How The West Was Lost

September 20, 2017

The Past Is Prologue:

How The West Was Lost


R.E. Prindle


The following is a quote from Vo. V of Mark Sullivan’s great social history, Our Times. The quote is a critique of Woodrow Wilson’s politics:

Of the effects of (WWI) on America, by far the most fundamental was our submission to autocracy in government. Every male between 18 and 45 had been deprived of freedom of his body – for refusing or evading the surrender, 163,738 were apprehended and disciplined, many by jail sentences. Every person had been deprived of freedom of his tongue, no one could utter dissent from the purpose or the method of war – for violating the sedition act, 1597 persons were arrested. Every business man was shorn of dominion over his factory or store, every housewife surrendered control of her table, every farmer was forbidden to sell his wheat except at the price the government fixed. Our institutions, the railroads, the telephones and telegraphs, the coal mines were taken under government control—the list was complete when, after the war and preceding the Peace Conference, Wilson took control of the trans-Atlantic cables. The prohibition of individual liberty in the interest of the state could hardly be more complete. “In the six months after our entry into the war the United States had been transformed from a highly individualistic system…into what was almost a great socialistic state in which the control of the whole industry, life and purpose of the nation was directed from Washington. It was an amazing transformation, for nothing like it had ever been attempted before on any such scale, and the process was wholly antipathetic to our ordinary ways of doing things.” It was the greatest submission by the individual to the state that had occurred in any country at any time. It was an abrupt reversal of the evolution that had been under way for centuries. Since the Magna Charta, substantially all political change had been in the direction of cumulative taking of power from the state for the benefit of the individual. Now in six months, in America the state took back, the individual gave up, what had taken centuries of contest to win.

It was not merely that we had passed through the experience of enforced submission or voluntary surrender or both. The results remained with us. Government had learned that we could be led to do it, had learned the technique of bringing the individual to give up his liberty, the cunning of propaganda, the artfulness of slogans, and the other methods for inciting mass solidarity and mass action, for causing majorities to insist on conformance by minorities.

The purpose for which we did this, as described by the one who urged us to it and led us into it was “the destruction of every arbitrary power anywhere,” “ to make the world safe for democracy,” a purpose to save the peoples of all nations, including and especially Germany, from autocratic government; a purpose to have the individualist ideal of society…triumph in a struggle against the ideal of regimentation….

That purpose reviewed fifteen years later in the light of what had meantime happened in the world, seemed very ironic indeed – Germany and Italy under dictators, Russia under a dictatorship called proletarian but more extreme in its deprivation of individual liberty than any personal dictator or absolute monarch attempted, American industry and social organization in the beginning of what was aimed toward regimentation. (Roosevelt administration.) End of quote’


Thus Wilson’s socialist politics violently wrenched Americans from a history of freedom into one of servitude. The people who aided Wilson in his attempt at a dictatorship and socialist organization of society did not disappear when Harding was elected. The Council On Foreign Affairs was set up in 1921 on Wilsonian principles. They continued in their attempt to shape America into a socialist state hindered by the three Republican presidents of the twenties, finally getting their man FDR elected in 1932. They then, the same Wilsonian crowd, returned to power setting about to complete what Wilson had begun.

Much of their program was achieved but hindered by the Second World War and Roosevelt’s death. Then began a long clandestine effort to change American mores. They seized moral control so that any who dissented from their program was labeled as anti-social, a racist or whatever. Then, when Obama was elected their man was in the Office again. Obama immediately set about to reestablish the Wilsonian dictatorship. He made great strides but the CFR wished to proceed more or less Constitutionally so they allowed an election fully expecting it to be between their two candidates Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. A wild card, Donald Trump, unexpectedly ‘stole’ the election. Had Hillary been elected she would have been able to complete the socialist revolution clamping the Wilsonian dictatorship on us.

Currently they are involved in discrediting Pres. Trump in preparation for forcing him to resign as they did Richard Nixon. I’m sure they will succeed.

The Sixties And The Negro Revolution

Part One


R.E. Prindle

Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge and capability.  Yet, because they are in charge of this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something.

–Fletcher Prouty, JFK, The CIA And Vietnam

Writing here in 2014 many things about the Negro revolt in the Sixties that were unrecognized or supposedly debatable at the time have become clear.  In my account then I will relate to the past, the present of the Sixties and the future being realized today.

The Negroes have always claimed endemic White racism.  From their perspective this is true as the disparate impact of White supremacy is unavoidable.  The attempt to deny this superiority through Affirmative Action which gives Negroes a handicap of 20 IQ points or so to make them equal admits the fact of the disparity between the two species.

This fact is also apparent by the efforts of people like McGeorge Bundy who assumed the reins of the Ford Foundation in 1966 to ‘lift’ the Negro up to White standards.  Bundy neither knew nor made any attempt to understand Negro psychology which he presumed was exactly like White psychology but less developed.  In that context the Sixties began with Kennedy’s creation of the Peace Corps in which White youths with no worldly experience were sent to ‘underdeveloped’ peoples too lift them up and show them how to do things the White way.  There seemed to be no understanding of how the rhetoric of ‘uplift’ was perceived by the poor coloreds.

The Negroes were seen in much the same way as a sort of domestic Peace Corps in which Whites would teach Negroes manners, so to speak.  In Negro eyes this was racism, White supremacy, and destested.

Yet, both sides admitted the inability of the Negro to compete in a White world when standards of ability had been created to ensure the highest standards of public benefit.  Thus to ensure Negro placement not only were Negroes given a handicap of 20 points or so but standards were lowered thus decreasing public benefit of all.

While Negroes always speak of the legacy of slavery, slavery is not the issue.  Negroes were always slaves, slavery was the norm in Africa.  The traveler Mungo Park speaking in the eighteenth century West Africa thought that seventy-five percent of the sub-Saharan Africans were slaves disposable as their owners wished.

It might also be appropriate to point out here that the African social structure such as it was had been given to them by White men.  Along the coast of the Bulge several African tribes have legends of White men coming and instructing them in the rudiments of social order.  This implies that African society before that was on a hunter gatherer basis.

These legends of White law givers were undoubtedly derived from ship wrecked sailors probably from many different historical periods probably beginning with the Phoenicians or Carthaginians who made many forays down the African coast while they are thought to have circumnavigated Africa.  It is not improbable that  a crew or crews spent several months in the areas as the voyages took years to complete so that crews had to stop, sow crops and harvest them, replenishing their stores before continuing.  Thus Whites must always have played a major role in the development of Africans.

The Arabs had been making slave raids since at least the eighth century in both West and East Africa.  At the least tens of thousands of African slaves died on the long trek from the Sahel across the Sahara to the Mediterranean shores.  The whole of the Sudan was thought to have been depopulated by 75% by the slavers.  It was there that women had plates put in their lips, had their necks stretched  using copper rings, to make them ugly so as to discourage slavers.

Further South in Kenya, Tanganyika and the Congo,  Arab slavers sent long lines of slaves in neck yokes and chains on the thousand mile walk to the coast opposite the island of Zanzibar which was the trading bazaar.  A very large percentage died on the trek and a still larger number amongst the midships passage to India and the Persian Gulf.

Yet the Negroes make no complaint about their savage treatment by the Arabs.  Why?  Quite simple.  The Arabs were White to start but from the eighth century Arabs in Africa bred with the Africans becoming Negroes themselves but retaining the Arab identity.  Negroes could understand enslavement by fellow Blacks which was normal; it had always been that way.  In many ways the Arabs were on the same intellectual level or only slightly higher than the Africans but better organized than the non-Arab Negroes so there was no real conflict on the racial level.

Even the Ugandan chief Mtese speaking in the second half of the nineteenth century remarked that he noticed that the finer Arab trading goods came from White Europeans.  There was an intellectual difference between Europeans and Arab/Negroes.  It was a marked difference in intelligence.  Nor did the difference pass unnoticed by the Whites.  Thus there was a racial divide the Whites refused to regress to and which the Negroes couldn’t cross.

Whites rather consciously or not considered the Negroes a lower form of evolution somewhere between apes and Homo Sapiens.  While Liberals of the Sixties decade would never have admitted to this attitude they nevertheless had it.  Thus the tried to ‘raise’ the Negro ‘up’ to their level.  The Negroes resented the attitude.

The Negroes always hated  and resented the Whites for their attitude as they were treated like so many farm animals on the plantations everywhere in the world.  Slavery would never have ended except for the English conscience.  White people trafficked in Africans for a couple hundred years before the British ended the practice voluntarily at the beginning of the nineteenth century.  Of course, not everyone, including the Americans, recognized British law so that the English spent millions and large human resources in the attempt to enforce their edict.

