The RedIce Interview on Catcher

Allancw

Member
(I had to shorten this for space reasons)
First, I should say that to an extent I know whereof I speak. I’ll try to keep this short:

In 1985 Random House published a novel of mine called Cosmic Banditos. The book got ‘orphaned’ – my editor (who was/is well known as the editor of authors of the Jay McInterney ilk) left for Knopf just before the pub date, meaning that there was no one to shepherd the title with promo, etc. The book failed commercially. Totally.

Then, around 2000 I’d written a memoir that Penguin was to publish. Funny but meanwhile (during the 15 years since publication) Cosmic Banditos took off via word of mouth and the Internet. I mean it became sort of a ‘cult classic.’ Websites analyzing it, online discussion groups, crazy shit.

I persuaded Penguin to republish it with my new book, a memoir called In Search of Captain Zero. Both books were bought (not just optioned) for the movies, Zero by Sean Penn and a studio and Banditos by John Cusack and a studio. (Banditos, by the way, is semi-autobiographical.)

The other reason I bring up my book is that Banditos and Catcher have some similarities – the biggest difference being the degree to which they ‘caught on.’ My book (and myself) are not in the same league in that sense.

Simularities…. Joe, if you think Catcher was ‘destructive’ to culture, etc., I have to laugh at what you might think of my book. The protagonist is a nihilistic pot smuggler who gets obsessed with ‘the Meaning of Life’ and figures he’s sort of found it when his Bandito Buddy Jose mugs a family of American tourists and swipes a bunch of books on Quantum Physics – our hero and Jose (plus a dog) go on a quest to track down the physics professor-owner of the books in order to demand the Meaning of Life.

Okay, enough plot. (For an indication of how it caught on go to its Amazon Reader Reviews, about 100 of em.)

Aspects of the book are dated now but no one seems to care. It still gets (almost always 5 star) reader reviews 15 years after (the second) publication. The reason for this is what makes the book work: The narrative voice. Like Catcher, Banditos is told first person from the point of view of a very ‘screwed up’ guy.

Point being, Catcher too works pretty well (like Jerry, I consider it a good book, not a great one by any means) because Salinger (or whoever wrote it) nailed the voice. Which is why calling it ‘dumbed down’ (I think you did, Joe) is a mistake. Believe me, getting a narrative voice right is not easy – it has to look (read) like it was easy. But it is not easy.

Joe, in my view you’re harder on Catcher than is warranted. Part of this, I suspect, is because of the ‘evil’ behind it: As mentioned in my other post, I agree with you in general about the book and am blown away by your work on it. Let’s get that straight. Ditto your Beatles piece and your Deadhead piece. I’ve ordered your books...

Anyway, again, I have to grin in wondering how you’d view my Banditos protagonist, given you see Holden as ‘an alcoholic’ and ‘a degenerate’ and berate him for chain smoking and being ‘angst-ridden.’

Holden is angst-ridden all right; I won’t waste much space in pointing out that he has good reason to be, given the culture he lives in. But ‘a degenerate’? That you label him as a (sexual) pervert tells me that you probably misread that aspect of the book. Although this stuff is not all that important compared to the brilliant revelations in your piece, I’m going to take a minute to show you what I mean. I hadn’t read the book in years so I scanned a PDF online. If there’s other stuff I’m missing that contradicts my point, I’m all ears. But here’s a bit from Holden’s view of sex, plus the vignette with the prostitute (heavily edited to save time/space):

Begin quote: If you want to know the truth, I'm a virgin. I really am. I've had quite a few opportunities
to lose my virginity and all, but I've never got around to it yet. Something alwayshappens….., The thing is, most of the time when you're coming pretty close to doing it with a girl--a girl that isn't a prostitute or anything, I mean--she keeps telling you to stop. The trouble with me is, I stop. (end quote)

I dunno, maybe you can find some ‘perverse’ subtext in the above, but I can’t. By the way, I think it’s significant that Holden is a virgin, and stays one. I remember when first reading the book I was hoping he’d get laid… but he didn’t. He did not find sex with a prostitute ‘sexy.’ Again: perverse? The guy spends most of the story trying to find someone who is not a ‘phony.’ I dunno if you’ve noticed: most humans are dishonest/phony if not outright evil. The phrase ‘don’t kill the messenger’ comes to mind (I suspect Jerry would agree with me here.)

Holden may be ‘mentally ill’ as you put it, but re the Freemasons it's obvious he does not like them, and their ways. (I had to delete a quote for character-limited reasons, but trust me…)

Another example of this is in the two ‘brothers’ with whom he finally enters the ‘holy of holies.’

(begin quote) "How come you two guys aren't in school?" I said.
"No school t'day," the kid that did all the talking said. He was lying, sure as I'm alive, the little bastard. I didn't have anything to do, though, till old Phoebe showed up, so I helped them find the place where the mummies were. Boy, I used to know exactly where they were, but I hadn't been in that museum in years. "You two guys so interested in mummies?" I said.
"Yeah."
"Can't your friend talk?" I said.
"He ain't my friend. He's my brudda."
....and you could tell the two hot-shots I was with weren't enjoying it too
much. They stuck close as hell to me, and the one that didn't talk at all practically was holding onto my sleeve. "Let's go," he said to his brother. "I seen 'em awreddy. C'mon, hey." He turned around and beat it.
"He's got a yella streak a mile wide," the other one said. "So long!" He beat it too. (end quote)

Joe, if you’re going to stick with your thought that the ‘brothers’ represent Freemasons, you’ll have to admit that Salinger does not paint a very flattering portrait of them? …’a yella streak a mile wide’…?

