Suffer, Little Children
by Revilo P. Oliver
A READER of Liberty Bell has sent me, apropos of my article on the sexual molestation of children in the August issue, a copy of the November 1991 issue of Inside News, a periodical published in Australia (P.O. Box 311, Maleny, Queensland, 4552).
That issue is devoted to describing and elucidating a scandal in the United States that the jewspapers have evidently succeeded in concealing from the public. Although it is merely typical of the normal functioning of the “Democracy” that Americans love, it has some instructive aspects that will justify a concise summary of it here.
When the Den of Thieves, commonly called the Congress, made arrangements for the looting of Building-and-Loan agencies, (1) their intention, no doubt, was to provide enormous plunder for sacred Sheenies and their accomplices, further to afflict the tax-paying animals, and to hasten the catastrophic collapse of the United States. It appears, however, that the swindle also served ancillary purposes.
(1. Cf. Liberty Bell, June 1990. pp. 37-46; November 1990, pp. 1-6.)
According to Inside News, which is my only source of what follows, the Franklin Federal Community Credit Union in Nebraska (2) had assets totalling $2,600,000 on its books when it became bankrupt in 1988 and it was discovered that $40,000,000 had disappeared down that rat hole. That is only commonplace now, but, according to the editor of Inside News, “private investigations have established links between the Franklin Credit Union and wholesale embezzlement of government funds, drug-money laundering, involvement in CIA covert operations, and a link to the Iran-Contra scandal. In fact, everything about the Franklin affair smacks of CIA involvement, perhaps even ultimate management.” Well, there is nothing really extraordinary about that, either.
(2. The Credit Union had its headquarters in Omaha, and must have been named in dishonor of Benjamin Franklin, since, so far as I know, there was no connection with the little town of Franklin or Franklin County, a rural area, with a total population of about 4500, on the southern border of Nebraska, southeast-by-south of Kearney. Nebraska is in the Middle West, which was once considered the most American part of the United States, but is now becoming as progressive as Tel-Aviv-on-the-Potomac and New Jerusalem-on-the-Hudson.)
The Credit Union, established professedly to benefit niggers and other carbuncles on the American body politic, was directed by one Larry King (race unstated), a person of great political influence and believed to be a personal friend of George Bush. After he magically made $40,000,000 vanish at the expense of the American boobs, Larry is said to have intended to appeal to his friend, George, but the Secret Service (which is charged with protecting the President, who was then Ronald Reagan) rushed Larry to a “mental hospital” for “psychiatric evaluation” and held him there, incommunicado, until his attorney had arranged to have thirty-seven indictments against him dismissed, in return for his pleading guilty to the three least serious charges, for which he was sentenced to a short vacation in prison. That, of course, is what usually happens, since American courts were effectively Judaized.
The financial scandal, however, uncovered another one that had been concealed by the authorities of the State of Nebraska. Since 1985, at least, jolly Larry had been operating, with some assistance from his various lover boys, a doubtless lucrative business, that of procuring children of both sexes from foster homes, apparently established for that purpose, (3) from the Catholic “Boys Town,” and from the “Girls’ Club of Omaha,” which had been founded and was run by the great philanthropist, Larry King. The children thus recruited were flown from time to time to Washington, where Larry maintained a residence, and forced to submit to every kind of sexual molestation and perversion for the delectation of men of high rank in the government that rules us.
(3. Cf. the McMartin Pre-school which I mentioned in August, p. 13.)
Inside News names as persons involved in the child-prostitution business in one way or another: the publisher of the Omaha World Herald, the newspaper with by far the largest circulation in Nebraska, who was the recipient of a special award from B’nai B’rith, the Jewish cowboys who ride herd of their American cattle; the society editor of the newspaper, who was later convicted of molesting children independently of Larry; a very wealthy owner of department stores, who was later convicted of “aiding and abetting (male) prostitution” after graver charges had been politely dropped, and fined the enormous sum of $500, which he was able to pay; the Federal Chief Public Prosecutor, who conducts hearings of the Federal Grand Jury, and, “a paedophile himself,” threatened and terrorized the witnesses who had been victims of Larry’s business; the Chief of the Omaha Police, who, according to an investigator’s report reproduced in facsimile, shared in the fun (and the cocaine); the Mayor of Omaha, ditto; Bush’s Secretary of Agriculture and Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and also Financial Officer of ConAgra, an enormous multi-national corporation with large holdings in Australia and elsewhere, which supplied the money to elect to the Nebraska Senate candidates who voted to drop investigation of Larry’s educational efforts; the Chancellor of the University of Nebraska, who was thrown out of that office for perverting male students and then appointed by Bush as head of the Agency for International Development; the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Union Pacific Railroad, who was Secretary of Transportation under Reagan, and identified as participating in Larry’s parties; an official of the Union Pacific who avoided prosecution for homosexual pandering when the railroad bought off the victim, and became the Foreman of the Douglas County Grand Jury that investigated Larry’s activities; another executive of the Union Pacific; and minor moguls of government and finance.