Slaves continued to pour into America until in a disgraceful war White Americans slaughtered each other while expending most of the wealth they had accumulated in the previous two centuries.   The beneficiaries of the internecine slaughter were the Negroes.  Then the Northerners attempted to enslave the Southerners to their Negro ex-slaves.

The British passed an anti-Slavery act in India in 1843.  How long it took the practice to die out, if it has, is not clear.

In Brazil slavery was abolished only in 1888, twelve years from the twentieth century.

Slavery has never been abolished in Arab lands, discretely carried on today while they have slyly re-imported the practice into Europe and America.

The Negro revolution began in Haiti just after the turn of the nineteenth century.  Haiti was part of the French colonial Caribbean stretching down from New Orleans on the North American continent through Haiti and the numerous islands leading down to South America.

The Negroes rose up and slaughtered every White male.   As a sign of their resentment at White superiority that put White women out of reach of the Negro they allowed the White women to live so long as they gave up their pretensions of superiority and bedded Negroes.  Most did.  But those that didn’t were raped and tortured to death.

The French have always loved the Negro more than other Europeans.  In their colonies there was a large mulatto population created by White men impregnating slaves that also owned slaves while there were numerous free Negro slave owners.  Thus it was  that the majority of Negro slave owners in the US after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 were in New Orleans.  It may be a coincidence that the French sold Louisiana shortly after the Haitian rebellion or perhaps they read the writing on the wall.

While slavery was relatively benign in the Eastern states where owners did not have the right of life and death over their slaves in New Orleans the Negro slave owners were in the habit of working their slaves to death finding it cheaper to buy more.  What good is an old useless slave anyway, hey?

Indeed, breeding farms arose in Kentucky, the site of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  When the Negroes were of an age they were sold down river to New Orleans which gave rise to that American expression.

Nor were all slaves Black.  Free labor is free labor black or white.  A large proportion of eighteenth century slaves were White, called indentured servants, who were treated as slaves working in the fields cheek by jowl with the Negroes.  Nor were they necessarily released after their term of indenture.  Excuses  for expenses incurred could always be invented.

In the seventeenth century in Ireland Oliver Cromwell rounded up tens of thousands of Irish and sold them into slavery in the Caribbean where they remained slaves unto death.  Children and others were abducted from English streets to be sold into slavery.  The hero of Stevenson’s kidnapped was given as a reward to the ship’s captain to sell in America.

To return to the main narrative.  The Negro rebellion began in Haiti and spread from there to Negro revolts on the US mainland. The Negro revolts were interrupted by the War Between the Whites.  The revolt in a sense succeeded during Reconstruction abetted by the Northerners.  The White counter-revolution threw off the Northern/Negro yoke in 1877 thus actually ending slavery in the US while beginning the counter suppression known as Jim Crow.  The species were strictly segregated.

The racial war has never ceased although assuming different manifestations for differing circumstances.  The Negro has always been aided by Northern Liberals and after 1900 by the Jews who had immigrated in their millions.  WWI gave many opportunities to Negroes who were not used as troops.  The war was fought by Whites against Whites thus allowing Negroes to replace their manpower in the Northern factories.  The great internal migration from South to North had begun.  Of course it was attended by ferocious racial warfare, usually referred to as riots.  Abetted again by WWII the internal Negro migration proceeded turning into a flood during the fifties and sixties.

The Negro revolt has been characterized as America’s Unfinished Revolution referring to the failure of Reconstruction, or the supremacy of the Negro.  In 2014 we are near another civil war to complete the revolution.  The key event in this phase of the revolution was the Brown vs. The Board of Education Supreme Court Decision of 1954 that is said to have effectively ended the Jim Crow period.

If we consider the reality of the situation, the Negro view and the Liberal view the Supreme Court decision was a disaster.  I can’t even characterize it as well meaning.  It completely failed to take into consideration the realities of the situation.

Any historical perspective beginning only with the Northern imposition of Reconstruction on the South a mere eighty-nine years previously and the end of Reconstruction just seventy-seven years previously would surely alert you to the fact that the wires you were holding were live at both ends.  To have ignored that was foolish.  Couple that with the fact that most of the Africans had arrived after 1820 and had never been acclimated from the jungle to civilization.  Mark Sullivan in his wonderful ‘Our Times’ states that in his early years ‘charming’ Africanisms  such as wearing feathers was still in existence.  That means that the Africans of 1954 had been excluded from the mainstream by Jim Crow for seventy-seven years.  They had little concept of how the majority lived or acted or even the nature of government.

Also, by the Liberals own reckoning since they thought the Negroes’ schools and hence education was woefully substandard,  they were several years behind comparable White education.  They believed the Negro couldn’t get a quality education unless they were admitted to White schools.  It is difficult to understand how they thought they could integrate the two class level to class level.  At best they would have had to start with five years olds and begin with that generation.  As it is, several generations later the educational gap is still in existence.

On a realistic scientific basis it is not possible to close the gap.  Like it or not the Negro, at the very least the First Born of Homo Sapiens, is the evolutionary beginning point of Homo Sapiens while as a more probable situation they may be the Last Hominid Predecessor, or Homo Africanus, hence entirely incapable of advancing intellectually.

The Africans themselves resent being treated as the Liberals’ pets or being thought to need to be elevated to White levels which was precisely the Liberal goal then and now.  The back lash at the Negro level had to be.  Reaction to the Brown decision would surface ten years later in, for our purposes here, NYC when Community Control of the schools surfaced.  Negroes wanted all Negro schools with all Negro teachers while setting their own curriculum.  This position effectively negated the Brown decision rendering all the socially destructive hub bub of militarily enforcing the decision on Whites completely unnecessary.  By the Sixties the racial animosity was unstoppable.

Part II follows.

Part IV

Mick Jagger, The Rolling Stones And The Yobbo Revolution

Mick, Kenneth Anger And Satan


R.E. Prindle

R.E. Prindle


A Musical Digression

While this part deals with the rise of the occult it will require a digression or two to flesh out the argument to provide credibility.

Mark Sullivan, the author of the fabulous turn of the twentieth century study, Our Times, quotes Plato as observing that when a people’s music changes it signifies a great change of consciousness; the only question is, for what duration.

As Sullivan notes, the incoming waves of immigration to the US during the nineteenth century each brought its musical consciousness with it which was grafted onto American consciousness; thus the German, Polish, Italian and Irish musics etc. all had their influence.  Sullivan was somewhat puzzled because with the huge Jewish influx he couldn’t find a commensurate Jewish music.

Sullivan failed to note that while the Jews had no national music of their own they were past adepts at mimicking the music of other nationalities; hence a large percentage of US music of other nationalities, Irish, Polish and German songs were actually written by Jews in the appropriate idiom.  Jack Yellin for instant within ten years of his arrival was writing quintessential Southern songs such as ‘Are You From Dixie.’  A very high percentage of what is considered quintessential Americana has been penned by Jews thus infusing Jewish culture into and replacing American culture with their own.

While immigration was held to a minimum from 1914 to 1965 there was a huge internal migration of Negroes from the South to the North and West.  The Jews served the same function with Negro music as they had with the external migrants.  They wrote the songs for Negroes to sing.  This was especially evident during the fifties and sixties of the twentieth century when the terms Negro and Jew became synonymous.

In the fifties when I was a boy Rock and Roll made its entry into musical history.  From an elders’ point of view Rock and Roll was a corruption of our musical tastes that extended into our morality.  This was as Plato and Sullivan predicted.  The intense tough and decisive battles for  supremacy in American culture were being fought between Communists and Americanists- Collectivism vs. Individualism.  The decisive battle was the failure of Joe McCarthy.  When McCarthy went down the war was lost although a long rear guard action delayed the Communist triumph that actually only took place in 2008 with the election of the Negro Barack Obama.

Dr. Strangelove by Peter Sellers. Must see movie.

Thus the fifties was a long intense struggle that was fought out in the movies, phonograph records, publishing and radio with an increasing boot from television.  While we knew we were fighting the Communists for survival the means of the warfare were noticed but by a few and they were demonized by the Communist controlled media as cranks.  Most frequently  the accusations were made by wild eyed hysterical sounding Fundamentalist ministers.  As the majority couldn’t see the accusations that Fluoride and Rock and Roll were Communist plots the accusers were laughed off.  I could never understand how something I loved, Rock and Roll, was a Communist plot.

