Decrypting the "Catcher" in the Rye
January 2, 2014
Catcher in the Rye offers insight into
the misanthropic mindset of the Criminal Elite
By Hamad Subani
(henrymakow.com)
This article is dedicated to explaining a key paragraph from which The Catcher in the Rye derives its name which illustrates the Illuminati mindset. Keep in mind that J.D. Salinger's novel was intensely autobiographical. Speaking to his sister, Holden Caulfield says:
"Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around-nobody big, I mean-except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff-I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be. I know it's crazy."
(left, Salinger in old age)
The establishment media has always interpreted these lines as Holden's concern for the rest of humanity. But in the book, we discover that Holden is a cynic, and cares little about humanity. He always strikes the reader as extremely narcissistic, bipolar and passive-aggressive.
He hates the school atmosphere because he has to rub shoulders with working-server class Americans. But of course, this does not mean he has no need for the rest of us. He helps himself to attractive women of the same server class he despises, and actually gets into a fight with a roommate who is more successful at getting them.
He wears a deer hunter cap, which he describes to his roommate as a "people-shooting hat," which is a metaphor for a predator-prey relationship. He strangely feels at peace in the museum where he can judge the exhibits. The petrified exhibits, locked in glass cages, can't judge him back.
In the real world, anything out of place, such as street graffiti, greatly disturbs him. Like the Ruling Elite, Salinger/Holden fears and loathes change and spontaneity, and instead loves predictability.
In another of Salinger's stories Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, the protagonist throws a stone at the head of his sweetheart just because she was looking so beautiful. In his personal life too, Salinger left behind a trail of damaged girls.
What could explain Salinger's/Holden's sudden spurt of concern for the children in the rye?
The answer lies in understanding that Salinger/Holden represents the megalomaniacs who run the show. What distinguishes them from us is not higher intelligence, better abilities or even more wealth. Rather, they possess an inexplicable tendency to catch/protect/possess/save/detain/control us. This is comparable to a greedy farmer, who always prefers to see cattle as livestock to be slaughtered, as opposed to having a purpose of their own.
THE "CLIFF" IS BOGUS TERROR
The vision of other people going about their business is deeply disturbing to the Criminal Elite, as is the vision of children running around in a rye field. They have to insert themselves into the situation. But not as an equal. Salinger/Holden does not envision himself as just another child in the rye field, but as the ONLY adult there. And he wants to catch the rest of the children.
This will sound dark, sociopathic and creepy to most reasonable readers. But Salinger closely followed his dear friend Ernest Hemingway's iceberg theory of writing. According to this theory, if a writer alludes to things that he has detailed knowledge about while deliberately omitting a lot of information, it will only make the narrative more intriguing and compelling. (On the other hand alluding little details about stuff the writer knows nothing about will immediately be noticed by readers).
In this case, Salinger alludes to the dark mindset of the Criminal Elite (which he is strangely proficient with), but immediately misdirects by adding another detail - the cliff. We are expected to trust his judgment that there is indeed a cliff looming in the background, which only he can see. But what if there was no cliff? And Salinger/Holden created it to conceal their misanthropic worldview from readers oblivious to the idea of an American ruling class?
Salinger/Holden invents the cliff to distract from the real danger to the kids, which is himself. This is so typical of how countless police states, tyrannies, regimes and governments assert their control over free people by claiming to protect them from imaginary threats (enemies, terrorists, environmental disasters, Muslims and so on) while being the real enemies of their people.
Rather than clinically examine their own sociopathic tendencies and megalomania, the Criminal Elite convince us that without them, we may fall over some "cliff." Even if there was no cliff in the first place. But there has to be a cliff/danger lurking out there, and we must be incapable of dealing with it on our own, otherwise who would need the services of The Catcher in the Rye? And once The Catcher in the Rye gets hold of you, how do you escape from his clutches? Does he ever intend to let go?
It is pitiable that in our times, a metaphor for dark psychopathic tendencies became the buzzword for a generation.
--
RELATED - A more detailed version of this article can be found here.
