Prindle believes that all religions are projections of the mind or minds that imagine them. “As projections they comment on the cleanliness or foulness of the projectors.”

The notion of God to the western mind means the Yahweh of the Old Testament. The Jews fantasy is that God chose a particular people to be the bearers and disseminators of his word to all the peoples of the world. The English came to believe the scepter had been passed to them while the East Anglians who eventually formed the Liberal religion believe the scepter has passed to them.

The history of the Jews since their defeat and scattering by the Romans has been a succession of failed messiahs - more than sixty since they rejected Jesus. Failure has modified, but not eliminated this messianic obsession.

Prindle believes that stirrings of European Enlightenment in the seventeenth century were a significant factor in persuading the rabbis to stop recognizing Messianic claimants. “Science points out the absurdity of religious projections.  Thus all religions were shown to be based on false premises.”

Prindle points out that Christianity, Islam and Judaism were all faced with the challenge of scientific thinking. They all have a vested interest in the old way of perceiving the world.

The Jews had always been able to hold their own theologically vis-a-vis the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, but they had no chance against Science which granted none of their claims. Their only alternative was to corrupt Science and destroy it from within.

READ MORE...

This is the second of my essays on the little known but altogether exceptional work of R. E. Prindle, following my appreciation of his insights into Freud and the death of the West.  This essay will focus on Prindle’s The Deconstruction of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America.

I hope these essays will encourage others to read deeply in the Corpus Prindeliana.

“The key problem for American history is why the Civil War was fought.

Propaganda teaches American schoolchildren the war was about Black slavery. But Prindle points out that none of the cultures involved had ever been opposed to slavery historically.

Prindle asserts the cultural roots of the conflict began with the conquest of Anglo-Saxon England by William the Conqueror in 1066.

The conflict began when the conquering Normans enslaved the Anglo-Saxons, especially those of East Anglia.  The issue then is that like the biblical Hebrews the Anglo-Saxons objected to their own ill-treatment only.  Neither culture objected to slavery in itself.

The East Anglian Puritans who seized power in England under Cromwell expatriated tens of thousands of Irish to the Caribbean islands as slaves to work cheek by jowl with the Negro slaves - no distinctions between the two.”  In addition, the importation of African slaves was largely run by the Puritan merchants from New England; the South played almost no role in the procurement of slaves from overseas. “Thus both the Puritans of New England and the Cavaliers of Virginia had no particular aversion to slavery.  The true issue was not whether but who.”

READ MORE...

What more shall I say about them ?  I cannot and need not say much more. In externals, they were two unobtrusive women; a perfectly secluded life gave them retiring manners and habits.  In Emily’s nature the extremes of vigour and simplicity seemed to meet.  Under an unsophisticated culture, inartificial tastes, and an unpretending outside, lay a secret power and fire that might have informed the brain and kindled the veins of a hero: but she had no worldly wisdom; her powers unadapted to the practical business of life; she would fail to defend her most manifest rights, to consult her most legitimate advantage.  An interpreter ought always to have stood between her and the world.  Her will was not very flexible, and it generally opposed her interest.  Her temper was magnanimous, but warm and sudden; her spirit altogether unbending.

Anne’s character was milder and more subdued; she wanted the power, the fire, the originality of her sister, but was well endowed with quiet virtues of her own.  Long-suffering, self-denying, reflective, and intelligent, a constitutional reserve and taciturnity placed and kept her in the shade, and covered her mind, and especially her feelings, with a sort of nun-like veil, which was rarely lifted.  Neither Emily nor Anne was learned; they had no thought of filling their pitchers at the well-spring of other minds; they always wrote from the impulse of nature, the dictates of intuition, and from such stores of observation as their limited experience had enabled them to amass.  I may sum up all by saying, that for strangers they were nothing; but for those who had known them all their lives in the intimacy of close relationship, they were genuinely good and truly great.

Charlotte Brontë, writing of her sisters Emily and Anne in the preface to the combined edition of Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey which was published in 1850, just over a year after their deaths.

The amazing, sad story of the Brontë sisters needs no retelling from me, and it is not my purpose to dwell on it here.  But these three remarkable women were a testament to native intelligence, as well as that creative font which intelligence may bestow: an interior life.

Native intelligence is much in vogue in British political circles.  As The Times’ Eleanor Mills wrote last week:-

READ MORE...

