No More Learning

A really severe Puritan like Eden or Morgenthau would probably tell you that the pursuit of happiness is on a level with chippy-chasing. I know you don't THINK you are ripe for a real revolution. You don't think YOU are ripe for the end of the capitalist system altogether. You would rather such revolutions occurred in the Punjab or in Bessarabia. But one thing leads to another.
And yet, Civilization was not yours to destroy.
#81 (May2, 1943) U. K. (C36)
ON THE NATURE OF TREACHERY
I should like tonight to get a little serious attention, yours, to a serious subject, or to several serious matters. I have in fact been trying for over 20 years to get a little serious attention; persuade you to direct a little serious attention to a few serious subjects. Nature of money, and mode of its issue, and usury. Before that and during the interim I have perhaps been more successful in drawing attention to a few literary problems, and authors. As to my remarks on economics, my methods have been such as were possible. Nobody ever suggested that I should improve
? 'em. When noticed, the reaction was in most cases merely a cordial invitation to join in the great betrayal. "La trahison des clercs," as Julien Benda called it. The cry was NOT, tell us more, perfect your own understanding of this knotty, or these knotty subjects. The cry was: be quiet, it is indecent for a man of letters to touch such a subject. And now you are in a mess. You are spiritually in the worst mess than you are in materially. Despite the loss of tonnage and markets, your loss of tonnage and markets.
I wonder if you have any concept of what Europe means by England's betrayal of Europe. I should like to sort certain things out. Your defense of your empire, for example, as distinct from the drive to START war. To keep the war going, to extend the area of the war. Both your attempt and that made by your pals in the U. S. A.
I should like to distinguish between war and mere violence. I should like to distinguish between valor on the field of battle, and the bombing of civilians, the sinking of hospital ships. I do not think the two kinds of activity are necessarily inseparable. And neither do you.
Nothing is without efficient cause. You can't beat Aristotle on that statement. Something causes the destruction of mosques, and museums. Something totally different from the will to die for freedom's cause: for King and country, for the defense of the homeland. The two activities are NOT identical; nor are they inseparable. Now, hospital ships have been bombed, and not by accident. And the typical American feeling is one of revulsion and the soldiers' is one of revulsion.
An American airman had been floating about the middle sea for some days on an inflated rubber raft. He and his pals were at the end of their tether. They were picked up by an Italian hospital ship, put to bed, told they were patients for the time being but would be prisoners on landing. The hospital ship was sunk on a later trip, but one of the nurses who escaped tells this of one of the American airmen. She came to his berth
? to attend him; he said: turn out the light, I am ashamed to look at you. That is the soldier's feeling about baby killing, about bombing hospitals, the cad's feeling is possibly different.
The words "Palazzo S. Giorgio" probably mean nothing to you. A few art lovers, architects, may know what they refer to. The Palazzo was of no military importance. Neither were Gaudier-Brzeska's charcoal drawings. The Kensington Museum accepted some after Gaudier's death. The bulk of them were in a suitcase in Gertova, in a sculpter's studio. I knew that his father's flat had been burnt out, but was told the studio had not been hit. I thought it was time to remove the drawings. I found them. The suitcase covered 1/4 inch thick with dust and plaster. A hole in the ceiling six feet away, a pile of sand on the floor. I used the cover of Dick's bookcase to dust off the suitcase. The concierge said: "Yes, fortunately we noticed the spezzoni; and put it out quickly. " Gaudier gave his life in the last war, for France and England. I had shared the drawings with England. I suppose it is due to me that some of his sculpture is in the S. Kensington or the Tate Gallery. At least I believe no one will contradict that statement.
You came within an ace of burning up most of his drawings. Especially as the small abstract notebook was in the suitcase with the large charcoals. And a copy of Hughes and one or two other more or less irreplaceable objects. Another mark in Genova was the library [of] the S. Carlo theater.
"ONE spot of earth that is forever England. " Dick's father used to be Anglophile. He was a friend of your late Admiral Martin. He had forgotten or forgiven [the] Caracciolo incident, a chapter in Nelson's life that is not emphasized in your school books or official biographies of the columnist.
This vandalism is perhaps the minor part of your treachery. By treachery I refer to the alliance with Russia, any Russia. It may be unwisdom . . .
? eh; on your part. You meant, of course, MEANT to set the two great powers at each other's throats once again and to come in when both were exhausted. Might overdo it? Might find yourselves in the grip of the new pincers? It used to be felt that the Americans would get more soaviter in modo, than the Germans fortiter in re. Half time score seems to be to American advantage. Not my place as a Yank to complain of the material advantages gained by American policy. And yet I deplore the American policy. NOT because it was soaviter in modo, with YOU. And I do NOT hold you responsible for it, save insofar as you tolerated the precedent and falsifications.
On theory, on grounds of program, I have perhaps said a few words for Lenin. When asked to criticize the Kharkov Congress, I did so with perfect good will. I went on writing in Communist papers. I have quoted Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" over this radio. Not of course when expounding fascist doctrine. Merely from personal sympathy with various points made in 1922 by Joseph Stalin. In 1926 or whenever I got the brochure, it was not with Stalin's Bolshevism but with his backsliding that I should have quarreled. I disliked a year ago to see Stalin repeating the Czarist error, and sacrificing millions of Russians IN THE CAUSE of the usurers. The NON-slavic usurers. In fact one never does hear of Russian money lenders. I suppose Russians must have had jobs in banks, now and again, but one doesn't hear much of it.
I don't know that I should have any difficulties about accepting a REAL Bolshevik program. The artist does not, and never [has] been part of the bourgeoisie. I object to a pretended attack on captial, on usurocracy, that degenerates into a mere attack upon property and leaves the money lender, the pawnbroker, setting pretty and in full control of the exploitation system, milking the producer.
Producers of the world, unite. All right by me. The artist don't need to own property. Usually bores him. What he wants is to own his tools.
? NO, not even that, he wants the right to USE the tools of his craft. Bolshevism has never by program denied this to him.
I should never go and get scragged on a theoretical issue as to whether farmers should KOLKHOZ, or own homestead. I believe that in general experience, the latter has better results on production. But it is NOT a principle. It is empiric observation.
If Churchill had accepted Bolshie DOGMA, one might not think him a traitor. But he has NOT. At least no BBC stooge has claimed that for him. What even a pink might query is the practical executive capacity of Moscow in WORKING the communist system. One has read reports to the effect that a hitch now and again occurs among the angels of the Soviet paradise. As realist one wonders whether a judaic bureaucracy on the Dimitrov system, with Dimitrov and Co. running it, is the most desirable regime for Finland, Denmark, Rumania, Switzerland, Warwick, Kent, and the Midlands.
World revolution, with LOCAL executive autochthonous is one thing, world revolution with a strictly Jewish and Moscovite control is another.
It is England's betrayal of SELF determination that ought to lie on the English conscience. Your alliance with Adam Zad.
#82 (May 4, 1943) U. S. (C40) ROMANCE
Just why the campus Communist, the starry eyed idealist Communist, or realist Communist or Bill Bullit millionaire Communard, should suppose that Stalin is still leadin' a world revolution instead of playing power politics on the old Romanoff model; well, I leave it to you.
Back before the American young stopped reading Tennyson's Idylls of the King, or the Morte d' Arthur, or The Tristan of Beroul, or M. Hillaire
? Belloc's Avril, back then, I once called on old Harrison, sugar trust Harrison, and spoke of the S. P. C. A. Soc. 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.