To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare and What He Hath Left Us
By Ben Jonson
Prefatory verse to "Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedie" (1623), commonly known as the First Folio.
"Will! Mr. Henslowe! Gentlemen, all! A black day for us all. There is news from a tavern in Deptford. Marlowe is dead. Stabbed. Stabbed to death in a tavern at Deptford."
"Edward Alleyn" : He was the first man among us... A great light has gone out...
Good frend for Jesus sake forebeare, To digg þe dust encloased heare. Blese be þe man þat spares þes stones, And curst be he þat moves my bones.
- "William Shakespeare", Epitaph
Mark Twain : "All the rest of [Shakespeare's] vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures — an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts"
George Bernard Shaw: "It would be positively a relief to me to dig him up and throw stones at him."
Henry James : "I am 'sort of' haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world."
Walt Whitman : "Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism—only one of the 'wolfish earls' so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works".
Charlie Chaplin: "In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare.... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude".
Sigmund Freud: "I no longer believe that ... the actor from Stratford was the author of the works that have been ascribed to him."
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: He has got a very unusual gesture there, the folded arms, which show that, "I am one who keeps secrets." He had joined the secret service. This was his celebration of becoming a servant of the queen in the secret service, which was the greatest secret service in the Elizabethan time. And he did his work to great satisfaction because the Privy Council have written this letter, giving him the accolade of having served his country.
MICHAEL RUBBO: In fact, Marlowe was in some trouble. The university didn't want to graduate him because he'd missed some school and they suspected that he'd been off in France as a Catholic traitor. That is, until they got a stern letter from the Privy Council saying, "Give him his degree."
CHARLES NICHOLL, Author of "The Reckoning": There are the names of the privy councilors actually present at the meeting, among which were noted as the Lord Archbishop Whitgift, the Lord Chancellor.
MICHAEL RUBBO: [on camera] So all of these important people are signing a letter on the behalf of humble young Christopher.
CHARLES NICHOLL: Yes, exactly. They are.
MICHAEL RUBBO: That's amazing, isn't it?
CHARLES NICHOLL: Yeah. Exactly. They are.
MICHAEL RUBBO: So they really-
CHARLES NICHOLL: [reading] "Whereby he had done Her Majesty good service, and deserved to be rewarded for his faithful dealing."
MICHAEL RUBBO: [voice-over] This is Vlissingen, in Holland, another place where Marlowe, the secret agent, got into trouble. He was arrested here for counterfeiting coin and could have been executed.
PETER FAREY: But that's what was reported. Whether he was actually doing that or not, we don't know. It's usually assumed that he was on some sort of government business. And that's something to do with the funding of the Catholics and finding out how they were being funded, and so forth. But he got reported, was sent back as a prisoner to England, and-
MICHAEL RUBBO: [on camera] It was a capital offense.
PETER FAREY: That's right. Petty treason. Sent back, and- to Lord Burleigh. And we don't know exactly what happened to him, but we know that within a few months, a very few months, he was free.
MICHAEL RUBBO: But there's still the problem of Ben Jonson and his praise for Shakespeare, the writer - because Ben is the weak- the Achilles heel of the anti-Shakespeare case, in a way, because-
JOHN BAKER: Yes, that's true.
MICHAEL RUBBO: Because he does seem to know Shakespeare.
JOHN BAKER: Yeah, and he certainly would have. He would have known the whole- there's no way that Ben Jonson, you know, if you think about this, wouldn't have known that the actor didn't write Shakespeare.
MICHAEL RUBBO: He had to know that.
JOHN BAKER: He had to know that.
MICHAEL RUBBO: And yet in his memoirs he never mentions that, and he talks about Shakespeare as a writer.
JOHN BAKER: He does. Indeed he does.
MICHAEL RUBBO: Isn't that the thing that saves Shakespeare?
JOHN HUNT: I don't think it saves Shakespeare. Ben Jonson was dependent on the support and the patronage of the Pembroke family. He received quite a bit of money from them. Ben Jonson will not come out and say Shakespeare was a fake. Ben Jonson was on the payroll of the William Herberts. They were- and Ben Jonson knew of this fakery. There's no question in my mind that Jonson knew of this fakery. How could he not know of it? They walked in the same circles.
MICHAEL RUBBO: So he was keeping the secret, you mean.
JOHN HUNT: He kept the secret.
SUE HUNT: I mean, the other problem I have is that because it was a very closed society - I mean, the aristocratic, Elizabethan society was quite small, and quite limited and everyone knew each other - I can't imagine- I kind of feel that if Marlowe was sending plays back, someone would have known.
JOHN HUNT: His silence was being bought for 50 pounds.
SUE HUNT: Whenever there's silence, people talk. Whenever silence is a premium, people talk.
MICHAEL RUBBO: Well, all we can say to that is that Shakespeare looks so plausible. He was a writer of some sort, and he put his mark on these works, so that, in fact, he claimed ownership of them by modifying them, or by- and he was perhaps the director of that.
SUE HUNT: Authorship wasn't- yes, that's true. Authorship wasn't the same-
MICHAEL RUBBO: By directing them, by bringing them to the stage, he, in fact, claimed them.
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: Well, that is a big assumption, Michael. That is just an assumption.
MICHAEL RUBBO: Yes, sure.
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: It's just a theory with no evidence at all.
MICHAEL RUBBO: Put yourself in his shoes. You're not going to-
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: Yes, but you don't have to bring in the idea and put the idea to the minds of a lot of innocent people who would never have thought of it before that William Shakespeare was really a bit of a writer.
MICHAEL RUBBO: All right. Well, just tell me, though, how it worked. OK, Shakespeare receives in the post, from Marlowe or from Walsingham, a new play, OK? What does he say?
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: He presents the play, having received it-
MICHAEL RUBBO: To his partners.
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: -to his partners as something which is valuable stock.
MICHAEL RUBBO: And they'd say, "When are you getting another one? We need another play."
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: Oh, not necessarily.
MICHAEL RUBBO: And then they'd say, "Are we going to publish this one or not?" I mean, there would be lots of questions to ask.
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: There weren't any. They weren't published.
MICHAEL RUBBO: They were later. I mean, if he's the owner of the plays-
DOLLY WALKER WRAIGHT: Oh, for goodness sake. How many probables are you going to add?
He must have written it.
Look, it has his picture in it, right at the front.
To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy book and fame;
While I confess thy writings to be such
As neither man nor Muse can praise too much.
’Tis true, and all men’s suffrage. But these ways
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise;
For seeliest Ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but echoes right;
Or blind Affection, which doth ne’er advance
The truth, but gropes and urgeth all by chance;
Or crafty Malice might pretend this praise,
And think to ruin where it seem’d to raise.
These are as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron. What could hurt her more?