Three children gave testimony about what services Larry had required of them and about the customers of his child-whorehouse in Washington. A girl, Alisha, though threatened some fifteen times by agents of the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, refused to change her testimony; she was accordingly hauled into court, where she was represented by an attorney who, it was later discovered, was an agent of the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, and the girl, then 16, was sentenced to seventeen to twenty years in prison for “perjury.” (4) After having been thus taught how American courts work, the other two witnesses were cowed and silenced, especially after the Federal Bureau’s Agent in Charge in Omaha, a pal of both the publisher of the Omaha World Herald and the Omaha Chief of Police (who was a side-kick of enterprising Larry King), personally intervened to threaten the two victims with the vengeance of the FBI, if they persisted in their testimony, as Alisha had done.
(4. An effort to obtain her release was being made, but Inside News reports that Alisha in prison was ill with symptoms which were such that “there is little doubt that she is being slowly, systematically poisoned.” She may have died since November 1991.)
The Federal Bureau of Intimidation, however, was unable to intimidate one of its agents in Omaha, who charged one of his superiors with molestation, sexual perversion, and a sickening display of insane degeneracy that might have given pause to the “Marquis” de Sade; the FBI certified the snow-white innocence of the accused pervert, pacified the victim by paying him $1,500,000 extorted from the taxpaying boobs, and transferred the pervert to Chicago, where his amusements would attract less attention.
If you have noticed the normal operations of the Federal Government, e.g., to prevent disproof of Earl Warren’s attempt to cover up the assassination of Kennedy, you will not be astonished by the record in even the little affair of Larry King’s entertainments. Here is part of the record. King’s partner, Craig Spence, was identified by the Washington Times, 29 June 1989, as having taken a group of homosexual prostitutes on a tour of the White House, and having among his clients “key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides, and US and foreign business men with close ties to Washington’s political “elite”; the newspaper also reported that some of the call boys were suspected of being agents of Soviet espionage. Before Spence could be forced to testify, he was found dead in a Boston hotel, a “suicide.” The brother of Alisha, the girl who would not retract her testimony, was arrested on a minor charge and found hanged in his unlocked cell in the jail, leaving a “suicide note” that was not in his handwriting. The brother of another victim supposedly blew his brains out while playing Russian Roulette. One of King’s lover boys was suspected of intending to give evidence; he committed “suicide,” and his close associate died when he “fell” out of the window of a hotel. A man who organized some of King’s homosexual parties committed “suicide.” A Special Investigator, Gary Caradori, who had accumulated a vast amount of evidence about Larry King’s use of captive children, was killed, together with his young son, when his small airplane exploded in mid-air, and his files were promptly seized and sequestered by the Federal Bureau of Intimidation. The woman who first called attention to the enforced prostitution of children in a foster home was killed in an “automobile accident.” You see, your rulers are fairly thorough in covering up their spoor.
I have given you the essentials of the story; if you want details, see Inside News. I must add some comments adversely critical of that publication.
A Question of Race
One of the little girls taken to Washington to entertain our masters testified that at two of Larry’s parties she had recognized a man who seems to have looked in at the revel without actually participating; he was escorted by two White punks when he arrived, and he departed in the company of a male nigger. That seems to indicate that Larry’s festivities were multi-cultural and free from racial bigotry, thus corresponding to the ideals that have been injected into the dim consciousness of American boobs. But it is the only reference to race in the entire article, although there is an ambiguity in the description of a foster home that makes a suspicious reader wonder whether some, at least, of the children in it may not have been Congoids or mulattos. If the race of persons mentioned was thus concealed, as is done systematically in our jewspapers, that amounts to deception of the readers by omission of crucial data that would determine their appraisal of the entire narrative.
