I, Dynamo

Locating The Garden Of Eden

by

R.E. Prindle

Now comes a knotty problem  that I have to deal with, that of the mythical Garden of Eden.  The Garden is a problem propounded by the Jews in the first book of their mythology, Genesis.  The Jews threw all Western civilization askew when they succeeded in making the mythology a ‘historical’ standard that has survived for well over two thousand years.  Today in the United States well over half the population believes the Garden of Eden myth history.

I think it likely that the notion of an early paradise was based on fact by the Sumerians who passed the quasi-historical story on to the invading Semites who adopted Sumerian myth and history as their own as they had none.

While we were all led to believe that prior to what we call recorded history all mankind was dumb and stupid while the early historians were thick and didn’t have any idea of what they were talking about this isn’t so.  History began, according to textbooks, in about 3500 BC in either Egypt or Mesopotamia, that is with the Sumerians who occupied lower Mesopotamia, that is at the then mouth of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers.  Mesopotamia means- between two rivers.  The two rivers will be important in my conjecture.

In point of fact the Egyptians and Mesopotamians had memories that went back hundreds of thousands of years.  They were aware of the Great Year.  The Great Year has a cycle of about 2600 years.  Thus, when  the North Pole aligns with the star Polaris the summer of the Great Year is in progress and will remain so for about four thousand years.  We are currently one degree beyond Polaris so the Great Year summer is just beginning and will last 4000 years.

Thirteen thousand years from now when the North Pole aligns with the star Vega, the depths of Winter will be on the planet thus, an Ice Age.  There have been at least three interglacial summers.  These long cycles are caused by the Plane of the Ecliptic, that is, the planet is not upright in its relation to the Sun but tips over at an angle of about 23 degrees.  Thus, the Sun is vertical at the equator one day of the year further West each year. That is called the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Our Ancient ancestors observed and recognized this and as the Solar Year follows the exact same process and was divided into twelve months so the Great Year was divided into Ages of about 2100 years each.  This calendar was named the Zodiac.  It was a celestial calendar.  We know, therefore, that there is nothing to fear from so-called Global Warming.  It is a natural process and cannot be stopped.  The Earth has been warming since the North Pole passed the star Vega thirteen thousand years ago.  Mankind has survived at least three or four inter-glacial summers and the consequent winters.  It’s all good.

As the Earth cools in the winter of the great Year as in the Solar Year water freezes and snow falls.  A great snow cap forms in the Northern Hemisphere thousands of feet thick.  Great glaciers cover the mountain peaks and highlands.  Instead of rising the ocean levels fall, perhaps from 300 to 500 feet.  At that point land that is now under water was above water.

Mesopotamia that is currently situated at sea level at the mouth of the Twin Rivers was once hundreds of miles from the sea and a rural backwater of civilization.  What is now known as the Persian Gulf was exposed and a terrestrial paradise.  The Tigris and Euphrates formed one river filled summer and winter in a temperate climate providing an unending source of water for the peoples who inhabited the Valley of the Gulf.  The waters of the Two Rivers passed through the Straits of Hormuz and cascaded out into the sea.

Rainfall was plentiful, thus a great civilization grew up in the Valley and the Arabian uplands, which is now one of the driest areas on Earth was then well watered.  Legend has it and I view the legends as memory traces, a number of civilizations that grew up during this winter of the Great Year,  Atlantis, Shambala, Mu and the Ethiopia of the River Valley of the Twin Rivers.  All these memory traces would be enshrined in mythology.

According to the Sumerians, supported by the Egyptians, the Great Flood occurred during the Age of Leo of the Great Year.  Thus semi-recorded history began in the Ages of Taurus and Aries.  The period of these ancient civilizations then must have been in the Ages of Virgo and Libra.  Earlier than that is anybody’s guess although we know that the Earth has been occupied by so-called Homo Sapiens for a couple hundred thousand years while here is no accurate accounting for those earlier years, all is speculation, nothing is known for certain.  The Neanderthals were discovered only in mid-nineteenth century.

We do know that civilizations rise and fall followed by dark ages when all knowledge disappears existing only as memory traces.

For the purposes of this article we must not confuse the Zodiac with Astrology; they are two different things although Astrology, or the worship of stars, probably arose from the Zodiac or was joined to it.  The Zodiac existed and exists independently of Astrology.  Concerning Astrology:  While predicting future events is impossible, Astrology nevertheless was a phase passed through by the human mind while having an influence on men’s thinking and actions down to our own times.  The subject merits historical attention.

Thus during the four thousand years of Virgo and Libra the sea levels were still falling  and mankind of the four mentioned civilizations prospered.  The back country folk remained primitive compared to the four civilizations which the memory traces depict as great miraculous prosperous wise civilizations.

Then as the Age of Leo warmed the Earth, Spring and Summer approached as one would expect.

As some point a great sound as of celestial thunder boomed as winter released its hold and the balmy days of Spring and Summer were on the horizon.  The waters rose, very quickly as the ice cap collapsed and the glaciers shrank.  The seas began flooding the lands.  The Valley of the Two Rivers which is very shallow, three hundred feet deep, or less, at the present time rose over the civilization submerging it completely and the Spring heat began to dry up the lands of Arabia while the jet stream and weather patterns adjusted to the new conditions.  The Lost Quarter of Arabia sank into oblivion no longer able to support life.  Today it is the driest of lands.  The Twin Rivers began shrinking and the Gulf waters lapped Sumerian shores gradually depositing silt extending into the Gulf.

In legend the flooded valley that disappeared in the Great Flood became an idyllic place, a paradise.  The Great civilization of Atlantis was remembered and revered by the Lower Egyptians who escaped the waters.

The Ages of Leo and Cancer passed. Some memories of the Age of Gemini exist while the Age of Taurus began the return of civilization that exploded in the Ages of Aries and Pisces and into the Age of Aquarius that we are now entering.

The Sumerians remembered being uncivilized rough savages until a fish man name Oannes (John in today’s parlance) appeared from the sea, that is the Persian Gulf, and instructed them in the ways of civilization.  Of course, there was no fish man but Ethiopian survivors seeking higher ground just as the Libyans who fled the rising Mediterranean lowlands occupied Lower Egypt, the Delta of the Nile, thus bringing civilization to the Upper Egyptians who were in the same position as the Sumerians.

All events occur organically, there is no Magic.  A mystery is nothing more than an unexplained situation.  All mysteries can be explained simply with adequate knowledge.  The above account is how things must have happened.  Naturally, no Magic, no mysteries.  No men from outer space, no Jewish vision of the Garden of Eden.

Now, the Jews are not an ancient people.  According to their own records they came into existence at the cusp of the Age of Aries from Taurus.  They refused to accept the change from Taurus into Aries clinging to the beliefs of Taurus.  They claimed that Saturn the male avatar of the Age of Taurus was an eternal, unchanging God.  This created conflict in the Civilization and the Jews began a revolt that resulted in their ejection from Mesopotamia.

As they were a splinter of the Semitic Mesopotamians  all they could do then to distinguish themselves was to recreate, rearrange existing legends into their own narratives.  Thus they denied the long age of the Earth and said that the Earth was created at the beginning of Taurus whose god was the eternal Saturn thus sealing off future change in Aries and Pisces.  There’s the problem.

The Age of the Flood and the disappearance of Paradise were turned into supernatural events. Magic.  Judaism is rooted in Magic.  Of course, as no one could have knowledge of actual causes there was a mystery that can only now be explained.  Nevertheless, the Jews- or proto-Jews-  created the story of Adam and Eve who then had to have existed at the beginning of the Age of Taurus when the Jews theorized that God, that is, Saturn created the Earth. 

The Garden of Eden was thought to have existed somewhere to the East, that is in the submerged valley.  The name Ethiopians would later be given to the peoples of the Upper Nile although the Greeks referred to the Ethiopians as being to the East who were very wise.

The first couple chapters of Genesis then were converted from the records of the Sumerians, the Semites being later invaders who displaced the Sumerians but retained their priestly knowledge, the Jews splitting off from their fellow Semites circa 2000 BC.

Thus the Garden of Eden is located and explained.

George W.M. Reynolds:  The Rich And The Poor: Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

by

R.E. Prindle

One/ And as all things come from the One, from the meditation of the One, so all things are born of the One by adaptation./  Its father is the sun, its mother is the moon;  The wind carries it in its belly; its nurse is the Earth./  It is the father of all wonders of the whole world.  It’s power is perfect when it is transformed into earth./  Separate the Earth from the Fire into the subtle from the gross, cautiously and judicially./  It ascends from Earth to Heaven and then returns back to Earth, so that it receives the power of the upper and the lower./  Thus you will possess the brightness of the whole world, and all the darkness will flee you./  This is the force of all forces, for it overcomes all that is subtle and penetrates solid things./  Thus was the world created./  From this wonderful adaptations are effected, and the means are given here./  And Hermes Trismegistus is my name, because I possess the three parts of the wisdom of the whole world. 

