recovery in foreign countries he would have had to remain in England.  Melville is friends with Fathom, in fact he is in his hands.  Fathom then advises him he will have to ‘go to the Jews.’  Here’s how it went. Chapter 47:

Quote:

Melvil having signified his request, “Young gentleman” said the Israelite, with a most discordant voice,  “What in the name of goodness could induce you to come to me upon such an errand?  Did you ever hear that I lent money to strangers without security?”

“No,” replied Renaldo, “ nor did I believe I should profit by an application, but my affairs are desperate; and my proposal having been rejected by every Christian to whom they were offered, I was resolved to try my fate among the Jews, who are reckoned another species of men.”

Fathom, alarmed at this abrupt reply, which he supposed could not fail to disgust the merchant, interposed in the conversation, by making an apology for the plain dealing of his friend, who, he said, was soured and ruffled by his misfortunes; then exerting that power of eloquence which he had at command, he expostulated upon Renaldo’s claim and expectations, described the wrongs he had suffered, extolled his virtue, and drew a most pathetic picture of his distress.

Unquote.

Compare that with Arnold’s introduction of Crawford to the usurer in the Youthful Impostor and Reynold’s treatment of that scene.  In this case Smollett is a true Man of the World who indicates what his countrymen thought, that the Jews were a different species of men, which by the way is what the Jews think, between which the English and the Jews was a great divide. But perhaps not so great as Smollett as an objective observer indicates.  This usurer has a heart of gold. (No pun intended.)

Strangely in this situation, after checking Melvil out the Hebrew (Smollett’s term) not only advances Melvil an astonishing five hundred pounds on his signature but provides him with references to important usurers in Vienna with instructions to supply him with unlimited funds on request.  He is not concerned that Melvil is going to leave England.

Thus while the English usurer loses all authority outside his national borders, the international Jews can confidently expect to collect anywhere in Europe not only through his own ‘species’  but with the cooperation of important nationals of the various countries.

Compare this with the Youthful Impostor who through Arnold borrowed from a Jewish usurer in England while fleeing to France, stiffing the usurer.  The usurer notifies his people who steer Crawford into a business deal then clean him out leaving him penniless.

The whole real national political division is cleansed from academic histories, the mention of Jews being ‘as long suffering.’  Thus history is totally distorted and incomprehensible.

Reynolds as well as condemning usury also condemns the gambling spirit of his time.  Gambling ‘hells’ as they were called.  Apparently this gambling rage arose in Smollett’s time which astounded him.  I append a longish quote of Smollett’s discussion of the phenomenon, Chapter Fifty.  Fathom had been a successful gambler on the continent by knowing percentages, but here in England the spirit infusing gambling had changed to more wild speculation.

Quote:

Besides he perceived that gaming was now managed in such a manner as rendered his skill and dexterity of no advantage.  For the spirit of play had overspread the land, like a pestilence, raged to such a degree of madness and desperation that the unhappy people who were infected laid aside all thought of amusement, economy, or caution and risked their fortunes upon issues equally extravagant childish and absurd.

The whole mystery of the art was reduced to the single exercise of tossing up a guinea, and the lust of laying wagers, which they indulged to a surprising pitch of ridiculous intemperance .  In one corner of the room might be heard a pair of lordlings running their grandmothers against each other, that is, betting sums on the longest liver; in another the success of the wager depended upon the sex of the landlady’s next child; and one of the waiters happening to drop down in an apoplectic fit, a certain  noble peer exclaimed, “Dead for a thousand pounds.”  The challenge was immediately accepted; and when the master of the house sent for a surgeon to attempt the cure, the nobleman, who set the price upon the patient’s head, insisted upon his being left to the efforts of nature alone, otherwise the wager should be void.  Nay, when the landlord harped upon the loss he should sustain by the death of a trusty servant, his lordship obviated the objection by desiring that the fellow might be charged in the bill.

In short, the rage of gaming seemed to have devoured all their other faculties, and to have equalled the rash enthusiasm of the inhabitants of Malacca in the East Indies, who are so possessed with that pernicious  vice  that they sacrifice to it not only their fortunes, but also their wives and children; and then letting their hair down upon their shoulders in imitation of the ancient Lacedemonians when they devoted themselves to death, those wretches unsheathe their daggers, and murder every living creature in their way.  In this, however, they differ from the gamesters of our country, who never lose their senses, until they have lost their fortunes, and beggared their families; whereas, the Malays never run amuck, but in consequence of misery and despair.

Such are the amusements, or rather such is the continual employment of those hopeful youths who are destined by birth to be the judges of our property, and pillars of our constitution.

Unquote.

It seems that Smollett is describing a psychological malady here, a group frenzy, a sort of herd madness affecting upper class society..  It would appear that the malady didn’t exist before the Georgian period of the eighteenth century.  What disturbance in society might have induced it?  Perhaps gambling was associated to the usury of the borrowing mania.  They may be related.

After all, what disordered mind borrows money without the means to pay it back at perhaps cent percent compound interest? What monsters prey on their fellow men in that way.  Nor was the money borrowed for any other use than to temporarily maintain an exorbitant lifestyle that must end in prison?  These people were too intelligent to adopt either course and yet they suspended their intelligence and essentially committed suicide.  Usury and gambling.

What changed in English society in Georgian times?  One societal change that did not bode well was when Cromwell readmitted the Jews into England in 1660.

The Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 precisely because of their practice of exorbitant usury that was impoverishing the populace.  When the Jews were readmitted the practice of expropriatory usury began again.  Of course, lending at interest was practiced but as Smollett shows it was at moderate rates with collateral so that the borrower  had to put the amount of the loan into the hands of the usurer.  Sort of a type of pawn shop.  English usurers did not lend on expectations as collateral.  But the Jews did.

It therefore follows that gambling hells were a desirable occupation to reap the cash.  The initial influx of returning Jews then increased from 1660 to 1740-50 thus reaching critical mass, got the lay of the land and organized.  Once organized the assault on laws and mores began to accommodate the invaders.  Two competing systems cannot exist side by side in the same ‘house’ without one or the other first dominating then ousting the other.  At least by mid-nineteenth century laws governing these procedures were discovered if not understood and implemented.  In Reynolds’ time Lionel Rothschild was busy attempting to change the rules governing Parliament to suit the Jews thus attempting to form a partnership of Jews and English rather than one people.

Darwin’s Origin of Species explained the competition of species while Gustave LeBon enumerated the hysteria of crowds in 1895 The Crowd: A Study Of The Popular Mind which was amplified and put into execution by Sigmund Freud in his An Analysis of the Ego and Group Psychology of the early 1920s. The processes are clear; they have been explained.  They only need to be applied.

The important thing in social control is to get the money.  Get the money.  Money is where social power begins.

Usury at exorbitant expropriating rates is therefor a big element in getting the money while a gambling mania such as Smollett describes transfers the cash into casino operator’s hands.  Key occupations then have to be occupied.  It follows then that Jews were an important element in usury and gambling down through Reynolds times.  That would explain what mystified Smollett.  The gambling rage had to be incited.

