No More Learning

Of course, the James family warn't exactly English or exactly American. In fact some of 'em come from Ulster, which explains a lot of the mystery that has hitherto enveloped their peculiar reactions, if you can [explain] Ulster Irish.
I take it I sometimes do display some sort of indignation. But I can't get up indignation over some things. I mean, ever since I started writin', people have called me in to give opinion as to what to do for their relatives, when they got a bit queer in the head. Just like Cheever in Paris. My old concierge saying: what, Monsieur, you spend all your time locking [up] lunatics? People think, because one writes poetry, that one knows about people's heads? So that I have on occasion conferred with pathologists. And when a man comes out and says: NO American boy shall be sent out to fight outside the country. Then a few months or a year later, you hear him holler: Millyums of American soldiers are in all parts of the globe, ain't it wunnerfuuuulll! Am I expected to display moral indignation! Two hundred corpses floatin' about in the sea off the harbor of Cadiz? Whaaaa, only 200, why in a year or so there'll be thousands and thaaaaousans of corpses floatin' all over the ocean. Ain't it wunnnnnerful!
? Ain't it WOnderful, watchu waitin' for? Waitin' fer him to receive Maisky and Litvinov and other high diplomats with feathers in his hair? Whatch waitin' for?
#69 (March 21, 1943) U. K. (C16) POGROM
DON'T start a pogrom (bis). The problem is not insoluble. Don't start a pogrom; the problem, the Chewisch problem, is not insoluble. Don't start a pogrom; SELL 'em Australia. Don't go out and die in the desert for the sake of high kikery. Don't die for Tel Aviv, and Goldsmid and Jerusalem: SELL 'em Australia. Don't GIVE 'em a national home. SELL 'em a national home; if they'll buy it. Of course at cut-rates; long term credit. Firesale terms, and the rest of it, you'll never get the full price of what you sell 'em, but it would be cheaper on the whole in the end to SELL 'em Australia. They aren't likely to go out and conquer a national home. Of course if they want to, you can sell 'em the guns and munitions. I don't think it can be done for cash down. I don't think they will rush out to form cohorts and battalions, but try it FIRST if you don't believe me. When it has failed, sell 'em Australia. And give 'em Cripps for High Commissar, and Eden to be their Prime Minister; and fatty Temple, clothed in an ephod to serve in the synagogue, or to be high priest of his new synthetic religion. Cooking in Westminster to support international usury to reverse the decrees of the church, and deify usury. With Muddleton Murray, and Norman Angell, and Montagu Norman and the Montagues that are not real Montagues, and Mocatta and Rothschild.
My, your country is overpopulated. I mean, especially after the war with the loss of your tonnage space and the loss of your markets, you will have to thin out your population. Sell 'em Australia. And SELECT the seed for the new penal settlement.
England, merry England, Chesterton's England. A nest of singin' boids: the England of Dowland and Purcell. THAT England. How are you
? going to get back to that England? HOW are you going to win back that England unless you weed out the Sassoon, and the Rothschilds, and the Lawsons, the Levy Lawsons and the Burnhams, the Lawson Levys, and Leverton Harries: and all the sequelae, with Gilbert Murray to go with them to the antipodes? And soapy Si [? ] and Sam Hoare and Vansittart and all the semi-Aryan pillars of kikery. HOW are you [going to] have merry England ever again?
There is nothing so very startling in my proposition, sell 'em Australia. It would at least shift the problem. Your problem, distinctly, is England, merry England, without slums, without usury, without a Jewish religion, without shoestring building. It would solve at least part of your problem, or some of your problems. Churchill hands over Venezuela and your American bases. Well, those go to the Jews who have already gone to America. Sell Australia. You won't much want it. Sell it to the Jews who have not yet left England. And then let 'em go out to develop the industry. It would solve some of your problems, it would help you to pay the compensation for worn out coal mines to the ex-owners: without bankrupting the people of England. I mean if they aren't already bankrupt.
As the Marchese C says: "In all matters having to do with the Jews, the Aryans name is MUGG. " Sell 'em Australia.
It has taken a long time to bring up the subject. Sell 'em Australia. I know you are compensatin' the mine owners and settin' up a commission to investigate the conditions of mining. Somebody even got up in or near Parliament and suggested you should humanize the living conditions of the poorer British inhabitants.
