Official Edgar Rice Burroughs Tribute and Weekly Webzine Site
Since 1996 ~ Over 10,000 Web Pages in Archive
Volume 1798a
R.E Prindle's Themes and Variations:
The Tarzan Novels Of Edgar Rice Burroughs
Presents
The Deconstruction Of
Edgar Rice Burroughs
America
Part 2 of 7
By R.E. Prindle

The Deconstruction Of Edgar Rice Burroughs America by R.E. Prindle

---

II. Organizing The Unorganizable

---

Don't you leave me here,
No, don't you leave me here,
And if you must go, Sweet Pollyanne
Leave a dime for beer.
                               Trad.

     There has at present been no good history of America written.  All histories have been written by partisan Liberals with no real attempt to deal with multi-culturalism in an objective manner.  While not comprehensive here I do attempt to get at some underlying cultural motives of what was and is actually being attempted by the various cultures and the ends they pursue.

     The key problem for American history is why the Civil War was fought.  Contrary to propaganda it wasn't over the issue of Black slavery.  None of the cultures involved had ever been opposed to slavery historically although the moral issue did evolve in Europe and the United States leading to the abolition of the slave trade at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

     The cultural roots of the conflict do not begin in the US but go back to the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066.   Nor do either of the cultures involved talk about the real issues; they project then a false or surrogate issue.  The issue is not the issue and seldom is.

     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 per se.  According to David Hackett Fisher in his Albion's Child the post-Conquest Norman colonies had kept slaves a mere hundred years before the regicide of Charles I.

     The East Anglians themselves 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 South took no part in the procurement of slaves.  The slave trade was run in part by New England seamen who took the profits of the trade.  Thus both the Puritans of New England and the Cavaliers of Virginia both had no particular aversion to the concept of slavery.  The true issue was not whether but who.

     The scepter of the chosen people had been literally transferred from the Hebrews to their successors, the inhabitants of England in the years following the conquest of 1066.  This is a real fact.  The substance is found in the story of the Holy Grail.  The complete Lancelot-Grail.  The monarchs of England are anointed according to the Jewish rites of David as administered by the high priest, Zadok.

     When printing made inexpensive bibles possible, the East Anglians immediately associated themselves with the Israelites, who had been slaves in Egypt according to the text of the bible.  Already of the new chosen people of England the East Anglians identified completely with the Hebrews of the bible becoming, if not in fact, at least as mental projection the same.  They adopted Hebrew customs, or attempted to, to the letter.

     As stiff-necked as the originals they made themselves as unpopular among the other colonials who despised them even running them out of communities from time to time.  Their arch enemies, the Norman Cavaliers of the southern counties of England followed the East Anglians to the New World when Charles I was beheaded.  They established themselves in Virginia and the South.  The East Anglians glared at them over the barrier of the middle colonies.  And then at some point they found a casus bellus in Negro slavery.

     Negro slaves were not the issue - they were the good reason; the former enslavement of the East Anglians was the real reason.  Others might fight for the former reason but not the latter.

     I doubt if few Westerners can be found to defend slavery yet slavery was the natural order of things.  If you are a Liberal your view of slavery will be very narrow concentrating on the Atlantic trade.  Facts don't matter to the religious mind but they do the scientific mind.   Thus slavery was endemic to Africa.  Every African was a slave and possession of  their king who could and did dispose of their bodies anyway he chose.  But it was just as natural for the African to enslave any other people who came his way who were not strong enough to maintain their freedom.  Thus while African slaves poured out of Africa, having been sold by their chiefs, into the Atlantic trade other millions gushed from Africa to the Semitic East destined for Arabia, Iran and India.

     While Africans were leaving Africa, Africans raided the shores of Europe abducting Europeans to endure worse treatment than Africans ever did in the South.

     Yes, slavery is wrong, is bad, but there are absolutely no innocents.  All, all are guilty of the same crime against humanity.  Now that we've got that straight we can deal with the attitude of the East Anglians toward the Cavaliers of the South during that period called Reconstruction that ran in its first form from 1865 to 1877.  Edgar Rice Burroughs was two years old when Reconstruction ended.