But thou art proof against them, and, indeed,
Above the ill-fortune of them, or the need.
I, therefore, will begin. Soul of the age!
The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage,
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room:
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still, while thy book doth live,
And we have wits to read, and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so, my brain excuses;
I mean, with great but disproportion’d Muses.
For, if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee, surely, with thy peers.
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe’s mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
From thence, to honour thee, I would not seek
For names; but call forth thund’ring Aeschylus,
Euripides, and Sophocles to us,
Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead
To life again, to hear thy buskin tread
And shake a stage; or when thy socks were on,
Leave thee alone, for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome
Sent forth; or since did from their ashes come.
Triumph, my Britain! Thou hast one to show
To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age, but for all time!
And all the Muses still were in their prime,
When, like Apollo, he came forth to warm
Our ears, or, like a Mercury, to charm.
Nature herself was proud of his designs,
And joy’d to wear the dressing of his lines,
Which were so richly spun, and woven so fit
As, since, she will vouchsafe no other wit.
The merry Greek, tart Aristophanes,
Neat Terence, witty Plautus, now not please;
But antiquated and deserted lie,
As they were not of Nature’s family.
Yet must I not give Nature all! Thy art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.
For though the Poet’s matter Nature be
His art doth give the fashion. And that he
Who casts to write a living line, must sweat
(Such as thine are), and strike the second heat
Upon the Muses’ anvil, turn the same
(And himself with it), that he thinks to frame;
Or for the laurel he may gain a scorn!
For a good Poet’s made as well as born;
And such wert thou! Look how the father’s face
Lives in his issue; even so, the race
Of Shakespeare’s mind and manners brightly shines
In his well-turnèd and true-filèd lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance
As brandish’d at the eyes of Ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
To see thee in our water yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames
That so did take Eliza, and our James!
But stay, I see thee in the hemisphere
Advanc’d, and made a constellation there!
Shine forth, thou star of poets, and with rage
Or influence, chide, or cheer the drooping stage;
Which since thy flight from hence hath mourn’d like night,
And despairs day, but for thy volume’s light.
"I send you the foul sheet and the fair I was writing"
A foul sheet from Christopher Marlowe's, The Massacre at Paris (1593).
Reproduced from Folger Shakespeare Library Ms.J.b.8
"All they that love not tobacco and boys are fools."
Remark attributed to Marlowe from the testimony of Richard Baines, a government informer, 1593.
"Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose ... I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of flesh, between people ... paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, 'I believe this is in fact part of God's will.'"
Ralph Underwager, 'expert' witness for the defense in scores of child abuse cases and former vocal member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, in an interview in Paidika (a pro-pedophilia publication), conducted in June 1991
'The Pedophocracy' is term coined by David McGowan. It is the title of his book on the subject of pedophilia as an Elite habit and one of the main tools of control of the visible ruling elites, by those not so visible.
Of all human vices and perversions, pedophilia is probably judged the most shameful and outrageous in the public mind. It thus has vast potential as a source of control.
This is a deeply disturbing subject. In similar fashion to the proposition that elements of the State use terrorist false-flag attacks against their own populations to further their agendas, the public at large simply cannot accept that the very worst depravities of child sexual abuse could be systematically cultivated and used by those same elements as a calculated and deliberate means of Machiavellian control. Many people simply do not want to be told such things - which renders them all too readily reassured by the odd sacrificial minnow. Outrage is thus indulged for a while before relapse into the consensus trance of everyday routine, where fear of strangers and the dark are relegated to the subconscious and the odd bad dream.
To be enlisted to the 'Pedophocracy Novitiate' so-to-speak is a temptation difficult for the psychopathic personality type that aspires to power to decline. To become a 1st degree member is to sell one's soul - and there are probably thirty-odd higher degrees each capable of 'making an offer that cannot be refused' by their 'juniors'. Standard military discipline simply cannot hold a candle to it; Special Forces/SIS-type skills and disciplines clearly make extensive use of the victims of it.
There is a large body of information available on the internet for those with the stomach for it. The deeper the investigation, the greater the unpleasant realisation that the phenomenon is so fundamentally ingrained in Western Establishment power structures that to pursue the truths of the matter is as potentially dangerous as it is stomach churning.
I do not wish to leave out an important branch of this subject, for it is a danger from which princes are with difficulty preserved, unless they are very careful and discriminating. It is that of flatterers, of whom courts are full, because men are so self-complacent in their own affairs, and in a way so deceived in them, that they are preserved with difficulty from this pest, and if they wish to defend themselves they run the danger of falling into contempt. Because there is no other way of guarding oneself from flatterers except letting men understand that to tell you the truth does not offend you; but when every one may tell you the truth, respect for you abates.
Therefore a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.
I wish on this subject to adduce a modern example. Fra Luca, the man of affairs to Maximilian,[*] the present emperor, speaking of his majesty, said: He consulted with no one, yet never got his own way in anything. This arose because of his following a practice the opposite to the above; for the emperor is a secretive man--he does not communicate his designs to any one, nor does he receive opinions on them. But as in carrying them into effect they become revealed and known, they are at once obstructed by those men whom he has around him, and he, being pliant, is diverted from them. Hence it follows that those things he does one day he undoes the next, and no one ever understands what he wishes or intends to do, and no one can rely on his resolutions.
[*] Maximilian I, born in 1459, died 1519, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He married, first, Mary, daughter of Charles the Bold; after her death, Bianca Sforza; and thus became involved in Italian politics.
A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage every one from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired; also, on learning that nay one, on any consideration, has not told him the truth, he should let his anger be felt.
And if there are some who think that a prince who conveys an impression of his wisdom is not so through his own ability, but through the good advisers that he has around him, beyond doubt they are deceived, because this is an axiom which never fails: that a prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice, unless by chance he has yielded his affairs entirely to one person who happens to be a very prudent man. In this case indeed he may be well governed, but it would not be for long, because such a governor would in a short time take away his state from him.
But if a prince who is not inexperienced should take counsel from more than one he will never get united counsels, nor will he know how to unite them. Each of the counsellors will think of his own interests, and the prince will not know how to control them or to see through them. And they are not to found otherwise, because men will always prove untrue to you unless they are kept honest by constraint. Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.
"Derrida is the sort of philosopher who gives bullshit a bad name." - Foucault
"Deconstructionists are like the cynics and skeptics of the ancient world in that they, like Diogenes and Pyrrho, refuse to profess or affirm a doctrine of their own, but only negate the ideas of others. " - Tarpley
No mo' po-mo.