HOLY progress. The news of Europe is a-percolatin' into your island. Isn't it wonderful? The compensation idea is NOT new. There was a kike down in San Salvador GAVE his bank to the government. For a life compensation. Sell 'em Australia. Will the Countess of Oxford and
? Asquith lift up her wail in protest? Will she rush out to tell you of the benefits you have reaped from the Rothschilds? What of it?
She was telling us a few weeks ago, over the air, warmed to the B. B. C. temperature, that she had known eleven P. M. 's, from Gladstone--"Say your prayers, Margot"--down to the present. It is a great pity she didn't tell us what the OTHER ten thought of the present one, the present P. [M. ] That would have made snappy hearing. With a few quotes from William Watson.
However, as you can't bring the Duke of Wellington to the microphone, I suppose you have to do something. Now speaking of Jews, and the problem. The Jewish problem, which The Economist does NOT elucidate, because it belongs to the Jews, that is to Rothschild, and its editors serve their owners. The Economist has discovered officially that some Americans do not see eye to eye with the Anglo-Jews. Is it a pity? I think it is not a pity. The Jews have ruin'd every country they have got hold of. The Jews have worked out a system, very neat system, for the ruin of the rest of mankind, one nation after another. Now many Americans are ignorant of this fact, and The Economist does its periodical bit to maintain that ignorance; but YOU like the ignorance. I do not think the normal American likes his ignorance. That may produce a fundamental dichotomy.
The Economist and its affiliated papers; that is nine-tenths of your press wishes to uphold the present ignorance. That is very English, I mean that is what the American means by a newspaper policy being English. A more piercing eye might consider that it is, in a certain sense, anti- English. The Countess of Oxford was once an admirer of the Rothschilds, perhaps she still is. When last at the microphone, she said nothing about it. I don't know that the American people are very much interested in her views on finance and government; but they would be more likely to see eye to eye with some of the submerged factions in England if more people said something clearer on the subject of the
? Rothschild, and on the subject of loan capital, and international lending, and the Hebraic or semitic or kike elements in your economics and politics.
Such, for example as the patronymics of some of your peers; I mean the names that they started life with, or that their parents started in life with. AND the relation of your M. P. 's and governing class TO various financial establishments. Which sometimes have offices both in New York and in London, or chronologically speaking with regard to chronological sequence; whose business during the course of eh-hm, the last couple of centuries has spread from London westward, as the Sassoons' has in our time.
Now we Americans, when we hear of The Economist and Mr. Crowther, and Mr. Einzig, are apt to think of Einzig as a Jew, and of Mr. Crowther as a servant of Jewry, and The Economist as a Rothschild paper, NOT as a paper owned by a clean Englishman, or by an Englishman at all. Perhaps a more definite use of terminology would help Mr. Crowther, Einzig, and the other members of The Economist staff in establishing a clearer understanding between themselves and the American public. Of course, their understanding with Morgenthau, Ben Cohen, Frankfurter, Roosevelt, Mrs. Hull's Husband, Lady Halifax's husband, Mrs. Perkins, ne? e Rabinovitch or something equally Oriental is or WAS perfectly clear. But several Americans would regard that rather as an agreement between a set of kikes in London, and a set of sheenies on the other side of the fish pond.
Of that understanding, i. e. , the understanding between various sets of international yidds, doing business simultaneously from various busnisch addresses located in different world capitals, the no longer in ALL the world capitals, there has never been any doubt. That is, not for the past 20 years, or past 40 years, save in uninformed circles. It is the increasingly well lit nature of the understanding between the Jews who run Russia and the Jews now pullulating in positions of power in
? London and Washington, that helps the better type of American to understand both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt, and the forces that have raised those highly undesirable specimens of inhumanity to the prominence they now enjoy, if enjoy is still the right word. I doubt they did enjoy it till quite recently. But we doubt if their personal pleasure is being increasingly shared by the governed. In any case the Jewish proposal to make Roosevelt world emperor and to locate the New Jerusalem on the Isthmus of Panama, with NO checks and controls imposed on it, by even the angry Saxons, is an idea which ought to inspire the Countess of Oxford, and Mr. Crowther. Perhaps the B. B. C. will explain it, with a footnote or two by Mr. Shaw.