The Hermetic Museum, Alchemy And

Mysticism:  Alexander Roob, Taschen

2001.

All that is solid melts into air:  Karl Marx

There is something ineffable about George Reynolds that feeds deep reservoirs of longing and understanding.  Whether we know it or not it moves in contact with the One.  He examines life on many levels in a sympathetic manner without condensation but with unsparing accuracy.  One of his favorite themes is the contrast between the Rich and the Poor.

Julius Braunthal. more Left and less sympathetic, writing a hundred year on starkly posits the problem in his 1943 volume Need Germany Survive, a Jew writing from England about the ‘poor’ reflects 1940s England p.174.

Quote:

It is clear that the problem of poverty is not primarily a problem of the distribution of wealth.  But gross inequality of poverty and income is in itself an intolerable challenge to the principle of equality from which the spirit of democracy arises.  From the Distribution of National Capital (1924-30) we learn that of the people of Britain aged twenty-five and over, between 76 and 79 per cent each owned 110 pounds of wealth or less—i.e.  altogether 3-6 percent of our national capital –that 15-17 per cent, each owning property valued between 100 pounds and 1000 pounds had collectively 10-11 per cent of the national capital; and that the rest, a tiny group of people, each of whom was worth 100,000 pounds or more owned no less than23 per cent of the national capital.

Unquote.

While Reynolds was a Chartist hence of the Left he was not a Marxian Communist as was Braunthal.   From Braunthal’s title Need Germany Survive you can see that he was a brutal genocidal maniac.  One is shocked.  However we are talking of the Rich and Poor not World War II memoirs.

What the Communists miss is that wealth is not a limited unit that needs sharing, wealth increases or decreases through economic activity.  Hence, the Rich and the Poor are fluid classifications. The Rich may become Poor, and the Poor, that is economically disadvantaged may become rich but not if they are poor in spirit.  One must have inner resources and they can only be obtained by cultivation.

And in this Reynolds, who was never abjectly poor, but might easily have been, had to struggle to succeed.  And succeed he did while laboring against the grain of English politics.  He was not poor in spirit.

He depicts the sliding fortunes of the Rich and the Poor very well.  He shows the various methods, legal and illegal, of the attempt to rise and evade the horrors of poverty.  His depictions of the destitute are made with devastating accuracy.  He depicts some of the most horrific criminals futilely trying to escape poverty by illegal means.

He himself used his mind and pen so capably that he became well to do if not rich and he enjoyed his wealth.  His politics prevent what might be called a rise in society.  While he could afford excellent living quarters if not extravagantly luxurious; he had a large family, nevertheless a sign of above average prosperity.  But, he was never admitted into the great houses of the aristocracy which was only natural as he excoriated them relentlessly.

Thus, in his early years he lived among the disadvantaged so that he might study them closely as they were the grist for his mill.  His later novels move away from the worst scenes into a more affluent milieu.

In volume 3 of the Mysteries of the Court of London, the story of Lady Saxondale, he does limn the life of the aristocracy in a limited manner but as Lady Saxondale becomes enmeshed with the criminal world through the bizarre criminal Chiffin the Cannibal, he manages to show how the upper world and the lower world often intermeshed.

One has only to think of Jem Ruffles of the Mysteries of Old London- Days of Hogarth.  Ruffles was based on the person of the Duke  Wharton of the days of the first George who succeeded the good Queen Anne.  The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were wild and wooly.  The population of London increased much faster than the ability to police it.  The night belonged to gangs like Wharton’s.  Wharton in the daytime was a prominent politician, his Jekyll side in which he could offer protection to his hooligans, himself being above the law so to speak..

At night he transformed into his Hyde side and led his troops into battle against the Night Watch, the only keepers of order after dark.  You may compare Wharton and his Mohocks, that was their title, with George Soros and his Antifa of the twenty-first century.

This wild disorder was the The Days Of Hogarth.  Ruffles representing the same period while not a politician or aristocrat, just like Reynolds, had his gang of hooligans he led into the night.  At some point he decides his rough and rowdy days are over, dissolves his gang and begins his reformation.  Something like Reynolds in 1848.

Reynolds began his life allied with criminals, in fictional form Arnold and his people.  In his early novel first written at eighteen about the previous two years after he left Sandhurst Military Academy, he rather naively tells the whole story.  The story changed a great deal when he rewrote it as The Parricide in 1847.  It is easy to see his developing thought processes.  I am going to hazard an analysis.  It will be culled from his writings that are very autobiographical.  The central novels forming the analysis will be Days of Hogarth, The Steam Packet, The Youthful Impostor (read criminal), and The Mysteries of London.

In the rhird mentioned novel that is clearly autobiographical I will replace the fictional character with Reynolds.  Therefore I believe that on the return from an excursion to London to Hounslow Barracks Reynolds was held up by two highwaymen while a third, possibly training the two, Arnold in the story, watched from a way off.  Arnold is the criminal mastermind; something about the fifteen year old Reynolds appeals to him as being useful.  He slips forward then and offers Reynolds a criminal proposition that Reynolds readily accepted.

To place Reynolds in his real life situation.  He has found the military life not for him.  He was completely orphaned a few months earlier leaving him with a guardian, who he will be stuck with until he is twenty-one, that he hates or will learn to hate.  Alone and unprotected he is looking at a very bleak future.  Arnold offers him a way out that he can hardly refuse.  So, he becomes a criminal.  A swindler.  Not too different from George Montague Greenwood, one of his alter egos in The Mysteries of London.  So, in Greenwood Reynolds is describing a character that he knows well.

He must have quit the Academy.  This scenario would explain why.  He then enters the criminal world accepting the role.  Once associated with the underworld it is not so easy to extricate yourself so that it seems  very likely that from that point to 1848 when the path was cleared to  reenter straight society Reynolds had a loose relationship with the criminal world.  Half and half perhaps.

In 1848 he finished the fourth volume of The Mysteries of London combined with the beginning of success in writing and self-publishing gave him confidence to go completely straight.  But, he had to undergo a bankruptcy trial fostered by his old publisher, George Vickers.  Days of Hogarth was written in 1848 so the careers of Ruffes and Reynolds coincide. 

Now, what made Reynolds so willing to accept Arnold’s offer if he did. 

Reynolds’ father, who died in 1822 when the boy was eight, appointed his old friend Duncan McArthur as Reynolds’ guardian.  Both the father and the guardian were military men.  In the Steam Packet Reynolds mentions that as the Captain of a ship the Captain is as tyrannical as he wished.  This attitude probably carried over into family life and was undoubtedly shared by McArthur, an ex-naval surgeon.  It was he that placed the late twelve year old Reynolds in Sandhurst.  Separated from his mother, traumatic enough at twelve, she died in 1830 a few short years later.  Reynolds probably didn’t see much of her during his three years in Sandhurst so her death would be a severe jolt.  At that point he and his brother Edward, two years younger, inherited from both parents, the amount has not been determined, while Duncan McArthur became the executor of the wills.

Thus in the Steam Packet Reynolds complains that his guardian would never tell him how much money there was to inherit or in what form.  So, for five years from 16 to 21 Reynolds would have been penniless.  He was trapped.

McArthur while Reynolds was at the Academy kept him on short rations so that he could not participate in the social life of cadets from wealthier families.  When Reynolds left the Academy McArthur cut him off completely so that Reynolds, his alter ego assuming the lead role in the Steam Packet, complains how he literally hated McArther because of what was actually McArthur’s dishonesty.  We don’t know whether he ever released the inheritance or not.  I rather think not.

Now, Reynolds hated McArthur and that shows up, I believe in his Mysteries of London.  I have to thank Dick Collins for this lead from his bio reface to The Necromancer.  Duncan McArthur was a physician in the Kentish town of Walmer having retired as a Navy physician but then practicing in Walmer.  Doctors play prominent roles in Reynolds writing and they always buy corpses for anatomical research.  Dick Collins speculates that McArthur was one of those doctors.  He also speculates that a very young Reynolds was taken on one expedition to open a grave.  These grave robbers were called Resurrection Men, i.e. raising the dead.  The greatest of Reynolds fictional criminals is the Resurrection Man, Anthony Tidkins, of the first series of Mysteries of London.  Reynolds in one of his alter egos, the good guy Richard Markham, has an inordinate hatred of Tidkins which isn’t explained in the text.  He makes every effort to bring Tidkins to justice.  At one point he and the police corner Tidkins in his house, which so that it is certain in the police mind that they have their man, but Tidkins had mined the house with gunpowder and blows it up.  Richard and police assume that he has killed himself but not so, Tidkins escaped through a subterranean passage.  Interestingly he leaves his aged mother behind in the explosion.

