Now then, IF one had been feeling low after the Russian advances, and if one had been looking round for encouragement and indications of Axis strength, would one have noticed a
difference
between Berlin and London?
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
Prev.
etc.
and he didn't question the aims of that society.
He said, who administers, meaning who handles the funds of the society, and administers?
Well, do you watch the course of events? Of course most of you do not. But why should the proletariat dictate BY means of a secret committee of furriners? Why should the proletariat not dictate locally by means of itself? Why should it be administered by foreign agents, and men of alien race?
Yes, I know--those of us who are older [know? ]--my meeting with Harrison was before a Jewish administration had provided the U. S. A. with an army for export. Points of arrival not designated. And George Washington said peace can not be founded on racial antipathies. So the BBC says you must hate the Germans, that is regular Semite logic. From the mouth of the babes and the suckers.
Well, DID you notice how quickly the propaganda for eugenics degenerated into birth control? And race suicide? And how quickly romanticism was replaced, well perhaps that was a slower rhythm, to get to the gang shag? First was Mme. Bovary, and Hedda Gabler; and the romantic hero was to rescue Mrs. Jones from the tedium. And then the bright young Communard was out to rape as many young ladies as possible, and health declined, and [there] was contagion. Well that didn't date from the Communist revolution. Was it a Communist revolution? Or are you all mixed up, as the pencil seller said to me in Washington?
And another case, the white haired boy of the American communists, cause perhaps he didn't think very clearly, and vaunted a Jewisch ancestor. Anyhow, when I tried logic on him, re his commrade, he said; "But did you ever know a Communist [to] think? " Meaning have you ever encountered a Communist who would think?
? Well, in a way, and in a way NOT. First eliminate religion, and then eliminate thought from amidst the goym. Are they cattle? Do cattle think?
I don't know where to find a susceptible spot in the American or English brain, one whereinto one could inject a little historic curiosity? But what caused the antipathy between Christians and Moslems? And the Crusades, to rescue the sepulchers of a Jew in Jerusalem? And were the Masons incited against the Catholics? [The] normal American Mason is the type of friendly fellow who says to you: "Shucks, I'm a Mason and my wife is Catholic and the kids going to Catholic school, and I think a man would have to be pretty small to allow it to have an effect on his politics. "
That is the soil prepared. Some drop out or stop going to lodge meetings. Some feel bound by their oaths. And not one in a hundred thousand won ders about the central control. Penetration? Get into all parties. BUT why, if the auditor is a Communist, should he want a Communism administered by a foreign committee of plutocrats, whether of his own race or some other? It is the question about local control. Communism has been tried, as one wearies of repeating, in America, under favorable conditions. But there is a gap, a sudden collapse from the idea of owning all property in common, and the effect of one's owning anything whatsoever but being constrained to work like heelll for the state. Ain't that funneee? Well, is Stalin leading a world revolution? And if so, why so? Or is he playing at power politics?
Why not revolute? Why should world revolution need a foreign secret committee? Why revolute at the command of Mr. Finkelstein? Is America unable to go Communist without Finkelstein? Is England, are the young saps of Cambridge unable to revolute without Maisky to help them? Or is there a touch of insincerity somewhere in the wangle? As a producer, I can go Communist, the artist can go Communist without trouble. But why all the trimmings?
? [Just? ] as I can accept the idea of some Catholic economists, but I can not accept all the trimmings, and so with Mr. Bullitt's Communist leanings. Undersell private business; sell the nation's industry short, go into national bonds, BEFORE the slump in industrial shares? Yes, yes, very clever, and when industrials have slopped from 100 to 3? Then you come out with the national money and buy 'em up at the fire sale.
Dulce et decorum est. Lovely to die For the Prudential Insurance Co. which has the strength of Gibraltar. To be exported as so much dead meat in order to extend the Russian or Semitic control from Moscow down to the Persian Gulph? But is it sensible?
Debt is the prelude to slavery, and what about the freedom to keep out of debt? That dead fish Sumner Welles does not tell you about THAT sort of freedom. The yellow-livered traitor to the American honesty does not mention that sort of freedom. None of the Lehman-Baruch productions talk of that sort of freedom. Nor of course do your Jew-begormed British allies who will not certainly win this war on their character, not on the personal fascinations of Beaverbrook and the B. B. C. whiners and threateners.
WHAT are you doing in war at all? What are you doing in Africa? Who amongst you has the nerve or the sense to DO something that would conduce to getting you out of it, before you are mortgaged up to the neck, and over it? Every day of war is a debt day, as well as a death day. More debt, more future servitude, less and less of American liberty of any variety? Less liberty to ride in your cars: to post letters. Oh yes, censorship, when Rothschild got hold of the Austrian postal service in the time of Napoleon, censorship was used for commercial espionage. As nowadays, always the same bischniz houses, and the same leading chewish names, except when they change 'em. The Freudian Jews, paralyzing the nucleus of will in his goyim victim. The unFreudian chewess eating like a boll weavil into the creative will of her victim. The psychology, well, do a few monographs on the psychology of mixed
? marriages. You needn't proclaim your object at first. You need not go far enough to lose your professorship. But you can at least do a little prospecting. In psychology, the aim at getting control, getting power over others, by personal contact. As distinct from the desire for competition. Not boxers but referees, who decide the contest in some cases, where the purse is heavy, or not, as the case may be. Well, is Mr. Stalin playing materialist idealism and idealist revolution against idealism and against ideology? Or is it just the same power politics? And isn't it lovely? And debt is the prelude to slavery. And freedom to keep out of debt will not be a tea table subject on the Jew radio or in Roosevelt s regime.