Part of my point here is that I don’t agree that Catcher is destructive culturally, or any other way. (Neither is my book, btw.) And I certainly doubt that the author meant it that way; quite the reverse. (I can say this being an author who wrote a book that in theory is way more ‘destructive’ than Catcher. Banditos – and thousands agree – is simply a very funny book. Catcher is pretty funny too. The ‘Fuck You’ business is a scream! That it works on the level (or some similar one) you point out is pretty much a separate subject.)

BUT: Your linkage of it to Freemasonry is undeniable, as is the motive of it its use in assassinations. But this is not Salinger’s doing.

To put it another way: Do you really think Salinger sat down and thought to himself, ‘I’m going to write a book that will be destructive to the culture of the United States’?

My final comment is re the business of ‘Fuck You.’ I have to agree with Jerry in this one, in the sense that the ‘Fuck You’ more likely refers to the threat the Freemasons represent (I’ll not go into detail since Jerry explains it well). This thread ends with the thought that ‘Fuck You’ will be on Holden’s tombstone. Then it’s not mentioned again. (Had the ‘Fuck You’ been the ‘main point’ of the book, I suspect it would have figured more at the end, maybe when Phoebe was on the merry-go-round.)

The other reason – the important one - I don’t buy the ‘Fuck You’ as the apocalypse is this: Given Salinger’s status (very, very low) with the Freemasons, it seems unlikely to me that he would know of their apocalyptic plans. If he didn’t know about it, he could not have (either consciously or subconsciously) crafted the imagery. As Jerry says, it feels more logical that he is referring to the personal threat.

Another layer here: Good for you for uncovering the two versions of the ‘Rye’ poem (you sure are good at that stuff). But given Salinger’s pedophilia predilection (see my ‘A Perfect Day For Bananafish’ post), isn’t it possible that Salinger is saying that instead of ‘catching’ the kids who are in danger, he wants to fuck them?

It’s right there in front of us, no?: ‘If a body fuck a body, coming through the rye’…. And the ‘bodies’ are children’s… (Note also that the prostitute is very young, Holden’s age, he figures. And she had a child-like speaking voice and said childish things… and Holden suddenly got a bad feeling about having sex with her… then she comes to his defense with Maurice…seems to fit the pedophile motif.)
(I had more but it wouldn't fit....)
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Allancs,

I've been trying to find a way to get XenForo to allow longer posts, but no luck yet. Until I do, feel free to break up your comments into several posts if you like.

You didn't mention your new movie!! I might have more to say after I go watch it, but I'm going to start by speculating that a "MadMan" is the opposite of a "degenerate"?

 

Allancw

Member
Thanks for posting the film. Love to get your take on it. Was tough. I had to teach myself all the tech stuff - and I don't buy a pen if you have to click it (too complicated)....
 

Allancw

Member
Joe, I’ve ordered your books but having listened to your Redice on The Gospels/Shakespeare I suspect I will basically agree with you here too. Not to stray from the current subject but your comment that ‘Shakespeare was meant to give the appearance of genius’ is probably a good example of where I will part from you: Joe, in literature ‘the appearance’ and the writing are one and the same! How can a literary work merely have the appearance of genius? But enough… lemme read the books...
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
YOU SAID; I don’t buy the ‘Fu’ as the apocalypse is this: Given Salinger’s status (very, very low) with the Freemasons, it seems unlikely to me that he would know of their apocalyptic plans. If he didn’t know about it, he could not have (either consciously or subconsciously) crafted the imagery.

i say; If he 'Salinger’ was 'told' what they wanted and gave him the tools and some ideas he 'does not have to know the big plan'. then they promote the book and put in every school.

Holden says Anyway, I’m sort of glad they’ve got the atomic bomb invented; If there’s ever another war, I’m going to sit right the hell on top of it. I’ll volunteer for it, I swear to God I will. See the shooting hat?,” “I shoot people in this hat.”
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security?





      • Agencies tamp down speculation over hollow-point ammo ...
        Aug 17, 2012 · Obscure federal agencies triggered a firestorm of theories this week after they put out orders for thousands of rounds of deadly hollow-point ...not even used in wars. why?
      • Who needs ammo when you can be sprayed like a weed? why rye ?

      • Gin a body meet a body,
        Comin’ thro the grain;
        Gin a body fuck a body,
        Cunt’s a body’s ain.
        Gin a body meet a body,

        By a body’s sel,
        What na body fucks a body,
        Wad a body tell.
you said; Holden’: perverse? The guy spends most of the story trying to find someone who is not a ‘phony.’ I dunno if you’ve noticed: most humans are dishonest/phony if not outright evil. The phrase ‘don’t kill the messenger’ comes to mind (I suspect Jerry would agree with me here.)

then say this below to disprove your self? so which is it ?

as you said; 'It’s right there in front of us, no?: ‘If a body fuck a body, coming through the rye’…. And the ‘bodies’ are children’s… (Note also that the prostitute is very young, Holden’s age, he figures. And she had a child-like speaking voice and said childish things… and Holden suddenly got a bad feeling about having sex with her… then she comes to his defense with Maurice…seems to fit the pedophile motif.)
(I had more but it wouldn't fit'....