Challenge to Deconstructionism by Webster G. Tarpley
[Excerpts, from the August 9, 1993, issue of "The New Federalist" ]
Currently, education and intellectual life in the United States and many other countries are being destroyed by the triple plague of political correctness, postmodernism, and deconstructionism. After the collapse of Marxism in much of the world, the forces of evil in philosophy and epistemology are now increasingly arrayed under the banner of deconstructionism, which offers a place of regroupment for fascists, communists, irrationalists, and bankrupt ideologues of every sort. If you were wondering what the face of the enemy looked like after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this is it.
The leading purveyor of deconstructionism, the Frenchman Jacques Derrida, is now unquestionably the most celebrated and influential academic philosopher in the world today. As I will try to show, the continued intellectual hegemony of deconstructionism in schools and universities amounts to a death sentence for human civilization as we have known it. Deconstructionism in the academy and in government is a direct threat to the lives of a very large portion of the 5.3 billion human beings now inhabiting this planet.
1. The modern campus is now the bastion of euphemism and absurd circumlocution. Karl Marx had demagogically promised that his philosophy would change the world; the deconstructionists only want to change all the names. There is no more right or wrong, good or evil, only appropriate and inappropriate.
Language is supposedly being purged of ableism, ageism, borealocentrism, ethnocentricity, Eurocentricity, hegemonism, heightism, logocentrism, lookism, phallocentrism, racism, sexism, scentism and smellism.
Nobody is fat; they only possess an alternative body image.
The bald must be called "follicularly challenged" or "differently hirsute."
To be dirty is to be "hygienically challenged," to be tall is to be "vertically endowed." If you're old, you become "chronologically gifted."
It will be noted that this supposed rebellion afflicts language with all of the horrors of the worst Pentagon bureaucratic prose. Think of "collateral damage" when targets were "serviced" during the Gulf war, killing innocent civilians. "Ethnic cleansing" is a politically correct term for genocide.
Thus, political correctness offers no hope to the homeless, but it demands they be called "underhoused," "involuntarily undomiciled," or "houseless." The jobless become "non-renewed."
Political correctness is radical nominalism, in which the verbal signs take the place of ideas and things. As always, this radical nominalism is never very far from paranoid schizophrenia, where the victim believes that by changing the name or sign, he has altered reality itself. As the experience of Baroque Europe (Lyly, Marino, etc.) shows, such ways of talking go together with the collapse of civilization.
2. Political correctness insists that everything in human affairs can be reduced to race, sex (or "gender"), socioeconomic class, and choice of sexual perversion (sometimes called "sexual orientation").
*The New York Times* now recognizes a minimum of five sexes - yes, five - the coprophiles and sadomasochists are insisting on their rights.
The pessimistic P.C litany is all strictly determinist, denying humanity any freedom: You are, they say, what your race, sex, class, and [sexual orientation] make you.
You are a slave to that; there is no freedom... Here there can be no imagovivaDei to express the creative faculties that all human beings share.
3. Countries that permit deconstructionists to assume power over the government (and this has gone quite far in the U.S.A.) are not likely to survive.
Political correctness attempts to define a "canon" of what is to be studied, seeking to purge the Dead White European Males (DWEMS) in favor of Rigoberta Menchu, Franz Fanon, Jean Genet, or Antonin Artaud
[BR -- Note, Artaud wrote an interesting essay titled "Van Gogh, the Man Suicided by the Society," which I previously posted in 2 parts. I may do a rerun of the Artaud essay in the future]...
This [elimination of DWEMS] is a demand to wipe out the progress made by science in western continental Europe, especially Germany, France, Italy, Holland, etc., since the Italian Golden Renaissance of the 1400s.
If Nicholas Cusanus, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Leibniz, Monge, Gauss, Pasteur, Riemann, Cantor, and other Platonics were wiped out, we could no longer maintain the survival of the 5.3 billion human beings of today. Without the scientific achievement of these DWEMS, the relative potential population density of the world would fall back to the levels of the 1300s, to the time of the Bubonic Plague. We might go all the way back to the Roman Empire. Most of the 5.3 billion who manage to hang on today would be doomed.
-+- Postmodernism -+-
Many people who observe the lunatic pageant of the modern campus may conclude that the professors and administrators are all crazy. So they are. But there is a definite method in the madness, a philosophical system or doctrine which dictates the specific policy demands of political correctness.
One generic name for this is postmodernism, which claims that the raving irrationalists Voltaire, Rousseau, and the rest of the enlightenment were the Age of Reason, but that now the Age of Unreason is upon us.
[Deconstructionism] began its triumphal march through American universities in 1966, when Derrida appeared at Johns Hopkins University to tell American academics that the structuralism of Levi-Strauss was dead and that the future belonged to deconstruction. Derrida is now stronger in the U.S.A. and the Anglo-American sphere than in France, and dominant in much of Ibero-America, Francophone Africa and the Middle East, and eastern Europe. If you want tenure, an endowed chair, a foundation grant, government financing, you have to learn to talk the pedantic deconstructionist gibberish.
Deconstructionists are like the cynics and skeptics of the ancient world in that they, like Diogenes and Pyrrho, refuse to profess or affirm a doctrine of their own, but only negate the ideas of others.
Deconstruction is very eclectic. Derrida's world of ideas can be compared to a great sewer into which empty the various gutters and waste waters of the past two or three centuries. Each of these channels contributes to the great Cloaca Maxima of deconstruction. Note that we are here reviewing the disastrous state of human knowledge as we go towards the year 2000.
-+- Hatred of Reason -+-
Deconstructionism is an attack on Judaeo-Christian western European civilization powered above all by rage. Derrida hates and resents reason and creativity, which he identifies with the "epoch of Christian creationism and infinitism when these appropriate the resources of Greek conceptuality." (*Of Grammatology*, p. 13). Western European culture is guilty of logocentrism, says Derrida. The western cultural paradigm always aspired to be based on reason.
This must be rejected.
The western cultural paradigm also gives priority to speech, to the spoken word, with most literature made to be read aloud or even sung, from Plato's dialogues to Dante and Chaucer to Shakespeare and Schiller. This is the hated "phonocentrism" which Derrida also wants to get rid of. Derrida delves into Plato in an attempt to show that the overtones of the Logos are exclusively paternal and male dominated, giving rise to the further charge of phallologocentrism, which soon enough gives rise to the notion of "phallocentrism" assailed by the maenads of feminist literary theory.
[Derrida concludes that] the real problem with the West is that our culture is entirely permeated by what he calls "metaphysics. "... For Derrida, metaphysics evidently means anything that cannot be boiled down to sense certainty. Derrida sees "metaphysics" as the principal enemy to be destroyed. Under the heading of metaphysics he lumps God, the self or soul or individual, causality, substance, essence, action, and most other concepts of any importance. They must go, for reasons that are never remotely explained.
For Derrida, the author is dead, by definition. He never existed. The human self and ego have collapsed into an X marking the spot where they once were...
