The European Holocaust

Part IV


R.E. Prindle

We have come to the decision

That one or the other shall live,

Totalitarianism or democracy,

Tyranny or freedom,

And that it is as impossible for the two

To live in the same world

As it is for darkness and light

To inhabit the same space at the same time.

One of them must be crushed

And the other live triumphant,

And there can be no peace

And there will be no peace,

Until Tyranny is crushed…

Charles A. Beard

Quoting Senator Claude Pepper

Appearances and Realities p. 50


The success of the Bolshevik Revolution essentially replaced Nationalism with Internationalism or Collectivism or in the political and economic terms of the time the opposition was styled Capitalism and Communism by the Communists.  I will refer to the two ideologies as Individualism and Collectivism.

As loyalty was then not based on nationality but on ideology after 1917 the concept of treason changed also.  Thus a Communist Englishman could betray his State while being loyal to his ideology.  As the socialist homeland was the Soviet Union loyalty was thus attached to the Soviet Union, or Russia in the common parlance, thus being double treachery.  This was ill understood at the time and may be so today.

When the Comintern, or Communist International in longform, established stations in cities such as Berlin, Paris, London and New York the Comintern agents had a large supporting network of local sympathizers or Fellow Travelers cooperating with them against their States.  As the war was between light and dark as Pepper stated all opponents were evil and styled Fascists.  Every State was veined with Communist operatives.  As the Communists were trying to subject each State the operatives had every reason to deny who they were.  Denial became their way of life, dissembling their method.

In the Soviet Union controlled by the Communists, the Reds, could operate openly as themselves and they did, killing, starving and running Siberian death camps for any that opposed them.  There was only room for one ideology, it could live while all others must die as Pepper said.  ‘WE have had to come to the decision that one or the other shall live…’  Pepper was obviously a Collectivist and not improbably a Soviet agent.  Alert observers in the West could not hope but notice this putting them into violent opposition.  It became necessary as Pepper said to stamp the Other flat, dead.

Huge security organizations arose in all the States.  Numerous revolutionary attempts were made in the various States as the Bolsheviks were leading an international revolution hoping to establish Communism in one fell blow.  The revolutions in European States are easily identified while that in the US is characterized as social disturbances.

The great social disturbances of 1919-21 were actually part of the revolution but have been misrepresented to appear as just spontaneous social disorders.  However the disorders do appear to be part of an organized plan.

They certainly appeared that way to Wilson’s Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer.  Palmer arrested thousands, deported hundreds and harassed the rest.  As might be expected this very reasonable man and able AG was depicted as a deranged monster by Communist sympathizers who suddenly appeared out of nowhere.  To this day the campaign against Mitchell is carried on.

Surveillance systems at the time were primitive compared to today but with all the bomb throwers and crazed radicals running around fairly openly in the land of the free it would seem impossible that the Justice Department wasn’t keeping tabs, therefor one has to assume that Mitchell Palmer must have known what he was doing.  He cannot have been entirely off base in his arrests regardless if some mistakes were made or not.   The Communist Children Of Light were hustling people off to the death camps at the same time.

Most significantly the opponents of Mitchell’s actions were those who sympathized  most ardently with the Soviet program.  These people were also the first to call those who opposed Collectivist activities Fascists and Isolationists in the next decade.  One therefor has to applaud Palmer for his prompt and effective actions.  He saved the country from a revolution that would have been as bloody and repressive as that in the Soviet Union.  Remember, according to Pepper only the Collectivists could be allowed to live.  The Justice Dept. in fact was responsible for disarming the Communist threat as their tight surveillance continued through 1919, ’20 and ’21 when the Harding Administration broke up the Grand Rapids, Michigan convention that drove the Reds completely underground.  The Harding administration outlawed the Communist Party, made it illegal, for a brief period in 1921 until the Soviet sympathizers had the law repealed as ‘un-American.’   The Comintern continued their activities in the US drawing complaints from Coolidge and Hoover.  A condition of Roosevelt’s administration in recognizing the Soviet Union was that the Comintern cease American activities.  Of course the agreement was ignored while the Party quickly infiltrated FDR’s government.  Thus the so-called war to save democracy was subverted in every way in favor of totalitarian Communism.

In point of fact all of the various national Communist Parties were well over fifty percent Jewish.  This fact is no longer denied although the Jews vehemently denied it at the time.  Thus the Jews and the Communists were irrevocably opposed to any other ideology but their own.  That means it was intent to infiltrated and overthrow all non-Communist governments.

As FDR expressed it there were totalitarian aggressor nations and democratic peace loving nations of which the former were evil and the latter righteously virtuous.  Roosevelt identified only Germany, Italy and Japan as aggressor nations and he demanded they be quarantined or in religious terms, ex-communicated, made outlaw nations beyond the law.

What these ‘aggressor nations’ had in common was that they were all staunchly anti-Communists.  It therefore follows that all other countries had a strong enough Communist presence so that they were no threat to the Communist ideology, given time and patience they would be brought within the Pale.  That also means that Roosevelt was a Communist as would later be proven in his obeisance to Stalin in WWII.

The key figure in this political configuration was Joseph Stalin.  He accepted the role of coordinator of worldwide Communist activities.  Thus, as pointed out above through the Comintern he established subversive nodes in all the Western capitals. While nationalistic feelings were still the standard, nationals ideologically attuned to Communism served as conduits of sensitive material to the Soviet Union central node of Moscow and Stalin.  Thus one had dozens or hundreds of Dreyfuses funneling information to the enemy.

Stalin and the Soviet Union, then, was actually the key aggressor operating through the various Communist Parties.  In the East Japan was the enemy of Communism.  The Soviets were able to create a strong Chinese Communist Party in the South of China.  The Japanese countered Soviet aggression in North China and interfered with the Soviets in Outer Mongolia where Soviet aggression was complete while at the same time Soviet infiltration of Sinkiang province in China’s Northwest was accelerated.

As Japanese activity in North China from Manchuria, or Manchukuo as the Japanese renamed it, became more effective Stalin moved the Chinese Communists under Mao Tse Tung, Ze Dong as he is currently styled, North as a buffer between the Soviets and Japanese.  The Japanese remained a source of anxiety to him in the East as Germany was in the West.  If he could maneuver the US into a war with Japan in the East he would then have a free hand against Germany in the West.

In the West after 1933 and the accession of the Nazi’s the Axis ‘aggressors’  merited watching.  The Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, was an effective leader.  No one in the West had expected him to be elected as the leader of Germany.  He was universally despised as an upstart while the Jews especially considered him dangerous.

Serving as a corporal in the WWI he had served honorably and meritoriously having been decorated twice.  Post-war he served in German intelligence given the task of monitoring a Munich Volkist unit.  As their ideology meshed with his he took the Party over renaming it the National Socialist German Worker’s Party,  the NSDAP or Nazi’s.  In the aftermath of the war Communist revolutionaries flooded back into Germany from Russia fomenting several revolutionary attempts which were defeated by the various Volkist units.  Thus from the end of the war until the Nazi success of 1933 there was perpetual street warfare between the Judeo-Communists and the Volkists, after 1924 mainly the Nazi Party.

The Germans had been betrayed by Wilson and his Fourteen Point proposal.  The Fourteen Points was actually a peace offering, a request for an armistice, that is a laying down of weapons on both sides allowing the struggle to be mediated.  The Germans were tricked as when they lay down their arms the Allies didn’t preferring to believe the Germans has been conquered.  Nor did the war end there as the Allies continued the blockade of Germany for months after the armistice starving innumerable Germans to death.  Quite vicious when you think about it.

Having fooled the Germans the allies showed them no mercy imposing draconian conditions on them while forcing them under duress to sign a document confessing that they alone were responsible for the war.

Psychologically of course the forcing of the confession was a confession of their own guilt projected on the Germans.  The French as in WWII were the most vicious of the lot.  There was no affront or indignity too slight or too evil to heap on the Germans.  Bringing in African troops after taking over the Rhineland they quartered these still savage tribesmen in German homes.  Granted a carte blanche to abuse the Germans the Negroes took full advantage of it.  German husbands and fathers were afraid to go to work as their women folk were raped and abused by the savages.  Such was only one insult and injury.

Remember that German hatred was shared by all of the allies.  This hatred was carried to the point of genocide as allied bombing of German cities and civilians in WWII would prove.  Is it any wonder that Hitler and the Nazis acted aggressively then to recover their dignity, manhood and self-respect.  Recent scholarship is bringing to light Hitler’s reluctance to go to war  He is now beginning to be portrayed as more reasonable but seventy years of the most hateful propaganda is difficult to reverse.

For the Jews Hitler was a menace before becoming Chancellor and Reichs-Feuhrer.  Remember the German Communist Party was at least 60% Jewish so all those street battles were largely between Volkists and Jews with the Jews getting whipped, many of them interned immediately in concentration camps.  There can be no surprise then that after 1933 the Nazis outlawed Communism and disenfranchised the Jews.  A war between Jews and Germans had been in progress for decades and nearly a shooting war between 1917 and 1933.

Today the Jews are at war with the Whites of America having been successful in imposing civil disabilities on White males essentially placing them outside the law.  Who is to say then that Wolf Hitler was not prescient in taking the precautions against the Jews that he did?  If the Jews had won, what then?

As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he knew that if the Volkists lost the war their head would roll in the sand.  That was a true statement as events in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution had shown.  If the Jews had beaten the Volkists in Germany multiples of six million would have been murdered, if not perhaps the entire German nation.  Don’t waste your sympathy on the Jews; they have plans for you.

As we will see, by 1940 Theodore Kaufman had articulated those plans calling for the physical extermination of the Germans that was legislated as the Morgenthau Plan under Roosevelt four years later.  FDR would have gleefully implemented it.  Thank God he was called to the Bosom Of Abraham before he had the chance.  Even Truman had to kick Morgenthau out of his cabinet to forestall the annihilation of Germans.

So the period from 1933 to 1942 in the US was one of preparing for and fomenting war against Germany to gratify the Jews.  Make no mistake the US began preparing for war in 1933 when Roosevelt assumed the presidency.

The Communist ideology had been stalled from 1921 to 1933 by a succession of Republican presidents- Harding, Coolidge and Hoover- who were ardently anti-Communists.  To be anti-Communist was to be anti-Jewish, that is anti-Semitic.  For that reason all three presidents have been defamed as great failures.  The period is derogatively styled ‘Normalcy.’  The ‘failing’ of course is being of a different and more successful ideology than the Communists.

Harding inherited the mess of Wilson’s last two years when the latter was incapacitated.  The failed revolution of 1918-1921 was still raging.  A wave of ‘criminality’ was surging.  Post office robberies were rampant, even to the looting of pick up boxes.  Harding’s Post-Master General Will Hays quickly cleaned up that mess.  In 1920 Jews had stolen twelve million dollars worth of Liberty Bonds to help finance the revolution.  Within six months all this was cleared up.  Compare the stolen bonds with the Jewish counterfeit German money that Mussolini showed Ambassador Phillips.   Why rob banks when you can manufacture all the cash you need.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was established to deal with the rising malfeasance.  J. Edgar Hoover was appointed Director in 1924 beginning his long career.  Hoover was death on Communists.  However having been reinstated as a legal Party they were immune to arrest per se.  A powerful tool had been removed through the influence of covert Reds

As Harold Ickes said:  You wonder why Harding died?  You have to ask?  My free translation of Ickes words of course.

As closet Reds then, the Communists always had to deny themselves.  They infiltrated the media the better to bore from within.  It was necessary to adopt a Red or ‘Liberal’ line for authors to get published.  As one editor said:  all the best writers are Communist leaning.  Learning the ropes meant that a writer adapted to the new conditions just as today to get published you have to be pointedly, Leftist, pro-homosexual, pro-Jewish and a Feminist as well as being slavish to Negroism.

When Roosevelt came in the Reds came out quickly moving in on Hollywood as the talkies came in allowing a better means to get the message across.  Protected by the Roosevelt Administration Communist infiltration of the movies didn’t become a real issue until after Roosevelt died and then the Hollywood investigations began along with the Communist blacklist instead of the opposite and the yelping about injustice began.

During the Republican Interregnum or Normalcy or the New Era, the period was rife with titles, all three presidents were interfered with by the Comintern causing at least Hoover to complain.  The undermining became obvious during the Hoover presidency when the engineered stock market crash came down and a great depression began.  Continued prosperity would have meant a continuation of Republican ‘American Plan’ presidents and that could not be allowed so a disaster was created allowing Roosevelt’s election.

With Roosevelt came the collectivist or Communist ideology and the old America was dead, much as when Obama was elected.  Some say the first America was from 1789 to 1860, the second from 1860 to 1933.  Roosevelt inaugurated the third and the Moslems created the fourth in 2001.

Roosevelt’s election coincided with Hitler’s election as Chancellor so along with Stalin the three most important actors of the period through 1945 took the stage.  Stalin would hang in there until he outwore his welcome in 1953 but Roosevelt and Hitler would die within a few weeks of each other in 1945.

Stalin was indisputably the master of the three.  Roosevelt being weakest and most inept.  Roosevelt is something of a mystery.  He came to Washington with a whole coterie of Jews.  Nor was his entry unplanned by the Jews.  They were prepared on all fronts, they knew the battle plan.  Brandeis and Frankfurter had a legion on doctrinaires both Jewish and not who through Roosevelt placed them in sensitive positions in all departments.  Most notably they made a beeline for the Agricultural Department.

It was there that control of the food supply lay.  Shortly after the turn of the century a man called David Lubin had devised a plan to gain control of the North American food supply as well as other commodities.  He enlisted a San Francisco lawyer named Aaron Sapiro to propagate the plan while he departed for Italy.  While Sapiro’s success was fitful by 1924 it came to the attention of Henry Ford who understood that the plan was intended to lead to a control of the food supply.

He undertook to expose Sapiro and his plan.  Sapiro then sued Ford for defamation.  The trial was declared a mistrial.  Rather than undertake another trial Ford bought Sapiro off but in the process of the trial Sapiro was exposed more or less as a fraud and his effort and career were ruined at the trial’s end in 1927.  The plan to capture the food supply had been in limbo since ’27 but now with Roosevelt the Jews began to institute a new and better plan backed by the government.  Agriculture would be much different in 1945 when Roosevelt headed out to sea.  It would be similar to that of the Soviet Union.

Operatives were also prominent in State and the Treasury.  This cadre of operatives was known as Frankfurter’s Happy Hot Dogs.

Even more remarkable is the fact that as early as election night victory NYC Jews were naming new born sons Franklin Delano Goldstein or whatever.  Why would they have thought FDR was one of theirs?  And, in fact, why did FDR enact the Jewish program consonant with that of the Soviet Union?

This is very puzzling.  When did Roosevelt become so enamored of the Jews that he became an advocate of their interests?  I can offer only a tentative solution but it does explain FDR’s remarkable behavior.

There was a great contest for financial control of the US at the turn of the century headed by JP Morgan interests on the one hand and on the other the Jews led by Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb.  Connected to the Jewish interests was the goi railroad magnate E.L. Harriman.  In the first years of the century the battle was led by Morgan on the one side and Schiff/Harriman on the other.  The battle would be decided in 1913 when the Jews captured the Federal Reserve giving them control of the US currency.  Morgan and the American representatives were thus elbowed aside.

But an interesting thing happened earlier in 1901.  With the huge influx of Russian Jews from 1870 to 1914 came the Settlement House movement of which Jane Addams’ Hull House in Chicago is the most famous example.  In NYC the Rivington Street Settlement was the most prominent.  The Houses were meant to assist immigrants to assimilation.  Addams was a Socialist and I’m sure were the others.

In 1901 Edward Harriman’s nineteen year old daughter Mary led eighty young society girls down to the Lower East Side, slumsville, to assist in Jewish acculturation or so we are led to believe.  This was the beginning of the Jr. League that still exists today.