*not sure why jerry would put up a video with out looking at it 1st seems odd.

A Pedophile Fantasy in the Rye jerry you in joy this book?
By Joe Atwill and Jerry Russell on April 16, 2015 in Literature, Psychology

Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin – Manufacturing the Deadhead;

yu said; I dunno if you’ve noticed: 'most' humans are dishonest/phony if not outright evil;

i say; is this how you think about your self family friends? I find that not to be true and have been to over 12 counties around the world;

you said; Point being, Catcher too works pretty well (like Jerry, I consider it a good book, not a great one by any means) because Salinger (or whoever wrote it) nailed the voice. Which is why calling it ‘dumbed down’ (I think you did, Joe) is a mistake. Believe me, getting a narrative voice right is not easy – it has to look (read) like it was easy. But it is not easy.


wiki At the back of Why Johnny Can't Read, Flesch had included 72 lists of words that young children should be able to read, and Spaulding provided Geisel with a similar list.[7] Geisel later told biographers Judith and Neil Morgan that Spaulding had supplied him with a list of 348 words that every six-year-old should know and insisted that the book's vocabulary be limited to 225 words.[5] However, according to Philip Nel, Geisel gave varying numbers in interviews from 1964 to 1969.[8] He variously claimed that he could use between 200 and 250 words from a list of between 300 and 400; the finished book contains 236 different words.[8]

i say yes its not easy to write a 'dumb down' book like cat in the hat with only 225 words when children at that age should know at least 350 words; in other words
just because it not easy to write 'cat in the hat' doesn't mean its not dumbed down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_in_the_Hat
as you said [First, I should say that to an extent I know whereof I speak.]
i see you have not listen to this ; joe in the rye walking on thin red ice; http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/04/RIR-150413.php

don't drink the fluoridated water or you will be dumb.

 
Last edited:

Allancw

Member
Is there hostility here? If so, why? Was I hostile in my post?

U SAY: i say; If he 'Salinger’ was 'told' what they wanted and gave him the tools and some ideas he 'does not have to know the big plan'.

I SAY: sorry but that makes no sense. 'Some ideas'? Like what? 'We want apocalypse imagery but make it really subtle since we don't want you to know?'

The Fuck You comment I made is a possibility on a different level of meaning than Holden's ramblings on sex and so forth. I thought that was obvious.

Strangelove is my favorite movie of all time. Thanks for reminding me. What the fuck it or fluoridation has to do with any of your points is beyond me.

If you have a question for Jerry, why are you asking me? If you have an opinion of my movie why not say so? If you don't, then why bring it up?

Why not list the 'counties' of the world you've been in. That might clear up what your travel history has to do with anything.

I can't make heads nor tails of most of your post so I can't really respond. Maybe get a good night's sleep and try again.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
YOU SAID; I don’t buy the ‘Fu’ as the apocalypse is this: Given Salinger’s status (very, very low) with the Freemasons, it seems unlikely to me that he would know of their apocalyptic plans. If he didn’t know about it, he could not have (either consciously or subconsciously) crafted the imagery.

i say; If he 'Salinger’ was 'told' what they wanted and gave him the tools and some ideas he 'does not have to know the big plan'. then they promote the book and put in every school.

Holden says Anyway, I’m sort of glad they’ve got the atomic bomb invented; If there’s ever another war, I’m going to sit right the hell on top of it. I’ll volunteer for it, I swear to God I will. See the shooting hat?,” “I shoot people in this hat.”
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security?





      • Agencies tamp down speculation over hollow-point ammo ...
        Aug 17, 2012 · Obscure federal agencies triggered a firestorm of theories this week after they put out orders for thousands of rounds of deadly hollow-point ...not even used in wars. why?
      • Who needs ammo when you can be sprayed like a weed? why rye ?

      • Gin a body meet a body,
        Comin’ thro the grain;
        Gin a body fuck a body,
        Cunt’s a body’s ain.
        Gin a body meet a body,

        By a body’s sel,
        What na body fucks a body,
        Wad a body tell.
you said; Holden’: perverse? The guy spends most of the story trying to find someone who is not a ‘phony.’ I dunno if you’ve noticed: most humans are dishonest/phony if not outright evil. The phrase ‘don’t kill the messenger’ comes to mind (I suspect Jerry would agree with me here.)

th

'the atomic bombs' #1 reason was & is always a psych-o tool; not just because they could not use it[or did not want to use it]. the herd is easier to nudge when there running on fear.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Is there hostility here? If so, why? Was I hostile in my post?

U SAY: i say; If he 'Salinger’ was 'told' what they wanted and gave him the tools and some ideas he 'does not have to know the big plan'.

I SAY: sorry but that makes no sense. 'Some ideas'? Like what? 'We want apocalypse imagery but make it really subtle since we don't want you to know?'