#70 (March 25, 1943) U. S. (C22) TO RECAPITULATE
This war did not begin in 1939. It is not a unique result of the infamous Versailles treaty. It is impossible to understand it without knowing at least a few precedent historic events, which mark the cycle of combat. No man can understand it without knowing at least a few facts and their chronological sequence.
The war is PART of the age old struggle between the usurer and the rest of mankind: between the usurer and peasant, the usurer and producer, and finally between the usurer and the merchant, between usurocracy and the mercantilist system.
There are almost no absolute novelties in economics. One can, in most cases, merely say that such or such phenomena date AT LEAST from such and such dates.
The true basis of credit was known in Siena at least by A. D. 1620. This knowledge went into the founding of the Monte dei Paschi, a bank which still endures, and was the only bank in Italy that did not fail at the time of Napoleon.
? The true basis of credit consists in: the abundance of nature and the responsibility of the whole people. In that case: the whole people of Siena.
The present war dates AT LEAST from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the XVIIth century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony. A. D. 1750.
This is not usually given prominence in the U. S. school histories. The thirteen colonies rebelled, quite successfully, twenty six years later, A. D. 1776. The first Congress of the new American Union defrauded the revolutionary veterans by a very simple device, which appears in variant forms after most modern wars. The soldiers pay certificates issued by the states, depreciated. After they had been brought up at twenty cents to the dollar by speculators, the national government "assumed" the payment at par. That is at face value of one dollar per dollar.
This constituted the scandal of "assumption. " Claude G. Bowers gives a good account of it in his Jefferson and Hamilton. After writing at least three good books, two on Jefferson and. Hamilton, and one of the Reconstruction era, Johnson's administration after the American Civil War, Mr. Bowers was made ambassador to Spain. So far as I know his voice is not now heard in America.
It has been customary for well over a century, at least, that currencies become inflated in war time, the value of the monetary unit declines, as more and more human effort (WORK) goes into making munitions and instruments of destruction and less and less into things people want for their personal use.
Goods are destroyed rather than exchanged against other WANTED goods, during war time. The ratio of units of currency, money, to things people want to eat and to wear is altered, i. e. , there are more dollars in
? circulation in relation to goods, or pounds or other monetary units. Debts mount up. When they have reached hitherto unprecendented size, the manipulators of currencies "return" to what they have called "sound money. "
After the Napoleonic War, after the American Civil War, the world returned to gold, thus forcing Indian farmers to pay up twice as much grain to meet their taxes and the interest on their mortgages as they had done before the "return. "
Considering the vital importance, or the deadly importance of this process or swindle it would at first sight seem curious that mankind has not spent more energy in diffusing the knowledge of it.
The late Arthur Kitson spent a good deal of his life trying to educate the British and American publics along these lines. It is a pity that the press of both these ineffable countries did not more potently aid Mr. Kitson. Mr. Kitson believed that process was due to deliberate design of the usurocrats, the financiers who govern and outrage the world by financial, or in plain terms, the usury system, and various methods of monopoly and the control of the currencies of the nations.
Mr. Kitson heaped up a good deal of evidence in support of his theory. No rebuttal of Kitson has been attempted, the enemies of mankind prefer darkness.
There is a considerable library of polemical writin' and a vast mass of official documents which support Mr. Kitson's views.
The historic process operative during the past three hundred years can not [be] ascribed to the particular wickedness of men born since 1880. A knowledge of the world that we were BORN INTO is requisite for the understanding of the events subsequent to our birth. A deliberate attempt has, I believe, been made to blot out the historic record. And that attempt
? I propose to combat. I have, in fact, been combatting it, for some time. As did my grandfather before me.
My talks on the radio will eventually have to be judged by their content. Neither the medium of diffusion nor the merits or defects of my exposition can be the final basis of judgment. The contents will have to serve as that basis. I have taken up one point after another, one bit of evidence after another, trying to explain the facts in the simplest possible terms, trying to catch and hold the attention of individual hearers.
Wars in old time were made to get slaves. The modern implement of imposing slavery is DEBT. Usury is an instrument for increasing debt, and for keeping the debtor in debt perpetually or at least for the longest possible period.
It is foetid hypocrisy to prattle of liberty unless that liberty includes the freedom to KEEP OUT OF [DEBT]. There are ample records available from the agitation for the "new tables," tabulas novas, new account books, in the time of Julius Caesar down to the present. The auditor or reader who wants to understand these things, can not excuse his ignorance on the grounds that there are no sources of enlightenment at his disposition.
