The Atlantic Report: Young Adult Fiction Doesn't Need to Be a 'Gateway' to the Classics

We're on the last week of my series on The Atlantic and I think I can make one summarizing statement:  It's boring.

Its politics and foreign policy coverage is all Monday morning quarterbacking, which is why I haven't done much with it. Everything else is meandering prog-center gibberish.

But, I soldier on. Our friend Noah Berlatsky dribbles, "Young Adult Fiction Doesn't Need to Be a 'Gateway' to the Classics." Why does he favor his ten-year-old reading the Percy Jackson series over "classics?" The answer, dear reader, may make you yawn:

As just one example, most of the classic children's literature books—Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Narnia, Treasure Island—look very dated today by virtue of their overwhelming whiteness, their time-bound, helpless inability to imagine that people come in more than one skin color.

What a buffoon. Does he not see that the books he listed are all about children entering a strange and fascinating new world? Young readers identify with the perspective of being astonished by their new environments, not because Wendy introduced the Lost Boys to mayonnaise and Wonder Bread. What does "whiteness" have to do with it?

I like to laugh at Berlatsky because he straight-facedly questioned why we don't identify with Skynet's goal of exterminating the human race in the Terminator series, but that argument makes sense, considering his perspective. He's not human--at least, he wishes he wasn't.

He'd rather float over the human world, understanding everything through the power of his amazing mind. No wonder Treasure Island and the others leave him cold--the protagonists are placed within worlds that are bigger than them, worlds that they have to discover and figure out.

Really, though, the article is about the old lament, "If people read junk, then they won't read good stuff!"

That ship has sailed. Anyway, if a kid reads enough, he or she will naturally become more sophisticated. Of course, that doesn't mean that the next stop is The Corrections or Gravity's Rainbow.

However, there is something troubling about modern children's media:

[Ruth] Graham tentatively suggests that the Percy Jackson books are too beholden to their own time, and timelessness or universality is, of course, often used as a measure of quality. But it's not a very convincing measure.

It's not Berlatsky's sneer at timelessness, as if something that resonates across generations is no big deal. The problem is that children's entertainment is such an industry that kids grow up in a bubble unconnected to anything but their present time and culture. Every stage of development, from toddler to teen, has brand-new media focused directly to them and reinforcing what they already know.

Even something as silly as old Tom and Jerry cartoons are snapshots of different eras and attitudes. Being exposed to them opens up the world to children the way Alice in Wonderland opens up their imagination. Portraying Greek gods as wisecracking moderns may be fun, but only in contrast to our understanding of their original incarnations. Berlatsky is fine with amputating the context.

The Philosopher's Stone: The Secret of Esther Vilar

Once one has read Esther Vilar’s The Manipulated Man, it’s hard to forget.

The book depicts women as stupid--unwilling and unworthy of participating in a man's world. She says that men have become these worthless creatures' slaves.

Yet she herself is a woman. Her tone is, "All Women Are Like That," but doesn't the fact that she says so many ugly things indicate that she is A Woman Who Isn't Like That?

Why is a woman attacking other women so viciously?

Here is her claim from a later edition of the book:

Over thirty-five years have passed since the first publication of my book The Manipulated Man - a pamphlet written in great anger against the women's movement's worldwide monopoly of opinion. The determination with which those women portrayed us as victims of men not only seemed humiliating but also unrealistic. If someone should want to change the destiny of our sex - a wish I had then as I have today - then that someone should attempt to do so with more honesty. 

She says she aims for honesty. This statement is dishonest.

TMM has a second mystery. Why isn’t it more significant? It’s nearly forty-five years old. It’s written with no ambiguity. It hits both red pill points and men’s rights points. Yet it is referenced less often than, say, The Book of Pook.

Vilar’s second book of her series, The Polygamous Sex, provides a clue. While TMM describes the fixed game men are playing, TPS is her attempt to explain why this situation has arisen. It reveals her thinking as unreasonably flawed.

It also tells us why Vilar turns her bile toward the entirety of her sex.

TPS comes to us via Eric Crowley at runsonmagic. He calls it, “The Best Book the Manosphere Has Never Heard Of:”

The Polygamous Sex could be the most important book the manosphere has never read. It begins from one simple premise about human drives and works its way forward with clear reason.