#83 (May 8, 1943) U. S. (C42) PHILOSEMITE
Waaal, I reckon there must be something worse than Jews in America. At any rate there is one yellow livered snot that yawps over the Schenectady General Electric radio that I would like to take on personally when it comes to a clean up. As my part of the clean up, if there ever is or can be a clean up in the U. S. of A.
Now as for tyranous governments of Italy and Germany, as per the punk end of a codfish, well is the government of Russia a kid gloved democracy, with respect for individual rights? What about the habeas corpus in Churchill's plutocracy? As for the newspaper lies, every newspaperman in America knows what gets into print and what don't. Enough Americans know personally a newspaperman to know what he thinks about freedom to print, and what the advertisers have to say as to what is printed. My comments [of] April 21, 1939 are not likely to get past the copy desk.
That the American press prints news of war disasters means NOTHING whatever regarding freedom of the press. The news is bawled over international radios, so everyone knows it. And it helps to keep the war
? going, and keep open a market for munitions: why wouldn't loan capital want it printed? What do they care for BAD war news? More smash, more need of loan capital afterwards, to reconstruct devastations. Tell the cod in Scheneckdety to sell his damaged goods elsewhere. Or bust him one on the puss, if you have a few shreds of decency left in your biceps.
There is not an ounce or atom of honesty in either Churchill or Roosevelt. Most of the reasons for England and America being in the war are unconfessable and indecent. Let us admit that some English and Americans disliked the reported touchiness or roughness of Nazi methods. That did NOT cause the war. The CONclusive reasons for both England and America being at war are dishonest, basically and fundamentally dishonest.
Refusal of Eden's pimps to live with other powers. Everyone knows the League of Nations was a den of cheats. And the very honest effort of the International Labor Office to work out schemes for world justice or social justice was sabotaged. All this HAD and HAS not been told the American people justly.
England went to war needlessly, the whole war was NEEDLESS. A scheme as far as Roosevelt is concerned to grab world monopolies. What was inevitable after twenty or more years of preparation BY Russia, was a Russo-German war. THAT was on the cards. BUT the area of conflict could have been limited to those two countries. And the English and American governments know it. That is the sort of thing the American and English press and radio DO not reveal to the people. The American people have been betrayed by Roosevelt, and the inflators. And no amount of pi-jaw from Scheneckdety can alter it.
The history of the past 200 years has been kept a mystery. And the printing of a few military disasters or their broadcast by the Scheneckdety whiners will NOT make up for it. [FCC transcript: And it
? is almost impossible to get anyone to think consecutively or to hold observed facts in mind over a period of years long enough to get them to understand the various details. Straws in the wind they are called.
Now, years ago in a railway train, I talked to some technical robots being shipped into Russia. Russia wanted technicians, and got them. People who wanted a job, who could get lost in a job, people who had no general ideas, no aspiration about making money and no sense of civic responsibility. After all, the sense of civic responsibility is not born in slums or under the starvation lines. Nor is it born anywhere in the middle reaches of the population whose main anxiety from cradle to grave is to get a job and keep it.
Of such is the kingdom of sheep destined to be shorn and led to the slaughter. Technical kids. Religions, the opium of the people, said Lenin. The late William B. Yeats countered that by saying, "Science, opium of the suburb. "
Now, watch the birdy, deane, watch the B. B. C. and the pluto-propaganda transmission after transmission about the details of a job. Civil or even military. But not a word as to why the job is being performed at all. That is one line of hokum to watch, watch it, and also watch the attempt to revive the League of Nations.
Up to now I had thought Wallace an honest man, easily misled by kikes and shysters, but with decent intentions. But one must now face an alternative. Given, I mean, the mass of documentation as to the object, worthlessness and dishonesty of the League as you see, for example, by the reports of the International Labor Office--a man must be either utterly and absolutely irresponsible or else a crook to try to revive any such swindle. And the documentation is there, and no man in a responsible public office, even if he is only a vice president, is excusable for not facing the available evidence.
? As for Wallace's talk about arranging a peace, it is time for political puppets, even for political puppets in the British and American government to realize they're in a minority. Until England and American delouse and get rid of her Jew gangs, there is no place for either England or the United States in the new world at all. The present English and American governments are regarded as lepers by most of the world. Ask any cheated Chungking Chinaman or a bamboozled Pole what he thinks of Churchillian and Rooseveltian honor. These sweepings of the various employment agencies are not the world's majority, they are-- --. Bulldozed and black mulled South American countries do not support you, they are merely suppressed by you. Corrupted, with her politicians hired by Bill Bullitt's cronies and Donovan's gun sweepers. A clean England and a clean United States might collaborate in a new world, but it will take a hell of a lot of Sapolio to wash off the mess made by Roosevelt and Churchill.
I'm telling you, I'm not giving you the Axis point of view, I'm giving you a terrible estimate, and the news in case the-- --who run your radio and most of your press haven't told you. And Russia's contempt for the present pawn brokers regimes in London and Washington is even more vigorous than that of the Axis. The question is how long will it take the clean men in England and America to find out what has happened. Or to get control of at least some of the minor centers of power inside their
-- --countries. ]
#84 (May 9, 1943) U. K. (C39) LORD BLEEDER
On February 24 Lord BLEEDER, for your pawnbroker's government, defending your pawnbroker's government, said the main purpose of the government after the war . . . eh . . . he was throwing cold water onto Beveridge's half plan, for giving half a boiled potato per week to the bleeding poor. Lord Bleeder said the main purpose of the government, after the war, would be to pay interest on debt.
