Official Edgar Rice Burroughs Tribute and Weekly Webzine Site
Since 1996 ~ Over 10,000 Web Pages in Archive
Presents
Volume 1329
Only A Hobo /   Edgar Rice Burroughs |
The Big Rock Candy Mountain On The Road To Salvation |
by
R. E. Prindle
Prologue
I wanted the gold, and I sought it;
I scrabbled and mucked like a slave.
Was it famine or scurvy – I fought it;
I hurled my youth into a grave.
I wanted the gold, and I got it —
Came out with a fortune last fall —
Yet somehow life’s not what I thought it,
And somehow the gold isn’t all.
Robert W. Service — The Spell of the Yukon
Edgar Rice Burroughs lived through what I would consider the most exciting and romantic time in the history of the world. The old world was fading; the modern world was emerging. On every level the most exciting and dramatic changes were scintillating. Darwin, Freud and Einstein in Science; Wells, Kipling, Doyle, Haggard in literature; The steamship and railroad the automobile and airplane revolutionized travel. The telegraph, the telephone, the movies. All the far places of the world including the Arctic and Antarctic were brought within the pale of Western Civilization for all to see.But, that’s not all.
Man not only discovered and revealed the world but he discovered and revealed himself. Freud, Jung and James in the science of the mind. In physical culture astonishing strongmen like the Great Sandow and Louis Cyr amazed the world with feats of strength. Bernarr McFadden made a cult of physical culture. Through his discovery of Dynamic Tension the great Charles Atlas was declared the most perfectly developed man in 1922. He really was, too.
There was also another class of men come into their time for a fleeting moment less respectable than these who Robert Service dubbed the Legion of the Lost. He also called them The Men That Don’t Fit In:
The Men That Don’t Fit In
Robert W. Service
|
|
There’s a race of men that don’t fit in,
And each forgets, as he strips and runsThese were the men who chase the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Gold for them is the symbol of salvation. The philosopher’s stone of redemption. If only they can make that lucky strike then, my god, well, their lives will shine.They look with rue upon “the sturdy, quiet, plodding ones” who they know will win in life’s race but they hope to turn reality on its ear without that kind of effort. To be consistent, persistent, to earn their gold is beyond them; they have been disappointed or injured in their early life so that they feel that the world owes them a living. They refuse to work toward a goal; even if they made it big they could find no satisfaction in that manner; they want it handed to them in the form of a golden lucky strike.
While they hope to make that strike they invent the legend of the Big Rock Candy Mountain with its pie in the sky and lemonade fountains so many you can’t count ’em, free for the taking.
|
We want what we want and we want it now without work! I know where that’s at and so did Edgar Rice Burroughs. He found his Lucky Strike in Tarzan.When John the Bully fixated Burroughs on the road to Somewhere, Brown School, he sent him out on the road to Anywhere, the great wasteland of the soul. Burroughs felt akin to these wandering men as is evidenced throughout his work. The hobo poet H. H. Knibbs’ “Out There Somewhere” formed a credo for Burroughs’ life; it meshed with his psychic malaise. This is most apparent in his great Mucker Trilogy and Coda.
So from 1849 through the great gold strikes beginning in California progressing through South Africa, Australia and the Klondike this breed of men were sent scurrying around the world chasing salvation in the form of a pot of gold. This was their era which neither they nor the World will ever see its like again.
Stereoview of the prospectors at Chilkoot Pass
The marvelous photo of the long seemingly endless line of prospectors climbing Chilkoot Pass through the snow drifts on the way to the gold fields of the Klondike, which Charlie Chaplin parodied in his movie The Gold Rush, tells it all. Who but insane dreamers would suffer such hardship for what all of them must have realized was an unobtainable goal. I mean, you know, get a job. Still, many of them did find some gold and a few came out with a fortune.By 1910 it was all gone. Burroughs’ brothers and himself pursued the pot of gold on the big Snake River in Idaho with slight success. Although unable to find a gold mine Burroughs was able to capitalize on the weird scenes in his own gold mind, to appropriate a phrase from Jim Morrison and the Doors.
Snake River Gold MiningAs one of the Legion of the Lost he had reached the end of his tether, an abject failure, in 1911. But then he dug deep in his own personal gold mind far up on the slopes of the Big Rock Candy Mountain to come up with nugget after nugget; the kind of wealth of which most men only dream. But as Service noted “somehow the gold wasn’t all.”
His malaise was in his tortured soul and not his empty pocket. His whole literary corpus was the attempt to resolve the malaise in his psyche created by John the Bully in 1883 or ’84 when he sent ERB out on the road to Anywhere along which road he made and spent a fortune “as he stripped and ran with a brilliant fitful pace” but, “each fresh move was just a fresh mistake.”
The middle portion of the Mucker Trilogy is built around Henry Herbert Knibbs’ poem “Out There Somewhere” which was also the original and more appropriate name of the novel. The poem concerns the search for self in the Wasteland on the Road to Anywhere or Out There Somewhere:
|
Robert W. Service, who was a bank clerk in the Klondike, studied these men. He was one of the “steady, quiet plodding ones.” He provided Burroughs the counterpoint to Knibbs with the longing to get away to Anywhere in his poem “The Tramps”:
|
PART 1
“…I had no intention of resigning myself to the dictates of an unkind and unjust Fate without a struggle. Furthermore, in the idiom of a famous American game, I had an ace in the hole.”
Burroughs — The Swords of MarsBurroughs’ Mucker Trilogy is written on several levels or keys just like Homer and Dante or the Arthurian cycle from which Burroughs undoubtedly learned the method. For the literal meaning I refer you to his books; in this section I will deal with Burroughs’ personal psychological key; in the later sections I will describe the historical and social keys of the novels.The Mucker Trilogy without Coda is, I believe, one of the great neglected gems of American literature. It is too late for it to find its rightful place but not too late to be discovered and appreciated by the discerning reader.
The Mucker — a mucker was a Chicago term of the time used to describe a ne’er-do-well, a street person, a type of minor thug — first of the trilogy was the tenth book of the Burroughs corpus which numbers some seventy odd, written from August to October in Burroughs’ incredibly prolific year of 1913. As Burroughs explained in his 1930 novel, Tarzan The Invincible, he didn’t mind “pirating” a political or religious idea so long as there was “a definite impression of fictionalizing.” By that he meant disguising the true facts to the point where they were unrecognizable to the reader seeking only entertainment. He succeeds admirably well in all keys in this trilogy.
From his first novel written in 1911 to his last written in 1943 Burroughs is trying to work out his psychological dilemma. This central childhood fixation was given him on a street corner on the way to Brown School in Chicago in 1883 or ’84 when he was eight or nine. The experience was both harrowing and terrifying, conditioning his mind for the rest of his life.
The incident was that which an “unkind and unjust Fate” with a capital F imposed upon him. Since you and I weren’t there we may laugh and say it was a trivial incident but since I’ve walked many a mile in the same shoes I can tell you what’s trivial to others is devastatingly fixating to one’s own mind.
Burroughs was born in 1875. The Irish potato famine was very recent history in 1875. While the Irish had begun their immigration early in the century, by the ’40s and ’50s the invasion had become massive. The Irish population of New York or Chicago equaled that of Dublin.
In Chicago large numbers of Irish were crowded into the great slum of West Side Chicago. The stunning squalor of this huge slum belied the promise of this land of opportunity. The squalor was so breathtaking so other worldly, there was nothing like it anywhere else in this world, that Burroughs and many another author speak of the West Side with hushed awe.
The Irish came over with their antagonism to the English at fever point. Extending their antagonism to Americans of English descent, in cities and towns throughout America, Irish and English boys fought pitched battles every day.
In the early days before the Irish were able to control political graft the economic contrast between “Micks” and Anglos was very pronounced. Young Burroughs came from a very well-to-do family while his Irish antagonist was a young Irish hoodlum or mucker from the slums of the West Side.