These two problems were not abated by the time of Reynolds but intensified.  As Smollett’s Melvil says:  Jews were regarded by the English as a separate species and he might have added despised.  By Reynolds’ time the Jews had the money and then wanted entrance into the governance of the country.  In this the Rothchilds led the way from a shadow kingdom into the light of day. The founder of the Jewish dynasty was Nathan Rothschild who made the Jews that is his people economically dominant..  Nathan’s son Lionel replaced his father in 1837 at the former’s death, hence Reynolds called his usurer Lionel Danvers, the Lionel pointing directely at Lionel Rothschild who was attempting to change the rules of Parliament to suit Jewish desires.  In other words he refused the Christian oath preferring a Jewish oath so that he could serve as a Jew and not a Christian.

Thus, when Lionel Danvers assumed the form of Henry VIII there was a shadow king and the actual king vying for authority.

At the same time in real life the radical Chartists and Communists were making a frontal assault on the governments.  The Communists succeeded in France where the king was abolished and the aristocrats were disenfranchised.  The Governance was transferred to the Bourgeoisie.  This is exactly what Reynolds was working toward in England.  Thus, he was an enemy of the State and had to be controlled directly.

John Dicks And His Relationship To Reynolds.

I think it should be apparent that John Dicks was transferred from Thoms to Reynolds.  Dicks was a sort of printing and publishing genius as that, as the partnership between he and Reynolds began the company consisted of Reynolds’ writing and Dicks’ printing.  As I see it, by the time Reynolds completed the Mysteries of the Court of London in 1856 he had essentially peaked while his succeeding work was less popular while at the same time the genius of Dick’s printing and publishing became the more important asset to the firm.

By 1856 Dicks was not only publishing Reynolds but various Libraries of English novels published at the lowest possible price to encourage newly literate people to read and buy.  So this was a very large organization employing hundreds of people.  Perhaps Dicks thought he built it and it was his.

Back in 1846 Reynolds had established his magazine Reynolds Miscellany.  The magazine prospered and was very popular but very radical and critical of the government.  Then Dicks formed a competing magazine called Bow Bells that was much more conventional and not critical of the government.  The Miscellany had a strong revolutionary bent.  Bow Bells on the other hand was strictly Bourgeois.  The below quote from Guy Dicks book. The John Dicks Press, gives some idea of the confusion between the two magazines.  The Figaro was apparently a competing magazine.  Reynolds believe that such magazines were put up by the government to undermine the Miscellany.

The Figaro and Reynolds’ Miscellany were in a running battle in 1872 that had started with the Figaro exposing the fact that Reynold’s and Dicks’ two main publications were at odds over their coverage of the royal family, going so far as to describe Reynolds as a disgusting and scurrilous publication—”a paper which no decent person dreams of touching, save with a pair of tongs,”  and moreover it was filthy rag, filled with disloyalty and obscenity, prepared by mischievous pens for the readers of the very lowest and vilest class.

Figaro published these lists to demonstrate the “wicked fraud” of these “unprincipled” traders and “vile slandering of the Prince of Wales” [future Edward VII], the Carrion Journal.

Facts:

Reynolds’s Newspaper:

1. Is printed by John Dicks.

2.  Is published by John Dicks

3.  Is printed at 313 Strand

4.  Is published at 313 Strand

5.  Belongs to G.W.M. Reynolds and John Dicks

6.  Compared the dead child of the Prince of Wales to a rat

7.  Has called the Prince of Wales a louse

8.  Constantly and with bestial coarseness assails the royal family

Now Bow Bells Magazine:

  1.  Is printed by John Dicks
  2.  Is published by John Dicks
  3.  Is printed at 313 Strand
  4.  Is published at 313 Strand
  5.  Belongs to G.W. M Reynolds and John Dicks
  6.  Has just issued a Prince of Wales number with very loyal biographies
  7.  Says that “the personal character of the Prince is essentially engaging
  8.  Says  “England is equally fortunate with the Prince of Wales in the presence of Alexandra, Princess of Wales, who is a perfect lady and an admirable mother.  She will worthily follow in the footsteps of the Queen, whose social example has always been perfect.

Unquote.

Reynolds’ Newspaper brushed off the Figaro with:  We laugh at its impotent rage. And delight at seeing it writhing under the whippings we administer to its crabby carcass.

Unquote.

Well, what about this?

The writer in Figaro sees a mystery.  He obviously believes that Dicks and Reynolds were of one devious mind.  I think a correct interpretation of the information we have, that Figaro didn’t’, is that Dicks’ Bow Bells magazine represents Dicks’ real mind.  Having worked out from under Reynolds beginning about 1858-60 the firm, which after all was known as the John Dicks Press, already eliminates Reynolds who may popularly have been thought of  as merely an author the John Dicks Press published.  Many of the title pages of Reynolds’ books specifically state:  Published for the author by John Dicks.  That implies a separation not a partnership.

Perhaps John Dicks was a clever fellow from the beginning.  Anyway by 1869 and the consolidation, and elimination, of Reynolds’s Miscellany into Dicks’ Bow Bells Reynolds was out.  There appears to have been no loyalty to Reynolds; Dicks appears to have used him as a stepping stone.  I think it more than probable that Dicks detested Reynolds.

If one looks at Reynolds last novel, the pitiful, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, Dicks doesn’t even list the titles by Reynolds on the title page.  For all intents and purposes Reynolds past is wiped clean.

On the ad page at the back of the book a list of ‘Dicks’ English Novels, the top author listed is Charles Dickens with six titles, all early.  Clearly an insult to Reynolds.  Then six novels by Bulwer-Lytton, then a foundational novel by Charles Lever, The Confessions of Harry Lorrequer, then six by Reynolds none of which is among his best, ending with eight by William Harrison Ainsworth who held a special place in Dicks’ heart.

In conclusion then I think it highly probable that Dicks was a covert agent of government security and he was there to do what he did:  baffle Reynolds’ career as much as possible, finally eliminating him from his legacy. It will be noted that after a large printing about 1880 nothing further was printed until something called the Oxford Society republished the Mysteries of the Court of London at century’s end.  I intend to discuss this publication in my next essay.

George W.M. Reynolds, James Malcolm Rymer And Some Etceteras

17. Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

by

R.E. Prindle

Reynolds: Corpus

Rymer, James Malcom: Varney the Vampire, Valancourt Pubs, Dick Collins Introduction.  Originally 1847

Rymer, James Malcolm:  A String Of Pearls or Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street  Originally 1847

Smollett, Tobias: Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle, Ferdinand, Count Fathom, Humphrey Clinker. 1740-1760

There seems to be a continuum in English literature.  A mentality that descends from generation to generation.  The same fictional character types appear and reappear.  This situation can only exist in a relatively small homogeneous population dealing with the same societal situations.