I did note the accusation was uttered with such complete sincerity however that it troubled my mind over the decades as to how these ministers could make such an accusation.  I suppose the first seeds of comprehension were planted by the Peter Sellers’ movie ’Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned To Love The Bomb And Stop Worrying.’  The movie while hilariously funny was so skewed toward the Communist cause that it gave me pause.  I vaguely comprehended that I was being manipulated.

Shifting The Mores

     Now, after something like sixty years of thought and study, including Plato and Sullivan, I have I believe the explanation.

The Mores of the US have probably always been relatively fluid.  Almost from the beginning the mores of East Anglia clashed with those of Wessex and then came the Scots, the Rhineland Germans (known as the Pennsylvania Dutch), the Anglo-Scots of the Border Country, the Midland English Quakers and a smattering of others along with the strong Negro element.

After Independence the Negro population burgeoned when the invention of the cotton gin  created the cotton culture of the South.  This population would create the tension that led to the Civil War and from that conflict the tension that would lead to the post-WWII Negro revolt.

The Irish invasion of the 1840-60 period brought the great clash of mores between the Celts and Anglos that reached its head in the 1960 election of the Celt, John F. Kennedy.

Along with the Irish came the 48ers of that failed European revolutionary phase that would create the collective-individualist conflict in mores that has resulted in the Communist triumph of Barack Obama of today.

Then in the 1870s began the invasion of the Southern and Eastern Europeans that created a conflict in mores between themselves and the Irish, Anglo and Northern European element.  As noted things settled down into a contest of moral wills until 1965 when the gates were thrown open to the entire world as though the fraction of the world’s surface designated the US could house all humanity.  Thus any possible hope of a unity of mores was completely shattered.  Any center that might have existed was destroyed.

Now, as unpleasant as the facts may be to some intelligences, the control of the creation of a unified set of mores was seized by the Jewish immigrants in the aftermath of WWI.

To merely select a highlight of the process, in 1938 the Stalinist-Jewish agent, Congressman Samuel Dickstein. with the complicity of FDR created the House Un-American Activities Committee to root out anti-Semites and Fascist/Nationalists thus shifting control of mores to the Judaeo-Communists.  The move was only partially successful initially as it had to face an intense post-war reaction ultimately conducted by the near great Joseph McCarthy.

As ever the mores of the majority were attacked at the weak joints in their armor.  The key point was the long festering Aryan-Negro conflict.  In realistic terms it was a conflict that could have only two results, the physical subjugation or extermination of the Whites by the Blacks or vice versa or the amalgamation of the two species.

Like it or not, the Jews and Negroes are calling for the extermination of Whites.  The problem in post-war 1946 was how a small minority of Jews and Negroes representing perhaps 14% of the population could eliminate the 86% who were fully armed and dangerous.

The first step would be to knock the majority off its moral center.  Without a moral focal point the majority would flounder.  The route taken was nothing new.  Ever since post WWI when the newly formed Anti-Defamation and NAACP Leagues were formed the majority had been cast as bigots.  This caused a polarization among its Liberal and Conservative elements and Immigrants and Natives.  By 1950 there was a 50-50 split between descendents of pre-1800 and those who came after.   These splits were exacerbated by propaganda.  Outside those divisions were the Negroes.

So, then how to fracture and fragment the majority White population even further.

Until 1954 the music that you heard on the radio was all Western, not cowboy but derived from the White or Aryan

The Great Joe McCarthy

population.  And there wasn’t much of that music broadcast.  Radio was controlled by the networks and they only slotted a couple hours a day of fairly wishy-washy stuff.  Then about 1954 when television, commercially introduced after 1946, displaced radio as the source of home entertainment, radio floundered and only saved itself by going to all music that soon developed into Top 40 and teen dominance of the radio airwaves.  That was my age cohort.

That was a time when the designation race music meant the stuff that only Negroes listened to.  The designation Country and Western replaced the term Hillbilly at this time.  Some considered Hillbilly a race music with a degree of accuracy if with malice.  Hillbilly was despised by all but a minority not much larger than the Negroes of which I was one.

Strangely at about the same time efforts were made to bring both musics into the mainstream.  Actually they would combine with folk to form Rock and Roll-  Rhythm and Blues and Rockabilly.  Hard to tell which was the harder sell.

The Vile Erskine Caldwell

H.L. Mencken in the teens and twenties had excoriated the hill people, from which I derive on my father’s side, while the vile Erskine Caldwell vilified and completely defamed Southern Whites in his two hateful and extremely popular novels Tobacco Road and God’s Little Acre.  The two novels remained a tremendous influence through the fifties as well as the pervert Al Capp’s cartoon strip L’il Abner.  Thus a large part of the majority population was more receptive to Negro music than Hillbilly.

Naturally the agents in the forcing of Negro music on the Aryans were the Jews.  The actual recordings of real Negroes were pretty raw and unmusical.  Though stuff to digest.  Of course there had always been Negroes catering to White audiences such as Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Billie Holliday, the Ink Spots and Mills Brothers of the earlier generation and the great Platters, Fats Domino and Johnny Mathis of the next generation but the real Negro music was unmistakable.

Thus Jewish songwriters such as Leiber-Stoller, Doc Pomus, Mort Shuman and others adopted Negro personas and wrote most of the Rhythm and Blues performed by Negroes.  It was this Negro music geared to Aryans by Jewish song writers with a foot in each camp that made the inroads leading up to Berry Gordy’s Motown Sound where you had a new generation of Negroes packaged exclusively for

H.L. Mencken

Aryans singing songs largely written by Negroes and, of course, from there it melded into the more racial Soul Music of the sixties.

So, in 1954 Rock and Roll began to develop.  First was Bill Haley, the former leader of a Country band who picked up on some Negro/Jewish shouts like Shake, Rattle And Roll and moved them over to the White side of the tracks.  And then came acceptable cuddly Negroes like Fats Domino and the respectable Bill Doggett with his great Honky Tonk Pts. I & II.  I don’t know how Little Richard squeezed between Fats and The Platters but he did.  Of course he wasn’t even of this planet and there was no discrimination toward extra-terrestrials.

Acts like James Brown And His Famous Flames were rejected out of hand.  There were no crossover possibilities there.  The greatest hit he ever made was his beloved televised funeral.  That was something else.

The Chess artists that the Brits idolized made absolutely no impression at all with the exception of Chuck Berry.  After Maybelline Chuck had tough sledding although he has fared reasonable well in the aftermath.  Memphis, Tennessee, a true classic.

The One And Only

     The Commies Were Everywhere

The Law Of Unintended Consequences

     When the Fundamentalist ministers objected to Rock and Roll as a Communist plot I’m sure they were ignorant of the actual evolution of Rock so I am not clear on what their antennae were picking up.  They may have been watching something that isn’t so obvious now.

The world of Folk Music was clearly Communist run with a very strong Jewish influence.  While other people knew of the Red influence in the arch Commie group The Weavers, it was not at all obvious to kids like myself.  The Weavers’ great hit On Top Of Old Smoky betrayed nothing that could be considered Communist.  However the idea of Folk Music which I have always interpreted as Appalachian style music, essentially real oldtime hillbilly, was slowly expanded into a political notion of poor people’s music, the music of the ‘oppressed.’   Now, let me tell you, I come from this social group but have never considered myself ‘oppressed.’  That attitude comes from some very well situated people who have never been at the bottom.  Seeger and his Almanac singers brought Depression songs into the mix so that ‘real’ people went around saying things like ‘I knowed it wan’t  no good.’  Poor people with the folkies were always illiterates who ‘knowed’ things.

Seeger and the Weavers had a hit with the Israeli song Tzena, Tzena, Tzena that was a sprightly song but hardly folk.  Apparently not realizing the song was a success because of its tune not its Jewishness the Weavers followed that song with some propaganda called The Song Of The Sabra, some kind of Israeli kibbutz song.

The Weavers w/ Pete Seeger

At that time the TV Hit Parade show was big and practically the only source of hit songs so Seeger got his song on as an extra because no one bought the record.  It may have been the first Israel as the fifty-first state attempt.  If so the reaction was completely negative.  Shortly after, Seeger and The Weavers were investigated as Reds and disappeared.

Seeger became an anti-commercial purist but a major guru of the heavily Communist and Jewish New York folk scene of the late fifties and early sixties from whence the young Bob Dylan became a stellar performer.  So, between the Negro race music and the Aryan Hillbilly race music along with the Folk music that became a part of the meld, Rock and Roll was sort of the unintended consequence of the effort to force Negro music on Aryans and the Red influence of Folk.

When Fred Hallerman of the Weavers became a consultant for the Kingston Trio in the late fifties revival of the Weaver ethic, the Kingstons did follow a Communist musical agenda that most folkies adopted.  Once again, you had to have a score card to know the players and follow the game.