That the Australian publication, assuming that its American informant reported the facts accurately, was guilty of deception is shown by such information as I have obtained from other sources. A reliable source assures me that Larry King is a nigger, like his homonym in California, the vicious criminal who, you remember, was overtaken by the police and was then used by the Jews’ television to incite a prototype of civil war in Los Angeles and to befuddle the American public by showing them a carefully edited and thus lying excerpt from a video tape that recorded the arrest. (5)
(5. See Liberty Bell, August 1992, p. 23. I notice that my implied prediction has been fulfilled. As I write, the Congress is about to enact legislation to put cable television under the control of the Federal Communications Commission “to protect the public from excessive charges.” Now, if you are grown up, you know that when politicians begin jabbering about “protecting the public,” the only question is what act of theft or treason they intend to promote. The intent this time is to prevent a courageous operator of cable television from exposing the enormous frauds of the Jews’ electronic lie-machine. The public, obviously, is to be protected from information that might possibly induce rational thought in their lie-saturated and pickled brains.)
If the boob-tubes noticed the Nebraskan King’s escapades, they could not conceal the color of his hide, but the jewspapers, so far as I know, never mentioned his race. This is in keeping with the policy that Americans approve and praise, telling themselves that if the race of criminals was not concealed, some awful racial bigots might think it wrong for sweet niggers to rape White women, mug and rob White tax-paying animals, loot stores, break into homes, and otherwise enjoy the wholesome exercise and soul-satisfying recreation to which that noble and oppressed race is entitled by virtue of its moral superiority to Aryans, the lowest of all races. It is not surprising that the liepapers’ policy is approved by some fat-headed females stuffed with Christian love, but when an entire nation tolerates such systematic deception by publications on which it relies for information, that nation has obviously, if perhaps subconsciously, chosen to become extinct.
The Nebraskan King is a nigger. Most of his many associates, listed above, must be degenerate Americans (i.e., Aryans), but one wonders whether some, such as the Mayor and the Chief of Police in Omaha, are also niggers. Americans, you know, like to elect niggers to such offices to make sure that nigger rapists, robbers, and murderers will enjoy a maximum of protection from “racial harassment.” That makes the White boobs proud of themselves.
Since Larry is a nigger, the tentative suspicion aroused by the ambiguity I mentioned above becomes a virtual certainty: many of the children he carried to Washington to titillate the sexual perversity of our lords were pickaninnies. That makes us drastically revise our estimates of Larry’s crimes, because the sexual reactions of young Congoids differ enormously from the comparable reactions of Aryan children. That is obvious to anyone who considers the well-attested sexual mores of Congoids in their native habitat. But it is likely that, given the Americans’ insane infatuation with “multi-culturalism,” some of the victims were White children who had been forced to associate with young savages. If that is so, Americans generally were accomplices in Larry’s criminal activity.
It appears, therefore, that Inside News was engaged in a scandalous cover-up of the very kind that it deplores. We may now consider its principal aberration.
A Question of Identity
As I mentioned above, one of Larry’s childish whores claimed that she had recognized a man who, accompanied by White and nigger punks, had dropped in to watch the sexual games. That girl (race now in doubt) claimed that she, from pictures she had seen in the press and on television, recognized the man as George Bush, then Vice President.
Now no matter how much you may dislike our whilom War Lord, and even if you are convinced that he was responsible for all of the criminal and treasonable work of the CIA in recent years, you perceive at once how very uncertain is that identification by an excited adolescent. You can do no more than say that it is not flatly impossible. Yet the editor of Inside News has chosen to regard it as a virtual certainty, to make it the subject of his headline and the summary in large type on his first page, and to focus his entire article on it. That evinces a singular lack of either candor or judgement that will make most readers of his periodical suspect his bona fides. I report his article here only on the assumption that he based it on valid information received from a corespondent in the United States. (6)
(6. The account is validated by the report in the Spotlight, 1 June 1992, pp. 14-17, of a similar enterprise in California. As for progressive Larry’s other activities, the press has reported that he is now enjoying a forced vacation at public expense in recognition of the sleight-of-bookkeeping that made $40,000,000 vanish, and that the prosecuting attorneys declare that they magnanimously refrained from prosecuting for “selling drugs, belonging to a national child-abuse ring, and for being deeply involved in an Iran Contra money-laundering scheme.” It is not stated whether their magnanimity was excited by his racial nobility or by the fact that he was a satellite of the “elite” that rules us and is preparing us for total servitude in the New World Order for which the triumphant Kikes have worked for more than a millennium.)