She uses “clear reason,” yes--but it’s the reason of Chesterton’s lunatic in Orthodoxy. A reason so unburdened by reality that it approaches madness. It is the madness of the Philosopher's Stone.

The “simple premise” is that humanity is driven by three biological imperatives. The first, that we must protect our own lives, is immaterial to her arguments.

The next two are the basis for the rest of the book. We have a drive to reproduce--to have sex. The last is the mentoring drive--the urge to rear offspring until they are able to care for themselves.

Vilar’s logic is obsessively focused on definitions. The reproductive urge is sexual love. It is completely separate from the second drive.

Vilar goes further. Sexual love properly requires partners to be completely equal. Equal, that is, except in their sexual characteristics. These are optimally as opposite as possible. This point of her definition is vital for what comes later.

She defines a protege as one who is inferior both mentally and physically but shares some kind of likeness with their mentor. Children often look like their parents and echo their personalities--this is the source of the affection parents have for them.

After establishing that these urges can be manipulated into almost unrecognizable forms, Vilar show a streak of Marxism. The relationships between a man and wife, and a man and child, are essentially those of power.

Vilar describes the difference between power and force. Force is obvious:  the strength to compel others to fulfill one’s wishes. Power is more subtle:  the condition in which others want to fulfill one’s wishes. In other words, the powerless compel themselves.

The most one-sided power relationship in this light is the mentor-protege relationship. Though the protege is weaker, it holds the power because the mentor is driven, through its biological imperatives, to serve the protege. The protege has no reciprocal desire.

Sexual love is more flexible because each partner has desire for the other. When the power dynamic favors one partner over the other, it’s because one partner has less desire than the other. When one partner is pursued and the other is not, the former has the power.

Vilar accepts as axiomatic that humans--and particularly women--plot to increase their power.

This is the fundamental idea behind the first book. First, in order to increase their power, women restrain their sexual drive, making themselves the least desirous partner in the sexual relationship. A man desires sex; the woman does not. The man is in the weaker position.

Second, women transition their sexual relationship to that of the mentor and protege. Women position themselves as physically and mentally inferior; this inspires men to serve them just as they would serve their children. By altering their sexual relationship in this way, women have the more powerful position in both the sexual and the protege dynamics.

TMM describes the situation that arises from these manipulations in the bluntest way. But if her description seemed world-shaking there, it's because the analysis it stems from is built on something less firm than solid ground.

The conclusion Vilar draws from her examination of the male-female power dynamic is this:  The sexual relationship between a man and a woman--manipulated into a mentor-protege relationship--is pseudo-incest. The woman has turned herself into a pseudo-child. The sexual relationship has been contaminated.

The sexual drive and the mentoring drive are so dissimilar that the pseudo-incestual relationship causes cognitive dissonance. The man must resolve the two drives. Vilar tells us that he may submit and eventually commit real incest. Those with more common sense, she says, react by becoming either polygamous or prudish.

Polygamy is the man’s effort to separate the paternal feelings he has for his wife with the sexual urge. Vilar has a hierarchy of what she finds the least negative among the polygamous reactions. The least unhealthy situation is that of a man with a wife and a mistress, which she calls “simultaneous polygamy.” The wife is the recipient of his mentoring drive; the mistress, his sexual drive.

Other men pursue “successive polygamy,” which we may better know as “serial monogamy.” The man leaves behind one woman for another. The paternal successive polygamist searches for a new mentor, while the sexual successive polygamist searches for a new equal.

Neither ultimately finds what they are looking for, because woman insist upon play-acting the role of the child. The paternal are disillusioned because the act is false. The sexually-driven bachelors are disillusioned because the woman refuses not to perform the act.

Vilar points out that the above two reactions to pseudo-incest are available only to men of means. It costs money to support two women, or to divorce one and marry another, or to court one after another.

The poor, then, are reduced to sporadic or symbolic polygamy. Sporadic polygamy entails the use of prostitutes or seizing upon the occasional one-night-stand with a promiscuous woman. Symbolic is the use of pornography.

It’s important to note that Vilar is framing the sex within polygamy as a substitute for the sexual relationship she established earlier. The sex acts in most polygamous relationships are just that--mere sex acts.

The ideal sexual relationship--the sexual union of two partners equal in all respects but sex-specific characteristics--is only present when a man takes on a single mistress while continuing to act as a husband to a pseudo-child.