In England beginning around 1960 a funny thing happened on the way to the recording studio that the Judaeo-Communists could not have anticipated.  The second generation of rockers worshipped Negroes and Negro American music especially the urban electric bluesmen of the fifties that White Americans had already rejected.  It is true that the small coterie of American White Negroes were fanatical about Negro artists like Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and a few others but the mass market would have nothing to do with them either in the fifties or after thirty years of ballyhoo.  The fanaticism was not contagious.  Indeed a really nice picker like Mississippi John Hurt is unknown.  You can count the number of records sold by the Blues hero Robert Johnson on one hand.

Yet the English rockers born from 1940 to 1944 literally worshipped these Negro guys, listening to their records until they had them note for note, even attempting to be Negro, chasing Negro women.  Of course the music had to be adapted to the mass taste to succeed and in the adaptation a new, or at least different, style of music was created.  As strange as it may seem both the Communist Jagger and Richards of the Rolling Stones had an attraction to American Country and Western while being reared on the Englishman, Scots actually, Lonnie Donegan’s big beat folk rock.

What came out of the Stones then was a strange Negro-Country and Western sound performed by White Negroes.

Thus Negro slave music despondent and defeated was successfully laid as the basis for the Folkways of a generation or two of Whites.  Musically the revolutionary program was on course as the sixties dawned developing rapidly.  The Fundamentalist ministers as it turns out were right about Rock and Roll being a Communist plot or turning into one.

Organizing The Future

Procol Harum 1967

She wandered through the garden fence

And said I’ve brought at great expense

A potion guaranteed to bring

Relief from all your suffering.

And though I said: You don’t exist

She grasped me firmly by the wrist

And threw me down upon my back

And strapped me to her torture rack

And without further argument

I found my mind was all so bent

Upon a course so devious

It only made my torment worse.

–Procol Harum

The Communist strategy was to break up prevailing mores and replace them with its own.  Thus the so-called concept of Critical Theory, which was Jewish, was used.  Critical Theory is mostly taking a superior moral attitude as though one knew best and then carping at the existing society as though only fools had devised it and they could do better if they only had the chance.  This attitude applies to all established standards and customs.

Key to our argument here is the assault on artistic standards.  The Semitic religions of Judaism and Moslemism reject the representation of living life forms especially that the human relying on abstract designs instead.  Thus Aryan representational art is anathema to them.  More or less as the twentieth century began, coeval with the rise of Freudian psychology, the assault on representational art began.

In the US the assault began with the New York Armory show of 1913.  The most sensational work of this seminal deconstructive exhibit was the Marcel DuChamp picture of  The Nude Descending A Staircase, he, himself was a Communist agent.  The process continued led by Jewish artists who formed a blobs and dabs ethic leading into Abstract Expressionism and finally completed by the anti-art of Andy Warhol in the early sixties.

Andy Warhol-Yoko Ono Practicing The Black Arts

In 1959 thirty-two short years after the American hero Charles Lindbergh flew his single engine prop airplane across the Atlantic over a period of days a four engine Jet 707 lifted from the runway of Idlewilde airport in New York City to cross the Atlantic non-stop to London in a few hours.  This inaugurated the Jet Era while creating a new phenomenon, the Jet Set.  Logistics had been made incomparably quicker and easier.  Revolution could be co-ordinated as never before.

One imagines that David Bailey watching this first flight recognized its momentousness.  I like to think his breath was taken away by this miracle of science and that he rushed down to get a ticket for the return flight to New York.  Who was David Bailey?  He was a young fashion photographer  for British Vogue.  Antonioni’s film Blow Up was based on his career in what would be known as Swinging London in a few years.  Dave in his early twenties would catch the wave at its inception and ride the wave all the way up and all the way down.  As I write he’s still out there.

As a result of the 707 Fashion itself was made identical on both sides of the Atlantic.  New York and London became one huge metropolis for lucky Jet Setters.  While Dave Bailey was in New York either this time or another time he met fellow revolutionary Andy Warhol.  Andy was a fashion illustrator of shoes during the fifties so it is not improbable that someone at American Vogue called Andy to Dave’s attention.  Or, perhaps as Dave was a switch hitter he wandered into the Serendipity where Andy was a fixture and formed an acquaintance there.

In any event in 1963 Dave Bailey took Mick Jagger on a 707 jet flight to New York.  Mick, as we all know, was a revolutionary who at that time was attending the Communist London School of Economics while singing with the nascent Rolling Stones.  Dave took Mick to call on Andy and the three became fast friends, mates as Dave would say.  Mick revered Andy.  Andy himself playing the fey fool for security became a very important figure in revolutionary circles until his death in 1987.  Andy himself revered Marcel DuChamp while considering himself DuChamp’s disciple.

David Bailey and Jean Shrimpton today. First she’s yours and then she’s his.

Just as Yoko Ono realized the potential of the Happenings for bending society to her will so did Andy.  Having put the finishing touches to art, pop art would be followed by graffiti artists like Keith Haring and Basquiat, Andy turned to film.  His atelier known as The Factory became a very long Happening from ‘64 to’67 when Andy was turned out of his quarters.  After a hiatus of a decade the torch was picked up by the nightclub Studio 54 which in many ways was a continuation of The Factory as a social scene.  Andy was no less a fixture at Studio 54 than he had been at his own Factory.

The Union of Jagger and Warhol was fortuitous as with Andy’s blessing the Stones became practically the Village house band.  The Village was a stronghold for the Stones.  Perhaps inspired by the success of the Stones as well as Bob Dylan Andy made a foray into music when he adopted the Velvet Underground as the Factory house band launching their very short career and the much longer one of Lou Reed.

The stage on which the ‘60s revolutionaries played out their gig was gradually falling into place as the unintended consequence of the foisting of Negro music on White youth by the Jews.  As it turns out it was a Communist plot.

The Communist strategy was to break up prevailing mores and replace them with its own.  This is an age old technique.  No surprises here but to the uninformed.  To mention only one example common to all religions, when a new religion is seeking to replace an old religion the simplest thing is to build new shrines on old sites.  Thus a Christian church replaces a pagan shrine, then a Moslem mosque replaces the Christian church.  The ‘Holy’ site remains the same but faith replaces faith.

Thus, the Communists made their assault on popular culture.  Several very potent technologies had been developed by the ‘Capitalists’ that would never have come into existence under Communism, movies, TV, radio, records and print as well as the art world.  They have used them all effectively.  In authoritarian societies such as the USSR content could be strictly controlled and any deviants punished unlike the West with a long habit of freedom of expression.  As the sixties progressed any attempt to control such things as pornography, nudity and actual sexual perversity were removed.  By the end of the decade the cherished Holy Grail of the revolutionaries of being able to say ‘fuck’ in movies or on TV had been realized.   The Warhol movies of Paul Morrissey,  Blood For Dracula and Flesh For Frankenstein, carried the portrayal of Sado-Masochism to lengths that would have delighted De Sade and Sacher-Masoch themselves.

In an extreme pornographic Happening in 1971 Mick Jagger before an audience of millions would have a huge inflatable penis unroll from the back of the stage, which he mounted.  If there was any community objection it was hooted down in the name of freedom of expression.  Truly a cultural revolution of some sort had been achieved by a small minority.

Sussing Out The Ghouls

Groovy Bob Fraser- Good book.

The key to the psychology of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is Sigmund Freud and where he fits into the culture.  Unfortunately he was not on the side of the angels.  In the struggle between Reason and Un-reason Freud was the champion of un-reason, the Lord of Misrule.  He aligned himself with ancient traditions, none of them Jewish as when they were formed there were no Jews, at the dawn of human history.

Freud discussed these ancient attitudes, in one guise or another, in his 1930 complaint Civilization And Its Discontents.  To mention merely one strain, that of sex.  While we cannot hope to recreate the mind of early man let us assume that early man took a cop from the nearest available woman where he found her.  Rape was not yet a concept so for our purpose here, like Freud we’ll assume that forced sex was common and men, at least, suffered from no sexual repression.  This is the very core of Freudian psychology.

Thus in the good old days a man in the mood who came across a woman drawing water at the spring simply grabbed the woman copped and strolled away without so much as a thank you.  Nine months late the woman said a god appeared to her and the baby was his.  Easy.  But as populations evolved civilized new rules were introduced and men, at least, began to suffer the horrors of repressing their sexual appetites.  This was very nearly original sin in Freud’s mind.  Restrictions were placed on uninhibited copulation.  However the memories of the good old days lived on and men subjected to the new discipline complained of their loss of rights.

