18. George W. M. Reynolds And Usury Great And Small

George W.M. Reynolds And Usury Great And Small 18. Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle by R.E. Prindle The Usurer plays a large role in the works of George Reynolds. Indeed, in his very first novel, first composed when he was eighteen years old in 1832, then rewritten in 1847 as The Parricide, is about defrauding a usurer. His novel The Necromancer perhaps meant as a history of usury from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth century in Europe and England portrayed the character of the master usurer, Lionel Danvers. He is based on the real life master usurers Nathan and Lionel Rothschild. I have reviewed The Necromancer a couple of times before but I haven’t exhausted its meaning or fascination to me. In earlier efforts I couldn’t be certain of how familiar Reynolds was with the character of Lionel Rothschild and his later familiarity with the Jewish-English author and politician Benjamin Disraeli. In 1998 the British historian Niall Ferguson published his history of the House of Rothschild to 1905 titled The World’s Banker a massive 1300 page, large format volume, a real five pounder. He was commissioned I believe by the Rothschilds while given access to their archives. This was a formidable task requiring working through a semi-load of documents. A daunting task and one that Ferguson came through well. I have owned the book for near twenty years but having hefted the book as Mark Twain said of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the tablets, a few times and finding it heavy in more ways than one I found a comfortable space for it on the shelf and left it there. When the student is ready the teacher will appear. That moment arrived and I took the book down. At that moment, Reynolds, you know The Necromancer, it occurred to me that Ferguson must be detailing the years from 1800 to 1851 the latter year when The Necromancer was written so I took the book down and was instantly rewarded. The Rothschilds had perfected usury. They were the kings of usury and there was no chance that they could have been missed by Reynolds not even a slight one. The Rothschilds must have been a nearly daily topic of conversation about town. George may very well have been obsessive about the Rothschilds as the world’s ultimate usurers. They worked on a scale unheard of before then. States borrowed in the millions. The Rothschilds not only bilked lone borrowers but through their transactions with States they bilked everyone in them. Indeed, George’s villain Lionel Danvers began his career in Italy not too distant from the time of the Pope’s banning of usury for all good Roman Catholics thus giving the Jews a monopoly and the key to the highway that they put to good use. Now, papa Rothschild, Mayer Amschel, had five sons who he trained for the Jewish conquest of Europe. Unless I miss my mark Mayer Amschel Rothschild, following his father’s advice, studied the career of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, a Court Jew for the Southern German State of Wurttemberg who devised the modern Jewish approach, adapted Suss methods for the conquest of Europe. I have written two or three articles on Suss who may have been the most important individual influencing the history of the twentieth century. Once trained the sons were spread out to the different capitals of Europe. As a family they functioned as one unit, thus covering all of Europe and England much as Danvers did. The time was propitious as the evolution of banking was assuming its modern form while the Industrial Revolution was beginning g to provide unrivaled opportunities for investment. Other minds could originate industries but through financial means their ideas and businesses could be appropriated. The sons of Rothschild would know how to play both avenues to wealth. While it might have appeared that being Jewish was a disadvantage because of prejudice the opposite was true. One must remember the Jews were an international or pan-European nation. Even though dispersed through out the nations of Europe they functioned as one nation. E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unlike parochial peoples like the English or French nations who could only freely associate within the limits of their own countries, the Jews could operate over all borders and coordinate their activities across the whole continent. While most parochial nations excluded at least two thirds of their natives from full participation in society any Jew could aspire to success in spite of their host nations. The Jews of any background had access to a university education that was denied to the vast majority of the national proles. In The Necromancer Reynolds has his villain, Lionel Danvers, a resident of Europe, not any particular country, but Europe, going to England occasionally. The wealth of all Europe, as a usurer, is in his hands. This situation would, of course, be suggested to Reynolds as the Rothschilds had Europe in the palm of their hands. Thus the association between Danvers and the Rothchilds is affirmed. In