What I suggest here is that Reynolds conflated McArthur with the Resurrection Man expressing all his hatred by transferring it from the doctor who purchased bodies to the Resurrection Man who provided them.  Tidkins will survive to the end of the book so that on one thread then is the death of Tidkins or in other words, McArthur.  This interpretation is certainly plausible.

Now, let us return to the Mysteries of Old London or Days of Hogarth.  The latter title appears to be an attempt to drum up consumer interest while honoring Hogarth who was a major influence on Reynolds and the writers and illustrators of his time.  Or, perhaps, there’s something deeper that I’m missing.  Maybe Wharton and the Hell Fire, Do What Thou Wilt, Clubs that came into existence at this time were the equivalent of the Wild West of America for the young readers of Reynolds’s time.

Hogarth was recording a certain society of his time in a sort of graphic novel to use 21^st Century terms.  Things were wide open, maybe even something like  Prohibition in the twentieth century US.  The Roaring Twenties.  Anarchy on a stick.  The Hell Fire Clubs were sexually violent so it was necessary to be clandestine.  The Hell Fire Clubs were based on Rabelais’ dictum in his Gargantua And Pantagruel, Do What Thou Wilt.  Anarchic affairs.  The stream of anarchy runs all through English history.  The Libertine culture set the code from 1720 on.

Reynolds does not appear to have been an anarchist although he was in favor of violent revolution as in 1789, 1830 and 1848.  He does reject the anarchy of the Duke of Wharton, disbands his gang of desperados and goes straight.  Now, the book was written in 1848, a critical year in Reynolds’ life.  George obviously regretted his youthful criminal career and, at the very  least, sharp practices. 

By 1848 he could see how he was going to prosper enough to make his fortune.  Thus he and his alter ego Ruffles decide to go straight.  After Ruffles had shucked his criminal connections he found a job with the East India Company, rounding out that aspect of English and European history that Reynolds was interpreting as a sideline. 

The Governor of the East India Company may have been founded on the great Clive of India, the famous Governor who organized the direction of the company.

At the time the Company was impressing men for soldiers and sailors off the streets of London for service in India.  The other source of recruits was the impoverished Irish who took to the Queen’s uniform as their only viable way to survive unless they emigrated to the US.

Now, get this, after having given up a criminal career Ruffles becomes the Captain of a Press Gang for the company.  What would have been a crime as a private citizen, kidnapping, became permissible in the employ of the East India Company.  Through Ruffles Reynolds lauds the practice as it showed how Clive could get the job done.  One wonders if Ruffles snags his old mates to put them out of the way.  Another way to get the job done.

Ruffles was an orphan as many of Reynolds characters are and as he was himself.  Both parents were dead by the time he was fifteen while he himself was confined in the military.  One imagines that Reynolds reviewed his situation and thought:  There must be some way out of here.  Perhaps Arnold was his ticket to leave as an only option and then a few months later when the scheme exploded, off to exile in France.

Strangely enough Ruffles too leaves England.  But off to India instead of France.  Now, as it turns out, Clive’s wife was Ruffles long lost mother.  A stretcher I know but plausible in the story.  So, a real Resurrection Man, Reynolds reconnects with his mother.  Remember he essentially became an orphan at twelve when he was placed in Sandhurst which could serve as an orphanage while he would have seen his mother only very occasionally if at all thereafter.  Imagine the effect on him when he was told his mother was dead.

At this point in Days of Hogarth as he and his mother leave to join Clive in India where he becomes a great success just as Reynolds was hoping success lay before him.  Ruffles’ mother dies seeing her son a success.  In real life Reynolds is saying that he would have made his mother proud of him.  Clive dies and Ruffles becomes the Governor of the East India Company.

So, in 1848 Reynolds was born again.  By 1851 he was able to leave smoky London moving to Herne Bay on the Kentish seashore  and a very nice house to become, as it were, a gentleman.  Thus he passed from poor in wealth, though never poor in spirit.  He knew both ends of the mix, the Rich and the Poor.  He could write realistically of what he knew.

He must have taken long walks through the various poverty stricken neighborhoods of London to become familiar with the streets, haunts and lay outs.  After 1844 and the beginning of his fame he may have had a ticket to pass through neighborhoods as desperate as the Mint and Saint Giles as an honorary member.  Perhaps he could enter thoroughly criminal haunts and remain unmolested, even honored, as he wrote rather sympathetically about the plight of the poor and the criminals themselves.  Perhaps certain criminals recognized portraits of themselves. 

Unlike Dickens and Mayhew who describe others from the outside, and Mayhew says that he was frequently harassed because of his articles which, after all, were written to amuse the upper classes.  Reynolds was sympathetic to the desperate plight of the women.  He was not maudlin, he knew that women had their negative qualities also.  In England and France novelists were all sympathetic  to the horrors women had to endure at the hands of men.  One of the most heartbreaking stories I’ve read concerning the plight of women was Eugene Sue’s Matilda, or the Misfortunes of Virtue, apparently based on the Marquis de Sades’ novel Justine.  I cringed all the way through to the most heartbreaking of endings.  Sue is unsparing.

Is it any wonder that the Salpetriere of Paris, an insane asylum for women  was filled with women who had been brutally mistreated beyond endurance.  To read accounts of Jean Martin Charcot’s treatments of female patients is horrifying.  As Reynolds lived to 1879 it is quite possible he visited Charcot at the Salpetriere as many qualified English tourists did.  Insanity also fills many a page of the corpus.  I rather imagine the streets of the period were filled with the mad, deranged and insane.  When they closed the asylums in the US many mad people whose madness was dulled with drugs roamed the streets.

Reynolds manages to bring to life the people of his times.

Significantly George changes direction somewhat in and after 1848 when he begins his epic tale of George IV in Mysteries of the Court of London.  Two tales actually, his 1795 marriage to Caroline  and then his assumption of the Regency.

 In Mysteries of London George split his personality in two to explain his two sides to himself with his audience in mind.  With the two Markham brothers Eugene and Richard he explores the two sides of his personality, side one that of the sharpster, Man of the World George Montague Greenwood, the criminal who seeks to become rich by any means necessary, and the Good Boy, the virtuous Richard.  Richard, like De Sade’s Justine tries to live the virtuous life, is fleeced by his brother’s associates, spends a couple years in prison although innocent and generally has to tough it out until the wheel of fortune turns in his favor and his succeeding life turns into a fairy tale.

Running concurrently  throughout the story is Reynolds dark shadow the Resurrection Man Anthony Tidkins cum Duncan McArthur.  Following Richard’s attempt to capture Tidkins as related when Tidkins blew his house up, Tidkins captures Richard.  Richard manages to escape and as he reaches the night shrouded street he begins to run.  He runs top speed for several hours through the darkness of his psychological fixation.  After hours of running he takes a break.  Asking a Watchman who observes him he asks where he is.  The Watchman says:  Why, you’re in Walmer.  The Walmer district of London.  But, in fleeing his past in Walmer he finds himself where he began so to speak.  Nothing has been resolved.

For long stretches the Resurrection Man is the central character.  As an evil memory from his childhood Reynolds tries repeatedly to kill it, eliminate it from his mind but fails until the end.  As Tidkins is associated with his guardian Duncan McArthur’s probable habit as a physician of buying corpses from Tidkins’ father and is thought to have participated in at least one raising ,and this would have been before the lad had turned thirteen, he merged the person of Duncan McArthur whom the hated into the character of Tidkin’s who was a criminal being the victim of circumstances that turned him into a bad man.  Thus Reynolds kills two birds with one stone.

Dick Collins, writing in the preface to The Necromancer, says that there is a lot of autobiography in Reynolds’ work, and, verily, I believe it is true.  Reynolds melds experience and reading into a seamless whole.

His alter ego Greenwood/Eugene gives Reynolds a chance to explore the man on the make who associates with Men On The Town and the Men of the World.  These two are significant categories of his novels.  George considered himself a Man of the World.  Thus he presents a plethora of roles- Rakes, Dandies, criminals of various stripes, suckers, the poor and downtrodden, women in all their manifestations.  Women thrown unprotected on the world where they become courtesans, frails and lost women sinking from high class to totally depraved.  He breathlessly mentions the expose memoirs of Harriet Wilson one of the most famous courtesans of the time, recently published.