In many ways the Romantic era can be seen as the last of this concentrated mentality before the Industrial Revolution transformed English society; the population began to grow almost exponentially to the present day and the experience of the confusion of different cultures were introduced into the country.  Today there is no cultural uniformity in England, only a mélange of competing cultures.

George William McArthur Reynolds then can only be understood in reference to this cultural continuum and his place in the authors of his time.  The society in which he labored perhaps began to be shaped by the restoration of the monarchy as Charles II Stuart returned from France.  They came from the era of absolute monarchy.  Absolutism had been destroyed by Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution and could not be restored.

Charles II nominally accepted the Protestant religion but his successor James II insisted on Catholicism which could not be tolerated so absolutism was then completely replaced.  William and Mary succeeded, followed by the last of the Stuarts, Queen Anne.  Modern England began to form with the ascension of the German Georgian dynasty.

This period from 1714 to 1837 formed the mind of late Romantic authors that included George Reynolds.  A whole body of writers would rework the period with shared, if differing, perspectives.  They would be succeeded by mid-century writers such as Anthony Trollope, George Elliot and others for whom the results of the Industrial Revolution would displace the mind set of the late Romantics.  Perhaps the Great Exhibition of 1851 could be set as the end date of the Romantic period.

George Reynolds, for instance, who lived through the railroad boom seldom even mentions the railroads, even though his contemporaries were affected by them, preferring  to live in the days of the stage coach.

He does acknowledge steam but the telegraph and photography never enter his stories.  His is a storied career, a career that was very short.  If one begins his successful career in 1844, he was only thirty years old.  When his career effectively ended sixteen years later in 1860 he was only forty-six, but he was done.  His wild ride was over.  He wrote nothing after that point at which he had nineteen years left to live perhaps dreaming of earlier glories.  One might ask, what happened?  Why did he stop cold?  Why did his magazine, the Reynolds Miscellany, disappear, folded into his publisher and printer John Dicks magazine Bow Bells.  Why did he sell his copyrights to John Dicks losing control of his incredible sixteen year effort?  Shuffling off his life so to speak?

I think the answer is politics and the key to the politics is John Dicks, Reynolds’ printer, friend and partner.  While there is no biography of Reynolds extant there is a fair amount of information about Reynolds contained in a volume by Guy Dicks (don’t ever look that name up on the internet) entitled The John Dicks Press self published by Guy.  While its primary subject is John Dicks, he and Reynolds are inseparable.

Their association seems to have been an unlikely one.  The two minds were far apart.  Dicks was a conventional middle class mind while Reynolds was a Bohemian questioning all authority.  Dicks born in 1818 was four years younger than Reynolds.  Our biographer here, Guy Dicks, was an amateur writer so he doesn’t always provide sufficient information.  It appears that John Dicks had a minimal formal education.  He may possibly have attended Sunday School for a couple years.  If so he must then have been self-educated, perhaps only been taught a minimal amount of reading and writing.  Nevertheless he became a printer beginning his career sometime at the Queen’s Printers a large organization employing hundreds.  Guy then skips to 1841 which finds him working for Peter Perring Thoms…

Quote:

…the Sinologist (China expert), publisher, printer, and stereotyper to the trade at Warwick Square…

Unquote.

Dicks would become his chief assistant.  It would appear that he knew how to apply himself.  So John proved himself to be a master printer somewhen at twenty-three or shortly after.  In 1844 Dicks married so he had a wife and family by 1847 when he took a flyer leaving Thoms to join Reynolds as his printer.  A seemingly chancy move as Reynolds was coming off the success of his Mysteries of London but no proven record as a businessman.  This might have proven perilous to Dicks as Reynolds was in bankruptcy court in 1848.  However Reynolds pulled through and thus began a lucrative successful partnership.

If Reynolds was a successful writer Dicks was a great printer who fully complemented Reynolds.  Guy Dicks quotes Victor E. Neuburg’s  Popular Literature: A History and Guide, concerning Dicks:  The scope of the vast publishing empire over which Dicks presided in the second half of the nineteenth century awaits investigation. 

And one might say, still awaits.  Dicks was a real innovator.  His relationship with Reynolds was two sided:  a great writer on one hand and a great printer on the other.  However there was a problem.  Reynolds was an advocate of violent revolution in the same manner as France in 1793.  He advocated that and that would cause problems with the authorities, especially after the failed revolution of 1848 in which Reynolds played a prominent part in England.  One wonders if John Dicks wasn’t a government spy used to monitor Reynolds.  Apart from slighting references to Reynolds association with the Chartist Movement his political activities have not been investigated.  There can be no doubt that Reynolds favored violent revolution as in the French Revolutions of 1789, 1793, 1830 and 1848 all of which were bloody and in sequence disinherited thrones and aristocracies.  The British Government could not have looked on Reynolds complacently.

It would have been essential to place an informer inside the organization.  The Sinologist Thoms who spent years in the East, primarily in Macao, where he was instrumental in publishing a Chinese-English dictionary, thus the government must have referred to him on Chinese matters.  Who better to have insinuated Dicks into Reynolds’ organization?  As we will see, Dicks disinherited Reynolds from his company while at the same time destroying his very successful magazine, Reynolds Miscellany, acquiring his copyrights, and his newspaper essentially pushing Reynolds out the door into the street at the very young age of forty-five.

All that was left of his copyrights was Pickwick Abroad that he republished in 1864 by another publisher.  Was that his last effort?

By the time of his exit his reputation as a revolutionist was fully established.  There was a loyal body of followers who revered him.

Dicks himself who had established his empire, as Neuburg puts it and was publishing series such as Dicks’ English Novels and others, as well as six a shilling, later three shilling, complete Shakspere, as he spelled it, that sold a million copies.  In his ad at the back of Reynolds’ Mary, Queen Of The Scots, Dicks notes six Dickens, all early, at the top of the list; five Ainsworth titles, he even published first editions of three of the titles that the author couldn’t place elsewhere at that time in his career d of which was Ainsworth’s excellent novel The South Sea Bubble.  It is noteworthy that Dicks demeans Reynold titles in his English novels.  It would seem that the severance of the partnership was one sided and complete.

So what was Dicks thinking when he left Thoms for Reynolds.  One should not put Dicks in the background in the combination.  Dicks was obviously an ambitious guy and perhaps he saw Reynolds as a stepping stone to found an empire he had already projected in his mind.  Of course, originally Reynolds’ work was his function as a printer.  Still he started out as Reynolds’ employee and yet many of the titles state:  Printed for the author by John Dicks.  So Dicks must always have considered the printing division his and compelled Reynolds to accept him a full partner later, probably to gain title to the printing plant.

All of this is going to transpire quickly, thirteen years is a blink of an eye, yet in those years Reynolds and Dicks made two fortunes, one for each.  At their deaths they left a combined 50-60 thousand pounds to their inheritors.  The Dicks empire was the printing and publishing plant,  probably equaled that.