Burroughs was eight or nine at the time while his antagonist was a much bigger young tough of twelve. On his way to prestigious Brown school one day this young tough blocked Burroughs way thoroughly intimidating and terrifying him. I leave it to your imagination to recreate the incident. Young Burroughs apparently broke and ran which left him a feeling of shame and cowardice for the rest of his life.
The incident had a three-fold effect on his psychology which absolutely controlled him until he was thirty-six, then haunted him with varying degrees of intensity the rest of his life.
He was fixated in his subconscious, which fixation controlled his conscious mind. At the same time the bully assumed the prominent position on his Animus or Ego, with the result of a castration complex in the Freudian sense which will be explained in the appropriate place. Perhaps more important and troubling was that the bully assumed the role of Burroughs’ female Anima which he experienced as a male Fate in women’s clothing. This realization found expression in his 1911 novel The Outlaw of Torn. The Mucker Trilogy and Coda would be devoted to resolving this dilemma.
In Freud’s “Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence,” I paraphrase Ernest Jones from Vol. III of his biography, Freud maintained it was an error to regard the Ego as a unitary synthesis; (boy, this guy could really heave it around, synthesis of what?) he said that there were ways in which in early childhood, a splitting could take place in regard to the attitude toward reality.
I do not agree with Freud’s conception of the Animus or Ego. The Ego or Animus is an anatomical fact. The “splitting” of it is a psychological detail. The Animus is the spermatic side of the spinal cord which passes out of the brain stem to form the free end of the left lobe of the brain while its lower end is attached to the right gonad. Quite literally the penis is the man. As an anatomical fact it cannot be damaged by traumatic events. What traumatic events do is alter the organization of the clothing of the free end of the Animus.
Prior to this incident there was no place on ERB’s Animus for this bully. One assumes that the Animus was confidently clothed by the single reassuring image of young Burroughs’ father. The incident created a place on the Animus or clothed the Animus with the image of the bully alongside that of the father which conflicted with the previous dominant image of the father.
This is what Freud means, or should have meant, by “the splitting” of the Ego.
Thus Burroughs was now conflicted with the identity of the clown on the one hand and the hero on the other, with the clown uppermost. The defeated Ego expresses its humiliation in the image of the clown. On the subconscious level Burroughs had been presented with a Challenge for which he had no adequate Response so he suppressed the trauma into his subconscious where he “forgot” it. Encysted in the subconscious it controlled his image of himself. Having failed in this crucial Challenge his Response was to assume the role of the perpetual failure.
He was now by an “unkind and unjust Fate” condemned to failure unless by struggling he could use his “ace in the hole” to free himself. His ace was a version of psychology which he apparently developed himself.
His problem in life now was to exorcise his fixation and remove the traumatized figure of John the Bully from his Animus while seeking an appropriate female figure for his Anima.
Burroughs has a very well developed vision of psychology which appears to have been formed completely independently of either Freud or Jung. His psychological notions were complete when he began writing, which was before Freud had been translated into English. I have been unable to trace the origins of Burroughs’ ideas of psychology, as yet. He seemed to be aware of the notion of the Animus and the Anima since he describes it so well. He could have obtained an idea of it by a study of Greek Mythology with which he was well acquainted and from which I developed my own ideas which match those of Burroughs so well.
As Freud says, when such a trauma as Burroughs’ occurs the victim identifies with the oppressor, admiring him and being solicitous of his welfare. Burroughs identifies this thug who fixated him only by the name of John. If he remembered his last name he doesn’t reveal it. From that point on Burroughs wanted to grow up to be just as tough as this guy John. He was so fixated that John became his favorite name. He said that he even considered legally changing his name to John. His novels are liberally sprinkled with Johns, both heroes and villains, reflecting his love-hate relationship. His major alter egos are John Carter of Mars and John Clayton otherwise known as Tarzan.
A Poetic Pas De Deux Between Frank And plainmama
December 11, 2016
A Poetic Pas De Deux Between
Frank and plainmama
by
Frank Solanki
An edited version from
Frank’s blog.
I gave birth to a lie and it gave birth to many more.
I watched it multiply till I could stop it no more.
It was all fine until truth decided to come out
And draw a thin line
Between truth and doubt.
The lies were spread, the truth washed them away.
Soon, they were all dead but the scars came to stay.
Now, the lies are gone the truth never picked a side.
Scars are reborn
The mother has died.
These words spoke to plainmama and she replied:
plainmama:
Truth has healing power.
It might feel raw right now,
Like ripping off a band aid,
But wounds heal faster
When exposed to the air of truth.
They only fester when covered with lies.
Take care of yourself, my friend.
Give yourself of grace and love
In tough times.
Much love.
Frank:
Thanks a lot.
plainmama:
Of course.
And if you need a friend
I’m always here.
Frank:
I know that.
Hope you are doing good
Too.
plainmama:
Trying not to get sick
In a house of illness.
It’s a tough task.
Frank:
Oh, it is.
Plainmama:
Yes!
When you are the day care,
Cook and night nurse
Exposure and Exhaustion
Makes the statistics of my
Contracting said illness
Fairly high.
Maybe wine will help?
Is that one of the old remedies?
Just say yes.
Frank:
Yes.
So who’s the one running sick?
plainmama:
3 of 4 boys.
Eldest has held out.
I’m sure he will be barfing tomorrow.
Frank:
Oh, that’s a tough situation.
plainmama:
Par for the parenting course.
Frank:
Haha. Yes, but I guess it’s worth the memories.
plainmama:
Puke does not equal memories.
For Puker or puke cleaner,
Or puke watcher
Or puke smeller
Or in regards to
Puke, barf or vomit.
Frank:
Oh, I feel your pain.
plainmama:
Disgust would be a better word.
There is not much grosser than vomit.
Frank:
I’ll talk to you later.
‘Bye.
A Review: Lion Feuchtwanger: Jud Suss, Book And Movie
November 14, 2016
A Review: Lion Feuchtwanger, Jud Suss-book, Jew Suss-movie And The German Movies Jud Suss And The Rothschilds In The Context Of The Times.
by
R.E. Prindle
This is a review of the novel Jew Suss by Lion Feuchtwanger. The review will place Feuctwanger’s novel in the context of the times it was written, that is the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century with a view of the author’s intent.
While the novel is of great importance to the period in question perhaps the name Lion Feuchtwanger is unfamiliar to most. As an historian, prior to reading Jud Suss I had seen the name mentioned frequently but I knew nothing further of him. Feuchtwanger while not logorrhaeic wrote a corpus. Most of it is historical concerning the greatness of the Jews. He wrote a trilogy- 1500 pages- around the character of Josephus and the Jewish-Roman war of the first and second centuries AD.
Perhaps it was the times and the Jewish propaganda machine that credits Feuchtwanger with the mantle of the greatest historical novelist. He isn’t close to that or even a contender, he makes laborious reading at best. As his reputation has disappeared that speaks for itself. Nevertheless, Jud Suss was a best seller both in Germany and abroad. My copy from the English reprint publisher Hutchinson bills itself as of the 158th thousand. One wonders.
The book was published in Germany in 1925. It tells in a sort of fantasia of the career of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer who was the court Jew to the Duke Karl Alexander of Wurttemberg, the companion State of Bavaria in the South of Germany. I am sure that few people today know anything of Suss Oppenheimer if they have even heard of him. He is little known outside Germany while I have found no study of Suss in English.
The book revived an interest in Germany so that it was notorious from 1925 to the German defeat in 1945.
Suss Oppenheimer was the man who reorganized Jewry in the eighteenth century giving them a sense of direction in the evolution of modern Europe. The contrast between the emerging Jew of Suss and the traditional Jew as represented by a Rabbi Landauer is one of themes Feuchtwanger develops. This theme applies to the contemporary Germany of the period.