? I don't know why you don't shoot 'em. The main purpose of your having a war is to have a debt to pay interest on. And Stalin like the bleeding Czar before him, killing off 12 million bloody Rhoosians, in order to help the pawnbrokers of London, and elsewhere. The British are mugs.
Now then, IF one had been feeling low after the Russian advances, and if one had been looking round for encouragement and indications of Axis strength, would one have noticed a difference between Berlin and London? YES.
If Germany has been in the hands of the yellow livered cheats and escros of your pawnbrokers' government, what would Germany have done? She would have yelled bloody murder for Japan to come hellup her, and attack Russia from the east.
THAT is what England would have done under similar circumstances. And the Axis published agreements are such as to have made the arrangement quite possible. And if the British socialists were anti- capitalists, they would have been attacking loan capital IN England, for the past 20 years or more years, and IF the British communists were real communists instead of the left hand of loan capital, THEY would have been attacking the capitalism of England, the U. S. A. , the Jew capital, and the sub-Jew or yellow British capital in the interests of world revolution, instead of standing out.
And that is where the sincere young men who have been caught by socialist and communist ideology in England have been HAD. They have mistaken communist and socialist parties in England (and also in the U. S. A. ) for honest parties wanting a world revolution and being out against the capitalist system; and, I repeat, they have been had, bamboozled.
? And Mr. Dalton and the rest of 'em are shown up for what they are: usurer's narks, undercover men for the bank swine, hollow shams, rank impostors, with no political principles, no social principles, only the old profit motive and lust after a job. Lackeys for a pestulent squirarchy, toadies, germ carriers for syphilitic banks. Wanting to set up a pink regime in England: furnish communism with a House of Lords, and remain the Vicar of Bray, sir. Yours truly, the vicar of Bray, yes, yes, yours jewly, the Vicar of Bray.
The men of principle in England are the men who have gone to jail. They were the patriots who wanted to save your empire. You knew, or should have known that the U. S. was casting lots for your empire, that Russia had more than a century old policy against you for the spoils of your empire. That Italy and Germany needed living space; a few men wanted you to keep out of the war, and to follow a policy of reform, not of atavism. The Jew is atavistic. Communism is not progress but a return to the Anschauung of the nomad, the Tartar tribe: living by rapine. Property is of agriculture. Responsibility, foresight, care of the crops, are agricultural products. The Jew is atavistic: the psychology, may the stink of your camp drive you onward. The herders, having no care but to let their herds browse and move on, when the pasture is exhausted.
So you are allied with your enemies. I don't say all men of principle are in jail, but that is what those who are in jail are IN for. For trying to save you. Will you EVER realize that the mere continuance of the war is a victory for loan capital, a victory for the lenders of money, or for the money monopolist, the controller of monetary issue? Usually foreign controller, or at least private, NOT public controller. Great debt to be made from war: that was [the] American Civil War, to be used to control the currency. Producers of the world unite. But NOT under secret control of Semitic or any other finance.
What does war cost? Well, a lot of the COST to YOU is the stuff that is NOT made. All energy going to make explosives. All that energy
? subtracted from making things you WANT to eat and wear. That is part of the cost, irreplaceable. What is exploded, sunk and destroyed is a COST, on which loan capital fattens. Revolute, revolution, from where to where? From one state of society to another? Never simultaneous all over the world.
But the administration? The control? Peasants prefer to own land. War between peasant and undifferentiated labor, [the] peasant has skill, has knowledge, not to be acquired in two weeks in a Ford factory. No, you don't think. You have, I suppose, a vague feeling that you don't want Bolshevism in England. But you want it to prevent farm ownership BY the actual farmers elsewhere. Now what caused that?
Savings. Another red herring. War savings. Illusion of savings! Saving tickets for something that isn't there. Theatre tickets for a show that never comes off, for a play that never opens? That is another hoax. Pie in the sky? Pie at the end of the next century? And says Lord Bleeder, main job will be paying interest on public debt. Can you beat it? No social security, no living wage, no reward for labor that will permit two Englishmen, or two Aryans of any kind, to produce and bring up two kids. Well if they don't, the race dies. So you are told to oppose the race issue, and stop being English. No, not change your nature, be Englishmen, but don't BE. Cease to exist, die out. As the frogs did very largely. That is what Mr. Churchill and Eden lead to.
Follow Churchill and Eden and their owners a few steps further and you not only cease to exist as an empire, you will cease to exist as a race. One spot forever England. A lost island in the Aegean. What are you for? What does England exist for? For the upkeep of Lord Bleeder and a few Wall St. millionaires, of mixed origin, some of 'em British e? migre? s, or at least e? migre? s from London and other parts of your empire. In order, may we repeat to keep the Teutonic peoples out of the Teutonic city of Danzig, and sell up General Sikorski, in the name of self-determination. And to be able to pray.
? You might pray for restoration of at least enough energy to follow your natural instincts, which were to KEEP out of the war, and which are to STOP fighting, now.
All of which is too simple for you to think of. You might stop the war now, at least your part in it. Let it die down. You are in a blind alley. Some of you know it.