All that Derrida will talk about is a text, a written text of black on white, with punctuation, type faces, paragraphs, margins, colphons, logos, copyrights and so forth...
Everything is a written text in the sense that every thought, utterance or "discourse" is a story that we tell each other about something which exists in the most detached way in a written form. Therefore, says Derrida, there is nothing outside of the text. Everything is a text. There are no more works of art. All black writing on white paper is a text -- Shakespeare, the telephone book, Mickey Mouse, the racing form... all are texts, each one equivalent to the other.
-+- Deconstructionism's Targets -+-
Deconstructionists can target any of the written documents which are constituve of civilization itself. Take theology... Deconstructionist theology is quite a feat, since the ban on metaphysics means that this will be a theology without God.
[Deconstructionist theologian Mark C. Taylor overcomes this difficulty as follows:]
"One of the distinctive features of deconstruction is its willingness to confront the death of God squarely if not always directly...it would not be too much to suggest that deconstruction is the 'hermeneutic' of the death of God." Taylor calls for "the death of God, erasure of the self, and [an] end to history."
Since deconstruction sees all writing as the same, it can also be unleashed in the field of law, with devastating effect. Listen to Clare Dalton of the Critical Legal Studies group at Harvard Law School: "Law," she writes, "like every other cultural institution, is a place where we tell one another stories about our relationships with ourselves, one another, and authority."...
Sanford Levinson, professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas at Austin, chimes in: "The death of 'constitutionalism' may be the central event of our time, just as the death of God was that of the past century..."
The Clinton White House is redolent of deconstructionism and political correctness. The Clinton Cabinet is dysfunctional, but it certainly respects the distributive requirements of race/sex/class/sexual [orientation]... Donna Shalala of HHS helped to promulgate a code on offensive speech at the University of Wisconsin...
Vice President Gore's favorite book is reportedly Thomas Kuhn's *Structure of Scientific Revolutions*, which has become a manual for New Age paradigm shifters. We appeal to all of those who share our regard for the potential of the human mind to join us in exposing and defeating the deconstructionists.
The War of the League of Cambrai, Paolo Sarpi and John Locke
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D. From ICLC Conference panel titled: “The Axioms of the American System,” Feb. 18, 1996; appeared in New Federalist, March 18, 1996
Every person, whether he knows it or not, is a philosopher. Each of us necessarily develops a theory of how the world works. This theory is expressed as a set of axioms. The axioms are self-evident ideas that are recognized and accepted by everybody in sight. The axioms define human nature, the content of history, the workings of economics, the purpose of government, the goals of life. Today’s American population operates according to axioms which are false, oligarchical – and suicidal. A dictatorship or a monarchy can get by with slaves or subjects, but a republic demands educated and capable citizens. Without citizens, a republic cannot survive. The most dangerous force in American life today is public opinion itself. In today’s crisis, public opinion rejects out of hand all the urgent measures needed to promote national survival. This public opinion is stupefied by television and spectator sports and crassly manipulated by the news media. This depraved public opinion reflects not so much the admitted failure of political leadership as the degradation of the intellectual life of the average citizen. In the face of this kind of public opinion, world civilization as we have known it cannot long survive.
Is there a remedy? It must be to uncover the false axioms, uproot them, and replace them with the truth. History and philosophy are two powerful weapons in this fight against false axioms. The crisis of the citizen needs to be seen in a long historical perspective – we need to look at the five hundred years since the Italian Renaissance opened the modern era.
Before the Renaissance started about 1400, there was a discouraging sameness in most known forms of human society. Some were better, some were worse, but they were generally two-class systems: ruling elite and mass. The mass made up 95% of the population. They were peasants, serfs, and slaves, almost always laboring on the land, almost always illiterate and benighted. Their lives were nasty, brutish, and short. Over these peasants and serfs commanded a feudal aristocracy. Monarchy is bad enough, but most of the pre-Renaissance societies were something worse: they were small ruling classes called oligarchies. The aristocrats had military retainers, priests, scribes, and lackeys, making up at most 5% of the population. Under these conditions, world population potential was measured in the hundreds of millions, and even these were decimated by frequent plagues and famines.
Now and then a good ruler might appear, and did appear, along with excellent philosophers and scientists. But the oligarchy was always present, waiting to drag the society down again. Usury, constant warfare, slavery, racism, Aristotelian philosophy – these are the trademarks of oligarchy. Oligarchs come in many forms: the Roman senate, the barons of the dark ages, the Russian boyars, east European magnates, the French frondeurs, the princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Most of these feudal aristocrats were very ignorant, brutal, and crude. The medieval feudal aristocrats were easily manipulated by the Venetians, who had inherited the methods of Babylon, Rome, and Byzantium. From about 1000 AD until about 1600, the leading center of oligarchy in Europe and nearby Asia was Venice.
The first sustained breakout from this 2-class model came with the movement starting with Dante and Petrarch and culminating in Cusanus, Leonardo, and the Italian Renaissance of the 1400′s. The high point of the early Renaissance was the Council of Florence in 1439, convened under the sponsorship of the Medici rulers of Florence. In addition to briefly re-uniting the Christian world, this council embraced the theology of the filioque. In political terms filioque meant that each and every human being is made in the image of God, similar to God, by virtue of possessing God-like qualities of intellectual creativity in the form of a human soul. Therefore the dignity of the human person had to be respected. The human mind was capable of scientific discovery, and also capable of creating the modern nation-state.
The impulse from the Council of Florence reached around the world with Columbus and the Florentine Amerigo Vespucci, the Medici envoy who gave his name to the new continents of the Americas. The same impulse of human progress reached into France, where King Louis XI used Florentine methods to create the first modern national state. This was a matter first of all of breaking the power of the turbulent feudal aristocracy. This was done with taxation, which also financed the beginnings of the modern administration. Louis XI had a social base in the commercial and manufacturing classes of the cities and towns – the origins of the modern middle class. As King between 1461 and 1483, Louis promoted industry and commerce, protected the rights of labor, enacted public health statutes, built infrastructure, drained swamps, and built up a national army. The population and prosperity of France increased accordingly. France was the first nation to reach the take-off point into the modern age.
French military power also grew. This was soon noticed by the new Tudor regime in England, as well as by the rulers of Spain. It was clear that the future belonged to the larger nation-states that were smart enough to imitate the methods of Louis XI. If the Louis XI model were to prevail everywhere, there was the hope that the oligarchs as a class might be crushed. The momentum of the Renaissance art, science, and statecraft might overwhelm all resistance and become unstoppable.