The Fuck You comment I made is a possibility on a different level of meaning than Holden's ramblings on sex and so forth. I thought that was obvious.

Strangelove is my favorite movie of all time. Thanks for reminding me. What the fuck it or fluoridation has to do with any of your points is beyond me.

If If you have an opinion of my movie why not say so? If you don't, then why bring it up?

Why not list the 'counties' of the world you've been in. That might clear up what your travel history has to do with anything.

I can't make heads nor tails of most of your post so I can't really respond. Maybe get a good night's sleep and try again.
iSAY: i say; If he 'Salinger’ was 'told' what they wanted and gave him the tools and some ideas he 'does not have to know the big plan'.

u SAY: sorry but that makes no sense.

I SAY; if the big boys come to you and say write this and this and you do; you don't have to know why they had you write that; then tell you not to tell. does that make sense. BECOUSE YOU DIDNT OR WOULD NOT WRITE LIKE THAT DOSNT MEAN THAT SALINGER WAS NOT A PAYED TO WRITE GUY.

u said; Strangelove is my favorite movie of all time;

I SAY; so you are toast! fun to watch the world blow up with yourself; ok? and have people make fun of any one worried about what's in the drinking water'

you have a question for Jerry, why are you asking me?

I SAY; I didn't ask you did I? here is what I said; not sure why jerry would put up a video with out looking at it 1st seems odd.

Why not list the 'counties' of the world you've been in. That might clear up what your travel history has to do with anything;

I said around the world ; think most people would know what that means;
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Allancs,

I've been trying to find a way to get XenForo to allow longer posts, but no luck yet. Until I do, feel free to break up your comments into several posts if you like.

You didn't mention your new movie!! I might have more to say after I go watch it, but I'm going to start by speculating that a "MadMan" is the opposite of a "degenerate"?

HI jERRY
*not sure why YOU would put up a video with out looking at it 1st seems odd. I GUESS JERRY 'GUESS'S' IT NOT MAD.

A guess is a conjecture or estimation. To "guess" is to make a prediction without sufficient information or knowledge.

speculating
  1. form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence:
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Loren,

You asked me earlier to warn you about videos that might have content that you would find disturbing, so I felt it was appropriate to mention that I hadn't yet watched the video. But, it did come well recommended: Allan has some very impressive testimonials & film festival mentions at his website.

So now I've watched the film, and I can say that it's a lot of fun to see. The production values are excellent. As to the theme, I think Allan is speaking about the loneliness that results from an understanding of how the world works; which is something I'm sure all of us have first-hand experience with.

It was Allan's post about "banana fish" here at the forum, that catalyzed the new analysis of Catcher that Joe and I came up with. As a novelist, screenwriter and filmmaker, I think Allan has a lot to teach us as well. I hope we're open to learning it.

"Was I hostile in my post? I say YEs hostile to the world"; so Allan shouldn't take it personally, right? But, there's enough hostility out there in the world; in here I hope we can be kind to each other.

Yes, I still would say I enjoyed the Salinger novel, even with this new understanding about how he slipped Phoebe's sexualization in under my conscious awareness at first reading. Whether Joe would watch Allan's movie and say that his lifestyle is "degenerate", well, I hope not... Allan doesn't seem to be a family man, but I think there's room in the world for surfers.

Here's another video that comes with a warning: how far hyper-sexualization of children in the media has gone. This is what kids have to deal with today. This is being done for profit, or whatever else it is that's motivating "them". Very sick if you ask me. Not that I would agree with the filmmaker's perspective: they equate all sexuality with "prostitution", and their judgment and condemnation seems to be coming from a fundamentalist Islamic viewpoint.

 

Allancw

Member
Utterly horrifying imagery, Jerry! With this sort of mind control now 'accepted' culturally, we must be getting close to whatever
'they' are getting at. It's good to see (I think) that the video gets a lot of hits (1.5 mil now); however, I have to wonder how many watch for the wrong reasons...

I listened to your RedIce interview again and was struck by how often Joe repeated words to the effect that Holden Caulfield is a' degenerate' -- he says this in many ways. And that the book is culturally destructive, and was consciously written (presumably by Salinger) to be this. As mentioned, I don't agree. Again: My view is that the book was written as a criticism of Freemasonry, with the pedophilia to some extent a separate issue, although it's very possible that Salinger was under some sort of blackmail threat; this would of course affect his imagery and themes. That the book is used as a 'message' during assassinations probably horrified Salinger. Absent evidence, I don't see how we can pin nasty motives on him.

Also, evidence of negative subtext re Freemasonry is all over the book. In fact, you'd have a hard time finding references to it that are not negative. The description of the 'brothers' at the museum as dumb asses with 'a yella streak a mile wide' is a good example, as is the description of 'Al Pike' as conceited (etc.). Try this:

“You ought to go to a boys’ school sometime. Try it sometime,” I said. “It’s full of

phonies, and all you do is study so that you can learn enough to be smart enough to be

able to buy a goddam Cadillac some day, and you have to keep making believe you give

a damn if the football team loses, and all you do is talk about girls and liquor and sex all

day, and everybody sticks together in these dirty little goddam cliques. The guys that are

on the basketball team stick together, the Catholics stick together, the goddam

intellectuals stick together, the guys that play bridge stick together. Even the guys that

belong to the goddam Book-of-the-Month Club stick together.