#85 (May 11, 1943) U. S. (D1) SUMNER WELLES
Sumner Welles' speech at Toledo was a carefully prepared indictment, which will hardly convince anyone here in Italy that Mr. Welles should be taken to mean literally what he said.
It is a speech which arouses, and yet almost quenches interest. What he says about America ought to be true. What he says against Germany could, many people will think, have been said quite as truly of Russia, in fact rather more so.
Mr. Welles spoke of freedom from economic aggression. No nation has more soberly faced that problem than has Italy. Italy has done almost nothing else for the past twenty-one years.
Mr. Welles admits that U. S. A. has not always refrained from economic aggression in the past. He says with some cogency that all the British empire trade preference policy was a form of economic aggression.
Olivia Rossetti Agresti over this radio has adduced a considerable array of data concerning the rather cold reception the idea of Italy's freeing herself from economic aggression met with from the American government, and continued to meet from that source for a considerable time.
? Immunity from economic aggression means that nobody has to take stuff they don't want, merely because Russia, for example, dumps it onto 'em. You probably did not hear Natalia Troubetzkoi telling you about Russian dumping. That was some months ago. Russia was dumping in the hope of creating industrial unrest.
Moscow was in fact sweating her workers unmercifully, and dumping the results on the rest of the world, according to the worst plutocratic methods. Hollywood and diverse other American sources of production were dumping their products on Europe, and threatening to make war on Italy if Italy didn't go on buying what she couldn't pay for. Of course Mr. Welles may have had a change of heart. His heart may have always been pure. But how can Europe know that? Mr. Welles' firm seemed for so long, so VERY reluctant to take count of Italy's efforts toward autarchy, of Italy's effort to keep out of debt.
Oh yes, autarchy is just what the Avv[ocato] Nicoletti defined it as, in a recent speech at Pisa. Autarchy is, among other things, the freedom to keep out of debt. That phrase is sometimes used here as a slogan. It isn't my personal slogan.
To aggress, economically to aggress, to aggress economically is, among other things to go out with a flock of cruisers and force someone to buy what they can't pay for. The whole of the past life of the S. American continent is one long record of economic aggression. That is one side of the picture.
Then he quite definitely and clearly mentioned the common man's desire to have a house of his own for his own family. That is what we believe national socialism stands for in Germany. It is what Italy stands for. It is quite emphatically what Communist Russia does NOT stand for, and would not stand for by program.
? Mr. Welles has made a distinctly anti-communist and anti-Muscovite statement. And yet Russia is hurled upon Europe with the official consent of the American government and the connivance of England. The past record of these three countries on the issue of economic aggression is not such as to tempt any among their old acquaintance.
Do his own work, and get his own provisions. That is what the Axis is askin' for. There were plenty of Italians down there in Africa working their farms. Houses were improvin'. For twenty years we have seen people gettin' better houses, have seen straw covered shacks being replaced by brick houses, built to hygenic specification, curved edges to floors where floor joins wall, so as not to leave dust space for tuberculosis baccillae. Every man his own vine and fig tree. Mr. Welles ought to have spent more time here in Italy, goin' 'round as I have to Sicily, Apulia, and the Abruzzi. He ought to read Dr. Dietrich on German homesteads. Homesteads you can't lose by mortgage. Mebbe you better MEET Europe.
Now what I believe, war or no war, not waitin' till the war ends, or even putting it second to any military contingency, I believe that every social reform put thru in the Axis countries ought to be DEFENDED. I believe the American people ought to defend those social measures. I will say, as readily as the next man, that a good deal of opposition to the New Deal was due to the worst possible motives. But I have not heard of the New Deal gettin' down to the debt problem. And Mr. Welles' statement that he wants to avoid economic aggression comes as a novelty. I hope he means it. But the idea has not affected Russian policy in the past. It is very hard to see how Mr. Welles expects to believe that Germany wasn't encircled.
As to the "patient toil of centuries," seems like the U. S. was trying to undo as much patient Italian toil as possible. And if he wants bygones to be bygones, he certainly isn't being effective about preventing there being any more bygones.
? Italy was resistin' absolute slavery, had been doin' so ever since that treaty made at Versailles.
#86 (May 15, 1943) U. S. (D2) ECONOMIC AGGRESSION
Mr. Sumner Welles' speech at Toledo was a serious matter. It is a great pity that even the majority of his listeners would have been unable to tell one at the end of it what he had said at the beginning. That is, it was a long and close exposition or argument. At the mercy of even minor misunderstandings. It is a pity that auditors do not more often examine the printed text of such a speech. The efficiency of the communication is further impaired when it falls to translators, for the minor shades fade out of language.
Who among the Toledo auditors now remembers whether Mr. Welles said that the subject "economic aggression" probably was, or whether it ought to be, in the minds of all of us. One Italian word translates next to, and after, I mean that is when a translation is verbally correct at one point, but does not take into account the whole paragraph.
Had I been making a daily or immediate comment I might [have] drawn rash conclusions, or no conclusions whatever. The man reporting on events of the day hasn't time to chew over a text and place it in a general scheme.
Probably few among you thought of correlating the Welles' speech with a talk made a week before by Mr. Agar, speaking from London on the BBC and allegedly connected with the American Embassy.
Had Mr. Welles been ready to make such a speech three years ago, this distressing war might have been quite well avoided.
? Mr. Welles appeared to be renouncing dollar diplomacy. If the U. S. had renounced the more aggressive features of dollar diplomacy a few weeks sooner, a good deal of bloodshed might have been spared us. Mr. Welles also spoke of misapprehensions, of incomplete knowledge, of heedlessness, inconsideration. I am perfectly ready to take Mr.