A Question of Faith
There is another serious deficiency in the Australian periodical’s report. The recreations of Larry King and his pals are said to have included Satanism and appropriate rites, involving the sacrifice and dismemberment of at least one infant. The editor of Inside News regards those antics as evidence of real devil-worship and speculates rather wildly about occult powers and influences. That is probably a misunderstanding of a kind that frequently occurs.
The practice of Satanism need not presuppose any belief in supernatural beings. A case in point is the famous club founded by Sir Francis Dashwood (1708-1781) around 1752, before he became Baron Le Despenser. Often called the “Hell-Fire Club,” this society for debauchery and venery was known as the “Franciscans” and the “Monks of Medmenham,” since they met in the ruins of St. Mary’s Abbey on Sir Francis’s estate near Medmenham in Sussex. Sir Francis had had a large part of the abbey rebuilt, including the chapel, which had windows of stained glass portraying scenes of sexual intercourse, and probably statues of the appropriate gods, i.e., Priapus, the Egyptian god Min, Aphrodite, Angerona, et al., such as adorned the spacious gardens and groves surrounding it.
The Friars (also called Knights) of St. Francis were rational and well-educated gentleman who had no belief in celestial or infernal spooks, but they delighted in advertising their superiority to vulgar superstitions. A barge on the Thames brought them to the foot of the hill, and, wearing the white robes of Cistertian monks, they marched in solemn procession up to the Abbey, carrying votive candles in their hands and chanting loudly obscene parodies of Christian hymns. Their women, whose reputations they protected with gentlemanly care, were awaiting them, each wearing a vizard over the upper part of her face to preserve a precarious anonymity and increase pleasure with a certain mystery. The Friars, being civilized men, indulged in no animal sacrifices or similar nastiness, but they celebrated a Black Mass (7) as a preliminary to their erotic sports. One such mass, indeed, is remembered and some attribute to it consequences that made it of great historical significance, (8) but their only faith was in the infinite desirability of women and in their own venereal prowess.
(7. For a good description of a real Black Mass, see Joris-Karl Huysman’s La-bas. There must be an English translation.)
(8. Since this is a neat historical problem, I have summarized it in an excursus at the end of this article.)
Today, when orthodox Christianity, with its belief in Satan, is the creed of an ever dwindling minority, mockery of its rites and sacraments is no longer an exhilarating sport. Contemporary Satanism is of several distinct kinds. In the McMartin Pre-School it was obviously a device to terrorize and ensure the mindless submission of the children who had been selected to provide sexual entertainment for prominent “actors, sports figures, politicians.” It seems not to have served the same purpose in Larry’s business, where it was probably a pretext for sadistic and sometimes murderous amusements, as it was in the Manson “family” that was notorious a few years ago. It is true that there is also actual belief in Satanism, as in the other superstitions that are increasingly popular in our age of epidemic irrationality. Minds that have been so weakened that they can believe in the equality of races can believe anything. It is, however, likely that the faithful votaries of Satan, like the adepts of the “New Age” hokum and the dupes of Maharishis, are almost all innocuous simpletons, although they are dangerous and prodigiously evil in the estimation of “experts” who like to receive generous fees for lecturing about them.
At all events, the editor of Inside News and his readers need not worry about rumored attempts to “control the planet by channeling, focusing, and directing occult force.” Control of this planet is being sought and attained by forces that are not in the least supernatural and can invariably be exorcised by well-aimed bullets.
