Part III The Deconstruction Of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America

May 15, 2007

The Deconstruction of

Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America

by

R.E. Prindle

Part III

Organizing The Revolution

Deeds white and black, for minds are clean or foul.

Is the mind clean?  Then earth and sky are clean.

Is the mind foul?  Then earth and sky are foul.

For it is upon the mind that all depends.

Tibetan Proverb

I quote Christopher Hale, Himmler’s Crusade

Hale quotes Charles Bell, who quotes…

      This essay is an investigation of cultures and cultural beliefs especially as they apply to the United States.  The above Tibetan proverb as can readily be seen is pre-scientific.  It takes no account of the objective world but supposes only that world is a projection of the mind good or bad as the mind is clean or foul.

     It tacitly states that all religions are products of the mind or minds that conceived them.  As projections they comment on the cleanness or foulness of the projectors.

     As my own ideas of psychology are passes through a Freudian lens my argument is based on the scientific aspects Freud assembled while rejecting his religious projection.  It should be clear to any thinking person that no religion has been transmitted to man from any god.  Such a notion is inconceivable as is the very notion of God which to the Western mind means the Yahweh of the Old Testament.  God therefore is the projection of the mind on nature.  This concept is clearly brought out in Johann Sebastian Bach’s musical piece; Jehu, Joy Of Man’s Desiring.  Man desires redemption in the form of Jesus but the divine Jesus is only a projection of Man’s desiring.

     The nature of the fantasy is that God has chosen a certain people to be the bearers and disseminators of his word to all the peoples of the world.  The originators of this notion were the Jews who believed and believe themselves to be the elected Ones.  After the death of Jesus the English believe that the scepter of empire was passed to them while Anglians in the United States forming the Liberal religion believe the scepter has passed to them as in the adage:  Westward the course of Empire.

page 1.

     As the notion is based only on desire or wishful thinking its believers were doomed to be disappointed.  Thus a defense mechanism must be projected on top of the projection of a chosen people.  One then invents the notion of a redeemer- the Messiah, the Mahdi, the Christ.  In Christan theology there can be only one Messiah, the Christ, whose mission on Earth was aborted by the crucifixion.  Christians await the RETURN of the Christ in a supernatural manner.

     For Jews and Moslems the messiah can be any human who so proclaims himself.  David Bakan thinks that Freud was the Messiah for instance.  Both religions have a surfeit of messiahs all naturally having failed to produce the desired results.

     The history of the Jews since their defeat and scattering by the Romans in 70AD  has been a succession of failed messiahs.  Failure has not daunted this belief but the Jews have changed tactics and strategies.  The last Jewish messiah to step forth and be recognized as such, unless like Bakan you include Freud, was the seventeenth century Sabbatai Zevi. (Spelled several different ways so don’t take me to task for my spelling.)

     It is significant that a seventeenth century claimant was the last because the European Enlightenment blossomed at nearly the same time.  The Enlightenment means Science.  Science points out the absurdity of religious projections.  Thus all religions have been shown to be based on false premises.

     The meaning in terms of Human Consciousness was the consciousness of the mind had now evolved beyond a predecessor Religious Consciousness.  Merely because a better method has been found doesn’t mean everyone will embrace it.  There are many people and institutions who have a vested interest in the old way and don’t mean to give it up.  Moreover they don’t mean for the advance in consciousness to exist.

     For our purposes here we are discussing Christianity and Judaism: The West and Judaism.  There had been many changes before in the evolution of religious beliefs, most notably the transition from Matriarchy to Patriarchy and they had all involved long and bloody wars.  The transition from Religion to Science can be no different.  If you haven’t noticed, the reactionary Semitic religions have instigated increasing wars and bloodshed from 1914 to the present Second Irruption From The Desert of the stultified reactionary Moslems.

     Vis-a-vis the Roman Catholics and the Protestants the Jews had always been able to hold their own on a theological basis.  After all, their religion is the basis of Christianity.  The Jews had no chance against Science which acknowledges none of their claims.

     The Jews would therefore have to devise new tactics and strategies to defend their atavistic belief system.  There was no religious argument they or any other religion could devise to defeat this intelligence; their only alternative was to corrupt it and destroy it from within, thus supplanting Science in the minds of men with their stultifying religion once again.  Difficult perhaps, but possible given a shameless exploitation of the good will of Euroamericans.