It appears that the firm prospered from the beginning.  Guy Dicks says that each received one hundred pounds a week in salary for several years, probably beginning in 1854.  Thus both men were earning 5,200 pounds a year.  Whatever they might have gotten from outside sources would be in addition.  The acme of an attainable annual income at the time was 10K a year.  Ten thousand would be over a million pounds in current coin.  The year end division of profits might easily have reached five thousand pounds so that both Dicks and Reynolds may have been 10K a year men.  Very successful.    

Eighteen fifty-four was the year that Reynolds removed his family to Herne Bay.  We have a picture on the gwmreynolds.com website of the house they lived in which was handsome but not palatial.  Today the same house might sell for a million pounds.  The move may have been prompted because George’s wife Susannah was ill and in decline as she died in 1858 at which time George moved back to London with twenty years left to his life.

A question to be asked is what John Dicks was doing all this time?  As Reynolds was presumably absent from the plant most the time while living in Herne Bay, probably visiting London for only a few days a month Dicks would have been in full control of the plant and the accounting department.  By 1854 the business would have required a fairly large office staff including compositors and a shipping and sales force. Dicks would have been running the company and perhaps enjoying it.

Perhaps, on returning in 1858 Reyolds may have found himself something of an outsider.  By 1858 his writing career was in noticeable decline.  The books after 1858 are running toward recapitulations with a noticeable decline in mental energy.  Princess Eugenie’s Boudoir, for instance recapitulates three of Reynolds favorite stories that he doesn’t want forgotten.  The rest are pitiful compared to his star in full flame. They’re OK, don’t get me wrong but they’re not worth the study as are the 1844-56 corpus.  Twelve stunning years.

Another aspect to consider is how Reynolds fit into the literary scene.  During this period the primary literary salon was run by Harrison Ainsworth from his house in Kensal Green.  Kensal Green is North of Chiswick.  The Kensal Green cemetery was used by many of these writers as a last residence.  Of course as Charles Dickens was a member of Ainsworth’s salon George Reynolds was barred while none of the Penny Dreadful writers ever belonged.  Time dispersed  the salon by the Sixties as the next wave of writers led by Anthony Trollope dominated the literary scene.

Who did Reynolds associate with?  Ever since he came back from France he was involved with the literary scene.  As a young twenty-three year old he was given the editorship of the Monthly Magazine and turned it from a nearly defunct magazine into a new success.  The success itself may have been a problem as with George’s wild enthusiasm for the continuing revolution in France he may have been attracting a more unwelcome readership than his more staid employers approved..  Then his appropriation of Dicken’s character Mr. Pickwick ‘may have been the last straw so that he was relieved of his duties.

While he issued several titles subsequently to 1837 he was not having success.  When George Stiff tapped him as the writer for The Mysteries of London in1844 he was given an opportunity to work within a framework in which he could display his talents to maximum effect.  Obviously he must have been known in literary circles.  Making a success of the Mysteries Stiff then tapped him to edit his London Monthly that Reynolds successfully did while writing the Mysteries at the same time.

Certainly he must have known the Edward Lloyd stable of writers including James Malcolm Rymer.  Rymer’s serials Varney the Vampyre and Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, were sources for at least four of Reynolds’ titles while many incidents were lifted whole.

We’ll get back to that while we consider another of Reynolds’ sources and that of the Romantic school. That writer would be the eighteenth’s century’s Tobias Smollett (1721-1771).  While not a prolific novelist what he did write was influential.  His first novel was the wonderful Roderick Random followed by Peregrine Pickle and next the superb and monumental Ferdinand, Count Fathom, these three being the heart of his production.  The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker terminated his novels while two minor novels intervened  The History of the Atom and Launcelot Greaves.

Charles Dickens has been said to have been influenced by Smollett.  However you might as well be reading Reynolds in The Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom.  The resemblance is astounding.  The Man of the World and the Man About Town replaced Smollett’snot  eighteenth century Adventurer.  The resemblance is astounding. 

While Rymer may have read Smollett, after all one criterion of education of the period was to be read in your country’s literature, I have not read enough Rymer to recognize it.  I’m sure it’s there.

Peregrine Pickle and Humphrey Clinker seem to be thought Smollet’s best novels.  While I admire all his work I am especially knocked out by Count Fathom.  The novel was not well received on issue.  Indeed, the character of Count Fathom is quite repulsive.  Even Smollett says that it pains him to have to relate the acts of his character.  While I was exasperated at the selfishness and self-interested obtuseness of Fathom I found the novel extraordinary and a mine of historical information.  Perhaps the depiction of Fathom and his situation is too realistic for most people to handle.  Indeed, I found the novel somewhat sickening but so is reality under the magnifying glass.

So, this essay brings us to an examination of Rymer and Reynolds..  It is perfectly obvious that Reynolds read and appreciated both Varney The Vampyre and Sweeney Todd.  If Count Fathom was tough reading, Sweeney Todd almost makes you vomit, but in a good way.  Gawd, what a story.  Dick Collins wrote the introduction and provides background.  The story is a simple one.  Sweeney Todd, a barber, wants a lot of money, thinking he will be able to pass as a gentleman if rich.  He, therefore, forms an alliance with a Mrs. Lovett to produce the fortune.  Sweeney kills the victims, chops up the bodies and Mrs. Lovett bakes them into meat pies that become the rage.  At the time Mr. Gillette had yet to perfect his safety razor, that will come in the twentieth century, so, unless you had the courage to use a straight razor and shave yourself, you employed an expert in the use of one, that is a barber.  When Sweeney Todd shaves a customer who confides the fact that he has valuables on him, Sweeney murders him divesting him of valuables and baggage.  He then butchers the body into gobbets and cuts and forwards them to Mrs. Lovett who turns them into delicious meat pies.

According to Dick Collins there is no factual basis for the story although many think there is.  I’m with the many on this one.  While as Dick Collins says, if there ever was hard evidence for the story its gone now, however, he says that there was a French model for the story while providing no details.  While speculating now, there is a true account during World War II in France which gives credibility to the possibility.

There is a true story of a French barber in WWII Paris who almost exactly replicated Sweeney Todd.  The man was known as Dr. Petiot.  There are several books available including Thomas Maeder’s The Unspeakable Crimes of Dr. Petiot and some visual treatments.

During the war there were many people seeking to escape Europe from France through Spain.  Dr. Petiot ran a barbershop to which people wishing to exit Europe were directed.  Dr. Petiot negotiated a price guaranteeing to get them through France into Spain. 

 Petiot takes his victims to his house, secures their money and baggage and kills them.  He then butchers the bodies into pieces and burns them in his furnace.  Thus replicating Sweeney Todd. He did this to hundreds of people, retaining the baggage in storage, hundreds of suit cases and effects.  Note the baggage.

Dr. Petiot falls behind in burning bodies so he overloads his furnace creating a huge stench in the neighborhood bringing in the police.

Sweeney Todd murdered his victims in subterranean passages that ran under St. Dunstan’s Church creating a nauseous stench that permeated the church alerting the police.

Dr. Petiot absented himself from the house returning to find a mob and the police milling around the street.  His gig is up.  He is arrested and sentenced to be hanged.  On the scaffold he is asked if he has any last words to which he calmly replies in black humor:  “No. I’m the kind who takes my baggage with me.’  Very funny line.