You can imagine the impact on Jewish psychology of all these elite upper class society girls condescending to leave the comforts of uptown to mingle with downtown Jewish immigrants.  Now, I mean, these people were from the very edge of civilization in Russia.  I don’t want to go into details but these were an unkempt, rude bunch of bumpkins.  If they had been Hillbillies no one would have given a turnip for them.  Truly the mountain had come to Mohammed.  Whatever notion the Jews had of being the impoverished aristocrats of the world such a thought would have seemed justified.  It was like the Byzantine emperor traveling to Simon Stylites’ column in the desert to escort him to Constantinople in triumph.  Mary Harriman had created the Junior League.

In 1903 the League was joined by Eleanor Roosevelt and her suitor Franklin Roosevelt.

The appearance of this scion of Old New York must have astounded the Jews even more.  Perhaps other young society swains made their way downtown also, I don’t know.

Now, anyone who thinks the Jews were idly sitting on their hands is mistaken.  One might well ask how the idea of invading Rivington to ‘help’ Jews entered young Mary Harrington’s mind.  Her father was obviously intimate with not only the leading financial Jews of the day such as Jacob Schiff but undoubtedly was familiar with the top echelon of Kuhn Loeb and probably most of the significant Jews of his day.  Might not he and they have conspired to indoctrinate these young society girls to assimilate with the Jews of Rivington Street?

If one thinks on it, there is something quite similar here to Eddie Bernay’s , you remember him, the publicist, plan to encourage women to smoke Lucky Strike cigarettes  for George Washington Hill.  Hill wanted to expand Lucky’s base and since women were not smoking he wanted to get them started.  Bernay’s said he could do it.  He got a number of young society women to march down Fifth Avenue’s Easter parade lighting up in front of the photographers and attending police.  Eddie characterized these cigarettes as Freedom Torches.  He succeeded in his plan as Lucky’s sales increased dramatically.  So, the point!  Propaganda.  These girls of the Junior League (a league of young women, excellent propaganda device) then were setting an example for all the young women in America- be kind to your Jewish friends and serve them.

The Jews advanced rapidly on their arrival.  Their population in New York reached 25-30 percent allowing them to immediately elect city, county, State and even national representatives.  For the nonce however NYC mayor or NY State governor was beyond their reach.  To occupy those offices they would need surrogates who were gois.  But these were easily found.  And in their long range vision they could see a puppet in the supreme office of President of the United States.  Al Smith led the way as governor but failed in his bid for the presidency but they had another ready and that other was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Al Smith had been a pawn of the Jewish political genius Belle Moskowitz plus a coterie of Jews.  Al was originally a part of the Irish Tammany Hall before the Jews captured him.  As governor of New York Al had implemented essentially the Jewish program contra Tammany.  When he failed in his presidential bid of 1928 the Jews discarded him for Roosevelt.  As governor Roosevelt forced Tammany’s mayor Jimmy Walker out to be replaced by the Jewish Fiorello LaGuardia.  When he left office he cleared the way for the first Jewish New York governor, Herbert Lehman.  So now the Jews had captured the mayoralty of NYC and governorship of NY.

As Roosevelt was even more the Jewish puppet than Al Smith one has to ask why.  The Jews who had been fighting the German Volkists for a decade declared war on Germany on Hitler’s election while Roosevelt began dutifully talking and preparing for war upon his inauguration.  One must ask why?  Why were his sympathies so Jewish against the best interests of the rest of the country which he ignored?

I am only speculating but those interests would have predated his presidency by many years.  I think an appropriate area of investigation would be what happened at the Rivington Street Settlement House when he and Eleanor served there.  Eleanor while not ‘anti-Semitic’ didn’t develop the same affinity for Jews as FDR.  When he was elected governor she specifically advised him to steer clear of Belle Moskowitz and in a deprecating manner the Jews around Al Smith.  Her associating with them at Rivington apparently made her skeptical of their qualities.

Franklin, on the other hand, was their robot.  My guess is that he was hypnotized at Rivington, perhaps as a parlor game, and given the appropriate post-hypnotic suggestions.  Thus he would have been the first Manchurian Candidate as president.

Even as early as his first Ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, he began making concessions to Stalin that Bullitt insisted that he not make.  He continued this practice with all his succeeding Ambassadors.  By the time of his conferences with Stalin at Teheran and Yalta he appears to not have a mind of his own as he gave Stalin the whole courthouse.   For instance at Yalta he insisted on having Alger Hiss along, a man the apparently had never met.  At Yalta he signed incredible documents and yet couldn’t remember having seen them, let alone signing them.   He said he never would have signed them.

So, what then?  Either he was completely deranged or he responded to post hypnotic suggestion.  What other explanation could there be?  How else can you explain his ridiculous obeisance to Stalin?  Even Stalin was puzzled.  After conceding to Stalin’s every demand at Teheran Stalin puzzledly asked him what concessions he would make on his scheduled visit to the Saudi king.  With a fair amount of anguish Roosevelt replied he would make him take all six million Jews in the US.  That was probably as close to a rebellion in his hypnotized state that he could make.  At any rate it points to the Jews as his problem.

We were fortunate that he died in 1945 but we would have been more fortunate if he had never been elected.

His German counterpart and bete noir because of the Jews was called Hitler whose friends called him Wolf.  There was universal antipathy to Wolf that probably was due to his plebeian origins.  His manners were less refined than others of the governing class.  Coming essentially of peasant stock while living the life of a Subterranean in his youth which means he had few of the social graces, and spending the war years as a trench runner he didn’t have appropriate social background to gain the respect of the ‘privileged.’  He was laughed at by the career politicians and despised.  In Germany when he gained command of the armed forces you may be sure that the officer caste repudiated him as a former enlisted.  The chasm between officers and enlisted is deep and wide and cannot ever really be crossed although a few enlisted do make it to the other side.  They do not find acceptance.  The officers hated Wolf so much that they sabotaged the war effort bringing defeat, incredible suffering and unbearable humiliation on their own country and people.  Truly, they bit off their noses to spite their faces.

The perception of Hitler has been unremittingly obstructed for nearly a hundred years of Jewish defamation.

A reevaluation if not rehabilitation of Wolf has begun in recent years as the whole history of period has come up for review and debunking.  Slowly the Jewish distortion is being corrected.  The plain fact of the matter is that politicians would not deal fairly with Hitler even though Wolf began very reasonably under the vilest of conditions.  The Augean stables he was trying to clean up were more foul than those Hercules sanitized.

The Germans were being treated execrably even being denied their humanity.  They were admitted to the League of Nations as a pariah people to be kept at arm’s length.  Great crimes were committed against them as in the hateful French occupation of the Rhineland.  Nearly all their resources were appropriated by the French and other nations in an effort to impoverish them forever to prevent their out competing their less capable neighbors including the French.  The Europeans might as well have said:  ‘You’re our niggers now.’  What were the French trying to say when they quartered African colonials in German households?  I think the answer is obvious.

If the Europeans were unwilling to recognize German humanity what was Wolf to do?  Since his enemies wouldn’t negotiate honestly with what they considered an upstart but as though they were dealing with a lying idiot it did close out a lot of avenues for discussion.  For instance, Wolf was not so foolish as to think war was anything but a last resort.  He made handsome offers to the Polish government that would have been wise and beneficial for them to accept.  It was Polish belligerence, thinking Germany weak, that forced Wolf into the pact with the Soviet Union and the partition of Poland.

Wolf tried repeatedly to keep the peace with both France and England; both countries lost their reason by engaging in a war that could not be won with their resources depleted by WWI, but they preferred suicide to giving Wolf Hitler the green light to attack one of the two true aggressor nations, the Soviet Union.

Wolf tried repeatedly to come to terms with the US but Roosevelt acting as a madman refused to deal with Hitler as an authoritarian leader although he had no trouble kowtowing to Stalin who was the very definition of authoritarian.  He characterized the disagreement as a conflict between ‘righteous democracy’ and evil tyranny apparently not recognizing the hypocrisy of his attitude.  In point of fact the Jews in the US and worldwide declared war on Wolf upon his election in 1933.  Following their lead Roosevelt began preparations for war virtually on his inauguration.

Imbibing Jewish hatred of Germany and Germans I think it fair to say that he determined it would be a war to the knife, unconditional surrender and reconstruction as after the Civil War, or nothing.

Now, what did unconditional surrender mean to FDR?  Let us look at the attitudes of the American Civil War and Reconstruction.  Writing in his ‘standard Southern history of the late war’, The Lost Cause of 1870, E.A. Pollards quotes the New York Times on the war’s advent: (italics in the original)

…we mean to conquer them [the Confederate States], not merely to defeat, but to conquer, to subjugate them.  But when the rebellious traitors are overwhelmed in the field, and scattered like leaves before an angry wind, it must not be to retire to peaceful and contented homes!   They must find poverty at their firesides, and see privation in the anxious eyes of mothers and the rags of children.  The whole coast of the South from the Delaware to the Rio Grande must be a so

As it was prophesied so it came to be.  Ulysses Grant demanded unconditional surrender which meant that the bodies and souls of Southern men, women and children become the property of the victorious North to dispose of as it pleased and that pleasure was the attempted genocide of the White people of the South.

That is what the unconditional surrender of the savage Roosevelt meant to the Germans and that is the way they were treated.  They were treated as were the conquered and subjugated people of the South, a savage and evil reconstruction.  Combined with Jewish hopes and desires the genocide of the Germans was intended beginning in 1933 as the Jews were starving millions of farmers in Russia into submission.

Like the men and women of the South who tried to secede from the Union so the Fascist countries had seceded from the authority of the ‘peace loving’ democracies.  Democracy was somehow stretched to include the Soviet Union and there sat the Great Spider brooding watchfully over his web of deceit.

Stalin’s was the directing mastermind.  From the East of China and Japan to the Western shores of North America Stalin unfolded his great plan.  The Germans did nothing that Stalin hadn’t done before them and continued doing yet the defensive actions of Wolf Hitler and the Nazis were considered great crimes.

Just as Roosevelt in the US had his Jewish henchmen so Stalin in the USSR assembled a like coterie.  Thus the Jews influenced both governments, if they didn’t control them, in their own interests.  They just hadn’t calculated the unintended consequences of their warfare.  If the war had gone as planned between the US and Soviet jaws of the vice the German people and the German State would have disappeared, a complete and total genocide to gratify Jewish vanities, while the two most powerful States in the world would have been under their control governing the world.  Thus the millennium, the redemption would been realized (the Jewish thousand year Reich) but, a funny thing happened on the way to the Millennium.

Unfortunately for the Jews the plan misfired when Hitler, going to the source of the European problem, began by disenfranchising the Jews, removing them from sensitive positions in government, society and the universities, finally herding them into concentration camps along with their fellow Communists.  In the process large numbers of Jews died giving rise to the notion of a Jewish holocaust.  Of course any such Jewish holocaust was meaningless compared to the European holocaust they had fomented and the even more fearsome German holocaust perpetrated by the fine Christian gentlemen of the Allies.

Even as Wolf Hitler was disenfranchising the Jews, in the mid-thirties the Soviets, that is essentially the Jews, were ethnically cleansing the German farmers of the Ukraine and Volga Delta.  Thus the German hatred cultivated in the nineteenth century was reaching a crescendo that had not the news been suppressed might have horrified the peace loving democracies of Roosevelt.  As the Jews skillfully maneuvered behind the scenes, rarely letting themselves be seen except as victims no great notice was taken of their crimes.

The thirties was characterized by Eugene Lyons in his book as The Red Decade.  Truly Communist ideology infiltrated everywhere, from the Union movement to the movies.  The American social scene was allowed by the Roosevelt Administration to polarize as Communist, Liberal, Leftist, Red what you will, while any resistance to his program was characterized as ‘Fascist.’  Thus once again you had the Abolitionists vs. the slave owners.  Angels and demons, much as Obama in our time characterizes his critics as ‘Domestic Terrorists.’

Anyone, such as Charles Lindbergh, Hearst or Henry Ford who tried to inject a little reason into the situation was defamed in a criminal manner while either being destroyed economically or pushed to the wall.

Had they been heeded the war would have been avoided.  Wolf Hitler was no fool; he had seen the destruction and misery of WWI, his wartime career as a trench runner and the gassing that nearly blinded him made an indelible impression on him.  His political maneuvers were meant to restore dignity and self-respect to Germans and Germany. His purpose was to rectify the crimes of the Versailles Treaty.

He wanted peace with the West while fearing the Communists in the East but Roosevelt wanted war.  There was no room on earth for the dissident nations.  It was his way or the highway.  He wanted to eradicate the Germans for what he considered criminal resistance to what he perceived as the right much as the Abolitionists of the Civil War wanted the South burnt to the ground for resistance to Northern desires.  During the Civil War Sherman did burn Atlanta to the ground and devastated Georgia from Atlanta to the sea.  A horrible piece of barbarity but nothing compared to Roosevelt’s terror bombing of hundreds of German cities aimed directly at the genocide of German civilians.  What a holocaust that was.

Fiendish devices were devised to create unbelievable terror.  The cities of Hamburg and Dresden were bombed to oblivion while to complete the hatred incendiary bombs were deployed to set square miles aflame with the heat reaching such intense levels that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms separated causing the rivers to burst into flame.  If you want to talk about crimes against humanity, my friends, consider Hamburg and Dresden.  There are no innocents.

Part V continues to the Truman Administration.

Sixties And The Negro Revolution


R.E. Prindle

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

–Fletcher Prouty: JFK, The CIA and Vietnam

Society chooses not to see the most obvious things.  Living back in the fifties any idea of a Negro revolt or race war was carefully hidden even if any White person even suspected what was going on in the Negro mind.  Writing here in 2014 many things about the Negro revolt that were unrecognized or supposedly debatable  have become clear.  In my account then I will relate to the past, the present of the Sixties and the future being realized today.

The Negroes have always claimed that racism is endemic to White Americans.  This attitude misses that the point of the actual differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Africanus species.  If the species were undifferentiated then ‘racism’ could be claimed but where the two different species have obvious different capabilities then the problem is shifted to another plane.

We are told that the African was the first edition, Homo 1.0, of Homo Sapiens which implies that the Last Homonid Predecessor to the Negro was sub-human.  Unfortunately the record of all the immediate predecessors to Homo Africanus have disappeared from the Earth without a trace.  We have a multi-million year gap between ancient homonids and Africanus, so we really don’t know when the supposedly sub-human and the human begins.  We are told that only 2% of our genes differentiate ourselves from the Chimps which is all very well and good but what was the genetic difference between the LHP and Africanus?  A gene or two?  And if a gene or two can make a difference between sub-human and human who is to say that Africanus is not the LHP?

But I digress a little but meaningfully.  From the Negro point of view then endemic ‘racism’ is true and if not, it should be.  As White mental capabilities are of a higher order than that of the Negro the disparate impact of White Supremacy is unavoidable.  There is a biological difference in mental capabilities that cannot be eliminated.  What differentiated the LHP and Africanus cannot possibly be any more than that.  If both were stood side by side one must assume that there would have been no noticeable difference.  Perhaps skin tone.

The fact was made even more apparent during the Sixties when violent and criminal programs were enacted by Liberal Whites for the benefit of Africanus or in another word, the Negro.  These programs were expanded over the subsequent decades until the Negro ideal of the first being last and the last being first is being realized through the manipulation of political and legal mechanisms today.  Thus the least capable is subordinating the most capable.

This program was being effected by the efforts of such people as the president of the Ford Foundation in 1966, McGeorge Bundy.  He, the former military advisor of Kennedy and Johnson, knew nothing of military matters, and knew even less of the Negro having known none and quite possibly never having spoken to one determined to ‘lift’ the Negro to White standards.  The concept of disparate impact had not yet been invented.  One can quite easily see that Liberals considered the Negro inferior else how could they be ‘lifted’ to White standards.   That’s the inherent ‘racism’ Negroes complain of.