     Now, when the failure of Sabbatai Zevi occurred and the Scientific spirit arose against which religious argument was ineffective, the wisemen of Judaism put thier heads together to devise a strategy.  They decided to never again acknowledge a human messiah but to place their hopes in their whole people in the form of a revolution based on the French Revolution.

page 2.

     From the French Revolution the modern form of Communism emerged.  The Jacobins of Robespierre were proto-Communists.  The banner was picked up by a man named Babeuf and the Communist assault on society led through the revolutions of 1830 and 1848.  The French Revolution took place at the beginning of the so-called Industrial Revolution so that all the miseries inherent in the transition from one system to another were visited on ‘Labor.’  Labor was subsumed into the Communist agenda.  Early socialism was divided between the Utopian  Socialists and the Communists.  The cleavage was permanent as Socialists and Communists despised each other’s methods.

     Now, the Jews were emancipated by the generous feelings of the Revolutionaries.  Up to this point the Roman Catholic Church had more or less contained Judaism.  That is they isolated the Jews from the body politic much as a computer virus is isolated by a security system.  A psychological allegory of this was put into a short story by Charles Beaumont in 1959.  The short story was entitled, The Howling Man.  In the story monks had imprisoned the Devil.  A chance traveler was admitted to the monastery but advised to pay no attention to a captive man, the Devil in disguise, who howled for release.  Naturally the traveler listened to the well sounding pleas of the howling man releasing him.  Thus evil was set loose on the world.

     This is somewhat the situation between the Church, the Revolutionaries and the Jews.  Negating the efforts of the Church the released Jews began to subvert society and science.  When one says Science in regard to the post-Revolution one is saying actually Science in embryo.  Every science and scientific thinking were in the beginning stages of development.  Early theories, absurd by today’s understanding, cannot be judged by today’s knowledge.  They were the beginning steps.  Like everything else Science would evolve.  As it had with the Jews, the Revolution released Science from the control of the Church allowing it to develop, but positively, not negatively.

     The Jews realized the threat to their religious mental projection understanding that Science was the true danger that had to be subverted.  Unlike Catholicism and Protestantism which were based in Judaism and could therefore be defeated in argument there was no religious argument effective against Science.  A different approach would have to be taken.  That approach was to appropriate a science with mumbo jumbo then slowly eviscerate the science of its content while supposedly making it moral or in other words subservient to Jewish religious beliefs.  This required both bold assertions while suppressing discussion or channeling it so that it could be controlled.

     The first attempt and the most developed ‘science’ was politics.  Thus Karl Marx began to appropriate the Communist Movement giving it a definite shape and direction.  Seizing on the discontent  of Labor Marx made that the cornerstone of ‘Scientific’ Socialism.  Thus from 1789 to 1913 Communism struggled against the established order with minimal result.  A mere one hundred twenty-five years after 1789 Communism established itself in Russia while being on a parity with the establishment in Western Europe.

     The other Sciences progressed accordingly.  Biology assumed its modern form in 1859 when Darwin published his Origin Of Species.  Biology remained one science for which no Jewish claimant arose.  The study of the mind or psychology was a different story.  The study of psychology in a mythopoeic manner goes back as far as can be traced and further.  The ancient Egyptians already had a good working model of the mind.

     The scientific study, groping as it were, was undertaken by numerous people in the early nineteenth century.  There was no organized theory, just investigation in numerous areas.  The most noteworthy investigator for our purposes here was Jean Martin Charcot and his investigations into hysteria at the Salpetriere in Paris.

     It appears that the basis of psychological malfunctioning is caused by a variety of hypnosis.  That is a suggestion is made in a hypnoid state which enters the subconscious as post-hypnotic suggestion directing the individual against his conscious will, as it were.

     The modern recognition of hypnosis was made by the Austrian Anton Mesmer who called it ‘animal magnetism.’  After Mesmer hypnotism was in disrepute for about fifty years although subject to serious investigation by responsible scholars.

page 3.

      Charcot made hypnotism scientifically respectable again when he discovered its use in dealing with his hysterics.  At the same time a man named Auguste Liebeault working with hypnotism in nearby Nancy was discovering the effect of suggestion.