At that point society thought something had to be done to satisfy these reactionaries.  One possible solution was sacred prostitution.  Thus young girls were taken down to the temple precincts and couldn’t leave until they offered themselves to the first taker.

In other instances girls stayed until they earned their dowries.  In any event the illusion was created that any man could have any woman when he wanted her- if he had a shekel.  If not then back to laboring in the vineyards of the Lord until he earned one.

Presumably this system worked reasonably well until the mores of the Matriarchy were replaced by the mores of the Patriarchy and women became private property with the woman secluded out sight of leering male eyes.  This system had its problems, one being that some guys were so greedy for women that they collected hundreds in what they called a harem and said that these women were exclusively theirs.  A neat turnaround of temple prostitution.  Well, all systems have inherent flaws.

Middle Easterners then carried it so far that to prevent impertinent glances from passing fellow men they clothed their women cap-a-pie and then put a screen in front of their faces.  Wow! That’s thorough.

As odd as it may seem those memories persisted for thousands of years perpetuated by cults and secret societies.  In reaction to Catholic discipline societies such as the Free Spirits, the Anabaptists and such rebelled against the church in an attempt to re-establish that golden age of yore when it was supposed that men, at least, were unrepressed and could do as they pleased with any woman.  As Rabelais phrased it:  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.  Law and Civilization go together so to get rid of one you have to get rid of the other.  Freud wasn’t dumb.

Then the Enlightenment evolved and the Free Spirits morphed into the Libertines and the Libertines morphed into the Bohemians and Organized Crime and, et voila! Here we are.  Today! Or at least New York City today.  We’re getting closer to Andy and Mick’s paradise.

And then we have the problem of good and evil or, in other words, God and Satan.  A lively division was carried on in ancient times that gradually evolved into  Christian Orthodoxy and Gnostic heterodoxy.  These went through additions and subtractions, mutation and changes until there gradually emerged a clarification of the Godly Church and the Satanic occult.  The Church was able to successfully manage Satanism until the Enlightenment when with their power broken Satanism, Bohemianism and Organized Crime were able to surface and operate in the open.

Many were the advocates and cults.  The central figure of Satanism was  the Frenchman Eliphas Levy (French not Jewish, Levy was an assumed name).  Levy organized modern Satanism.  The novels of J.K. Huysmans give a good insight into this period as well as being good reading.  Important to the US was the Golden Dawn of Aleister Crowley who managed to leave England and live and die in Los Angeles.  His publishing house still survives in the desert town of Barstow.

Thus Satanism grew in significance into the twentieth century when it aligned itself with Warhol and popular music.  When opportunity presents itself, snatch it.

Today, many self-styled adepts and magi have made their appearance over the decades usually with some sort of sex therapy that involves total indulgence or submersion in sexual congress.  Thus the link between Satanism and Freudianism is strengthened.  Freud himself has an appearance of a magus.  He was steeped in the Jewish occult, Frankism, the Zohar, Kaballah and so forth.  His answer to mental health was also unlimited sexual intercourse.  He believed that the more ejaculations per day the better a man would be.  Thus, once again, we have New York City of toady in which women are expected to indulge men in the most casual of sexual encounters.  It will be remembered that the Jewish psycho-analysts fleeing the Third Reich mainly settled in New York thus once again strengthening the Freudian connection.

Thus the anger of ancient sexual reactionaries has been made the ‘sexual liberation’ of today.  Sexual revolution?  What sexual revolution?  Just a return to the most primitive sexual indulgence.

As Freud was himself a homosexual it is no accident that he quietly promoted homosexuality or, at least, the end of sexual repression leading to…what appeared to be sexual liberation in his imagination.

Now, Mick Jagger first appeared in New York in 1963 with David Bailey as his cicerone just when all this fustian was about to ignite.  A later fellow revolutionary future associate, Bob Fraser was working in New York, learning his craft, at the time so it is possible the Dave and Mick met him at that time.  We don’t know as yet what all Bailey introduced Mick to.  Kenneth Anger, the homosexual filmmaker and self styled magus and Black Magician from California was very influential not only in New York but in London as well.  He would associate himself with the leading revolutionists such as Warhol, Jagger, Bailey, Lennon-Ono and the English art dealer Robert Fraser.  Fraser spent the first few years of the sixties in New York learning the art trade while he mingled with Warhol and the NY pop artists.  He was then to introduce their work to London.

Kenneth Anglemeyer aka Kenneth Anger

Kenneth Anger made ‘experimental’ films such as the influential ‘Scorpio Rising’ the movie had a great influence on Andy when he turned to films in 1963.  Scorpio Rising is a homosexual film about a gay primping to go out catting on his motorcycle in some Brando ‘Wild Ones’ setting.  It is a silent film except for the girl group soundtrack of a dozen or so songs.

Anger would then insinuate himself into Jagger’s entourage as he tried to bring Jagger into his Satanic circle.  Mick was supposed to write the sound track for an Anger film but didn’t produce causing Anger in revenge to claim the soundtrack was by Jagger then using some horrid static as a soundtrack.  Anger would also con Jagger’s then girl friend, Marianne Faithfull, into appearing in what he considered his magnum opus Lucifer Rising.  That movie was pretty much a waste which considering Anger’s other efforts is saying a great deal.

Nevertheless Anger influenced Jagger bringing Mick into the orbit of Satanic religion at least through the sixties.  Satanic tropes also began to be marketed to the general public in the mid-sixties with dozens of Satanic movies released over the next decade. In much more than a symbolic way the birth of Satan, Lucifer rising,  was for the modern age portrayed in the 1968 movie Rosemary’s Baby directed by the Jewish Roman Polansky based on the 1967 novel of the same name by the Jewish Ira Levin.

The movie purported to be filmed in New York’s legendary Dakota Apartment building, now condos.  The movie would

The Magus- Aleister Crowley

make the Dakota a Mecca for Satanists in the upcoming years.  John Lennon and Yoko Ono would acquire three apartments in the Dakota in the seventies including two on the seventh floor on which Rosemary’s Baby took place.

Ono herself was a devotee of the Black Arts (black doesn’t mean Negro in this context nor in the term Black Magic) so that her move into the apartment building may have had deep meaning to her.

The previous year, 1967, the Stones had released their record Their Satanic Majesties Request in which Mick introduces himself as Satan.  The disc was released on the eighth of December just before the birth of the baby Jesus.  This might have been coincidental or it might have been a Jewish joke.  At any rate the heavily Fundamentalist US audience of ‘kids’ took it literally thus identifying the ‘bad boy’ Stones as Satanists.  The record also set a tone for the next few years.

According to sources such as Marianne Faithfull Mick was not seriously into Satanism.  She says that he was influenced by the Russian novel The Master And Margarita.  That novel itself has a Wag The Dog quality.  Wag The Dog was a 1997    movie in which a fake war has been reported by a compliant media for political reasons.  However man proposes and God disposes.  The scenario has to be regulary adapted to changing circumstances that often fail to occur as planned.  A key point is when a song was faked, made to sound old, then inserted into the Congressional Library to be ‘discovered.’  The Master And Margarita has that quality.

Supposedly written by one Bulgakov, nearly a legend in his time but forgotten today, for whom a romantic biography has been concocted, he was too cautious to publish in his lifetime as he was already in disfavor with Stalin.  The manuscript was placed in a drawer where it lay undiscovered until 1966.  At that time it was discovered and not only rushed through the presses but this would be classic was considered such a phenomenal find that it was also rushed through a translation that was also published in 1966.

For some extraordinary reason a copy of this amusing but hardly earth shaking novel in which Satan comes to Moscow was also rushed to the hands of the singer in a rock and roll band, Mick Jagger.   Mick not only received a copy but immediately sat down and read it.  Thunderstruck, apparently, he, one supposes, in a blind daze dashed off the lyrics in time to include the then composed music into the new album:  Their Satanic Majesties Request.  The novel ain’t that good.

While Marianne may be correct the sequence of events seems contrived.

However his movie Performance of 1968 goes a long way in reinforcing the impression that he was somewhat into Satanism.  So, within several months the Stones released their record, Jagger released his movie and Rosemary’s Baby appeared.  These were dark years and growing darker and when ‘Satan’ appeared at Altamont the result was a foregone conclusion.  It didn’t help subsequently when Mick mounted his giant inflated penis.