I don’t want this essay to be too disjointed but as the past is ever present in the present, for a proper understanding one has to meld the present with the past. Feuchtwanger is well versed in Jewish history and lore. He knows and understands the Jewish program. In Jewish thinking the Jews are always distinct from and superior to the host people. Thus, the Jew Suss Oppenheimer although essentially an employee of the Duke of Wurttemberg, Karl Alexander, he considers himself equal to and indeed preeminent over his employer.
At the end of the story when Suss has put the State into turmoil and the Duke lay dying Suss whispers into his ear, we could have been friends but you felt yourself preeminent when I was superior to you in every way. Together what we may have accomplished with myself representing the aristocracy of money and you as the aristocrat of the soil.
Here Feuchtwanger gives away the Jewish conspiracy. By commandeering the banking system they became not only equal to but superior to the landed nobility. Who has money controls destiny.
Suss was the organizer of modern Jewry, he paved the way for the Rothschilds, ne Bauer, to be the near absolute lords of money beginning only a few year after Suss’ hanging. Of course the Rothschild rise was made possible by the theft of the fortune of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel during Napoleonic times.
As is common knowledge Nathan Rothschild was sent to England to exploit the textile manufacturing industry. According to the current historian Niall Ferguson in his history of the Rothschilds using Rothschild archives, Nathan had a struggle to stay solvent resorting to a variety of devious practices including smuggling. Then the Landgrave entrusted either his fortune or a large part of it to Mayer Rothschild the patriarch of the family who sent substantial sums to Nathan making him a banker and richest stock broker in the City. From there within a very few years the Rothschilds became the lords of money gaining patents of nobility wherever they lived thus realizing Suss’ dream. The Jews had become equal or superior to the European nobility.
In the interim between Suss’ and Feuchtwanger’s time the Jews had taken control of European and American currency through the Central banks, the Federal Reserve System in the United States. Thus, as I interpret it in the sly conclusion of the Jew Suss Feuchtwanger is celebrating what in 1926 looked like the triumph of the Jews over Germany and Euroamerica. Essentially the Stateless Jews were the State from Russia across Europe to the United States. Money had displaced both European nobility and statehood while Europe was in turmoil soon to be virtually destroyed by warfare.
Once again at the risk of confusing the issue it is necessary to go back in time again. This time to 1666 in Europe. As always the Jews were welcome nowhere by host countries. In eleventh century Mesopotamia the Jews had been expelled. The bulk of them migrated to Spain. Then in the thirteenth century they were expelled from England, in the fourteenth century from France and in the fifteenth from Spain. The Spanish migration had been to Africa, the Turkish Empire in the Middle East and increasingly into the Eastern European area that was to be called the Pale of Settlement. They had been banned from the Muscovite land much earlier. The German States now expelling them, letting them back in, banning again, etc.
In the seventeenth century in the extended Polish empire in the Ukraine where they made themselves pests the Ukrainians rebelled against the Poles and their Jewish allies causing mass destructions. The Jews fled in numbers into Germany and Holland carrying their medieval vision of religion with them. This was just prior to the career of Suss and the establishment of Court Jews. Thus the German lands were in turmoil as the Jews struggled to establish themselves.
Becoming increasingly exasperated while blaming their woes on anti-Semitism rather than their own actions a Messiah arose in the seventeenth century Turkic states by the name of Sabbatai Zevi. As the Jewish messiah is preeminently a military redeemer a great buzz of excitement was aroused amongst worldwide Jewry. (The US does not yet figure in world politics). Especially in Europe where the Jews were struggling to find a place.
History knows the Jews as violent brutal revolutionists, a people that nurses grievances and never forgets them. Thus remembering the Amalekites, in the second century the Jews of Alexandria and Rhodes on a signal turned on their unsuspecting neighbors murdering about 250 K in each location committing horrid atrocities. This set off a bloody reprisal in which Rome terminated the Jewish State.
Now in the seventeenth century just as European events were setting the Jews in turmoil Zevi’s messiahship was rising to a climax in 1666, that year was determined as the year of the redemption. Thus as in Rhodes and Alexandria the Jews prepared to turn on their European neighbors murdering them wholesale, a genocide in hopes. This is history and one suspects the history has survived into our times as well as Germany and Europe of the twenties and thirties.
The signal was to have been Zevi declaring the millennium in an audience with the Sultan in Turkey. Instead of declaring himself the Messiah Zevi converted to Moslemism. The revolution fizzled much to the dismay of the Jews. Remember this occurred from say, 1660 to 1680. Suss enjoyed his heyday in the four years from 1730-34 in the eighteenth century. That is a mere fifty years from Zevi’s apostasy. There must have living people who remembered those tumultuous times as Suss grew up. Although Feuchtwanger doesn’t mention it, perhaps even his characters Isaac Landauer and the Rabbi Gabriel.
Nor were those intervening five decades years of repose for the Jews. The disappointment caused a movement toward a whole reorganization of Judaism. On the Western edge of the Pale the Jewish visionary the BaalShemTov created the Hasidic sect that challenged Rabbinic Judaism while a disciple of Zevi, Jacob Frank, created the freak sect of Frankists or Sabbatians whose belief system taught that the Millennium would never come until the Jews had indulged all their evil impulses thus clearing their psyches of nothing but good impulses thus preparing them to receive their redemption.
At the same time the Elders put their heads together to come up with a plan in which the people themselves would be their own messiah renouncing individual messiahs. So that the above was the Jewish background in which Suss arose and flourished. Feuchtwanger was aware of it as there are descriptive references to it.
So, now, Feuchtwanger wrote his story in 1921-2 and published it in 1925. Things in the Jewish world had progressed. As Feuchtwanger describes it in his novel Suss, Landauer and the Rabbi Gabriel have been working to get together the Jewish network from the four corners of Europe. Suss represented the future of an open display of Jewish financial power while Landauer represent the traditional sub rosa power of money. Rabbi Gabriel was a strange one. He was a Jew who migrated to Holland where his prime identity lay but for his networking purposes he went in disguise as Ahasuerus, the Wandering Jew. He actively claimed to be several hundred years old and the actual Jew who insulted Jesus. The disguise amused the gentiles gaining their tolerance as he moved from place to place organizing.
At Suss’ death in 1734 it was only about fifty years to the proclamation of Jewish emancipation by the French Revolution. It was in 1806 that Napoleon overran Hesse-Cassell that the Landgrave made the Bauer/Rothschilds by entrusting his wealth to them. From then to the 1897 Jewish Zionist convention in Vienna was only another ninety years. It was then but sixteen years to 1913.
According to the American Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver the Elders had determined that the years 1913-28 were to be the years of the redemption as the Jewish Revolution at which time the Jews would kill their European neighbors and unlike 115 and 1666 succeed. Six years after the Vienna Zionist convention the first Russian Revolution was attempted but failed. Out of the convention and the first Revolution came the document known as The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion that outlined the Revolution that would succeed in Russia in 1917.
As a result of the European War of 1914-18 Europe was totally devastated and in turmoil. The war that had engulfed Europe from Russian to England had destroyed the flower of European manhood. The aftermath in Central and Eastern Europe consumed even more. Once in power in Russia as Dostoyevsky predicted the Jews began killing the Russians. Of course historians speak of Russian activities against the Jews while ignoring Jewish crimes.
When the news of Jewish atrocities reached Western Europe they became alarmed. The Manchester Morning Post published a book, The World’s Problem that sounded the alarm. The Jews were prepared. It took relatively small effort to discredit the Protocols while having their opponents discredited as anti-Semites.
However, even though the German Communist Revolution failed Jews had thoroughly infiltrated the government while controlling German and international banking and the press while obtaining a significant number of university posts. The Weimar Republic is remembered by Jews as almost realizing the hopes of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer and it is that that Lion Feuchtwanger is celebrating in his novel.