McGeorge Bundy neither knew nor made any attempt to understand the Negro psychology which he presumed was exactly like White psychology but less so.  It was readily admitted and unchallenged that Negroes had an inferior education and hence less well prepared than Whites for the challenges of modern society.  The reason was advanced that Negroes were behind because the amount of money spent on their schooling was less than that spent on Whites.  Never mind that the money spent on education for anybody in the nineteenth century was infinitesimal whether White or Negro  yet the nineteenth century still made incredible scientific advances.

It was decided that the more spent the sooner the gap would be closed but in an absent minded way the gap was always admitted and denied by no one.  In that context of White Supremacy the Sixties began with Kennedy’s creation of the pet Liberal idea of the Peace Corps in which White youths recently graduated from college with no worldly experience were sent to ‘underdeveloped’ peoples to lift them up and bring them into the White way of doing things.  There seemed to be no attempt to understand how the Uplift Gospel was perceived by the poor colored peoples of the world.

In this way the Negroes were seen as a sort of domestic Peace Corps project in which Whites would teach the Negro to do things the White way.  In the eyes of the Negro this was White Supremacy run amuck, an attempt to strip them of their Negritude, which it was.  At the same time they could not compete on an equal basis so that the attempted entitlements granted Negroes to remedy the situation enraged the Whites.

Yes, both sides admitted the inability of the Negro to compete in a White technological world where standards were set to ensure the highest standard of public benefit.  Negroes rejected he meritocracy in favor of a Negro spoils system.  Thus to ensure Negro placement not only were Negroes given an IQ handicap of 20 points or so but standards were lowered to ensure inclusion thus decreasing public benefit for all.  The downward spiral had begun.

The downward spiral was much forwarded by the Civil Rights Movement of the post-Brown decision in the fifties and sixties.  While the movement was largely the work of New York Jews there was little dissent among Whites who considered the Movement as just as WWII.  I never met anyone who, publicly, at least, disagreed with it.  For myself I viewed it with much foreboding as I had Brown vs. The Board Of Education.  There was too much ill will in Negro grievances for the issue to be settled amicably as events in these years surrounding 2014 are showing.


While Negroes speak of the legacy of slavery, slavery is not the real issue.  Negroes were always slaves, slavery was the norm in Africa.  One of the first White explorers to penetrate West Africa the incredibly naïve Mungo Park, speaking of eighteenth century West Africa of the Bulge noted that seventy-five percent of the sub-Saharan Africans were slaves to other Africans and were disposable as their owners wished.

Nor were modern contacts with Whites the first that had been made with Africans.  Roman roads led through the Sahara from the Med coast into the southern jungles.  Even earlier the Carthaginians made long voyages of discovery down the coast of Africa even circumnavigating the continent.  These were voyages that took years to make.  It was  the ancient custom when stores ran low to stop to sow and reap crops so as to continue while water replacement was probably necessary every few days. In addition there were numerous shipwrecks.

Several tribes on the coast of the Bulge have legends of White lawgivers arriving who gave them the rudiments of social and political organization.  Apparently previous to these White visitors the Negroes were merely savages huddling around fires.

Thus to some extent the Africans had been semi-civilized learning many Mediterranean legends and religious ideas which accounts for the remarkable similarity between Med and African legends while such legends may have formed the basis of the Yoruba people of Nigeria’s religion that forms the basis of the New World Negro religions going by the name of Voo Doo, Santeria etc..  Whites must have always played a major role in the development of Africans.

When the Semitic people began enslaving Africans isn’t clear but with the coming of Moslemism in the seventh century AD and their sweep across North Africa and the Sahara brought them into contact with the West African tribes.  The Moslems, or Arabs, then began a slave trade leading from the jungles and Sahel across the Sahara that existed for a thousand years.  Not being particularly tender the slavers either couldn’t tend to their cargo because of the extreme desert conditions or they didn’t care so that the track was littered with a thousand years of bleaching bones.

In the East very early the Arabs worked their way down the coast until they established their southern post on Kilwa Island at the southern end of what is now Tanzania.  In whatever manner the East African Arabs turned black so that being an Arab became a cultural matter rather than a racial one.  The Arabs then nearly depopulated the Sudan by their centuries long raids.  They generally took the women and children leaving the men behind.

It was in this area that the African as opposed to Arab tribes took to extending female lips by inserting plates and elongating necks with copper rings in the hope of making their women ugly enough to dissuade the slavers from taking them.

Further South having depopulated the coasts the Arabs moved into the interior across then Tanganyika, now Tanzania,  then into the Congo basin where they met the incoming Europeans from the West.

The explorers described the long trains of captured Africans linked by neck yokes making the long thousand mile trek from the Congo to the coast opposite the slave entrepot of the fable island of Zanzibar.

For those who survived the trek there awaited the sweltering ‘tween decks voyage across the Indian ocean on small Arab dhows to be sold in Arabia, the Middle East, Iran and for many India.

The slave trade of Europeans began as a workforce for Brazil and the Caribbean islands including Haiti.  Those not sold in the Caribbean were carried to the US North and South.  The Negroes who went West were the favored ones occupying the virtual paradise of the Antilles or the fabulous fleshpots of the then British American colonies soon to be the US.  No better thing ever happened to Negroes.

Nor is it to be supposed that slavery was confined to the South or limited to Negroes.  Not long after New World slavery began Oliver Cromwell invaded Ireland where he rounded up tens of thousands of male and female Irishers selling them into slavery in the Antilles where they labored in the fields cheek by jowl with the Negroes.  There are apparently settlements of these ex-Irish slaves in the islands today.

Negro slavery existed in all the colonies North and South in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as well as into the nineteenth century.  The repeal of slavery began in the Rhode Island colony in 1652, Massachusetts and New Hamphire in 1783, Connecticut in 1784, Pennsylvania in 1847 and New York in 1848.

In 1808 the Federal government made it illegal to import slaves.  Canada outlawed slavery only in 1819.

Indentured servants who we were taught were kitchen help or like service were in very many instances actual slaves. Originally used in the fields they died in large numbers from exposure.  Negroes used to torrid temperatures while walking around naked were brought in to replace them but both races worked the fields cheek by jowl where much miscegenation undoubtedly took place.

The date of the passage of laws banning slavery does not mean slavery in those places ended on that date as clauses extended existing bondage for several years.  It is more than likely that some slaves existed in all or most states in 1863 the date of the Emancipation proclamation.  That proclamation did not outlaw slavery per se merely emancipating the slaves in the seceded States.

The key event in US slavery took place in the French colony of Haiti culminating in the massacre or enslavement of the Whites in 1804.

The Haitian slaves had originally revolted in 1791.  A cadre of revolutionaries had arisen in France sometime in the 1780s who made it a point to agitate the Antillean slaves including Haiti.  The Haitian revolution was successful as the Jacobins in France outlawed slavery in the French empire in 1794.  The agitators then turned their eyes toward the slavery in the new United States of 1793.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 if not directed at these Jacobin agitators were used against them.  The Acts expired in 1801 during Jefferson’s term so agitators were then able to function freely.  Thus the Abolitionist movement began in the North especially among the East Anglian descendants of New England.

In this air of anti-slavery agitation the seven year old republic was alarmed at the news of the San Domingo Moment of 1804 in Haiti when the Negroes rose up and slaughtered the White men of the island.  The White women were given the choice of death or becoming sex slaves to the Haitian men.  Most chose life under this condition.  Those who didn’t were gang raped and tortured to death.  The horrors true and imagined caused a frisson of fear to run up the backs of Americans North and South.  As noted slavery was still legal is many Northern States at the time.

While the Jacobins had outlawed slavery in 1794 Napoleon reinstated it in 1802.  In the resultant reaction the Negro revolutionary Toussaint L’Ouverture led the slaves to victory over large French armies.  Toussaint then became as or more famous than his contemporary George Washington. He was celebrated in poems and stories by such worthies as William Wordsworth of England and John Greenleaf Whittier of the United States.

As the noted historian Matthew J. Clavin details in his wonderful history Toussaint Louverture and the American Civil War: The Promise and Peril of a Second Haitian Revolution the Abolitionists kept Toussaint’s  reputation alive while exciting the country into what might well have been a revolution forcing the Southern States into secession to protect not only their interests but their lives.

With the success of the first Haitian slave revolt Napoleon may well have thought New Orleans was next so rather lose it all for expense chose to sell the Louisiana territory to the US for some recompense.  Either the US was uber confident in its ability to manage the situation or they weren’t yet well informed on the Haitian situation.  In any event the choice was between the devil and the deep blue sea.   Imagine an alternate history in which Negroes revolted from French rule in New Orleans forming a Negro empire opposed to the US.

It should be remembered that New Orleans was the northern anchor of the French Antillean empire that stretched from there down through Haiti and the islands to South America.  In the event then Whites and possibly Negroes with their retinues of slaves fled to New Orleans causing irruptions in what was then the United States.  And of course many Whites fled to cities of the East Coast carrying their stories with them north of the Mason-Dixon line.

With the results of Haiti in mind Jacobins or Abolitionists entered the South between then and 1860 to agitate the Negroes to murder the men and possess their women as they had done in Haiti.  This was a very serious problem in the South undoubtedly influencing the desire for Secession.

There was small difference between the acts of the Abolitionists and Robespierre’s Jacobins in France.  Their attitude was to motivate Liberals from their day to this.  If the Abolitionists hadn’t been restrained post-war by leveler Northern heads it is not impossible that they wouldn’t have taken the guillotine to every Southern head.  That would have meant the genocide of millions.  Believe me those guys were savage and insane, possessed by an irrevocable idee fixe that continues to this day.

The Southerners realizing their peril organized the first Klan waging a guerilla war against Northern carpet baggers and Negroes to assure their own survival.  They fought hard while their Northern allies restrained the looneys in Washington.  One of their kind, a current professor at UColumbia in NYC named Eric Foner,  has labeled the Civil War/Reconstruction as America’s Unfinished Revolution which he is working to complete today.

Thus one can say the hostilities begun in 1860 are continuing into the present.  The Southerners succeeding in their counterrevolution established the period of Jim Crow to contain the Abolitionists and Negroes.  The net result of both Haitian Revolutions then was the near total suppression of Negroes for a mere seventy-seven years.  The Negro counter reaction has been waged now for sixty some years.

Toussaint L’Ouverture then could be seen as the Che Guevara of his time.  If T-shirts had been the mode his countenance would have been seen everywhere, at least North of the Mason-Dixon line.  As it was, in the mode of the time, Wordsworth and Whittier composed poems in his honor.  The Abolitionists roamed the South promoting another San Domingo Moment.

The radical wish was proven in the Reconstruction period after the war.  Reconstruction was perhaps the most shameful period in world history, dwarfing the Jewish holocaust of more recent memory.  The Abolitionists of the North were absolutely barbaric in their treatment of the Whites and their adoration of Negroes who were but little removed from savagery.  There was a small difference between the acts of the Abolitionists and Robespierre’s Jacobins in France.

The genocidal mindset of the Haitian Negroes in 1804 has been carried forward from then until today when Negroes aided by their Jewish allies are calling for the total extermination of one billion Whites.  What is the psychology behind that?


I think the answer is contained in the term White Supremacy.

As I have said the Arab slavers in Africa became black so that one had black Arabs enslaving black Africans.  The Arabs were thus on the same intellectual level as the Negroes while the Negroes had been enslaving and eating each in much the same way  for hundreds if not thousands of years.

What the world learned to its chagrin during the colonial period in Africa is that Whites are more capable than the coloreds.  The fear that motivates Negroes, Jews and the rest of the coloreds is that they are actually less mentally capable than the Whites, hence in personal terms, inferior.

The term White Supremacy is actually self explanatory.  The fact was that  and is that Whites- Aryans- are intellectually superior.  This is totally obvious to the naked eye although the scientific evidence of genetics indicates the same thing.  Whites then, whether they wished to or not, looked down on Negroes as inferior while holding themselves aloof forbidding White women to even look at Negroes.  This attitude especially concerning women angered Negroes more than can be said.

So much of White culture and inventive ability must have seemed like magic to the Negroes.  Physically there wasn’t much difference.  One on one without guns the White man and Negro were more or less equals.  Thus when the explorer Stanley with his gun held before him was admonishing a group of Negroes, one out of sheer frustration of this runt speaking to him as he did, snatched the gun from Stanley’s hands.  At that point Stanley’s power would have vanished had not his Negro gun bearer snatched the gun back handing it to Stanley restoring his power.

Thus the difference in the Negro mind was technological or intellectual superiority which he disregards as a trick or magic.  The mental disparity make the two species unequal hence the insistent demand for equality at any cost.  So far the appearance of equality has only been obtained by tilting the field in favor of the Negro.

Imagine the Negro fresh from the jungle stepping into a civilization he couldn’t possibly have imagined as he landed in the colonies.  He must have been overwhelmed and shamed.  The Jews certainly were when they were transported to Babylon where the scope of that civilization and its architecture made Israel and its comparatively shabby temple that they were so proud of appear insignificant.

Consider the country rube’s first look at New York City.  I had seen big cities like SF, LA, Chicago and Philly but I mean to tell I was overawed by the endless streets of skyscrapers and the intense hustle and bustle.

As far as Magic goes just consider that little hand held device the Smart Phone.  Not only can you call anywhere in the world, carry an entire encyclopedia in the your pocket, send letters by email and unbelievably take photographs and transmit them instantaneously anywhere in the world and if you’ve forgotten where you’ve parked your car the Smart Phone will locate it for you and show you where it is.  Magic don’t you think?

Who invented such a device?  White people.  Who can use it?  Anyone, even if you’re fresh from the jungle.  It’s operation is that simplified.  That’s what White people can do and others can’t.

Like it or not Negroes can’t.  We know it; they know it too.  So as much as they rail against White Supremacy its there and all they can do is eradicate it by exterminating Whites.

So the hatred is not really rooted in slavery; they have always known slavery but in fact that they can never be equal so, if you follow, the lack of equality is the real and only issue.  It cannot be resolved in the Negro’s favor.


By 1877 the Southern Whites had re-established White Supremacy placing the Negro back under control for seventy-seven years until Brown vs. The Board of Education released them to murder and plunder once again.

Along the way the war always simmered along sometimes bursting into a boil.  The war years of 1914-18 and the early twenties were especially volatile.  On the one hand Marcus Garvey established his Universal Negro Improvement Association and on the other with White men off fighting in Europe industrialists encouraged Negroes to move North to replace Whites in the factories.  What has been called the Great Migration began.

While Marcus Garvey was trying to organize global Negroes and actually succeeded in establishing branches in forty some countries the migration of Negroes North was instrumental in strengthening his hand.

In the UNIA battle Whites succeeded in stopping Garvey although Garveyism had a lasting effect worldwide.  The Northern invasion was stoutly resisted by Whites in the twenties as battles erupted in sites such as Chicago, Oklahoma City and especially East St. Louis, Illinois.  When the smoke cleared and the dust settled in East St. Louis Negroes occupied the town.  It was theirs and has remained so.

Warfare cooled down after the battles of the early twenties.  The next big eruption occurred in Detroit during WWII when there was a massive battle.

As usual Negroes returning from WWII came back with different notions of race relations.  They were reluctant to observe Jim Crow.  Their Liberal allies had their back.  In 1954.  Jim Crow was defeated by the Brown vs. Board Of Education Supreme Court decision and actually implemented by Pres. Eisenhower which he didn’t have to do.

The Court determined that it could make laws without the aid of the legislatures.  Henceforth the courts became social arbiters rather than legal interpreters.  Fairly low level judges could on their own initiative and according to their own prejudices declare any law or the voter’s will null and void by their simple say so.  The White side of the war had been legally emasculated.  Why anyone would observe one man’s opinion has always been beyond me.

