December 31, 2011
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 160,000 times in 2011. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 7 days for that many people to see it.
December 16, 2011
ISIDOR SADGER RECOLLECTS FREUD
Emasculating Freudian Theory
…Jung had been infected with Aryan blood from his family.
Deep in his heart,
he was anything from a philosemite.
Now, however, he encountered Judaism
in its most highly gifted embodiment
Of Jewish knowledge shining in front of him.
Was it any wonder that he began by being blinded
With the feeling that never before had he stood before
The countenance of a greater genius?
But his lineage was not to be denied.
One day he sat down and carried out scholarly studies for months
Which resulted in his finding his way back
Through the Mithraic cult to primitive Christianity.
In practical terms
This may be seen that as a Christian prophet,
He fully stripped the libido of its sexual character
And reduced it to merely spiritual energy.
This was, so to speak, the decontamination
Of the poisonous Freudian teachings
Through Christianization and total cleansing.
But since the master could not easily go along
With the desexualization of his teaching,
Which went to the foundation of his theories,
He saw with a heavy heart
That he needed to cut the cord between him and the clinic. (Bergholzi)
Isidor Sadger, Recollecting Freud pp. 71-72
Sadger, Isidor: Recollecting Freud, 1930, first published 2005, UWisconsin
It is very difficult to know where to start in analyzing the above quote from Isidor Sadger. First it might be pertinent to identify Isidor Sadger. He had a history with Freud from 1895 into the 1930s. He attended with two others Freud’s first psychoanalytic lecture. He was a founding member of Freud’s Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. In 1930 he published this little volume of biographical notes on his relationship with Freud.
Freud’s circle did not take kindly to the publication of these memoirs doing everything they could to suppress them. In this they were successful. The book was never distributed and only rumored to be in print until this publication in 2005 by Alan Dundes and UWisconsin. Even acquiring a copy of the book by Dundes was nearly impossible. He relates pp. xlii-xliii:
When I looked up Sadger on my computer data base, I found not only the article (Sadger had written) in question but the title of a book: Sigmund Freud: Personliche Erwinnerunger. As I was not familiar with that work, I decided to send for it via interlibrary loan….In due course, the latter arrived but the effort to procure a copy of the former proved unsuccessful. I was informed that there was no known copy in the United States available for borrowing. Since I knew the book had been published in Vienna, I asked if we could try to locate a copy in Europe and the obliging staff in interlibrary loan agreed to do so. A few weeks later, I learned that there was no known copy in any European library available for borrowing.
I was told, however, that there was one, just one, copy listed that might be utilized and that copy was located in the library of Keio University in Japan. Again, inter library loan made a request on my behalf and this time with some partial success….I next asked interlibrary loan to request a photocopy of the entire book…The Keio University Mata Media Center informed (me) that it was unable to comply with my request….
…One of my anthropology doctoral students…was returning to Japan. I asked him to do me a favor and get me a photocopy…
Which he did and almost by a miracle the text was recovered to be published for human consumption some seventy-five years on. As Freud claimed to be a scientist one is amazed that supposed scientists would go so far as to deny publication of Sadger’s memoirs. But, so it was.
In tackling the quote from Sadger let me approach it from the point of view of ‘Jewish knowledge shining in front of him.’
One must ask the question of what is Jewish knowledge and how is it special to their culture? This is important not only from past implications but also in light of today’s Barbara Spectre and her Paideia organization whose intent is to place ‘Jewish knowledge’ on a par with Aryan knowledge or what Sadger calls Christian knowledge.
While Freud may have been a Jew working in the scientific field of psychology and psychiatry and while he may have made some important discoveries in the field that had been developed by Aryans his own contributions arose from that body of accumulated Aryan learning. Since Dr. Anton Mesmer in the mid-eighteenth century until Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams Aryans had been slowly accumulating the knowledge on which Freud built his theories. That knowledge had no racial identity per se nor did that which Freud added to it. As Freud claimed that he was a scientist then his contributions were scientific, not Jewish, and the common property of mankind. He may have been Jewish but the scientific field he was contributing to had no ethnic identity but Science, which is to say, none at all.
Sadger himself is taking a bigoted view in attempting to sequester Freud’s theories to the Jews. In fact, as Sadger indicates Freud did not want his theories to be studied and furthered by anyone else. When C.G. Jung, who Freud tried to make his disciple attempted to examine Freud’s concept of the libido and came to perhaps a more correct understanding of the concept, which after all was scientifically unproven, Freud broke off his relationship with him and the Bergholzli Clinic of Switzerland. He, in fact, severed any Aryan connections. He became interested only in Jewish contributions which then became Jewish knowledge in Sadger’s mind.
Sadger who had been Freud’s earliest disciple deeply coveted the role of being Freud’s pet or ‘favorite son.’ Freud for whom ambivalence was central to his character, even though he hated Aryans as a homosexual he was attracted to the ‘great blond beast’; hence, while carefully concealing his motive he selected Jung who had the requisite scientific qualification to be not his ‘son’ but a necessarily platonic lover. Sadger could never qualify.
Now, what was Jung’s sin that brought about his rejection by Freud:
One day (Jung) sat down and carried out scholarly studies for months which resulted in his finding his way back through the Mithraic cult to primeval Christianity…this may be seen as a Christian prophet, he fully stripped the libido of its sexual character and reduced it to merely spiritual energy.
So, having committed to Freud although ‘infected with Aryan blood from his family’ that he would abandon certain anti-Semitic understandings that he had. In what seems an obvious betrayal of his pledge to Sadger Jung ‘carried out scholarly studies for months; which resulted in his coming up with a different perception of the libido that downplayed the rutty sexual projection of Freud’s Jewish psyche for what Sadger terms Christian spirituality. To Sadger’s mind Jung had betrayed his pseudo-Judaism pledge to return to Christianity.
This raises several problems. Is anti-Semitism a mere prejudice or is it based on observations of how Semitism functions and its rejection on that basis? In other words, based on observed actions Semitism is rejected and not on prejudicial grounds but for accurate scientific reasons.
Further, in dogmatically insisting on his own interpretation of his creation, the libido, Freud was definitely unscientific. At the same time his topography of the mind was completely off base. In point of fact the libido is neither sexual nor spiritual, it doesn’t exist. While Freud had a good working hypothesis his ideas were merely that based on the scientific, not Jewish, knowledge of his time. Freud became dogmatic at a time when he knew, or should have known, what he didn’t know. There was a lot of physiology to be yet discovered that would uncover the biology of life.
This biology would be clarified in 1947 when Crick and Watson discovered the genetic code of DNA.
Freud in his rutty, close to pornographic, interest in sex, by which he meant sexual intercourse made the absurd statement that the more frequently a man ejaculated the better person he would be. Is it any wonder that Jung was turned away from Freud in disgust? While Freud may have thought he was severing ties with the Bergholzli; the reverse would seem to be true.
With the discovery of DNA the biology became clear making it possible to elucidate the psychological basis of sex based on that biology.
Freud frequently had the right idea but he seldom thought the application through being infected with his own need for greatness by creating a science of his very own and his Judaism to whose Weltanschauung he was totally committed as Sadger indicates.
To take the psychology first: Freud correctly differentiates between the individuals inner wishful thinking and his confrontation with outer reality. Or, in other words, religious superstition versus a scientific understanding of objective reality.