Polygamists are attempting to express their sexual imperative without commingling it with their paternal imperative. Prudes attempt to deny their sex drive entirely.

Vilar tells us that all of human society is built upon the power of women. Thus, in order to succeed, a man has to publicly acquiesce to female demands. This results in a false prudery. A politician, for example, must appear to have a monogamous marriage and disdain polygamous expressions. This may not be his personal preference, but he sacrifices his sexual imperative in order to succeed.

Genuine prudery is that of the father. Finding his sexual imperative mixed with his paternal imperative and finding the dissonance intolerable, he rejects the sexual drive. When he does have sex with his wife, he feels guilty--he is having sex with his protege.

So far, Vilar has offered a small number of assumptions and derived their combinations. These are reasonable and some may even find them enlightening. As we go forward, however, we will find her inserting more simple assertions, assertions that are increasingly unreasonable. Through these statements, we discover why she turns her wrath towards her own sex.

Vilar “proves” that faithful family men are prudes by asserting that such men express their guilt through dirty jokes and talking about sex with other men:

But why should a grown man, unless he is a homosexual, discuss sex with another man? Normally, the sex act is a fit subject for conversation only between two sex partners. That men nevertheless preferably and persistently talk with other men about their sexual experiences can be explained only by damned-up guilt feelings, the bad conscience they have about their sexual intercourse with women.

As contemptuous as Vilar is about male conversations about sex, she heaps scorn on the desire for a virgin bride:

Genuine prudery is also expressed by the male preference for a virgin bride. The man who wants to marry a virgin is clearly expressing a low opinion of sexuality. He subjects women to a simple test: if they go to bed with him they are no good; they are only good women if they refuse to go to bed with him. Only a good woman, i.e., one who has proved that she does not desire him sexually, is eligible to win him as a provider for the rest of her life.

Having analyzed all of the male reactions to pseudo-incest, Vilar next attempts to define the ideal sexual relationship.

If there are any doubts where her preferences lie, remember that fulfillment of the sexual imperative is “love,” while the paternal/mentor relationship is something else entirely.

Vilar’s ultimate conclusion is that love is monogamous, jealous and faithful. She asserts this through the ontological arguments of Klaus Wagn.

Wagn, she neglects to mention, is her ex-husband. She had a child with him and remained “allied” to him after their divorce. TMM was written around seven years after the split, TPS a dozen years.

To be brief, Wagn’s argument centers around the idea that objects are defined only by comparison with what they are not. These not-objects define the object.

Vilar says that the individual is no different than the object. She knows who she is by the definition of others.

The optimal definition comes from a single other. More than one definition results in contradiction. Thus, the optimal definition for an individual comes from a lover, who gives her "the total definition of my person, my body and my mind, by means of one other person."

She delves further into the murk as she explains love’s qualities, but it should suffice to say that any condition that isn’t monogamous, jealous or faithful creates a non-optimal definition. If love is the optimal definition of the self, then a non-optimal definition is not love.

Her next step is to examine different sorts of love affairs using this definition of the ideal and that sexual love is the union of two equals who are opposite in their sexual characteristics.

Brief love affairs are the result of one or both partners idealizing either themselves or the other. They imagine that the other is their equal or that they are equal to the other. When the illusion disappears, so does the love.

It is in her discussion of mid-length love affairs that she begins to reveal herself. Her argument is that extended affairs begin as the ideal. After time, the balance shifts. One partner may grow while the other doesn’t so that they are no longer equal. In another case, one partner loses the opposite sexual qualities, as in a woman who begins to take on masculine attitudes and appearance.

Placed right in the center of the examples is another cause for the end of an affair, instability:

Instability often goes hand in hand with above-average intelligence. All things can be seen from more than one aspect; it is possible to have at least two different views of anything, and each view is somehow right, somehow wrong. The person of average intelligence is not aware of these complexities and sees only one aspect at a time. The one of above-average intelligence is aware of them, and tends to fall from one extreme into the other. Naturally the partner of an unstable person is not safe from these constant shifts in mood or perspective, being in fact more immediately exposed to them than any other part of that person's environment. The love partner of the unstable person is constantly faced with contradictory definitions of himself: he is good one day, bad the next, praised or damned, never sure what to expect. He finds himself always exactly defined, but the quality of the definition can never be depended on to last. In time he ceases to believe what his partner tells him — he will withdraw his confidence from his partner and try to find a more dependable definer of himself.