the novel Danvers is awarded his success by selling his soul to the Devil. Satan gives him a way out of the bargain if he can find six beautiful women who love him so much that they pledge Lionel Danvers their body and soul. While Danvers has their bodies for his use temporally, their souls belong to Satan. Once the women consent to him he turns them body and soul over to Satan in his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight. Now! The Jews in England up to 1290 boasted that they built the first stone house in the kingdom, disregarding all those big stone castles, a mark of superiority over the natives. Because of their unbridled use of usury causing great misery to the English whose numeracy was in a primitive state while that of the usurious Jews was fairly advanced the English were easy pickings. For myself, I didn’t understand the meaning of compound interest until well past my maturity. Edward III expelled them in 1290. Oliver Cromwell granted residency in about 1660. Thus Lionel Danvers was absent from England for long periods while still retaining significant properties such as his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight. Perhaps it was the first stone house in England. As Reynolds opens his story Danvers is back in England although as this is the time of Henry VIII there should have been no other Jews except possibly some disguised recently arrived Sephardic Jews who had been expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. Perhaps even that is why Danvers returned. So, Reynolds is sailing pretty close to the facts if you have the poetic frame of mind to see behind appearances. Indeed, Niall Ferguson tells in an academic historical manner what Reynolds poeticized. And the Rothschilds, given the modern state of affairs are usurers deluxe. Bilking individuals was petty cash compared to bilking national governments. To paraphrase Nero they wished he English had one purse to snatch from them. A loan of a few tens of pounds or waiting a long time to cash in on obits. (Loans to a debtor with expectations payable on his inherited wealth when the father dies.) compared to loaning millions to the State and reaping a large harvest. Reynolds had a tragic tale of Ralph Faerfield in The Crimes of Lady Saxondale who ran up huge debts on expectations only to be thwarted when his father took a young wife who displanted Ralph with a new heir. That was a cold shower for Ralph. The career of Nathan Rothschild and his extended family spread across England and Europe was almost as fabulous of mythical character as that of King Arthur or Charlemagne and it permeated the age so that Reynolds could not have been uninfluenced. In Reynolds’ time Rothschild doings were everyday topics of conversation. Indeed, Isaac D’Israeli, the father of Benjamin Disraeli may have, probably did have, the Rothschilds in mind when he wrote of the supernatural Jews in his book The Genius of Judaism. There is no reason to think he didn’t as his fellow Jews thought of Nathan as the coming of the Messiah. Ferguson quotes the Legend of Nathan based on a magic talisman that Nathan is thought to have had. There could be no other reason in his fellow Jews minds for his fabulous success. That success did seem magical; as magical as Rabbi Loewe’s Golem. In his own way Nathan was a golem. The Golem is a magical creature designed to destroy the Goyim. I quote Ferguson’s account of the Legend in full, pp. 324,25 and 26: Quote: To poorer Jews in particular, Nathan’s extraordinary rise to riches had an almost mystical significance—hence the legend of the ‘Hebrew Talisman’, the magical source of his good luck, which became associated with him in Jewish lore. This extraordinary story—a version of which was published by an anonymous author in London just four years after Nathan’s death- is one of the most bizarre early examples of what might be called the ‘Rothschild myth.’ Although apparently by a Jewish author, the possibility that (like the later and much better known Protocols of the Elders of Zion) it was in fact the work of an anti-Jewish agent provocateur cannot be ruled out, so militant is its tone. Indeed, the story anticipates many of the more fantastic allegations of the overtly anti-Rothschild French pamphleteers of the 1840s. The story in narrated by a mysterious phantom, who describes himself as ‘detesting…the followers of the Nazarene, with a most holy and fervent detestation’ and having been doomed to long ages of agony and travail’ by ‘the avenging one of Nazareth’. He is the custodian of a talisman, which confers on its holder magical powers. ‘Could I not command gold? Yea…had I not the talisman? -Had I not the ineffable words?- Could I not buy the whole evil race, from the false prophet even to the lowest among the evil genii?- Could I not task them in the midnight incantation, and lo! Would not plenty make the hearts of my people glad at sunrise?’ His aim is to give the talisman to ‘a zealous hater of the Nazarenes,- a man exceedingly desirous of working their degradation and destruction…a champion to avenge the wrongs of Israel.’