The Friars were godless men, but there is a latent residue of superstition in our biological inheritance. One ceremony in the chapel, lit only by the wavering light of black and perfumed candles, was long remembered. One of the Friars, the celebrated John Wilkes, procured a baboon, dressed him in scarlet apparel with horns, and confined him closely in a chest behind the high altar, from which, by means of a concealed wire, he released the baboon at the high point of the Black mass, when Satan is invoked. The enraged and frantic creature sprang from the chest with simian cries, gesticulating wildly and gibbering; the women shrieked and screamed as they fled; Lord Bute precipitately exited through the nearest stained-glass window; the Earl of Sandwich disgraced himself by falling on his knees and imploring a god to pardon and protect him; and the crazed ape lunged at Lord March, who either swooned or was petrified by terror. Other Friars of St. Francis were doubtless startled and may have been less conspicuously frightened, but they were soon laughing at Wilkes’ prank and at the members who had been terrified by an apparition in which no rational man could believe. And beneath their jests there was an unspoken awareness that the first and most indispensable virtue of an English gentleman was courage.
There are several versions of this story, which vary considerably in details but not in essentials, and Raymond Postgate in his biography of Wilkes, (1) suggests that the story may be apocryphal, but has to admit that the Franciscans temporarily suspended their meetings in 1763, and that a “practical joke by Wilkes” may have been the cause. What practical joke is more likely to have had that effect than one that made at least three noblemen show the white feather? That would also explain why Wilkes evidently ceased to be a member of the Franciscans, and why Sir Francis, who was never suspected of cowardice, and who maintained outwardly friendly relations with Wilkes, seems to have borne some grudge against him.
(1. That Devil Wilkes (2d ed., London, Dobson, 1956). (The title is taken from King George’s references to Wilkes.) This is the first real biography of Wilkes, as distinct from essays about how wicked he was, and is basic to consideration of his career. There are several later biographies of Wilkes, of which the best by far is Charles Chenevix Trench, Portrait of a Patriot (Edinburgh, Blackwood, 1962), which embodies a great deal of research into both the political and the social aspects of Wilkes’ career. The latest work that has come to my attention is by Louis Kronenberger, The Extraordinary Mr. Wilkes (New York, Doubleday, 1974). I have seen neither O.A. Sherrard’s A Life of John Wilkes (London, 1930) nor I.R. Christie’s Wilkes, Wyvill, and Reform (London, 1962) and know of them only through references in other books and articles. Wilkes was known to everyone of consequence in his time, and a vast amount of more or less reliable information about him, which no one has had the patience to collect, is scattered through the writings of his many contemporaries (Lord Chesterfield, Boswell, Gibbon, Horace Walpole, Lady Mary Montagu, and innumerable others), some of which I have read and remember. Neither Chenevix Trench nor Kronenberger doubt the story of Wilkes’ use of an ape or baboon at a Black Mass, although they follow different versions; but neither writer sees that the episode may have inspired resentment and hostility on the part of the noblemen whose latent superstition and cowardice was exposed by Wilkes’ prank, even though they know that the ceremonies of the Monks of Medmenham were temporarily (not permanently) suspended thereafter. The conduct of Lord Orford, who seems to have been the High Priest on this occasion, is variously reported, but he was a man of no political importance.)
Lord March and Lord Sandwich are known to have been Franciscans. The members usually brought friends to their rites as ‘acolytes’ or guests, and Lord Bute was a guest (he is mentioned as such, with an obscene double entente, in the Essay on Woman), as was Benjamin Franklin when he visited England.
Wilkes’ apish trick is plausibly said to have been the origin of the three noblemen’s bitter hostility toward him, and thus to have determined the course of his long and sensational political career. He probably owed to Lord Bute, who was the only trusted counsellor of George III, the King’s antipathy, but that could be explained as directed against an able spokesman of the Whig aristocracy, who denounced Bute’s policy of “peace at any price” and the Treaty of Paris.
The prosecution of Wilkes for owning and editing the North Briton was, of course, political, but even so one wonders at the reckless animus shown in his arrest on a warrant that was known to be unconstitutional and his arrest and imprisonment in defiance of the law that made members of the Parliament immune to arrest.
Although all governments are capable of astonishing folly, it is hard to believe that anything short of blind personal hatred by powerful men could have made the government subsequently take the outrageous step of persistently excluding Wilkes from a Parliament to which he was duly and repeatedly elected by a borough that was traditionally friendly to the ruling faction. Even if it was certain that Wilkes, though unprovoked, would join the vehement opposition, what could a single member of the House have done that was of political consequence? (2) And what conceivable political advantage could have outweighed the certain consequences of arrogantly violating the traditional constitution of the monarchy?