Sweeney Todd was arrested, incarcerated  and hung himself taking his baggage with him.

So, the stories are almost identical.  In our time Jeffrey Dahmer in the US was a cannibal and like President Sekou Toure of Guinea kept his human flesh in the refrigerator.  Toure said that human flesh is very good; there are some things that the West just doesn’t understand.

As incredible as Sweeney Todd’s story is then it is more than possible and quite probable.  After all, Rymer didn’t invent the story.

Reynolds read the story, much admiring it, and while he didn’t replicate the cannibalism in his story of Princess Amelie’son abducted by the Monster Man, the son was placed with the master criminal of his time who ran a barber shop where the actual princeling was brought up to a detestable criminal. That’s quite evil in itself.  There is a direct line of descent from Todd to his successor.

In this case when the boy was about twelve Amelie discovered his presence and has Reynolds’ master detective, Larry Sampson take the lad under his wing to reform him.  It proves impossible to reverse his criminal indoctrination and conditioning.  Like all good criminals the lad was shipped to the United States.  Many of Reynolds criminals are exiled to the US.

There is however no solid evidence to Sweeney’s and Mrs. Lovett’s pies.  Remarkably there is evidence of a predecessor in French history along the lines of Dr. Petiot.  Must run in French culture.

Varney the Vampyre and George W. M. Reynolds

It is quite clear that George read Sweeny Todd and was obviously very impressed.  Rymer also wrote another enduring title from which George profited greatly, and that was Varney the Vampyre.  Both Varney and Sweeney have survived into the present, Sweeney more than Varney.  Not a bad record for Rymer.  Both stories were first published in 1847.  Varney being much longer than the published text was begun almost at the same time as Reynolds’ Mysteries of London while running as long.  Thus in terms of popularity they must have rivalled each other.  That means that Edward Lloyd, the publisher, and Reynolds were in competition.  When Reynolds began publishing the Miscellany in 1846 he might have been an equal to Lloyd while soon having a much better publishing and printing arm.

At present I can find only one reference to Sweeney in Reynolds’ work and that is in The Mysteries of the Court of London written in 1851 or 52.  On the other hand I find four titles that reference Varney.  The most obvious is Wagner the Wehrwolf.  Varney the Vampyre-Wagner the Wehrwolf, a direct appropriation.  So Rymer had co-opted the vampire,  Reynolds would obviously have to co-opt another European legend, that of the werewolf.  Further next he would co-opt the legend of Faust and of the Holy Vehm.  He still wanted a crack at a vampire story but not so obvious as to be noticeable.

For that Reynolds retreated for a couple years to consider then mythologized Varney to come up with the third best of his novels, The Necromancer.  Now, in Varney Rymer has this passage (my copy is the Illustrated Varney the Vampyre published by Pulp-Lit Productions, Corvallis, Oregon pp.1181-82):

Quote:

…There was the grave of Mr. Brooks with its circular mound of earth, all right enough; and the Mr. B was known to have been a respectable man.  He went to the City every day, and used to do so just for the of granting audiences to ladies and gentlemen who might be laboring under any little pecuniary difficulties, and accommodating them.  Kind Mr. Brooks.  He only took one hundred pounds percent.  Why should he be a Vampyre?  Bless him.  Too severe, really.

Unquote.

As concerned with usury as George was, he must have given a sardonic chuckle over that passage.  The passage clearly unites usury with blood sucking or Vampirism.  George then was prompted to work over Vampirism, usury and the Jews in his subconscious.   Thus in 1851 he created the character of Lionel Danvers who, while not described as a Vampire he did appropriate the souls of six women as a blood sucker or soul devourering usurer, allows Reynolds to write a Vampire story while avoiding the imputation of copying Rymer and Varney as he had Dickens and Mr. Pickwick in his Pickwick Abroad.

He also makes a controversial association with a burning question of the day, the character of England’s Jews.  In 1851 Lionel Rothschild was head of the Rothschild dynasty of the Jewish Shadow Kingdom not only in England but all of Europe.  Thus the empire of Lionel Danvers is not only in England but the whole of Europe.  Reynolds expertly combines all three strands.

At one point Rymer says that Varney only wanted the blood of young virgins who said they loved him.  He doesn’t adhere to this tenet in his story but he says it and Reynolds obviously picked up on it to use.  Thus George has Danvers, or Lionel Rothschild and the Rothschild family, sell their souls to the devil for worldly success.  A popular theory for the unresolved and mysterious success of them was that the family had sold its soul to the devil.  Thus, Danvers did in the fourteenth century before the rise of the Rothschilds.

Danvers obtained a caveat from the Devil that he could redeem his own soul if he could find six young virgins who would love him body and soul and die for him, thus giving the devil six souls as the price of his.  After each conquest Danvers then sacrificed the girl to the Devil.

As the story of The Necromancer opens Danvers has just sacrificed the fifth girl, Clara Manners, and begins the conquest of the sixth girl, Musidora Sinclair.  The Sinclair family was closely associated with the Knights Templar and its successor: The Freemasons.  George was a Freemason, actually getting Rymer to join his lodge.  His grade isn’t known, but I would imagine that he was well on the way to the highest grade, the thirty-third.  I don’t know what that has to do with the story but the Sinclairs are central to the Freemasonic story.  Perhaps Sinclair vs. Rothschild gives the triumph to the Sinclairs thus preserving English superiority.

It may be that since the Jews or Rothschilds were struggling  for preeminence in the kingdom that Reynolds translated that struggle into a Masonic contest of Danvers vs. the Sinclairs.  In The Necromancer, the struggle for the soul of Musidora, the real Henry VIII is captivated by Musidora and intends  to marry here, as he  is temporarily without a spouse, but he excuses himself for the necessity of attending to the cares of the realm.

In his absence Danvers/Rothschild transforms himself into a replica of Henry wooing Musidora in Henry’s place.  In this he succeeds, the carries Musidora off to his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight that just happens to be next door to her father’s, Sinclair, estate.  Kingdom and Shadow Kingdom.

He conducts Musidora to his abattoir where the five maidens were sacrificed.  Still he hasn’t captured her soul; in fact Musidora recognizes him  as the seducer of her girlhood.  She repudiates him, as her father and her local idolizer burst into the chamber.  Having failed Satan Rothschild/ Henry VII/ Danvers’ hundreds of year old body crumbles into dust.  Supposedly England is freed from the vampirism of the Jews  much as when Edward III expelled them from the kingdom in 1290.

Compare this to Trollope’s The Way We Live Now of 1875, a mere twenty-five years later.

It appears that Reynolds and Rymer had a fairly close friendship during the fifties.  When Lloyd collapsed Rymer switched to Reynolds’ stable while attending a company picnic or two.  At any rate Reynolds makes a couple of  other references to Varney.  For instance in Varney, the Vampyre has a conscience, regretting his existence so much that he ascends Mr. Vesuvius and throws himself in.