. Arriving in Frankfurt during the Napoleonic occupation of the town, the narrator witnesses hideous scenes of pillage by French troops. The Frankfurt Jews in particular are the objects of systematic extortion. In a looted office in the heart of the Jewish quarter, he comes across a young man, ‘his eyes…red with much weeping, and his cheeks pale and haggard, as much with sorrow and long vigils’. As he looks on a French soldier bursts into the office demanding yet more money. ‘ “ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!” [the young man] exclaimed, as, kneeling, he lifted up his trembling hands to the east, how long?...How long…shall the unbeliever triumph and thy people be a jest and a bye word?” ‘ Unmoved, the Frenchman seizes his last remaining object of value, the family teraphim (household shrine). After he departs the, the young man cursed the Nazarenes, and prayed in fervent tones that he might have the power to crush them and vowed by the ineffable name of Jehovah to lose no opportunity of despoiling their wealth, and trampling down, yea, utterly bruising, their black and unsparing and unbelieving hearts’. ‘Here’, declares the narrator ‘was a fit servant for the great master- here a champion fit for the great cause. His wrongs…would make him a faithful and very zealous foeman of the Nazarene of whatever nation. Here was, at length, the man, the long hoped, the long sought, who should build up the temple of the Lord, and make Israel and Judah feared and obeyed in all the quarters of the earth.’ The phantom narrator therefore makes himself visible (clad in the flowing robes of the far East’, he is ‘pallid as a corpse…with hoary hair and beard’ and ‘great black eyes, that shot forth lurid fires, upon which no mortal could look and not tremble’). ‘I spake the words of power, and the talisman was once more committed to a man of my persecuted race,’ on this occasion in the form of a ‘a ring holding the keys of his rifled drawers’. ‘I gave to that ring the influence and might of the signet of the wise Solomon. Having done this, I commanded the young man to name some wish for instant accomplishment; and ere he had thrice, according to my instructions, whirled the ring upon his forefinger, steps were heard’ A man enters (later to be revealed to be a prince), weighed down with a huge bag of gold, which he entrusts to the young man. Needless to say, it contains ‘the very sum for which he had wished aloud while making his first essay of the power of the talisman.’ ‘Men of the accursed and plundering race!’ the narrator exclaims, revealing at least the identity of the chosen one: Ye whose estates were within a brief space to have been within his grasp; ye, whose equipages and whose liveried lacquies I so lately saw following to his premature grave the man of Israel, whom I thus enabled to war upon ye in your vulnerable quarter,- accursed and detested Nazarenes- the young Israelite, to whom I thus committed the Talisman, and who thus early and thus fully experienced its mighty power- he who for years despoiled you of the gold which ye make to yourselves, even as a god- the man whom ye fawned upon, even while you hated him, and knew that he despised you- that man was NATHAN MEYER ROTHSCHILD. [He] waxed wealthy, more wealthy than any who had gone before him, his riches astonished the gentiles and very justly they said, such amazing wealth could be amassed by one man, in so short a time by any human agency- and they were right, it was the agency of the talisman… There then follows a brief but classic mythologized account of Nathan’s rise from the ruins of looted Frankfurt to fame and fortune. ‘He came by my direction to this paradise of loan-contracting and speculating fools, and became the leviathan of the money markets of Europe…the loan contractor, the jobber, and the money lender of the gentile kings.’ When Napoleon (encouraged by narrator) invaded Russia, ‘Rothschild was right speedy to make [his] ruin utter and inevitable—not to be repaired.’ When the Emperor returned from Elba, ‘by whom was his hope blasted?...simply by Nathan Meyer Rothschild armed with the Talisman’. The British government needed money not only to pay Wellington’s army at Waterloo, but also to brief ‘the Generals and the Senators of France’ to desert Napoleon. There was but one man on earth who both COULD and would provide the millions of golden pounds, required for the instant purposes of the English minister.