(2. Chenevix Trench has pointed out that the Opposition, which primarily represented family interests rather than national policies, was largely ineffectual so long as the “reversionary factor,” which had brought Bute and the ‘Tories’ to power, was in abeyance during the minority of the Prince of Wales (who eventually became King George IV).)
The electors of Middlesex elected Wilkes by a large majority, and the Ministry’s faction in the Parliament declared the election void. Middlesex then elected Wilkes by an overwhelming majority, and he was again excluded from his seat in Parliament. At the third election, Wilkes was again overwhelmingly elected, but the Ministry declared that a rival candidate, who had received a few votes, was the new member of the Parliament. In other words, the King’s Ministers, through their control of a majority in the Parliament, simply appointed a new member in open defiance of the wishes of the electors whom that member was supposed to represent. I cannot believe that a policy so utterly reckless and potentially disastrous could have been motivated by anything short of an unreasoning hatred of Wilkes as a man, probably by Bute and certainly by the Earl of March and the Earl of Sandwich, both of whom had high rank and great influence in the court party.
It is certain that the Earl of Sandwich, with the coöperation of the Earl of March, despicably bribed a printer to abstract a copy of the Essay on Woman, which Wilkes had had printed in a strictly limited edition of twelve copies as gifts for his friends, and then illegally prosecuted him for publishing [!] an obscene work. The resulting scandal did alienate from Wilkes supporters who had strict moral principles, but it alienated from the government all men who prized the traditional liberty of Englishmen — and not merely in the upper classes. The dishonest printer was paid about £230, but he was so despised by printers throughout England that he could never obtain employment anywhere and eventually committed suicide. (3) (The Essay on Woman was a highly obscene parody of Pope’s Essay on Man, written by one of the Franciscans, Thomas Potter, the son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and adorned with equally obscene critical annotations written by Wilkes in the manner of Bishop Warburton’s pedantic notes on Pope’s poem.) (4)
(3. This persecution of Wilkes was too complicated and tortuous to be summarized here and some phases of it are obscure. For example, there is ample reason to believe that one of the Lord March’s sleazy agents, the Reverend Mr. John Kidgell, was guilty of forgery, but it is not known precisely what he forged.)
(4. I have seen only excerpts of the Essay on Woman, and, so far as I know, the whole text and commentary has never been published. I commend it, therefore, to the attention of our contemporary pornographers, who must be sadly in want of some novelty to stimulate the jaded appetites of their customers.)
All the evidence known to me indicates that if Wilkes had not been so illegally and outrageously persecuted by personal enemies, he probably would never have been more than one of the members of Parliament who followed and supported his close friend, Lord Temple, the intimate friend of the Earl of Chatham, and opposed the policies of Lord Bute and the King. In his private life, Wilkes would have been only a gentlemen of leisure, a libertine (like his fellow Franciscans) noted for his insatiable mulierosity, a writer of ephemeral literature (like his friend and fellow member of the Franciscans, the Reverend Mr. Charles Churchill, who was highly esteemed as a poet in his day but is now unread), and a scholar whose editions of Classical authors, like those of contemporary clergymen and university men, were soon superseded. He would now be as generally forgotten as are almost all of his comparable contemporaries.
It is certain that the gratuitous persecution of Wilkes made him defend himself by seeking and mobilizing popular support, insisting on the right of English boroughs to be represented in Parliament by the men they chose, and the right of an English town to select its own aldermen. He further defended himself by denouncing the encroachment of the crown on the privileges of Englishmen, and made himself so popular that “Wilkes and Liberty” became a potent political watchword with which King George III and his government were, in the end, unable to cope.
Speculative historians, who generally deprecate all conspiratorial or racial theories, sometimes see in the persecution of Wilkes the first in a row of dominoes that, falling one against the other, changed the course of history. Wilkes’ opposition to the government of George III and his leadership of a politically potent movement based on popular support and open defiance of the Ministry and hence of the King, encouraged the disaffected elements in the American Colonies to undertake similar resistance to that government and to raise the issue of their right to be represented in matters affecting them. When American envoys, such as Benjamin Franklin, went to England, they were both impressed by the great enthusiasm for “Wilkes and Liberty,” and encouraged to resist the government by all its political enemies, including the greater part of the Whig aristocracy. When the Colonies began open resistance, they had the support of not only Wilkes and the ‘Wilkites,’ but of all Englishmen who wanted to harass the government on which George III had set his obstinate heart. They, for example, made it virtually impossible for the government to recruit British troops that might be used to coerce the colonists, so that Lord North, who was merely the spokesman for George III, had eventually to resort to the expedient of hiring Hessian mercenaries.