Thus, when the child is expelled from the womb he comes into contact with the outer world. Whatever conception of reality he had in the womb bears no relationship to the reality of the world beyond the womb. In the Freudian sense then the child’s mind is all Id with at best a nascent Ego. As Freud’s desideratum is Ego shall displace Id the child has some serious adjusting to do.
This adjustment is called experience and education. In the absence of education the child would grow up to be ignorant savage with an improper understanding of reality causing him to give all the wrong reasons for the phenomena he encounters. This being mankind’s original condition over the millennia this ignorance was replaced by religious speculation based solely on inner wishful thinking. Nor was not adequately understood. As people might, for instance, decide that they are the chosen people of their god, make that god a universal deity and then weave their notions of external reality around that projection. That was the condition of Freud and his Jewish people.
The conflict for Freud and his Jews became acute when the Aryans with a different Weltanschauung sought to understand external reality on its own terms and adjusted their inner world of wishful thinking to reflect as much as possible objective reality. When Freud mentions the science of Kepler and Darwin as being shocks to the human mind, he meant Jewish mind which was now faced with the irreconcilable fact that their Arien Age Weltanschauung being based on false data was obsolete. While Freud considered the organization of the mind the third great shock it was one that could be manipulated for his own ends, unlike Astronomy and Biology, and perverted to serve those ends. Hence his dogmatic and ridiculous view of the unconscious and sex.
Now let us look at the nature of the human sexual function. DNA with its double helix, one strand from each contributor, each remaining separate but combining information through bridges, visibly demonstrates how the entity is constructed. The spermatic strand contributed by the male forms the stronger, more active, and slightly larger right side of the body and left side of the brain; the ovate strand contributed by the female forms the weaker, more passive, slightly smaller left side of the body and right side of the brain.
This means that the Xy chromosome of the male carries a male version and a female version, thus there is a female component to the male. This was picked up the psychoanalysts as bi-sexuality in the carnal sense. This is not true. A man is not by nature available for sex by either sex. Hormones reaffirm the sexual identity.
As should be easy to see all activity is controlled by the brain. Information is communicated up and down the spinal cords which emanate from the brain. One cord for each chromosome. Thus, there is a nerve connection from each side of the brain to the commensurate testicle or ovary. Sperm is manufactured according to the dictates of the autonomic system. After one reaches puberty the seminal fluid builds up. Without any other release the fluid will discharge automatically whether one wills it or not; these are usually termed nocturnal emissions. These alone are all that is necessary to relieve the over supply.
As the only biological function of sex is reproduction the male is always ready to penetrate the female. In a normal psychological function a comfort level can be maintained by one or two ejaculations a day or even less. That Freud could make the absurd statement that the more ejaculations a day the better the person means that as a homosexual he had a psychic need or that the was merely trying to pervert Aryan society.
Now, the spinal cords run down the length of the body from the brain to the testicles where they terminate, making the brain and testicles a unit. Nerves run from the spine to the various organs. There we have the basis for psychosomatic reactions. While the cords are grounded at the testicles I believe they have more free play at the brain level. The bi-sexuality the psychoanalysts noted is caused by the Xy and XX chromosome combinations. Both Freud and Jung given the biology of their day had differently accounts for the apparent bi-sexuality thus they called the spermatic brain ending the Ego while Jung claimed that the male had an Anima and the female an Animus. In actuality both males and females have an Anima and an Animus or, in Freudian terms, a Libido and Ego.
Freud also discovered the concept of Emasculation. When the Ego or Animus, male or female, is given an affront or insult to which it cannot properly respond this creates a reaction or hypnotic suggestion that forms a fixation. This fixation will have a psychic or physical or both affect. Fixations are of different intensities and qualities; the most severe is the central childhood fixation, also with psychosomatic affects an example of which each fixation creates.
In the case of the homosexual the affront is give by the male who thus creates a severe psychosomatic reaction which is what homosexuality is. In the attempt to negate the reaction the homosexual then seeks to visit his fixations on other males while being compelled to seek multiple ejaculations many times a day which he equates with masculinity.
Thus a normal male can be satisfied with a normal schedule of ejaculation or relieving the pressure of the sperm build up, while a fixated person is compelled to more frequent ejaculation. Thus Freud completely misunderstood sex erring on the side of homosexual emasculation. Thus he was transferring his sexual neurosis or psychosis to Aryan society. Probably in vengeance as he undoubtedly believed his own emasculation was caused by Aryans.
So, Freud’s whole conception of sex is skewed and should be rejected, replaced by a more accurate and balanced interpretation. Jung had good reason to reject the libido or sexual theory of Freud that Sadger and the Psychoanalytic Society was required to embrace because Freud, their master, had spoken. Freud must, or should have known, the limits of the biological knowledge of his time while understanding that great advances would come that might invalidate or require adjustments to his theory. Therefore his attempt to dogmatize his first thoughts was unscientific to the extreme.
Contrary to Sadger’s orthodoxy Jung was quite right to pursue the libido theory further. In desexualizing it, in Sadger’s term, Jung was on the right track as Freud’s interpretation was absurd on the face of it. While Jung was certainly ‘infected’ with a Christian based view, as a scientist he was trying to give a scientific basis to sex rather than ‘Christianizing’ it as Sadger thought. But then, Sadger was definitely intellectually limited by his Judaism.
In using such terms Sadger gives away the intense Jewish separation of Jewish and Aryan Kulturs. There can be no specific Aryan or Jewish knowledge; there can only be one knowledge and that is Scientific truth. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
While Freud built his theories on Aryan scientific psychological investigations he then infused the knowledge with Jewish superstition and goals which bent the science of psychology back toward a religious application which Freud undoubtedly hoped would negate the Astronomical and Biological shocks to the foundations of Judaism or Semitism.
Not only had Freud and his followers buried the reputation of the great French psychologist, Pierre Janet, from whom they borrowed or stole so much but in their successful attempt to freeze psychoanalytic investigation into the Freudian framework they brutally slandered Jung while discrediting his own scientific work. It was not until the sixties of the twentieth century that Jung began to be understood and credited for his contributions which were certainly equal to and mainly independent of Freud.
Thus we have the persistence of Alan Dundes pursuit of Sadger’s little volume to thank for casting a few rays of light on this thorny problem of psychoanalysis.
December 11, 2011
The Prague Cemetery
Eco, Umberto: The Prague Cemetery, 2010, Houghton, Mifflin
Prior to Prague the only thing of Eco’s I’d ever read was Foucault’s Pendulum which while interesting was not a great novel. Since reading Prague I have read the Mysterious Flame Of Queen Loana and Baudolino. These are fairly interesting novels while giving some idea of Eco’s themes and variations. Thus one sees that religious frauds, hoaxes or forgeries depending on how you view them, are a fixation of Eco’s. He likes the rustle of paper. In these two novels he treats of their manufacture with some sophistication that he seems to have lost in his treatment of the Protocols which novel is neither full nor penetrating. Therefore I can only conjecture that despite Jewish hysterics and condemnations Eco was pleased to reinforce the Jewish versions of the situations he treats as we are being led to believe by current news reports that anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide. I don’t see it that way but then I don’t fear it.
What I do see is the continuing Jewish attempt to subvert Western Science accelerating. For instance the Paideia organization of Sweden’s move to fill Europe with what its founder, Barbara Spectre calls ‘Jewish knowledge.’ She neglected to tell us just what the Jewish knowledge as opposed to ‘European knowledge’, Science in another word, might be.