Salinger is obviously referring to Freemasonry here. I could find other quotes like this, and will if it would be helpful. They're all over the book, as are other diatribes against consumerism/materialism. How is this stuff 'socially destructive'? I really don't see it.

It seems to me that to berate Holden for his angst is missing the point, at least in terms of Salinger's intent. In spite of my disgust at his (apparent) pedophilia, I really have a hard time with Joe's take - although, again, I applaud him big time (and you, Jerry) for the over all brilliance of your revelations. (Keep in mind that we have no actual evidence that Salinger practiced pedophilia and since he's not around to defend himself, we should be cautious here.) The old one 'Don't kill the messenger' does come to mind re the books 'comments' on the 1950s culture.

Another thought: Jerry, you've seen my film so you know that my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam. In 1966 I more or less joined the 'counter-culture' Joe has such disgust for. My friend 'stayed in the 1950s.' He did what that culture expected of him and went to war. He's dead and from what I gather from his letters, did awful things in Vietnam. Aside from dying. I mention this for perspective.

I have a question for Joe that might be instructive. Name a piece of literature that targets coming of age (or however you want to label Catcher) that he approves of.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Loren,

You asked me earlier to warn you about videos that might have content that you would find disturbing, so I felt it was appropriate to mention that I hadn't yet watched the video. But, it did come well recommended: Allan has some very impressive testimonials & film festival mentions at his website.

So now I've watched the film, and I can say that it's a lot of fun to see. The production values are excellent. As to the theme, I think Allan is speaking about the loneliness that results from an understanding of how the world works; which is something I'm sure all of us have first-hand experience with.

It was Allan's post about "banana fish" here at the forum, that catalyzed the new analysis of Catcher that Joe and I came up with. As a novelist, screenwriter and filmmaker, I think Allan has a lot to teach us as well. I hope we're open to learning it.

"Was I hostile in my post? I say YEs hostile to the world"; so Allan shouldn't take it personally, right? But, there's enough hostility out there in the world; in here I hope we can be kind to each other.

Yes, I still would say I enjoyed the Salinger novel, even with this new understanding about how he slipped Phoebe's sexualization in under my conscious awareness at first reading. Whether Joe would watch Allan's movie and say that his lifestyle is "degenerate", well, I hope not... Allan doesn't seem to be a family man, but I think there's room in the world for surfers.

Here's another video that comes with a warning: how far hyper-sexualization of children in the media has gone. This is what kids have to deal with today. This is being done for profit, or whatever else it is that's motivating "them". Very sick if you ask me. Not that I would agree with the filmmaker's perspective: they equate all sexuality with "prostitution", and their judgment and condemnation seems to be coming from a fundamentalist Islamic viewpoint.

I like joe I STOP LISTING TO ALL DEAD SONGS ETC. BURNED MY A Course In Miracles | coursemiracles.com and stop watching tv, and listening to radio. AFTER JOE SHOWED ME WHATS UP! started putting up a fire wall on my mind you under stand? after he and jan 1st came out with the dead head stuff. cim etc.

'loneliness that results from an understanding of how the world works'? u said

THIS IS A TOUGH NUT


I say this is the loneliness that comes what the big boys at the top give ya: have no kids kill them kill them its 'ok'?? before there born; lucky us our moms didn't kill us; CARE LITTLE FOR YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER AND GRANDPRENTS no wife no children no grand children; a 100 girl friends you get old and were are you? BRAVE NEW WORLD AND YOU ARE NOT NEEDED. OR WANED BUT BY A FEW FRIENDS with a lot of disconnected people it just you and the law; know one to stand up with you. just the way the big boys want it.

Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go? by Karen Straughan ="
"

I SAY LEARN BUT DONT TAKE TO MUCH IN TILL YOU CAN LIVE WITH KNOWING WHO is and how they are CALLING THE SHOTS.

jerry they want to have masturbation in schools and make it normal for intergenerational sex this is the brave new world; you either help put on the brakes or it will run you over.

As joe says [and you know joe thoughts on region] there is only healthy sex between husband and wife . for them selves for the children for family and friends sake; has nothing to do with religion ok? AS IN YOUR VIEW POINT. 60 min. in the show you say that joe is in the golden age bla bla which is interjected in ways that interrupt Joes train of speech, show you don't really grasp the point he is making, distract with things you think are relevant but are off point, etc.

u said[from a fundamentalist Islamic viewpoint.etc] let me say again this is very importan

understanding healthy sex has nothing to do with just religion ok? AS IN YOUR VIEW POINT ; I SAY healthy SEX i has to do with healthy relation ships.

u say; holden wants to be a good guy as he wanted to quite move to Co. and be a rancher because of his sister he decides to stay and join the secret club [what that mean] join the club and get it all! just like boo boo boop u put up.

WHO IS IT, THAT TELL'S Holden Caulfield HEs GOT THE SONG WORNG?