Well, do you watch the course of events? Of course most of you do not. But why should the proletariat dictate BY means of a secret committee of furriners? Why should the proletariat not dictate locally by means of itself? Why should it be administered by foreign agents, and men of alien race?
Yes, I know--those of us who are older [know? ]--my meeting with Harrison was before a Jewish administration had provided the U. S. A. with an army for export. Points of arrival not designated. And George Washington said peace can not be founded on racial antipathies. So the BBC says you must hate the Germans, that is regular Semite logic. From the mouth of the babes and the suckers.
Well, DID you notice how quickly the propaganda for eugenics degenerated into birth control? And race suicide? And how quickly romanticism was replaced, well perhaps that was a slower rhythm, to get to the gang shag? First was Mme. Bovary, and Hedda Gabler; and the romantic hero was to rescue Mrs. Jones from the tedium. And then the bright young Communard was out to rape as many young ladies as possible, and health declined, and [there] was contagion. Well that didn't date from the Communist revolution. Was it a Communist revolution? Or are you all mixed up, as the pencil seller said to me in Washington?
And another case, the white haired boy of the American communists, cause perhaps he didn't think very clearly, and vaunted a Jewisch ancestor. Anyhow, when I tried logic on him, re his commrade, he said; "But did you ever know a Communist [to] think? " Meaning have you ever encountered a Communist who would think?
? Well, in a way, and in a way NOT. First eliminate religion, and then eliminate thought from amidst the goym. Are they cattle? Do cattle think?
I don't know where to find a susceptible spot in the American or English brain, one whereinto one could inject a little historic curiosity? But what caused the antipathy between Christians and Moslems? And the Crusades, to rescue the sepulchers of a Jew in Jerusalem? And were the Masons incited against the Catholics? [The] normal American Mason is the type of friendly fellow who says to you: "Shucks, I'm a Mason and my wife is Catholic and the kids going to Catholic school, and I think a man would have to be pretty small to allow it to have an effect on his politics. "
That is the soil prepared. Some drop out or stop going to lodge meetings. Some feel bound by their oaths. And not one in a hundred thousand won ders about the central control. Penetration? Get into all parties. BUT why, if the auditor is a Communist, should he want a Communism administered by a foreign committee of plutocrats, whether of his own race or some other? It is the question about local control. Communism has been tried, as one wearies of repeating, in America, under favorable conditions. But there is a gap, a sudden collapse from the idea of owning all property in common, and the effect of one's owning anything whatsoever but being constrained to work like heelll for the state. Ain't that funneee? Well, is Stalin leading a world revolution? And if so, why so? Or is he playing at power politics?
Why not revolute? Why should world revolution need a foreign secret committee? Why revolute at the command of Mr. Finkelstein? Is America unable to go Communist without Finkelstein? Is England, are the young saps of Cambridge unable to revolute without Maisky to help them? Or is there a touch of insincerity somewhere in the wangle? As a producer, I can go Communist, the artist can go Communist without trouble. But why all the trimmings?
? [Just? ] as I can accept the idea of some Catholic economists, but I can not accept all the trimmings, and so with Mr. Bullitt's Communist leanings. Undersell private business; sell the nation's industry short, go into national bonds, BEFORE the slump in industrial shares? Yes, yes, very clever, and when industrials have slopped from 100 to 3? Then you come out with the national money and buy 'em up at the fire sale.
Dulce et decorum est. Lovely to die For the Prudential Insurance Co. which has the strength of Gibraltar. To be exported as so much dead meat in order to extend the Russian or Semitic control from Moscow down to the Persian Gulph? But is it sensible?
Debt is the prelude to slavery, and what about the freedom to keep out of debt? That dead fish Sumner Welles does not tell you about THAT sort of freedom. The yellow-livered traitor to the American honesty does not mention that sort of freedom. None of the Lehman-Baruch productions talk of that sort of freedom. Nor of course do your Jew-begormed British allies who will not certainly win this war on their character, not on the personal fascinations of Beaverbrook and the B. B. C. whiners and threateners.
WHAT are you doing in war at all? What are you doing in Africa? Who amongst you has the nerve or the sense to DO something that would conduce to getting you out of it, before you are mortgaged up to the neck, and over it? Every day of war is a debt day, as well as a death day. More debt, more future servitude, less and less of American liberty of any variety? Less liberty to ride in your cars: to post letters. Oh yes, censorship, when Rothschild got hold of the Austrian postal service in the time of Napoleon, censorship was used for commercial espionage. As nowadays, always the same bischniz houses, and the same leading chewish names, except when they change 'em. The Freudian Jews, paralyzing the nucleus of will in his goyim victim. The unFreudian chewess eating like a boll weavil into the creative will of her victim. The psychology, well, do a few monographs on the psychology of mixed
? marriages. You needn't proclaim your object at first. You need not go far enough to lose your professorship. But you can at least do a little prospecting. In psychology, the aim at getting control, getting power over others, by personal contact. As distinct from the desire for competition. Not boxers but referees, who decide the contest in some cases, where the purse is heavy, or not, as the case may be. Well, is Mr. Stalin playing materialist idealism and idealist revolution against idealism and against ideology? Or is it just the same power politics? And isn't it lovely? And debt is the prelude to slavery. And freedom to keep out of debt will not be a tea table subject on the Jew radio or in Roosevelt s regime.