Before getting into Eco’s vision of the late nineteenth century which centers around Semitic superstition and Aryan Science it might pay to review the emergence of Science from the Enlightenment to the Protocols concentrating on the nineteenth century.
The nineteenth century witnessed the unfolding of the Aryan mind, certainly the most astonishing event in the intellectual history of mankind. First it may be instructive to differentiate between technology and Science. I haven’t always been clear on the difference and I know most of the people I know aren’t. Confusion of the two is common.
The Africans, of course, have always lacked even the most rudimentary technology. They couldn’t even pile one stone atop another. The Chinese are often mentioned as being scientifically advanced two thousand years ago but sterile since. As evidence of ‘science’ the discovery of gunpowder and paper are triumphantly paraded before our eyes. Those are two technological advantages were probably obtained by happenstance and not by scientific investigation. In the first place gunpowder is easy to discover and so limited in application that the stuff is meaningless and virtually useless without further technological advances requiring some thought. Even then, a cannon is a sort of scattergun lacking the advance of a rifled bore which is where science comes in.
In the Bible it mentions that at Hebrew sacrifices in order to prove the presence of the god the priest waved his hands over the burning sacrifice and mouthed some magical incantations making the flames flare signaling the god’s acceptance of the sacrifice. Obviously the priest had thrown a handful of gunpowder or something just like it into the flames. Of course, the Chinese wrapped the paper they discovered around the gunpowder and made firecrackers. Whoopee! I’m sure that gunpowder was discovered many times and in many places soon being forgotten as an amusing useless toy.
As for paper the Egyptians had papyrus which depends on having the papyrus reed but they found its perfect technological application. As I understand it Chinese paper was made from the long bamboo fibers which being processed for whatever purpose the wet fibers were piled up and perhaps being idly pounded with a rock it was realized that the flat sheet of fibers could be used to wrap gunpowder. That’s sarcastic, son. I’m sure the felt making process was discovered the same way. But there is no science there, merely a technological application of refuse.
Not having bamboo or cotton, the paper making process awaited the proper materials. There is no cause for revering Chinese intelligence because of their use of paper and gunpowder. Their technology was sufficiently advanced.
However the Chinese never were able to discover that water is a chemical compound being two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The Chinese didn’t even know about hydrogen and oxygen. That is Science not technology. African or Chinese mental potential has been unfolded or realized for some time. The same holds true for the Semitic mind- Jewish and Arab. The Aryan mind was the last to begin to realize its potential which, like it or not, is of a higher order.
This realization began in earnest in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Prior to that all the human species were more or less at the same intellectual level of advancement. Thus moving from its earlier attained base, in the nineteenth century the Aryan mind just blossomed far surpassing previous levels in intellectual evolution. All the physical and psychological sciences advanced at a very rapid pace until today in the twenty-first century Nature has been revealed in its entirety or near entirety. Once that is achieved I don’t know how learning can go beyond Nature. We would truly have to make a leap into the supernatural.
Thus the capacity for Science is part and parcel of the Aryan mind not shared by other human species. If others have since made contributions the contribution was made to Aryan Science once the other had come into contact with it. The above is an inescapable fact.
My problem with The Prague Cemetery is that Eco doesn’t actually acknowledge the different levels at which the Semitic mind of the Jews and the Aryan mind are functioning. He doesn’t seem to understand or at least express the fact that the two minds are differently constituted. Even Barbara Spectre of Padeia understands that the two different types of knowledge exist- Jewish magical knowledge and Aryan Scientific knowledge. She knows the difference and she wants by legal fiat to make the two equal.
OK. So when did this difference become apparent. Freud notes three signal discoveries which he says shook man’s confidence. Most likely he means Jewish self-confidence as the discoveries invalidated magical thinking of any kind. The first was Copernicus’ proclamation that the earth was not the center of the universe which was realized in the sixteenth century, the second was Darwin’s mid-nineteenth century proclamation of Evolution which demonstrated that mankind was not unique and the third was Mesmer’s revelation of the unconscious. In truth, science sent religion reeling.
The incompatibility of Jewish knowledge only became apparent with the end of the Middle Ages beginning with the Enlightenment. Prior to that all religious thinking was on one level. Jews and Catholics may have disputed religious issues but they were both using the same knowledge and approach.
But then the Aryan scientific knowledge not only shot ahead of Jewish and Christian religious knowledge but invalidated everything they believed. This was a very serious dislocation of the intellect. Further, the Semitic mind found it impossible to compete on the scientific level while it took them until about the year nineteen hundred to even get the drift. Thus with Jewish Emancipation c. 1789 into the Aryan scientific reality anti-Semitism was born although it wouldn’t be known as that until after 1875 when the German Wilhelm Marr coined the term.
As scientific knowledge developed in Western Europe the Jews of the West- England, France and Germany- acclimated themselves to the scientific learning while imitating Westerners in clothes and manners.
In the compacted Pale of Settlement in which the bulk of Jewry was located and the traditional Jewish culture resisted scientific ideas that were slow to penetrate while being stoutly resisted by the Rabbis who realized that Science was antithetical to ‘Jewish knowledge’, that is to say, the Talmud.
Beginning in 1871 and the coming of the steamship mass migration from the Pale to the United States was organized. Emigration was developed then organized to the point where the complete transfer of the Jewish population from the Pale to the US (New Orleans and Galveston as ports of entry) was to begin in 1914. Obviously the plan was aborted by the Great War and was unable to be resumed post-war due to American resistance.
Now, the complexion of the Jewish intellect was changed beginning in 1896 when Theodor Herzl created the concept of Zionism. While the Jews of the Pale were slow to accept Science they were quick to embrace Zionism, thus from 1900 to 1914 the concept of Zionism was introduced to the United States, or as the Jews called it, The New Promised Land.
The conflict between post scientific Aryans and Jews thus began in earnest in the eighteen-sixties when Adolphe Cremieux took a hand in founding the Alliance Israelite Universelle while increasing in virulence into the seventies, eighties and nineties and the decade and a half before the Great War. Emigration from Europe to the US lessened the pressure within Europe but increased it from the outside- the US.
Even though resisted in the US by ‘nativists’ the Jewish cause was forwarded by Liberals. This was a curious situation which has baffled my understanding for some time but I may now have a probable explanation. There are past analogies with these events and attitudes. In speaking of the intellect of Spain during its long history Henry Thomas Buckle, the English historian, betrays the Liberal dichotomy in assessing national character. He displays the need of the Liberal character to exalt the other while condemning it’s own.
He describes the invasion of Spain and its near conquest by the Moors from the eighth to fifteenth centuries without negative comment. He then describes the near millennial warfare to reclaim Spain by the Spaniards. There is a hint of distaste as Buckle describes the reconquest. Then in 1492 after nearly a thousand years of incessant warfare the Spaniards reconquered the last Moslem stronghold.
Having conquered, the Spaniards had to control the conquered peoples that included both Moslems and Jews. Now, when the Moslems invaded the country, the Jews, as per their custom had opened the gates of the cities for the Moslems. Not only does this not offend Buckle but he doesn’t mention it. You may compare that with the current situation in which the Jews have prepared the triumph of China over the West. They are currently attempting to establish a foothold for themselves in China which will probably involve a transfer of population.