Feuchtwanger, in the Jewish manner, took himself very very seriously. He believed he was a great, perhaps the greatest novelist, while being at the same time a seer or prophet. In an interview of 1930 he asserted positively that things were under control and there would be no revolution in Germany. Of course, in 1933 he learned differently. Just as the Wurttembergers had turned on Suss so in 1933 the Germans turned on the Jewish people. In a way then, Feuchtwanger was a prophet.
In the novel as well as in history Suss assumed the role of the dark, even black, eminence of the Duke Karl Alexander. All his counsels were evil while given on the basis of three for him and one for the Duke. Like Colonel Parker and Elvis the great lion’s share of the money earned by Elvis went into the Colonel’s pocket and the remainder into Elvis’. So with Suss. When Wurttembergers remonstrated with him Suss haughtily informed them they couldn’t hang him higher than the gallows. As it turned out they could. They had a special seldom used gallows thirty feet higher than the usual gallows. Plus Suss was shut into an iron cage in which his body was exposed to the elements for years. He had ably earned that level of hatred by his actions.
So Feuchtwanger pointed the way to the anger of Germany in which having no other recourse the Germans set about systematically exterminating them. A gallows high indeed. But, remember, the years 1913-28 were the years of redemption. Just as the Jews in the immediate years following 1918 slaughtered millions in Russia and Hungary and would have in Germany had the revolution succeeded so the Germans were in peril as a people and it had nothing to do with any holocaust. In 1940 a Jew from Newark, New Jersey, Theodore Kaufmann published a book called Germany Must Die. In it he proposed to castrate all German males, thus Germans would disappear within a generation. Genocide in another word. This notion of castration reappeared in FDR’s talk as it became evident that the Germans would be defeated. The Jews then were no less guilty in intent than the Germans.
Having no territories or armies the Jewish offensive had to be asymmetrical, that is psychological warfare. They had the gifted Sigmund Freud to guide them. Sigmund Freud’s role in guiding the destiny of the Jewish Revolution is suppressed but as my studies advance he assumes a much more central role.
As part of the asymmetrical warfare propaganda, of course, took first place. Psycho-analysis itself was controlled by the Jews, almost a closed club although it had to represent itself as a universal science. A science is universal so that Judaism already active in all countries from the Soviet Union to the Americas enjoying the advantage of the Trojan Horse of Communism also thrust themselves into science as a Trojan Horse perverting scientific disciplines into subjective Jewish propaganda.
Already in control of the print media in the Pan-Judaic superstate of Europe and America either by direct ownership or psychological control through the charge of anti-Semitism it only remained to gain control of emerging technologies such as movies and radio. This was easily accomplished, the theater and movies certainly began as Jewish monopolies which, at least in the US, all radio networks were in their control from the beginning.
Thus by the twenties the Jews were in a position to direct the social and intellectual mores of society. One no longer hears mores discussed as they once were even though mores control society even more than laws. For instance there was no law against criticizing Jews, one can’t be punished for criticizing Jews in Court while Jews have established as a more that criticism of Jews is an unforgivable social faux pas so that any individual will be ostracized by his own people, blacklisted, deprived of employment having his entire future ruined. A penalty no Court could inflict. People have lost careers amounting to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars by the single accusation, that is accusation, no proof or trial required, and with no recourse to law. Simple mechanics, street sweepers, had been rendered unemployable for life.
Using this immunity from criticism the Jews began an attack on the mores of the people of Pan-Judea. They began defaming the heroes of the various cultures defaming them into ridiculous caricatures. In the US the character of Thomas Jefferson, for instance, has been demolished, Washington also. Having gotten the wedge in the whole of the American past has been reduced to one huge crime for which living White people are held wholly responsible and must be punished.
At the same time the media elevated insignificant Jews to positions of not only importance but extreme virtue. It matters not that they were important out of all proportion in the slave trade or as slave owners. They were Jews and all their crimes could be justified.
Thus when Feuchtwanger’s Jud Suss appeared in 1925 alert Germans immediately recognized its import, its attack on Germans and German mores.
While I am not familiar with the whole body of European Jewish writing it was also at this time that Emil Ludwig began writing derogatory biographies of Bismarck and Napoleon that drew the ire of European readers. Feuchtwanger himself continued his sarcastic derogatory style in his next novel of 1930, Success, that ridiculed and mocked the society of his native Munich in much the same manner as Jud Suss. He displayed a contempt for European mores much as his contemporary Sigmund Freud was doing in his psychological treatises. In films, the two Dr. Mabuse movies of Fritz Lang are worth noting. I am unfamiliar with US and French efforts but in the US Gustavus Myers was turning out a long series of books denigrating American mores and customs from finance to the Supreme Court finally ending his career in 1942 with his History Of Bigotry In The United States.
So from the Soviet Union West to the Americas the asymmetrical war on the West was being very successfully waged. The back of Western confidence and self-respect was broken. In the great German book burning in which Jewish texts were destroyed Feuchtwanger’s earned prominence.
The war accelerated when the Nazis Party gained power in 1933. Perhaps in support of that event Feuchtwanger began the movie script for Jud Suss that was released in that year in England under the title Jew Suss and in the US under the title Power. Closely adhering to the book the movie was a vicious propaganda piece.
A number of propaganda movies celebrating Judaism in the lead up to the attempted Jewish seizure of power were such films as Erlich’s Magic Bullet, The Rothschilds, The Story Of Emile Zola and several B level anti-Nazi movies of the late thirties and early forties. The chief irritant to the Nazis after Jud Suss was the US production of The Rothschilds. While nearly everything noted here is currently available American The Rothschilds is not. The movie apparently covered the Napoleonic period involving the Rothschild shipment of gold through France to aid Wellington in the Peninsular War.
When the Germans got around to answering these two propaganda films in the early forties with their own propaganda versions they were demeaned as, naturally, anti-Semitic. The directors of the German Rothschild film covering the same events of the Jewish version was vilified after the war and the vilification continues to today. The vilification of Veit Harlan, the director of this brilliant film, is carried to extremes although perhaps a tribute to his skill.
The Napoleonic episode is apparently still sensitive to the Rothschild family since the massive biography by Niall Ferguson only reaches to 1905 then pussy foots around the incident. After pages of verbiage Ferguson refuses to come to any definite conclusion and he was given access to the family records and papers.
As these two films are key to Jewish the war I will attempt to deal with them in extenso.
The Jewish versions appeared first. The Jew Suss was released simultaneously in England under that title and in the US titled Power. The Rothschilds was released in the US under that name in 1934; whether it was distributed in England I don’t know but suspect so. It must be remembered that the Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 so that these two films have to be seen as acts of war, part of an extensive ongoing campaign. For instance in 1937 the Dreyfus Affair in France of the 1890s was revived in the US film The Life Of Emile Zola. Zola was a French novelist who championed the cause of Dreyfus. Alfred Dreyfus was a Jew serving as a French military officer. He was tried and found guilty of spying. He was certainly guilty although probably not for spying for the Germans. Like Johnathan Pollard in the US he was turning documents over to his fellow Jews. He spent a number of years on Devil’s Island until with the help of Zola his conviction was overturned. The affair was a serious issue that convulsed France and apparently still does as Roman Polanski is scheduled to direct another film sometime soon. Apparently along with slavery we should all feel guilty of the indignity that Dreyfus suffered even though he was guilty.
For the Germans the two most galling films were Jud Suss and the Rothschilds. They answered the former in 1940 and the latter in 1943. As films both are superior to the Jewish versions although my opinion will be objected to as anti-Semitic, but facts are facts. The English-American Jew Suss was written by Feuchtwanger thus closely following the outline of his book. The German film presents the story from the perspective of the Germans who were afflicted with Suss’ policies.
Both films follow the general outlines of Suss’ actions and policies. There is no real conflict between the two versions. In both, as well as in fact, the Duke Karl Alexander gave Suss what seems to be in our terms a Power of Attorney giving him the full authority of the Duke to do as he pleased. His will was the Duke’s will. Seems rather extraordinary that a ruler would give such a thing but there you have it. It is an inexplicable action of the Duke. One can even imagine it as his essential abdication. Certainly the Power Of Attorney gave him the right to depose the Duke.