     The term chosen for this period is instructive.  What changes were to be made?  How was the South to be re-constructed and according to whose vision?  Why, according to the whims and fancies of the South's arch enemy the East Anglians of New England - read New East Anglia.  In 1865 these people had been souring their intellects on the Hebrew writings for four hundred years or so.  Let that fact sink in.  For four hundred years - that's a very long time - these people had been chanting refrains like - The Lord shall deliver my enemy to me and I will smite him hip and thigh.  Take a moment to dwell on this bitter, dare I say evil, doctrine of the Anglians.  I grew up with this horrid doctrine and maybe you did too.  Well, the Cavaliers could expect no mercy from these deep-dyed bigots and they didn't get any.

     At the same time the Anglians were self-righteous, that is say, not honest.  They considered themselves the most virtuous of men and women just as did their fellow biblicals, the Hebrew Children.  You have to remember that nearly everyone believed that God literally rescued the Hebrew Children from the fiery furnace.  The Puritan was a justified sinner; wrong in their hands became right.  What they chose to believe was just; there could be no other opinion, no reasonable objection.  The essence of bigotry.

     At this precise psychological moment American Liberalism came into existence.  Liberalism was equated with virtue; opposition was evil.  It is that simple.  In order to believe it no one can call you on it, so opinion must be strictly controlled; no dissenting allowed.  Anyone thinking otherwise must be demonized.  Thus the conflict that will run throughout American history.

     The Anglians had their enemy where they wanted them.  Left to their own untrammeled desires I have no doubt that they would have annihilated every white person, that is to say, Norman Cavalier, in the South.  Genocide runs like a red thread through the Liberal left from La Vendee through the Eastern European aftermath of the Great War through the Hitler/Stalin genocidal programs to Mao, Pol Pot and beyond.  It must be remembered that members of the FDR administration pressed for the genocide of Germans after WWII.  Genocide is part of the Liberal mentality.

     But the more placid people of the middle colonies limited their hopes for a genuine holocaust.  If the Anglians had been able to succeed in their 'reconstruction' plans the crime against humanity would have far exceeded anything that happened up to 1950 although the Red Mao takes the prize in the genocide contest for pure numbers.

     The reconstructed society would have reversed the pre-war situation dispossessing the Southern Whites while making them the virtual slaves of the Blacks.  You see, if slavery was the issue it wasn't Black slavery but how to impose slavery on the descendants of the Normans as the latter had imposed it on the Anglians.

     As with all Leftists, the Anglians were unscrupulous disregarding all conventions and rules.  That they didn't disregard the Law was only because they were able to make the laws to serve their purposes.  Quite simply, right was equated with their desires, wrong with anything that refused to follow them.  You can see the making of the Old Testament Hebrew based religion slowly displacing that of the Founding Fathers.  As I have said before, religion equals bigotry, which is as a religion must be.

     The Anglian program was so unjust and transparent that reasonable men in the country instinctively opposed it while the men of the South who were directly affected took up covert armed resistance as they ought to have and must have done.

     Liberal denial of their program began with their defeat while the true horrors of this genocidal holocaust have been swept under the rug and never discussed historically.  The Liberals, however, did not give up the war because they lost this battle.  They continued to vilify the South and Southerners.  One has only to look at how the South has been portrayed in movies of the last eighty years or so to understand the slander.  Much of the trouble in the South today is the result of the implacable hatred of the Anglians now converted to the arrogant hatred known as Liberalism.  The second Reconstruction goes on today under the Leftist understanding of multiculturalism.

     The enemy of the Liberal religion became, just as with the Hebrew bible, anyone who refused to endorse and follow their program.

     Prominent among these was a man of the generation of the 1850s who was revered by the people of his and the next couple generations.  The tumultuous times of the twentieth century took their toll on this man who attempted to live the 'strenuous life,' Theodore Roosevelt.  Too close to the men and the times to see it clearly, this man led such a full life, unreflected in his too short autobiography, to remember to tell all that much about it.

     Born in 1859 TR had seen America during Reconstruction and before the vast influx of immigration that began in the 1870s.  He had seen the America of legend and even took part in it.  He had been a rancher in the Dakotas when the West was yet unwon.  He had been the Police Commissioner of New York City at the height, if there ever was a high or low, in corruption in that most wide open town where anything went and did.  It is only by some strange myopia that untrammeled vice in the major cities of the United States is not recognized for far exceeding whatever vice has gone on before.  Very peculiar.  De Sade could have learned something in Hollywood.  TR had been President of the United States from 1900 through 1908 riding in on the coattails of the assassinated President McKinley whose VP he was.

