Correspondence from Karl Germer to Jane Wolfe

June 17, 1928

Dear Jane,

93

Your letter of June 10.  My visa has been extended to June 1, 1929, as I heard yesterday.  So you can send the various MSS. along.

I haven't much to reply to your letter as you seem to agree with mine.  You ask "why do you kick a man when he is down" (referring to Mudd [Norman Mudd]).

In the first place, I don't kick him, but it has always seemed to me as though Mudd occupied and still occupies a positive place in your heart and soul, whichever you prefer. I doubt whether your attitude towards what the name Mudd stands for is entirely impartial or better, unattached.  This may unconsciously account for the form of my remarks.  For if I am right, there is probably danger.

But there is another angle.  Mudd, like Achad [Charles Stansfeld Jones], has undoubtedly fallen.  Now, who falls, is in my opinion, not only lost to the G.[reat] W.[ork], he is not only indifferent to it, but he becomes its opponent, its antagonist, its enemy.  For, fallen means, to be obsessed by some particular idea or demon.  This is a general remark.  But there seems to be in this case a direct proof for it with regard to Mudd. Tränker [Heinrich Tränker], a dangerous occult criminal, boasts that those who formerly were the closest cooperators of the Beast had now gone over to his camp and were working with him.  This, as appears from the context, refers to Mudd and Leah [Leah Hirsig], probably also Achad.  Now, we know that Tränker is fighting the G.W., and particularly in Germany with all means, directly and indirectly, and most unscrupulously, with lies and calumnies.  So there is the reason: If you keep even the slightest magical, subtle connection with Mudd, or he with you on the magical plane, you might wake up some day with an unpleasant surprise.

Here is another remark.  It always strikes me that all you people ought to take up a much more selfish, or if you prefer independent, attitude towards the Beast.  Your remarks about the "pencil", a "sheet of paper", a "horse" are all quite right. But don't forget there are no one-sided relations possible in the universe.  If A. is the "pencil" to the Beast, then it is equally true that from the point of view of the Star A. the Beast is the necessary complement: paper.  Both are necessary to each other. After the "pencil" A. has written its story on the paper "beast" (in other words: fulfilled its mission and severed its connection with Him) he goes on writing on other paper. All you seem always to look at the Beast with hypnotised eyes. To continue the parable of the poor pencil: as though he might reflect: now, after I have served the sheet of paper faithfully and made my marks on it and used myself up on it and given my very soul to it, this ungrateful paper simply leaves me, throws itself into the arms of the damned envelope to be posted and go on to other destinations. What a fine time it has, this unfaithful paper. Suppose for a moment the paper would argue in a similar way about the unfaithful pencil, having finished with its present concubine, this sheet of paper, leaving it immediately to flirt with another sheet? Don't you see the flaw in this attitude? There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt!

93 93/93

Yours fraternally,

Karl

P.S. I hope to get the London Case of books from Pickfords Colonial during the coming week. Shall I send some of the books to you? Do you think you or Smith [Wilfred T. Smith] could sell some of them? Please write this Dorothy [Dorothy Olsen] direct. I am too much out of town & I think she ought to take care of all the book matters & keep record. I will send away wherever she asks me to.

[1]