In any case the Money Power as represented by Suss was placed in a superior position over the temporal power of the Duke.
After the Duke’s death this presented a legal problem for the Wurttembergers because in fact Suss was acting in the Duke’s name. Thus Suss was absolved of all responsibility. Unlike Feuchtwanger’s two versions, book and movie, in the German version the Wurttembergers were driven into open rebellion. In the German version there is no indication that the Duke was murdered by Suss but the Duke had some strange degeneration losing his will. He surrendered his own will to Suss while the Duke’s wife and his advisors all seem to have been accomplices of Suss. Perhaps he was a master hypnotist or else how explain it. At the end of the German version the Duke is a drunk who when confronted by the rebels flies into a rage and has a stroke or heart attack. Goes apoplectic as they used to say.
With his death Suss’ Power of Attorney loses its validity. He is arrested and tried. As stated, legally he was acting as the will of the Duke having no personal responsibility. It is interesting to note though that German soldiers under orders, therefore having no will of their own, were held responsible by the Jews for following orders in the camps. The law is the law until it isn’t.
The German problem then is that they are bound by the rule of law and cannot violate it so as they ponder it appears that Suss must go free.
However there is a law on the books making it illegal for a Jews to have intercourse with a German girl. While in the book and Feuchtwanger’s movie Suss had mingled with many German women including the Duke’s wife in the German version he violates the daughter of the Privy Counselor the girl then drowning herself. The law is the law and the penalty is death. The Privy Counselor gets his due back (law is not vengeance) by exacting the prescribed death penalty.
In Feuchtwanger’s versions Suss’ daughter committed suicide to escape the attentions of the Duke. Thus the Germans neatly reverse the situation.
Now, the German version released in 1940 was roundly condemned by the Jews as ragingly anti-Semitic; this is strange as neither the Jewish or German versions contest the facts of Suss’ activities. The Jews happily admit Suss’ crimes.
Both movies were released before there was a hint of a holocaust so one is at a loss to explain the Jewish sensitivity, especially so as in the US in 1940 the book The Germans Must Die by Theodore Kaufmann called for the genocide of Germans. The Germans were thoroughly outraged by the book and its positive reception in the US causing Goebbels to exclaim that the Germans would see who died first. Perhaps the seeds of the holocaust were planted in German minds at that time.
Jud Suss then, was the reply to the English/American production of Jew Suss. That left the equally galling movie from the German viewpoint of The Rothschilds to answer; this was done in 1943 when the Germans replied in kind dealing with the transport of gold to Wellington in Spain during the Peninsular War against Napoleon. The event has been kept shrouded in mystery so the Jewish guilt must be enormous.
As noted the American film to which the Germans were responding is being kept off the market as of 10/12/16 so the only conclusion is that even by Jewish standards the incident is indefensible. We will have to infer from the German film.
As there may be readers who are not familiar with the historical account it may be appropriate to give that briefly.
When Suss had organized the Jews into a functioning unit, the ‘united’ Jews continued to develop along with the emerging new money based economy of Europe. Excluded from the old land based wealth the Jews were uniquely positioned to seize the money based economy.
As is shown in the German Rothschild film the peasantry and even the nobility had little familiarity with numbers and were easily bamboozled by fast talking Jews who had been usurers for centuries. This is demonstrated in both the Jewish and German versions.
The French Revolution occurred forty-nine years after Suss’ death freeing the Jews from medieval restrictions; this was called the emancipation. The Europeans expected the Jews to abandon their parochial ways and become one people with the Europeans.
As Feuchtwanger said the Jews expected to become a sovereign entity as the Lords of Cash.
There were hurdles before them but they were swept aside when Napoleon in 1806 annexed the German principality of Hesse-Cassell. The Landgrave of Hesse-Cassell had amassed the largest fortune in Europe by renting out his male subjects as soldiers to other States. In the book Suss’ advises Duke Karl to hire soldiers to suppress the Duke’s subjects. These most likely would have come from Hesse-Cassell.
The Landgrave then used the receipts to loan money to the other States and people amassing mortgages all over Europe. Napoleon wanted the money; to avoid his getting it the Landgrave enlisted the aid of his Court Jew, Mayer Rothschild ne Bauer who secreted the fortune. Some believe the Landgrave entrusted the whole of his fortune to Rothschild. Niall Ferguson in his history is ambiguous waltzing around the issue.
In the German movie the Landgrave entrusts Rothschild with 650K in negotiable bills. Changing the issues from the Landgrave to the English Jew Montifiore Mayer sent them to his son Nathan who was stationed in England.
A few years earlier Mayer had sent his ‘five arrows’ of legend to various capitals: Nathan to England, James to Paris and the three others to Berlin, Vienna and Naples.
Nathan began in the textile business in Manchester which apparently was too hard for him so he resorted to the criminal means of smuggling and other subterfuges. The smuggling experience would stand him in good stead. Nathan had also positioned himself in the City. The London district known as the City is equivalent to Wall Street in the US.
When Napoleon invaded Spain the English countered by sending Wellington and an army to Spain to counter the invasion. Operating from England the provisioning of the army was difficult. To fund Wellington it was necessary to send gold. The sea route was considered too precarious so an overland route was deemed necessary. Overland meant passing through Napoleon’s citadel of France.
England was short of gold but a shipment arrived from India that was sold at auction. The English financiers were a sort of cartel so they expected to obtain the gold. However with the 650K in paper securities from his father (according to the German film) Nathan was in a position to outbid the cartel which he did.
He then had the only gold available to send to Wellington. He agreed to do this for a handsome fee. Napoleon who was retreating from Russia was defeated and sent to Elbe. From there he would soon return to France assemble an army and meet Wellington at Waterloo.
This was a second opportunity for the Rothschilds that far surpassed the gold purchase and its transport to Spain. This stunt would be worth in excess of ten million pounds making the Rothschilds the wealthiest family in Europe while setting the stage for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The price of government securities in England would depend on the results of Waterloo. A loss, stocks down, a win stocks up. A window of opportunity would exist between the time of the outcome and the time the news reached England. No phones, no telegraph, no internet. Nathan Rothschild saw his chance to cheat the people of England and he took it. He had his agents at Waterloo to record the outcome, some say he used passenger pigeons, some say not. In any event his agents got the news of Napoleon’s defeat to him first. Nathan created a panic by circulating the story that Wellington had been defeated. Then when prices were at their lowest, apparently fire sale prices, he bought as much as he could. When the news of victory arrived it was too late for the cartel. Nathan had become the richest man in England.
Perhaps that is why as of 11/5/16 the US version of the Rothschilds is unavailable. The facts coincide with the German version too closely. In any event if the US version is released you may be sure it will be heavily edited, quite unlike the original.
Of course the cry is that the German versions of both movies are anti-Semitic rather than historical. At least in the case of the Rothschilds the facts are incontrovertible. The smuggling of the gold through France was actually known by the French authorities at the time. The police under the direction of Fouche were not fools. Fouche himself is credited as being brilliant. Nor are German historians fools. They are more than competent. Before the two world wars German universities were considered tops in the world. German scholars stood out as the most brilliant stars in the firmament. German music and literature was unsurpassed.
Beginning with the Weimar Republic and Jewish dominance standards slipped while German hatred in the West led by the Jews libeled everything Germans did. The point being there is no reason to doubt the scholarship on which the German Rothschild film is based. The Germans are speaking from intimate knowledge of the Jews as indeed the controversy from Suss to 1950 indicates. You need only to read Jewish-German literature to see the contempt with which Jews treat the Germans. But if you control the propaganda as the Jews do, black may be made white and vice versa.