Thus as the war turned into the period of the Civil Rights Movement of the struggle White warriors were not only taking on the White Liberals and Negroes but the whole legal and political order.  The federal government in almost a repeat of the post-Civil War Reconstruction sent armored divisions of the Army into the South to impose the illegal Supreme Court decision on Southern White school children.

At the same time emboldened by the Supreme Court decision Negroes in the South arose in an assault on White Jim Crow rule most especially in Alabama.

Virtually unnoticed at the time the racial balance in the war’s most important battlefield, NYC was quietly shifting.  After the war Whites began moving out of New York City while hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans were being airlifted into the city along with other hundreds of thousands of  West Indian Negroes. By late century there were more West Indians than their were US born Negroes in NYC.

Thus by 1965 while the population of the city was unchanged a million and a half Whites had left and a million and a half Puerto Ricans and West Indians had replaced them.  Gigantic ghettos sprang up in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens.

Thus by 1960 the situation had become quite combustible.

The Sixties And The Negro Revolution

Part One


R.E. Prindle

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

–Fletcher Prouty, JFK, The CIA And Vietnam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part II follows.

Reconstruction- Phase Two

R.E. Prindle

Reconstruction is America’s unfinished revolution….
-Eric Foner

Reconstruction was not just something that happened after the Civil War; it was and is a program, a policy, a desideratum of the Left. Now that we are well into Barry Obama’s second term impersonation of a president of the United States we have to ask ourselves, is the increased social unrest of Negro on Aryan crime and inexplicable increasing frequency of crazy Whites shooting up schoolrooms and movie theaters coincidental? Or is it evidence of a second phase of Reconstruction. The changing of America from White to Black?

It should be obvious that the American Civil War only used Negro slavery as a pretext to continue the English Civil War of the seventeenth century. The participants were the same- the Roundheads of New Anglia and the Cavaliers of Wessex.

The Roundheads had never shown an aversion to slavery at any other time in their history. Indeed, during the East Anglian interregnum the Anglian leader, Oliver Cromwell, rounded up tens of thousands of Irish and sent them to the West Indies to live and perish as slaves cheek by jowl with the Negroes from West Africa. Irish slaves were especially profitable as they cost nothing while the purchase of Negroes from their African chiefs was a costly enterprise limiting profitability.

From the other side of the Atlantic it was those enterprising New Anglian Yankee traders who bought from the African chiefs and foisted their surplus cargo on the American colonies. Let us never forget that Negro slaves were bought and sold in the Anglian colonies of New Anglia while White slaves, politely called Indentured Servants as they hadn’t been purchased were prominent in all the colonies.

So slavery was not all that repugnant to the Roundheads of New Anglia; what was anathema to them was their old Cavalier enemy from England in the South.

By 1865 the Anglians ranging across the entire Northern tier of States had been become sanctimonious.

It was not to end slavery they fought but to exterminate their Southern Aryan adversaries. Thus the draconian measures taken in Reconstruction to make the Negro supreme over the Aryans. Thus Thomas Dixons post-Reconstruction plea to the Anglians to remember that the Southern and Northern Whites were Aryans and to pledge never to slaughter each other again for the benefit of Negroes. The Anglians took every possible means to subordinate Whites to Negroes. True savagery rather than an attempt to actually reconstruct society on an equitable basis- whatever equitable could mean in the circumstances.

The majority of American Negroes were imported after 1800. A great many from say 1820 to 1860. That means they were fresh from the jungle, mere savages, with no familiarity with civilized procedures and conditions, such as for instance, freedom. They had always been slaves, always. Freedom was a strange White condition so foreign to them that they didn’t actually know what it meant. They had no idea what freedom meant except that Whites appeared to have it. Enfranchising such people on a basis of equality with civilized people then was an egregious crime.

Indeed, while enfranchisement was being forced on Sourthern Whites, States of the Anglian North such as Michigan and Ohio and most others legally excluded Negro enfranchisement by new laws. Ever the hypocrites, Liberals.

From 1866 to 1877 then, Southern Whites fought a continuation of the Civil War to preserve their freedom from Negro-Anglian domination. With help from Northern sympathizers they were successful in this as official Reconstruction was terminated in 1877 while Jim Crow was established to preserve Aryan supremacy.

Oh, I know, Negroes, Anglians and some others find the notion of White Supremacy as repulsive. But, there are others who find Negro Supremacy, Jewish Supremacy and what have you just as repulsive, perhaps Judaeo-Negro Supremacy even moreso.

The point is: there will always be the Top Dog. There is no reason that the Top Dog shouldn’t be White rather than Black or Jewish piebald.

Now, the Civil War did not end in 1865 nor did Reconstruction actually end in 1877. As Eric Foner expresses it they were unfinished revolutions, still in progress today. Both efforts just went underground.

The Negroes still long to be Top Dog which the Anglians, now Liberals, long that they should be. The Southern White has been replaced by the Aryan as the adversary that is to be destroyed. If one accepts that Jim Crow was fully operative by 1900 then the Negro-Jewish-Liberal counteroffensive began in earnest at that time.

During the next fifty years from 1900 to 1950 the effort was to erode and destroy Jim Crow. This effort effectively succeeded in 1954 with the Supreme Court Brown vs. The Board Of Education decision. The decision of the Court was the opening shot of the Second Civil War of Jews, Liberals, and Negroes against the Aryans; hence the Anti-Aryan Hate Laws to disenfranchise the Aryan male.

These laws are unconstitutional as they violate the right to equal protection of the law. As it now stands all other races and classes are protected against the apparently all powerful White male but the Aryan male is legally unprotected on a basis of inferiority in direct violation of equity and the Constitution.

Thus the Aryan male is deprived of the right of self-defense much as was the Negro Slave. So far the Aryan male has chosen to suffer the indignities rather than right the wrong. This was not always the case. In a situation perhaps more dire than today the Aryan males of Louisiana chose to protect themselves and theirs. As William A. Dunning in his Reconstruction, Political and Economic of 1907 relates the story, pp. 248-49:


The conservatives (Renamed Domestic Terrorists by 2011) of (Louisiana), large numbers of whom were organized in semi-secret and military societies known as White Leagues, had been quiescent since Grant’s formal recognition of Kellogg in the spring of 1873. The radical government maintained a formal existence, but with no moral and little material support from the White population. In September of 1874, Kellogg undertook to seize a lot of arms which the White Leagues of New Orleans had purchased. The result was a pitched battle between the league and the police, mostly Negroes, who were organized and equipped as soldiers. The police were totally defeated and dispersed, and the radical governor took refuge in the custom house and protection of the Federal troops.


That appears to be the situation we’re headed into now as the Negro government of the United States has bought and distributed billions of rounds of ammunition and millions of automatic weapons with the apparent intent of subduing the legally unprotected Aryan males while beginning the attempt to disarm them.

If the Negro government expects less from current Aryan men than the response of the men of New Orleans he may wish to re-examine his intentions. Let history be the guide. History has shown the futility of force to achieve social goals. One deplores the possibility of armed defense by the Aryans but one is guilty of weakness of mind to suppose they will docilely submit to being enslaved which is the next step down from disenfranchisement.

I advocate nothing, no massa I just be speakin’ trut’ to power, humbly, massa, ever so humbly, o’ cose, but due caution in provoking what history shows to be the inevitable result should be considered. Not even the Soviet Union with all its brutal power could maintain itself against the justified will of its subject peoples. Remember Mussolini and his lamp post, Hitler and his bunker. Vengeance is mine says de lawd.


A Review

The Low Brow And The High Brow

An In Depth Study Of Edgar Rice Burroughs’

The Mucker And Marcia Of The Door Step

Part III


R.E. Prindle

Background Of the Second Decade Social And Political



     I have been criticized for discussing material that seems to bear no relationship to the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs.  The social milieu in which a man lives and works directly affect what and how he writes.  He will react within that milieu whether he can understand and articulate it or not.

     ERB understood much.  He understood the main conflict of his times- that between the Religious and Scientific Consciousnesses.  How he understood it is one thing, its exact nature is another.  The battle was not necessarily put into the terms of science versus religion.  On the objective level science had more prestige while on the subjective level religion had the upper hand creating a dualistic conflict.  As Voltaire said:  No one ever willed himself an athiest.  The same can said of Science.  The usual terms employed in the conflict was that of  spirtiualism versus materialism.  So those two words were supercharged masking the real conflict.

     While religion retained great strength in this period science was so strong that religions had to adapt to science, thus one had the ecumenical Congress Of Religions in Chicago in 1893 during which a common plan of resistance was discussed.

     One reaction to Science was American Liberalism.  Liberalism is in fact a religion founded on beliefs rather than facts.  American Liberalism developed out of the Puritan faith of New England.  The Puritans believed themselves  to be the successor of the Hebrews of the Old Testament as the Chosen People of God.

     Two very interesting studies have appeared in the last couple decades which illuminate the English background of the United States.  One is David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed; the other is Kevin Phillips’ The Cousins Wars.  Both illustrate the continuity of behavior of the colonists between England and the Colonies.  That continuity began with the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and continues through the strange Liberal mentality of today.  Burroughs who was of the ‘Conservative’ mentality had to struggle with the forces of Liberalism in his day.

     When the Normans invaded England they enslaved the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants.  Anyone who has read Ivanhoe by Walter Scott has the image of Gurth with his iron colar inscribed on his memory.  This piece of arrogance was to have serious consequences in both England and America.

     The Normans occupied the Southern counties of England which Thomas Hardy caled Wessex, while the brunt of slavery fell on the East Anglian counties.  The insult of slavery was burned into East Anglian memories along with a desire for revenge made more savage by the the religious certitude that they were the Chosen People of God.

     The East Anglians, of course, revolted against the Norman Church Of England, emigrating to North America where they settled in the States of New England.  New England = New Anglia.  In England they fought the English Civil War against the Normans.  Puritan Roundheads against Norman Cavaliers.  It then became the turn of the defeated Cavaliers to emigrate to North America.  They chose to go to Virginia where they gave the colony its Norman Cavalier character and nickname.  The ancient enemies were now divided North and South.

     As Fischer points out, slavery by the Norman descendents in England had disappeared only about a hundred years before the English Civil War.  The Cavaliers now revived slavery in their Southern colonies.  First they brought indentured servants from England who were slaves subject to the whims of their masters for a stated period of years that could easily be extended.  Then African slavery was introduced.  For a period of time both White and Black slaves worked side by side in the fields with the Blacks gradually displacing the Whites.

     The New Englanders looked with fear and loathing on the Norman Virginians, who as they saw it, now resumed their old habits.  It was here that the American Civil War was conceived.  The Puritan New Englanders after having first rejected the king in the American Revolution which their East Anglian forebearers  had failed to do in England then turned to agitating a war against the Norman Cavaliers of the South, whose ancestors had enslaved them, on the basis of an anti-slavery abolitionist program.

     Just as they had succeeded against the Crown where their forebearers had failed they succeeded in absolutely crushing the descendents of the Normans.  This punishment of the Cavaliers was the most severe of any since 1066.  Thus subsequent US history with its notion of unconditional surrender was formed.  This was a vicious attitude formed from the same feeling of defeat.

     To return to the East Anglians in England to explain the American Liberal mindset.  Shortly after printed books became readily available  the East Anglians bought Bibles adopting the Old Testament notion of the Chosen People by substituting themselves for the Hebrew Children.  A British Israelite group formed calling the English people the new Chosen People.  Indeed, the British throne is believed to be in lineal descent from that of King David of Old Israel.

     Thus there were at least three Chosen Peoples in existence from the fifteenth century on- Jews, the English and the Puritan New Englanders.  New England became Greater New England as the Puritans multiplied spreading across the Northern tier of States.

     A psychological characteristic of Chosen Peoples is that they upload their needs and wishes to an imaginary god in the sky then download the same needs and wishes back to themselves as the Will Of God.  Thus they say not my will but they will be done, O Lord.  The faithful thus become justified sinners.  Any criminal act can be justified as the Will of God which it is the duty of the faithful to perform  This also creates a double standard because what is right for themselves in the eyes of the Lord is forbidden to others.  The children of Israel can exterminate other peoples with impunity, but it is wrong for other peoples to even defend themselves against the children of the Lord.  Serious stuff.

     These ends and desires are accepted then as a messianic or utopian goal.  It is the duty of the Chosen People to impose God’s Will on the rest of the world.  To resist that Will is evil making the non-believer a dastard, a heretic, an infidel, an anti-Semite or whatever.

     In the United States the Will of the god of the Puritans was transformed into Manifest Destiny, which in turn metamorphosed into the triumph of Democracy as defined by the Chosen People of America, who in turn metamorphosed from Puritans into Liberals.

     As a chosen people and as a result of the Civil War the Liberals identified with the victims who needed their help.  Thus the Civil War was fought in their minds by a virtuous people acting out the Will of God to rescue unfortunate victims from a malevolent White minority.  In the case of the Civil War it was the Negro slaves.  As the century and Liberalism developed the umbrella of help was extended to all the ‘enslaved’ or colonial peoples of Europe which is to say all the colored peoples of the world.  It was not enough that injustice as perceived by the Liberals should be corrected, but that the perpetrators should be condignly and brutally punished unconditionally in the name of and by the Will of their God, which is to say the projected desires and wishes of a self-appointed Chosen People.

     Utopian literature which flourished after the Civil War is the direct result of this Messianic fervor.  Utopian literature abounds in England, Greater New England and with the jews.

     Having then succeeded in crushing the Cavaliers of the South the Liberals attempted to demean, belittle and abuse the White South in the most draconian manner.  The period of Reconstruction is the blackest hour in American history.  The Whites were stripped of civil rights having the Negroes placed over them as masters.  The Whites, so far as possible, were expropriated of all property through taxation when not stolen outright.  The Whites, of course, reacted by forming the first Ku Klux Klan to protect their lives and interests.   Reconstruction lasted until 1877 well nigh into the twentieth century.  The South was impoverished and set back for at least a century and may still be recovering today if such is possible under the present Liberal regime.

     All factual references to Reconstruction have been obscured by references to the KKK but in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries memories of Liberal crimes in the South were fresh and bleeding wounds.  As is well known Jim Crow was the inevitable result of the attempt to crush and bury the White South.

     As the nineteenth century progressed and utopian literature flourished the Puritans, now Liberals, identified with all the ‘oppressed’ which is to say colored peoples of the world against the European conquerors.  Everywhere America sided with the natives against Europeans.  In a feeling of total frustration Charles De Gaulle would remark:  America is a White country, but it acts like a colored country.

     At about mid-nineteenth century Jewish utopian messianists under the direction of Karl Marx formed the Communist Party.  Thus Jewish utopian messianism spread from England- Marx was based in London- throughout Europe to the world.  As Communism also opposed Western colonialism, although not Communist colonialism, these two powerful agencies worked to upset the Western hegemony of the world.  As someone will always have hegemony of the world what appears on the surface as ‘justice’ is merely the transfer of power to another agency and hence new ‘injustice.’  As of this writing it appears that the beneficiary of American and Communist efforts will be the Chinese.  This shift has already happened but has not yet been officially acknowledged.  Thus the result of the Liberal and Communist quest for ‘social justice’ will be merely to place Europe and America’s neck under a Chinese yoke rather than the other way around.  Obviously the Chinese god is not the same as the Utopian God.

     During the period of Reconstruction as the Liberals were punishing the Southern Whites and rewarding the Negroes immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe began in earnest.  While the Irish and Germans had created their own set of problems yet culturally they were close enough to the original Anglo-Saxon colonists to be, after a fashion, readily assimilated.

     But with the congeries of nationalities from East and Southern Europe came many and diverse customs and languages.  Assimilating them into Anglo-Celtic-Teutonic America was not so easy.  Thus groups of Americans resisting immigration arose.  The Know Nothings fought the Irish but this was different.