#83 (May 8, 1943) U. S. (C42) PHILOSEMITE
Waaal, I reckon there must be something worse than Jews in America. At any rate there is one yellow livered snot that yawps over the Schenectady General Electric radio that I would like to take on personally when it comes to a clean up. As my part of the clean up, if there ever is or can be a clean up in the U. S. of A.
Now as for tyranous governments of Italy and Germany, as per the punk end of a codfish, well is the government of Russia a kid gloved democracy, with respect for individual rights? What about the habeas corpus in Churchill's plutocracy? As for the newspaper lies, every newspaperman in America knows what gets into print and what don't. Enough Americans know personally a newspaperman to know what he thinks about freedom to print, and what the advertisers have to say as to what is printed. My comments [of] April 21, 1939 are not likely to get past the copy desk.
That the American press prints news of war disasters means NOTHING whatever regarding freedom of the press. The news is bawled over international radios, so everyone knows it. And it helps to keep the war
? going, and keep open a market for munitions: why wouldn't loan capital want it printed? What do they care for BAD war news? More smash, more need of loan capital afterwards, to reconstruct devastations. Tell the cod in Scheneckdety to sell his damaged goods elsewhere. Or bust him one on the puss, if you have a few shreds of decency left in your biceps.
There is not an ounce or atom of honesty in either Churchill or Roosevelt. Most of the reasons for England and America being in the war are unconfessable and indecent. Let us admit that some English and Americans disliked the reported touchiness or roughness of Nazi methods. That did NOT cause the war. The CONclusive reasons for both England and America being at war are dishonest, basically and fundamentally dishonest.
Refusal of Eden's pimps to live with other powers. Everyone knows the League of Nations was a den of cheats. And the very honest effort of the International Labor Office to work out schemes for world justice or social justice was sabotaged. All this HAD and HAS not been told the American people justly.
England went to war needlessly, the whole war was NEEDLESS. A scheme as far as Roosevelt is concerned to grab world monopolies. What was inevitable after twenty or more years of preparation BY Russia, was a Russo-German war. THAT was on the cards. BUT the area of conflict could have been limited to those two countries. And the English and American governments know it. That is the sort of thing the American and English press and radio DO not reveal to the people. The American people have been betrayed by Roosevelt, and the inflators. And no amount of pi-jaw from Scheneckdety can alter it.
The history of the past 200 years has been kept a mystery. And the printing of a few military disasters or their broadcast by the Scheneckdety whiners will NOT make up for it. [FCC transcript: And it
? is almost impossible to get anyone to think consecutively or to hold observed facts in mind over a period of years long enough to get them to understand the various details. Straws in the wind they are called.
Now, years ago in a railway train, I talked to some technical robots being shipped into Russia. Russia wanted technicians, and got them. People who wanted a job, who could get lost in a job, people who had no general ideas, no aspiration about making money and no sense of civic responsibility. After all, the sense of civic responsibility is not born in slums or under the starvation lines. Nor is it born anywhere in the middle reaches of the population whose main anxiety from cradle to grave is to get a job and keep it.
Of such is the kingdom of sheep destined to be shorn and led to the slaughter. Technical kids. Religions, the opium of the people, said Lenin. The late William B. Yeats countered that by saying, "Science, opium of the suburb. "
Now, watch the birdy, deane, watch the B. B. C. and the pluto-propaganda transmission after transmission about the details of a job. Civil or even military. But not a word as to why the job is being performed at all. That is one line of hokum to watch, watch it, and also watch the attempt to revive the League of Nations.
Up to now I had thought Wallace an honest man, easily misled by kikes and shysters, but with decent intentions. But one must now face an alternative. Given, I mean, the mass of documentation as to the object, worthlessness and dishonesty of the League as you see, for example, by the reports of the International Labor Office--a man must be either utterly and absolutely irresponsible or else a crook to try to revive any such swindle. And the documentation is there, and no man in a responsible public office, even if he is only a vice president, is excusable for not facing the available evidence.
? As for Wallace's talk about arranging a peace, it is time for political puppets, even for political puppets in the British and American government to realize they're in a minority. Until England and American delouse and get rid of her Jew gangs, there is no place for either England or the United States in the new world at all. The present English and American governments are regarded as lepers by most of the world. Ask any cheated Chungking Chinaman or a bamboozled Pole what he thinks of Churchillian and Rooseveltian honor. These sweepings of the various employment agencies are not the world's majority, they are-- --. Bulldozed and black mulled South American countries do not support you, they are merely suppressed by you. Corrupted, with her politicians hired by Bill Bullitt's cronies and Donovan's gun sweepers. A clean England and a clean United States might collaborate in a new world, but it will take a hell of a lot of Sapolio to wash off the mess made by Roosevelt and Churchill.
I'm telling you, I'm not giving you the Axis point of view, I'm giving you a terrible estimate, and the news in case the-- --who run your radio and most of your press haven't told you. And Russia's contempt for the present pawn brokers regimes in London and Washington is even more vigorous than that of the Axis. The question is how long will it take the clean men in England and America to find out what has happened. Or to get control of at least some of the minor centers of power inside their
-- --countries. ]
#84 (May 9, 1943) U. K. (C39) LORD BLEEDER
On February 24 Lord BLEEDER, for your pawnbroker's government, defending your pawnbroker's government, said the main purpose of the government after the war . . . eh . . . he was throwing cold water onto Beveridge's half plan, for giving half a boiled potato per week to the bleeding poor. Lord Bleeder said the main purpose of the government, after the war, would be to pay interest on debt.