First Comment by Nathan
In high school, Catcher quickly became my favorite novel. I identified intensely with Holden Caulfield. Forging out on his own, his disdain for 'phonies', plays, movies, actors, his love for his young sister and the innocence of children. To me, the field of rye is the system, the facade of normalcy. Beautiful, shining, amber waves of grain, yet they are farmed, placed there deliberately for profit, displacing what would have grown there naturally, and effectively engulfing the children, obstructing their view of the world. The cliff is an extension of this, the descent into sleepy adulthood; unforeseen by the children at play, they will fall over the cliff, plunge to their symbolic deaths, so they may rise again amongst the sheeple, the phonies, the 'might-as-well-be-dead-because-i-never-think-for-myself' adults.
Holden is angry at the graffiti, because it says 'Fuck you' and is written on or near a school playground where children can see it. Yes, he orders a prostitute, but quickly regrets it, tries to engage her in conversation, and rejects HER advances. This is essentially the scene in 'Taxi Driver' when Robert DeNiro (Travis Bickle) tries to convince a young Jodi Foster to leave her pimp. Both characters are similar in that they are damaged, they have skewed views of the world, yet they long to save the innocent. Holden, wrapped up in his teenaged ego and narcissism, believes he saw the cliff coming. He wants to help but doesn't know how. Stop the kids from falling, but then what? He knows the winter is cold and icy in New York, but can't figure where the ducks go to get away.
I hope I'm not sympathizing with the devil here, but I believe Salinger's intentions were good. Holden could have saved the kids and exposed the whole phony mess to them, but we instead see a manipulated 'archetypal Caulfield', eternal rebel, smoking, drinking, cursing, getting worse and worse. He is Travis Bickle, Tyler Derden, Walter White, he is detached and violent. The Illuminati recognize genius, and will do what they can to manipulate and use it to their own benefit.
This is pure speculation, but I think it is possible that Salinger caught on to the plan that his work was, or would be, used for social manipulation and mind control. This could explain why he became so intensely reclusive, and refused to allow any more of his stories to be published. He fought off biographers, and he certainly fought off Hollywood. We would be on a second or third remake of a Catcher in the Rye movie by now if he hadn't. The movie 'The Royal Tannenbaums' is a complete and utter rip off of Salinger's 'Glass Family,' the fictional family from his other stories. It was a movie makers' big 'fuck-you-for-not-selling-us-the-rights.' (At least Salinger's family hasn't sold him out yet, like Dr. Seuss' did when he died.)
I must have read the book with rose colored glasses on, cognitive dissonance or no, I loved the story of the Catcher in the Rye and I still do.
Dan said (January 3, 2014):
I stepped in a pile of Catcher in the Rye this morning and had to send my shoe off for 'de-creeping'.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the whole Salinger hoax is crap.
A 2009 review in 'GAWKER'; "Catcher in the Rye Sequel: Actual Disaster or Lame Hoax?"
http://gawker.com/5254647/catcher-in-the-rye-sequel--actual-disaster-or-lame-hoax
"The world needs a Catcher in the Rye sequel like it needs an asshole on its elbow."
I couldn't have put it better. That goes for the 1st edition too. As literature - even as American Modernist literature, Catcher in the Rye is FISHWRAP. Is there anyone who went to American public school during the last 50 years that was'nt forced to read it in high school? That books sales were funded by taxpayers, and forced readings are the only reason anybody ever heard of J.D.Salinger.
I'll go further. I think J.D. Salinger was a hoax. His history is about as credible as Osama Bin Ladin after 911. No TV or radio interviews, just a few grainy black and white photos from the early 1950s, until they resurrected his meme a few years ago. When students began asking the right questions, letters would magically be 'found' to answer them. Though I've never seen photos of those letters. [1]
The question is, why did the US Federal Department of Education through it's weight behind this crappy book? It it was so popular, why didn't Hollywood grab it and make into a movie starring Sal Mineo? Or even in the 1960's, and starred Dustin Hoffman? (he'd have been perfect).
[1] 1957 Letter from J.D. Salinger Explains Why CATCHER IN THE RYE Wouldn’t Work as a Movie http://collider.com/catcher-in-the-rye-movie-rejection-jd-salinger/