Now, because you have defeated an enemy’s army in the field doesn’t mean you have defeated the enemy. Over a millennium one assumes that the populations of Jews and Moslems of Spain had increased immensely. There might have been many millions of each. While the Jews characterize the Moslem Era in Spain as a golden age of The Land Of The Three Religions, the poetry may be misleading. There must have been a very uneasy relationship between the three as the Christians within Moslem lines must have worked against Moslem interests to further the steadily increasing Reconquista while Jews tried to play both sides. Therefore the Spaniards would have been fools to trust the good intentions of the defeated Moslems and Jews. One only has to consider the conquered Poles reaction to the Russian occupation to understand the threat.
The Spaniards therefore offered the two religions the choice between becoming Christians, that is say, loyal Spaniards, or expulsion. The numbers here get a little hazy but Buckle says that only 150,000 Moslems elected to leave while anywhere between 60K and 600K Jews chose to emigrate. That means there must have been millions who chose to change their collars. Of course these were put under close surveillance and Spain entered the hell of the Inquisition and undying infamy.
Having finally won back their kingdom, if you choose to see it that way or, having conquered their enemies in the historical free play of might, Buckle chooses to portray the expulsion and forced conversion as a huge injustice on the part of the Aryans thus acknowledging this curious sentimental division of his own people into two groups; on the one hand the Pure Liberals, and on the other the Impure Beasts. This is a very curious belief in the virtue of the other- Jews and Moslems in this case- and the vice of his own people which he and Liberals place below the other embracing the latter and condemning the former. As I say this is a curious state of mind coloring all subsequent Euroamerican history from the Liberal sanctification of the African in Africa to their counterparts in the US. This attitude is so extreme that having condemned the Aryans of the Rhodesias and South Africa to abandon control they now sit placidly, one might say cheering, as the Aryans are massacred by the Africans.
Now, while Buckle and the Liberals essentially reject the Reconquest by the Spaniards as neither worthy or necessary, in the exact same situation of what the Mexicans call a reconquista of Aztlan, modern Liberals support the Mexican Reconquest which has puzzled most of us. In that sense Newt Gingrich who passes as an Aryan Conservative is actually an anti-Aryan Liberal and cannot be thought of otherwise.
While the Mexicans have a historical ‘right’ to invade whomever they please, they wish to base their invasion, Reconquest as they call it, on a moral or legal right as did the Spaniards in their reconquest.
In fact they have no legal or moral right. As with the Moslems invading and conquering Spain, the Spaniards invaded and conquered the Aztec nation which was very small occupying but a small portion of Southern Mexico. The Spaniards then occupied what became Northern Mexico, Texas, the Southwest and California and that but very sparsely. Texas and the Southwest plus Northern Mexico were more or less parts of Comancheria and Apacheria. So the Spaniards of Mexico were essentially occupying lands under the control of the Comanche and Apache peoples as well as lesser tribes.
Having established a very sparse presence in the territories, other settlers from the East and North drifted into these territories. As they became more numerous they became dissatisfied with Mexican authorities just as the Mexican had become dissatisfied with that of the Spaniards. As the Mexicans had a natural or historical right to revolt against the Spaniards so the dissidents of the territories had a right to revolt against the Mexicans which they in their turn did. Thus the revolutionaries of Texas threw off the Mexican yoke proclaiming themselves the sovereign and independent country of Texas but at no time were they associated with the United States although at a later date they did choose to associate themselves with the US as was their sovereign right.
As you can see one revolution is as valid as another. It only requires the will to separate.
In California also the Bear flag was raised in which Californian rebels threw off the Mexican yoke with much less difficulty than the Texans as the Mexican presence was very thin and a military presence nearly non-existent. That was the Bear Flag Revolution. If the Mexican Revolution from Spain was valid then so were the Texan and Californian Revolutions from Mexico. The Mexicans have no legal or moral claim to the four Southwest States although if they wish to exercise their historical ‘right’- i.e. the Hunnish invasion of Europe- it is up to the US which has legally acquired title to the States from their lawful citizens, to stop them.
However the Liberals of the exact same mindset of Buckle take the side of the Mexicans against both themselves and the hated internal enemy, the Conservatives or Aryan other. The latter are now labeled a terrorist group by the Liberal government.
A very curious situation in which any legal or moral arguments are disregarded in favor of inner wishful thinking.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and trace the mental state back to the Norman Conquest of England. After the conquest the Normans disenfranchised the Anglo-Saxons and made slaves of them. The more remote eastern counties of Angles resented this the most and never forgave the Normans which resulted in the Anglian revolt against Charles I as a Norman representative.
The New England colonists among whom this Liberal feeling arose came from East Anglia and thus rather than the Northeast American States being termed New England they should be titled New Anglia.
Their hatred of the Norman settlers of the South then led to the Civil War. After that war the
Liberals sought to humiliate their old enemies qua Normans by subjecting them to the semi-savage authority of the Negroes.
Thus, while Liberals care nothing for Negroes they embrace them on the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the same as Buckle and the Moors, Jews or anyone else who hates Aryans. The Liberals turn over the ‘Normans’ or Aryans to these ‘minorities’ to use as they wish, even passing hate laws to disenfranchise the Aryans and empower the ‘minorities.’ That’s called the transformation of society. That’s as close as I can come to this curious Liberal attitude at the moment. If not the truth it must be very close to it. Buckle himself must have been of Anglo-Saxon descent.
To return to Eco: While it is true that Herman Goedsche wrote his Jewish graveyard scene in Prague during the sixties this would have been a very peripheral event making little or no impression at the time. The fictional story became prominent only in retrospect after 1905. Thus, while I don’t wish to criticize Eco I think he should have maintained perspective making Goedsche ancillary to the Franco-Prussian war which certainly dwarfed any scene in anyone’s novel let alone a fictional meeting of Jewish conspirators in an ancient cemetery with far less cachet than the Pere Lachaise.
It might have been better to concentrate on Drumont and the French reaction to the Jewish cultural conflict that led to the Dreyfus Affair to demonstrate how and why the Aryans became alarmed by the Jewish culture war against them. It is no coincidence that the German concept of Kultur become prominent at that time. Eco could have presented a much more balanced version of the Dreyfus Affair rather than merely echoing the hysterical Jewish version. Also, of course, there was no need to mention Freud except as a future development of Anglo-European psychology and psychiatry.
That said, Eco succeeded in creating a fine ambience in which to set his excellent creation, Simone Simonini. I found him lifelike and I was genuinely interested in his career. The Jekyll-Hyde personality split was nicely handled although more attention might have been paid to the adventures of each half and how they interacted creating difficulties for the other. There was no need to create mystification in the reader’s mind as I’m sure we all got it from page one.
For those who have read Sue and Dumas, Eco’s indebtedness to both was clear. Eco was able to capture the ambience and horror of Sue quite well. The bodies under Simonini’s house was lifted almost intact from Sue’s Mysteries of Paris.
By the way, I erred in saying Les Mysteres Du Peuple hasn’t been translated into English. The prominent Jewish-American socialist, Daniel De Leon translated the story in the years after 1900. However as the novel was published in twenty-one fascicles of 200-300 pages under the names of the lead characters of each fascicle it took awhile to make the association. Most of the fascicles have been published by print on demand publishers.
With the rich resource of two characters in one, of which one is as virtuous as Jekyll and the other verging toward the amorality of Hyde, Eco could have exploited the conflict of morality between the two halves having the Priest working to foil, the efforts of Simonini, perhaps even exposing him as a police agent to the revolutionaries and as a double agent to the authorities.