Bulwer Lytton’s novel The Last Days of Pompeii of 1934 popularized Vesuvius and its eruption that destroyed Pompeii in 79 AD.  The novel was a great success and most deservedly so as it is as perfect a novel as can be.  Vesuvius has since remained the epitome of the erupting volcano so Rymer has Varney pitch himself into the boiling cauldron.  In George’s novel Faust also of 1847 which couples Europe’s legendary Faust character with the equally legendary Holy Vehm, thus co-opting those two story lines, emulates Rymer by having Faust step off the ridge of Vesuvius thus terminating his contract with Satan.

Faust take place in the Holy Roman Empire in which the Holy Vehm was instituted to take up the slack of the legal justice system.  They sought out, arrested and tried criminals the instituted authorities couldn’t find grounds for prosecution.  Reynolds imagined they became a criminal organization somewhat like the Mafia today.  Faust and Wagner were both written in the same year of 1847 while the Mysteries of London were in progress.

One might suppose that Reynolds was so threatened by the success of Rymer and his Varney that he pulled out all the stops and tried to drown Rymer in a sea of prose.  Eighteen forty-seven must have been an exciting year for the reading public.

Reynolds The Bronze Statue of 1849 may also have some reference to Varney.  By 1851 then  and the Necromancer George had worked out the perfected reaction to Varney

One wonders if Rymer was his only serious competitor.  Other than Thomas Prest I’m not sure I could name another Penny Dreadful author.  I’ll have to check that out in the Wildside Press Catalog.  Wildside and Valancourt seem to be the leading publishers of popular literature of the nineteenth century.

Previously in this essay I mentioned the seventeenth century author Tobias Smollett.  Smollett’s 1753 novel Ferdinand, Count Fathom had a large influence on these late Romantic authors.  Charles Dickens is said to have been highly influenced by him although I find little resemblance.  Count Fathom is virtually a template for George Reynolds.  Like Reynolds Smollett was much concerned about usury.  In Chapter 47 his Count Melvil in desperate straits attempts to borrow money.  None of the English usurers will have anything to do with him because he is not a qualified borrower.  He has no collateral or obvious means of repayment while he intends to leave the country.  As no English borrower could enforce recovery in foreign countries he would have had to remain in England.  Melville is friends with Fathom, in fact he is in his hands.  Fathom then advises him he will have to ‘go to the Jews.’  Here’s how it went. Chapter 47:

Quote:

Melvil having signified his request, “Young gentleman” said the Israelite, with a most discordant voice,  “What in the name of goodness could induce you to come to me upon such an errand?  Did you ever hear that I lent money to strangers without security?”

“No,” replied Renaldo, “ nor did I believe I should profit by an application, but my affairs are desperate; and my proposal having been rejected by every Christian to whom they were offered, I was resolved to try my fate among the Jews, who are reckoned another species of men.”

Fathom, alarmed at this abrupt reply, which he supposed could not fail to disgust the merchant, interposed in the conversation, by making an apology for the plain dealing of his friend, who, he said, was soured and ruffled by his misfortunes; then exerting that power of eloquence which he had at command, he expostulated upon Renaldo’s claim and expectations, described the wrongs he had suffered, extolled his virtue, and drew a most pathetic picture of his distress.

Unquote.

Compare that with Arnold’s introduction of Crawford to the usurer in the Youthful Impostor and Reynold’s treatment of that scene.  In this case Smollett is a true Man of the World who indicates what his countrymen thought, that the Jews were a different species of men, which by the way is what the Jews think, between which the English and the Jews was a great divide. But perhaps not so great as Smollett as an objective observer indicates.  This usurer has a heart of gold. (No pun intended.)

Strangely in this situation, after checking Melvil out the Hebrew (Smollett’s term) not only advances Melvil an astonishing five hundred pounds on his signature but provides him with references to important usurers in Vienna with instructions to supply him with unlimited funds on request.  He is not concerned that Melvil is going to leave England.

Thus while the English usurer loses all authority outside his national borders, the international Jews can confidently expect to collect anywhere in Europe not only through his own ‘species’  but with the cooperation of important nationals of the various countries.

Compare this with the Youthful Impostor who through Arnold borrowed from a Jewish usurer in England while fleeing to France, stiffing the usurer.  The usurer notifies his people who steer Crawford into a business deal then clean him out leaving him penniless.

The whole real national political division is cleansed from academic histories, the mention of Jews being ‘as long suffering.’  Thus history is totally distorted and incomprehensible.

Reynolds as well as condemning usury also condemns the gambling spirit of his time.  Gambling ‘hells’ as they were called.  Apparently this gambling rage arose in Smollett’s time which astounded him.  I append a longish quote of Smollett’s discussion of the phenomenon, Chapter Fifty.  Fathom had been a successful gambler on the continent by knowing percentages, but here in England the spirit infusing gambling had changed to more wild speculation.

Quote:

Besides he perceived that gaming was now managed in such a manner as rendered his skill and dexterity of no advantage.  For the spirit of play had overspread the land, like a pestilence, raged to such a degree of madness and desperation that the unhappy people who were infected laid aside all thought of amusement, economy, or caution and risked their fortunes upon issues equally extravagant childish and absurd.

The whole mystery of the art was reduced to the single exercise of tossing up a guinea, and the lust of laying wagers, which they indulged to a surprising pitch of ridiculous intemperance .  In one corner of the room might be heard a pair of lordlings running their grandmothers against each other, that is, betting sums on the longest liver; in another the success of the wager depended upon the sex of the landlady’s next child; and one of the waiters happening to drop down in an apoplectic fit, a certain  noble peer exclaimed, “Dead for a thousand pounds.”  The challenge was immediately accepted; and when the master of the house sent for a surgeon to attempt the cure, the nobleman, who set the price upon the patient’s head, insisted upon his being left to the efforts of nature alone, otherwise the wager should be void.  Nay, when the landlord harped upon the loss he should sustain by the death of a trusty servant, his lordship obviated the objection by desiring that the fellow might be charged in the bill.

In short, the rage of gaming seemed to have devoured all their other faculties, and to have equalled the rash enthusiasm of the inhabitants of Malacca in the East Indies, who are so possessed with that pernicious  vice  that they sacrifice to it not only their fortunes, but also their wives and children; and then letting their hair down upon their shoulders in imitation of the ancient Lacedemonians when they devoted themselves to death, those wretches unsheathe their daggers, and murder every living creature in their way.  In this, however, they differ from the gamesters of our country, who never lose their senses, until they have lost their fortunes, and beggared their families; whereas, the Malays never run amuck, but in consequence of misery and despair.

Such are the amusements, or rather such is the continual employment of those hopeful youths who are destined by birth to be the judges of our property, and pillars of our constitution.

Unquote.

It seems that Smollett is describing a psychological malady here, a group frenzy, a sort of herd madness affecting upper class society..  It would appear that the malady didn’t exist before the Georgian period of the eighteenth century.  What disturbance in society might have induced it?  Perhaps gambling was associated to the usury of the borrowing mania.  They may be related.