     These were tumultuous times, sure, when weren't they, as America sought to adjust to rapid changes, assimilating  the Western conquests of the nineteenth century, trying to absorb scientific, technological and economic changes occurring with bewildering rapidity, while trying to reconcile differences in a rapidly growing immigration of diverse cultures.

     Everyone who came to America seemed to be nursing a centuries or millennia old grudge they couldn't give up against someone.  The East Anglians had a half millennium old grudge against the Norman Cavaliers.  The Irish had an even longer grudge against all the English.  The Sicilians had a grudge that went on no one know how long or against whom.  Perhaps the grudge was antediluvian going back to when the sunny Mediterranean was unflooded.  Probably even before the Sicels were know as Sicels.  And then there was the paragon of grudge holders going back four millennia  against all mankind, the Jews.  Not to mention the Negroes who had only begun to nurse their grudge against the Whites of  America.  The United States became a seething cauldron of hate with all these haters joining forces with the Liberals to form a coalition to Reconstruct anyone who disagreed with any of their programs.  The coalition was coming together during TR's presidency.

     While TR might have run for president in 1908 he instead 'appointed' a successor he believed would continue his policies then went off to shoot lions and tigers in Africa.  (Oops, did I say tigers?  Everyone knows there are no tigers in Africa.)  By the time he came back and realized his error he wanted to be President again.  Rejected by the Republican Party he foolishly decided to run on a third party Progressive or 'Bull Moose' ticket.  Disastrously splitting the Republican vote he allowed the ineffably destructive Woodrow Wilson to become the first Liberal, or even Red, President.

    He threw himself into ineffective opposition although too late.  When the War began in 1914 he was for immediate intervention on the side of England and France in a European struggle that could have no real influence on the the United States.  The status quo would have assumed a different temporary form, that is all.  If the Soviets couldn't impose their will on subject Europeans for more than a very few decades how then could have the Germans?  The consequences of the War would have had to have been dealt with one way or the other, that's all.   When the US did enter how effective was the Liberal Wilson's intervention?  The next twenty-five years tell the story.  More tens of millions of deaths.  Furious with Wilson for staying out TR vociferously berated him.  Quite violent language.

     When war came to America, inflaming the American population, so diverse and multi-cultural, questions of loyalty arose.  TR, who like so many had never examined the motives of the immigrants but expected them to embrace 'American' ideals, asked whether Ameria was no more than an international boarding house.  And, he might have added, nothing more than something to be merely plundered.

     And then in 1919 he died.

     Backing TR all the way was that writer sitting at his desk in Chicago.  He'd been writing away furiously.  His best selling Tarzan Of The Apes was followed by numerous other books as well as a steady stream of Tarzan sequels.  In 1919 when TR died Edgar Rice Burroughs pulled up his Chicago roots heading for LA to begin his second, or was it his third, lifetime.  He was riding a crest of popularity as his creation, Tarzan, had become a household word.

     Burroughs had always been an admirer of TR.  He had even tried to join the latter's Rough Riders during the Spanish-American war.  Growing up in the eighties and nineties as he did, TR and his generation made an impact on his own development.  The Wild West was real to him.  The memory of the Wild West was a major influence on America through my youth until Hollywood began to demythologize it in favor of post-WWII Nazi influences drifting away from the moral and heroic model to cringing guilt and angst.

     During Burroughs' early Hollywood years real Western badmen and lawmen, real cowboys, men who had been there when it was happening, so rapidly it came and went, served as advisors and consultatnts for Western movies.  An important fact too easily glossed over is that Edgar Rice Burroughs experienced that West.  He had seen it first hand.  First in the midst of the Johnson County War in 1891 and in 1896-7 during his brief stint in Arizona awhen he took part in  suppressing Apache raids.

     I don't know if Burroughs scholars have yet related his first stay in Idaho with the Johnson County War going on in Wyoming.  There is a good chance that the murderer Burroughs talked of having known at that time was a fugitive from Wyoming's Johnson County.

     Burroughs was a great admirer of Owen Wister reading his Virginian six or seven times.  That book was about the Johnson County War in which the big ranchers tried to squeeze the little ranchers out.  It was a shooting war.  In Wister's Book the big ranchers pursued a member of the small ranchers into Idaho and lynched him as a 'murderer.'  Of course Wister and TR were great friends.