I guess, what I’m saying is that while I found the story engrossing I was annoyed because the potentialities were not more fully exploited. I mean, why mention the criminal turned police inspector, Vidocq, if you aren’t going to develop him somewhat. Vidocq was a terrifically interesting person. A great memoir written by him too. As I said, it wouldn’t have hurt to have followed Dumas’ example and had a team researching and organizing while Eco wrote it up.
Since I’ve felt constrained to read Eco’s corpus of novels I may add to this at a later date.
December 5, 2011
THE PRAGUE CEMETERY
Eco, Umberto: The Prague Cemetery, 2010, Houghton Mifflin
The French Revolution was perhaps the most horrific event in the history of the world. More pernicious still in the shadow it cast into our times. Our societies were born in blood; we became instantly conditioned in the most incredible, inconceivable way to crime and political murder; worse by far than the so-called holocaust, itself an echo of the Revolution. No was safe, psychopaths and morons controlled the fates of the sane and intelligent. Truly the inmates were in control of the asylum just as Edgar Allan Poe represented in his story The System Of Doctor Tarr And Professor Feather. There are no words to accurately describe the crimes of ‘93.
The most amazing thing is that amid the chaos the Enlightenment proceeded apace. The period remained one of incredible scientific advances. Beneath the horrors of the Revolution and the Napoleonic years the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment produced astonishing literature and writers many of which will figure in the late nineteenth century history during the Romantic revival.
Interestingly one of the early manifestations of the modern Liberal mentality appeared in Henry Thomas Buckle’s History Of Civilization In England of 1860. In discussing the career of Edmund Burke, after a eulogy on Burke’s subtle command of English politics in which the most fulsome praise was heaped on the writer came the time for Burke’s evaluation of the French Revolution and the Great Year of ‘93.
Burke correctly perceived that the Revolution was a religious transit from one ideology to another and that the Revolution was the opening salvo of a new religious war- Socialism being the new religion, or Liberalism in another form. Burke deplored the violence and criminality in the strongest terms. Up to that point in history, Buckle (a very famous historian of his time) who had been writing a very measured and subtle history of the intellectual development of Western Europe and England vituperatively denounced Burke as becoming unbalanced and indeed, insane. This was over a mere difference of opinion. The denunciation was not unlike that of today’s Obama and his denunciation of the Republicans. Yes, he has characterized them as insane.
One then asks what was Buckle’s relationship to Communism? How well did he reflect Liberal opinion? Burke’s reaction occurred in ‘93 and ‘94.
Beneath The Limn
The nineteenth century was one of great psychological advances. As such they were unsettling creating great psychic stresses. Eco gives his character Simone Simonini a split dual personality. He also mentions Anton Mesmer and Jean-Martin Charcot. While many if not most people believe Sigmund Freud discovered or invented the Unconscious the concept was well developed in the nineteenth century before Freud. Freud merely consolidated earlier investigations and gave his own peculiar Jewish twist to the concept.
The beginning of the recognition of an unconscious was articulated by the much misunderstood, but surely great man, Dr.
Anton Mesmer in the pre-Revolution days of the eighteenth century. Mesmer’s shortcoming was that he was more of a mystic than a scientist. The French academy called him to account on scientific grounds and he either couldn’t or wouldn’t comply, hence being discredited as a charlatan. He was an honest man discovering a new scientist; more a pioneer than a charlatan.
Nevertheless as Mesmerism or as later renamed, Hypnotism, was a real phenomenon so even though discountenanced by official academics, research continued until it became clear that hypnotism was a condition of the mind or unconscious and not a quality of the operator or hypnotist as Mesmer mistakenly believed.
A few words on the nature of hypnotism and suggestion. Suggestion is the active component and the mind the passive of hypnotism. Essentially the mind is a slate on which the suggestion is imprinted.
What is a suggestion? Everything is a suggestion but suggestions of different qualities. For instance one wakes to a sunny day and the suggestion is one of anticipated pleasure, an overcast day one of a deflated spirit. The mind at birth is a blank slate with nothing on it so that education begins and education itself is suggestion but positive beneficent suggestion although education can be perverted for special ends. You might say the post-hypnotic consequences of education which teaches the mind to analyze other suggestions permanently survives the input. It is imprinted.
And then there is indoctrination in which a specific point of view is forced upon you to condition your mind in a permanent post-hypnotic state whether the information is good or bad. The current indoctrination in racism is a case in point. To confirm the suggestion of indoctrination one uses conditioning to confirm the imprinting. Thus one is bombarded constantly with racist images.
You may not think of the above as examples of hypnotism but they are. One may or can refuse a suggestion and indeed many people are uneducable because they resist the process of learning either because they won’t or can’t learn. The above are examples of open hypnotism or suggestion. There are involuntary acceptances of suggestion resulting in fixation that cause neuroses or psychoses, what the great French psychologist, Pierre Janet called the idee fixe. In other words a permanent post-hypnotic suggestion.
One means to achieve a fixation then is through terror. In a state of terror the mind is stripped of all defenses so that the suggestion is implanted with no resistance. An example comes to mind from the life of Edgar Rice Burroughs the creator of the Tarzan series. One day as an eight year old on the way to school he was confronted by a much larger twelve year old who began badgering him. The young Burroughs in a state of terror took to his heels. Among other things for his flight fixed in his mind that he was a coward. That affected his life thereafter. The theme appears in each and all of his scores of books. So Burroughs received a fixation, a suggestion, an idee fixe in Janet’s terms.
Freud presents many examples of various ways in which fixations occur. The point is that they are all hypnotic suggestions containing post-hypnotic commands. Once accepted they have to be discovered but once recognized the affects disappear. But every affect arises from a fixated suggestion. One was hypnotized.
What Freud did was to discover the true nature of suggestion and hypnotism so that it was not necessary to put a person in a trance to access his unconscious. In the process Freud learned how to hypnotize an entire audience and then with movies and recorded songs a whole population. But that was in the future.
For a good history of the nineteenth century pre-Freudian discovery of the unconscious the best introduction is Henri F. Ellenberger: The Discovery Of The Unconscious.
Books And Bookmen
Ilan Stevens begins his remarkably obtuse review of The Prague Cemetery as follows:
There’s no hiding it. Umberto Eco is a lousy novelist. Try as one may, it is difficult to make sense of his new novel, “The Prague Cemetery”. As is often the case with him, the plot is built on a mystery of sorts, on this occasion the quest to discover the true author of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, an anti-Semitic pamphlet that remains one of the world’s biggest hoaxes and whose true author remains unknown. Oddly, Eco is less interested in solving the puzzle than in incensing his readers. The protagonist’s anti-Semitic rampages running through hundreds of pages, appears to be a parody. But the joke is impossible to decode. Worse, it isn’t funny!
Ilan should realize that he is not speaking for the entire reading public but only for himself. Eco is as funny as Lenny Bruce or Mort Sahl, or, perhaps Ilan has never listened to St. Lenny’s diatribes himself. I would recommend the one about the Vegas comic at the Palladium Theatre of London.
In the first case Eco is plowing his furrow down a row that has already been disced, perhaps several times and in the second the Protocols take a subordinate place in the story. Perhaps Ilan is letting his Judaic heritage distort his sense of reality. Freud had a few things to say about group psychology. I recommend them to Ilan. In the third place without a fair background knowledge of the sources the novel might indeed be difficult if not impossible to follow. It requires some knowledge of nineteenth century books and bookmen.