Nineteen sixty-eight and nine were tumultuous years in the record business as the industry moved from an entertainment backwater into a major billion dollar player.  It was then that Mick and his fellow Stones realized that although their group was earning tens of millions of dollars very little of that money was coming their way.  It could hardly escape them that while their ‘managers’ Eric Easton and Andrew Oldham showed evidence of big money they were still living hand to mouth.  They sacked Oldham and Easton only to be tossed into the mouth of Leviathan, Allen Klein, by the departing Oldham.

Klein himself would manage to snag several major British groups including the two biggest, the Stones and the Beatles, any ogre’s dream.  One imagines that he and his heirs have made hundreds of millions if not billions as a result of their thefts albeit conducted through legal methods.

It was not too long after the departure of Oldham and Easton that Jagger realized the monstrous trap that was Klein that Oldham had led the Stones into.

Actually the relationship of the goyish artists and their Jewish managers and record corporation execs is an interesting sociological and psychological study.  I, of course, follow Freudian group theory from a Critical Theory perspective hence cannot be accused of anti-Semitism as Freud approached psychology from a scientific rather than a religious perspective himself being an atheist or so he said.

In Jewish thought they believe themselves to be Chosen of God hence occupying a position halfway between the godhead and humanity.  As such they consider themselves as owners of the goyim or, in other words, human cattle.  As the very Jewish Bob Dylan was to sing- Give me some milk or go home.  Thus the Jewish personnel in the record industry consider the artists as something to be milked.

As with any cattle there are certain maintenance expenses that are unavoidable.  It isn’t all profit.  Thus of the billions milked from the British artists alone it is doubtful that the artists were allowed a penny on the dollar in compensation if that.  The ‘milk’ obtained from the most fabulously successful act, the Beatles, is almost unbelievable.   Both the Stones and the Beatles only amassed fortunes after they had freed themselves from their Jewish owners.  Which is to say they buy their way out trailing mega dollars.

When Jagger realized the enormity of the criminality of Allen Klein he was desperate to escape his clutches.  Interestingly he turned to, Prince Rupert Loewenstein, to free his group from the clutches of Klein.

When Klein took over the Stones from Oldham they were successful but not the icons they were fast becoming as the seventies neared.  After freeing themselves from Klein the Stones went on to actually earn billions.  Their concerts alone grossed over a billion dollars from 1971 to the present with another supposedly on the horizon that could possibly take in a quarter billion or more.

Now, it is nearly impossible for an artist to manage money period but money in the billions can only be managed by a competent financial staff.  Rupert serves that function.   I do note that when Jerry Hall was divorcing Mick she thought it prudent to check with Rupert to see if her money was still there.  Apparently she was aware of the financial shenanigans of money managers.  Historically they can’t be trusted.  One never knows whether the money is there until one asks for the check.

However whether Klein or Loewenstein, the management, the control, virtually the possession of those billions is in the hands of others.

One can only imagine the fear, the panic, that gripped Mick’s mind when he realized that all his and the Stones efforts of ten years had changed hands without any compensation.  One can only imagine the horror with which he received the news that he and his fellows were penniless.  One probably cannot imagine Mick’s reaction as Allen Klein told him- tough shit, so sue me.

Sue him the Stones did but operators like Klein know how to stonewall court orders while using accounting methods to conceal tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.  The Stones sued for a mere seventeen million dollars while settling for bankruptcy returns of ten cents on the dollar.  A little joke of Klein’s as he laughed merrily on the way to the bank.  How much the Stones got of the settlement and how much their lawyers took has yet to be revealed.

He was fortunate to obtain the services of Rupert Loewenstein who bore the honorific title Prince.  Rupert extricated the Stones from Klein while being associated with the City banking establishment of London and already managing the money of a couple dozen of the mega rich seems to have been a fortunate choice.  Letting himself out to pasture in 2007, Rupert will release an account of his experiences with the Stones in a March 2013 memoir ‘A Prince Among Stones.’  Sounds promising but we’ll see.  Place an advance order now and wait.

Andrew Loog Oldham

When Klein took over the Stones from Oldham they were very successful but not the icons they were becoming.  After freeing themselves from Klein the Stones went on to actually earn billions.  Never forget their are expenses, including Rupert.  I don’t know what Rupert’s fees were, perhaps he’ll tell but I imagine the Stones have made him wealthier than he had been before.

Now, artists are artists who must pay attention to their art rather than their finances so a manager like Rupert is an essential.  How trustworthy he actually was remains to be seen although no complaints from the Stones as yet.

Certainly Mick must have entered an extreme darkness of mind as he passed through the years from ‘67 to ‘71.  Psychologically he had been emasculated by Easton, Oldham and Klein.  One way to interpret his riding the inflatable penis could be as an attempt to regain the illusion of his manhood.  One could also interpret his extreme effeminacy  of this period as a result of his emasculation.  Psychologically Klein had stolen his manhood along with his money.  Not that Mick wasn’t always on the ambiguous side.

Mick’s association with Satanism then may have been prompted by his realization of just how evil life could be.  Indeed in Manichean terms the flesh and world belong to Satan while God, the higher powers, deal in spirituality which is the rejection of Satan and his works I.e. money.  Depending on what Mick was reading other than The Master And Margarita his mind may have been led to the conclusion that he was Rosemary’s Baby, that he was the Prince of Darkness.  Certainly he seems to have realized the ambitions of Their Satanic Majesties Request and become a man of wealth and taste.  Interestingly he seems able to move from the exquisite to clownish with the maximum of ease.

Prince Rupert Loewenstein


A Review


Albion Winegar Tourgee And Thomas Dixon Jr.


R.E. Prindle


     The conflict between the North and South is the central conflit of United States history.  Whether the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union or over slavery the African issue was the central problem of the country.  The aftermath of Reconstruction was and has been devastating to US history.  Mark Sullivan comments the Reconstruction period in Our Times, Vol. III. He is writing c. 1930:

Hardly to this day has any unbiassed summation been made of the destruction that the North visited upon the South.  Rarely has any conqueror in history been so ruthless- by comparison, the treatment of Germany by the Allies was the rebuke of a complaisant parent to a naughty child.  The North, by abolishing slavery, wiped out five billion dollars’ worth of the South’s property.  That was but the beginning.  Abolition of slavery was the complete destruction of the South’s economic system, land in the South was made valueless.  Then the North, by conferring suffrage on the negro, set the former slave in power over his recent master, and for ten years maintained him there by arms.  The very aorta of civilization in the South was more near to being completely severed than historians have commonly realized.  In the University of South Carolina, a State institution authority over which rested the legislature, a corn-field negro, barefooted, illiterate, sat in the chair and drew the salary of the Professor of Greek.  Over a period of forty years, including war, reconstruction (ironic word!) and the aftermath of both, the lamp of education in the South was saved from complete extinction only by the devotion and patience of half a dozen men.  With the other consequences went a discouragement which accepted the physical deterioration, through disease, of large portions of the rural South, as merely one detail of a fate it was useless to resist. 

    The excuse of the North was that Southern Whites had enslaved the African.  For some reason the New England States made Southern slavery an issue although those states, as Bible pounders, were not opposed to slavery in principle.  Shortly after the Civil War certain New England citizens established themselves in the Hawaiian Islands where they began to grow staple agricultural crops.  Farm labor therefore became as big a problem for them as it had been in the South.  They were not averse to establishng a contract labor system which was a form of wage slavery.  The New Englanders, some of them churchmen, saw the Chinese as  inferior coolie laborers not unlike the African.  Learning from the Reconstruction African situation in the South they were reluctant to import the Chinese as permanent residents.

     Thus the contracts of the Chinese specified that the Chinese return to China after the termination of their contracts.  This the Chinese saw no reason to do staying on as permanent residents.  Reluctant to import more Chinese the New England planters cast about for another alternative.  They settled on the Japanese.  Thus a ship sailed into Tokyo Bay and the Planters forcefully abducted, kidnapped, a hundred odd Japanese from Yokohama taking them back to Hawaii where they were put to work.

     So we may assume that the New Englanders were not entirely sincere in their objection to Southern slavery.

     In addition during the Grant administration while Reconstruction was in progress the annexation of San Domingo or Haiti was proposed.  Under the French administration of the area using African slave labor San Domingo was the richest and most productive colony in the world.  It could be made so again under American administration.  How they proposed to farm the land without African labor remains a mystery.  It could only have been achieved by some compulsive means. 

     As the Africans have never worked the land of this richest of areas without compulsion one would be amused to learn the proposed solution to this pressing problem of labor.

     One can only conclude that as no region of the US objected to forced labor that truly the Union was the reason for the Civil War.  The reason for Reconstruction has to be explained otherwise.