If one is intelligent, one is unable to choose among multiple valid perspectives. Having multiple perspectives means that the definition of the love partner changes often. The definition is inconsistent, so the love affair eventually falls apart.

Vilar gives us a very specific and very detailed explanation. Is there a reason to assume that it is not autobiographical?

But I'm giving away Vilar's secret too soon.

Skipping over her description of "Great Love," she takes a detour to discuss journalists as public fathers. There is some interest here to advocates of Cathedral theory, as she discusses the motivations journalists have for spreading the lies of  a covert matriarchy. However, it is tangential to the rest of the book.

Her conclusion is that polygamy is making the best of a bad situation. The best play out of a bad hand is the arrangement in which a man has a wife and a mistress. This situation, though, is far from ideal.

The man who takes a wife and a mistress takes two women. This leaves another man--a poor man, probably--with no women. Polygamy does not hurt wives--it hurts other men.

For a man to allow this to continue is to be a traitor to one’s own sex. She lays it out thus:

Women are free to choose: they can take a man as a father or as a lover; they can arouse his compassion or his desire. As long as women play the role of children, they clearly prefer sympathy. As long as they choose to be the weaker, younger, less intelligent partner in every relationship, i.e., as long as they insist on choosing male superiors they are opting openly for altruistic love.
...
Women are to blame when both sexes have to go without adult egalitarian love — they renounce it voluntarily, and the man has to make do with what they call love. 'True love puts the partner's happiness first," is the female definition of love. The man tries to adhere to it. But every time he feels for a woman what she expects of him — putting her happiness first — he is not happy with her; every time he is happy with a woman, he has [put] himself first.

Then, for all the aggressive condemnation of women in this book and the previous, Vilar concludes strangely--and revealingly:

As long as they continue as they are, men have no alternative to polygamy. They need not torment themselves with guilt because of it. As long as women insist on simulating children, as long as they want protection whether they need it or not, men have a right to more than one woman at a time. They have a right to keep looking for a real woman, among all the little girls they encounter in the course of their lives, until they actually find one. In any case, they alone are the real victims of polygamy. Whether or not they want to victimize themselves thus, is ultimately for them to decide. 

Can you hear what she’s saying? Women are villains, but men are victimized because they allow it to happen. It’s their own fault. It’s up to them to change.

Doesn’t that sound like something a feminist would say?

That’s because Esther Vilar’s secret is that she is a feminist.

It’s a mutant form of feminism, to be sure--it looks a great deal like misogyny. One might be more comfortable viewing it as a rogue form of progressivism, but that would mean ignoring the one quality that defines feminism.

Vilar relies heavily on definitions--she sees the world through them. Most of the definitions are reasonable enough that one can agree for the sake of argument, but then she throws in bizarre assertions, like her definition of love.

Armed with these definitions, her descriptions get further and further from reality. Her definitions are true, thus any logical derivation is equally true. Progressives usually live within a world of abstraction so that even the smallest of phenomena are products of oppressive forces.

Vilar sneers at the preference for virgin brides, practically writing SLUT across her bare chest in protest. She clearly has nothing for contempt for traditional families, as they are defined by slavery and deception.

Her position is based on cultural Marxism, seeing male-female relationships entirely as a result of power dynamics and exploitation. Her only distinction is that she says men are exploited and not women. She promotes a form of "equality" as the ideal.

Her description of the world takes place in an eternal post-war West. The role of historical stressors on male-female relationships doesn't enter the picture. It seems that, sometime at the dawn of civilization, women decided to start conning men and have been on the gravy train ever since.

Vilar’s third book in this series is The End of Manipulation and is untranslated. In it, she prescribes a solution to the problems outlined in the first two books. From what she’s already written, it appears that she believes in a sex-positive destruction of the traditional family. She divorced her husband because she no longer believed in the institution of marriage. She asserts that children don't love their parents. Her descriptions denigrate family life as being a grift against men while sexual union is "love." She wants nothing less than to destroy the foundation of civilization.

Yet all this would still make her only a mere progressive, looking at the world through a counter-intuitive lens and demanding an end to society as we know it.

What makes her a feminist is that she wants all this for her own personal benefit.

Only feminists want the world to change so that they personally get the validation they desire.

Steve Sailer's First Law of Female Journalism:

"The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking."