Hitler in his Mein Kampf clearly delineates the problem. As he wrote, that if he and the Volkists failed their heads would roll in the sand. This prediction was proven in the years following the defeat. The war did not end with the allied victory but continued to rage one sidedly over the prostrate Germany for at least five years.
During 1943 the year the German Rothschild was released the extermination of the Jews was reaching maximum efficiency. Now, we must take the Jewish threat to exterminate the Germans through castration seriously. Had FDR not died in ’45 before hostilities ceased it is quite possible he might have ordered such an action. He was surrounded by Jewish advisors who certainly would have encouraged him most notably his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., who had already usurped significant Executive powers not unlike Suss himself from the Duke.
To put the matter into perspective then, the German extermination of the Jews may be seen as a preemptive strike. The Jews have always favored preemptive strikes. So while in 1943 the Germans had the upper hand a short time later the Jews would gain the upper hand over a completely bombed over destroyed Germany flattened by tens of thousands of bomb raids.
Fortunately there were saner heads in Washington who were aghast at the lunacy of what was now the Morgenthau plan, Kaufmann having been forgotten. Thus, when Truman replaced FDR Morgenthau found he could no longer give orders to him as he could FDR. When Morgenthau haughtily told Truman the he would do what Morgenthau said or Morgenthau would quit Truman merely held his hand out to accept the resignation. At that point a great deal of the Jewish influence prominent under FDR evaporated.
But the Jewish influence had been cultivated since 1933 and was so embedded that its actions persisted. As is not too well known Bernard Baruch, an arch-Jewish villain in this period, had cultivated his acquaintance with Eisenhower from the days of the Bonus March in 1934. Eisenhower revered Baruch saying he had sat at his feet for twenty-six years while considering him the wisest man he knew. The influence was so incredibly effective that Eisenhower initially ordered the extermination of the surrendered German troops. During the winter of 1946 one of the coldest on record he left entire German armies in the open with no cover and the scantiest of rations. He ordered that any German civilian who tried to pass food through the fence be shot dead.
The allies also perpetrated enormous crimes against the German people. The French and Americans turned hordes of African troops and American Negroes loose to rape German women at will, not unlike Mama Merkel and the Moslems today. The French took tens of thousands of German troops as slave labor and worked them to death.
Perhaps you say the Germans did the same but even if they did were we, the children of light, that kind of people? Well, yes we were although it was never reported in the papers. I grew up believing Americans were sainted people who went into battle with a holy fervor bearing the banner of a righteous Lord before us. I grew up believing no American soldier would commit an act of injustice or cruelty. I was lied to.
The truth has taken decades to reach me. I should have known better because as great or greater crimes have been committed on American soil by Americans. I was raised to believe that Sherman’s March from Atlanta to the Sea was a great military feat. The actions of General Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley or the evacuation of half a dozen counties around Kansas City were never mentioned but all three were horrendous crimes. General Grant’s demand for an unconditional surrender was just that, a turning over of American minds and bodies to do with as the North liked; hence the horrors of Reconstruction. The Southern Whites were essentially reduced to slavery. We are that kind of people.
Thus when Roosevelt demanded unconditional surrender from the Germans it was his intent to murder the entire nation if he chose; we are that kind of people.
Despite Obama’s assurances to the contrary he himself has declared opposition to his rule to come from Domestic Terrorists, his acolyte, Hillary Clinton has disparaged dissidents as a Basket of Deplorables, really having no right to exist. Sorry, Barry, we are that kind of people. Opposition to them is irredeemably bad. The Jew, Noel Ignatiev, and various Negro leaders have demanded the extermination of the White race; therefore setting the staging in place for the extermination of half of the White population. We are that kind of people. We’ve done it before.
The slaughter of Germans by the allies and Soviets in the East, US, Brits and French in the West was incredible, far exceeding any German war crimes. The post-war assault was led by the Jews. While a small percentage of the allied peoples, the so-called war crimes trials were staffed disproportionately with Jews. Even though the Jews first declared war against the Germans, and even though the Jews first called for the extermination of the Germans backed by the full power of the Soviet Union and the US, France and England, as in WWI the Germans were declared the aggressor nation.
Even though the Jews were murdering their so-called British allies throughout the Middle East at the exact same time the war crimes trials were held, even though the Jews in the US sent out teams of man-hunters to track down innocent men and women they deemed anti-Semites in an extra-legal manner the Jews called themselves the victims.
Even though the Jews were punishing Germans they set their man-hunters to punish the US for the ‘crime against humanity’ of not demanding a cessation of hostilities until the entire Jewish population of Europe had been removed from the hostilities to the safety of the US. Their determination to exterminate Whites today is based on this perceived injustice.
As unremitting as ever the Jews deeply resented the German version of the Jud Suss movie. The key Germans were tried and found guilty, some committed suicide, some were hanged outright, somewhat reminiscently of Suss, while some were subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. The children of the German leaders were treated like animals deprived of all humanity, they were not allowed education or the right to live their lives.
Over the decades Jewish man-hunters tracked down totally insignificant German soldiers to be imprisoned or killed by judicial murders. The man-hunters violated all international law and the rights of countries such as Argentina professing themselves to be a holy people above human laws.
Veit Harlan, the director of the superb film Jud Suss was deprived of work and hounded from pillar to post. He had committed no crime for which he could be tried or convicted. The movie Jud Suss was a historical film based on real incidents, in its general outline it differed in no substantial way from the Jews’ own version. History is history and cannot be denied. The Jewish version lauded Suss as a great Jewish hero; the German version condemned him as a great criminal. There was no anti-Semitism so -called.
The Jews merely consider it a crime to criticize them in any way. It is time for the dead past to bury its dead. It is time for the Jews to leave their so-called grievances behind. There are no innocents. The Jews are their own problem. They merit no special handling.
Is There An Anti-Democratic Movement In The US
October 28, 2016
Is There An Anti-Democratic
Movement In The US?
by
R.E. Prindle
https://newrepublic.com/article/138019/right-giving-democracy
My attention was drawn to the above linked article by a Facebook colleague, Michael Sellers. Michael is a Liberal and viewed the article differently than myself who am a historical researcher and hence have no interest in political labels as such. I try to rise above current disputes to put them into a larger or macro historical context. As President Obama says of himself: when they go low I go high.
Thus the article of 10/24/16 by one Jeet Heer entitled The Right Is Giving Up On Democracy seemed to me to be analyzable in a macro context; that is Global rather than parochial. That involves the current problem of the transfers of populations from one area of the globe to another. This usually means from outside Euroamerica to European and North American countries.
As Euroamerica is the gold standard for advanced cultures the migrants come from less developed countries and often from medieval or even primitive cultures centuries behind in modern knowledges. While these migrants appear to adapt to the advanced culture of Euroamerica it is but doubtful they can understand it.
Such is the case with Jeet Heer who wrote the article under consideration. While biographical information is difficult to obtain about Mr. Heer he came from Southern India. He now resides in the Canadian Province of Manitoba, Canada. Whether Mr. Heet was born in Canada or arrived in North America as a young child isn’t clear. At any rate his parents are native to India. Why they chose to leave that beautiful warm country for cold and desolate Canada seems inscrutable but apparently they were dissatisfied with that ancient and lovely culture. Perhaps India wasn’t diverse enough, so they chose to live in the multi-cultural West.
As any trans-national migrant knows, or should know, the transition from being an Indian to an English speaking Canadian would be difficult. However as India was tutored by England over a period of centuries that has melded to some extent Indian and English mores and customs perhaps the Heet family foresaw fewer problems than they experienced. In any event as Mr. Heet says they brought the whole extended Heet family after them.
As the Americas were settled by peoples from outside the continent a certain attitude developed toward immigrants that favors new migrants over older migrants; that is new migrants are allowed to dispossess older migrants in much the same way that the exogenous peoples originally dispossessed the indigenous peoples.
