1.
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 affects 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 atheist. The
same can be said of science. The usual terms employed in the conflict
was that of the spiritual versus materialism. While one wouldn't
necessarily boast of one's religiosity spirituality was nearly universally
considered superior to crass 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 Fisher's Albion's Child;
the other is Kevin Phillips' The Cousins Wars. Both illustrate
the continuity of behavior 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 '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 collar 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 called 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 religious certitude.
The East Anglians, of course, revolted against
the Norman Church of England, emigrated 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 was now 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 Fisher 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. 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 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 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 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 thy 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 wrong for 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, 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, in 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 the 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
England- 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. 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 Chinese neck under a Western
yoke. 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 South Europe were many 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 affirm 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 neither 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. The adherents cannot be argued with, they must be humored.
Religions are revealed.
2.
The nineteenth century also saw the rise of
Science which is an objective materialistic system, 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 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 human confidence 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 in 4004 BC as
Bishop Ussher stated but evolved somewhat over four billion years or so
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 1929 the incomparable
Edgar Allen Poe expressed the problem in his brilliant poem:
Sonnet - To Science
Science! true daughter 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?
Hast 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.
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 and 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 religionists could say silly things like:
Do you really believe human beings, you, actually evolved from an ape?
and be fairly convincing. Most people were ashamed of their 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 innumerable steps which have since disappeared. If that were true then
religious concepts which insisted that God created Man whole and entire
without evolution were false. If Creation was false then 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.
3.
Perhaps for the first time around 1910 it began
to dawn on a significant number of people 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. The population was
too great to be supported by the farmlands so the farm population turned
back to the cities so that by mid-decade for the first time more people
lived in 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 also 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 for 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 need their protection. As a 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 safe haven
by 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 that way.
American 'malcontents' were told to shut up
while a malcontent could come from anywhere else in the world and be honored.
I mean, criminals, murderers, mere disturbers of the peace in their own
countries. 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. Home 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 the 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 such as Sun
Yat Sen 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
in the United States. William K. Klingaman tells the story in his
popular history '1919', 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 of wounded soldiers by sending them
to the US for free medical treatment. This is astonishing stuff that
gets no recognition 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 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 Russia annexed the Ukraine, Bylorussia
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 the
peoples attempted to Russify the Jews. These along with Poles, Letts,
Estonians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians 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. 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 Communist parties were Jewish but the remainder which was fairly
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 tremendous 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 Russian
Revolution. The signing of the Russo-Japanese Peace Treaty was done
at Portsmouth, New Hampshire ostensibly by the US President Theodore Roosevelt
but under the watchful eyes of Schiff and his fellows.
As I said simply because a people emigrated
to America 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 manifest 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 or the Russians, or, the Czar as they put it.
The Russians forbade Jewish traffic over their
borders in an attempt to contain 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 American Jews using their US
citizenship, in this instance, demanded to be treated strictly as US citizens
first and Jews only secondarily. 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 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 significantly 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 after 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. One 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.
As I point out in Part III, Part 1 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-Semitist.
Liberalism is a religion thus assuming control
over institutions of higher learning. The University system of the
United States was turned from one of educational institutions into religious
seminaries. The American university system of today is a religious
system of 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 successors
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 communications media gradually eliminating anything seditious to its
belief system. As I explained earlier any writing that casts doubt
on the claims of Judaism in anti-Semitist.
Americans were conditioned to view anti-Semitism as the world 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 the 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 the its guise. The scientific 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 fabric of Time and Space and send it as
a 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; guilt
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 if skewed. The skewing can be easily
unscrambled. But Richard Slotkin's Gunfighter 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
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. The film perfectly
illustrates 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 villain 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)=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 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. 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, the
man who is bringing THE LAW West of the Pecos or at least below the Picket
Wire. Apparently the ranchers don't need any 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 his life or 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)
Thus Rance brings the law to Shinbone, that's the ridiculous name of the
town. It's so silly I hated to use it.
Later we will see the same gun battle rotated ninety
degrees to the left. 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, so 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) are standing in an alley opposite
Liberty. Tom is in the middle of the street, Pompey bearing the gun
against the side of the building. With breathtaking precision just
before Liberty shoots, Tom, in that awe inspiring quiet uncontradictable
authority of his says 'Gun, Pompey.' The ever faithful Negro flips
the gun across to Tom who snatches it from mid-air with his right hand,
puts it to his shoulder and snaps off the shot 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 nobody wonders how Stoddard accomplished
what to me is a 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
of the Picket Wire/Shinbone district (There's a joke there, 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? This might 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.
'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 in Washington DC.
The movie can be viewed on several levels like
a good myth. 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 their
vision of bigots/anti-Semites. I don't know about the writers but
John Ford was certainly able enough 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 said technological applications of science
weren't actually a threat but Evolutionists like Gall, Darwin and Galton
were. Gall was the man who first enunciated a theory that the different
parts 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 the
far left to the 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. Fantasy writers are not
usually taken very seriously being relegated to the non-literary end of
fiction genres. So then, one asks, why does a Myerian Judeo-Liberal
like Richard Slotkin devote so much effort to prove that Edgar Rice Burroughs
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. Slotkin's
Gunfighter
Nation is a serious attempt to pathologize Burroughs.
Gunfighter nation is the third volume of a
trilogy on violence in America, a never endingly 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 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 admirable 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
incomprehensible. 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 Communist after 1917 and by extension 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: http://thescotsman,scotsman.com/print.cfm?id=2434192005)
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 is leading I'm sure.
Apparently Stalin had been reading Burroughs; 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 an AK47 in
one hand and a banana in the other.
At any rate Slotkin wishes to link Burroughs
up with these ideas Liberals accepted. 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 Liberals are Madison
Grant and his The 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 that he did 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 Lothrop Stoddard. Further there is no doubt Slotkin believes
all three men are bad men of evil intent. As the scientific findings of
these men contradict the religious tenets of the Myersian Liberal Coalition
I suppose Slotkin can do no other. How he manages 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 subsequent 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 BurroughsI
was outraged and then baffled. I rejected the criticism but as Slotkin
obviously believes this stuff although he poorly documents it his notions
were filed in the back 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. Thus is a conflict between 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 the 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 Birth
Of A Nation. To merely be sympathetic to Southern Whites is to
deny the victimhood of the Negroes which arouses the animosity of the Liberals.
Burroughs has thus identified himself as a 'bigot, heretic, anti-Semite.'
He is plainly the enemy of the Liberal Coalition.
And, then, while Burrughs 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 passing of 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
censored 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
there is a shred of evidence.
One can't read with the eyes of his contemporaries
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 then.
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 now.
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 such indications from the Coalition point of view
one can find them. As I point out in Part III the American Jewish
Committee contacted him in 1919 while there are passages in Marcia Of
The Doorstep which the Coalition could construe as anti-Semitism and
for which Burroughs was possible 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 'Americans' 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 ahead of his times.
The period ending in 1919 also represented
the changing of the guard. Buffalo Bill died in 1917 taking his 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 Anglo-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 1920.
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.
4 Opening for III part
2
To Recapitulate
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 settled by descendents of the Norman conquerors
of 1066. The Virginians once again chose slavery as 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 the War Between Ideologies.
There was no chance the South was going to discontinue slavery anytime
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. All opponents to 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 Burroughs 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 the 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.
Part III: Marcia Of The Doorstep will be presented
in two parts.
Part I will be a discussion of the cast of characters while Part II
will be a detailed examination of the story.