The Venetians, who had been waging their own war against Florence and the other Italian Renaissance states for a century, studied events in France carefully. Venice was essentially a city-state with an inland empire in northern Italy and a marine empire in the Mediterranean. At first the Venetians thought they could survive as a great power by playing off the new nation-states one against the other. As soon as Louis XI was dead, the Venetians invited his unworthy and inferior heir Charles VIII to conquer Milan. The French conquered Naples, Florence, and Milan, but their presence also drew in the forces of Spain. It was a time of rapidly shifting alliances. Before long, the main powers had all been antagonized by Venetian perfidy and geopolitics. For the Venetians had been filching territory on all sides, grabbing for every fly that flew by them.
What followed was the War of the League of Cambrai, the great world war that marked the opening of the modern era. If Venice had been destroyed in this war, the European oligarchy would have been deprived of its command center and is likely to have perished. Without Venice, we would have been spared the wars of religion, including the Thirty Years’ War; we would have been spared the British Empire and most of its wars, including the American Civil War and the two world wars of this century. The same goes for most of the depressions and economic crises of these years.
At the heart of the League of Cambrai was the joint commitment in 1508 by King Louis XII of France and Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor, to divide the territory of Venice between them. The King of Spain joined in because he wanted to take Venetian possessions in southern Italy. A little later Pope Julius II della Rovere also joined the League. Julius II della Rovere was a professional soldier and an oligarch. He was called the papa terribile; his portrayal by Rex Harrison in the movie The Agony and the Ecstasy is much too kind.
But now the Venetians, the masters of geopolitics and encirclement, were faced in 1509 by a league of virtually all the European states with the exception of Hungary and England. In Venice, the Council of Ten assumed emergency powers. The program of the League of Cambrai was to expropriate all Venetian territory except for the city itself in its lagoon. By this time Venetian wealth derived more from its land possessions than from its ocean trade, so a loss of the land empire, or terrafirma, would have been a fatal blow. Among the French there were those who wanted to go further: the French general Bayard, whose courage is proverbial in France until this day, proclaimed his desire to destroy the Venetian oligarchy because of their opulent contempt for God and Christendom.
In the spring of 1509, a French army of 20,000 soldiers left Milan and crossed the Adda River into Venetian territory. On May 14, 1509 this French force met and destroyed an evenly matched Venetian mercenary army. The Venetians gave up Verona, Bergamo, Brescia, Vicenza, and even Padova, retreating into the natural fortress of their lagoons. The entire Venetian land empire had been lost in a single day. In one battle, Venice had dropped off the list of European great powers. The Venetians called it a “second Cannae.” The Florentine secretary Machiavelli exulted that in one day the Venetians had lost the fruits of 800 years of aggression. The Venetians were able to retake Padova, but had to defend it against the German Emperor and 100,000 troops. The modern era had indeed begun.
Only twice before had the Venetians been in such dire straits. They had been besieged in the lagoons in 810 AD by King Pepin of France, the heir of Charlemagne, and again by the Genoese during the war of Chioggia in 1379.
To multiply the catastrophe, a few months before, the Venetians had received news of the naval battle of Diu in which an Egyptian fleet supported by Indian princes had been wiped out by the Portuguese navy. The old Venetian monopoly in the spice trade with the east was now a dead duck.
At first the Venetians, now under siege in their lagoons, were totally isolated. Then it turned out that they did have a friend: the new King of England, Henry VIII. Advised by Cardinal Woolsey and the Cecils, Henry VIII urged Pope Julius to betray the League of Cambrai, and ally with Venice. When Julius first found that Henry VIII was supporting Venice, he was furious. Julius told the English ambassador: “You Englishmen are all scoundrels.” But soon it was clear that Julius was not so far from Henry’s position. Henry also offered the Venetians a loan, and signed a friendship treaty with them.
Julius II della Rovere now switched sides, and by February, 1510 Julius was the ally of Venice in exchange for territorial cessions and some bribes. In the summer of 1510 the French and Imperial forces reached the lagoons a second time, but their flank was attacked by Julius, and Venice was preserved. Julius II must bear the historical responsibility of permitting the survival of Venice and thus of oligarchy into the modern world.
1511 brought a third Franco-Imperial offensive, which once again reached the shores of the lagoons. Now Spain followed Julius and joined the Venetian-Papal alliance against France and the Empire. Henry VIII also joined this Holy League as a pretext for attacking France.
In the spring of 1512 came a new shift: the Emperor Maximilian decided to join Venice, the Pope, and Spain against the French. The Venetians took advantage of this, re-occupying their battered land empire for the third time.
In February, 1513 Julius II della Rovere, who had made possible the survival of oligarchy into the modern world, finally died. About a month later the Venetians, desperately maneuvering to avoid being despoiled by their nominal allies, sealed an alliance with France. Venice now faced the attacks of the Spanish general Cardona. From the top of their bell towers the Venetians watched as the Spaniards burned the towns along the edge of the lagoon, and fired their cannon toward the city itself. Venice was on the verge of perdition for the fourth time, but Cardona had to retreat.
The war dragged on through 1514. In September, 1515 the French and the Venetians finally won the key battle of Marignano. After that only Verona remained in the hands of the German Imperial forces, and Venice and the Emperor Maximilian finally signed a peace in 1517. In the same year of 1517, a desperate Venetian wartime operation masterminded by Gasparo Contarini bore fruit when Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenberg cathedral. From this point on, religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Germany and elsewhere would begin to relieve the immediate pressure on Venice. Venice was 5 million ducats in debt. For 8 years Venice had been devastated by the endless maneuvers of huge armies. Only the wars of religion, reformation and counter- reformation, saved Venice from being finally crushed.
Venice had survived. There remained the question as to how this small and weak state could hope to impose its oligarchical axioms on future humanity. Part of the answer was the metastasis of the Venetian oligarchical cancer to take over a large modern state. For this the Venetians eventually chose England, the power that had been most friendly during the late war.
But the roots of Venetian and Byzantine influence in England were much deeper. The Danish Viking invaders who opposed Alfred were instruments of the Byzantine Empire, whose influence reached Scandinavia along the Varangian way through Russia. The Norwegian army that invaded England in 1066 was commanded by a Byzantine general, Harold Hardrada. During the 1200′s Henry III of England was bankrupted by loans masterminded by the Venetians. When Edward III started the Hundred Years’ War against France around 1340, he was an instrument of Venice, since the Venetians wanted to prevent France from interfering with their wars against Genoa. The Wars of the Roses had been fought by factions manipulated by the Venetians, who viewed Wat Tyler’s rebellion and Wycliff’s Lollards as a dress rehearsal for Luther. Venetian factions were dominant at the court of Henry VIII. So the Venetians moved their family fortunes and their characteristic world outlook to England.
But the move to England and the creation of a British Empire were only part of the answer. As long as the forward motion of Renaissance science continued, the Venetians, the British, and all the others would be forced to imitate it and duplicate it, on pain of being militarily defeated. But the irrational domination of oligarchs could not coexist with continuous progress in science and technology. The Venetians could not simply attack science from the outside. They needed to seize control of science and corrupt science from within.