Eco is a European, relatively unaffected by American attitudes and I suspect Jewish history although with someone of Eco’s erudition, that far exceeds Ilan’s, one must step cautiously, especially knowing what Eco does in his furrows.
The flowering of European and English literature began about mid-eighteenth century when the number of books published increased dramatically. After Napoleon organized the Revolution along rational lines beginning in 1799 one might say the modern era of literature began. Most significantly for our story was the emergence of the great Walter Scott in England. Scott originated the historical novel and as such became the template of the great French authors Balzac, Dumas and Sue. Dumas, the son of one of Napoleon’s generals was born in 1802; Sue, the son of Napoleon’s surgeon general was born in 1804. Both thus were old enough to have personal memories of the Napoleonic period and certainly of his defeat on the field of Waterloo. The events of the Revolution, tales of ‘93, must have been the stories of their childhood and early years. They lived through most of the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment.
At the same time they were present at the revolutionary shocks of 1830 and 1848 while taking part in political events of the time. Indeed, in Eco’s story she shows Dumas as a gun runner in Garibaldi’s attempted establishment of a unified Italy.
Garibaldi’s activities which had nothing to do with Jews or Protocols takes up a substantial part of Eco’s story. I found it one of the more intriguing parts of the novel. Certainly Eco’s portrayal of Simonini’s activities as a spy were well drawn establishing him as ‘flesh and blood’ character. While I thought Prague could have been better developed Simonini was perfection.
Rather than the book running on for hundreds of pages as Ilan thinks, I thought it much too short. Further, four hundred pages in the largish typeface is not a long book. I had rather seen Eco emulate his heroes Dumas and Sue and turn out a whopper of one or two thousand pages. If I have any complaint it is that Eco didn’t really pull out the stopper and throw himself into it. He does give us a trifle on the Commune of Paris ‘71 but that alone could have taken two or three hundred pages. Arnold Bennett in his Old Wife’s Tale give a little more. I mean, the nineteenth century is great stuff especially for a historical imagination like Eco’s; there’s plenty of material for romancing.
Since Eco put some effort into developing a psychological profile for his hero, Simonini, he might have dealt with the development of psychology from Mesmer to 1897 his cutting off point. He could have invented, well, there was no need to invent, he could included some of the stage magicians and hypnotists sort of after the fashion of the movie, Children Of Paradise. Too long a novel? Oh, no Eco shouldn’t have reined himself in. Probably too afraid of the Jews and their anti-Semitism. There was no reason to include Freud who at that time was unknown.
Eco did mention Mesmer and could certainly have cast an uncle of Simonini as a stage hypnotist then allowing him to
develop a history of hypnotism down to Jean-Martin Charcot at the Salpetriere in the sixties, seventies and eighties. It was Charcot who legitimized hypnotism.
Eco could also have taken time to give mini biographies of the actual historical figures most of whom are today known only by name if that. After all this is well over two hundred years after the Revolution of 1789. That is an immense stretch of well documented history impossible for someone not dedicated to studying the period to know. If education is in trouble it is merely because the period and its contribution to knowledge has not been organized in a comprehensible manner. Nor given the current political and religious situation is it likely to be. History itself is both anti-Semitic and racist, you know.
Amazingly enough the amateurs of the internet are making a better attempt to orgainize the period than the academic ‘pros’. The various Wold Newton Universe’s on the internet which mesh into Eco’s approach have done a great deal to evolve a time line progression. Since Eco is a European writer the work of Jean-Marc and Randy (wife) Lofficier with their site of the French Wold Newton Universe have made a great advance in organizing French literature into a continuation not too different in intent than the Arthurian epic.
They began much as Eco does here with the Carbonari based on the novels of Paul Feval who chronicles the rise of organized crime in France which is another theme Eco could have included in an expanded novel. Rocambole, Arsene Lupin and Fantomas, (characters larger than the creators) form part of the French WNU and Eco’s memories as he recorded them in the Mysterious Flame Of Queen Loana, but that opportunity was missed.
I’m also not sure why Eco passed over Madame Blavatsky, Theosophy and the whole Spiritist Movement that turns toward the idea of the Protocols since their religious view was quite in opposition to Judaism.
Another line of investigation although not quite so obvious as others was the rise of the Vampire novel which I believe is directly related to Jewish emancipation.
Prior to the Revolution and Jewish Emancipation the Jews had been tightly controlled being confined to the Pale of Settlement running the breadth of Europe between Eastern Poland and Western Russia. With emancipation Jews could function freely without restriction as citizens of their respective hosts. How Jewish activities are characterized depends on your nationality. Jews of course depict themselves as both ardent Jews and loyal citizens of the host country while each country universally depicts them as self-interested traitors. But to say so left an individual open to censure as an anti-Semite. That is the same charge that Ilan in his review brings against Eco. To disagree with the Jews is to be an anti-Semite. Thus in order to express one’s true opinion one must resort to subterfuge. One has to speak of one thing to refer to another. One of the major criticism of the Jews over the centuries in all societies is that Jews are parasites. Of course, the Vampire is the ultimate parasite. Thus in creating stories of Vampires, the bloodsuckers are meant to represent Jews.
This is made nowhere more explicit than in George Du Maurier’s 1894 novel, Trilby. Eco has his character in Prague named Dr. Du Maurier who is obviously based on the novelist George. As it seems appropriate I will digress here to consider Du Maurier’s novel, Trilby. Du Maurier still has a significant following as my three reviews of his novels have found a good readership, especially the first, Peter Ibbetson.
Trilby is a complex and very interesting novel. Du Maurier was a prominent neo-Romanticist and Bohemian. A base of his story is an earlier 1822 novelette by the French Romanticist Charles Nodier from whose title, Trilby, Du Maurier took his own.
Nodier’s story concerned a Scots girl named Jeannie and an elf or fairy named Trilby. We are led to believe that Trilby actually exists but was apparent only to Jeannie so that the churchmen or rationalists believing her deluded insist that she renounce her elfin friend; therein lies the tragedy.
In Du Maurier’s story he reverses the sexes making Trilby a young woman while giving Jeannie’s identity to a young artist named Little Billee who, himself, is based on a Thackeray poem of the same name. Du Maurier is more obsessed with memory than even Umberto Eco. Du Maurier convinced of the reality of an after life devised it so that he could take his little bags of memory with him for, what is the purpose of memories is they are to be lost at death, he said?
The novel Trilby is, of course, famous for Du Maurier’s creation of the hypnotist, Svengali, very close to a mythical figure himself. One hears reference to Svengali constantly. Svengali was what was then known as a Beteljew, sort of a bum or hobo, in Hebrew a Schnorrer. He is not appreciated by Billee and his friends but he was always a forced presence in their entourage. According to the prejudice of Jews then and now he was a good musician. Thus in hanging around the digs of Little Billee and his Bohemian artist friends he meets Trilby who is a grisette. A grisette in Parisian is what we would call ‘a good lovin’ woman.’ Trilby posed nude for the artists but she was never of easy virtue being quite an exception in Bohemian artists’ circles. The point is made that she cannot sing, unable to carry a tune or hit a note with a tennis racquet . However Svengali notices that she has a one in a million oral cavity, hence she should be able to sing much better than Jenny Lind, a sensation at the time.