     In Vienna a restless Sigmund Freud was casting about for an emerging discipline to appropriate to make his mark.  He had been trained as a biologist but despaired of making his name in that discipline.  Under the influence of his fellow religionist, Joseph Breuer, he drifted over into psychology.

     Freud was of the Jewish culture and he was militantly Jewish.  He hated Europeans and the European culture.  There is no question but that he intended to replace it with the Jewish culture.  At what point he decided to manipulate the emerging science isn’t clear but probably by the time he began attending B’nai B’rith meetings in 1895.

     Freud had a Moses Complex, not too dissimilar in effect than Christians with a Jesus complex.  He undoubtedly chose psychology as a wide open field with many areas of exciting research possibilities and the opportunity  to gratify his Moses Complex by leading his followers out of the psychological wilderness he found Europe to be.  Thus as Moses rescued the Jews from Egypt Freud would rescue them from Europe.

     Vienna as part of the polyglot Austrian Empire was the original Melting Pot from which Israel Zangwill took his idea.  A relatively small German minority governed a multi-cultural empire embracing dozens of cultures and numerous religions.  Thus the model for Freud’s conquest by culture was already suggested to him by the rising influence of Jewish culture within the Austrian Empire especially polyglot Vienna.

     Having begun his association with Breuer and having heard of Charcot, Freud left for Paris in 1882 to visit what he derogatively would call the Great Man, himself.  While Freud resented the ‘Master’ it would seem that Charcot’s influence on his own approach was seminal.  There would have been no Freud without Charcot.

     During this period of his life Freud was impoverished.  He could only wander around Paris without the means to sample the delights of the city.  This embittered him.  Freud would have us believe that he became a favorite of Charcot, even petted by him.  In all likelihood this is a gross exaggeration.  Although Charcot may have taken some notice of him it would be characteristic of the Jewish culture to exploit any relationship out of its true proportion.  In reading Freud his observations of Charcot are always made from the outside as a seeming voyeur, never as an intimate.

     It is clear from the sardonic, belittling tone in which Freud always refers to Charcot that he was profoundly indebted to him.  It must have been humiliating to a man with a psychotic attachment to Moses to submit to a man he considered his lesser.  In dealing with hysterics Charcot brought hypnosis into respectability.  Freud’s understanding of hypnosis was subtle.  In Freud’s own psychoanalytic theory he abandoned hypnosis per se choosing a variant he called free association in which the patient was lulled into a hypnoid state so that a form of hypnosis remained the basis of psychoanalysis.  Nor did Freud’s researches into hypnosis stop there.  After the Great War hypnosis would form the basis of his ideas of Group Psychology.  He developed subtler forms of hypnosis.

     After returning to Vienna he once again went back to France in 1889 to visit with Liebeault and his disciple or leech, Hippolyte Bernheim.  Liebeault had been working with hypnosis for some time.  While Charcot failed to understand the signficance of suggestion, the key element of hypnosis, Liebeault did.  His researches attracted the attention of Bernheim who like Freud was a Jew on the make.  Bernheim succeeded in displacing Liebeault much in the same way as Freud would displace Charcot and his school.

     While Liebeault and Bernheim apparently did not understand the relationship of suggestion to the creation of the neurosis or psychosis they had actually discovered that hysteria was caused by a form of suggestion.  Ignoring the original suggestion while the patient was hypnotized they tried to use counter-suggestion to remove the affects of the original suggestion or fixation but with limited or temporary success.  Since the original suggestion or fixation wasn’t obviated it shortly reestablished its primacy over the counter-suggestion.

     While Freud said he rejected the clumsy ineffectiveness of the counter-suggestion he understood suggestion well enough to make it the cornerstone of his version of Group or cultural psychology.,

     There is a common misconception that Freud invented psychology, that before him there was no psychology.  The notion is completely untrue.  Before and after Charcot psychological research was diverse and plentiful throughout Europe and America.  There were many theories of the subconscious, for instance, but no one had undeertaken to systematize  the various strands.  Freud was able to do this while at the same time supplanting all other theories with his own.  He actually succeeded in closing off investigation along other lines channeling psychology into his own somewhat flawed system.