? I don't know why you don't shoot 'em. The main purpose of your having a war is to have a debt to pay interest on. And Stalin like the bleeding Czar before him, killing off 12 million bloody Rhoosians, in order to help the pawnbrokers of London, and elsewhere. The British are mugs.
Now then, IF one had been feeling low after the Russian advances, and if one had been looking round for encouragement and indications of Axis strength, would one have noticed a difference between Berlin and London? YES.
If Germany has been in the hands of the yellow livered cheats and escros of your pawnbrokers' government, what would Germany have done? She would have yelled bloody murder for Japan to come hellup her, and attack Russia from the east.
THAT is what England would have done under similar circumstances. And the Axis published agreements are such as to have made the arrangement quite possible. And if the British socialists were anti- capitalists, they would have been attacking loan capital IN England, for the past 20 years or more years, and IF the British communists were real communists instead of the left hand of loan capital, THEY would have been attacking the capitalism of England, the U. S. A. , the Jew capital, and the sub-Jew or yellow British capital in the interests of world revolution, instead of standing out.
And that is where the sincere young men who have been caught by socialist and communist ideology in England have been HAD. They have mistaken communist and socialist parties in England (and also in the U. S. A. ) for honest parties wanting a world revolution and being out against the capitalist system; and, I repeat, they have been had, bamboozled.
? And Mr. Dalton and the rest of 'em are shown up for what they are: usurer's narks, undercover men for the bank swine, hollow shams, rank impostors, with no political principles, no social principles, only the old profit motive and lust after a job. Lackeys for a pestulent squirarchy, toadies, germ carriers for syphilitic banks. Wanting to set up a pink regime in England: furnish communism with a House of Lords, and remain the Vicar of Bray, sir. Yours truly, the vicar of Bray, yes, yes, yours jewly, the Vicar of Bray.
The men of principle in England are the men who have gone to jail. They were the patriots who wanted to save your empire. You knew, or should have known that the U. S. was casting lots for your empire, that Russia had more than a century old policy against you for the spoils of your empire. That Italy and Germany needed living space; a few men wanted you to keep out of the war, and to follow a policy of reform, not of atavism. The Jew is atavistic. Communism is not progress but a return to the Anschauung of the nomad, the Tartar tribe: living by rapine. Property is of agriculture. Responsibility, foresight, care of the crops, are agricultural products. The Jew is atavistic: the psychology, may the stink of your camp drive you onward. The herders, having no care but to let their herds browse and move on, when the pasture is exhausted.
So you are allied with your enemies. I don't say all men of principle are in jail, but that is what those who are in jail are IN for. For trying to save you. Will you EVER realize that the mere continuance of the war is a victory for loan capital, a victory for the lenders of money, or for the money monopolist, the controller of monetary issue? Usually foreign controller, or at least private, NOT public controller. Great debt to be made from war: that was [the] American Civil War, to be used to control the currency. Producers of the world unite. But NOT under secret control of Semitic or any other finance.
What does war cost? Well, a lot of the COST to YOU is the stuff that is NOT made. All energy going to make explosives. All that energy
? subtracted from making things you WANT to eat and wear. That is part of the cost, irreplaceable. What is exploded, sunk and destroyed is a COST, on which loan capital fattens. Revolute, revolution, from where to where? From one state of society to another? Never simultaneous all over the world.
But the administration? The control? Peasants prefer to own land. War between peasant and undifferentiated labor, [the] peasant has skill, has knowledge, not to be acquired in two weeks in a Ford factory. No, you don't think. You have, I suppose, a vague feeling that you don't want Bolshevism in England. But you want it to prevent farm ownership BY the actual farmers elsewhere. Now what caused that?
Savings. Another red herring. War savings. Illusion of savings! Saving tickets for something that isn't there. Theatre tickets for a show that never comes off, for a play that never opens? That is another hoax. Pie in the sky? Pie at the end of the next century? And says Lord Bleeder, main job will be paying interest on public debt. Can you beat it? No social security, no living wage, no reward for labor that will permit two Englishmen, or two Aryans of any kind, to produce and bring up two kids. Well if they don't, the race dies. So you are told to oppose the race issue, and stop being English. No, not change your nature, be Englishmen, but don't BE. Cease to exist, die out. As the frogs did very largely. That is what Mr. Churchill and Eden lead to.
Follow Churchill and Eden and their owners a few steps further and you not only cease to exist as an empire, you will cease to exist as a race. One spot forever England. A lost island in the Aegean. What are you for? What does England exist for? For the upkeep of Lord Bleeder and a few Wall St. millionaires, of mixed origin, some of 'em British e? migre? s, or at least e? migre? s from London and other parts of your empire. In order, may we repeat to keep the Teutonic peoples out of the Teutonic city of Danzig, and sell up General Sikorski, in the name of self-determination. And to be able to pray.
? You might pray for restoration of at least enough energy to follow your natural instincts, which were to KEEP out of the war, and which are to STOP fighting, now.
All of which is too simple for you to think of. You might stop the war now, at least your part in it. Let it die down. You are in a blind alley. Some of you know it.
#85 (May 11, 1943) U. S. (D1) SUMNER WELLES
Sumner Welles' speech at Toledo was a carefully prepared indictment, which will hardly convince anyone here in Italy that Mr. Welles should be taken to mean literally what he said.