Now consider Vilar's discussion of Great Love, in which a man and a woman are equal in all respects except for their sex-related qualities, which are as opposite as possible.

There is a reason why it is so rare, as Vilar explains (emphasis mine):

Women who are outwardly not unmistakably different from men — women whose appearance is not especially feminine — are biologically less attractive than the others, and not likely to be pursued by men seeking to corrupt them. To survive, these women must plunge into the same hard struggle for existence as men do, and are equally compelled to develop their minds. These barely feminine women — in appearance and effect — accordingly also fulfill only one of the two necessary conditions for love: that of intellectual equality. The other condition, of outward polarity in appearance, they mostly tend not to fulfill.   

This leads to the following consequences:   

1. Whomever the man chooses as a partner, he is likely to find lacking in one of the required qualities for love (the woman is either too unfeminine or too stupid).
2. Whomever the woman chooses as a partner, she is likely to find lacking in one requirement for love (the man is either too unmanly for her, too stupid, or too intelligent).
3. Since the fulfillment of biological law has priority — since biological drive is more powerful than a psychological need — feminine-looking women, though stupid, are preferred to unfeminine-looking women, who are intelligent.   

This leads to the following misapprehension:   

1. Men believe intelligence makes women unfeminine. In reality it is the other way around: a lack of femininity makes women intelligent.
2. Women believe that intelligence puts men off. This is not so: men don't mind intelligence in a woman, but they are put off more by an unfeminine appearance more than by stupidity (it is a matter of priorities).    

It is a vicious circle: men cannot find women whom they can love, and those women who value a man's love more than his protection cannot be lovable. Since they believe that men will avoid intelligent women, they studiously avoid whatever will expand their mental horizons, and so move ever further away from fashioning themselves into true love objects. The few, rare great loves that do bloom into being and last a lifetime only prove that there are exceptions to every rule.

There is a victim in these misapprehensions:  the feminine woman of great intelligence.

Can you think of anyone who might believe herself to fit into this category?

Vilar tells us that unfeminine women do not easily gain the protection of men. As a result, they are forced to develop their intelligence. Feminine women gain the protection of men and have no need to develop their intelligence. Female stupidity is correlated to femininity, so the public thinks that stupidity is inherent to femininity.

But, Vilar cries, it just isn't so! Even though men "believe" that intelligence is unfeminine, and women "believe" that intelligence is unfeminine, that belief is only the result of the villainous plotting of women.

The plotting of stupid women, that is.

This is the most stereotypical feminist statement imaginable:  "They only like those dumb girls because society tells them to.”

“I deserve the best men because of my intelligence! Men should be attracted to women based on the qualities I value."

Vilar's trilogy is not a defense of men. It is a tool of female competition. She wants men to reject the unintelligent women they appear to prefer. She wants to convince men that the reason they don't prefer women like, say, Esther Vilar, is because the have been manipulated, deceived and enslaved.

Fat acceptance feminists tell you that "Real women have curves." Esther Vilar tells you--in one of the most brilliant misdirects in polemic history--that "Real women have brains."

[But Vilar's covert feminism isn't my primary issue with her work. In Part Two, I discuss the foolishness of pursuing the Philosopher's Stone.]

Your Guide to Monarch Mind Control - Chapter One

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
By Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler

Introduction is here

DOUBLE WARNING:  Again, as we go through the book, Springmeier and Wheeler (S&W) are going to describe some disturbing acts, mostly performed on children. I'll try to avoid explicitness as much as possible.

Also, keep in mind that the authors don't appear to be entirely stable. Wheeler claims to be a former mind control slave and Springmeier was convicted of armed robbery within the last decade. The theories they put forth here are not completely coherent--if the summary is confusing, it's because the ideas are confusing.

CHAPTER ONE - THE SELECTION & PREPARATION OF THE VICTIM

The goal of the programmers, in this formula, is to split the individual's psyche into as many personalities as is useful. This is done via dissociation initiated by trauma.

To understand the theorists' conception the slave systems, it's helpful to visualize the mind as both a space and an individual within that space. There is much talk about creating dump or garbage areas within the person where unwanted alters may be placed. At the same time, they discuss the system as a number of individuals, multiplied/cloned/divided from the original psyche.

The personalities are splits upon splits. The original, or "core," personality is not always retained--never if the splitting occurs early enough.