Neither the Englishmen in the colonies nor the Englishmen at home who encouraged and abetted them thought of breaking the legally indissoluble union of the colonies with the mother country, until wily agitators, such as Samuel Adams (who not only arranged the famous “tea party” but contrived the “Boston massacre” — the “massacre” of four of the rioters whom he had incited to attack the British sentries (5)), appealing to the anti-monarchical Puritans of New England, descendants of the religious fanatics and regicides of the Commonwealth, converted civil resistance into an armed conflict that became the only Civil War in our history, a double Civil War, a war between two factions in each colony and, with the victory of the factions that sought independence, a Civil War between two parts of the Kingdom.
(5. The divided state of sentiment even in New England at this time is shown by the fact that John Adams (later President) defended and procured the acquittal of the officer and soldiers who were prosecuted for the “massacre” of the four rioters.)
The insurgents were encouraged and abetted not only by Wilkes, who had acquired a paramount influence over both the mercantile and the working classes that lasted until the Gordon Riots (1780), (6) but by all the disaffected Whigs, on the assumption that the Civil War would end in a compromise and restoration of the union. That would doubtless have been the result, but for the intervention of France.
(6. If you have contented yourself with one of the capsule histories of England, such as G.M. Trevelyan’s, that go from King Alfred to the present in two or three volumes, you may have been given a hint of how bloody and destructive those riots were, but you will not have been told that Lord George Gordon, the neurotic third son of the Duke of Gordon, who was ostensibly the leader of the mobs, was so feeble-minded that he adopted the religion of the Jews, had himself circumcised by a rabbi, and observed all the absurd rites and practices by which that race emphasizes its separation from all others.)
The Colonists were, from the first, given massive support by a large part of the French aristocracy, captivated by Rousseau’s delusions and manipulated by the Masonic lodges and Weishaupt’s Illuminati, (7) and also given clandestine subsidies by the Foreign Minister, Vergennes, but even so it is probable that the American Colonists could never have prevailed in their war of secession from the mother country, if French enthusiasts, such as the Marquis de Lafayette, and Vergennes, anxious to cover up his own blunders, had not succeeded in bullying Louis XVI into declaring war on Britain, against his better judgement and over the protests of the Queen, and thus ruining France by burdening her, at a time of financial crisis, with a debt to usurers that soon drove her into bankruptcy. Britain was thus faced with a global war, since she had to defend her possessions in India, in the Caribbean, and elsewhere as well as in North America, and even so the Colonists’ victory was made possible only by the military and naval power of their stupid ally, to whom they showed their gratitude by double-crossing her. (8)
(7. One must also attribute much to the shrewd American envoy, Benjamin Franklin, who captivated gullible philosophes by playing, with great histrionic ability, the rôle of a simple, homespun sage, uncorrupted by the civilization which Rousseau made responsible for all the sorrows of mankind. He even kept a poker face when the educated suckers accepted as true and pathetic narratives some of the humorous travesties he had published in his newspapers years before, which someone had found and translated into French.)
(8. Louis XVI had been encouraged to hope that France could regain Canada at a peace conference, but the Americans, by secretly negotiating with England and, in effect, making a separate peace with England, frustrated that foolish hope, and France could only save face by negotiating the Peace of Versailles with England, by which she recovered only a few unimportant islands. The French King had been urged to declare war on England by Frenchmen, such as the Marquis de Lafayette, whose ulterior purpose was to arouse and encourage similar resistance in France.)
It is undoubtedly true that it was the success of the American populace in resisting their King that encouraged disaffected Frenchmen to undertake a concerted resistance to their King, Louis XVI, which led to the French Revolution — a catastrophe that altered forever the history of our race.