My question is:  Did Ian Flemming write this article?

The head of the Papua chapter of the National AIDS Commission, Constant Karma, reportedly slammed the proposal as a violation of human rights.

“People with HIV/AIDS are not like sharks under observation so that they have to be implanted with microchips to monitor their movements,” he told the Jakarta Post on Tuesday.

“Any form of identification of people with HIV/AIDS violates human rights.”

According to data from Papua’s health office cited by the Post, the province has just over 3,000 people living with HIV/AIDS. Some 356 deaths have been reported. Papua has a population of about 2.5 million.

This is a continuation and conclusion of my essay begun yesterday on the illuminating thought of R. E. Prindle.  And the question was: What were Freud’s reasons for wanting to destroy the concept of morality?

“Freud was severely emasculated in both his individual ego and in his group ego. He was in fact a practicing homosexual…. His group, the Jews, was and is a severely emasculated people. They have been since they walked away from Ur.” SOV1

Freud was fond of telling the story of his father and his hat. It seems that Mr. Freud related a story to Sigmund, or Sigismund as he was known then (his Hebrew name significantly was Solomon) of how when he was a young man walking down the street proudly wearing his new hat, a gentile knocked the hat from his head into the gutter, snarling, “Go get your hat, Jew.”

When Sigmund asked breathlessly what his father did, expecting a heroic response, the old gentleman laconically replied: “I stepped into the gutter and picked up my hat,” severely disappointing the young boy.

“Since Freud told and retold this story we may be forgiven for believing it had a profound effect on his young conscious and subconscious minds and possibly his “unconscious” too. On the one hand he may have been so ashamed of his father’s reaction that he shared his emasculation encapsulating it in his subconscious as a fixation. It is possible that this story either made or contributed to his homosexuality. On the other hand we know for a fact that it inflamed his group ego with an ardent desire for revenge against the gentiles.” SOV1

Freud’s father came from an area of the Pale known as Galicia. This area is very close to the homeland of the ecstatic variant of Judaism known as Hasidism, and in fact his father was a Hasid. The Hasid sect arose out of the period of the last great Jewish “Messiah”, Sabbatai Zevi. [or Shabbatai Zvi, etc.] SOV1

The Jews realized the true danger to their religious mental projection was Science. There was no religious argument effective against Science.  They would have to take a different approach. “That approach was to appropriate a science with mumbo jumbo then slowly eviscerate the science of its content while supposedly making it moral or in other words subservient to Jewish religious beliefs.  This required both bold assertions while suppressing discussion or channeling it so that it could be controlled.” DOERBA

“The date selected for the revolution was the period 1913-1928.” Born in 1856, in 1913 Sigmund Freud was fifty-seven years old. Freud was militantly Jewish. “He hated Europeans and the European culture.  There is no question but that he intended to replace it with the Jewish culture.  At what point he decided to manipulate the emerging science isn’t clear but probably by the time he began attending B’nai B’rith meetings in 1895.” DOERBA

”Freud defamed predecessors, mentors, and rivals while organizing psychoanalysis to exclude any opinion but his own….  He organized and controlled the magazines and publishing houses, while he controlled and convened the international congresses.  Following the Jewish Cultural model, no dissent was allowed - there is no freedom of expression in the Jewish Culture - if you refused discipline you were merely expelled.  Once expelled you were defamed and rendered inconsequential.  Marginalized in today’s terms.  The only analyst to survive this treatment was C. J. Jung who had an awful lot going for him.  I can’t think of another dissident who has survived to the present.” DOERBA

Prindle believes that Freud coordinated his research with the needs of the scheduled Jewish revolution. “By 1910 he had his theories in close to final form.  From 1915 on, especially after 1917 he was no longer developing his ideas but organizing them for use by the Revolution…. Thus his concepts of the unconscious and sex were tailored to upset the morality of European civilization.  His promulgated notions were meant to confuse and obfuscate.  When one combines Freud’s interpretation of the unconscious, sex and emasculation, all of which were worked out by 1915, one has in fact a potent weapon of psychological warfare ...