In children, who receive programming at a very early age, the initial splits may be done in the womb...The initial splits are the most energetic and the easiest to manipulate. In Illuminati systems these early parts are dehumanized into thinking they are gems and crystals. These gems and crystals then “power” the entire mind-control system that is programmed over the following years into the child’s mind. The gems are not perceived as alters.

Confused yet? What S&W are saying is that the first personalities, or alters, created by splitting the original personality are somehow convinced that they are "gems" that "power" the whole system.

Imagine that the original personality is split into, say, seven other personalities. One may be useless, four are turned into gems. The programmers then take the remaining two and create more splits from them.

Some of the third wave of splits will be created into what are named Silence alters. They are trained never to talk. (At least some Illuminati alter systems call these early splits “Silences”.) These early splits are then hidden and used to blackmail other alters who were created later. The other alters, who are formed after the Silences (who are prelanguage alters) are convinced that if they don’t behave the Silences will have something drastic happen to them. Some of the pre-talking Silence alters are then placed in places such as Moloch’s Temple to keep as hostages. Alters are created down the road to guard the Silences. They guard in the full sense, controlling the Silences, and any access to the Silences. Since the Silences are early splits they are more important for the full integration of the mind, which the programmers want to insure doesn’t happen. Probes are pushed into the brain at the base of the skull, in a very precise and methodical way during the initial core trauma.

We are to understand that the mind of a multiple-personality slave has regions and factions operating within those regions. There are individual personalities whose only role is maintaining the internal status quo. When the personalities that interact with the outside world are not active, they are somehow present in this fantasy world.

The original splits are the strongest, we're told, so they are programmed to be important parts of the system, whether a "carousel" of personalities surrounding and isolating the core, or Silences that frighten later personalities away from integrating with one another, or primary "front" alters that interact with the world. From this basis, more personalities can be created for nefarious purposes, short- or long-term.

It will not surprise you that it is the Illuminati that are the most interested in creating these slaves, and you will also not be surprised that the CIA and the Catholic Church also practice mind-control. Hollywood, Scientology, Mossad, even the KKK are among the many listed as practitioners. As you will remember from the introduction, many of these groups aren't aware that they all work for the Illuminati.

Once programmed, the slaves are used by these organizations for sex, blackmail, assassinations and other murders and any other number of things. Typically, once they have served their purpose, they are eliminated.

However, we are told that much programming is done within the Illuminati bloodlines. We are not told exactly why, but we are told that the programmers themselves have been programmed. Thus, they may be unaware in their daily lives that they commit cold-blooded atrocities on children as their profession.

The Illuminati create mind-controlled slaves who are to function within the Illuminati hierarchy. These slaves will usually have their genealogies hidden, and will be created to have excellent cover lives to insure that they are not detected. They will be given multifunctional programming, and will usually be used to help program other slaves. The abuse will not be as physically visible as it will be on the bodies of slaves who are not born to be part of the Illuminati elite. Members of Moriah’s (Moriah = the Illuminati) Luciferian elite will have undergone as much trauma as other slaves, however the torture scars and the control are better concealed. These children will often receive lavish experiences as well as talks to convince them that they are part of the elite.

Aside from those that come from the Illuminati families, some of the slaves are borne of brooder women, held captive their entire lives in order to give birth. We are also told that some slaves come from blackmailed parents--although, don't worry, because these parents were caught molesting their children and were thus corrupt enough to be manipulated.

The type of father who is most preferred by the Programmers to offer up their children for programming is the pedophile. If a father will abuse his own little baby girl, then the Programmers know that the man has no conscience. This father’s involvement in criminal activity (and thereby his vulnerability) can be continually increased. They want men who they believe will not develop any qualms later on in life about what they have done. A man, who waits until his daughter is a teenager to molest her, is usually esteemed to have too much conscience for the programmers.

It's not impossible for an adult to become a victim of mind-control, as CIA agents or military personnel might be, but the programming retains its strength only within those kind of controlled environments.

The Illuminati practiced mind control for many years but it didn't become a scientific practice until the research of, who else, Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. According to the theory, he was whisked away to America at the war's end and allowed to continue his research, developing the methods we will explore.