After all, what disordered mind borrows money without the means to pay it back at perhaps cent percent compound interest? What monsters prey on their fellow men in that way.  Nor was the money borrowed for any other use than to temporarily maintain an exorbitant lifestyle that must end in prison?  These people were too intelligent to adopt either course and yet they suspended their intelligence and essentially committed suicide.  Usury and gambling.

What changed in English society in Georgian times?  One societal change that did not bode well was when Cromwell readmitted the Jews into England in 1660.

The Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 precisely because of their practice of exorbitant usury that was impoverishing the populace.  When the Jews were readmitted the practice of expropriatory usury began again.  Of course, lending at interest was practiced but as Smollett shows it was at moderate rates with collateral so that the borrower  had to put the amount of the loan into the hands of the usurer.  Sort of a type of pawn shop.  English usurers did not lend on expectations as collateral.  But the Jews did.

It therefore follows that gambling hells were a desirable occupation to reap the cash.  The initial influx of returning Jews then increased from 1660 to 1740-50 thus reaching critical mass, got the lay of the land and organized.  Once organized the assault on laws and mores began to accommodate the invaders.  Two competing systems cannot exist side by side in the same ‘house’ without one or the other first dominating then ousting the other.  At least by mid-nineteenth century laws governing these procedures were discovered if not understood and implemented.  In Reynolds’ time Lionel Rothschild was busy attempting to change the rules governing Parliament to suit the Jews thus attempting to form a partnership of Jews and English rather than one people.

Darwin’s Origin of Species explained the competition of species while Gustave LeBon enumerated the hysteria of crowds in 1895 The Crowd: A Study Of The Popular Mind which was amplified and put into execution by Sigmund Freud in his An Analysis of the Ego and Group Psychology of the early 1920s. The processes are clear; they have been explained.  They only need to be applied.

The important thing in social control is to get the money.  Get the money.  Money is where social power begins.

Usury at exorbitant expropriating rates is therefor a big element in getting the money while a gambling mania such as Smollett describes transfers the cash into casino operator’s hands.  Key occupations then have to be occupied.  It follows then that Jews were an important element in usury and gambling down through Reynolds times.  That would explain what mystified Smollett.  The gambling rage had to be incited.

These two problems were not abated by the time of Reynolds but intensified.  As Smollett’s Melvil says:  Jews were regarded by the English as a separate species and he might have added despised.  By Reynolds’ time the Jews had the money and then wanted entrance into the governance of the country.  In this the Rothchilds led the way from a shadow kingdom into the light of day. The founder of the Jewish dynasty was Nathan Rothschild who made the Jews that is his people economically dominant..  Nathan’s son Lionel replaced his father in 1837 at the former’s death, hence Reynolds called his usurer Lionel Danvers, the Lionel pointing directely at Lionel Rothschild who was attempting to change the rules of Parliament to suit Jewish desires.  In other words he refused the Christian oath preferring a Jewish oath so that he could serve as a Jew and not a Christian.

Thus, when Lionel Danvers assumed the form of Henry VIII there was a shadow king and the actual king vying for authority.

At the same time in real life the radical Chartists and Communists were making a frontal assault on the governments.  The Communists succeeded in France where the king was abolished and the aristocrats were disenfranchised.  The Governance was transferred to the Bourgeoisie.  This is exactly what Reynolds was working toward in England.  Thus, he was an enemy of the State and had to be controlled directly.

John Dicks And His Relationship To Reynolds.

I think it should be apparent that John Dicks was transferred from Thoms to Reynolds.  Dicks was a sort of printing and publishing genius as that, as the partnership between he and Reynolds began the company consisted of Reynolds’ writing and Dicks’ printing.  As I see it, by the time Reynolds completed the Mysteries of the Court of London in 1856 he had essentially peaked while his succeeding work was less popular while at the same time the genius of Dick’s printing and publishing became the more important asset to the firm.

By 1856 Dicks was not only publishing Reynolds but various Libraries of English novels published at the lowest possible price to encourage newly literate people to read and buy.  So this was a very large organization employing hundreds of people.  Perhaps Dicks thought he built it and it was his.

Back in 1846 Reynolds had established his magazine Reynolds Miscellany.  The magazine prospered and was very popular but very radical and critical of the government.  Then Dicks formed a competing magazine called Bow Bells that was much more conventional and not critical of the government.  The Miscellany had a strong revolutionary bent.  Bow Bells on the other hand was strictly Bourgeois.  The below quote from Guy Dicks book. The John Dicks Press, gives some idea of the confusion between the two magazines.  The Figaro was apparently a competing magazine.  Reynolds believe that such magazines were put up by the government to undermine the Miscellany.

The Figaro and Reynolds’ Miscellany were in a running battle in 1872 that had started with the Figaro exposing the fact that Reynold’s and Dicks’ two main publications were at odds over their coverage of the royal family, going so far as to describe Reynolds as a disgusting and scurrilous publication—”a paper which no decent person dreams of touching, save with a pair of tongs,”  and moreover it was filthy rag, filled with disloyalty and obscenity, prepared by mischievous pens for the readers of the very lowest and vilest class.

Figaro published these lists to demonstrate the “wicked fraud” of these “unprincipled” traders and “vile slandering of the Prince of Wales” [future Edward VII], the Carrion Journal.

Facts:

Reynolds’s Newspaper:

1. Is printed by John Dicks.

2.  Is published by John Dicks

3.  Is printed at 313 Strand

4.  Is published at 313 Strand

5.  Belongs to G.W.M. Reynolds and John Dicks

6.  Compared the dead child of the Prince of Wales to a rat

7.  Has called the Prince of Wales a louse

8.  Constantly and with bestial coarseness assails the royal family

Now Bow Bells Magazine:

  1.  Is printed by John Dicks
  2.  Is published by John Dicks
  3.  Is printed at 313 Strand
  4.  Is published at 313 Strand
  5.  Belongs to G.W. M Reynolds and John Dicks
  6.  Has just issued a Prince of Wales number with very loyal biographies
  7.  Says that “the personal character of the Prince is essentially engaging
  8.  Says  “England is equally fortunate with the Prince of Wales in the presence of Alexandra, Princess of Wales, who is a perfect lady and an admirable mother.  She will worthily follow in the footsteps of the Queen, whose social example has always been perfect.

Unquote.

Reynolds’ Newspaper brushed off the Figaro with:  We laugh at its impotent rage. And delight at seeing it writhing under the whippings we administer to its crabby carcass.

Unquote.

Well, what about this?

The writer in Figaro sees a mystery.  He obviously believes that Dicks and Reynolds were of one devious mind.  I think a correct interpretation of the information we have, that Figaro didn’t’, is that Dicks’ Bow Bells magazine represents Dicks’ real mind.  Having worked out from under Reynolds beginning about 1858-60 the firm, which after all was known as the John Dicks Press, already eliminates Reynolds who may popularly have been thought of  as merely an author the John Dicks Press published.  Many of the title pages of Reynolds’ books specifically state:  Published for the author by John Dicks.  That implies a separation not a partnership.