As the story falls out the English artists break up as age takes it toll while after a series of adventures Trilby having no other place to go shows up on Svengali’s doorstep who seizes his chance. He removes to Eastern Europe where being an expert hypnotist he entrances Trilby, much as a vampire, and keeps her in a perpetual trance as he wants so much to use that spectacular oral cavity and make Trilby sing as no other. To do that he has to project his musical sensibilities into her and sing through her himself. Thus she is only able to sing while hypnotized and with Svengali directly in front of her making eye contact.
After a while the two master the act and Svengali begins to build her career in which he is successful. As she is perpetually hypnotized Trilby has no memory of those years. One imagines Du Maurier might consider the loss of memories the most tragic of all.
Back in Paris on holiday after a period of years the now mature Billee and his two friends are astonished to discover that their Trilby is the singing sensation that they have been hearing about while Svengali to their eyes has an ambiguous relationship with her. He claims that he is her husband but this is, of course, bushwa as he has another wife. While driving by in their carriage Svengali spots the three on the sidewalk. His hatred and rage at the three welling up he orders Trilby to cut them dead which she does.
Unable to get tickets to the sold out performances the three go back to London. Trilby is scheduled for a London tour. Billee and his friends have a box seat. About half way through the performance Svengali looks up and notices them. His hatred is so strong he breaks eye contact with Trilby who at once stops singing and while glaring at the three his blood pressure rising Svengali has an apoplectic fit and dies. Trilby is unable to continue the show on her own. However Svengali having kept her hypnotized for years vampire like has sapped her vital energy and Trilby withers and dies.
Thus as though a vampire Svengali has drained his victim of life’s blood exploiting her for his own profit. Du Maurier makes it quite clear that the story is an allegory of the Jews and Europeans. Thus unable to criticize the Jews directly unless he be labelled an anti-Semite Du Maurier makes a species of Vampire of them. In the process probably a much better novel than he might have otherwise. The novel really is a masterpiece.
It is perhaps no coincidence that Bram Stoker’s novel, Dracula, was issued at this time. While the nineteenth century began to explore the Aryan racial subconscious in tentative manner pursuing vampires, werewolves, Frankensteins, perpetual wanderers of one type or another, split personalities it was not until later in the century after a few decades of serious study that some clear results were achieved. The most notable example in which a clear separation of the conscious and unconscious was achieved was in Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde. There may be an unconscious referral on Eco’s part as he may have combined Du Maurier and Dr. Jekyll in his imagination. During the same years the Society For Psychical Research was formed of which the significant researches of F.W.H. Myers in the unconscious were important contributions. The work of the Frenchman Pierre Janet, student of Charcot’s is not to be despised either. Freud’s twentieth century vehement denial of any use of Janet’s ideas is proof positive of his influence.
In the realm of dreams also significant work had been done by Aryans before Freud synthesized their work in his study of 1899-1900, The Interpretation Of Dreams. While verging toward mysticism Du Maurier’s notion of Dreaming True and Stevenson’s notion of Directed Dreaming are significant variations on Freud’s theory. Not that I mean to totally disparage Freud’s contribution but he essentially serves in the Jewish role of the middleman between the producer and the consumer.
So, as a slight criticism of Eco, as Freud was still of the future as Prague ends, he might have better constructed Simonini from existing psychological elements. There was no need to create ‘Froide’. Nor was it necessary to interject the Protocols and Dreyfus into the story so prominently.
It appears that Eco used the body of books or sources that all of us familiar with this line of research have used. If fact so many people have been plowing this furrow that nearly every book suppressed by the Jewish Index of Forbidden Books has found its way into print with the exception of Drumont of the Libre Parole and Goedsche himself. One can with some confidence then speak in this area.
Eco slights his Jewish studies. He makes an offhand comment about the Father Thomas murder in Syria but without prior
knowledge of that crime, if the uninformed reader noticed the reference he must have been puzzled. While the author of the Protocols has never been determined, internal evidence indicates the work was probably cobbled together c. 1885. It may have been based on Maurice Joly’s Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquiou In Hell or the Dialogues may have been written after the Protocols became infamous to provide a source, thus we may have a hoax based on a hoax.
Of course, over the decades the story keeps changing, but in one version Napoleon III confiscated all the copies at the printers but one copy got away. The book showed up much later after the Russian Revolution when a fleeing White officer miraculously sold the only existing copy to a Jewish second hand book dealer in Constantinople. Ever see the movie, Wag The Dog? You should. Not only did this astute book dealer buy a wreck of a book without a cover or title page but while idly reading through it he recognized it as the source of the Protocols, as the proverbial light went off in head he knew he had a copy of the Dialogues in his sweaty little hands. Quickly notifying the Alliance Israelite Universelle he sent the copy along and- eh voila!- the problem with the source was solved, proven. But the question is, who was this Maurice Joly and what did he know of Machiavelli and Monstesquiou? Who the hell was Montesquiou? That Joly was Jewish goes without saying but to my mind there is a question as to whether he wrote the Dialogues. I mean, you know, we’re dealing with mis-, dis- and re-directed matters here. Try reading Edgar Wallace’s Four Just Men to learn some real head fakes.
Eco doesn’t go into the Jewish history very deeply although all accounts of the origin of the Protocols I’ve read have been
written by Jewish hands and therefore are thoroughly questionable. He does make a passing reference to someone he call Cremiu. This may or may not be a reference to a very important Jewish figure named Adolphe Cremieux. His career spanned the years before the 1830 revolution which coincided with the French acquisition of Algeria of that year. Cremieux drafted and penned the law making Jewish residents of Algeria French citizens thus catapulting them over their Moslem masters corrupting the French conquest.
Cremieux was politically prominent in the sixties taking part in the formation of the Alliance Israelite Universelle which was created as an international organization to coordinate Jewish European activities, thus was formed a Jewish national government. At the turn of the century it would be sent to the US becoming the American Jewish Committee as the US was deemed more cordial and pertinent to Jewish affairs. Indeed, it was from New York that President Jacob Schiff engineered the 1905 defeat of Russia by Japan for which the Japanese duly honored him.
But in the 1860s when European Jewish affairs were being organized Cremieux was undoubtedly behind the writing of the Dialogues which were very likely written by committee and merely issued under Joly’s name. The Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquiou is a sophisticated piece of writing. I suppose most people have heard of Machiavelli and probably many of those have read his book; however I doubt if many have ever heard of Montesquiou and fewer by far have read him. His Spirit Of The Laws is one of those key texts recently made available. In Conspiracy circles it had been thought of as evil but it is nothing of the kind. It is a very valuable intellectual contribution which ought to be studied by Conservatives.
As the title implies Montesquiou historically examines what laws were meant to effect- their spirit. Thus as with today’s ‘anti-hate’ laws, what is their spirit? What is their intended effect? On the surface the laws are absurd as they imply that the protected parties are above ‘hate’ while the unprotected parties are directing their innate unreasoning hatred toward them. The ‘anti-hate’ laws are American so one must ask who they are meant to protect and who they are meant to punish. The protected parties are what Americans call ‘minorities’; what the Canadians laughably call ‘visible minorities’ which by the way would exclude Jews and homosexuals who are invisible. The promoters of these laws are obviously Jewish.
The laws then create franchised and disenfranchised classes. That is exactly the way the protected classes understand the laws. They have been legally granted ‘minority skin’ privileges.