Originally, Joseph Mengele was the lead programmer. He had already achieved the rank of Grand Master (later Ipssimus) within the Illuminati. He had become skilled in music, in Kabbalistic Magic, in dancing, in abortions, and in torture (by the way, Mengele had a sadistic mother) and programming children. Many of the concentration camp children that Mengele programmed still survive and still love him to this day as “Daddy”. Mengele disappeared from Auschwitz in Jan. 1945, several months before the final chaos began in the Third Reich. He disappeared so the Illuminati could smuggle him to the U.S., so that his exceptional knowledge of programming--honed and fined tuned on thousands of concentration camp child victims could be put to use on a grande scale in the U.S. He travelled worldwide but especially in western U.S. doing his programming accompanied by his pair of two black servants. American Monarch survivors remember his spotless German uniform, his shiny boots which he wore during programming...Traditionally, the Illuminati had been having their children inspected by a woman with the rank of Grande Mother. She would determine the fitness of the children and then present them for a formal acceptance ceremony at age 3 to the Grande Druid Council. This procedure didn’t change when Mengele came over--the programming just jumped from being an occult science to one that had full access to the Medical, Psychiatric, Judicial, Scientific and Governmental sectors via the power of the National Security Act and the Intelligence agencies.

The book also reserves special condemnation for a Dr. John W. Gittinger, who worked with the Department of Defense developing his Personality Assessment System. S&W go into great detail discussing the system, which is an attempt to quantify personalities based on axes like "Internalizer/Externalizer." We're told that this system can tell its users precisely what methods to use when torturing an toddler.

But the perfect scenario is what this book is about and that means going back to before the toddler stage--before the infant stage, too. If the subject is of Illuminati heritage, the programmers may wish to include the "layering in of demonic forces," which requires the "Moonchild" blood ritual, as described by Aleister Crowley. Non-hierarchical slaves will be traumatized in utero, by way of being pricked by long needles pushed into the mother's belly or having the mother be routinely traumatized herself.

This is followed by inducing a premature birth, which is supposed to be both traumatic as well as creating a "fighting spirit" within the child.

If the child is judged to be adequate programming material, then step three begins, "love-bombing" the infant. The primary programmer bonds to the child, in order for the betrayals later to be all the worse.

The Illuminati child learns about their body. Their bowels are allowed to function properly and they are kept meticulously clean. They must be taught to appreciate their body, before the trauma of stripping them of everything they value. Dissociation does not have to be taught to the child, because they have a genetic leaning toward it, and the  premature birth has taught them to dissociate. All in all, the child has  been allowed only to build a relationship with its programmer(s). The child has learned to trust, obey and adore the programmer during the  first 18 months of its life. Its mind is lining up with hypnotic suggestions,  cues, and is being obedient.

The fourth step when creating a mind-control slave is to begin fracturing the mind when the child is about 18 months. The child is caged, starved, overwhelmed with foul odors and strange sounds.

When they finally see their beloved master or beloved adult caretaker appear after suffering from 42 to 72 hours, they are excited and they dissociate the pain of the previous hours of deprivation. Help appears to be on the scene. At that point the programmer/beloved adult shows his/her most vicious side, and the child in order to deal with how this loving caretaker has not only rejected them but is now hurting them dissociates along the same fractures of dissociation created by the trauma of the premature birth.

It only gets worse from here, folks. Chapter Two coming up.

James Ellroy's LA Quartet and his Legacy

Via The AV Club, Short List interviews James Ellroy:

If you've ever seen Ellroy on Conan or elsewhere, the interview is par for the course. The author is a motor-mouth who can't stop throwing offensive opinions in your face.

How do you feel about Obama?
I hate him. I think he’s a coward, incompetent and I find him sinister. He’s the face of cancerous socialism under the guise of benevolence. His wife going on the Academy Awards by remote hook-up made them come across like Soviet apparatchiks. However, I don’t have a TV, cellphone or internet and I find the world untenable. I’m a big Tory. Big. Tory. There’s also a part of me that loves to say, “F*ck you, I’m a Republican.” I’m a Thatcherite and a Reaganite.

Really, Ellroy's conservativism isn't surprising. One of the themes of the LA Quartet is that the purpose of the police is to be a Berlin Wall between the criminal element and the rest of society. A familiarity, or at least an understanding, of the potential ugliness of life is the base of becoming a conservative.