HIS 'SISTER'! SAYS DONT 'CATCH' THE KIDS 'F' THEM! so he wanted to join the club. boo boo boop
in code
his sister says stay here and f me and we will not tell dad so he will not kill you.

joe is right this book is not helpful and should not be on a reading list, for children. hope this helps you be more helpful

then as you say he goes to get help? you think so?

as joe said any one that goes to a pyco shrink should have is head examined. this stuff about going there is to get people to go to want to let dr play with there minds.

how important is healthy close family? to grow up with out a father; see history lesson on this form by the teacher of the year who was called and ask why he quite by the vice president of usa;

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/the-ultimate-history-lesson-with-john-gatto.11/

my grand father lived next to us and my father worked with him; in 1966 my grand mother and father walked hand in hand protesting the Viet. war with 7 other people walking down main st in the heat of the day.

my wise grand father asked me to never go to war as it was just old men killing young men as he had gone to ww1. as I shared that with my nephew and nieces; war is not self defense its hell.

Loren

Published on Aug 27, 2014
GirlWritesWhat - Karen Straughan interview.

"I might quote Ms. Gloria Steinem, one of those so assisted, who commented that the CIA "wanted to do what we wanted to do -- present a healthy, diverse view of the United States" -- " never felt I was being dictated to at all."

~ Director of Central Intelligence, William Colby, quoting Gloria Steinem.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default...

This episode is about feminism, socialism, eugenics, freedom, social control, and is called “Feminism: Socialism & Eugenics in Sheep’s Clothing”, and was recorded on Wednesday, August 20, 2014, and released on Thursday, August 28, 2014.


Karen Staughan is back for part 2 on feminism with Gnostic Media.

GirlWritesWhat is a divorced mother of three, university drop out, and author of erotica who also writes and vlogs about gender issues. She considers herself both anti-feminist and anti-traditional, and has characterized feminism as “paternalism in lipstick”. She describes her philosophy as the radical notion that women are adults!

"
History… Connected: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America w/ Charlotte Iserbyt
Published on Nov 18, 2013
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Loren & Allan,

I hardly know where to start, responding to all these comments. Just at random:

(1) In order to recognize "Catcher in the Rye" as an anti-Masonic critique, first it's necessary to recognize that it's about Freemasonry! As far as I know, before Joe came up with that idea, nobody had even recognized it. If Salinger had meant to write a critique of Freemasonry, why didn't he come right out and say so? Why all the secret code and typological sub-texting? But I do agree, once you see that it's referring to Freemasons, it comes across highly critical of them.

(2) After reading Allan's comments, I'm almost ready to backpedal from the position in our recent post: "We feel confident with our position that the relationship between Holden and his ten year old sister was created as an assault of the minds of Salinger’s teenage readers... It was all intended to prepare the way for the sexual and moral permissiveness of the sixties and beyond." I don't really feel that we've proven that case beyond any reasonable doubt.

Was Salinger writing a critique of Freemasonry while under a blackmail threat? Possible. Writing about Holden Caulfield's M-W complex, Phoebe's subconscious or budding sexuality, and their interaction? Possible. Attempting self-therapy and/or self-justification for his attraction towards young women of various ages, and trying to reflect on his boundaries? Maybe. Subconsciously channeling the Baphomet? How should I know.

Regardless of the process that led Salinger to create "Catcher", I think the most important point about it is the fact that the book was somehow chosen over many others, to become required reading in high school.

(3) I'm not ready to build a firewall and keep all mass media on the outside of it. I can respect people who would do that: Loren and Joe are apparently at that point. For myself, I still enjoy the artistic creativity of it; more importantly, I keep suspecting that there are nuggets of humanity sneaking through. For example, the idea of the "red pill" from "The Matrix" seems to have helped a lot of people.

(4) I think it does matter if the film about hyper-sexuality was made by fundamentalist Muslims, because I know that if they had their choice, they would replace all the bikinis with burkas. We are always being caught up in these false dialectics between unreasonable extremes. "There is only healthy sex between husband and wife" -- I haven't heard Joe say that. Such a blanket condemnation of all other varieties of sexual relations between consenting adults would feel really judgmental & unreasonable to me.

(5) Phoebe never said anything about fucking in the rye! Here's the quote from Salinger:

"You know that song 'If a body catch a body comin' through the rye'? I'd like--"
"It's 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'!" old Phoebe said. "It's a poem. By Robert Burns."​

Joe is the one with the all-knowing (if not downright Freudian) mindset to realize that the whorehouse version of Burns' poem said neither "catch" nor "meet" but "fuck"! And you'll never convince me that Salinger was innocent about that. But, Phoebe is a fictional character! So it's meaningless to debate whether or not she "knew" what Burns was talking about, or whether she was conscious of her own sexuality. I'd accept that Salinger was probably conscious of Phoebe as a sexual being; but he never puts words in her mouth that lack "plausible deniability" as things that an innocent little girl might say. Little girls do sometimes hug adults in a "too affectionate" way, and they do play games with thernoneters.

(6) Agree, the 1950's and 1960's 'culture' that the 'counter-culture' rebelled against, was dysfunctional in its own way, with a powerful dark side. I believe it's an error to think that there was some sort of "golden age" that we are trying to get back to. But on the other hand, these different dialectic poles have different effects; and if we live in a culture that is extraordinarily weak in the areas of family stability and childcare, it's going to have bad effects on our collective ability to resist the police state & genocidal war against us.
 