It is no surprise then that Mr. Heet was been made senior editor of the US Communist magazine The New Republic while older migrants perhaps more qualified were passed over. While, from reading Mr. Heet’s work, I am sure there must be more qualified people from an earlier wave of migrants who understand that strange beast, the American psyche, better. I must believe that Mr. Heet is unqualified for the position he enjoys, I don’t see the necessary acumen.
Mr. Heet titles his article: The Right Is Giving Up On Democracy. He does this without realizing the Left’s definition of democracy. He apparently thinks theirs is the only definition while there are many others. In mid-twentieth century US democracy was understood to mean that class distinctions had a minimal effect on any and individual’s right to achieve whatever his abilities permitted. At the three quarter point of the century the Liberal reinterpretation of democracy began to replace the traditional idea.
Democracy since that point has been interpreted to mean that collectives have rights to extort whatever they can to dominate society disregarding individual rights. Each collective is supposed to have a right to a proportional representation regardless of individual ability that displaces merit. Thus the lesser able or qualified displace the meritorious. For instance, since women constitute roughly 50% of the population it is thought right that 50% of all, say, executives must be women regardless of merit if they are not then democracy is being violated. Racially it is thought that executives must ‘look like’ the population. That is the colored should displace whites regardless of merit. No tests of ability are permitted because that might be discriminatory. Thus the best will be shunted aside to satisfy ideology. That seems to be how Mr. Heet got his job.
So, he says the right is giving up on democracy, but the Left abandoned democracy long ago. Apparently Mr. Heet cannot recognize that the Leftist president, Barack Obama created an authoritarian dictatorship eight years ago. Obama has rigged the system. He assumes the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial in himself. He was in the process of appointing stooges to the Supreme Court who wouldn’t challenge his preemption of Congress by issuing executive orders because the ‘emergency’ of the moment required it. The Left calls this democracy.
It is no wonder then that the Right realizing that democracy had been aborted began searching for an alternative. Catching this sets Mr. Heet off on his rant. He follows the Leftist rhetoric. Naturally he builds his case on a rejection of his scapegoat Trump. Because in the Third Debate in a provocative question from the Jewish moderator, Chris Wallace, who demanded irrelevantly of Trump whether, as I understood it, Trump would contest the count if it went against him. Trump’s answer was a reasonable, we’ll wait and see. Mr. Heet interpreted the question and answer to mean Trump would lead an armed uprising, hence giving up on democracy.
It was of course a set up question as Hillary answered decidedly Yes. But, of course, if your party were rigging the election in your favor who wouldn’t.
Trump’s answer then prompted Mr. Heet to come to the startling conclusion: ‘As always with Trump the temptation is to interpret this apostasy through the lens of individual psychology.’ [By ‘apostasy’ I presume Mr. Heet means from democracy as though democracy were a religion.]
Heet continues: This diagnosis is easy enough: By discounting the election results beforehand, Trump was preemptively assuming the role of a sore loser, exhibiting an irresponsible peevishness all too characteristic of his runaway narcissism and his sexism….
Whew! He’s got the words but not the rhythm. Sexism? What’s that? Aren’t homosexuals and lesbians sexist by their very nature? Isn’t feminism sexist for the same reason? Aren’t those groups aggressive in their sexism? Are not they narcissistic by definition? You see how Mr. Heet undermines his own argument.
And then…Mr. Heet slams half the country, dividing it into two camps …’and bringing the yahoos of the Republican base along with him.’ The left has a lot of defamatory names for those who disagree with them. Defamation is their mode of argument. Obama called us Domestic Terrorists among many others, racists. Knuckle draggers, that is, I presume, gorillas (gorilla is a racist word in the US, ape, monkey) but the Left don’t pay no mind unless it is used against them.
Then comes another unwarranted assumption: ‘Yet such a personalized account of Trump’s behavior has the effect of letting his political party and supporters off the hook. Not just for supporting him but for sharing his grim view of American democracy.’
Can Mr. Heet support such inflammatory opinions, for that is all they are. I don’t think he has accurately represented me in his blanket condemnation of Trump supporters. But Mr. Heet is just getting started. I’m just hitting the high spots now. Nearly every sentence is wildly wide of the mark.
After excoriating Trump in his first couple pages or four or five hundred words Mr. Heet then turns to the matter of his article’s title, that of the right giving up on democracy. Which of many versions of democracy he doesn’t say but one presumes all democracy but more especially the ‘our’ democracy of the Left.
He does however provide a reason for the Right’s giving up on democracy, he says: ‘Beyond this election, beyond even the fate of the Republican Party, there is a significant minority of Americans who are giving up on democracy because it doesn’t serve their purpose of upholding a white Christian patriarchy.’
If one dissects this sentence one quickly discerns that what we have here is a religious fear. Mr. Heet isolates the religious fear of democracy as a White Christian matter. This begs the question of the fear of democracy of other religions. How exclusive is this fear to Christianity? Certainly the Semitic religions are consumed by fear of democracy they being in essence authoritarian in nature. Does Mr. Heet think that Moslemism is democratic in its beliefs? Surely, he jests. There is no more authoritarian patriarchal religion and government than Moslemism. Has Mr. Heet never heard of ISIS? Need I say more? Nor is the Judaic religion any more democratic than Moslemism. Judaism is the father of Moslemism.
We have no way of knowing whether Mr. Heet is Moslem or Hindu but need I remind Mr. Heet that Hinduism is a caste society where neither equality or democracy has been known for millennia. Mr. Heet must know all this so that isolating Christianity as paternalistic and undemocratic is sheer and total bigotry. Therefore we are right to treat Mr. Heet himself as an unbalanced bigot.
How then ae we to treat Mr. Heet’s ridiculous statement: ‘Trump’s anti-democratic rhetoric- and the eagerness of so many good white patriotic Americans to cheer it and believe it- as a symptom of the larger trend on the political right toward doubting the legitimacy of the American system. The question that we need to be asking isn’t, “Why is Trump being such a jerk?” It’s why is the American Right giving up on democracy?’
Why indeed? Could it be that anti-democratic forces such as the Moslems, the Jews and Negroes have very nearly subverted democracy itself making its maintenance impossible in a multi-cultural environment in which so many of those cultures have no tradition of democracy, don’t understand it and see no reason to maintain it.
While fashionably inveighing against authoritarian government that is the very form of government they wish to impose making themselves the supreme law giving culture. Thus we have the Moslem wish to impose Sharia law in the West, the Jewish wish to impose Jewish law, the Negro wish to impose African supremacy and so on. The chorus of all is that Whites have to submit to their particular mores, laws and culture. Whites simply cannot exist.
Mr. Heet must know this and our Mike Sellers ought to know this. Please abandon the hypocrisy. Democracy is over, murdered by the very people appearing to laud it. Today it is culture against culture, all against one and one against all.
Whites should bloc vote for Trump; it is every culture for itself. Vote Trump or get on your knees.
A Beatles Fantasia: John Lennon In Leather
September 25, 2016
A Beatles Fantasia:
John Lennon In Leather
R. E. Prindle
December 1961: Singer, guitarist and songwriter John Lennon (1940 – 1980) of the British group The Beatles live on stage at the Cavern Club in Matthew Street, Liverpool. (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)
Dizzy Dez, a fellow Beatles researcher and internet friend, recently wrote a piece ( https://thenumbernineblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/taking-the-world-by-hurricane/ ) about the strange story of Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Rory Storm led the most popular Liverpool band of the period. He was more important in Liverpool and Frankfurt than the Beatles. Yet, as Diz points out, when all the shouting was over and the dust had settled, the Beatles went unto worldwide fame pulling the best of the Liverpool bands after them, Rory Storm was left out in the cold. He never knew other than Liverpool success.
Just an inconsequential odd fact (except to Rory) that I found interesting but also significant. It was good of Diz to dig this story up, but then, Diz left me with a thought: What if the Beatles’ success had nothing to do with their talent; what if the only reason they found success was a fact that had nothing to do with their musical skills; what if their success depended on a queer’s fascination with one John Lennon?