This task fell to the Venetian intelligence leader Paolo Sarpi, who lived from 1552 to 1623. Sarpi became one of the most famous persons in Europe through his role as Venetian propaganda boss during the Pope’s Interdict against Venice in 1606-1607. Sarpi authored the assassination of King Henry IV of France in 1610. And, with the help of his assets at the court of Frederick V in Heidelberg, Sarpi was decisive in starting the Thirty Years’ War, which killed half of the population of Germany and one third of the population of Europe as a whole.
Yet, Sarpi’s most lasting achievement is the launching of the European Enlightenment, including both the Bacon- Hobbes- Locke- Newton- Berkeley- Hume English empiricism and the Descartes- Voltaire- Rousseau- French Encyclopedia school. Sarpi was one of the greatest corrupters of science and philosophy.
Sarpi was a Servite monk of modest origins who rose to be number two in his order. Early in life, he became an admirer of William of Ockham, one of the stupidest of the medieval nominalist philosophers. Sarpi was also a follower of Pomponazzi, the Venetian professor who argued that man has no soul.
Sarpi lived in Rome and knew the main personalities of the Counter- Reformation, including Carlo Borromeo, Roberto Bellarmino, Pope Sixtus V, and the future Pope Urban VII. Sarpi soon became a creature of the Contarini and Morosini families, who were committed to the Venetian metastasis into northern Europe. The Contarini- Morosini faction, called the Giovani party, became dominant in Venice during the 1580′s. Sarpi became, in the words of the papal nuncio, the boss of half of Venice, and ran a salon for Calvinists and libertines which the Vatican attacked as an “academy of errors.”
The leading British authority on Sarpi is H.R. Trevor-Roper, now Lord Dacre, who calls the friar an “indefatigable polymath” or master of all the sciences. In reality, Sarpi was the chief corrupter of modern science, the greatest charlatan of all time. It is his doctrines which are taught in the universities today.
In astronomy and physics, Sarpi was the case officer who directed the work of the Padua professor Galileo Galilei. Galileo wrote that Sarpi was a mathematician unexcelled in Europe, and contemporaries recognized that Sarpi had been the adviser, author, and director of Galileo’s telescope project. Galileo’s observations were done from Sarpi’s monastery. The telescope itself had been invented by Leonardo. Galileo was until the end of his life a paid agent of the Sarpi group.
Sarpi also tried to build up a reputation as an expert on magnetism, which fascinated him because of its magical overtones. In this he was praised by G.B. della Porta, the author of Magia Naturalis. Sarpi was also famous as a mathematician, and probably wrote a treatise of mathematics which was lost when his monastery burned in 1769. Sarpi had studied the French mathematician Francois Viete. In anatomy, the Venetians attempted to prove for many years that Sarpi had been the first to discover the valves in human veins, and even that he had been the first to describe the circulation of the blood, well before Harvey.
Sarpi wrote A History of the Council of Trent, and his influence on historiography has been immense. John Milton is the English author who praises Sarpi at the greatest length. Milton used Sarpi as a major source, and praised him as the “great unmasker” of the papacy. Edward Gibbon, the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was the leading historian of the British Venetian Party during the eighteenth century. In his great tome, Gibbon wrote: “Should Rome and her religion be annihilated, [Sarpi's] golden volume may still survive, a philosophical history and a salutary warning.” Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the Venetian Party historian of the nineteenth century, was also an admirer of Sarpi. For today’s Lord Dacre/Trevor- Roper, Sarpi was simply the greatest among all Catholic historians. So Sarpi was indeed a prodigy among oligarchs.
But what of Sarpi the philosopher? Sarpi never published a work of philosophy, but the Venetian archives were found to contain his philosophical manuscripts, the “Art of Thinking Well” (Arte di Ben Pensare) and the “Thoughts” (Pensieri), which were published in 1910 and again more fully in 1951. Here we find that Sarpi created the basis of modern empiricism. His method was to assert that scientific truth was to be found not in Aristotle, but rather written in mathematical characters in the great book of life. The way to get this truth was to use sense certainty, exactly as Aristotle had recommended. Many of Aristotle’s specific conclusions could be junked, but his method and thus his overall domination could be preserved.
Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes both understood Italian. They and their protector, the Earl of Devonshire, corresponded with Sarpi and his group, with Hobbes doing the translation. Hobbes visited Venice in September, 1614 and probably met Sarpi. Bacon’s inductive method is simply a bowdlerization of Sarpi.
Hobbes belonged to the Sarpi networks all his life. The plan for Hobbes’ career as a writer emerged from his meeting with Galileo in 1636, when Galileo suggested that Hobbes write a book of ethics according to the mathematical- geometrical method. All his life Hobbes went around blathering that motion was the only thing that mattered. One of Sarpi’s Pensieri reads: “From the weakness of man derives his characteristic of living in society, but from man’s depravity derives the need to live under a supreme authority….” [405] This, along with Sarpi’s favorite theme of church-state conflict, is the substance of Hobbes’ Leviathan. When Hobbes lived in Paris during the English civil war, he rubbed elbows with Venetian assets like Mersenne, Descartes, and Gassendi. Hobbes and Descartes quarreled, but also partied together.
Then there is the question of Locke. Lord Macauley and other English writers treat Sarpi as one who anticipated Locke. In reality, Locke was a plagiarist of Sarpi. And for this we have the testimony of no less a personage than a mid-eighteenth century doge of Venice, Marco Foscarini. The doge writes that Sarpi’s “Art of Thinking Well” is “the original from which Locke copied.”
Locke’s first book argues that the mind is a blank slate without any inborn or innate ideas. This meshes exactly with Sarpi, who with Aristotle and Pomponazzi tries to show that nothing enters the mind except through the senses. The corollary of this is that there is no human soul.
“Every body which moves operates on what it touches,” is Sarpi’s point of departure. Sarpi “shows how external objects operate on our senses, distinguishing between the object which creates the sensation and the sensation itself.” The sensations we feel are not qualities of the objects, but phenomena of our intellect. The senses deliver the sensations through the nervous system. Then discursive reasoning or the active intellect comes into play with ideas of number and size. The discursive reasoning orders, combines, and compares sense-ideas which have been stored in memory.
This is all closely parallel to Locke’s second book. In “Art of Thinking Well,” Sarpi writes that “knowledge by experience is of greater certainty than knowledge through reason, and no reason can ever manage to equal experience.” Locke’s second book states that all our knowledge is founded on and derives itself from experience. Experience comes from sensation or from reflection, reflection on the sense impressions already stored in the brain. Sarpi also discusses reflection, distinguishing between cognition and later reflection on that same cognition.