Was Wilkes, then, the prime cause of the French Revolution? That speculation is plausible in theory and would lead to the bizarre conclusion that a night in Medmenham was one of the great climacterics of history. If Wilkes was such a cardinal point in history, his biographer, Raymond Postgate, draws from Wilkes’ political passivity after 1780 the conclusion that he had no awareness of it. Wilkes, he says, “never reflected that just as the American Revolution arose directly from the agitation for Wilkes and liberty, so the French Revolution was the child of the American.” It evidently did not occur to any of the biographers that Wilkes, who was shocked and dismayed by the Gordon Riots, in which many of his followers participated, may have been appalled by that demonstration of what mobs composed of normally peaceful individuals are capable when incited by rabble-rousers. He may have felt like the fisherman in the Arabian Nights who uncorked the jar and released a hideous and ferocious jinni before whom he was helpless. It is the great merit of Chenevix Trench that he recognizes the courage and resolution that Wilkes displayed at that time. He had had several terms as Lord Mayor of London, after which he retired to the virtually permanent post of ‘Chamberlain’ (i.e., Treasurer), and when the pavid Lord Mayor was paralysed by terror, Wilkes, as second in authority, took over, called for troops from the Army, and in the meantime armed a small body of militia and such irregulars as he could find, led them, sword in hand, against the huge mob of rioters, and, by the light of burning buildings, killed quite a few of them with well-aimed volleys, beginning the repression which cost the lives of about three hundred impassioned reformers and looters. He tirelessly led and commanded his small improvised battalion on the following days and nights, dispersing rioters and patrolling the streets, so that by the time the regular troops arrived, there was little for them to do except mount guard.
Wilkes knew, of course, that he was sacrificing his great popularity and the political influence it gave him. Some invidious contemporaries and almost all modern writers accuse him of having betrayed his principles; that is a gross misunderstanding. He was known as a ‘republican,’ but we must beware of giving to that word its current meaning. In the eighteenth century, the meaning of ‘republic’ was usually that which the word bears in the great work of Jean Bodin, Six livres de la République, which he wrote in both French and Latin, so that it was read all over Europe. Bodin takes monarchy for granted as the only feasible form of government for large states — even an ‘absolute’ monarchy, but not a tyranny, since the state must be ruled in terms of a settled constitution under which citizenship is accompanied by corresponding rights and duties, producing a stable society, the first requisite of civilization. Wilkes had no wish to overthrow the British monarchy; he had no wish to enfranchise the masses, much less to rouse a proletariat. He wanted only to preserve, especially for the upper classes, to which he belonged, a high degree of personal liberty, secure from arbitrary acts by the government. He had, I am sure, resorted to agitating the populace, especially the middle class and the upper stratum of the working class, only to protect himself from unconstitutional persecution. It is true that he thus initiated the first politically inspired mass movement in England, but I feel certain that when he saw to what an outbreak of fanaticism and insane violence a mass movement could lead, he was dismayed — as he was probably dismayed when the American Colonies, on whom he had urged “moderation,” became independent, instead of acquiring political status (such as that of Scotland) within the British Empire.
It is true that Wilkes made an important, if not decisive, contribution to the American Revolution, of which the Americans showed their appreciation in ways that cost them nothing, (9) but the “domino effect,” postulated by sciolistic historians who claim that “it just happened that way,” is clearly absurd. In the French Revolution certainly and perhaps in some of its antecedents we can discern the power of a conspiracy that was occult only in the sense that it was secret and was covertly directed by the alien and hostile race to whose benefit it redounded, but it would require great subtlety to discern traces of that conspiracy in British politics before 1780 or to postulate that Wilkes was influenced by it — except indirectly through the aliens’ gradual penetration of English society, made possible by our race’s millennial addiction to an irrational, grotesque and ultimately deadly superstition, from which he had emancipated himself.
(9. Counties in two states, a town in Pennsylvania, several towns in other states, and many children were named in his honor, and the name retained such prestige that it was adopted as part of the name of the actor who was later hired to assassinate Abraham Lincoln by the bosses of the Republican Party to facilitate their atrocious exploitation of the defeated South.)
Wilkes was only an ephemeral product of the profound and essentially biological forces that, like gravity, though unseen, inexorably shape the world and all life in it, and reck nothing of the agony of individuals, nations, and races that madly ignore reality and perish like moths in a flame.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, January 1993