     The next problem is the nature of the African.  Nowhere in the world without an overawing show of force were the Africans docile.  The history of Africa is perpetual genocidal, tribal warfare.  The Africans had the very reasonable attitude that the way to treat an enemy was to stamp them flat.  Exterminate them.

     The attitude is apparent everywhere in Africa today most obivious at the moment in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

     In Haiti at the end of the eighteenth century the small number of French planters proved unable to control the overwhelming number of Africans, the latter rising up and defeating their owners.  In this action known as the San Domingo Moment the White males were exterminated to the man while the females were given the option of sex slavery or rape and death.

     One might say this was race hatred but I say no.  The response was no different than any other tribal conflict in Africa; the difference in Haiti being merely that the French were White.

     In the US the White Planters managed the Africans by the threat of slightly superior numbers while overawing the Africans into if not total submission something very nearly so.  Thus the character the North gave the Africans in the South was at complete variance with the worldwide reality.

     The North took the forced submission of the African in the South that produced a seemingly submissive inoffensive, harmless type of being the actual nature of the African.  Tourgee refers to Africans as ‘poor innocents.’  Northerners believed that the lack of apparent intellectual capability was due to ill treatment and the lack of opportunity for education.  So the real question is who was right about the relative capability of the African to the Caucasian?  The North or the South?  This problem is important and has to be dealt with.

     We are told that the African was first to evolve as a Homo Sapiens from the Last Hominid Predecessor.  That was c. 150,000 years ago.  Had the African not been disturbed by outside peoples he would be living today as he was when he evolved so long ago.  Many peoples have visited sub-Saharan Africa, that is to say, Black Africa, over the last few millennia.  Phoenicians and Carthaginians visited sub-Saharan Africa both overland and on voyages around the coasts.  Greek traders visited the source of the Nile, identifying the Mountains of the Moon while Romans established trade routes across the Sahara.  The Arabs established contact beginning in the seventh century at least while Malays from Indonesia established themselves on Madagascar while penetrating into the continent itself making settlements about the year +1000.

     All influences were absorbed by the Africans without any serious changes to their intellectual or social organization.  Europeans established stronger settlements in Africa ruling Africa for a hundred years or more.  They have been or are being expelled from Africa while most notably in Zimbabwe and South Africa Africans are destroying any traces of European civilization and reverting to their ancestral ways.  Only a liberal could deny these obvious facts.

     The African capability for civilization was fixed one hundred fifty thousand years ago.  The African mind is incapable of permanently adjusting to any higher level of civilization.

     The Southern Planters in daily contact with Africans had this fact impressed upon them continuously.  The mind is not so elastic that it can escape its evolutionary limitations.

     As an example I quote Rudyard Kipling from his American Notes of 1889:

     The Americans once having made them (the Africans) citizens cannot unmake them.  He says, in his newspaper, they ought to be elevated by education.  He is trying this; but it is like to be a long job, because black blood is more adhesive than white, and throws back with annoying persistence.  When the negro gets a religion he returns directly as a hiving bee, to the first instincts of his people.  Just now a wave of religion is sweeping over some of the Southern States.  Up to the present two Messiahs and a Daniel have appeared and several human sacrifices have been offered up to these incarnations.  The Daniel managed to get three young men, who he insisted were Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, to walk into a blast furnace; guaranteeing non-combustion.  They did not return.  I have seen nothing of this kind, but I have attended a negro church.  The congregation were moved by the spirit to groans and tears, and one of them danced up the aisle to the mourners bench.  The motive may have been genuine.  The movements of the shaken body were those of  Zanzibar stick dancers, such as you see at Aden on the coal boats; and even as I watched the people, the links that bound them to the white man snapped one by one and I saw before me- the Hubsha (the Woolly One) praying to a god he did not understand.  Those neatly dressed folk on the benches, the gray-headed elder by the window, were savages- neither more nor less.  What will the American do with the negro?  The South will not consort with him….The North is every year less and less in need of his services.  And yet he will not disappear.  His friends will urge that he is as good as a white man.  His enemies…it is not good to be a negro in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

     Of course the Liberal will say that Kipling does not observe accurately and that HE is a ‘bigot.’  Nevertheless  if one looks at locales in the United States where the African dominates such as Mississippi, Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, Saginaw, Chicago, New Orleans, what does he find?  A replica of Lagos or Zimbabwe.  A return to ancestral ways.

     I’m not one to quote IQ scores because they only prove what is obvious to the naked eye.  Genetic studies prove that as Homo Sapiens continues to evolve, the African who, as a species, is fully evolved, will only continue to fall further and further behind.  This may not be his fault but it remains a fact.

     To counter these facts the Liberal merely says that a hundred fifty thousand years isn’t enough time to make an accurate assessment; we must be patient.

     Thus when the Civil War ended and Reconstruction began Albion Winegar Tourgee went South with his prejudices as a carpetbagger to try to place the African over the Southern White.

     Tourgee was an honest man who sincerely believed that he was doing right by punishing the White while trying to impose the African on him.  Tourgee moved back North after Reconstruction and took up his pen to become a successful novelist.  Among his works were two novels recounting his experiences and opinions during Reconstruction.  The novels are:  A Fool’s Errand by One Of The Fools and Bricks Without Straw.  They are both reasonably good novels although the latter is more or less a strike off of the former but for my tastes a better story and novel.

     It is in A Fool’s Errand that Tourgee tackles the problem more head on.  Completely disrgarding the character of the African in Africa or Haiti he takes the paternalistic Liberal approach that he is dealing with innocent little children who need his protection.  This attitude is actually only a variant on the Southern.  His is a good Northern Charlie compared to the bad Southern Charlie.

     His anlysis of the Southern attitude  is quite accurate and well thought out; his solutions are faulty.  A Fool’s Errand is well worth reading to contrast the two viewpoints.  His own pretensions of innocence and superiority to the Souterners is revolting.  He should have known of Grant’s plans to annex Haiti that should have given him an intimation of the vulnerability of Northern pretensions.  I’m sure he probably wasn’t aware of Puritan doings in Hawaii and Japan.

     Slavery is detestable, I myself have no problems with that although firms like Nestle’s and Starbuck’s are accused of benefiting from slave labor in the chocolate and coffee businesses.  That means that you and I enjoy the fruits of slave labor with our coffee and chocolate.  Those big screen TVs we all covet so much are made by slave labor in China.  Tourgee if he had thought about it would have noticed that the African franchise he was attempting to force on Southern Whites was denied Africans in his home State of Michigan and nearly universally among all parts of the Northland and West.  Kipling writing a few years later than Tourgee was speaking accurately.

     Tourgee was indignant at what, as he puts it, the Southern Planter had done to the African.  He says quite plainly that there was no punishment too severe for the Southern White nor should it end quickly.  He virtually proclaims the need to boil the Southern White in oil.  This seems extreme in a world where slavery was rife most especially on the African continent.  He might have put just a little of the blame on those greedy African chiefs who sold their people into bondage for filthy lucre.

     He might also have noted the Israelite Solomon who when he ran short of money to finance his temple to his god gathered together numbers of His people and sold them into slavery to get on with the building of the House Of The Lord.

     Tourgee’s novels went unanswered while selling well for a decade or two.  But then Thomas Dixon Jr. took up the cudgels on the behalf of the South and told their version of Reconstruction in his trilogy of The Leopard’s Spots, The Clansman and The Traitor.  Of course Liberals who control the seminaries of their religious system sometimes referred to as the American University System, dismiss Dixon as a stone cold bigot and ‘racist.’  One suspects without ever having read him which is of no consquence as they pay no attention to the other side of the story once their minds are made up.

     As Dixon points out, those Puritan sea captains made a fortune or two out of the slave trade, the profits of which returned North to finance Puritan bigotry and possibly large bequests to Harvard University.  Puritan cotton mills processed the cheap slave produced crop without worrying too much about its provenance.  Dixon gives numerous examples of the hypocrisy of the New Englanders.

     Slavery of any sort past or present cannot be justified but it was that very cotton that caused slavery to blossom and extend into Alabama and Mississippi.  The institution then ran into the unique State of Louisiana.

     Louisiana and more specifically New Orleans had a history dating back to the French Caribbean plantations, in fact, New Orleans was part of the French circle but a remote outpost in relation to the British colonies of the East Coast.  As on Haiti and other French islands freed Africans were allowed full citizenship privileges including owning slaves.  Thus, as the American settlers moved West after 1793 and the invention of the cotton gin becoming mere frontiersmen the closer they got to Louisiana, where the African, French and mixed races already were.  Louisiana Africans, as in Haiti, were slave owners.