Sarpi admits compound ideas, made up of more than one simple sense impression, and so does Locke. Sense impressions in general do not err, says Sarpi, although sometimes impaired vision and the like will cause distortions, and discursive reasoning can become confused. Locke’s second book has similar remarks, with a discussion of color blindness. Both devote space to methods for fixing mistakes in processing sense ideas.
Sarpi argues that the intellect orders ideas according to notions of genus, species, and essence. For Locke, “all the great business of genera and species, and their essences… amounts to no more than this: That… men… enable themselves to consider things in bundles….” [II.31] From these bundles, Sarpi goes on to definitions and then to axioms (ipolipsi). Locke prefers to address axioms as maxims, and he argues that they are of limited utility, serving mainly to win debates. Sarpi is even more pessimistic, asserting that knowledge is actually harmful, and that animals are better off in their natural ignorance than we are.
Sarpi and Locke also agree on the value of syllogisms, which they also consider to be quite limited. Sarpi warns that syllogisms can often be perverse in form. Locke, wanting to show that he is fully modern and in no way a scholastic or schoolman, also denies every claim made for the syllogism – although he hastens to add that this does not in the least diminish the prestige of Aristotle.
Sarpi ends with some notes on language, saying that words were invented not to identify things, but rather the ideas of the speaker. Locke reproduces this argument in toto, stating that “…all words… signify nothing immediately but the ideas in the mind of the speaker.” [II.32] Sarpi regards words as sources of confusion and errors, as does Locke.
Most of Locke’s modern editors and biographers make no mention of Sarpi. But the catalogue of Locke’s library shows a lively interest in the Venetian. Locke owned Sarpi’s works in 6 volumes, Sarpi’s histories of the Council of Trent and of the Inquisition, Sarpi’s Italian letters, his history of Pope Paul IV, plus Micanzio’s first biography of Sarpi, for a total of 13 books
Sarpi uses 22 pages, while Locke requires just short of 1000. But there is no doubt that Sarpi, whatever his obscurity, is the founder of modern British empiricism and as such the chief philosophical charlatan of the British Empire and the English- speaking peoples, including many Americans today. In this way, Sarpi has become the most popular and influential thinker of the modern world. The dead hand of Paolo Sarpi is reaching out of his sarcophagus once again, threatening to throttle world civilization.
" "Tell the girls I love them very much and I love you. I have to get off the 'phone. I am going to ring Bob and beg in my knees for Bob to let me see my babies."He sounded desperate.
Throughout the three years of fighting Bob GELDOF, he would repeatedly say "Don't forget I'm above the law." This sort of behaviour intimidated us because he truly believes he is above the law and has acquired substantial influence and power since Live Aid."
"Michael wanted to see us all. He didn't sound like he had much more than a drink. After I had been told Michael was dead, I rang Bob and said,"What did you say to Michael?" He said, "It was only a two minute 'phone call." I said, "Are you happy he is dead?"He said "Of course not."In his sarcastic voice he said "I'm distraught." When he said that he gave a little laugh. I said "Michael is dead. The girls think of him as their father."I ended the call.
Michael couldn't fight GELDOF. Michael was a very sensitive and caring man, and GELDOF is evil. "
Paula Yates,
New South Wales Police Voluntary Witness Statement,
"In 1997, we made a documentary on the 30th anniversary of the Georgia Straight newspaper, "The Last Streetfighter".*
This is the uncut interview we did with Bob Geldof KBE for the doc.
The interview happened the day after Michael Hutchence of INXS killed himself. Bob was very gracious to continue with our plans to do the interview in his home."
* - Suspected British Intelligence Front - See Below:
Bob Geldof is nota professional musician - he is a hack music journalist who acquired a backing band.
Okay- so The Georgia Strait was neverprofitable, always in legal trouble, constantly clashing with the Vancouver city authorities and struggled every single week to pay it's staff....
Geldof traveled to Canada (with his girlfriend, he claims), with the intention of becoming a Gold Miner. (yes, really - he claims he was working in an abattoir in Dublin one month, then in Canada on the promise of being a Gold Miner the next month).
This is despite his having attended the Dublin equivalent of Eton College - and the Queen only ennobles confirmed, avowed loyalists.
Somehow he ended up as a writer for a non-profitable, environmentally conscious "underground" (but nothing of the kind) newspaper...
Britain’s Pacific War Against the United States in the Age of the Anglo-American ‘Special Relationship’
Against Oligarchy
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
"During the 1964 interrogation of Anthony Blunt, the fourth of the Cambridge triple agents to become known to the public, Blunt is reported to have revealed that the Canadian Herbert Norman, another Cambridge undergraduate of the 1930′s, had been recruited by the KGB. Norman had died, allegedly through suicide, in 1957. Norman had been a member of Gen. MacArthur’s staff in Tokyo and had attracted the suspicions of Gen. Willoughby, MacArthur’s intelligence chief. Norman was a close associate of Sir Lester Pearson, at that time the Canadian External Affairs Minister and later to become the Canadian Prime Minister. James Barros has asserted in his book No Sense of Evil that Norman, while serving in Tokyo in 1950, played a role in encouraging Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang to launch the invasion of South Korea.
Barros writes: “In this context we must scrutinize Pearson’s trip to Tokyo in February 1950. During that visit General MacArthur explained to him and to Norman Washington’s policy in Asia and that its defense perimeter in the region did not include Korea, as it was not vital to America’s security. MacArthur’s comments were in line with Dean Acheson’s speech a month earlier when he told the National Press Club that America’s defense perimeter In Asia ran from the Aleutian Islands to Japan and from there to the Ryukyu and Philippine Islands…. Acheson’s public comments could not have gone unnoticed in Moscow. Keeping in mind MacArthur’s military role in Asia, his February remarks to Norman and to Pearson, the foreign secretary of a friendly and allied country, would have stimulated Moscow to favor a possibly low-risk North Korean invasion of South Korea. In other words, in addition to other information available to Moscow, MacArthur’s comments, if conveyed to the Soviets by Norman – which might have been done – could have led to the assumption that such a scenario would evoke no American response.”
[Barros, pp. 137-8]
Pearson was one of the most important British Empire political operatives during the postwar decades. In reviewing Pearson’s role in protecting the career of Norman, Barros reviews evidence compiled by the US Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and speculates that “one might even dare to think the unthinkable — that Pearson was Moscow’s ultimate mole.” [Barros, p. 169] Some years earlier the Canadian Prime Minister MacKenzie King had officially stated that Canada had been used as a base for espionage activity against the US."
James Barros, No Sense of Evil: Espionage,
The Case of Herbert Norman
(Canada: Deneau, 1986).
"War Plan Red"
London's Canada-based Spy Network within the United States was incredibly extensive from 1940 onwards - and continued afterwards.