#71 (March26, 1943) U. S. (C23) FINANCIAL DEFEAT: U. S.
Quite apart from military operation, from the results of military operations, from the possible results of any military operations that may occur, the American people appear to have suffered crashing defeat, at the hands of the financiers.
There is no understanding of history without some understanding of finance. And nine people, at least nine people out of ten are ready to tell you proudly that they understand nothing about finance, and that they do
? not understand economics. It has become the hallmark of the end of the bourgeois era to proclaim ignorance of economics.
Yet you can not allocate the responsibility for an event, for a crime, for an accident, until you know what has happened.
Supposing that people DID want to know what has happened during the past three decades, during the past ten decades, or twenty, it might be helpful to stop using such cloudy and mysterious terms as finance, the social problem, economics.
It might be clearer to say: production, exchange, mortgages and the lending of money. People would then know what one meant. Or would they? Would any three of them or any two of them understand the lending of money? Not, until the term money were correctly defined, and the definition made so clear that everyone could understand it.
I took a banker's opinion about money, the other day. He replied: money is the statement of the government's debt to the bearer. Meaning it says how much the government owes to the bearer. I should have preferred to say the "state" or the community owes to the bearer.
I am perfectly aware that I might as well be writing Greek or talking Chinese with a foreign accent, so far as making this statement clear to the hearer or reader is concerned. And the public can most certainly not be blamed for this, as you could read a hundred books, by no means despicable books, on economics, without finding any hint that such an idea about money is possible.
The only statement in even an approximately similar form that I can recall at this moment was made by a Congressman, back in 1878. He said that an amendment offered by him to a bill about silver coinage had been: "an attempt to keep some of the NON-INTEREST bearing national debt in circulation as currency. "
? I repeat in quoting these statements that I might as well be talking Chinese or Tibetan so far as the average reader or bearer [hearer? ] is concerned. Money is a means of exchange, an implement by which exchanges are effected, it is a measure of exchange, it is called "a title to goods," a measured claim. It is both a title and a measure.
The use of measured quantities of metal should be considered as barter. Powdered gold was still being used in India when Kipling wrote "Kim. " He describes the gold broker dipping a wet fly in the gold dust, and popping it into a box, the adherent dust being his commission on the exchange.
For thousands of years men have been used to using metal discs, stamped with an alleged value, and intended to be of uniform weight and fineness. By the year 649 A. D. the T'ang emperors had found something more convenient than lugging about bags of metal. Their metal was what has been metaphorically called earmarked, or held in deposit, and bits of paper marked with designs, and seals, remarkably beautiful designs, were put into circulation. Marco Polo found the Kublai Kahn using this system some centuries later. He thought it a clever wheeze. The idea is so practical that in-- --Sir Basil Zaharoff wrote to the Times about it; or rather about extending it so that gold wouldn't have to be shipped from the vaults of one bank to those of another, across national frontiers.
The Times referred to Zaharoff as a philanthropist. He shared other great munitioneers' floral tastes. He was, I believe, a grower, or at least a connoisseur of roses. Whatever you think money is, or whatever Zaharoff thought about gold, Arthur Kitson quite conclusively pointed out in his report to the Cunliffe Commission that something had happened to money not once but several times over. His report was printed under the title "The Banker's Conspiracy. "
METATHEMENON TE TON KRUMENON, as I think Aristotle remarked. The Voluntary variation of the value or purchasing power, or
? the metalic content, or the amount of metal, referred to by a given piece of money has attracted the attention of a great and e? lite set of people: Demosthenes, Dante, Cleopatra have all found the subject interesting, quite interesting.
It is curious that no snobism has yet been openly erected by monetary economists, Bacon, Hume, Bishop Berkeley a most respectable set of men have all thought it worth their attention. John Adams, Lincoln, Jefferson, Gallatin, Justice Taney, naturally men in official position HAVE glanced at the problem, ever since Phillippe le Bel caused such distress to his subjects, both since then and before then.
Monetary crime is divisible into perhaps two major sections: the usury wangle, and the wangles in variation of value, both of which are sometimes forced by monopoly, by cornering the control of the currency. The sovereign power over the issue of money CAN of course be used for maintaining justice. Kitson's study related to flagrant injustice. He found that men who had become indebted in cheap or depreciated currencies had been forced on more than one occasion to pay those debts in money worth twice or much more than the money wherein the debts had been contracted. In Kitson's opinion this was not by accident. He thought it was the fruit of design. He cited a good deal of conclusive evidence in support of his view.