     The Liberals could then pathologize the anti-immigration people as ‘nativists’, later White Supremacists and other derogatory terms.  They could afirm their own virtue against these people as they had against the Southern Whites.  When the power base of restrictionists took form in the South as the second Ku Klux Klan this only served to show the perfidy of Southern Whites in a new shade.

     The Liberals then allied themselves not only with the interests of Negroes but with the immigrants to form the Liberal Coalition which was to dominate American society from the Second Decade to the present.

     Already British and Puritan utopianists, they were now joined by the Jews who from 1870 to 1914 represented the largest nationality of immigrants.  Both the Liberals and the Jews were Bible based.  Liberals considered Jews as the successors to the Biblical Hebrews if not Hebrews themselves.  While Roman Catholics distanced themselves from Hebrewism the Protestant sects derived directly from the Old Testament considered themselves neo-Hebrews so they were quite willing to defer to what they considered paleo-Hebrews.  Thus the two versions of utopianism were joined.  Both forms of Hebrewism accepted anti-Semitism as the greatest vice.  The foregoing discussion has been a good account of what Semitism is:  that is a belief in one’s own divinely appointed role as the arbiter of the world’s fate.

     So far as I know neithr Semitism or anti-Semitism have ever been adequately defined so for the purposes of this paper anti-Semitism will be defined quite simply as the denial of the Semitist’s self-appointed role as the agent of God on earth.

     As one of a Scientific Consciousness  such a denial seems hardly necessary but as most people are of a Religious Consciousness there it stands.

     Needless to say Burroughs was of the Scientific Consciousness therefore per force an anti-Semitist although he would never have understood his position in those terms.

     As can be seen Judeo/Liberal/Utopianism is a religious matter that will defy reason.  It is a matter dependent upon a subjective, spiritual belief system.  It is beyond the reach of logic.  Never argue with them.  The adherents cannot be argued with, they must humored.  Reigions are revealed not thought out.


     The nineteenth century also saw the rise of Science which is an objective materialistic sysem, conscious not subconscious, based on facts and reality.  It doesn’t take a genius to spot that the religious systems and the scientific systems are incompatible; one must subordinate or destroy the other.  Now, seriously folks, this is war to the knife.

     Knowledge is hard won and built up slowly while revealed religion is complete and entire at conception.  While the former is subject to trial and error the latter is seemingly pat- it is God’s own Word.

     As Freud pointed out the religious consciousness received three main blows.  The first was that the Universe was heliocentric rather than terracentric; the third was the malleable construction of the human mind as defined by psychoanalysis.  These two could be religiously managed; nothing had been revealed that couldn’t be manipulated to religion’s use.  The middle blow could not.  That was the concept of Evolution as enunciated by Charles Darwin.  Thus it was clear except to the most entrenched religionist that the world was not created by God in 4004 BC as Bishop Ussher stated but evolved beginning somewhat over four billion years ago.  There’s an incompatibility there that cannot be swept under the carpet or even ignored.

     Make no mistake: science and religion are at odds in the struggle for the human mind.  Writing in 1829 the incomparable Edgar Allen Poe expressed the problem in his brilliant poem:

Sonnet – To Science

Science! true daughteer of Old Time thou art!

Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.

Who preyest thus on this poet’s heart,

Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?

     How should he love thee? or how deem thee wise,

Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering

To seek for treasure in the jewelled skies,

Albeit he soared with an undaunted wing?

Hast thou not dragged Diana from her car,

And driven the Hamadryad from the wood

To seek a shelter in some happier star?

Has thou not torn the Naiad from her flood,

The Elfin from the green grass, and from me

The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?

     In addition to driving the Hamadryad from the wood, science also pulled God down from the heavens and exposed the fraud.  Freud showed God to be merely a projection of human desires.   How could religion counter the claims of Science?

     I do not single out any specific religion whether Christian, Jewish, Moslem or whatever.  All religions evolved in human consciousness and represent a phase of development in that evolution.  A phase of evolution but not its end.  Dig it!

     It then became necessary for religionists to absolutely deny Evolution.  In their favor was the fact that Darwin not merely but only enunciated the concept, but had no infallible proofs of the process.  Thus relgionists could say silly things like:  Do you really believe human being, you, actually descended from an ape? and be fairly convincing.  Most people were ashamed of such an ancestry.  Nobody asked the monkeys how they felt about the comparison.

     Inherent in Evolution is the idea of speciation.  Thus every time a species evolved there was a chance that it was an improvement on previous manifestations.  Between the Chimp and Homo Sapiens I are innumberable steps which have since disappeared.  If that were true then religious concepts which insisted that God created Man whole and entire without evolving were false.  If Creation was false than Religion was false.  There were many who empowered by the concept of Evolution and reasoning from appearances made the claim that was called ‘race’ rather than species.  The genetic differences between the ‘races’ were not yet clear.

     Until fairly recent times and the rise of genetics there was no infallible evidence to indicate speciation.  Today there is.  From 1859 when Darwin enunciated Evolution through the period under examination here, the second decade of the twentieth century, anyone asserting speciation could be ridiculed and destroyed as a bigot by the religionist.  Evolution itself was attacked and undermined in the thirties by the Boasian school of Anthropology which is still vital today.  (See Kevin MacDonald, The Culture Of Critique, 1998, 2002).

     In this period the Evolutionist was in a minority position.  Thus when Burroughs came down so strongly on the side of Evolution in his Tarzan series it is very surprising he created no uproar and there is no evidence the series was noticed on that account.

     It appears that Burroughs took the broad approach to these social problems.  He could see both sides of the issue deciding on the merits of the case rather than the ideology of the situation.  As has been noted he was quite capable of changing his mind on vital issues when presented with convincing evidence, i.e. life on Mars.  He was a true scientist.


      Perhaps around 1910 it began to dawn on a significant number or people for the first time that unlimited and unrestricted immigration was causing unexpected and irreversible changes in the social fabric.  The war on Anglo-Saxon ideals, institutions and customs was well underway.  Such reactions had been a recurring feature of American society but now there was no West to escape to.   In addition industry had reshaped the cities.  Farm machinery was reshaping farming practices reducing the need for farmhands so that country boys migrated to the cities. By mid-decade for the first time more people lived in the cities than on the land.

     These changes were unwelcome and uncomfortable to a lot of people creating a malaise.  Those who viewed Reconstruction for the horror it was as well as those who considered themselves Old Stock were pathologized by the Liberals but their views found expression in books and articles but usually on the defensive side as with Jack London’s Valley Of The Moon and not on the aggressive side which would be visited by condign punishment as heresy.

     If one mentioned immigrants at all it was possible to discuss only positive attributes.  The Liberal turned a blind eye to the aggression of home countries preferring to see these home places too as victims who needed their protection.  As Chosen People the Liberal sees himself as naturally superior to the ‘victims’ but does not perceive his supposed superiority as ‘racism.’

     An honest and well meaning writer like Homer Lea who had actually been in the Orient and learned of Japanese plans first hand was pathologized and dismissed as a crank although his prognostications were based in fact as Pearl Harbor was to show.

     Some feelings are vague and can’t be articulated.  Even as a child I was disquieted by the notion that everyone came to america to escape oppression or to seek religious freedom.  I saw but couldn’t articulate the two facedness of this notion.  Only in the last decade or so have I found the means to acquire the necessary knowledge and developed modes to express it.

     Quite frankly the US was used as a haven for many, many revolutionary groups.  Perhaps the American Revolution  caused most Americans to look upon all revolutions as beneficent.  I couldn’t and can’t see it tht way.

     American ‘malcontents’ were told to shut up while a malcontent could come from anywhere else in the world and be honored for resisting repression.  I mean, criminals, murderers, mere disturbers of the peace in their own countries.  Cranks.  East Indian malcontents gathered in San Francisco to plot against the British Raj.  Sun Yat Sen lived in LA where he raised funds and was lionized.  Homer Lea was recruited by Sun Yat Sen to serve as a general in the Chinese Army.  Lea’s story may have been the influence that charmed Burroughs into seeking a place in the Chinese Army.

     The United States not only knew of the malcontents’ activities but even tolerated them perhaps abetting them.  The US role in European history has been that of a spoiler.  Looking upon all colored peoples as victims needing their help Liberals could do no other than work for their interests against the Europeans.

     One of the more disastrous actions was John Hay’s Open Door policy in China.  At the time in the 1890s the European States were about to partition China into spheres of influence.  What the result would have been is anybody’s guess however the world would probably be much different today.  Hay’s Open Door policy scotched the partition with the result that China remained a unified State.  Of all the turning points one can find in history this is undoubtedly a turn in the tide of fortunes for the West.  Subsequent to the Hay policy Chinese revolutionaries were hosted in California.  Mexican gun runners operated from the US during the Mexican Revolution as Zane Grey records in novels like The Light Of Western Stars and Desert Gold.

     Of course the Irish who called Ireland the Ould Sod and America the New Island acted as one people divided by an ocean.  Funds and guns were raised in America and used in Ireland against the British.  In the unrestricted immigration of the time Irish revolutionists moved back and forth across the Atlantic.  If arrested in Ireland they claimed American citizenship and were released to return to the US.

     In 1919 a most egregious example occurred which received no reprimand from the US, while England didn’t even bother to file an objection.  Eamon De Valera, the future premier of Ireland escaped the British to be smuggled to the US where he functioned openly.  William K. Klingaman tells the story in his popular history ‘1919’ of 1987:

     Eamon De Valera, meanwhile, had been smuggled out of Ireland and into the United States, where he was touring the major cities along the East Coast, drumming up financial support for Sinn Fein and the Irish Republic.  His reception was nothing short of spectacular.  De Valera was given the presidential suite at the Waldorf; the Massachusetts state legislature received him in a special joint session; forty thousand wildly cheering supporters turned out to hear one of his speeches in Boston; and the press seemed to love him wherever he went.  After all, he was excellent copy, and news of English injustices in Ireland always sold plenty of papers.  As the Nation noted with bemusement, “He gets a front-page spread whenever he wants it, with unexampled editorial kindliness thrown in.”  The tall, very thin, dark Irishman brought no message of peace and goodwill to the United States, however.  Now that the Peace Conference was over and freedom-loving Irishmen still remained enslaved under the British yoke, De Valera told an enthusiastic audience in Providence, “the war front is now transferred to Ireland.”

     So, while the Irish were embattled on the Ould Sod, the Irish of the New Island had enough influence and power to baffle any objections either in the US or England.  They were truly functioning as a state within a state in the US and as revolutionists on the Ould Sod.  Thus the US influence in international politics was unique indeed.

     The Italians also functioned as emigrant workers of Italian citizenship before the War and were an irredentist population within the United States with many colonial beach heads.  After the war, assuming the continuance of unrestricted immigration Mussolini attempted to shift the cost of medical treatment for wounded Italian soldiers by sending them to the US for free medical treatment.  This is astonishing stuff that gets no notice in history books.

     Of course, the most famous instance of dual citizenship of a divided homeland is that of the Jews.

     A ship landed in the seventeenth century in New York City, New Amsterdam as it was known then, bearing a hundred plus Sephardic Jews from Brazil.  The next immigrant cadre were the German Jews mainly from 1830 to 1850.  These two immigrations were small compared to the influx of millions of Jews from the Pale of Settlement usually known as Polish or Russian Jews.  From 1870 to 1914 they came in increasing numbers.  As I have detailed elsewhere the intent to transfer the whole population of Jews from the Pale to the United States was aborted by the outbreak of the Great War.

     Jews had always been forbidden Great Russia.  However during an expansionist phase Russian annexed the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the North.  The annexed areas became the Pale Of The Settlement along with the Polish Jews acquired by the first partition of Poland.  Thus Jewish nationalism came into conflict with Russian assimilationism.  The Russians, of course, were sovereigns of the land while the Jews were a stateless nationality.  The Russians along with the rest of their acquired  peoples attempted to Russify the Jews.  These along with Poles, Letts, Estonians, Lithuanians and whatever resisted Russification.  In point of fact, the Czars had bitten off more than they could chew.

     Had the Russians been facing mere dissident peoples they may have been able to manage them.  But, along about mid-nineteenth century the political ideology of Communism provided a framework within which all peoples could combine thus submerging their national identities for their political goals.  It is true that fifty to sixty percent of all Comunist parties were Jewish but the remainder which was substantial, wasn’t.  As part of its ideology Communism discouraged nationality so it was possible for numbers of all nationalities to work together.

     The Russians became the adversaries of the Jews, the Czar their bete noir.  Thus a remendous undeclared war existed between the Communist Revolution, usually called just The Revolution and the Russian government and people.

     By the time the Jewish emigration to America began in earnest in the 1870s the Jewish mind was conditioned by this warfare.  Now, all Israel is one.  Therefore the German Jews who had preceded the Jews from the Pale prepared the way for those from the Pale.  Whole industries were immediately controlled by Jews.  The male and female garment industries being the prime example.  The work force of these industries was almost entirely Jewish.  Thus the infamous sweat shop may be said to be of Jewish origin although it is usually used to defame the United States.

     The whole garment industry of the country then was controlled from New York City.  We’re talking big money with a lot of it flowing into Jewish agencies sometimes euphemistically called charities.  This money in turn fueled worldwide Jewish warfare on Russia.

     The Equitable Insurance fraud for instance was caused by the international banker Jacob Schiff who as administrator looted the Equitable of a couple hundred million dollars to finance the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war of 1903-05.  The Japanese could not have fought the war without that money.  Thus Schiff and his people paved the way to Pearl Harbor.

     While the Russians had their hands full in the East Schiff and his fellow Jews engineered and financed the First Russion Revolution.  The signing of the Russo-Japanese Peace Treaty was done at Portsmouth, New Hampshire ostensibly by then US President Theodore Roosevelt but under the watchful eyes of Schiff and his fellows.

     As I have said simply because a people emigrated doesn’t mean they renounced their original identity.  Witness the Irish.  As is clear from their intent to evacuate the Pale in favor of America the Jews retained their Eastern European interests.  This would be even more manfest after the restriction of immigration at the end of the War.

     Like the Irish who used American citizenship to negate the laws of England the Jews used their American citizenship to thwart the interests of Russians, or the Czar as they put it.

     The Russians forbade Jewish traffic over their borders in an attempt to contain Jewish subversion.  If you were in, you were in, if you were out you were out.  In line with European concepts of nationality this was workable.  But Jews resident in America using their US citizenship, in this instance, demanded to be treated strictly as US citizens but of the Jewish ‘religion.’  Thus, they said Russia could not refuse them entrance on the basis of their ‘religion.’

     The US with its polyglot population all with US citizenship whether Irish, Jewish, Italian or whatever had to insist on the rights of all US citizens.  Thus Jews were able to travel freely across Russian borders to coordinate Jewish actions to subvert the Russian State.  As I have pointed out, after the Revolution the name Russia was dropped from the State name as it became the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics governed almost exclusively by non-Russians.

     The B’nai B’rith had been around since 1843.  Then the American Jewish Committee was created in 1906.  Within seven years Jewish influence had increased so signficantly that they were able to direct US policy to the extent that diplomatic relations were broken off between Russia and the US in 1913 the year the Liberal Coalition elected Woodrow Wilson as its first president.  From 1913 to 1933 the US had no diplomatic relations with Russia/USSR.  It is interesting that relations with a legitimate government were discontinued by Woodrow Wilson and resumed with an illegitimate government by his disciple Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  On of his first acts as President.

     In 1913 the B’nai B’rith created its terrorist arm the Anti-Defamation League.  So there was actually a dual drive to acquire control of the USSR and the USA which one might add came very close to succeeding.  And this be a very small but dedicated number of people.

     As I point out in Part IV in 1919 the AJC  contacted Burroughs undoubtedly amongst a host of others to endorse a Jewish Bill Of Rights.  The program was in place by 1920 when this segment of my study ends.