Consider that Liverpool was an English backwater, a tough , gritty town with little sophistication and small hopes. If you have ever been in the Liverpool/Bristol area you really know what depression is. I was never so happy to leave an area since. I had become acquainted with a bottom surpassing Philadelphia and that is saying a lot.
So, in 1960-62 what you had was a city full of louts, what the English call Yobboes, desperately trying to find some distinction for their lives by playing in rock bands. In 1960 that was a desperate hope indeed. The hope was so desperate that the bands ended up playing before a bunch of rowdies and prostitutes, the underbelly of civilization, in Hamburg’s red light district on the Reeperbahn. Not the place for refined cultured manners. More like changing you from a lout or Yobbo into a super Yobbo. The indications are that the Beatles became very rough. What the homosexuals call ‘rough trade.’
In any event the Beatles went to Hamburg where they refined their rock n’ roll skills coming back to Liverpool to take their place in the hierarchy of Liverpool bands where they were a sensation although lower in the hierarchy than Rory Storm and his Hurricanes. Still in their locality and in their age and social set they were prominent.
Now, the local record store, NEMS, was managed for the family firm by a young homosexual Jew, Brian Epstein. At the time it was a punishable offence to public morals to be a homosexual so Brian Epstein was quite repressed. Raised on all the Jewish holocaust nonsense he felt like a powerless oppressed Jew. Therefore as a homosexual Jew he favored the rough trade.
Probably having heard the Beatles talked about along their outrageous leader John Lennon, dressed all in black leather, Brian made it down to the local rock emporium, the Cavern, to have a look.
What he saw made his dick throb. There on stage was God’s own Yobbo, John Lennon resplendent in his leather while projecting confidence and totally outrageous. Rough trade on a stick. Gimme dat ding. So, totally smitten Brian has to figure out a way to realize his dream.
It is clear that Brian wasn’t on the make to find a band to promote; for Christ’s sake he had a city full of rock bands to choose from including Liverpool’s number one, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes and he made no effort to sign any. But, suppose he heard of Lennon’s desire to be the toppermost of the poppermost. Perhaps, Brian thought, I’m in the record business, I know execs at the London labels, perhaps if I gave John what he wants he would let me make him mine. Sounded good.
Now, let’s be clear, when Brian approached the London labels there was no interest in the Beatles or any other Liverpool band. There was no reason for any exec to ever even visit Liverpool and perhaps none ever had. Regardless of any talent, that had not yet been demonstrated, the Beatles were not going anywhere. The execs even considered the name stupid; what in the hell does beatle mean? Can’t even spell it right. Brian persisted and if he hadn’t the Beatles would never have had a shot at the bigtime. They would have disappeared the way they came in, unnoticed. The Beatles were going nowhere.
But, and this is the important fact here, Brian had a hard on for John. Bear this in mind, Brian had a tin ear, he could have cared less about the Beatles as a band; he had a hard on for John. And hopefully by making John the toppermost of the poppermost, and this meant only the small market of England, it was inconceivable that any band, let alone an English band, could become a worldwide phenomenon. Whatever happened next was totally serendipitous. Who could have dreamed of worldwide fame and hundreds of millions of dollars.
So Brian signed his Boys, as they say in the managerial parlance, and left for London to put them in a recording contract. Of course NEMS was a major account in the retail record world so Brian got a polite hearing but no real enthusiasm. Probably to get rid of a pest who wouldn’t quit he was allowed an audition. But this was only after making the rounds.
The Beatle’s ended up at EMI’s sub-label Parlophone and had George Martin assigned to them as a producer. While the Beatles had been all the rage on the Reeperbahn of ill fame and the backwater burg of Liverpool, what set the four aflame in those two locations was not so evident in the London recording studio. It was like someone from Poughkeepsie showing up on the Great White Way. George Martin found their musicianship flimsy but something apparently appealed to him about them. Everything about them was off, they still had the aroma of the Reeperbahn, but, the story goes, George was a technical wizard, so somewhat in the way David Seville created Alvin and the Chipmunks George’s wizardry created the Beatles. This is the legend.
The label thought they were hopeless so perhaps as a joke they allowed the Beatles to make ‘I Want To Hold Your Hand’ as a first record. And as with Alvin and the Chipmunks they probably viewed the disc as a novelty record; something along the lines of Mrs. Miller the off key virtuoso.
They were surprised when the record took off. No less surprised than I was when the record was a success in the US. Why the hell does anyone like that I wondered. But I and we were witnessing several seemingly unrelated things: First the song was the first true teenybopper, bubble gum song that soon inspired groups like the Ohio Express and the Lemon Pipers. ‘Yummy, yummy, yummy, I’ve got love in my tummy.’ Remember that inspired tune? A step up from, I Want To Hold Your Hand.
The social conditions were right for the Beatles innocent, probably tongue in cheek, song. The Fifties had been tense what with the Cold War and the Bomb and things were getting more tense. Nerves were frayed. Perhaps a return to innocent pleasures of the young were in order. At any rate after becoming the rage in England Brian had actually jockeyed the Beatles and John into the toppermost of the poppermost in that small sceptered island but after a terrific promo campaign in the US when their plane landed, they hit exactly the right insouciant note at the exact right psychological moment in time. You can’t plan this. Nobody, nobody, could have forecast that. Brian and the Beatle’s ship had come in.
John Lennon had realized his dream in a Spade Royal Flush. The Beatles, words fail me, were on top of the world. The planet’s first globally successful band. They were bigger than Jesus. Oops, when John said that all hell broke loose. Abashed, John announced they would tour no more. When it came to business sense John was lacking but he and the band were only musicians, a ‘hot little band’ as McCartney recently characterized them.
But what about Brian?’ What about Brians’s reward. He had little business sense too and hadn’t been working for the success that came or was prepared for it. Of course John and the rest knew Brian was a poof. Who didn’t except for those who chose not to see. Brian had always been attentive to John in that peculiar way, certainly that hadn’t escaped he leader of the band. He joked about how Brian and the whole record industry was Jewish and queer.
According to Peter Brown in his ‘The Love You Make: An Insider’s Story Of The Beatles’, Brian did get his reward. Brown says that Brian invited John on a holiday in Spain and there John gave him the reward he wanted.
What if the story of the Beatles success had nothing to do with their musicianship, their songwriting, their personalities or anything else but Brian Epstein getting a hard on for a bit of rough trade: John Lennon in leather.
Wouldn’t that make a fabulous movie? Wouldn’t that be as ironical as all get out? It might not be literally true but it can’t be too far from the truth. Forget about poor old Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, history’s forgotten band. Once again, what a movie.
Opening A Case For The Reexamination
Of The History Of The Twenties And Thirties
by
R.E. Prindle
No period of US history, or world history for that matter, is more misunderstood than the nineteen twenties and thirties. Some reevaluation is beginning to appear but much remains to be done.
In the following two essays I attempt a more accurate understanding of the squabble between the Jews and Henry Ford. You may be shocked, yes, shocked to find that Ford was not in the wrong nor was he an anti-Semitic demon. This is really interesting stuff.
https://idynamo.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/henry-ford-and-the-international-jewish-conspiracy/
http://reuprindle.blogspot.com/2013/11/henry-ford-and-aaron-sapiro-case.htm
https://contemporarynotes.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/part-ii-henry-ford-and-the-aaron-sapiro-case/
https://idynamo.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/part-iii-henry-ford-and-the-aaron-sapiro-case/
https://contemporarynotes.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/part-iv-henry-ford-and-the-aaron-sapiro-case
https://idynamo.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/part-v-henry-ford-and-the-aaron-sapiro-case/
https://idynamo.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/part-vi-henry-ford-and-the-aaron-sapiro-case/
https://idynamo.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/part-viii-henry-ford-and-the-aaron-sapiro-case/
I, Dynamo 