It is a speech which arouses, and yet almost quenches interest. What he says about America ought to be true. What he says against Germany could, many people will think, have been said quite as truly of Russia, in fact rather more so.
Mr. Welles spoke of freedom from economic aggression. No nation has more soberly faced that problem than has Italy. Italy has done almost nothing else for the past twenty-one years.
Mr. Welles admits that U. S. A. has not always refrained from economic aggression in the past. He says with some cogency that all the British empire trade preference policy was a form of economic aggression.
Olivia Rossetti Agresti over this radio has adduced a considerable array of data concerning the rather cold reception the idea of Italy's freeing herself from economic aggression met with from the American government, and continued to meet from that source for a considerable time.
? Immunity from economic aggression means that nobody has to take stuff they don't want, merely because Russia, for example, dumps it onto 'em. You probably did not hear Natalia Troubetzkoi telling you about Russian dumping. That was some months ago. Russia was dumping in the hope of creating industrial unrest.
Moscow was in fact sweating her workers unmercifully, and dumping the results on the rest of the world, according to the worst plutocratic methods. Hollywood and diverse other American sources of production were dumping their products on Europe, and threatening to make war on Italy if Italy didn't go on buying what she couldn't pay for. Of course Mr. Welles may have had a change of heart. His heart may have always been pure. But how can Europe know that? Mr. Welles' firm seemed for so long, so VERY reluctant to take count of Italy's efforts toward autarchy, of Italy's effort to keep out of debt.
Oh yes, autarchy is just what the Avv[ocato] Nicoletti defined it as, in a recent speech at Pisa. Autarchy is, among other things, the freedom to keep out of debt. That phrase is sometimes used here as a slogan. It isn't my personal slogan.
To aggress, economically to aggress, to aggress economically is, among other things to go out with a flock of cruisers and force someone to buy what they can't pay for. The whole of the past life of the S. American continent is one long record of economic aggression. That is one side of the picture.
Then he quite definitely and clearly mentioned the common man's desire to have a house of his own for his own family. That is what we believe national socialism stands for in Germany. It is what Italy stands for. It is quite emphatically what Communist Russia does NOT stand for, and would not stand for by program.
? Mr. Welles has made a distinctly anti-communist and anti-Muscovite statement. And yet Russia is hurled upon Europe with the official consent of the American government and the connivance of England. The past record of these three countries on the issue of economic aggression is not such as to tempt any among their old acquaintance.
Do his own work, and get his own provisions. That is what the Axis is askin' for. There were plenty of Italians down there in Africa working their farms. Houses were improvin'. For twenty years we have seen people gettin' better houses, have seen straw covered shacks being replaced by brick houses, built to hygenic specification, curved edges to floors where floor joins wall, so as not to leave dust space for tuberculosis baccillae. Every man his own vine and fig tree. Mr. Welles ought to have spent more time here in Italy, goin' 'round as I have to Sicily, Apulia, and the Abruzzi. He ought to read Dr. Dietrich on German homesteads. Homesteads you can't lose by mortgage. Mebbe you better MEET Europe.
Now what I believe, war or no war, not waitin' till the war ends, or even putting it second to any military contingency, I believe that every social reform put thru in the Axis countries ought to be DEFENDED. I believe the American people ought to defend those social measures. I will say, as readily as the next man, that a good deal of opposition to the New Deal was due to the worst possible motives. But I have not heard of the New Deal gettin' down to the debt problem. And Mr. Welles' statement that he wants to avoid economic aggression comes as a novelty. I hope he means it. But the idea has not affected Russian policy in the past. It is very hard to see how Mr. Welles expects to believe that Germany wasn't encircled.
As to the "patient toil of centuries," seems like the U. S. was trying to undo as much patient Italian toil as possible. And if he wants bygones to be bygones, he certainly isn't being effective about preventing there being any more bygones.
? Italy was resistin' absolute slavery, had been doin' so ever since that treaty made at Versailles.
#86 (May 15, 1943) U. S. (D2) ECONOMIC AGGRESSION
Mr. Sumner Welles' speech at Toledo was a serious matter. It is a great pity that even the majority of his listeners would have been unable to tell one at the end of it what he had said at the beginning. That is, it was a long and close exposition or argument. At the mercy of even minor misunderstandings. It is a pity that auditors do not more often examine the printed text of such a speech. The efficiency of the communication is further impaired when it falls to translators, for the minor shades fade out of language.
Who among the Toledo auditors now remembers whether Mr. Welles said that the subject "economic aggression" probably was, or whether it ought to be, in the minds of all of us. One Italian word translates next to, and after, I mean that is when a translation is verbally correct at one point, but does not take into account the whole paragraph.
Had I been making a daily or immediate comment I might [have] drawn rash conclusions, or no conclusions whatever. The man reporting on events of the day hasn't time to chew over a text and place it in a general scheme.
Probably few among you thought of correlating the Welles' speech with a talk made a week before by Mr. Agar, speaking from London on the BBC and allegedly connected with the American Embassy.
Had Mr. Welles been ready to make such a speech three years ago, this distressing war might have been quite well avoided.
? Mr. Welles appeared to be renouncing dollar diplomacy. If the U. S. had renounced the more aggressive features of dollar diplomacy a few weeks sooner, a good deal of bloodshed might have been spared us. Mr. Welles also spoke of misapprehensions, of incomplete knowledge, of heedlessness, inconsideration. I am perfectly ready to take Mr.