     As can be seen the unofficial role of the United States in world affairs was an unsettling and disturbing one of the inactive aiding and abetting of revolutionary movements from China to India, across the border into Mexico while actively aiding if not abetting the Irish against England and aiding and abetting if not supporting the Jewish war on Russia.

     To the American Liberal all these revolutionary efforts were being conducted by victims.  Hence Liberal efforts at directing American policy were in the interests of any revolutionary group which includes the Socialist and Communist parties.  This Liberal attitude continues worldwide to the present time.

     Within the United States these ‘victims’ were gathered together under the aegis of the Liberal Coalition.  All dissenters whether anti-immigrationists, nativists or whatever were pathologized as mentally unstable people.  Insanity then becomes a religious attitude complementary to terms such as heretic, infidel or anti-Semite; terms not to be taken seriously.

     Liberalism is a religion thus assuming control over institutions of hgher learning.  The University system of the United States was turned from one of educational insitutions into religious seminaries.  The American university system of today is a religious system of Liberal seminaries.  Only the correct religious view is permitted, any other is penalized.

     Now, the Liberals who derived from the Puritans were an Old Testament biblical group who considered themselves the successosrs of the Hebrews as a Chosen People.  Beginning in 1870 the original Chosen People began their invasion.  It was like two Napoleons meeting in an insane asylum.  Each considered the other an imposter.  But the Jews had the whip hand over the Liberals as they quickly controlled the communiations media gradually eliminating anything seditious to its belief system.  As I explained earlier any writing that casts doubt on the claims of Judaism is anti-Semitist.  Americans were conditioned to view anti-Semitism as the worst possible crime deserving imprisonment or expulsion from the body social.  What we really have is the reimposition of the medieval Catholic Church in the form of Judaism.  Having seized control of the political system of the United States by 1920 the other important object was the discrediting of Science.

Hast thou not torn the Naiad from the flood,

The Elfin from the green grass, and from me

The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?

     And Poe might have added:  God from his heaven/ pleasant summer dreams of chosenness from our minds.  Yes, Science was the great enemy, the great anti-Semite.  It is not particularly well known but Jews are more anti-evolution than even the Christian fundamentalists of Tennessee in the twenties or the Kansans of today.  Evolution absolutely denies the fact that the world was created by god 4004 years before Bishop Ussher or the year 5778 or whatever of the Jewish calendar.  Make no mistake the notion of the world having been created by god recently is fundamental to Semitic religions.  Once it is disallowed the basis of the Semitic religions ends.  You can see why they fight so hard against Science.

     Science still being the problem religion was cloaked in its guise.  The scienfific Socialism of Marx is little more than Talmudic Judaism.  Freud’s exaltation of the subconscious is little more than an assault on the conscious rational thinking that makes Science possible.  Einstein’s preposterous notion of the ‘fabric’ of Time and Space among others is a disguised attempt at imposing faith.

     All of these movements came to fruition in the Second Decade.  Einstein’s theories were supposedly proven during an eclipse of the sun in 1919 during which it was ‘confirmed’ that the light of distant stars streamed around immovable bodies.   I mean, the Greeks said it:  What happens when an easily resistible force meets an immovable object?  It flows around it just like water around a rock suspended in a stream.  Boy, you have to be a genius to figure that one out- wrap it up in the facric of Time and Space and send it as present to God.

     So, the problem still remained what to do with the ‘pathological’ types who gave the lie to the Judeo-Liberal doctrine?  Science and Religion cannot co-exist.  This is a sea change in human consciousness comparable  to the transition from the Matriarchal to the Patriarchal.  Good will is not the problem and cannot solve the problem.  In 1943 Gustavus Myers devised the current method of interpreting American history in his book The History Of Bigotry In The United States.  He thus provided the means to pathologize the non-Judeo-Liberal people.  They became irrational, insane, evil bigots.  So then one has the people of the book the Judeo-Liberals on one side and ‘bigots’ on the other.  So, Moslem-Infidels, Semites-anti-Semites, and Liberals-Bigots.  It isn’t rational, it’s religious.  Virtue goes with the one; criminality with the other.  Once you are accused there is no argument.  Confess your heresy and take your punishment.  The role model is the Inquisition of the Catholic Church.

     Myers began from the beginning hitting his stride with the Know Nothing Party of the 1850s.  He essentially made all immigrants victims in the Liberal sense by depicting them as virtuous innocents insanely treated by American ‘bigots.’  Hence the title of his book.  His school took root and flourishes today.  Oscar Handlin, John Higham, Richard Slotkin.

     Handlin’s stuff is irrational.  John Higham’s Strangers In The Land is valuable but skewed.  The skewing can be easily unscrambled.  But Richard Slotkin’s Gunslinger Nation is of importance to Burroughs and our theme here.  The first 225 pages of Slotkin’s book lead up to a denunciation  of Burroughs as the premier bigot of American literature actually making him responsible for the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam.  The first 225 pages are worth reading although you can throw the rest of the book away.

     I’ll get back to the scientific aspects of the issue in a minute but, first, as Slotkin concentrates on the Western movie in American culture let’s take a look at one of the premier efforts in the genre, John Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.  The movie was scripted by James Warner Bellah and Willis Goldbeck or, since this is Hollywood, men who would answer to those names. They are probably jewish.  The film perfectly inllustrates the Liberal dogma.

     John Wayne plays the Liberal lead as Tom Doniphon, strange name, along with his noble Negro sidekick, Pompey.  Lee Marvin plays a deranged psychopathic Anglo named Liberty Valence.  Jimmy Stewart plays the long suffering representative of the Law, Ransom- Rance- Stoddard.  Rance is an adjunct to Tom Doniphon.  Liberals = The Law, Bigots (Liberty Valence) = the outlaws.

     Tom can be seen as the abolitionist, justice seeking Liberal aiding the victims.  He is on the side of the victims of Liberty Valence (read, say, the KKK) which is the whole town except himself.  Tom has his negro valet while he helps all the cute immigrants in town still being aloof from the Southwest town’s sizable but segregated Mexican population.

     The scripters assigned the odd name of Liberty Valence to Lee Marvin.  Liberty is a positive virtue while Valence means strong- strong for freedom.  There is little positive about Valence.  He is in fact a psychopathic killer who terrorized the town of law seeking innocent sodbusters.  He actually becomes insane when he extends his whip handle just beating the tar out of his victims.  Valence is employed by the evil cattlemen (read, say, The South) above the Picket Wire (a river).  Why the cattlemen have sent Valence to the town isn’t clear.

     As the representative of the Old South and also any stray anti-Semitic clans who may happen to be about, Valence is especially offended by the peaceable but effeminate Rance Stoddard, who at one point actually wears an apron, the man who is bringing THE LAW West of the Pecos or at least below the Picket Wire.  Apparently the ranchers don’t need no law above the Picket Wire.  Valence harasses and bullies Stoddard who is usually protected by the omnipotent Tom Doniphon but comes a time when   Stoddard realizes he has to fight.  After all a man’s a man for all that.  Don’t know what for though, either his honor or life  or maybe to move the plot along.  Liberty is goading Rance into a gunfight that will be plain murder, as quite frankly, Rance don’t know how to handle a gun and Liberty does, oh boy.

     As the gunfight is filmed from behind Rance it appears that he actually guns Liberty down freeing all the victims of his menace. (The Law vs. The Outlaw; The Liberal vs. The Bigot, The Semite vs. the anti-Semite.)  Thus Rance brings the law to Shinbone, that’s the ridiculous name of the town.  You can see why Liberty terrorized it.

     Later we will see the same gun battle rotated ninety degrees to the right.  Ol’ Tom isn’t going to let Liberty gun down Rance, and also he doesn’t want Rance to be guilty of bloodshedding so he takes the guilt on hisself as he knowed he would.  He and his faithful Negro sidekick cum African gunbearer Pompey (This may be the reason Cassius Clay changed from his ‘slave’ name to Mohammed Ali, another slave name) are standing in an alley opposite Liberty’s left side.  Tom is in the middle of the side street, Pompey bearing the gun, stands against the side of the building.  With breathtaing precision just before Liberty shoots, Tom, in that awe inspiring quitet uncontradictable authority of his says like the Great White Hunter of Africa:  Gun, Pompey.  The ever faithful Negro flips the rifle across to Tom who snatches it from mid-air with is right hand, puts it to his shoulder and snaps off a head shot through the temple that killed Liberty Valence.  (Evil disappears from the town.)

     In order to kill Valence Tom had to shoot him in the left side of his head yet none of the dumbheads of the town wonders how Stoddard accomplished this miraculous feat.

     At any rate Rance is known as the man who shot Liberty Valence.  The old peace loving legalist is carrying his burden of blood guilt pretty well until he is nominated to be the new Congressman from the Picket Wire/Shinbone district (There’s a joke in there somewhere isn’t there?) and from whence he can put those damnable evil, bigoted ranchers in their place.  But damn it, he’s got blood on his hands; how can he serve the people in Washington since he is impure?  This mght have ruined a very promising and lucrative career and perhaps a good movie but Tom takes this moment to tell Rance the True story of the man who shot Liberty Valence.  Rance had to be told this.

     ‘Hot diggity-dog!’ Exclaims Rance trampling over Tom in his hurry to be the next and first representative for Picket Wire.  There may have been gold in them thar hills but it was as nothing compared to the gold to be found in Washington D.C.

     Like a good myth the movie can viewed on several different levels.  At face value the story is the story.  It doesn’t take much to view the film as a satire while on another level as a black comedy, or a wry commentary on the difference between the way things appear and the way they really are.

     But on the allegorical level in which I am viewing the story it allegorized the Judeo-Liberal vision of America.  Tom/ Rance represents their vision of themselves while Liberty is ther vision of bigots/anti-Semites.  I don’t know about the writers but John Ford was certainly able to see it that way.

     As a religious metaphor the movie expresses the Judeo-Liberal vision of itself.  That vision can only be realized if science can be disposed of because science, the truth, is the greatest anti-Semite of all.  As Poe realized Science disposes of the idea of God.  Without god there is no Judaism or Liberalism.  One or the other has to go.

     As I have said technological applications of science weren’t actually a threat but Evolutionists like Gall,  Darwin and Dalton were.  Gall was the man who first enunciated a theory that the different areas of the brain controlled different actions or responses.  In Steven Pinker’s terms he discovered the brain was more than a meatloaf.

     Darwin proposed the idea of evolution while Francis Galton proposed the idea of Eugenics.  As I said before, revealed Religion arrives complete and entire being a product of the imagination no different than Tarzan Of The Apes.  Science has to be built up step by step.  Gall, Darwin and Galton took the first developmental steps and while true in their limited way were easy to attack.

     Gall’s exploiters developed the theory of Phrenology which is of course unsupportable so If anyone has heard of Gall he is immediately discredited for Phrenology, something he didn’t do.

     Going into the Second Decade Darwin and Galton had great credibility, if being in minority positions, although Eugenics was very well received by every shade of the political spectrum from far left to far right.  Richard Slotkin bases his attempts to discredit Edgar Rice Burroughs and all non-Coalition writers over Evolution and Eugenics.

     Edgar Rice Burroughs is usually considered a fantasy writer.  One could hardly consider the writer of the Mars, Venus, Pellucidar and Tarzan series anything else.  Fantay writers are not usually taken very seriously being relegated to the non-literary end of of the fiction spectrum.  So then, one asks, why does a Myerian Judeo-Liberal like Richard Slotkin devote so much effort to prove that Edgar Rice Burrughs was ultimately responsible for the My Lai Massacre?

     The simple answer is that Burroughs is one of the most influential mind forming writers of fiction, worldwide, of the Twentieth Century…and counting.  There have been serious efforts to designate Burroughs as a bigot and an anti-Semitist.  The editions of the copies you read have actually been bowlderized.  Slotkin’s Gunslinger Nation is a serious attempt to pathologize Burroughs.

     Gunslinger Nation Is the third volume of a trilogy on violence in America, a never ending tiresome concern of the Coalition.  Slotkin is more at home in the nineteenth century of the two first volumes than he is in the twentieth century of this volume.  He should have suspended his pen after the second volume.

     He not only has a shallow appreciation of his theme but he admits it.  The remaining 400+ pages succeeding those on Burroughs are based, I suspect, on one time viewings of several hundred Western movies.  At least he says he’s seen them.  His analysis of categories within the genre and individual films leaves much to  be desired.

     He admits that he read no, or very few, Western novels from 1900-1975 because the field is so vast no one could be expected to do it.

     His nineteenth century material, if skewed in interpretation, is admirably presented.  By rotating the images 180 degrees one can obtain a fairly accurate picture of his subjects.  His presentation on Buffalo Bill and his Wild West was really quite good.  His views on Fenimore Cooper and the Dime Novelists were attractive if prejudiced.

     By the time he gets to Burroughs of whom he has cursorily read a dozen novels or so he is both uncomprehending and imcomprehensible.  He has made no effort to understand the man yet he comes to preposterous conclusions.  As Burroughs was of the Scientific Consciousness which gives the lie to the Religious Consciousness Slotkin attacks on the scientific level.

     He attacks through Gall, Darwin and Galton.  The Liberal Coalition using its religious mentality is able to condemn in others what it applauds in itself.

     The mentality is quite capable of including Burroughs, Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler in one breath as though all three men were on the same level.  What they call crimes in others they call virtues in themselves.

     Thus, during the French Revolution a factory was organized in Paris to make footwear from the skins of murdered aristocrats.  The fact has been suppressed while the story of the lampshades made from the skins of enemies of the Fascist State is held as inhuman.

     The great hero of the Revolution, Victor Hugo, writing in his novel 1793 during the 1860s about the massacres in the Vendee quite bluntly states that those people were in the way of the realization of the Utopian Communist State and had to be removed.  What was fact in 1793 was true in the 1860 mind of Victor Hugo, exercised by the Communists after 1917 and by extension is still applicable today.  Yet all other exterminations are evil in the Coalition mind.  Their own religion justifies their actions as justified sinners.

     During the second and third decades Galton’s ideas on Eugenics had become the vogue.  The use of Eugenics by Hitler and the Nazis is used to discredit the concept and yet Reds of all hues including H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were enthusiastic Eugenicists.

     Joseph Stalin, the greatest Red who ever lived, rather amusingly embraced Eugenics.  (see: )

     In the 1920s before Hitler, Stalin ordered his scientists to breed a new super warrior.  “I want a new invincible human being, insensible to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat.”

     You can see where this leading I’m sure.  Apparently Stalin had been reading Burrughs’ Beasts Of Tarzan because he ordered the scientists to cross a human and an ape to create his New Order warrior.  Imagine a couple divisions of these shaggy haired ape men trudging through the snow behind a line of tanks with a AK 47 in one hand and a frozen banana in the other.

     At any rate Slotkin wishes to link Burroughs up with these ideas that Liberals themselves promoted.  As the second decade wore on a number of writers dealt with these emerging problems of the age.  The two most prominent American bete noirs of the Judeo-Liberals are Madison Grant and his Passing Of The Great Race of 1916 and Lothrop Stoddard and his The Rising Tide Of Color of 1920.  As these men are scientists they were labeled ‘bigots’ which is to say heretics or anti-Semites by the Liberal Coalition.

     It is not impossible that Burroughs may have read these books but there is no indication he did so so that there is no confirmed connection between he and Grant and Stoddard.  As I read Slotkin he believes that Burroughs is complicit with both Madison Grant and Stoddard.  Further there is no doubt Slotkin believes all three men are bad with evil intent.  As the Scienfific findings of these men contradict the religious tenets of the Myersian Liberal Coalition I suppose Slotkin can do no other.  How he manges to lump Burroughs in as an evil malicious bigot seems a stretcher.

     In the first place although the findings of Grant and Stoddard are offensive to Slotkin and the Liberal Coalition they nevertheless show the honest unbiased scientific results of the research of honest scholars who are no less decent and honorable than any of the Liberal Coalition.  Grant’s work is an essay into proto-genetics for which subsequent learning shows no fault.  Stoddard’s work is an excellent faultless political analysis which has been borne out by subequent developments.