Originally set up by Sir William Stepehenson (The Man Called Intrepid), the extent of their criminal destabilisation knew no bounds - from fixing the selection of the Vice President of the United State in the 1944 Election, to the assassination of President Franklin Roosevelt.
And the Irregulars (as they were known) used writersand artistsas cover professions....
Roald Dahl is famous for his mischievous children’s stories. But as Jennet Conant reports in “The Irregulars,” he was also a British spy. Conant, who has written popular accounts of the secret development of radar and the atomic bomb, shows that Dahl, a former R.A.F. hero, parachuted himself into Washington blue-blood circles in 1942 and used his embassy post to begin spying on Britain’s closest and most important ally.
Like his chums Noël Coward and Ian Fleming, both of whom also assisted British intelligence during the war, Dahl was firmly in the tradition of the amateur gentleman-spy, and in Washington he soon acquired a taste for a lavish lifestyle that he never lost. To the end of his life, Conant writes, Dahl demanded that his publisher dispatch a Rolls-Royce to collect manuscripts from his home. In Washington, where the grand parties and salons depicted in the Henry Adams novel “Democracy” lingered on, Dahl’s combat record, good looks and charm made him a prize social catch.
Dahl’s entry into Washington high-life was immeasurably smoothed by the avuncular Texas newspaper magnate and oil tycoon Charles Edward Marsh, who had moved to the capital to aid the New Deal. Marsh, who lived in a 19th-century mansion in Dupont Circle, introduced Dahl to his friends. Soon, Dahl was hobnobbing with Eleanor Roosevelt during weekends at Hyde Park, where he also met the president, allowing him to become, Conant expansively concludes, “a back-channel conduit of information” to Churchill.
In 1943 a crafty Canadian industrialist and associate of Winston Churchill, William Stephenson, tapped Dahl to join his spy network, British Security Coordination. Stephenson’s original mandate had been to help push America into World War II. After Pearl Harbor, he was assigned to keep tabs on America’s postwar plans and to counter any lingering isolationist sentiments. Despite America’s entry into the war, a number of conservative newspapers and socialites remained rabid Roosevelt haters and loathed the British Empire. Many of them lived in Washington; according to Conant, “with the playgrounds of Europe closed to tourists, moneyed society was forced to stay home, and Washington was brimming with wealthy dowagers and their bored, unmarried daughters.” What the journalist Joseph Alsop later called the “WASP ascendancy” ruled Washington social life.
Dahl befriended the publisher of the reactionary Washington Times-Herald, Eleanor (Cissie) Patterson, whom Roosevelt had denounced as a social “parasite” more interested in giving tea parties than in aiding the war effort. There was also the hostess Evalyn Walsh McLean, whose son-in-law, Senator Robert Rice Reynolds of North Carolina, had initially blamed the Pearl Harbor attack on the British who, Conant writes, now “monitored his every move.”
McLean, who never received her guests without the 45 1/2 carat Hope diamond dangling from her neck, made Dahl a regular at the glamorous Sunday night dinners she presided over in her Massachusetts Avenue manor house, which featured dance orchestras, previews of first-run movies and a hundred or more guests per gathering. According to Conant, “all Dahl had to do was keep up a cheerful front and eavesdrop his way through the yawning Sunday breakfasts, hunt breakfasts, luncheons, teas, tea dances, innumerable drinks parties, banquets and not infrequent balls.”
Certainly Dahl, as Conant shows, was not slow in compiling a remarkable record in wooing heiresses and dowagers. Conant numbers among his conquests the beautiful congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce and the even more stunning Standard Oil heiress Millicent Rogers, who had eloped to Paris at age 19 with one Count Ludwig Salm von Hoogstraten and, after her divorce, lived in an 18th-century manor in Virginia that was, we learn from Conant, stuffed with a trove of Empire and Biedermeier furniture. Indeed, “inspired by her eclectic finds, from the group of antique clocks to a cluster of superb drawings by Watteau, Fragonard and Boucher,” Conant says, “Dahl vowed that as soon as he had enough put away, he would begin buying paintings for a modest collection of his own.”
Years later, Conant writes, Ian Fleming, about to publish his first James Bond novel, “Casino Royale,” would irk Dahl by having an affair with Rogers in Fleming’s Jamaican retreat, Goldeneye. How much does all this have to do with the Second World War? Dahl's stream of gossipy reports about the doings of the Washington glitterati were nectar for London, which was terrified the Roosevelt administration would turn hostile after the war ended. Every government, then and now, is always keen to learn the inside dope. But what Conant never makes quite clear is whether Dahl ever supplied any information of real consequence.
Conant herself is so entranced by the glistening details she has managed to excavate from oblivion that she never provides a coherent narrative. It's a pity such a diligent researcher and gifted writer has produced a mere trifle so conspicuously lacking the verve and panache of Dahl himself.
"All they that love not tobacco and boys are fools."
Remark attributed to Marlowe from the testimony of Richard Baines,
a government informer, 1593.
"Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose ... I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of flesh, between people ... paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, 'I believe this is in fact part of God's will.'"
Ralph Underwager, 'expert' witness for the defense in scores of child abuse cases and former vocal member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, in an interview in Paidika (a pro-pedophilia publication), conducted in June 1991
'The Pedophocracy' is term coined by David McGowan. It is the title of his book on the subject of pedophilia as an Elite habit and one of the main tools of control of the visible ruling elites, by those not so visible.
Of all human vices and perversions, pedophilia is probably judged the most shameful and outrageous in the public mind. It thus has vast potential as a source of control.
This is a deeply disturbing subject. In similar fashion to the proposition that elements of the State use terrorist false-flag attacks against their own populations to further their agendas, the public at large simply cannot accept that the very worst depravities of child sexual abuse could be systematically cultivated and used by those same elements as a calculated and deliberate means of Machiavellian control. Many people simply do not want to be told such things - which renders them all too readily reassured by the odd sacrificial minnow. Outrage is thus indulged for a while before relapse into the consensus trance of everyday routine, where fear of strangers and the dark are relegated to the subconscious and the odd bad dream.
To be enlisted to the 'Pedophocracy Novitiate' so-to-speak is a temptation difficult for the psychopathic personality type that aspires to power to decline. To become a 1st degree member is to sell one's soul - and there are probably thirty-odd higher degrees each capable of 'making an offer that cannot be refused' by their 'juniors'. Standard military discipline simply cannot hold a candle to it; Special Forces/SIS-type skills and disciplines clearly make extensive use of the victims of it.
There is a large body of information available on the internet for those with the stomach for it. The deeper the investigation, the greater the unpleasant realisation that the phenomenon is so fundamentally ingrained in Western Establishment power structures that to pursue the truths of the matter is as potentially dangerous as it is stomach churning.