By the advent of the Russian Revolution then, through his association with B’nai B’rith Freud had prepared the Jewish cadres for some particularly dirty work….As the Russian Revolution marked the first great success of the Jewish Revolution, Freud now began to manipulate his scientific knowledge of hypnotism and psychology to confuse and obfuscate the minds of the EuroAmerican cultures while keeping his Culture’s mind focused on the work ahead.” DOERBA

Prindle believes the study of the French Revolution was the role of the men of B’nai “B’rith to which Freud was privy. “Little details pop up in his writing. In his 1914 On The History Of The Psychoanalytic Movement , he lets drop a line that the progress of the French Revolution had been charted and understood ... His role as the psychoanalyst would be to prepare the minds of the revolutionaries for the slaughtering to come while he probably also assisted in the damage control applications for the inevitable reaction when the Europeans had realized what the Jews had done”. DOERBA

“Sometime after I wrote the first part of Something Of Value (see erbzine.com) I read David Bakan’s Freud And The Jewish Mystical Tradition: By David Bakan. (London: Bailey Bros. & Swinfen; New York: Schocken Books. 1965. Pp. 326. xxi.)]

“While Freud rejected Rabbinical religious Judaism he was deeply immersed in the Jewish mystical tradition of the Zohar and Kabbalah. Thus one can discount his claim to be an ‘atheistic’ Jew.  Or atheism has a more specific meaning for him.”  FAHU

[ Kabbalah (or cabala) is a medieval and modern system of Jewish theosophy, mysticism and thaumaturgy marked by belief in creation through emanation and a cipher method of interpreting Scripture.]

Prindle explains that the Zohar, or primary mystical book, which is attributed to the first and second century Rabbi, Simeon Ben Yohai, was reworked in twelfth century Spain by Moses de Leon and reached the Middle East after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in the sixteenth century.  Its influence then was transmitted to the seventeenth century messiah, Sabbatai Zevi. “While Freud claimed to be scientific; Mr. Bakan relates almost all of Freud’s psychology to the Kabbalah showing Freud’s dependence on Sabbatianism and Frankism as I indicated in Something Of Value Part I.”  FAHU

Prindle contends that Freud pretended to work as a scientist while he actually was blending in a bit of science with his Jewish religious material in order to subvert the European moral order. FAHU

READ MORE...

A not-so-wealthy West, foreseen by Martin Hutchinson at the mainstream financial bulletin, Prudent Bear.  The piece is a follow-on from his - to mainstream financial minds - sobering prognostications on the matters of outsourcing and migration.

GW

Negative earnings surprises by Pfizer and Caterpillar at the end of last week may indicate a new reality: the income premium for being a Westerner and having access to the centuries of Western intellectual property and business acumen may be sharply diminishing. We can all rejoice as poor and middle income countries are brought up to Western levels of affluence, but our rejoicing will presumably be sharply diminished if we come to realize that much of their gains may be at the expense of our children’s living standards.

The vision of the world of 2050 or 2100, in which the great majority of Third World peoples enjoy more or less Western living standards, has always been a but fuzzy. Thirty years ago, if you had asked people to imagine the world of 2050, all but the most manically environmentalist would have envisaged Third World residents enjoying living standards comparable to those of current Westerners, while the affluent West had reached living standards that could currently be dreamed of only by an affluent few.

The more thoughtful would have recognized that there was simply not enough space for the squirearchical dream of robot servants for all, together with country houses and rolling parklands. However the 18th century customers of Capability Brown didn’t enjoy modern plumbing, found travel impossibly time-consuming and uncomfortable, and had a nasty tendency to die in childbirth at 30 or of flying gout at 50. 2100’s median Western real income of $250,000 or so would have to be spent differently, but the income itself seemed pretty assured, given the continuance of technological development.

That is no longer the case. Elite opinion remains wedded to globalization as the best of possible economic policies, and believes with fanatical devotion that David Ricardo’s Doctrine of Comparative Advantage will ensure that there will be no significant class of people, even in rich countries, who lose out because of it. However it is becoming increasingly obvious to the populace as a whole that globalization produces substantial numbers of losers, particularly among the less well educated inhabitants of Western countries. No amount of cheaper consumer goods will assuage your pain if you have been forced to exchange a $25 an hour factory job for a $8 an hour service job.

I have discussed previously the effect of outsourcing and international migration on living standards at the bottom of the scale. Here I want to examine the extent that the advantages which have traditionally kept Western countries affluent—in particular those of financial capital, intellectual capital and a near-monopoly on innovation—are all losing their power to differentiate living standards.