     While the Liberal Coalition has chosen to pathologize and demonize all three of these writers their opinion should just be waved aside, disregarded as irrelevant.  Their opinions should be marginalized.  Grant and Stoddard are good and honorable men.

     When I first read Slotkin’s analysis of Burroughs I was outraged and then baffled.  I rejected the criticism but as Slotkin obvously believes this stuff although he poorly documents it his notions were filed in the bck of my brain while I began to search for his reasons.

     From a scientific point of view Slotkin has no basis for his claims but when one lays the Judeo-Red-Liberal matrix over the science all becomes clear.  This is a conflict betwen Arien Age religion and twentieth century science.

     If one looks closely at Burroughs one will find he has embraced science and rejected religion thus immediately becoming classified as a bigot/anti-Semite in their eyes.

     While Burroughs was from the North he is not in full sympathy with abolitionist and Liberal ideals.  he appears to reject the harshness of their attitude toward Southern Whites.  As in Marcia, John Hancock Chase from Baltimore living in New York City seems to be an attempt to reunify the country according to the ideas of Thomas Dixon, Jr.  and his Reconstruction novels and D.W. Griffith’s movie The Birth Of A Nation.  To merely be sympathetic to Southern Whites is to deny the victimhood of the Negroes which arouses the animosity of Liberals.  Burroughs has thus identified himself as a ‘bigot, heretic, anti-Semite’.  He is plainly the enemy of the Liberal Coalition.

     And, then, while Burroughs didn’t join organizations like the A.P.A.- American Protective Association- still, like his fellow writers Jack London and Zane Grey he regretted the passingof Anglo-Saxon dominated America.  He hated to see the Old Stock in decline.  Thus in the Myersian sense he becomes pathologized as a ‘bigot.’  From the Liberal point of view Burroughs is clearly guilty and should be banned from literature.  Put on the Liberal Index.  However one has to accept the Liberal point of view to think so.

     He rejects all religion but as to whether he specifically singles out Catholics, Jews or any other sect I don’t believe that there is a shred of evidence.

     One can’t read with his contemporaries eyes so perhaps what isn’t so clear now leaped out of the page then.  Burroughs ruminations on Eugenics, especially in the pages of Tarzan And The Jewels Of Opar, may then have been more obvious to them than to us.  But at the same time his opinions wouldn’t have been offensive to them.  As the Liberals accepted Eugenics then as readily as anyone else it would seem that the present emphasis on Burroughs’ fascination with the subject arises primarily from the Liberal rejection of their own past although it is still possible that what contemporary Liberals accepted in themselves they rejected in others as they do today.

     While I originally rejected the notion that there was any reason to suspect Burroughs of being an ‘anti-Semite’ I think that if one is looking for indications from the Coalition point of view one can find them.  As I point out in Part IV the American Jewish Committee contacted him in 1919 while there are passages in Marcia Of The Doorstep that the Coalition could construe as anti-Semitism and for which Burroughs was possibly punished.

     Finally Burroughs as a follower of Teddy Roosevelt rather than Woodrow Wilson might have been suspect.  The period after the Great War when it became evident that a very large percentage of the immigrants did not really consider themselves American’s caused TR to remark that America had become merely an international boarding house.  Quite true but who would have thought anything else was possible?  Today the term ‘international boarding house’ might be interpreted as Diversity or multi-culturalism. TR was head of his times.

     The period ending in 1919 also represented the changing of the guard.  Buffalo Bill died in 1917 taking hs mythic Wild West with him to the grave.  He also represented the end of the first America.  The Anglo-Saxons who had won the West.  Of course the winners of the West were not nearly so Ango-Saxon as represented but in general it was true.  There are almost no non-Anglo-Saxon names in the novels of Zane Grey other than Mexican.

     Also in 1919 TR himself passed away just as he was scheduled to be the Republican Presidential candidate for 1910.  His loss was keenly felt by Burroughs and his friend Herb Weston.  I doubt TR could have adapted to the new problems America was facing even as well as Warren G. Harding did.  How TR might have interpreted the challenge to American Democracy of the Liberal Coalition isn’t too obvious.



      In 1066 and succeeding centuries the Norman Conquerors enslaved the Anglo-Saxons of East Anglia which was an affront deeply resented.  Take a lesson.

     In the sixteenth century when the printed Old Testament became universally available the East Anglians identified with the enslaved Hebrews of Exodus.  They elected themselves a Chosen People and developed the compensatory Utopian attitude of inherent virtue as the Chosen People Of God.

     In the seventeenth century New England was settled by emigrants from East Anglia.  Not just English but East Anglians.  Virginia was settle by descendents of the Norman conquerors of 1066.  The Virginians once again chose slavery as the method of labor.  First indentured White people then Africans.

     While Utopian ideals developed in New England the abolitionist movement began which resulted in the Civil War-War Between The States.  War between regions or actually a war between ideologies.  There was no chance the South was going to discontinue slavery anythime soon no matter what anyone says.

     In revenge for 1066 the Cavaliers (Whites) of the South were absolutely crushed giving up all rights by surrendering unconditionally.

     The nascent Liberal Party of Puritans elevated the Africans over the Cavaliers thus establishing their protectorship over the ‘victims’ which is characteristic of the faith while establishing their power over dissident Whites.  Thus the Liberals ultimately aligned themselves with all colored revolutionary movements in the world against White European conquerors.

     Within the United States they viewed immigrants as ‘victims’ of the Old Stock pathologizing the Old Stock as ‘bigots’ no better than the Cavaliers of the Old South or the Europeans.  All opponents of of their Liberal religious ideology which included the intellectual mindset of Science thus became wrong headed vile ‘bigots’ who had no right to live.  After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 the utopian Communist ideology became their politics; call it Socialism it comes out the same.

     As Edgar Rice Burrough was not a Liberal, not a Communist and not Religious but Scientific he unwittingly placed himself in opposition to the Liberal Coalition.  On that basis a serious attempt was made to abort his career while subsequently an attempt to erase his name and work from history is being conducted.

     Thus the twenties ushered in a new changed era fraught with new adjustments which were misunderstood or not understood at all.

     Burroughs career after 1920 has to be seen in the light of this concealed antagonism that he had to counter without being clear as to its causes.

     Thus the contrast  between The Mucker and Marcia Of The Doorstep can be seen as a response to two different challenges united by Burroughs personal psychological development.

Go To Part IV:of The Mucker And Marcia Of The Doorstep


A Review

Bound Away:

Virginia And The Westward Movement


David Hackett Fischer and James C. Kelly

Review by R.E. Prindle


Grant, Madison, Conquest Of A Continent, Liberty Bell Publications, 2004, reprint 1933 original.

Fischer, David Hackett and Kelly, James C., Bound Away:  Virginia And The Westward Movement, U. Virginia Press,  2000


The Middle Aged Scholar

The Middle Aged Scholar

     For the student of settlement patterns in the US David Hackett Fischer is indispensable.  Of the many books he’s written his 1992 Albion’s Seed  is absolutely necessary.  In that book he involves himself in the settlement patterns of all four strains from Great Britain.  In this volume he interests himself only in the colony of Virginia.  He considers immigration into Virginia, migration within Virginia and emigration from Virginia.

     As Madison Grant points out in his work Virginia was the mother of States.  Fischer points out the whys and hows.  His work might be considered and extension of Grant’s.

     The founding of Virginia was much more different and tumultuous than our school books relate.  The Indians came close to expelling the Virginia colonists while the English had a very difficult time adapting to the climate.  The death rate was worse than on the slave ships.

     Black slavery was slow to develop in Virginia as the Aristocracy preferred White slaves, politely known as

Maturity Approaches

Maturity Approaches

 indentured servants.  It was only when the White supply dried up that the Aristocracy turned to Africans.  More than in the States of the Deep South slavery defeated the Commonwealth.

     Where Whites had a difficult time surviving in the rich soils of the Tidal area Africans prospered soon significantly outnumbering the Whites.

     The characteristic Virginia polity of an upper cast White Aristocracy, a small middle class, and the White and Black impoverished proletariats came into existence under Governor Berkeley in 1650 being perpetuated until the Civil War.

     Between the strong White caste system and slavery the White proletariat was driven to escape by emigration.  Virginia gradually became depopulated over the two hundred years before the Civil War.  At that time East and West Virginia were one.  A look at the map, of which the book has several, will show Virginia abutting both Kentucky and Ohio.  Thus the Western exodus to those two States formed the character of one and shaped the character of the other.  From Kentucky and Ohio the Virginians carried through southern Indiana and Illinois while populating several counties in Missouri that were known as Little Dixie.

     With the opening of Alabama and Mississippi many Virginians chose to take their slaves and migrate in that direction.

     The net effect of the migrations was that Virginia lost several representatives in Congress while losing intellectual vitality.  The issue of slavery caused groups like the Quakers to leave the State and it became correspondingly hazardous to one’s health to criticize slavery.

     Of course after th Civil War the descendants of the Virginians continued West into California and Oregon.  Thus Virginian customs and styles found their way across country.


The Scholar At Play

The Scholar At Play

   After the War national immigration began in earnest with Southern and Eastern Europeans forming the bulk of it.  Grant laments the diminishing of the Nordic cultural influence while Fischer wisely makes no comment even ignoring the issue concerning himself only with the movement of Virginians.

     Even then there is an honesty in his work that makes one wonder how he survives in the anti-truth Liberal university system.  I suppose it’s a matter of not what you say but how you say it.  Knowing what to leave in and what to leave out.

     At any rate for those interested in US settlement patterns I heartily recommend Madison Grant’s Conquest Of A Continent and both David Hackett Fischer’s Albions’ Seed and Outward Bound.  If one then overlaps something like Carl Wittke’s We Who Built America that gives some idea of how post-1871 immigration patterns shaped twentieth century America one has a pretty fair idea of how the US developed up to the 1965 revision of the Immigration Act.  After that revision a whole new pattern develops.



A Review


Albion Winegar Tourgee And Thomas Dixon Jr.


R.E. Prindle


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Our Times, Mark Sullivan And Edgar Rice Burroughs


R.E. Prindle


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Analysis, Critical Theory And Greil Marcus


R.E. Prindle


     Through the moral and political rhetoric of John Winthrop, the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, America explained itself to itself as a field of promises so vast they could only be betrayed.  The attempt to keep the promises- of community, liberty, jutice, and equality for all, because once let loose the genie could never be put back in the bottle- in face of the betrayal became the engine of American history and the template for our national story.

-Greil Marcus


     The problem I have with Mr. Marcus’ writing is that it is all skewed.  His vision is distorted by his ideologies.  Mr. Marcus purports to write about the US using terms like ‘our’ when he is in fact an Israeli citizen and places the interests of Israel above those of the United States.  This situation is exacerbated by the fact that he is an adherent of the Jewish Critical Theory or Frankfurt School while being a leader of the Situationist Internation.  Both organizations are subversiive of the ideals and goals of the United States seeking to supplant those goals with those of Israel or, in another word, Judaism.

     Mr Marcus is not clear and honest in his intentions, seeking to mislead his readers into believing that he is objectively analyzing America rather than denouncing it in favor of the Israeli point of view.  He refuses to admit that his intent is the supremacy of Israeli/Jewish interests.  I find this both dishonest and offensive.

     Further in his zeal to demonstrate that the United States is a failed society he refuses to take into account any social or scientific developments since, essentially, John Winthrop of the seventeenth century.

     Winthrop is essentially a religious bigot who because of his historical era was necessarily devoid of any scientific knowledge.  His spoutings originate in the ignorance of the Jewish Bible written some two thousand or so years before his present which he takes as the literal truth and the word of ‘God.’

     While his views may be of interest to explain his times and while his views were influential in forming New England with its inherent bigotry they in no way reflect the views of Jefferson and others who were responsible for the formulations of the DOI and Constitution.  There were worlds of difference between the East Anglian Puritans and Cavaliers of both the South of England and the US.  Further Jefferson was a Revolutionary and Freemason learning his Freemasonry in the France of the Revolution.  Whether he was a Jacobin I can’t say but he has been so accused.

     While the Framers of the founding documents used the same words such as equality that we use today they undoubtedly did not undersand them as we do today.  To refuse to understand and take that into account is willful obtuseness on Mr. Marcus’ part.  The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ was gainsaid by their counting Negroes as only three-fifths of a man.  Quite obviously they did not actually believe that all men were created equal.  Whether ‘all men’ is meant to include women is also conjectural as women were denied the attributes of citizenship being considered appendages of men as per the Biblical creation myth.  So clearly the Founders understanding of equality is quite different from that of, at least, Mr. Marcus.  On that basis his views can’t help but be skewed.

     The African in America was an insoluble problem to the society then as it is to society today.  While counting Negro men as three-fifths of a human certainly sounds ridiculous yet modern evolutionary science has proven what was evident to observation then that the Africans as the first Homo Sapiens to evolve from the Last Hominid Predecessor was necessarily left behind by future evolutionary species of Homo Sapiens or sub-species if you prefer.  Mr. Marcus and his fellow Liberals insist that equality of Blacks and Whites is denied solely on the basis of skin color.  This is nonsense.

     If Africans were equal or superior to Whites, Semites and Mongolids there could be and would be no denying the status of the African.  Furthermore such superiority would be self-evident as it must.  Instead of the so-called White Skin Privilege there would be Black Skin Privilege and then black skin would indicate superiority and be desirable.  There isn’t and the reason why is because that while equality is a fine sounding ideal it does not exist in fact in either the macro or micro example.  It cannot be made to exist by legislattion so long as differences between the five human species exist.

     So, I would object to Mr. Marcus’ characterization of ideals as promises, they are two different things, that have been betrayed.  There has been no betrayal.  Mr. Marcus misleads us with his approach of Critical Theory.  The Founding Fathers set high ideals to live up to, perhaps impossibly high ideals but ideals worth striving to realize nevertheless.  The problem now has been complicated by the scientific reallization of the incompatible differences between the species so that the original meaning of equal of the DOI seems to be the correct one.

     The Negro problem, bedeviling America from its origins, was the rock on which those ideals first foundered resulting in the Civil War between Whites, Reconstruction and the current New Abolitionist Movement proclaiming the need to exterminate Whites by any means necessary.  So, over the hundred fifty years since the Civil War Africans and their Liberal and Israeli/Jewish handlers are in a position to realize the goals of post-war Radical Reconstruction which was the elimination of Southern Whites by Africans in a larger version of the San Domingo Moment.

     As the Whites struggled to come to some resolution of the Negro Problem that has always bedeviled American history large, even huge, numbers of Southern and East European immigrants flooded the country.  It is useless to use racial arguments and say that antipathy to these peoples was somehow racial when there was no difference in color which is the only thing Liberals recognize as a barrier to assimiltion.

     Rather these peoples were culturally unable to understand the ideals that underlay the American attitude, disdained them and sought to replace them with their own.  Thus we have a tremendous criminal underworld led by Sicilians and Israelis while the Israelis seek to subvert the ideals Mr. Marcus notes as ‘promises’ to replace them with a State resembling that of Israel in which the Israelis are paramount while all others are denied humanity much as Mr. Marcus accuses the Europeans of the US in relation to the Blacks.

     One therefore has to believe that as an Israel citizen Mr. Marcus is hypocritical in his criticism of American ‘racism’ and the ‘betrayal’ of the the ideal of equality.

     Unless Mr. Marcus can reconcile his ostensible beilief with actual Israeli actions I, for one, find it impossible to take him seriously.  Critical Theory and the SI are antipathetic to the ideals he seems to be espousing.

     I too believe that we have fallen short of the ideals expressed in the Founding Documents but for different reasons than those mentioned by Mr. Marcus.  I find no betrayal of those ideals but rather the sabotage of them by competing social systems such as the Sicilian, the Israeli and the African.