     As W.E.B. Du Bois points out but gives no reasons for it, slavery in Louisiana where Africans were influential was of a different character than in the East.  The East was as benevolent a form of slavery as is possible while in Louisiana as Du Bois himself points out the African owners preferred to work slaves to death, fhen buy replacements.  This in turn created a market for slave breeders who arose in Kentucky.

     The breeding of Africans for slaves was especially repellent to American sensibilities but had slavery continued public opinion would have gotten used to it as it gets used to every other perversion.  It can however be no coincidence that slave breeding occurred just up river from the slave consuming States of Mississippi and Louisiana.

     I mention this matter only to show that the subject of slavery is not monolithic but much more complex than normally discussed.

     Both Tourgee and Dixon write about affairs in North Carolina on the East Coast.  This differentiation should not go unnoticed.  I suspect that a very large proportion of the illegal importation of slaves that occurred after 1800 was done through ports in Louisiana and Texas far from the central authority.  If that should be true then the character of slaves fresh from Africa between, say, 1850 and 1860 would be much different than those Tourgee was familiar on the settled East Coast.

     Tourgee, convinced that the Africans were gentle, innocent people, was blind to the outrages committed by both carpetbaggers and the more truculent Africans many of whom wore the Union uniform with the full backing of the Federal government which was bent on persecuting Whites.

     Dixon then whose credibility the Liberals wish to destroy writing twenty years or so after Tourgee and probably in reaction to him wishes to give the Southern side of the Reconstruction story.  He is much more realistic and sympathetic than Tourgee.  The latter writes both his novels with nary a reference to the radical reconstruction of the insane abolitionists in Congress like Stevens and Stanton who quite literally wished to see Southern Whites exterminated ‘root and branch’ a la the San Domingo Moment and the entire South given over to the Africans.  As Tourgee himself said, they believed there was no punishment too severe for the Whites.

     One need not wonder how Tourgee would view the White genocide occurring in Zimbabwe and South Africa today as his current Liberal counterparts applaud lustily.  In that light one shudders to think what will happen in the US if these Liberal assassins are not displaced before they seize the government in the Stalinist style and initiate the genocide of Whites they are currently advocating  which one assumes will include themselves.

     To understand the problem, the attitude among both Liberals and Africans from the Civil War/Reconstruction period that persist through today a reading of Tourgee, especially A Fool’s Errand, and Thomas Dixon would be some time well spent.




Our Times, Mark Sullivan And Edgar Rice Burroughs


R.E. Prindle


     Mark Sullivan doesn’t show up in ERB’s library although one wonders why not.  Sullivan’s Our Times is a history of America from 1900-1925 as it might have been gleaned from newspapers.  This is history as seen from the point of view of newspaper readers.  Sullivan himself was a journalist.  He was also almost an exact contemporary of Burroughs, born in 1874 died in 1952, so we can be can be certain that Burroughs was infuenced by all the events that Sullivan cherishes.  Cherishes is the right word because Sullivan is also writing his own intellectual biography through his perception of the world he lived in.  These events formed the warp and woof of his life.  A life he obviously loved.

     He was present at many of the events while knowing such men as Teddy Rooselt reasonably well.  Others he was able to interview and failing that, as many of these participant in some really astounding events were still alive as he began writing Our Times in the twenties, he was able to get written impressions from such as Orville Wright and Thomas Edison among a great many others.  Altogether the six volumes of Our Times are a unique, vastly interesting, entertaining and altogether charming record of the times.  Of course Sullivan would have had a more intimate knowledge of matters than mere newspaper readers but these are the stories Burroughs saw, observed and experienced hence forming the warp and woof of his own life.

     We are fortunate then to have a record that actually forms the background of ERB’s life as he might have seen it as selected and lovingly recounted by Sullivan.

     Sullivan gives a good background to race relations that throws light on how Burroughs himself perceived them.  At least from 1900 to 1920 the lingering effects of the Civil War and Reconstruction were quite strong heavily influencing if not dominating the thought of the times.  There was a strong party that wanted to go on punishing Southeners both as rebels and as former slave owners.  On the other hand there was also a strong party that wanted to reconcile the Whites of North and South healing the rift and bringing the two factions together into one nation.   The former might be called the Tourgee school and the latter the Dixon school.

     Sullivan was of the latter group as well as Burroughs and their hero Theodore Roosevelt.  Sullivan recounts how Roosevelt worked very hard to bring the Southeners back into a respectable political condition only to blow his efforts away by inviting a Negro to lunch with him in the White House.  That Negro was Booker T. Washington. 

     It was against this backdrop that Thomas Dixon was writing his Reconstruction novels The Leopard’s Spots, The Clansman and The Traitor.  His trilogy was made was made into the movie The Birth Of A Nation in 1915.  The movie was meant to be a seal on the healing process.  From the inception of the United States the country was divided into two nations.  The North and the South with two approaches to civilization.  The Civil War began over the separation of those two civilizations while the subsequent period was devoted to uniting the two approaches into one people hence the title of the movie- The Birth Of A Nation.  In other words Southern and Northern Whites combined into one people with one ideology.

     The clinker in the coal pile was the African.  No matter the relation between the two White peoples the problem was what to do about the African.  Thus Sullivan, Burroughs and Roosevelt while wishing to unite the Northeners and Southeners had still to deal with the Africans.  Obviously the introduction of the Africans into the equation as social equals was an impossibility for all concerned.  They weren’t wanted.

     Booker Washington’s response to the issue was not to try to socialize with the Whites but to live independent lives while trying to equal the White man’s achievement.  The approach was correct but impossible for the Africans.

     There was no racial animosity as such on the part of Sullivan, Burroughs and Roosevelt but there was no solution to the racial differences then as there are none now.  Somewhat presciently Burroughs in his Martian trilogy had the Black First Born attack and demolish the White citadel thus conquering and eliminating them.  This is along the lines of what is happening today where White males have been legally emasculated while White females are encouraged to seek Black males.  Thus potentially without violence genocide would be committed on the Whites.

     What was clear to all participants was that Whites and Blacks were not of equal capabilities.  Whatever Sullivan and Roosevelt may have thought it is clear that Burroughs believed that Africans were not as evolutionarily developed as Whites.

     From 1900 to 1920 this was the prevailing attitude in the country but then began to change as immigration changes began to disintegrate the social fabric.  Circa 1900 the conflict was three way between the Liberals, the Reconcilers and the Africans being manageable to the Africans disadvantage.  Just before 1920 the great racial organizations of the of the Jews – ADL and AJC-, the Africans- the NAACP-, the Italians- the Mafia- and the Whites- the second Ku Klux Klan- took shape that managed to spinter the forces along several racial lines with all except the KKK working against the Whites.  Thus post-war America and post-war Burroughs developed in a different way than The Birth Of A Nation proposed.

     Sullivan also lovingly chronicles the rise of popular music that began to take definite shape in the last years of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth as Tin Pan Alley came into existence.  While Emma was trained as a formal singer ERB loved the pop tunes.  He even went so far as to take a portable record player on their cross country trip in 1916.  Of course electricity was not needed to play records as the players were wind up.  The amplification was minimal as the needle translates the grooves through a large bell or horn.  ERB’s record tastes were somewhat along the lines of his interest in boxing.  Emma, I am sure, would have called his tastes vulgar.

     Sullivan gives great coverage of the heavy weight boxing championship of the African, Jack Johnson.  Johnson’s victory was one of the most traumatic events of the first two decades  for White psychology.  Burroughs himself was deeply chagrined resulting in the boxing story of The Mucker.  The Mucker, Billy Byrne, became in essence a literary Great White Hope.

     There is no indication that I have found that Burroughs read Our Times although Only Yesterday by Frederick Lewis Allen published near the same time dealing with the Twenties in the same way as Sullivan is found in his library.  So, the approach was interesting to Burroughs and in some ways he also incorporated a lot of current events into his writing.  Read between the lines his is a history of his times.  Nearly every story can be related to something or things happening in his society.  This approach goes back to his earliest writing long before Sullivan conceived Our Times.

     Certainly ERB would have known of both Sullivan and Our Times.  As an inveterate magazine and newspaper reader there is probably very little that escaped ERB’s notice.

     The point of this essay is to recommend Our Times as background to the events that would have had great influence on Burroughs both before he began writing and as he wrote incorporating events such as Jack Johnson or the Mexican scare of 1915 and Pancho Villa into his writing.

     Not only will the volumes of Our Times provide a social and political backdrop to ERB’s development but they will be a very enjoyable read with a lot of interesting pictures and cartoons to make the pages turn especially fast.