If the reader injects him- or herself into the story the novel is really quite terrifying.

Tough districts like The Holy Land, otherwise known as St. Giles, are presented in gory detail.  His hero’s night spent in the gypsy house in the Holy Land might easily give the reader bad dreams.

I’m sure that from twelve in Sandhurst to his return from France in 1836 was a harrowing and searing experience for George, a nightmare from which there seemed no end for George, although he made the most of it using the experiences to make his fortune.

Thus in 1848 he finished that phase of his life and moved on to record his vision of the aristocracy and middle classes.  The poverty class is still prominent but not the core of the novels.  Of course he still has his arch criminals and very shady ladies and men but generally speaking he’s dealing with people of means.

Before I wrap this essay up let me comment on the end of the Resurrection Man at the end of the story.  Earlier another criminal Cranky Jem had been betrayed by Tidkins, took the rap of a crime and was transported to the notorious Norfolk prison Island of Australia.  Jem escaped and returned to London.  As he is another alter Ego of Reynolds he realizes that he had been seduced into crime, much as Reynolds, realizes his error and goes straight.  He earns his living by making toy ships in bottles.  Interesting career, is that the same as writing novels? 

He wants vengeance and tracks Tidkins, who has had some amazing adventures, down and disposes him without shedding blood.

A final note:  George Vickers the publisher of the four series of The Mysteries of Paris, drove Reynolds into the bankruptcy court in 1848.  One wonders why.  May I suggest that it was because he was losing his meal ticket.  Vickers not only published The Mysteries but he also published Reynolds book of 1847, Faust, of which I have an original copy.  It is probable that, although I haven’t seen the original, that Vickers also published Reynolds’  earlier book, Wagner The Wehr Wolf, therefore he was losing a potential fortune for which he sued Reynolds in spite.  Possibly he sought to retain him  In vain, as George had his own printer, John Dicks, and a bag full of novels. His independent career was launched.

A Short Story: The Dream of Far Gresham | R.E. Prindle (wordpress.com)

ERBzine 1450: What’s Going On by R.E. Prindle

ERBzine 1662: Tarzan and the Leopard Men article by R. E. Prindle

ERBzine 1662a: Tarzan and the Leopard Men: Pt 2 review by R. E. Prindle

Another Side Of White Supremacy

by

R.E. Prindle

As we all know there is a tremendous reaction to White Supremacy.  All the sub-races are calling for an end to White Supremacy in which case  we can be sure that there is White Supremacy.  We’re dealing with facts here.  True Science.

Look at the clothes.  Do you see anyone walking around in Aztec dress? No?

Look at China.  Mao’s Cultural Revolution was a success.  Traditional Chinese dress has disappeared from the face of the Earth.  Replaced by…clothes that White people designed.  The whole world dresses like White People.  T-shirts with slogans on them.

Look at the cities of Asia—China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar for Christ’s sake, India, the Arab States, Israel, what do you see?  Skyscrapers.  Skyscrapers, the iconic structure of the United States.  Made the Arabs so jealous they knocked a couple of ours down and then built one much taller than ours ever were.  Half a mile high.  Skyscrapers!  Born in Chicago before the Negroes arrived.

See anybody riding horses?  Driving ox-carts?  No?  Automobiles, trucks, trains, planes, Electric Cars.  Motor City redux.  It’s all White.  Everything.  Whites have white washed the world.  There is nothing so evident of White Supremacy than how the Rest look, act and live.

What is more ubiquitous evidence ow White Supremacy than the cell phone, created in a garage in the United States.  Took over the world in a decade..  Look at the photos, everyone walks around with a cell phone in their hand.  Push a button and you’re face to face with your friend.  Science fiction right?  Came from right here in the land of White Supremacy.

Phones, TVs, computers, the Internet, movies you name it.  White Supremacy makes the rest feel inadequate.  They’re embarrassed by it. Better to get rid of the Whites but keep the Whiteness.  Whiteness good, Whites bad.  Hey?

Even the Jews sing:  We’re not White we’re Jewish.  Sure.  The horror of living off the bennies of the US!  US monetary support ends, Israel disappears.  They’re not White but they want the Green.  Need it.  To Survive.   They won’t let you on the bus without the fare.  ‘Smartest people on the Earth’ but living off the US dole.

Suppose the Rest do remove Whiteness from the World.  What happens then?  The life goes out of the world.  The nineteenth and eighteenth centuries return.  Famines, diseases, parasites and not Paradise.  You can count the ticks of the clock while everything runs down.

Africans can’t offer any contribution.  Before the West sent them a shipment of sun glasses they were plagued with eye diseases.  Then they pleaded:  We don’t want you to send us shoes; we want you to send us people to show us how to make them.  No hope there.  They were static before the White Man arrived to pick up the burden.

The Chinese advanced a little further up the evolutionary scale but their society had always been in a condition of stasis until some Western Whites showed up and asked them :  Can you guys make this crap cheaper?  Western business practices were grafted onto Chinese stock and lo! The Chinese desert bloomed.  Without Whiteness China sinks back into apathy.

Japan! Now there was a dynamic response to the Western Challenge.  But they will get gulped down by the Chinese Godzilla.

No, People of the Rest.  Like it or not White people are your saviors.  Whiteness is the Path.  You all want to come to the US for a better life?  No room but we will be happy to export Whiteness to you and you can stay where you are and use Whiteness to make your lives better.  Try it.  You’ll like it.

George W.M. Reynolds

And Usury Great And Small

18.  Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

by

R.E. Prindle

The Usurer plays a large role in the works of George Reynolds.  Indeed, in his very first novel, first composed when he was eighteen years old in 1832, then rewritten in 1847 as The Parricide, is about defrauding a usurer.  His novel The Necromancer perhaps meant as a history of usury from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth century in Europe and England portrayed the character of the master usurer, Lionel Danvers.  He is based on the real life master usurers Nathan and Lionel Rothschild.

I have reviewed The Necromancer a couple of times before but I haven’t exhausted its meaning or fascination to me.  In earlier efforts I couldn’t be certain of how familiar Reynolds was with the character of Lionel Rothschild and his later familiarity with the Jewish-English author and politician Benjamin Disraeli.

In 1998 the British historian Niall Ferguson published his history of the House of Rothschild to 1905 titled The World’s Banker a massive 1300 page, large format volume, a real five pounder.  He was commissioned I believe by the Rothschilds while given access to their archives.

This was a formidable task requiring working through a semi-load of documents.  A daunting task and one that Ferguson came through well.  I have owned the book for near twenty years but having hefted the book as Mark Twain said of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the tablets, a few times and finding it heavy in more ways than one I found a comfortable space for it on the shelf and left it there.  When the student is ready the teacher will appear.  That moment arrived and I took the book down.

At that moment, Reynolds, you know The Necromancer, it occurred to me that Ferguson must be detailing the years from 1800 to 1851 the latter year when The Necromancer was written so I took the book down and was instantly rewarded.  The Rothschilds had perfected usury.  They were the kings of usury and there was no chance that they could have been missed by Reynolds not even a slight one.  The Rothschilds must have been a nearly daily topic of conversation about town.  George may very well have been obsessive about the Rothschilds as the world’s ultimate usurers.

They worked on a scale unheard of before then. States borrowed in the millions. The Rothschilds not only bilked lone borrowers but through their transactions with States they bilked everyone in them.  Indeed, George’s villain Lionel Danvers began his career in Italy not too distant from the time of the Pope’s banning of usury for all good Roman Catholics thus giving the Jews a monopoly and the key to the highway that they put to good use.

Now, papa Rothschild,  Mayer Amschel, had five sons who he trained for the Jewish conquest of Europe.  Unless I miss my mark Mayer Amschel Rothschild, following his father’s advice, studied the career of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, a Court Jew for the Southern German State of Wurttemberg who devised the modern Jewish approach, adapted Suss methods for the conquest of Europe.  I have written two or three articles on Suss who may have been the most important individual influencing the history of the twentieth century.  Once trained the sons were spread out to the different capitals of Europe.

As a family they functioned as one unit, thus covering all of Europe and England much as Danvers did.  The time was propitious as the evolution of banking was assuming its modern form while the Industrial Revolution was beginning g to provide unrivaled opportunities for investment.  Other minds could originate industries but through financial means their ideas and businesses could be appropriated.  The sons of Rothschild would know how to play both avenues to wealth.

While it might have appeared that being Jewish was a disadvantage because of prejudice the opposite was true.  One must remember the Jews were an international or pan-European nation.  Even though dispersed through out the nations of Europe they functioned as one nation.  E Pluribus Unum.  From many, one.