Now supposing that Kitson's view was correct, would it not be interesting to pursue the subject further? Would it not be of interest to know whether the SAME banking firms had indulged in this little practice or wheeze, several times over? Let us say after the wars of Napoleon, after the great and terrible Civil War in America of the 1860's and after the "diktat" of Versailles?
#72 (March 30, 1943) U. S. (C24) USUROCRACY
? Brooks Adams observed that after Waterloo no power had withstood the power of the usurers.
We will try to maintain a distinction in our own minds between the production system, the system of exchange of actual goods, and the wangles or corruptions of accountancy or the money wangles that corrode both the system of production and the processes of exchange.
The page of the usury system which we are trying to analyze dates more or less from Paterson's perception that the "Bank" (of England) would have benefit of the interest on all the money that it creates out of nothing.
According to Lord Overstone, everything rolled on merrily as long as the Bank actually discounted all bills rising from legitimate transactions. Overstone is now considered an idealist among usurers. The Bank according to him was there to "satisfy the true needs of commerce. "
But Sam Loyd thought up another one. He saw, as Brooks Adams puts it, the possibilities of the single standard. He understood that as business and exchanges increase, the value of the monetary unit IN AN INELASTIC money system, will increase.
That is to say, with the same amount of money and increasing goods, the goods get cheaper in relation to money, and money more valuable in relation to goods.
He saw that a class or gang possessed of sufficient means could wangle a rise almost at pleasure, and could doubtless run it to almost any length. Also maneuver a contraction of the fiduciary circulation. As for example had been done in 1935, debtors could be made to accept almost ANY conditions dictated by the creditors.
The wangling of foreign exchange, that is, foreign money exchanges, were used for this purpose. There is no item in this present talk that I
? have not mentioned in preceding communications, but the historic importance of every one of these items is so tremendous, and the difficulty of getting them [in] their sequence, their cumulative significance into the public head is so difficult that I should be justified [in] repeating them ten times over. Kitson's Bankers Conspiracy was written to show that extortioner Loyd's little perception had become the base of a system. A regular practice among Rothschild's and the rest of the bleeders.
The world was to be enslaved according to plan. Slavery consists in having to do uninteresting work, at another's bidding. The modern means of getting a man to work are lack of money, his lack of money, and debt. Mr. Kitson quoted Mr. Lindbergh's quotation of the now famous Hazard circular of 1862:
It will not do to allow the Greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money for any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues.
The "we" naturally refers to the financiers.
The great debt, capitalists will see to it, is made out of the war, must be used as a mean to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis.
They were. Lincoln said "and gave to the people of this republic (the U. S. A. ) the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper to pay their own debts. " Lincoln was shot. The bankers triumphed. It was all very simple. Some 30 years later another letter was sent to the AM. nat. (as they are called), the American national bankers.
Dear Sir, etc. The interest of national bankers requires immediate financial legislation by Congress. Silver, silver certificates, and Treasury notes, must be (note that imperative) must be retired and national-bank notes upon a gold basis made the only money. This requires the
? authorization of some five hundred million to one billion dollars of new bonds, as a basis of circulation. You will at once call in one half your loans. Be careful to make a money stringency felt among your patrons, especially among influential businessmen. Advocate an extra session of Congress for the repeal of the purchase clauses of the Sherman Law, and act with other banks of your city in securing a large petition to Congress for its unconditional repeal as per accompanying form.
I. e. , sign on the dotted line. Quote continues:
Use personal influence with Congressmen and particularly let your wishes be known to your Senators. The future life of national banks as fixed and safe investments, depends upon immediate action, as there is an increasing sentiment in favor of governmental legal tender notes and silver coinage.
One takes an example from Cleveland's time rather than from Van Buren's in the hope that some aged survivors of the 1890's may still dimly remember the actions referred to.
Mr. Churchill as Chancellor of the British Exchequer, the Cunliffe Committee, quite naturally paid no attention to Kitson's recommendations. And a few years, merrily, after the Indian farmers were paying up twice as much grain to meet their interest payments and taxes. Naturally the usurocrat press supported the Loyd system of altering the value of the monetary unit, right along from the day the newspapers were invented. That is perhaps the main reason for having newspapers, especially large newspapers in usurocratic regimes.