Perhaps John Dicks was a clever fellow from the beginning.  Anyway by 1869 and the consolidation, and elimination, of Reynolds’s Miscellany into Dicks’ Bow Bells Reynolds was out.  There appears to have been no loyalty to Reynolds; Dicks appears to have used him as a stepping stone.  I think it more than probable that Dicks detested Reynolds.

If one looks at Reynolds last novel, the pitiful, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, Dicks doesn’t even list the titles by Reynolds on the title page.  For all intents and purposes Reynolds past is wiped clean.

On the ad page at the back of the book a list of ‘Dicks’ English Novels, the top author listed is Charles Dickens with six titles, all early.  Clearly an insult to Reynolds.  Then six novels by Bulwer-Lytton, then a foundational novel by Charles Lever, The Confessions of Harry Lorrequer, then six by Reynolds none of which is among his best, ending with eight by William Harrison Ainsworth who held a special place in Dicks’ heart.

In conclusion then I think it highly probable that Dicks was a covert agent of government security and he was there to do what he did:  baffle Reynolds’ career as much as possible, finally eliminating him from his legacy. It will be noted that after a large printing about 1880 nothing further was printed until something called the Oxford Society republished the Mysteries of the Court of London at century’s end.  I intend to discuss this publication in my next essay.

Debunking The Biblical Creation Myth:

Water Vs. Dirt

by

R.E. Prindle

One of the great conflicts in the course of the development of the human intellect is that of science vs. religion.  The conflict should not be confused with Evolution that relates to physical changes, while science and religion are mental approaches.  Both science and religion have existed through out history.  As science requires physical confirmation and religion doesn’t science has developed more slowly.

Again science requires confirmation while religion is ‘revealed.’  Thus the Asiatics of the East End of the Mediterranean tended to be religious while the Egyptian and the Greeks tended toward the scientific, as primitive as it might appear.

Somewhen in the Pisces  side of twelve hundred BC the notion of what the religionists are pleased to call monotheism was determined, which was supposed to invalidate polytheism, was adopted as the official stance of the Jews, or Hebrews and succeeded as the official stance in subsequent Western history.

Polytheism is actually primitive science with each god representing a facet of reality.  Naturally rather than disappearing polytheism was transmogrified into the Godhead and the ten emanations or Sephiroth.  Thus the Gods and Goddesses coursed through history gradually becoming what is called collectively Science instead of the Godhead while the various scientific disciplines replace the Emanations or Sephiroth.

Zeus, for instance became the Godhead transmogified and the minor gods and goddesses became the Emanations.  Fundamental actually.

A major problem to the human intellect is the problem of life and that involves the elementals-earth, water, air and fire.  The Greek Pre-Socratics wrestled mightily with this problem while the discussion was universal which also involved the Jews.  In their mythical history they opted for earth as the primary material of life as they saw dirt and humans as solids.  This was a serious error in science, but no problem in religion, as human life is actually based in water being something like 98% with the other 2% composed of atomic elements.

Jewish theory was hobbled by their religious belief that the earth and universe was created at the beginning of the Age of Taurus.  Ludicrous on the face of it.  Thus all of existence had a very short period for development or evolution.

The Jews, or their Hebrew Semitic ancestors, splintered off from the Semitic main body in Mesopotamia at the cusp of Taurus and Aries while retaining the beliefs current of Taurus.  The main body that retained the science of the Sumerians who they replaced in Mesopotamia, were aware that civilization went back a hundred thousand years and before that the age of the Earth was indeterminant.

Circumstances shackled the mind of Western man to the Jewish version of creation, that is of the years of the Taurian Age. ‘God’, that is the Jewish version of ‘God’, said the Jews, came into existence at the same time and he created Man by picking up a clod of dirt and sculpting an image of himself breathing life into it.  So I look like God, you look like God, right?, unless you’re a woman and then you are a clone of the first man fashioned from the material of his rib right?

As I say, circumstances foisted this ridiculous nonsense onto the mind of Western man universally as fact until some time in the eighteenth century of  Pisces  when the science of geology demonstrated the impossibility of the planet being only four thousand years old at that time.

Subsequently we have come to accept, based on scientific rather than religious grounds that the planet may be four and a half BILLION years old.  Thus the Semitic religions fall to pieces.

Here’s a problem that worries lots of people:  where did water come from?  The prevailing ‘scientific;’ explanation is that water came from outer space.  Comets dropped it off.  This raises the problem of why are oceans of water floating around in outer space looking for planets to make a real splash down on?

Personally, I accept the science that water is made right here on this planet.  Space cats are going to have to come up with real proof.  The fact is that the giant iron core of the planet rotates at a different speed than the outer layers.  The outer layers are unstable slipping around the core at a lower speed.  The friction between the core and the slipping outer layers.  The slipping creates a magnetic field called gravity.

The heat and pressure generate chemical changes while the outer layers transmute the different elements into different substances.  Hydrogen and oxygen being the two elements that combine to make water.  The water, then, is extruded onto the surface.  Even today great subaqueous springs continuously extrude to refresh and replenish the water supply.  The low lying lands slowly filled with water to create the oceans.  The water evaporated, as water will do, and various gases including oxygen constitute air.  In the process the elevated part of the planet came to know fresh water.

Here is an astounding fact:  In one billion years, prepare now, the Sun will be 10% brighter making it hot enough for Earth to lose enough hydrogen to space to cause the planet to lose all its water. (Fact taken from Wikipedia.)  Thus while oxygen may remain there won’t be enough hydrogen to form H2O.

There is no need to look to outer space to know where water comes from; it is a natural process of the planet.

Thus the oceans were formed.  In the process of extrusion the various elements (iron, copper etc.) were dissolved in the water.  Therefore water (hydrogen and oxygen) has many trace elements of which about eighteen are used to create life.  This can only happen in water.

Rabbi Loewe, a fifteenth century European Rabbi formed the monster called the Golem, whose role was to kill anti-Semites, out of dirt that he breathed air into its nostrils and brought it to life.  This is magic of the highest order.  Neither ‘God’ or Rabbi Loewe ever created life that way.

So, all of these elements were floating around in the primordial soup, that is to say oceans, where they bumped into each other forming various combinations that bonded into primitive one celled organisms that began to mutate and change into various forms.  Life began in the oceans.  There originally was not much oxygen in the atmosphere  but when it reached about 21% life became possible.  How long ago that was isn’t known.  We know it was when the atmosphere became 21% because that is the percentage needed today to sustain life.  If the oxygen were reduced sufficiently the various forms of life would become sluggish and inefficient; if the oxygen content rose life forms would burn oxygen more brightly and expire.

Thus, humankind evolved in water and assumed the appearance of solidity.  As Isaac Asimov (who was Jewish by the way) said:  Humans are just big bags of water.  No dirt involved.  Another Jewish myth debunked.