     Then too, Burroughs would have been familiar with the fabulous career of Buffalo Bill.  What a life Buffalo Bill led.  A showman capitalizing on his career in the West before Little Big Horn in 1876, he returned the next year to serve in the punitive campaign engaging and killing a Sioux chief by the name of Yellow Hand and then displaying the fancy clothes he had worn in the fight in his show.  Bill reenacted the Little Big Horn with the real Sitting Bull as an actor.  How mindblowing must that have been to a seventeen-year-old Edgar Rice Burroughs watching the show at the Columbian Expo in 1893 with all the intenseness of youth.  One imagines Burroughs hanging around the show hoping to get a glimpse of the hero up close and personal, perhaps even brushing past him with a shy, 'Hello, Bill.
 

    So this vision of what Greil Marcus is pleased to call Bad Old America was deeply graven on the character of Edgar Rice Burroughs, nor did he consider it Bad Old America.  That was the immigrant experience.

     At the same time, as a cross current, while he lived in Chicago he was to witness the tremendous immigrant invasion that took place from 1870 until the Great War did what no agitation could. It stopped it.  Burroughs witnessed the beginnings of the conflict between Marcus' Bad Old America and the American cesspool since created by his Culture that Marcus apparently believes is the Good New America.  He may be surprised that there are dissenters to his opinion.

     As a young boy at the time of the Haymarket Riot Burroughs watched immigrants, German in his memory, marching through the Chicago streets waving red flags and shouting down with America.  He visited the tremendous Jewish Community of Halsted and Maxwell Streets in which people piled on top of people to create the most densely populated location on the face of the earth in an attempt to prevent the dilution of their culture.

     One need only read Upton Sinclair's novel of the stockyards, The Jungle, to get an idea of what sights, sounds and smells seared the consciousness of a young man growing up in what was then considered the freest and greatest nation in the world;  and it was regardless of what hundreds of Greil Marcuses might think.  It was the Bad Old America that Greil Marcus' ancestors considered The Promised Land.  How attitudes change with circumstances.

     It was the freest but these immigrant cultures who were to make the United States the most polyglot nation in the world were chronically dissatisfied.  They brought their clotted politics with them projecting them on their new home before they even discovered what it was.

     A conflict between the Western dream of TR, Wister and Burroughs and the immigrant projection of America took shape.  There was still that conflict within the ranks of oldtime Americans, however.

     After Reconstruction ended, Liberals, who still projected the destruction of their Southern enemies, began to align themselves with the incoming discontented and hateful cultures to form a strange vision of utopia.  A fantastic dream that disregarded all reality.  The Liberals asked:  What if apples were oranges?  And then decided they could be.

     Perhaps H.G. Wells writing his 1921 effort The Salvaging Of Civilization, the title displays his own personal angst, expressed the essence of the fantasy.  P. 14:

It is, if people will but think steadfastly, inconceivable that there should be any world control without a merger of sovereignty, but the framers of these early tentatives toward world unity have lacked the courage of frankness in this respect.  They have been afraid of bawling outbreaks of patriotism, and they have tried to believe, that they contemplate nothing more than a league of nations, when in reality they contemplate a subordination of nations and administrations to one common rule and law.

    Wells here presents a masterly example of the studied disingenuous of the Liberal or in Orwellian terms, doublethink.

     The Liberal always denies his real intent preferring subterfuge to honest discussion.  In point of fact no Liberal objective will stand up to examination so, convinced of the rightness, or rather preferring their pleasant utopian projection, they feel the need to mislead and deny.

     In this quote Wells is actually admitting that Liberals are lying about their objective, further it is perfectly obvious they are lying.  As Wells admits here -- it is inconceivable that there should be any world control without a merger of sovereignty.  Disbelievers have called the Liberals on the issue.  Liberals have been lying says Wells.  Why?  Because they have been afraid of 'bawling outbreaks of patriotism.'

     Here, with consummate skill Wells defames those who disagree as irrational dissenters mired in a 'superstition' of the  past.  Their objections are not reasonable nor presented in a rational manner but are 'bawling outbreaks' hysterical, shrieking objections, one might say, of 'patriotism.'  Patriotism we have all been informed elsewhere is the 'last refuge of the scoundrel.'  Samuel Johnson, if I remember correctly.  Thus Wells characterizes any dissenters as irrational, hysterical scoundrels.  When you can't convince, defame.  Wells might as well have come right out and called the dissenters 'anti-Semites' and gotten it over with.