Allancw

Member
i've found that the quality of a story is dependent on the depth and complexity of the conflicts the protagonist goes through. Conflicts can be societal, interpersonal or inner. A good story will have all three. (You can add 'environmental, too: a hurricane, a bear, pack of wolves, a drought, etc etc.) A good story invariably deals with the protagonist's quest - does he or does he not get what he wants. (This is my view. It's not particularly controversial among writers.)

I'm not looking for an essay. Just a title of a coming of age story (male protagonist) that Joe does not find 'culturally destructive.' I'm not asking this in any way figuring Joe will not be able to come up with an answer! (I'm genuinely curious where the conflict will come from).

(I'd love to ask which of the Coen Brothers' movies are on the destructive list and why, but maybe later. Oh, and The Matrix, too -- considering that someone on the film had foreknowledge of 9/11 and inserted that knowledge into the film in a most provocative way. For me, this sort of thing is a big red flag that we're not dealing with a Friend -- google 'Neo's passport + 9/11' or the like if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about.)
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Loren & Allan,


(5) Phoebe never said anything about fucking in the rye! Here's the quote from Salinger:

"You know that song 'If a body catch a body comin' through the rye'? I'd like--"
"It's 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'!" old Phoebe said. "It's a poem. By Robert Burns."​
.
(5) Phoebe never said anything about fucking in the rye! Here's the quote from Salinger:
"You know that song 'If a body catch a body comin' through the rye'? I'd like--"
"It's 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'!" old Phoebe said. "It's a poem. By Robert Burns."

jerry
33 min. in on red ice radio joe says she did. if I understand he will catch them or f them and he decides to f them does seem like a good guy to you that children can learn from?

The most important puzzle to solve to understand the real meaning of Catcher in the Rye is Caulfield’s ‘misunderstanding’ of the freemason Robert Burns’ poem: ‘Coming through the Rye’. Caulfield overhears a child singing the song.
Here is one version of Burns poem:

“Coming thro’ the Rye” (1796)
Coming thro’ the rye, poor body,
Coming thro’ the rye,
She draiglet a’ her petticoatie
Coming thro’ the rye.
O, Jenny’s a’ wat, poor body;
Jenny’s seldom dry;
She draiglet a’ her petticoatie
Coming thro’ the rye.
Gin a body meet a body
Coming thro’ the rye,
Gin a body kiss a body—
Need a body cry?
Gin a body meet a body
Coming thro’ the glen,
Gin a body kiss a body—
Need the warld ken?

Even in the above G-rated version, the poem is clearly discussing a sexual encounter out in the tall grass. Another, less well-known version spells it out, in case anyone misses the point.
Here is the ‘whorehouse’ version of the song.

O gin a body meet a body,
Comin’ throu the rye:
Gin a body fuck a body,
Need a body cry.
Comin’ thro’ the rye, my jo,
An’ coming’ thro’ the rye;
She fand a staun o’ staunin’ graith,
Comin’ thro’ the rye.
Gin a body meet a body,
Comin’ thro’ the glen;
Gin a body fuck a body,
Need the warld ken.
Gin a body meet a body,
Comin’ thro the grain;
Gin a body fuck a body,
Cunt’s a body’s ain.
Gin a body meet a body,
By a body’s sel,
What na body fucks a body,
Wad a body tell.
Mony a body meets a body,
They dare na weel avow;
Mony a body fucks a body,
Ye wadna think its true.

In order to understand which version the child was singing requires recognizing the image given in the passage directly preceding the one in which the child is singing Burn’s song.
There was this record I wanted to get for Phoebe, called “Little Shirley Beans.” It was a very hard record to get. It was about a little kid that wouldn’t go out of the house because two of her front teeth were out and she was ashamed to. I heard it at Pencey. A boy that lived on the next floor had it, and I tried to buy it off him because I knew it would knock old Phoebe out, but he wouldn’t sell it. It was a very old, terrific record that this colored girl singer, Estelle Fletcher, made about twenty years ago. She sings it very Dixieland and whorehouse, and it doesn’t sound at all mushy.

Notice that the song ‘Little Shirley Beans’ is for children, but that the singer gives a “whorehouse” version of the song. This is the framework the author wishes a reader to use in the next paragraph; where we encounter the description of the mysterious ‘catcher’ in the rye. Holden believes he overhears a child singing, “If a body catch a body coming through the rye.” This lyric does not occur in either version of the Burns song; the phrase is either “when a body meet a body” or “when a body fuck a body”. Holden understands the words of the song in a way they were never written. The alert reader will recognize that the child is singing – as in the paragraph above – the “whorehouse” version of the song, which Caulfield will understand at the book’s end.

Where Caulfield heard ‘catch’, the child must have been singing ‘fuck’. Salinger’s ‘real’ title is therefore ‘Fucker in the Rye’ and this describes Caulfield’s ‘revelation’ in the Freemason’s holy of holies given below. In other words, that the deepest secret of Freemasonry is “fuck you”, which appears to be Apocalypse to non-Freemasons and death to members that are traitors to the organization.​
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Loren,

Joe's argument is that "the child" must have been singing the whorehouse version. But, Salinger doesn't actually specify which version the child was singing, and the child is a fictional (nonexistent) character anyhow. "The child" is not the same (fictional) person as Phoebe, and I don't think Salinger ever had Phoebe say anything off-color or expletive.