What can you tell us about your new project, the second LA Quartet?
I’m about to finish the first volume, called Perfidia – my biggest book – which will be published in Britain this fall. The new quartet takes characters both fictional and real, major and minor, from the first quartet and the trilogy, but places them in LA during the Second World War. It’s the month of Pearl Harbor, 6-29 December 1941. It seamlessly takes the quartet and trilogy, adds four novels, and makes my oeuvre as a historical novelist one inextricable 11-novel whole. 

I'm not excited by the prospect of a second set of books. Revisiting characters at a younger age is usually a mistake, unless one has already planned it out in advance. That is, unless he's exploring the rise of Dudley Smith, the corrupt policeman whose machinations are at the center of the quartet. Since Smith comes into the series fully formed as a powerful and menacing man, there's room for exploration that won't effect our later understanding of the character.

Even if Ellroy focuses on Smith, I won't be reading the books. He used to be one of my favorite authors and, though I love his books up until the last of the quartet, I can't get through his prose any longer.

The first of his I read was American Tabloid. I was greatly impressed. I didn't realize it at the time, but it ties in with some of the characters in his earlier books, tracking the machinations of the mob, the CIA and the FBI all through characters at the periphery. I advise anyone looking for an example of masterful, complex plotting to seek this one out.

I was so excited that I immediately dove into Ellroy's entire catalog. His first half-dozen books are good reads and he was established as a solid mid-list mystery/detective writer. Then came The Black Dahlia and he became a major American genre writer, even if everyone didn't know it yet.

The transition was a quantum leap. Ellroy was able to pull together a complex plot of secrets and double-crosses with a compelling love triangle and a Laura-style obsession with a dead woman and her life. All this while creating a fascinating picture of mid-century LA and its intersection of wealth, fame, and desperation.

My personal favorite of the quartet (as opposed to what I find the best objectively) is the next book, The Big Nowhere. Here we see Ellroy growing in strength. Where Dahlia followed one character with another being almost a second protagonist, in Nowhere he goes all the way and follows two main characters. They investigate from different angles of the same conspiracy, only occasionally coming into contact until the end. The technique allows Ellroy to create a more complex story while minimizing the reader's confusion and the world of LA he depicts is solidified and expanded.

(A tangent. At the end of Nowhere, one character makes a desperate dash to Mexico with a woman and mob money, hoping to hide out the rest of his days. The book ends on a note of crazy hope. My paperback edition had a "special sneak peek" of the follow-up, LA Confidential, publishing the first chapter of that book. In that chapter, the character who escapes is murdered along with his girl. At the time, I wished I hadn't read it immediately after finishing Nowhere.)

LA Confidential is Ellroy's best book. He ups the ante by using three protagonists. In the previous books, the two main characters are more or less opposites but Confidential's leads are distinct to themselves, less mirror images than complements. The three perspectives increase the complexity as one would expect. (Incidentally, the film version does a remarkable job of telling the story concisely.)

The quartet ends with White Jazz, which I dislike but is necessary to see the end of the series' villain, the aforementioned Dudley Smith. Ellroy makes good moves all around, keeping the story much more simple than the others and ending with realistic semi-successes (Smith's end is particularly appropriate without seeing him exposed and convicted for his crimes).

Good moves except for one element:  Ellroy's prose. In Jazz, he writes in an impressionistic/jazz-influenced style that might be fine in a stand-alone book--though I didn't care for it on its own terms--but is too much of a contrast with the rest of the series.

After reading all of his back catalog, I returned to American Tabloid. I found I couldn't read it through again. Ellroy had abandoned the jazz prose of the previous book and took to writing staccato sentences, one after another with hardly a break.

I was disappointed but I understand. Tabloid was the first of his Underworld USA series and he covers a lot--a lot--of ground. If he wrote the more elaborate prose of, say Nowhere, the books would easily break the thousand-page mark. But it's a turn-off--Ellroy loses flexibility of tone by using only short, declarative sentences. Eventually, it makes everything important and thus nothing important.

You sound like you’re thinking about your legacy…
I’m very much doing that. I want to get my sh*t in line. In case I go to the doctor and he says, “Ellroy, you f*cker, you’ve got six months to live.” I want to leave a great literary legacy. I will leave legal documents so no one can ever co-opt my characters or write an Ellroy knock-off book, like when Robert B Parker finished a Raymond Chandler novel. I came of age when being a writer was a big deal.

I don't think Ellroy has to worry about his legacy. What he achieved with the LA Quartet will be an inspiration to crime writers--and more--for years.