—‘That man was ROTHSCHILD. By my instructions, he let the Minister have the hard gold. But all this it transpires was for a higher purpose: for Nathan lent money only ‘on one condition…the re-establishment of Judah’s kingdom- the rebuilding of thy towers, Oh! Jerusalem!’: That most elaborate of bad jokes, history, will, no doubt, say that the Jew Rothschild lent the Nazarene elder called Lord Liverpool the sum necessary to crush Napoleon Buonaparte, in consideration of some such Judean motive as 25 per cent interest. The writers of history, in that case, will, as usual, lie…Rothschild was commanded to lend the money…[in return for] the restoration of Judea to our ancient race; the guarantee of England for the independence of the kingdom of Judea…In twelve hours, the millions were in the possession of the minister, and a secret agreement, guaranteed by the sign manual of royalty, was in the possession of Rothschild, for the restoration of Judea in 21 years from the day on which Napoleon should finally be driven from France. And here is the twist in the tale: This very year my task should have been completed; would have been completed, but he, Rothschild…at the twelfth hour proved false…His long round o success (unchecked save once when I reproved his presumption with the loss of a hundred thousand pounds in a single day’s business in Spanish stock)…made him more and more purse proud…[so] that it was rather with grief than surprise I recently heard from his own lips that he had basely sold the agreement for the restoration of Judea for the promise of a petty English Emancipation Bill for our people, and a petty English peerage for himself. This delectable job, this high-minded bargain, was to be completed in the ensuing years, by which time the purse-proud, haughty renegade reckoned upon being worth 5,000,000 pounds of money. He was already above four. But of course, having betrayed his master, these vain dreams could only be dashed. ‘His talisman disappeared, and I took care he should know it had disappeared forever. He never ventured upon the Exchange again, or the scribe who wrote his will should have been saved much trouble and time.’ Did I give him the talisman, to enable him like Sampson to Gideon to intrude his family and found a peerage among the Normans? Or to stifle his conscience with the weight of riches? Or to flatter it with ostentatious charities? No Israelite can put his hand to the plough of this great work, look back and live! In this bizarre fantasy, Nathan’s death therefore becomes his punishment for the failure to fulfil his promise to restore Palestine to the Jews… Unquote. In this fantasy really bizarre in the circumstances? Fantasy true but a pretty good legend and myth. However let us consider a real, not so much fantasy as deluded hope as written by Isaac D’Israeli in 1933, the height of Nathan’s prosperity and three years before his death, and the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Jud Suss Oppenheimer’s near takeover of the Duchy of Wurttemberg. Suss in his failed attempt provided the template that the Rothschilds were following. Wurttemberg is just South of Frankfurt while Suss had strong connections to it while the Judenstrasse of Frankfurt, the Jewish ghetto, was a hotbed of Jewish hopes and dreams. It is clear that Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his father studied Suss’s career closely. Nathan and his brothers grew up in the hothouse atmosphere of the Judenstrasse. One may say that carefully indoctrinated and trained by their father and given the mission by him to conquer Europe his sons left the ghetto for the wider world to achieve that mission. Their only talisman was their knowledge of usury. But here is Isaac D’Israeli: The Genius of Judaism. WITH THE ISRAELITE EVERY THING IS ANCIENT AND NOTHING IS OBSOLETE. (Title of Chap. One) The existence of the “peculiar people” professing the ancient Jewish faith has long been an object of religious conviction, and of philosophical curiosity. The Hebrew separated from the Christian, at a period of the highest civilization holds an anomalous position in society; and with some truth it may be said, that he exists in a supernatural state. The Genius of Judaism remains immutable, requiring every concession, but yielding none; perpetuating human institutions which, from their very nature passed away, and still cherishing the prejudices of barbarous aeras. But that the Christian of the nineteenth century should remain for the Hebrew the Christian of the ninth, is a moral anachronism. It will be by taking a popular view of the manners of this singular people that we shall allay the fanaticism of Jew or Christian. We must learn to feel like Jews when we tell of their calamities, and to reason like Christians when we detect their fatuity. The history of the Hebrews developes those permanent principles which are still operating on their insulated race, and which through a long series of ages, by separating the Israelite from the Christian, have occasioned a reciprocal ignorance of their modes of thinking, their motives of conduct, their dissimilar customs, and their irreconcilable differences. Fewer misconceptions and less erroneous opinions are formed of the castes of the Hindoos, than of the actual condition, and of the feelings, and the conduct of a whole people domiciliated among the nations of Europe, and now far more numerous than they were in their land of Palestine. Unquote. In both Ferguson’s Legend and the writing of D’Israeli there is this intense fanatical separation of the Jews and the Gentiles. An antagonism that results In asymmetric warfare. The Jews are actually seen as despoiling the Gentiles and the Rothschilds are kings because they are leading the pack. Both the Jews and Gentiles imagine