So, now as the Jews understand the spirit of the laws in these days it is not unreasonable to believe that they understood their spirit in those days. They had and have a very specialized understanding.
Just as today the AJC/ADL have a college turning out books of the same nature as the Dialogues, see the books of fictional author ‘John Roy Carlson’, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Cremieux and the Alliance Israelite did the same in those days. The racial mind always works according to certain static principles. Thus, I have no doubt myself, that the college turned out the book merely duping the Jew Maurice Joly to put his name on it. In any event we are told that Louis Napoleon had the whole press run confiscated at the printers; however the handwritten original may have escaped that surfaced around 1885 when the Protocols were written. The text would have to have been supplied by the Alliance in that instance. From my reading of both documents there is only the most tenuous connection between them while the ideas contained in the Protocols could have been written and probably were without any reference to the Dialogues at all. I see no logical connection between the two.
Now, if the Protocols were a forgery drawn up by the Russian Ohkrana who could not possibly have had a copy of the Dialogues in 1885 and they wouldn’t have needed it in any event why would they wait to 1905 to broadcast the news? Why not before the 1905 revolution in an attempt to stave it off? So, you see, things just really add up; the bottom line is just a bit fuzzy.
While the Jews attack Eco on the improbable grounds that his novel is going to stir up ancient hatreds, at the same time they leap at Eco’s suggestion that the German writer of the period, Herman Goedsche’s scene in the Jewish Cemetery is based on Cagliostro’s confrontation with the Freemasons in the pages of Dumas’ novel Joseph Balsamo. Balsamo was Cagliostro’s real name while the latter is his magician’s name.
There is no need for a relationship between the two while at the same time both are fictional situations. I’ve never understood why the Jews chose to make an issue of this scene. Biarritz, Goedsche’s novel was just that, a story. For a story to be read it has to be as close to reality as possible while exaggerating it for effect. While it is improbable that any such meeting would take place in a graveyard it is certainly probable that such a meeting took place at AIU headquarters in Paris. How else will you coordinate efforts and Jewish efforts were coordinated.
Just ask yourself, what is the purpose of an undeniable organization named the Alliance Israelite Universelle? Doesn’t the name say it all? And then in 1900 when the Pale Of Settlement is being emptied out as the Jews are being transferred to the US with every intent of transferring all the Jews to the US which was only aborted by the outbreak of The Great War, why was the Alliance transferred from France to the US to become the American Jewish Committee? I mean, you know, I don’t mind being called an anti-Semite but I certain do object to being called stupid.
In fact, the Jews were one of the nations of Europe, functioning fully as a nation although without a homeland, ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ they were called and what else would they be called given their situation? Think about this stuff, don’t allow your thinking to be directed by Jews. When the going gets tough the Jews pack up and get moving. That’s what rootless means. The Germans, the French et al., they have roots, when the going gets tough they have nowhere to go, they have to tough it out.
Thus the mere existence of institutions presupposes organization and goals. Goedsche was just a writer, he doesn’t have to be taken anymore seriously than that. Does he have a good story or not? In fact, his novel is one of the works on the Jewish Index still waiting translation. I’m ready to buy.
Eco could have gone into more detail on the Protocols. They excite only the Jews. They only claim to prove the obvious. Check out the goals of today’s Jewish Paideia Society of Sweden organized by the US Jew Barbara Spectre which is pursuing the same end. Good name, Spectre.
That leaves the old chestnut, the Dreyfus Affair to be examined. Why Eco threw this into a book called The Prague Cemetery is beyond me but there it is.
Dreyfus was certainly guilty of spying, not necessarily for the Germans as he was charged, but spying. Leaping ahead a hundred years and shifting to the New Promised Land, the US, let us consider the case of the notorious Israeli spy, Jonathon Pollard whose thefts were so serious that he is still withering away in prison. While his fellow Jews haven’t been able to force a new trial, they’re now asking for parole if not pardon. After all they say Pollard wasn’t spying for an enemy but for the US’ best friend, Israel, with which we should have been sharing our information like a good friend anyway.
Now, move Pollard back a hundred years, shift him to France and change his name to Dreyfus. Eh, voila! Dreyfus was sending his purloined info to the Alliance Israelite Universelle headquarters. How else can the Jews by so well informed?
As Eco informs us, the real German spy was named Esterhazy. What he neglects to tell us is the Esterhazy was a Hungarian Jew. So, if there was a spy dealing with the Germans, he was Jewish, as well as another Jewish spy providing his fellow Jews with information.
Now, it is said that Dreyfus was framed and wasn’t guilty. The big bad nasty Aryans convicted him falsely out of mere pique and he was later proved innocent. Over the years from his conviction to his second trial key evidence disappeared while key witnesses had died and money had changed hands. Therefore Dreyfus was released for lack of evidence not proven innocent besides which the Jews had gotten themselves into a hissy fit while alarming France and dividing the country along Dreyfusard and anti-Dreyfusard lines. What other political choice did the authorities have?
Consider nearly every other European conviction of Jews along similar lines most notably the murder of children or the so-called ‘blood libel.’ According to the Jews each incident, and these occurred over centuries, was trumped up for bigoted reasons. Thus, the culprit is first convicted on what appears to be good evidence to a court of law. A few years go by, evidence disappears, witnesses die, money changes hands and then the case is reopened and the verdict is reversed.
Then it is said that the charge of child murder by Jews is absurd, there is nothing in the Jewish culture to indicate that they were even capable of such crimes. But, consider the Last Supper. All Jews agree that Jesus was Jewish although there are some Aryan diehards who insist he wasn’t and want to claim the creep. Nevertheless at the Last Supper the Jewish Jesus holds up the wafer and says this is my body; he holds up his wine and says this is my blood. Not only do we have the blood libel but we have cannibalism in a Jewish setting completely among Jews. According to the doctrine of transubstantiation a modern communicant is literally eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Now, if one mixes wine with the wafer one has the deed for which the Jews were accused. A child among both Semites and Aryans is an unpolluted innocent, of course.
The Bible has very strong injunctions enjoining Jews to abjure eating or drinking blood because according to their belief that is where life or the soul resides. So, on the one hand the Jewish ceremony of eating the child’s blood in the wafer mocks the Catholic ritual while eating the life of Christians by proxy of a pure innocent child. I don’t say the Jews actually did this, although they were convicted of the crime, however to say the charges are absurd on the face of it contradicts both facts and reason. I could provide more examples but one is as good as a hundred.
As in Jonathon Pollard’s case, as they can’t get the conviction overturned or set aside then humanity demands that he be released.
In Prague Eco exonerates the Jews on the count of the Protocols and also the Dreyfus Affair. According to Ilan this is not enough, he is still activating ancient hatreds. Whose ancient hatreds Ilan doesn’t say. One always suspects the charge is that of crying Wolf. There is no reason not suspect ulterior motives. At the very least Eco is playing into their hands.
As I said before, these two historical events are so old hat that no one except interested parties are concerned or even know of the incidents; at this late date there is no one who remembers them personally, they have passed into the historical or racial memories.
So Eco’s work is merely an exercise in historical memory combined with the Jewish racial memory. We should always try to unravel the mysteries of the folk so that having an accurate historical memory from both sides we can demand in unison- Never Again! Not likely to happen but a good thought.
I had meant to conclude the review with this part but as it got more involved than I thought I will have to add a Part IV.