     All Freud did was to cull the best opinion and put his name on it while shouldering the originators aside as ‘anti-Semites’.  For instance, another student of Charcot, Pierre Janet, working from the same teaching came to the same conclusion, namely that ‘neuroses’ are fixed in the subconscious.  Whereas Freud named his version of the process ‘repression’ Janet named the result as an ‘idee fixe.’  Both terms mean approximately the same thing, although in my opinion Janet’s is more accurate.  My own term is ‘an encysted fixation’.  I came to my term independently, or at least I think I did, this is Freudianism you know, but the term I use means, I think, what Janet’s idee fixe means.  Freud’s term ‘repression’ may describe the process but doesn’t deal with the result.

     As I see it repression implies a voluntary act of will but such is not the case, repression is involuntary functioning independently of the conscious will.  This is where Freud’s theory of sex goes wrong.  The ‘repression’ is part of a defense mechanism.  When the ego or Animus is offered an insult for which it has no defence the response is to repress the insult into an encysted fixation or idee fixe in an effort to control it.  In other words, the mind tries to pretend that the insult didn’t occur.  As the sexual apparatus is the physical portion of the psychic Animus the expression of the fixation will ivariably be a sexual affect although of differing manifestations from masochism to sadism.  Thus the insult is converted into a suggestion of inadequacy of some form.

     Thus the use of the sexual apparatus is merely an attempt to massage or exorcise the fixation.  Freud actually believed that frequency of ejaculation would make a healthier person or in other words sexual intercourse would cure the ‘neurosis’ or in my and possibly Janet’s term eliminate the fixation.  Clearly an impossible method.

     One may compare the fixation to a virus on your computer.  Once the virus is introduced it must be isolated and removed  or it will control or shut down the computer.  The virus may be equated with the suggestion that resulted in the fixation.  One must eliminate the suggestion or fixation from mind as with the virus from your computer’s memory.

     This is where the ‘talking cure’ is effective.  Once the fixation is identified if the afflicted person can make the fixation conscious it will disappear or in another word be exorcised.  If Freud realized this, which he ought to have, he never published his knowledge.

     His use of the unconscious indicates that he at least understood the negative effects of fixations as expressed through their affects or in his terms neuroses and psychoses.

     So Freud defamed Janet while organizing psychoanalysis to exclude any opinion but his own no matter how inaccurate.  He organized and controlled the magazines and publishing houses, while he controlled and convened the international congresses.  Following the Jewish Cultural model, no dissent was allowed, there is no freedom of expression in the Jewish Culture; if you refuse discipline you are merely excommunicated.  Once expelled you are defamed and rendered inconsequential.  Marginalized in today’s terms.  The only analyst to survive this treatment was C.G. Jung who had an awful lot going for him.  I can’t think of another dissident who has survived to the present.

page 5.

      Thus having evolved  an understanding of emasculation to add to the mix this was how Freud’s psychological matters stood in 1915 when his idea of psychoanalysis was essentially complete.  He now applied his psychological knowledge to political matters.  At this point whatever scientific basis Freud possessed was subsumed to Jewish religious requirements.

     Historically the Jews have been a migratory people.  When the going get tough the Jews get moving.  Wherever the action is that’s where they want to be.  Thus when the Promised Land of America became accessible to mass migration, that is reliable steamships had replaced unreliable sail, the People began a mass migration to America.  The intent was to move the entire Eastern European population to America.  The plan failed only because of the outbreak of the Great War for which signficant scholarship can show the Jewish guiding hand.  So, in one way the Jews defeated their own plan.

     The important thing to remember is that Jewish activities are backed by an inviolable ideology, tight orgzanization and fairly precise coordination and excecution.  There is nothing haphazard in the culture’s activities.  This has been true for two millennia with increasing precision.  As noted when the messiahship of Sabattai Zevi failed, the plan was formed for the whole people to foment a revolution.  The date of the revolution was set for 1913 to 1928.  Hence if you study Jewish history you can see the preparations unfold leading to this historical knot.

     Since Marx the culture had been in control of the Labor movement of the Socialists so that a significant portion of the whole population was involved not just the minority culture.  The more timid or moderate such as the Wilsonites and other ‘parlor pinks’, fellow travelers and whatnot, Liberals, were distributed throughout society where they could exercise control without revealing themselves in their true guise.