Unlike parochial peoples like the English or French nations who could only freely associate within the limits of their own countries, the Jews could operate over all borders and coordinate their activities across the whole continent.  While most parochial nations excluded at least two thirds of their natives from full participation in society any Jew could aspire to success in spite of their host nations.  The Jews of any background had access to a university education that was denied to the vast majority of the national proles.

In The Necromancer Reynolds has his villain, Lionel Danvers, a resident of Europe, not any particular country, but Europe, going to England occasionally.  The wealth of all Europe, as a usurer, is in his hands.  This situation would, of course, be suggested to Reynolds as the Rothschilds had Europe in the palm of their hands.  Thus the association between Danvers and the Rothchilds is affirmed.

In the novel Danvers is awarded his success by selling his soul to the Devil.  Satan gives him a way out of the bargain if he can find six beautiful women who love him so much that they pledge Lionel Danvers their body and soul.  While Danvers has their bodies for his use temporally, their souls belong to Satan.  Once the women consent to him he turns them body and soul over to Satan in his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight.

Now!  The Jews in England up to 1290 boasted that they built the first stone house in the kingdom, disregarding all those big stone castles,  a mark of superiority over the natives.  Because of their unbridled use of usury causing great misery to the English whose numeracy was in a primitive state while that of the usurious Jews was fairly advanced the English were easy pickings.  For myself, I didn’t understand the meaning of compound interest until well past my maturity.

Edward III expelled them in 1290.  Oliver Cromwell granted residency in about 1660.  Thus Lionel Danvers was absent from England for long periods while still retaining significant properties such as his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight.  Perhaps it was the first stone house in England.

As Reynolds opens his story Danvers is back in England although as this is the time of Henry VIII there should have been no other Jews except possibly some disguised recently arrived Sephardic Jews who had been expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella.  Perhaps even that is why Danvers returned.  So, Reynolds is sailing pretty close to the facts if you have the poetic frame of mind to see behind appearances.

Indeed, Niall Ferguson tells in an academic historical manner what Reynolds poeticized.  And the Rothschilds, given the modern state of affairs are usurers deluxe.  Bilking individuals was petty cash compared to bilking national governments.  To paraphrase Nero they wished he English had one purse to snatch from them.  A loan of a few tens of pounds or waiting a long time to cash in on obits. (Loans to a debtor with expectations payable on his inherited wealth when the father dies.) compared to loaning millions to the State and reaping a large harvest.

Reynolds had a tragic tale of Ralph Faerfield in The Crimes of Lady Saxondale who ran up huge debts on expectations only to be thwarted when his father took a young wife who displanted Ralph with a new heir.  That was a cold shower for Ralph.

The career of Nathan Rothschild and his extended family spread across England and Europe was almost as fabulous of mythical character as that of King Arthur or Charlemagne and it permeated the age so that Reynolds could not have been uninfluenced.  In Reynolds’ time Rothschild doings were everyday topics of conversation.

Indeed, Isaac D’Israeli, the father of Benjamin Disraeli may have, probably did have, the Rothschilds in mind when he wrote of the supernatural Jews in his book The Genius of Judaism.  There is no reason to think he didn’t as his fellow Jews thought of Nathan as the coming of the Messiah.

Ferguson quotes the Legend of Nathan based on a magic talisman that Nathan is thought to have had.  There could be no other reason in his fellow Jews minds for his fabulous success.  That success did seem magical; as magical as Rabbi Loewe’s Golem.  In his own way Nathan was a golem.  The Golem is a magical creature designed to destroy the Goyim.

I quote Ferguson’s account of the Legend in full, pp. 324,25 and 26:

Quote:

To poorer Jews in particular, Nathan’s extraordinary rise to riches had an almost mystical significance—hence the legend of the ‘Hebrew Talisman’, the magical source of his good luck, which became associated with him in Jewish lore. This extraordinary story—a version of which was published by an anonymous author in London just four years after Nathan’s death- is one of the most bizarre early examples of what might be called the ‘Rothschild myth.’  Although apparently by a Jewish author, the possibility that (like the later and much better known Protocols of the Elders of Zion) it was in fact the work of an anti-Jewish agent provocateur cannot be ruled out, so militant is its tone.  Indeed, the story anticipates many of the more fantastic allegations of the overtly anti-Rothschild French pamphleteers of the 1840s.

The story in narrated by a mysterious phantom, who describes himself as ‘detesting…the followers of the Nazarene, with a most holy and fervent detestation’ and having been doomed to long ages of agony and travail’ by ‘the avenging one of Nazareth’.  He is the custodian of a talisman, which confers on its holder magical powers. ‘Could I not command gold?  Yea…had I not the talisman? -Had I not the ineffable words?- Could I not buy the whole evil race, from the false prophet even to the lowest among the evil genii?- Could I not task them in the midnight incantation, and lo! Would not plenty make the hearts of my people glad at sunrise?’  His aim is to give the talisman to ‘a zealous hater of the Nazarenes,- a man exceedingly desirous of working their degradation and destruction…a champion to avenge the wrongs of Israel.’.

Arriving in Frankfurt during the Napoleonic occupation of the town, the narrator witnesses hideous scenes of pillage by French troops.  The Frankfurt Jews in particular are the objects of systematic extortion.  In a looted office in the heart of the Jewish quarter, he comes across a young man, ‘his eyes…red with much weeping, and his cheeks pale and haggard, as much with sorrow and long vigils’.  As he looks on a French soldier bursts into the office demanding yet more money.  ‘ “ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!” [the young man] exclaimed, as, kneeling, he lifted up his trembling hands to the east, how long?…How long…shall the unbeliever triumph and thy people be a jest and a bye word?” ‘  Unmoved, the Frenchman seizes his last remaining object of value, the family teraphim (household shrine).  After he departs the, the young man cursed the Nazarenes, and prayed in fervent tones that he might have the power to crush them and vowed by the ineffable name of Jehovah to lose no opportunity of despoiling their wealth, and trampling down, yea, utterly bruising, their black and unsparing and unbelieving hearts’.  ‘Here’, declares the narrator ‘was a fit servant for the great master- here a champion fit for the great cause.  His wrongs…would make him a faithful and very zealous foeman of the Nazarene of whatever nation.  Here was, at length, the man, the long hoped, the long sought, who should build up the temple of the Lord, and make Israel and Judah feared and obeyed in all the quarters of the earth.’

The phantom narrator therefore makes himself visible (clad in the flowing robes of the far East’, he is ‘pallid as a corpse…with hoary hair and beard’ and ‘great black eyes, that shot forth lurid fires, upon which no mortal could look and not tremble’).  ‘I spake the words of power, and the talisman was once more committed to a man of my persecuted race,’ on this occasion in the form of a ‘a ring holding the keys of his rifled drawers’.  ‘I gave to that ring the influence and might of the signet of the wise Solomon.  Having done this, I commanded the young man to name some wish for instant accomplishment; and ere he had thrice, according to my instructions, whirled the ring upon his forefinger, steps were heard’ A man enters (later to be revealed to be a prince), weighed down with a huge bag of gold, which he entrusts to the young man.  Needless to say, it contains ‘the very sum for which he had wished aloud while making his first essay of the power of the talisman.’

‘Men of the accursed and plundering race!’ the narrator exclaims, revealing at least the identity of the chosen one:

Ye whose estates were within a brief space to have been within his grasp; ye, whose equipages and whose liveried lacquies I so lately saw following to his premature grave the man of Israel, whom I thus enabled to war upon ye in your vulnerable quarter,- accursed and detested Nazarenes- the young Israelite, to whom I thus committed the Talisman, and who thus early and thus fully experienced its mighty power- he who for years despoiled you of the gold which ye make  to yourselves, even as a god- the man whom ye fawned upon, even while you hated him, and knew that he despised you- that man was NATHAN MEYER ROTHSCHILD.  [He] waxed wealthy, more wealthy than any who had gone before him, his riches astonished the gentiles and very justly they said, such amazing wealth could be amassed by one man, in so short a time by any human agency- and they were right, it was the agency of the talisman…

There then follows a brief but classic mythologized  account of Nathan’s rise from the ruins of looted Frankfurt to fame and fortune.  ‘He came by my direction to this paradise of loan-contracting and speculating fools, and became the leviathan of the money markets of Europe…the loan contractor, the jobber, and the money lender of the gentile kings.’ When Napoleon (encouraged by narrator) invaded Russia, ‘Rothschild was right speedy to make [his] ruin utter and inevitable—not to be repaired.’ When the Emperor returned from Elba, ‘by whom  was his hope blasted?…simply by Nathan Meyer Rothschild armed with the Talisman’.  The British government needed money not only to pay Wellington’s army at Waterloo, but also to brief ‘the Generals and the Senators of France’ to desert Napoleon.  There was but one man on earth who both COULD and would provide the millions of golden pounds, required for the instant purposes of the English minister.—‘That man was ROTHSCHILD.  By my instructions, he let the Minister have the hard gold.