"does seem like a good guy to you that children can learn from?" I agree about that part -- I don't think Catcher should be required reading. There must be something better that they could read. Though I'm at a loss as to what that might be, sadly enough.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Loren & Allan,

I hardly know where to start, responding to all these comments. Just at random:

(1) In order to recognize "Catcher in the Rye" as an anti-Masonic critique, first it's necessary to recognize that it's about Freemasonry! As far as I know, before Joe came up with that idea, nobody had even recognized it. If Salinger had meant to write a critique of Freemasonry, why didn't he come right out and say so? Why all the secret code and typological sub-texting? But I do agree, once you see that it's referring to Freemasons, it comes across highly critical of them.

(2) After reading Allan's comments, I'm almost ready to backpedal from the position in our recent post: "We feel confident with our position that the relationship between Holden and his ten year old sister was created as an assault of the minds of Salinger’s teenage readers... It was all intended to prepare the way for the sexual and moral permissiveness of the sixties and beyond." I don't really feel that we've proven that case beyond any reasonable doubt.

Was Salinger writing a critique of Freemasonry while under a blackmail threat? Possible. Writing about Holden Caulfield's M-W complex, Phoebe's subconscious or budding sexuality, and their interaction? Possible. Attempting self-therapy and/or self-justification for his attraction towards young women of various ages, and trying to reflect on his boundaries? Maybe. Subconsciously channeling the Baphomet? How should I know.

Regardless of the process that led Salinger to create "Catcher", I think the most important point about it is the fact that the book was somehow chosen over many others, to become required reading in high school.

(3) I'm not ready to build a firewall and keep all mass media on the outside of it. I can respect people who would do that: Loren and Joe are apparently at that point. For myself, I still enjoy the artistic creativity of it; more importantly, I keep suspecting that there are nuggets of humanity sneaking through. For example, the idea of the "red pill" from "The Matrix" seems to have helped a lot of people.

(4) I think it does matter if the film about hyper-sexuality was made by fundamentalist Muslims, because I know that if they had their choice, they would replace all the bikinis with burkas. We are always being caught up in these false dialectics between unreasonable extremes. "There is only healthy sex between husband and wife" -- I haven't heard Joe say that. Such a blanket condemnation of all other varieties of sexual relations between consenting adults would feel really judgmental & unreasonable to me.

(5) Phoebe never said anything about fucking in the rye! Here's the quote from Salinger:

"You know that song 'If a body catch a body comin' through the rye'? I'd like--"
"It's 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'!" old Phoebe said. "It's a poem. By Robert Burns."​

Joe is the one with the all-knowing (if not downright Freudian) mindset to realize that the whorehouse version of Burns' poem said neither "catch" nor "meet" but "fuck"! And you'll never convince me that Salinger was innocent about that. But, Phoebe is a fictional character! So it's meaningless to debate whether or not she "knew" what Burns was talking about, or whether she was conscious of her own sexuality. I'd accept that Salinger was probably conscious of Phoebe as a sexual being; but he never puts words in her mouth that lack "plausible deniability" as things that an innocent little girl might say. Little girls do sometimes hug adults in a "too affectionate" way, and they do play games with thernoneters.

(6) Agree, the 1950's and 1960's 'culture' that the 'counter-culture' rebelled against, was dysfunctional in its own way, with a powerful dark side. I believe it's an error to think that there was some sort of "golden age" that we are trying to get back to. But on the other hand, these different dialectic poles have different effects; and if we live in a culture that is extraordinarily weak in the areas of family stability and childcare, it's going to have bad effects on our collective ability to resist the police state & genocidal war against us.
There is only healthy sex between husband and wife" -- I haven't heard Joe say that. jerry said

i say he says 'healthy' sex with in the family meaning husband and wife! with clear thinking and not doing drugs. THE SONG THAT OPENS IN THIS SHOW says it all; 8 min in joe talks about debasement; 18 min he talks about the song at the 1st of the show as very important to under stand; then he asks is sex drugs and rock and roll freedom? 30 min talks about fire wall for your mind; http://www.gnosticmedia.com/joe-atwill-12-i-am-the-walrus-the-beatles-and-the-typology-of-genocide-223/ I looking now to find it ...what joe said, what say you joe ?
 
Last edited:
"Healthy sex" is too general a concept to have a specific response to. What is clear to me is that the oligarchs have used sexuality as a weapon to keep citizens from seeing the slave state they are being led into. Huxley's 'epsilon' song is invalueable as it reveals the oligarchs plan in a way everyone can understand.

Joe
 

Allancw

Member
Hi Joe,

I feel like some of my observations/opinions/questions have gotten passed over. I will say that if you can't come up with a title (described above), logically speaking you should revisit your 'culturally destructive' view of the book.
 
Hi Allan

So sorry. I will try to respond to all of your posts later today. As the new posts come in it is difficult for me to see the prior ones. I won't let this happen again.

Joe
 
Top