     Wells and his ilk, and I know he didn't honestly believe this, assume not only that all people are equal but that they are at the same level of civilization and psychology.  What is clear to anyone with a grain of sense is that they aren't.  The Asian psychology is incompatible to the Western and the African.  The Africans first made contact with  more than a stone age culture, came into real contact with a higher civilization, only a hundred fifty years ago.  They still have no concept of civilization as evidenced by Zimbabwe and the congeries of tribes in South Africa who when they have committed genocide against the Whites will renew all the old tribal conflicts.

     The only way to merge cultures is to the lowest denominator and that is the African.

     Wells assumes that all people see the problem as he and his Euroameican Liberals see it.  They don't.
China has always considered itself the Middle Kingdom - that is, the country around which all others revolve.  And it always has been except for the last couple hundred years.  Currently it is using economic means to reestablish that position.  I'll put it before you as plainly as I can.  People with that attitude do not merge with anybody; they assume overlordship of subservients.

     The same is true of the Semites who believe they have the mandate of god to rule mankind.  These are facts no one will dispute, you just have to apply them.

      On top of that each bears grudges against the others that they are unwilling to either forgive or forget.  Do the Liberals really believe the Africans don't want to avenge the ignominy of subjection to White, and White is the key problem, Euroamericans?  Five hundred years of resentment of the Normans by the Anglians led to the bloodiest war of all time and it isn't over yet.  Are the Liberals really so naive as to believe that Africans are just going to forgive and forget a mere hundred years after the fact?  They are mad, obtuse, crazy projectors.

     And then there's the question of Law.  Wells and Liberals apparently assume that Western Law will prevail.  Well, they forgot to ask the Moslems about that, who since their declaration of war against the world in the seventh century, will accept nothing less than their barbaric Sharia code.  How smart did you have to be to figure that one out.  Lothrop Stoddard had no difficulty.

     The Jews work quietly to overturn Western law in favor of the Talmudic.  The Chinese certainly favor authoritarian rule and African notions of law are real howlers.

     Is the recognition of these problems an outbreak of 'bawling patriotism?'  I don't think so.  Unless Wells and his Liberals are willing to defame intelligence itself.  Bad enough to defame another simply because they disagree with your blather.

     Immigration was a mistake from the beginning.  By what mode of reasoning men like Theodore Roosevelt believed that dozens of cultures could be mingled with their own without conflict is a mystery.  There was and is no possibility that such cultures with no attempt to define and understand them or even with it can be introduced without changing the dominant culture.  When TR asks is America just an international boarding house one has to regard him with some surprise.  Why, of course, how could it be otherwise?

     Even a population monster like China, which discourages immigration for obvious reasons is finding that it must give way to militant Moslemism.  Even while it seeks to destroy a number of other religions it is accommodating Moslems.  Strange, isn't it?  Must be some consanguinity in outlook.

     Thus Americans really surrendered their country when the Red President Woodrow Wilson assumed the Presidency.  That was when the Liberal Coalition took over.  A settlement house mentality of government where the superior Liberals looked after the not inferior but permanently less capable Negroes and immigrants.  The Liberals didn't yet think in terms of multi-culturalism, that was an immigrant Jewish invention, but they gave preference to Negroes and immigrants over Bad Old Americans who couldn't quite agree with them.  All who disagreed were equivalent with the the Southern Cavaliers.

     In future years Liberals would pervert the Law, to isolate those not of their merry band and submerge them beneath the rest just as they attempted to do during Reconstruction:  Affirmative Action=Reconstruction.

     In latter days they constructed a ladder of minorities which included even women and homosexuals while isolating the non-Liberal heterosexual White male.  These madmen poured out their hatred and scorn on these surrogates of the Norman invaders of 1066.

     Little of this was clear at the time, however, it suddenly dawned on some of the 'advanced' thinkers like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard that there was indeed a new direction to America that they didn't like.  A brief flurry of anti-immigration literature appeared from 1915 into the twenties but that was vigorously opposed by the Judaeo-Communist damage control propagandists.

     We can see how Wells and his Open Conspiracy functioned fairly clearly.  Let us turn now to the more obscure Revolution.

---

III. Organizing The Revolution
 To be cont.