the Rothschilds as Kings. Hence in Reynolds’ novel ,because Lionel Danvers can magically assume the appearance of King Henry VIII there is no difference between them and the real Henry is to be warned that his duplicate is confusing affairs. This notion is fully developed in Ferguson’s The World’s Banker. And then there is obscure language used by Isaac D’Israeli who, by the way, was the father of his famous son, author and politician Benjamin Disraeli. The sentence in capital letters is the title for Chapter One requiring some thought. Every thing is ancient and nothing is obsolete. What can that mean? Isaac says that the Jew is ‘supernatural’. That means that they are not human but belong to the world of the gods. There is a Supreme God and then the host of heaven, the lowest of the host being the Angels. The Jews place themselves beneath the Angels with the humans, that is the Gentiles, beneath them making the Jews demi-gods. As I surmise then that the Jew embodies all that has been converting the ancient into the present and everything that has ever been exists in his mind hence not obsolete. It still works. ‘The Genius of Judaism remains immutable.’ This is a transcendent quality that compels the Gentile to recognize the innate superiority of the Jew requiring ‘every concession, but yielding none.’ This is an irreconcilable difference that cannot be breached. There can be no peace between the chosen and the Gentiles unless the Gentiles submit. Whether intentionally or not Ferguson brings this irreconcilable difference out. So you can see that Nathan was mythologized by the his fellow Jews in the character of the failed redeemer or Messiah. There is a great similarity here to that other failed Messiah of the seventeenth, Sabbatai Zevi. ‘Every thing is ancient and nothing is obsolete.’ How anonymous was the author of the Legend? During the Revolution of ’48 when many financiers lost all the Rothschilds too were on the edge, many were the people who wanted to see them go over that edge, Lionel’s wife Charlotte alleged that ‘even the Disraelis believe in the destruction of our power’ (p, 490) That is a very revealing line. By Disrealis she must mean Dizzy and his father Isaac D’Israeli. When Isaac published his book The Genius of Judaism in 1833 the Rothschilds were in the full flush of success while Nathan appeared to be the Messiah, Samson slaying the multitudes with usury. Perhaps Isaac expected him to have purchased Palestine with his money and restored the Jews while bringing the Millennium to fruition. Three years later in 1836 when Nathan died nothing had been done to realize that dream. Of course, the Rothschilds would go on to be instrumental in establishing Israel but Isaac couldn’t see that. A week or so after Nathan died the Legend appeared while the author was enraged. I have no proof but who would have been so close to the Rothschilds and preached their virtue than a disappointed Isaac. Even then Dizzy went on to eulogize the Rothschilds in his novels Coningsby and Tancred, extravagant praise. Still nothing happening on the reestablishment of Israel. Isaac lived until 1849 so he was still alive when the Rothschilds were staggered. Ah, the mighty were falling. At that time Isaac could see the hand of God punishing the family for their failure. And so the Disraelis publicly enough made their satisfaction known. It would seem that some work needs to be done on who exactly Isaac D’Israeli was and how involved he was with the Rothschilds. There would appear to be a missing link in the story. Ferguson for some reason, possibly not to offend his employer, pretends that the legend may have been written by a goyish forger rather than a Jew. Well, I respect Niall Ferguson as a great historian but I must say that the legend might easily have been composed by Isaac D’Israeli himself, not that I’m implying it was but the similarity is striking, identical indoctrination and education produce the same results. Both Isaac and the Legend too authentically represent Jewish magical thinking, hopes and objectives to be otherwise. Ferguson also enters the caveat of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a forgery. If Ferguson is as astute as I think he is, he knows that the Protocols are also authentically Jewish. They were written in 1897 in a backroom at the First Zionist Congress in Vienna in anticipation of the First Russian Revolution. All the rest is persiflage. In the Rothschild Legend the story bears a very close resemblance to the history of Lionel Danvers as Reynolds imagines it in The Necromancer. Written in 1851 The Necromancer incorporated aspects of both Nathan and his son Lionel, the latter described from Benjamin Disraeli’s novels Coningsby and Tancred. There can be little question that father Mayer Amschel Rothschild derived his plan for the conquest of Europe from the career of the Jud Suss of eighteenth century Wurttemberg. Mayer Amschel’s father was alive at the time of Suss observing all while Mayer Amschel was born in 1740 shortly after Suss’ execution. Mayer Amschel’s sons were born later in the century when Suss