But all this it transpires was for a higher purpose:  for Nathan lent money only ‘on one condition…the re-establishment of Judah’s kingdom- the rebuilding of thy towers, Oh! Jerusalem!’:

That most elaborate of bad jokes, history, will, no doubt, say that the Jew Rothschild lent the Nazarene elder called Lord Liverpool the sum necessary to crush Napoleon Buonaparte, in consideration of some such Judean motive as 25 per cent interest.  The writers of history, in that case, will, as usual, lie…Rothschild was commanded to lend the money…[in return for] the restoration of Judea to our ancient race; the guarantee of England for the independence of the kingdom of Judea…In twelve hours, the millions were in the possession of the minister, and a secret agreement, guaranteed by the sign manual of royalty, was in the possession of Rothschild, for the restoration of Judea in 21 years from the day on which Napoleon should finally be driven from France.

And here is the twist in the tale:

This very year my task should have been completed; would have been completed, but he, Rothschild…at the twelfth hour proved false…His long round o success (unchecked save once when I reproved his presumption with the loss of a hundred thousand pounds in a single day’s business in Spanish stock)…made him more and more purse proud…[so] that it was rather with grief than surprise I recently heard from his own lips that he had basely sold the agreement for the restoration of Judea for the promise of a petty English Emancipation Bill for our people, and a petty English peerage for himself.  This delectable job, this high-minded bargain, was to be completed in the ensuing years, by which time the purse-proud, haughty renegade reckoned upon being worth 5,000,000 pounds of money.  He was already above four.

But of course, having betrayed his master, these vain dreams could only be dashed.  ‘His talisman disappeared, and I took care he should know it had disappeared forever.  He never ventured upon the Exchange again, or the scribe who wrote his will should have been saved much trouble and time.’

Did I give him the talisman, to enable him like Sampson to Gideon to intrude his family and found a peerage among the Normans? Or to stifle his conscience with the weight of riches? Or to flatter it with ostentatious charities?  No Israelite can put his hand to the plough of this great work,  look back and live!

In this bizarre fantasy, Nathan’s death therefore becomes his punishment for the failure to fulfil his promise to restore Palestine to the Jews…

Unquote.

In this fantasy really bizarre in the circumstances?  Fantasy true but a pretty good legend and myth.  However let us consider a real, not so much fantasy as deluded hope as written by Isaac D’Israeli in 1933, the height of Nathan’s prosperity and three years before his death, and the 100^th anniversary of the beginning of the Jud Suss Oppenheimer’s near takeover of the Duchy of Wurttemberg.  Suss in his failed attempt provided the template that the Rothschilds were following.  Wurttemberg is just South of Frankfurt while Suss had strong connections to it while the Judenstrasse of Frankfurt, the Jewish ghetto, was a hotbed of Jewish hopes and dreams.

It is clear that Mayer Amschel  Rothschild  and his father studied Suss’s career closely.  Nathan and his brothers grew up in the hothouse atmosphere of the Judenstrasse.  One may say that carefully indoctrinated and trained by their father and given the mission by him to conquer Europe his sons left the ghetto for the wider world to achieve that mission.  Their only talisman was their knowledge of usury.  But here is Isaac D’Israeli: The Genius of Judaism.

WITH THE ISRAELITE EVERY THING IS ANCIENT AND NOTHING IS OBSOLETE. (Title of Chap. One)

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 be by taking a popular view of the manners of this singular people that we shall allay the fanaticism of Jew or Christian.  We must learn to feel like Jews when we tell of their calamities, and to reason like Christians when we detect their fatuity.

The history of the Hebrews developes those permanent principles which are still operating on their insulated race, and which through a long series of ages, by separating the Israelite from the Christian, have occasioned a reciprocal ignorance of their modes of thinking, their motives of conduct, their dissimilar customs, and their irreconcilable differences.  Fewer misconceptions and less erroneous opinions are formed of the castes of the Hindoos, than of the actual condition, and of the feelings, and the conduct of a whole people domiciliated among the nations of Europe, and now far more numerous than they were in their land of Palestine.

Unquote.

In both Ferguson’s Legend and the writing of D’Israeli there is this intense fanatical separation of the Jews and the Gentiles.  An antagonism that results In asymmetric warfare.  The Jews are actually seen as despoiling the Gentiles and the Rothschilds are kings because they are leading the pack.  Both the Jews and Gentiles imagine the Rothschilds as Kings.  Hence in Reynolds’ novel ,because Lionel Danvers can magically assume the appearance of King Henry VIII there is no difference between them and the real Henry is to be warned that his duplicate is confusing affairs.  This notion is fully developed in Ferguson’s The World’s Banker.

And then there is obscure language used by Isaac D’Israeli who, by the way, was the father of his famous son, author and politician Benjamin Disraeli.  The sentence in capital letters is the title for Chapter One requiring some thought.  Every thing is ancient and nothing is obsolete.  What can that mean?  Isaac says that the Jew is ‘supernatural’.  That means that they are not human but belong to the world of the gods. There is a Supreme God and then the host of heaven, the lowest of the host being the Angels.  The Jews place themselves beneath the Angels with the humans, that is the Gentiles, beneath them making the Jews demi-gods.

As I surmise then that the Jew embodies all that has been converting the ancient into the present and everything that has ever been exists in his mind hence not obsolete.  It still works.  ‘The Genius of Judaism remains immutable.’  This is a transcendent quality that compels the Gentile to recognize the innate superiority of the Jew requiring ‘every concession, but yielding none.’  This is an irreconcilable difference that cannot be breached.  There can be no peace between the chosen and the Gentiles unless the Gentiles submit.

Whether intentionally or not Ferguson brings this irreconcilable difference out.  So you can see that Nathan was mythologized by the his fellow Jews in the character of the failed redeemer or Messiah.  There is a great similarity here to that other failed Messiah of the seventeenth, Sabbatai Zevi.  ‘Every thing is ancient and nothing is obsolete.’

How anonymous was the author of the Legend?  During the Revolution of ’48 when many financiers lost all the Rothschilds too were on the edge, many were the people who wanted to see them go over that edge, Lionel’s wife Charlotte alleged that ‘even the Disraelis believe in the destruction of our power’ (p, 490)  That is a very revealing line.  By Disrealis she must mean Dizzy and his father Isaac D’Israeli.  When Isaac published his book The Genius of Judaism in 1833 the Rothschilds were in the full flush of success while Nathan appeared to be the Messiah, Samson slaying the multitudes with usury.  Perhaps Isaac expected him to have purchased Palestine with his money and restored the Jews while bringing the Millennium to fruition.  Three years later in 1836 when Nathan died nothing had been done to realize that dream.  Of course, the Rothschilds would go on to be instrumental in establishing Israel but Isaac couldn’t see that.

A week or so after Nathan died the Legend appeared while the author was enraged.  I have no proof but who would have been so close to the Rothschilds and preached their virtue than a disappointed Isaac.  Even then Dizzy went on to eulogize the Rothschilds in his novels Coningsby and Tancred, extravagant praise.  Still nothing happening on the reestablishment of Israel.

Isaac lived until 1849 so he was still alive when the Rothschilds were staggered.  Ah, the mighty were falling.  At that time Isaac could see the hand of God punishing the family for their failure.  And so the Disraelis publicly enough made their satisfaction known.  It would seem that some work needs to be done on who exactly Isaac D’Israeli was and how involved he was with the Rothschilds.  There would appear to be a missing link in the story.

Ferguson for some reason, possibly not to offend his employer, pretends that the legend may have been written by a goyish forger rather than a Jew.  Well, I respect Niall Ferguson as a great historian but I must say that the legend might easily have been composed by Isaac D’Israeli himself, not that I’m implying it was but the similarity is striking, identical indoctrination and education produce the same results. Both Isaac and the Legend too authentically represent Jewish magical thinking, hopes and objectives to be otherwise.

Ferguson also enters the caveat of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a forgery.  If Ferguson is as astute as I think he is, he knows that the Protocols are also authentically Jewish.  They were written in 1897 in a backroom at the First Zionist Congress in Vienna in anticipation of the First Russian Revolution.  All the rest is persiflage.