     Mr. Marcus may be an expert in Critical Theory but he is no analyst.  Analysis is Science; Critical Theory is religion.  Oil and water and the two don’t mix while Science trumps Critical Theory every time.

A Contribution To The ERB Library Project

A Review of



Thomas F. Dixon Jr.

Thomas F. Dixon, Jr.

Review by R.E. Prindle

Of Thomas Dixon’s Reconstruction Trilogy- The Leopard’s Spots, The Clansman and The Traitor- only the last is found in ERB’s library. It would seem reasonably sure that he read the other two also. As The Traitor was published in 1907 it seems certain that the trilogy was read before ERB put pen to paper so that Dixon was influential on the whole of ERB’s career.

This is no small influence as the Civil War and Reconstruction are central to ERB’s works. Once again, one is amazed at how ERB could absorb so many influences and keep each nearly discrete. Further on I will postulate the possible influence of Alexandre Dumas’ French Revolution series.

Of interest to ERB’s reading habits Bill Hillman recently posted a list of books in ERBzine of ERB’s post WWII reading list that Burroughs described as a few of the books he’d read. As the list was substantial the complete list must have been enormous. The list mainly consisted of books in the areas of crime and other topics which certain minds share. As I happen to be one of those minds based on the internal evidence of the novels and shared intellectual direction I feel a fair amount of confidence in my speculations concerning his reading although I leave room for error.

I am also of the opinion now that he could have read from 500 to 750 books from, say, fifteen to thirty-five when he began writing. His consumption from 1911 to 1940 must have been enormous. Fortunately we can get a pretty good fix on the type of books he preferred from his library.

Thomas Dixon Jr. lived from 1864 to 1946. Reconstruction was in effect from 1865 to 1877 when the last occupation troops were withdrawn. Dixon grew up in Shelby, North Carolina where his father was an important figure in the first Ku Klux Klan. The Traitor is apparently based on his father’s career. It is said that because of corruption in the Klan his father was instrumental in disbanding it.

Dixon although young would then have had first hand experience with both Reconstruction and the Clan.

Dixon believed, and I second him, that Reconstruction was one of the most brutal crimes in history. It certainly ranks in the same category as the French Revolution’s criminal acts in The Vendee and Hitler and Stalin’s actions from 1925 to 1945. One should not underestimate the horrors of Reconstruction. Liberals, for their own reasons, have attempted to excise the period from US history while sanitizing what little is taught. One is certain than an inquiring mind like Burroughs sought out the true and whole story.

Liberals have blackened Dixon’s name as they have that of Dixon’s fellow Southerner, D.W. Griffith, who produced the Dixon trilogy as the most amazing movie of its time- The Birth Of A Nation. In 1915.

While both Griffith and Dixon have been defamed as racists in today’s multi-cultural society they must no longer be seen as racists merely as representatives of an anti-Liberal segment of White culture.

Dixon was one of the most popular American writers of the period to at least until the aftermath of the Russian Revolution when he and writers like him, including Burroughs, came under attack from the Communists. With the exception of Burroughs all have been defamed into oblivion today.

As we know Burroughs’ father, George T., served in the Union Army during the Civil War. His father’s more admirable attributes seem to have gone into the character of John Carter, the hero of the first three Martian stories. He seems to have been combined with a Confederate Officer of Virginia stock as well as a character of the nature of Count Caliogstro of the pre-French Revolution period.

Here the problem of Alexandre Dumas and his Revolutionary romances enters. John Carter’s tomb in Connecticut is probably based on Graham’s tomb in The Traitor. The similarity is striking. Carter’s longevity may be based in part on Dumas’ description of the charlatanry of Cagliostro who claimed to be as old as the Great Historical Bum while rationalizing his ability to survive much as the thousand year old Martians did.

The Great Alexandre Dumas

The Martians were in fact deathless as was Cagliostro’s claim unless they were killed by some sort of physical accident. Dumas’ Caliogstro describes his situation in these exact terms. The novels in Dumas’ roman a fleuve are the Memoirs Of A Physician, Joseph Balsamo, The Queen’s Necklace, Ange Pitou, The Countess Of Charny, The Chevalier Of The Maison Rouge and The Blue And The White. I can recommend them highly. We know that Burroughs read The Three Musketeers and probably The Count Of Monte Cristo. He may have read one, two or more of the Revolution series also.

There is an interesting passage in the Physician in which an ignorant country boy teaches himself to write both printed and cursive letters after a very rudimentary instruction in reading. The passage bears comparison to Tarzan’s teaching himself to read and write. The point being that Burrough’s imagination was probably fired by this series.

Now, we know that Burroughs was always opposed to the Revolution. Dumas would have introduced him to conspiracy theory. I would guess that ERB read Dumas before 1900 but that is just a guess. Also bear in mind what we consider ‘classical’ literature was current in Burroughs’ youth. All these books would have been new and therefore doubly exiting. As David Adams noted to me concerning Baum’s Oz series the books would have been equivalent to a new Beatles record in the sixties when people rushed to stores at the earliest possible moment to get their copy. Knowing this stuff would have made one a very hep cat.

We also know that prior to 1911 Burroughs associated with several knowing people among which were Sweetser and Dr. Stace. These buys are always into conspiracy theory as, indeed, am I . As I have said as Burroughs and I share the same reading tastes I think it less than pure speculation that Burroughs also knew something about the Revolutionary conspiracy. Difficult to tell what.

It doesn’t appear that ERB was ever a Freemason. The Revolution was attributed to the Masons. The lodges then would have been thought Communist then by their opponents. Communist and Illuminated. The Illuminati are, of course, central to any conspiracy theory.

In theory and certainly in fact the lodges were instrumental in the overthrow of the French monarchy. I have even read that Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans were involved with the Rosicrucians, hence the Freemasons and hence the Masonic revolution against thrones. While I don’t find the idea improbable I haven’t got enough evidence to speculate one way or the other. I find it interesting though to see that John Adams was thought to be Illuminated. It is certain that Revolutionary cadres in the form of Libertines were active in England during the seventeenth century and were certainly instrumental in the destruction of London’s Newgate Prison some few years before the destruction of the Bastille.

It is also certain that Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati infiltrated the French Freemasons some few years before 1789 and that the Jacobins arose from them. It is also clear that the Illuminatti infiltrated American Freemasons at least by 1799. There are those who believe with good evidence that Thomas Jefferson was Illuminated. Indeed, the Communists of the twenties called Jefferson one of their own. It seemed ridiculous until one looks a little further. Whether Lincoln was one of the Communists’ own along with Jefferson as they claim seems preposterous on the surface of it.

However an illuminated Mason by the name of Morgan was about to publish a book exposing the Masonic plot in 1843 when he was abducted and murdered. A symbol of the Illuminatti was the Phrygian Cap. The Union enlisted cap is nothing less than the Phrygian Cap with the front knob truncated and replaced by a flat board. So, shall we say that the Illuminatti took a prominent but disguised role in the Civil War.

If this Jacobin-Illuminatti attitude was in the Northern attitude then it must have been represented in the Abolitionist attitude. Their hatred always directed against authority was the directed against the Southern Whites and in favor of the Negroes. And in fact it was attempted to make Whites slaves to the Negroes. Just as in France the hatred was directed against not only Aristocracy but against peasants or anyone who resisted the Jacobin or Liberal will. In the Vendee of France which remained loyalist genocide was carried out on the Vendeans. I have no doubt out and out genocide would have been committed against Southerners if it had been possible. In that respect perhaps Sherman’s antecedents should be examined to determine unrecognized motives for the march from Atlanta to the sea.

There is no question that a great many of the post-Civil War immigrants were Communists or socialists and that they refused to accept a non-socialist America. Many if not most of the 48ers who fled Europe after the failure of the Revolution of 1848 were socialist while there is no reason to suppose that a large number of those were Jacobins or Illuminated.

Burroughs first contact with these people was as a child or teenager when he saw them parading through Chicago under the Red banner. It seems very unlikely that he wouldn’t have picked up a lot of anti-Socialist information. At any rate his hatred of German and things German began at that time developing into a near mania during the Great War and a firmest attitude by WWII.

I can’t guarantee that he read Dumas’ Revolutionary novels but there are enough seeming contact points in the novels to indicate that he may have. Thus John Carter’s longevity may be based on Dumas’ portrayal of Cagliostro. This input Burroughs combined then combined with his readings of The Virginian and the positive aspects of his father to create John Carter. It is probably significant that Carter was the main character in only the first three Martian novels before ERB’s father died. When George T. died John Carter ceased being the dominant character being replaced by his son Carthoris in the next novel, Thuvia, Maid Of Mars. Burroughs may not have been able to divide his own alter-ego between Carthoris and Tarzan as the former disappears being replaced by a number of different personae.

However ERB understood the Civil War and Reconstruction the two events were a significant part of his mental makeup.

Pioneering Filmmaker, D.W. Griffith

The three Dixon novels were formative before he began to wirte while the Dixon scripted The Birth Of A Nation filmed by D.W. Griffith and released in 1915 had a terrific impact on Burroughs as well as the Nation.

The movie would have revived all his emotions on the two topics. I have read the novels of the subsequent years with this thought in mind but echoes may be there.

Over the following decades Liberals have succeeded in characterizing Birth Of A Nation as ‘racist’ which it is not. The story may be culturally centered on the White side of the story rather than the Black but this fact doesn’t make the movie any more racist than if it had been culturally centered on the Black aspect. The issue of race simply cannot be avoided.

The movie misunderstands the breach between the two White viewpoints of the North and the South. While the movie is plea for Whites to never do this again and to reunite as one people, the bigots of the North wished only for the destruction of Southern Whites. As the Jewish historian Eric Foner writes, Reconstruction is the unfinished Revolution that is still going on today and will culminate in the election of Barry Dunham-Obama and its sequel.

Eric Foner

Eric Foner is part of the Foner dynasty of Communist historians. His uncle Phil Foner wrote distorted labor chronicles while his Pappy Jack was dismissed from his academic position in the ‘50s as a Communist.

The movie was the most successful of its time providing the funds for the MGM empire. Louis B. Mayer who was a theatre operator at the time made enough from the movie to go to Hollywood and establish the Mayer studios which Loews later combined into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer when they crushed William Fox of Fox Studios which then was combined with Twentieth Century to become Twentieth-Century Fox.

The movie certainly was not considered racist at the time except by the Jacobin faction who were not as influential then as they have become today. The Democratic president of the time, Woodrow Wilson, thought it a superb movie.

Interestingly both Wilson (1856-1924) and Dixon were together at Johns Hopkins University with Dixon being a champion of Wilson. D.W. Griffith, from the South as was Wilson, was Burroughs nearly exact contemporary. Griffith was born in Louisville, Kentucky also in 1875 dying in 1948 two years before Burroughs. Griffith was another who was marginalized by the Communists.

Thus the essential Edgar Rice Burroughs was taking its final form in the years from 1900-1911. I would like to organize those years as part of his early married years. This is not easy. As we are aware when he and Emma returned to Chicago from Idaho and Salt Lake City in 1904 ERB was suffering from the excruciating headaches that lasted half a day incurred from his beating in Toronto.

His sojourn in Salt Lake must also be included as part of his education as with his innate anthropological curiosity he would have investigated the absurdities of that religion. Once again he was much closer to the origins of the religion as it had only about sixty years of history to deal with rather than one hundred and sixty.

Even on the train trip back to Chicago ERB would have traveled through an entirely different landscape along approximately the Mormon Trail than today. The geographic changes have been enormous. The earlier geography would have influenced Mormon memories and stories that he would have heard. As an example of a feature that has been completely destroyed is a description from a book titled: The Mormon Trail: Voyage Of Discovery, The Story Behind The Scenery by Stanley B. and Violet Kimball. Page 35:

Weary teamsters and tired oxen struggled onward despite the difficult, rocky terrain. Many journals commented on the hordes of grasshoppers that had helped deplete the area of grass. Still, the optimism remained high in camp for they knew the Sweetwater River was just around the bend. The ground here proved to be miry, “smelled bad”, was swampy and many oxen got “buried in the mud.” Mosquitoes and “Gad flies” were numerous, and both oxen and humans were plagued for miles. The water along this route was so bad that even the cattle refused to drink. Most of the time they had to use sage for firewood here because buffalo chips were scarce and so was wood.Among the several landmarks along this part of the Trail were the Avenue Of Rocks and The Devil’s Backbone. Today the quarter-mile-long Avenue Of Rocks is gone, a victim of road widening.

That’s how little Americans care for their environment. Possibly the Avenue of Rocks was used by Fennimore Cooper as a locale in his novel The Prairie that Burroughs was certain to have read.

The Mormons would have made the trip a scant thirty or so years before so Burroughs would have been regaled with stories by those who had made the trip, probably before Buffalo Bill cleared the prairie of buffalo. Certainly before the tremendous network of reservoirs that now cover the area.

Having returned to Chicago Burroughs had to get down to some serious living; something he wasn’t good at. One would imagine that his father with a long history in business in Chicago could have gotten him a decent job to start but for some reason of which we are not informed he seemed to be in disrepute. ERB literally started at the bottom taking jobs for which there were few applicants.

Burroughs ran through an odd assortment of jobs over the next seven or nine years. After all it was only seven years from 1904 to 1911. Short enough in the telling but the equivalent of several lifetimes in the living. I won’t do a recital of the jobs as I’ve done it before while everyone is familiar with the story.

Intellectually these were stimulating times for Burroughs. L. Frank Baum’s Oz books began at the turn of the century, Baum trying to end the series in 1910. The Oz stories had a great influence on ERB. Jack London began publishing whose hobo experiences probably rekindled Burroughs interest in that life find expression in the trilogy of novel involving Billy Byrne that began in 1913 shortly after ERB began writing.

Owen Wister published The Virginian that would be so influential on Burroughs’ writing going into the character of John Carter. The Graustark novels of George Barr McCutcheon also began appearing the memory of which ERB would cherish to his dying day.

And of course ERB had his relationship with Dr. Stace. Now, Porges gives us very little information on this period in ERB’s life. However John Dos Passos in his USA trilogy includes a character who closely resembles Burroughs. This is in the third volume, The Big Money. Dos Passos was a vicious little man. At the time he was an open Red. Somewhat later in life he supposedly became a ‘conservative.’ As Reds go becoming ‘conservative’ in my opinion merely means getting old. I don’t see how anyone who has based their life on Communist principles can ever embrace opposite principles but many people can, or at least, they allow themselves to think they can.

It would be absurd to think that there would be no stories circulating about one of the most successful writers in the world. Dos Passos was actually from Chicago although absent most of his life, still he undoubtedly picked up some stories on Burroughs who would have been thought of, at the very least, as a colorful character. Thus writing in the thirties Dos Passos may very well have picked up stories from people like Frank Martin himself. Can’t be sure at this time of course…but if you look…

John Dos Passos

Dos Passos carefully describes the type of businessman ERB was. There apparently was a type of scrabbler who while not being able to afford an office of their own would rent space for a desk in someone else’s office so they could have an address. Sort of like the mail box addresses existing today. As an independent businessman Burroughs was of this type. In this capacity Dos Passos has his character turn up with a patent medicine type who go through Michigan trying to sell their wares. Dos Passos details of the foray are unimportant and probably highly imaginative but definitely derogatory. But then his whole corpus is of a mocking nature.

The point is Porges describes about this time, 1907 or so, that Burroughs sent Emma a note from South Bend, Indiana lauding the town saying that he would be back home soon. Porges doesn’t say what he was doing in South Bend. We are left to guess.

I would imagine it was something along the lines that Dos Passos describes. Or perhaps this was about the time the Feds cracked down on the Patent Medicine business and Burroughs and Stace may have found it convenient to absent themselves from the Windy City. I haven’t been able to find a reference to such a trip in the corpus as yet.

More to follow.