would still have been a hot topic in Frankfurt. Growing up on the incredibly crowded Judenstrasse of Frankfurt in very uncomfortable circumstances, freed from the Judenstrasse only after the nineteenth century began they must have carried forth all the anger and prejudices of that infamous street. Ferguson also retells the story of the Father Tommaso of Damascus which bears noting here. The peculiar event occurred in 1840. It concerns the blood libel in which Jews are said to kill Christians, usually, young boys, to use their blood in baking religious wafers. There were several famous trials over the centuries. Father Tomasso was said to have been murdered and his blood used for ceremony. Now Father Tomasso, as the story goes, was on his way to the end of town that you don’t want to be in and he was never seen again. A few weeks later a deteriorated body was found in a sewer and this was said to be the good father. Now, this event happened two thousand miles from France in a time of poor communications. Nothing can be certainly known. We don’t really know whether there was a father Tomasso and in any event he disappeared and was never seen again. So, where’s the story? Some one said that he was killed because the Jews needed blood for their wafers. A horror story ensues in which several people were arrested and tortured to obtain confessions implicating Jews. Ferguson relates the story that one man given five hundred lashes, questioned again and still couldn’t answer so they went to work on him again but with the additional lashes he broke down and said what they wanted him to say. Five hundred lashes? And he survived? Nobody survives five hundred lashes. So we have a tale here and it was all being managed by Jews from Paris. Even the heavy hitter Adolphe Cremieux was called in to solve the problem. Cremieux was a dishonest man. When the French finally eliminated the Barbary Pirates and annexed Algeria as a French province Cremieux secretly altered the documents to make Algerian Jews into French citizens apart from the Arabs. A nice little illegal coup. Now, the Jewish defense for what was probably a bogus crime was that it was preposterous to think that Jews would eat bloody biscuits. The plot may have been to disarm any new accusations, which did subsequently appear with this horror story. But let us check the psychological history of mankind and see how preposterous bloody biscuits really are. Essentially what we are dealing with here is a form of cannibalism. The notion is cannibalism is that by eating the human flesh of enemies you are taking their powers into your body making you twice the man. Actual cannibalism was objectionable to the sensibilities of more advanced folk so the bull was substituted for the man making it unsafe to be a bull. Bear in mind though that the bull was a substitute for a human. Enemies are still enemies so there is some satisfaction in eating bloody biscuits for in the blood is the life. Now, the Jews were Asiatics and as Asiatics they lived in Egypt. Donald B. Redford in his interesting and book Egypt, Canaan, And Israel In Ancient Times published in 1992 tells of Egyptian parents who admonish there sons not to go to the end of town and mix with the Asiatics, slumming it, because one of the Asiatics offensive customs was to mix blood into biscuits, the Egyptians own blood. and fed them to the Egyptian lads. They played a good joke on the lads which their parents objected to. The Jews were Asiatics so did they participate in the sport? Of course we have no answer but people being what people are it wouldn’t be unlikely as they hated the Egyptians. Let us now turn to the story of Jesus and the Last Supper. Jesus was a Jew, thoroughly familiar with Jewish customs, spent his youth in Egypt and for all we know was inducted into the Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece. I think it likely. It seems obvious that The Last Supper was a revelation of the ceremony of Eleusis. Jesus was showing the world what Eleusis was all about. So, what’s Jewish isn’t all that Jewish. At the Last Supper with his twelve disciples, Jesus made the thirteenth of the party, Jesus holds out a wafer to the boys in the band and says: This is my body. Then he holds up a goblet of wine and says: This is my blood. So by putting his blood and flesh into their bodies they cannibalistically acquired Jesus’ characteristics just as we do today at Holy Communion. Bloody biscuits. So, if humanity, at least of the Western sort, find it not offensive to eat bloody biscuits and call it ‘Holy Communion’ how likely is it that the Jews as part of humanity wouldn’t. They did it in ancient Egypt so why not in modern Europe? It doesn’t matter to me if they did and for all we know, do, or not. For me as with Isaac D’Israeli speaking for his people ‘everything is ancient and nothing is obsolete.’ On that level I’m as Jewish as anyone. In The Necromancer’s Lionel Danvers Reynolds sounded a very discreet warning that went unheeded. As we will come back to this later, usury was the Talisman, the key to the highway that the Rothschilds wielded so well.