     While I had sifted the information out except for the dates of the messiahship of the culture all I really had to do was read one book.  That book was by the Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver who plainly stated the plan and its objectives giving the years.

     This revolutionary schedule could not have been unknown to Freud.  Thus his schedule from 1895 on must have been coordinated with it as best he could and that best was very good indeed.  By 1910 he had his theories in close to final form.  From 1915 on, especially after 1917 he was no longer developing his ideas but organizing them for use by the Revolution.

     For years he had been attending weekly meeting of B’nai B’rith, the international Jewish brotherhood.  He lectured them on psychology on a regular basis.  It would be interesting to know how the lectures differed from his published work.

     Now for a moment let us consider some aspects of Freudian doctrine.  Freud insisted that the was a scientist but the grounds for such a claim seem tenuous at best, rather Freud was a religionist who used what he learned for the furtherance of the Jewish Revolution.  Thus his concepts of the unconscious and sex were tailored to upset the morality of European civilization.  His promulgated notions were meant to confuse and obfuscate.  When one combines Freud’s interpretation of the unconscious, sex and emasculation, all of which were worked out by 1915, one has in fact a potent weapon of psychological warfare.  They called it brainwashing during the Korean War.  Combined with conditioning and indoctrination  trusting Euroamericans who did consider Freud a disinterested scientist abandoned all defenses.

     The really noteworthy fact about Freud is that he offered only negative analyses but nothing positive such as how to reconcile the unconscious and conscious minds or how to understand and improve the conscious mind.  Freud discussed the nature of projection and perception very little.  The nature of the ‘science’ Freud professed to embrace is the negation of perception and projection without which there can be no science.  At least he chose not to address consciousness in any positive manner.

page 6

     He did issue the enigmatic statement that where Id was Ego shall be.  He also said that the Id was a species of something around which the Ego ensheated itself.  That’s a tough one.  As Ego is presentative of consciousness and Id unconsciousness it sounds as though Freud was referring to the integration of the personality.  He doesn’t explain how he invented or discovered the nature of the relationship of Ego and Id or give any indication of how it actually worked.  He never develops the idea.

     We feel that he perhaps knew more than he chose to reveal through his analysis of Wilhelm Jensen’s novelette Gradiva that he titled Delusion and Dream In Wilhelm Jensen’s Gradiva.  By delusion I presume he means projection.  That is what Jensen’s character is doing; he is imposing his inner projection on society which makes actions appear irreal.  It is only as the story develops that the character’s projection dissolves as reality  intrudes itself more and more.  At the end of this short piece the character emerges into a true or truer perception of the world.  He no longer casts his projection on reality.

     Thus what Freud denotes delusion I would call projection.  Ridding onself of a mistaken perception of reality to realize as nearly as possible the actual state of affairs is the goal of mental health.

     While what Freud has to say about the unconscious is itself a religious projection it does bear some relationship to the reality.  Since Freud wished to and did impose a psychological  system on the science of psychology it behooved him to deal with the whole mind and not just half.  The question is whether he was dishonest or incapable; I opt for dishonest and criminal.

     Freud is as guilty of criminal misconduct as the Sudanese Mahdi at Omdurman who offered his followers the religious projection that the bullets of the massed British machine guns facing them would turn to water at Allah’s will.  If the Mahdi had so little scientific knowledge and so much religious fervor then there was no difference between his religion and insanity.  The Mahdi at least had the excuse that he was far from the centers of scientific research.  Freud didn’t.

     By the advent of the Russian Revolution then, through his association  with B’nai B’rith Freud had prepared the Jewish cadres for some particularly dirty work.

     As the Russian Revolution marked the first great success of the Jewish Revolution Freud now began to manipulate his scientific knowledge of hypnotism and psychology to confuse and obfuscate the minds of the Euroamerican cultures while keeping his culture’s mind focused on the work ahead.

     Everything was in order; the tools were developed.  Freud had  cleverly monopolized the study of the mind if not psychology.  Further study would be conducted on his terms.  It was only necessary now to skillfully use the tools he developed.

End of Part III.  Go to Part IV.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s