In the Rothschild Legend the story bears a very close resemblance to the history of Lionel Danvers as Reynolds imagines it in The Necromancer.  Written in 1851 The Necromancer incorporated aspects of both Nathan and his son Lionel, the latter described from Benjamin Disraeli’s novels Coningsby and Tancred.

There can be little question that father Mayer Amschel Rothschild derived his plan for the conquest of Europe from the career of the Jud Suss of eighteenth century Wurttemberg.  Mayer Amschel’s father was alive at the time of Suss observing all while Mayer Amschel was born in 1740 shortly after Suss’ execution. Mayer Amschel’s sons were born later in the century when Suss would still have been a hot topic in Frankfurt.  Growing up on the incredibly crowded Judenstrasse of Frankfurt in very uncomfortable circumstances, freed from the Judenstrasse only after the nineteenth century began they must have carried forth all the anger and prejudices of that infamous street.

Ferguson also retells the story of the Father Tommaso of Damascus which bears noting here.  The peculiar event occurred in 1840.  It concerns the blood libel in which Jews are said to kill Christians, usually, young boys, to use their blood in baking religious wafers.  There were several famous trials over the centuries.  Father Tomasso was said to have been murdered and his blood used for ceremony.  Now Father Tomasso, as the story goes, was on his way to the end of town that you don’t want to be in and he was never seen again.  A few weeks later a deteriorated body was found in a sewer and this was said to be the good father.

 Now, this event happened two thousand miles from France in a time of poor communications.  Nothing can be certainly known.  We don’t really know whether there was a father Tomasso and in any event he disappeared and was never seen again.  So, where’s the story?  Some one said that he was killed because the Jews needed blood for their wafers.  A horror story ensues in which several people were arrested and tortured to obtain confessions implicating Jews.  Ferguson relates the story that one man given five hundred lashes, questioned again and still couldn’t answer so they went to work on him again but with the additional lashes he broke down and said what they wanted him to say.

Five hundred lashes?  And he survived?  Nobody survives five hundred lashes.  So we have a tale here and it was all being managed by Jews from Paris.  Even the heavy hitter Adolphe Cremieux was called in to solve the problem.  Cremieux was a dishonest man.  When the French finally eliminated the Barbary Pirates and annexed Algeria as a French province Cremieux secretly altered the documents to make Algerian Jews into French citizens apart from the Arabs.  A nice little illegal coup.

Now, the Jewish defense for what was probably a bogus crime was that it was preposterous to think that Jews would eat bloody biscuits.  The plot may have been to disarm any new accusations, which did subsequently appear with this horror story. 

But let us check the psychological history of mankind and see how preposterous bloody biscuits really are.  Essentially what we are dealing with here is a form of cannibalism.  The notion is cannibalism is that by eating the human flesh of enemies you are taking their powers into your body making you twice the man.  Actual cannibalism was objectionable to the sensibilities of more advanced folk so the bull was substituted for the man making it unsafe to be a bull.  Bear in mind though that the bull was a substitute for a human.

Enemies are still enemies so there is some satisfaction in eating bloody biscuits for in the blood is the life.  Now, the Jews were Asiatics and as Asiatics they lived in Egypt.  Donald B. Redford in his interesting and book Egypt, Canaan, And Israel In Ancient Times published in 1992 tells of Egyptian parents who admonish there sons not to go to the end of town and mix with the Asiatics, slumming it, because one of the Asiatics offensive customs was to mix blood into biscuits, the Egyptians own blood. and fed them to the Egyptian lads.  They played a good joke on the lads which their parents objected to.

The Jews were Asiatics so did they participate in the sport?  Of course we have no answer but people being what people are it wouldn’t be unlikely as they hated the Egyptians.

Let us now turn to the story of Jesus and the Last Supper.  Jesus was a Jew, thoroughly familiar with Jewish customs, spent his youth in Egypt and for all we know was inducted into the Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece.  I think it likely.  It seems obvious that The Last Supper was a revelation of the ceremony of Eleusis.  Jesus was showing the world what Eleusis was all about.  So, what’s Jewish isn’t all that Jewish.

At the Last Supper with his twelve disciples, Jesus made the thirteenth of the party, Jesus holds out a wafer to the boys in the band and says:  This is my body.  Then he holds up a goblet of wine and says:  This is my blood.  So by putting his blood and flesh into their bodies they cannibalistically acquired Jesus’ characteristics just as we do today at Holy Communion.  Bloody biscuits.

So, if humanity, at least of the Western sort, find it not offensive to eat bloody biscuits and call it ‘Holy Communion’ how likely is it that the Jews as part of humanity wouldn’t.  They did it in ancient Egypt so why not in modern Europe?

It doesn’t matter to me if they did and for all we know, do, or not.  For me as with Isaac D’Israeli speaking for his people ‘everything is ancient and nothing is obsolete.’  On that level I’m as Jewish as anyone.

In The Necromancer’s Lionel Danvers Reynolds sounded a very discreet  warning that went unheeded.  As we will come back to this later, usury was the Talisman, the key to the highway that the Rothschilds wielded so well.

Note #9:  A Mention Of G.W.M. Reynolds In G.M. Young’s Compendium Earl Victorian England.

by

R.E. Prindle

I came across an interesting reference to Reynolds in a book titled Early Victorian England edited by G.M. Young, published by the Oxford Press in 1934.  The book is a compendium of essays covering different aspects of early Victorian England not unlike Charles Knight’s London.  The article in question is E.E. Kellett’s The Press

Each article is written by a different person and while not all are probably in their sixties and seventies most are so they were born possibly as early as 1855 while most must have been born in the 1860s and 70s so they have memories close to the period 1830-65, thus being more familiar with the way things were.

The article of interest to us is this essay on the press by Kellet.  Interestingly of all the authors he could have chosen to mention he has a page or two concerning Reynolds. 

In the quote Kellett’s discussion begins with the publisher of Penny Dreadfuls Edward Lloyd.  Here I quote pages 65, 66, 67, 68 in full and part of 69.  This is terrific background with an acknowledgement of Reynolds.  An excellent perspective.

Quote:

Very different alike from Chambers, Eliza Cook, and Cleave was Edward Lloyd, the founder of the ‘Salisbury Square School of Fiction.’  Lloyd appealed to yet another class, and gave that class what it wanted, with but the pretence of a desire to elevate it in morals and in taste.  In September 1841 he started the People’s Police Gazette, a penny weekly consisting solely of what to-day are called ‘thrillers’, or narratives of some sensational crime of the day.  He did not touch on politics, and allowed no political cartoons, but made his stories still more horrible by ghastly illustrations.  The success of this paper was unprecedented, and Lloyd followed it up with another (1843).  The Weekly Penny Miscellany, sixteen closely-printed tales and novels, short or serial, saving space for these by omitting the illustrations.  This also was enormously popular.  There seemed indeed, to be no limit either to the fecundity of Lloyd’s press or to the willingness of his public to absorb its products.  In 1843, also, he brought out the Penny Atlas and Weekly Register of Novel Entertainment, while in an endless stream he poured forth penny novelettes, either selected from his magazines or quite new; not forgetting the serial, in which the ‘To be continued’ at an exciting point ensured the purchase of the next number.  The style of these works was what used to be called ‘elevated and impassioned’; and their general character may be gathered from such titles as Alice Horne, or the Revenge of the Blighted One, Ada the Betrayed.

What the refined classes thought of all this may be easily guessed.  In the Report of the Committee on Public Libraries, 1849, are many proofs of the anxiety caused by the popularity of this ‘Saturday trash.’  Lovett, who owned, however, that he had not himself read it, considered that, at least in the early stages, Lloyd’s publications were immoral and anti-social.  The evidence of George Dawson (a name well remembered in Birmingham) may carry still more weight.

‘We give the people an appetite to read, and supply them with nothing.  For the last many years, in England, everybody has been educating the people, but they have forgotten to find them any books.  In plain language, you have made them hungry, but you have given them nothing to eat; it is almost a misfortune to a man to have a great taste for reading, and not to have the power of satisfying it….The Penny stamp upon newspapers makes the cost of a good thing dear; and adds facility to the cheap people to circulate trash to an extent which is almost incredible:  the rubbish issued every Saturday is very great.’