READ MORE...

While reading a review by E Michael Jones of Roy Schoeman’s book Salvation is from the Jews on Jones’ Culture Wars website I was taken aback by this:

“Karl Marx… wrote poetry dedicating himself to Satan as a young man, [as did] Sigmund Freud, about whom Paul Vitz (taking the lead of David Bakan) says much the same …”

I already knew that Hans Israel had proved that Freud was an inveterate liar in his Der Fall Freud: Die Geburt der Psychoanalyse aus der Lüge.  But the suggestion that Freud may have been a Satanist as well as a habitual liar looked well worth investigating.

I searched the terms “Freud”, “Satanist” and “Bakan” and I discovered that articles written by an R. E. Prindle containing these terms had appeared in an ezine dedicated to Edgar Rice Burroughs, the author of the Tarzan novels.

I was so uninformed that I did not know that Edgar Rice Burroughs had been a novelist. To me Tarzan meant comic books and movies. I had no idea that Joseph Stalin had found ERB (Edgar Rice Burroughs) sufficiently dangerous to assign Soviet agents to sabotage his writing career.

I have read five major articles by Mr. Prindle: Something of Value I, Something of Value II, Something of Value III, Freud and His Unconscious, and The Deconstruction of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America, Part 1.  I shall refer to these articles using the following abbreviations. SOV1, SOV2, SOV3, FAHU, and DOERBA.

My first appreciation of this astoundingly illuminating thinker will concentrate on Prindle’s insights about Freud and the death of the West. I hope that it will encourage others to read deeply in the Corpus Prindeliana.

To understand Freud’s role in the intentional subversion of Western civilization one has to understand the historical processes at work on the eve of the First World War. Prindle reminds us that events can have remote roots that are ignored by people too focused on the short-term and the immediate.

Now Prindle has described one stream of destructive thought that has flowed from Medieval France into the revolutionary turmoil of the world since 1789.

READ MORE...

From BBC News:-

The people of Turkey are voting in a general election which is seen as a crucial test of its secular tradition.

The early election was called to resolve a political crisis after parliament repeatedly failed to agree on a candidate for president.

Secular parties and the powerful military blocked the nomination of a candidate for the post backed by the Islamic-rooted ruling AK Party.

They said Turkey’s secularism was in danger - a claim the AKP dismissed.

... Voters have been heading home from the beaches by the coach load, interrupting their holidays to take part in the polls, the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford in the capital Ankara says.

Some of them say they have made a special effort to come back this time because they believe that the secular system needs to be protected, our correspondent says.

The role of religion here will be a key issue at the ballot box, and so will Turkey’s relations with the outside world, our correspondent adds.

Nationalist sentiment is running high, fed by bitter disappointment with the EU. Renewed fighting with separatist Kurds and talk of an incursion into northern Iraq will also influence the result, she says.

It is in our interests for the revolt against the Turkish political Establishment, which saw the Islam-rooted Adalet ve Kalk?nma Partisi become the largest party in the Grand National Assembly in the November 2002 election, to continue today.  And it will.  Last time AK attracted close to 11 million votes, or 34%.  Polls suggest that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be returned with around 40% this time.

More surprising, perhaps, is that the long-moribund Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, the traditional vehicle for nationalist sentiment, could leapfrog the two steeply-declining Establishment parties, and come in second.  An Assembly dominated by religious conservatism and Turkish nationalism is tantamount to a civilian coup!

From a majoritarian European perspective this is most welcome.  Indeed, any reflection anywhere of national character and the popular will in government is welcome to us.  These things portend distinctiveness, and distinctiveness yearns for distance.  Any consequent retreat from the homogenising cast of “modern” politics that we see throughout the West, and which finds its ultimate expression in the international institutions, is a good.  In Turkey’s case the revolt against the modern world was initiated by the failure of a political status quo under the pressure of unsympathetic external forces, namely the dealings of the EU in frustrating Turkey’s ascession, the encouragement given by America to the Kurds, and the growing influence of Putin’s Russia in the region.

One wonders whether there is a major historical dynamic appearing here, very fragile though it might yet be.  One wonders what that might mean for Western power and Western-led internationalism in a post-Iraq era.  One wonders what opportunities at the level of national politics might then arise.