Newspapers govern the world, remarked the Conte de Vergennes to Mr. John Adams. The American Bankers Association circular of 1877 reads: "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such newspapers, especially in the agricultural and religious press as will oppose the issue of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage and
? favors from all applicants who are NOT willing to oppose the Government issue of money. " Unquote. The quite exquisite spirit of illegality and treason in these manifestations of the usurers SHOULD need no comment.
It takes five million dollars to start a daily paper of any size in the U. S. A. One should have ten million to do so with any chance of getting a paper going. It is hardly safe to attempt it without twenty million, and in that case you must be willing to "CONSIDER" the views of your advertisers.
Hence the totalitarian states, hence fascism, and nationalist socialist revolution.
The American citizen can, of course, appeal to his Constitution, which states that: "Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. "
Such appeal is perhaps quixotic.
#73 (April 4, 1943) U. K. (C30) LYRIC TENORS
A few faint voices have been raised in England to request a new order; but the speakers have possessed an unrivaled talent for avoiding any honest discussion of the means whereby a new order would be possible. The men who had done some WORK toward that end, are either in jail or excluded from the microphone, and so far as one knows, from the press.
The supreme betrayal of Western civilization is manifest in the alliance with Russia. The perfect and swinish readiness to have all Europe destroyed in order to maintain the domination of all of us, the British people included, by a gang of extremely unpleasant monopolists, many
? of whom have moved their chief offices right over to Wall St. , that is, to the new ghetto. Debt is the prelude to slavery. And neither Baruch, Lehman, nor any of their British bootlickers and servants says a word about freedom from debt. Or the freedom to keep OUT of debt. It is nine years since Jeffrey Mark published The Modern Idolatry.
Interest payments due on Western capital have been made possible by the creation of slavery conditions in Western countries.
In the past the progressive accumulation of debt claims has brought about the ruin of civilizations as single units. Nearly all the creations of the nineteenth century capitalists such as, for instance, the power loom cotton industry of Lancashire, have been broken by usury.
Forty years ago it was the habit to make much of Shakespeare and the styge [stage]: by people who seem never to have thought about the text, the meaning of the words used by Henry Irving and other darlings of the theatre public.
The daughter and ducats theme is familiar to many who have not meditated [on] the six lines that Mark uses to introduce the third part of his volume:
I hate him for he is a Christian, But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis and brings down The rate of usance here in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
I strongly suspect these lines have been omitted in more than one Jewish performance of Shylock. There is something too near to nature, something too pertinent: "Brings down the rate of usance. "
? That just won't do; and the Times, Telegraph, Yorkshire Post, and the Beaverbrook papers are all there to keep discussion off that so dangerous topic. And Reggy McKenna and the big Five are there to deplore OUTSIDE interference. Discussion of usury, that is, banking as understood by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, and I imagine Lord Lee would deplore the use of the very word usury in polite conversation. And yet the big FIVE are making higher profit now than they were before the war started.
France brought in the black troops. Churchill's England is allied to Soviet Russia. And the Times on September 12, 1933 spoke thus of Rumania:
Rumania can not make the payments (that was debt payments) in foreign currency until markets have been assured abroad for her surplus products.
The Times was quoting M. Modgearu.
This has not been done up to the present and to make things worse, prices of the products which Rumania exported have fallen considerably. Rumania cannot leave its officials, widows and invalids to starve in order to pay debts abroad which have become burdensome.
Just why England today has learned nothing from Rumania's position a decade ago would be a mystery if one didn't know how little the usual Briton cares for looking at ANYTHING. Yes, ANYthing that could serve to enlighten him. Mr. Mark observed pertinently at that time that Sir Otto Niemeyer had left a trail of economy, increased taxation, and a lowered standard of living behind him in every country he had visited. Twenty-six central banks formed since the other war to facilitate the service on internal and external debt. Note the title Sir, and the implications, racial implications in the name Niemeyer.
? You have NOT had to learn harakiri from the Samurai. The Japanese do it with a difference.
To maintain the loan capital swindle, Britain has been ready to wreck all of Europe. That is the ONLY explanation of the alliance with Russia. There is no honor in it. And it does NOT serve the people of Britain. By liquidating your empire to the kikes and semi-kikes in N.