Dawson, as we many believe, was overcolouring the picture; but it is not surprising that he spoke strongly.  Nor is it surprising that Charles Knight, who attributed the failure of the Penny Magazine to the competition of Lloyd’s papers, should have felt some indignation.  But Lloyd was quite unrepentant.  He noted with contempt, in the preface to the Miscellany (1846), the wailings of Knight; and he always insisted that his stories had an ‘elevating’ tendency.  Thus, in another of his prefaces, he declares:

‘It has ever been our aim, in the management of Lloyd’s Penny Atlas, to combine as much practical and real knowledge of human life as possible with the “’brain-woven’’ narratives, which from time to time appeared in our pages; for we hold an opinion, which in practice we have had frequent opportunities of verifying, the true morality, sound reasoning, and exalted sentiments may be more easily, more effectually, and more pleasantly conveyed to the mind through the medium of works of fiction than by any other means….We paint virtue oppressed and borne down by the wicked, and then we show the rebound of its energies: while the wild turbulence of vice has brought forth nothing but evil fruits and deep vexation of spirit.’

‘We lay before a large and intelligent circle of readers those same pleasures of the imagination which have hitherto, to a great extent, graced only the polished leisure of the wealthy.’

Nor was Lloyd without his defenders.  Thomas Frost, who made an attempt to earn the half-sovereign which Lloyd paid for each installment of his novels, considered that the Salisbury Square School, provided a useful connection link between the ballads, ‘last dying speeches’ of murderers, and terrific legends of diabolism, which had been the favourite literature of the 1790s, and the more wholesome reading of his own time.  The whole controversy was, in fact, another instance of the eternal quarrel between realism and idealism, with this curious difference, that Lloyd’s business-like realism induced him to supply his public with stronger doses of romanticism than the idealist could endure.

Lloyd had but one serious rival.  This was G.W.M. Reynolds, a strong Chartist, who thoroughly knew the taste of the people he met day by day.  As a novelist he challenged the supremacy of G.P.R. James, and was equally prolific.

[In a note Kellet adds:  Several of his novels, in double columns, paper bound, sixpenny form, were still circulating  in the present writer’s youth.]

In 1846 he started Reynold’s Newspaper, in which innumerable stories represented vice as a monster of frightful mien, yet, it is to feared, not in such a manner as to render it hateful.  There is the usual assemblage of bad baronets, designing marquises, and harassed maidens.  From time to time there are sheer horrors, outdoing Mrs. Radcliffe at her most horrible.  A typical specimen of Reynolds’s style is perhaps the following, from Ellen Percy, or the Memoirs of an actress (ii. 268):

‘ “Ah, is it so?”  I ejaculated’ and the next instant my hands were at the throat of Lady Lilla Essendene.

‘So sudden and so powerful was my attack, that she was completely overpowered in the twinkling of an eye; and she fell upon the floor.

‘ “ Let her go, Miss Percy! And don’t be a fool!” ejaculated Dame Betty.  “Those ruffians will come up and murder us.!”

‘ “Be quiet, dame!”  I said in a most peremptory manner.  “Listen!”

‘And we did listen, while my hands were still upon Lady Lilla’s throat,–my looks showing such stern determination that she evidently thought I should strangle her outright at the first indication of an attempt to cry or resist.  For several moments we listened, and still all was silent.

‘ “Now, I said, “you see Lady Lilla, that thus far the victory is my own, and the momentary conflict has not reached the ears of your myrmidons.  Answer me!—for you see I am desperate, in as much as my position was rendered desperate by your menaces.  Tell me in what part of the building is the young man confined, who was captured by your ruffians in the middle of the night?  Beware how you deceive me, for I must inform you this is not the first time I have been a prisoner in these ruins, and I am familiar with situations and details.”

‘ “That young man,” said Lady Lilla, who was just enabled to speak in a whisper as I loosed to the slightest degree the gripe which I had upon her throat,–“that young man is a certain William Lardner—”

‘ “Yes, yes, I know it,”  I ejaculated: “he is a sailor on board the yacht where you used to meet Edward St. Clair and plot your horrible schemes for my destruction.” ‘

It is clear that Reynolds’s readers would not only snatch a fearful joy out of his narratives, but also acquire some acquaintance with polysyllabic resources of the English language.  Not the least noteworthy characteristic of all the novels of the time is the way in which the heroes, at the most exciting moments, contrive to retain command of a Johnsonian vocabulary.

Whatever may be said against the ‘Salisbury Square’ School, it was clean.

End of Quote.

That account quite nicely places Reynolds in the context of this time.  It also shows from whence he found the format for his own novels and magazines.  It is interesting that while Lloyd paid half a guinea, that is 126 pence for an installment Reynolds was paid a five pound note each Friday for his.  That would seem to indicate that Stiff and Vickers knew what they had and were willing to include Reynolds in the profits.  He would have been more of a partner in the enterprise. 

That might explain why they were so miffed when Reynolds chose to abandon them and struck out on his own.

That Reynolds’ story, The Mysteries of London, was doing so well in apparently heavy traffic indicates how well he was thought of by his readers.

Kellett’s article proves valuable to myself and us because it gives an accurate and detailed account of the press in which Reynolds was working.

Note #7:

George W.M. Reynolds, John Dicks And Politics

by

R.E. Prindle

What I find amazing in my study of George W.M. Reynolds is that for a writer who was supposed to be the best selling author of the nineteenth century so little of his work can be found.  Endless copies of obscure nineteenth century English authors can be found on Ebay,  yet virtually nothing in earlier editions of Reynolds.  If you search John Dicks, early copies of other writers are occasionally available.  But, no Reynolds.

True, Pickwick Abroad was recently available but those fairly numerous copies have now disappeared. Bought up.  Even then the available edition was the 1864 reprint issued after Reynolds had stopped publishing new novels.  It also was not published by Dicks.  A little mystery there, perhaps?

Why did Reynolds not have Dicks publish it?  When George stopped writing there seemed to be a split between he and his printer John Dicks.  There have been questions asked about how politically aligned Reynolds and Dicks were.  I have as yet no settled opinion but I am beginning to think that they were worlds apart.

There can be little doubt that a man of Reynolds revolutionary mentality who not only had literary talent but great business ability with a superb printer for a lieutenant was a threat to the government of England.  It is impossible that he was not under close surveillance.  Reynolds quite frankly was a revolutionary while Dicks wasn’t.

Dicks had an unusual background, quite interesting really, but much more sedate, even scholarly, and conventional.  He probably saw Reynolds as his main chance, took it and was rewarded with great success.  If he wasn’t the originator of cheap reprints of literature he was still an innovator.

The crux of the problem in Dicks’ mind was the Reynolds’ magazine, The Reynolds Miscellany.  The Miscellany was a very successful publication although seen as quite violent in its political advocacy.  There had to be close public scrutiny.  This would have offended Dicks.

As a solution to the problem Dicks created a competing magazine he called Bow Bells following the format of the Miscellany but reversing its direction.  Having established Bow Bells he then persuaded Reynolds to fold the Miscellany into Bow Bells thus the Miscellany disappeared and Bow Bells went on to be a multi-decade success. I have a couple bound annual issues for the eighties.  Pretty lame stuff, but it made Dicks life more comfortable.

About 1860 Reynolds had exhausted his fund of stories.  Probably about 1856 and the termination of the fourth series of The Mysteries Of The Court Of London he began to dry up.  While his writing is still quite good in his later novels after ’56 the fire is gone.  His Empress Eugenie’s Boudoir is a mere summing up.  Perhaps the 1864 Pickwick Abroad rounded it off.

About this time either Reynolds chose to completely walk away from his novelistic career or Dicks persuaded him to sell out or forced him out.  Dicks took the company while Reynolds sold him all his copyrights and walked away.  To me, an author may burn out completely and stop writing but as the best selling author in England to sell his copyrights and walk away is incomprehensible.

Dicks had been making it harder to sell for Reynolds as he kept reducing the type size down to nearly diamond point making the books very uncomfortable to read.  The last printing in the 1880s is so small, although clear, that it is hardly worth the struggle.  That could have been a way of forcing Reynolds out.

At that point then Dicks published nearly the whole catalog of Harrison Ainsworth.  Perhaps when he signed on with Reynolds he thought that he would be another Ainsworth.  By the late seventies Ainsworth was struggling with his new works barely selling but Dicks undertook to publish one of them along with the earlier catalog.  The impression I have is that Dicks was disgusted by Reynolds’ writing.

George lived on until 1879 in a comfortable state, having amassed his fortune of 20,000 pounds, although his last few years were plagued by disease.

Dicks lived a little longer, turned his business over to his family and headed South to the Riviera to live out his last couple years

I rather suspect that the 1850s became increasingly difficult as the government found ways to turn the screws of the revolutionary writer.  Even then Athe 1880s were a far cry from Reynolds’ hey day of the 40s and 50s. It was a new England after 1860 while the mind of George was locked into the Romantic Period.  After 1859 the talk was all Evolution as Darwin published.  Time was creeping in like a tidal wave.  The ocean just swells and rises almost inperceptibly  and sweeps all before it.  The times changed, George didn’t.