She was England's natural ally UNDER any system that had even a
tendency
toward eschewing economic oppression.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
eh .
.
.
eh .
.
.
of aggression.
Of course Mr.
Welles may reply that the map didn't mean, or perhaps that it didn't STOP at .
.
.
economic aggression.
We do need a clear terminology.
To Europe, at that time, that map looked awfully aggressive.
Would Mr. Welles specify? At the time he said he just hadn't noticed the map, it was just part of French government scenery.
How, Sumner?
#90 (May 23, 1943) U. K. (D6) SOBERLY
The moment is serious, just as serious for you as it is for anyone else. For twenty years you have fought against shadows. And now a real danger affronts you. In fact several enemies confront you. Quite solid dangers. You have been stirred up against a Germany that did not exist. For two decades your press has conducted a campaign of defamation against Italy. The campaign of lies does no good to anyone. You included. One expects you to be a bit up in the bottle. Perhaps it will be easier, or more nearly possible for you to hear in such a moment than when you are in the doldrums.
The moment calls for realism of a kind more real than you are accustomed to. Let us take down the stage set. It is very easy to fall into
? rhetoric. It is very easy for people to be swayed by cliche? . No one is immune from THAT danger. Least of all men who write in a hurry.
YOU are threatened. You are threatened by the Russian METHODS of administration. Those methods are not theoretic. The theory of Bolschevism has never constituted a danger to England. Mr. Churchill knows quite as much about Bolshevik METHODS of administration as anyone else. Mr. Churchill has in the past expressed himself quite clearly on that subject. Nothing equivocal about Winston's words when referring to Russia under Bolshevik rule. The mass graves at Katyn surprised NO one.
BUT the Russian system of administration in Iran, for example, is not your sole danger. It is, in fact, so far from being your sole danger that I have, in over two years of talk over this radio, possibly never referred to it before.
Usury has gnawed into England since the days of Elizabeth. First it was mortgages, mortgages on Earl's estates; usury against the feudal nobility. Then there were attacks on the common land, filchings of village common pasture. Then there developed a usury system, an international usury system, from Cromwell's time, ever increasing. That system gave you your slums. It brought in that civic leprosy that has made England a byeword. It has taken the shock of this war, three years of war to jog your memory, to bring your slums up again into headlines.
The usury system does NO nation good, it does no nation any good whatsoever. It is an internal peril to him who hath, and it can make NO use of nations in the play of international diplomacy save to breed strife between them and use the worst as flails against the best.
It is the usurer's game to hurl the savage against the civilized opponent. The game is not pretty, it is not a very safe game. It does no one any credit.
? A ruined Europe gives you no market. A ruined England will give no market to the new usury control.
Systems grow rotten and die. You have thrown Poland, had thrown half of Poland, to Russia, not in any attempt to save Poland. With the new Russia you have no longer any need of that particular dagger thrust into Germany's vitals. Russia constitutes a quite sufficient counterpoise to German force, now that they have a common frontier.
Let me interrupt myself at this point, to be perfectly clear as to my own convictions. EVERY social reform that has gone into effect in Germany and Italy should be defended. And the best men in England know that as well as I do. The time of calumny is past, and its passing should be seen very clearly. It should be seen very clearly IN England. Colonial empires should be administered by those nations who can best TEACH how such empires can and should be administered. That sentence perhaps needs a whole talk to itself.
The usury system rots the earth. It is a malady dangerous to ALL people. As your own slums can testify. The usury system has ruined millions of poor devils in England just as it has brought misery to millions in India. And that system is shifting its central. That shift represents NO gain to your American allies. It merely means an increase of vigor, it means a new and more violent infraction of America's 120 millions, and that infection will do YOU no good. Your middle class will be engulfed, London will feel the blow as Vienna felt the blow after the last war. That is to say, the glitter of scum, the feverish distribution of tidbits among a privileged few, and among the art world surrounding "society" will decline.
The nomadic parasites will shift out of London and into Manhattan. And this will be presented under a camouflage of national slogans. It will be represented as an American victory. It will not be an AMERICAN victory. The moment is serious. The moment is also confusing. It is
? confusing because there are two sets of concurrent phenomena, namely, those connected with fighting this war, and those which sow seeds for the next one. Your leading men ought to see that. You ought to see it.
It should constitute food for reflection. For YOUR reflection. You are between two very rough millstones.
#91, FCC Transcript (May 24, 1943) U. S. [? ] [TITLE UNKNOWN]
The Italians in America will have noted the American inability to understand what Italy is, the inability to acknowledge the American debt to Italy. The average American admits that the continent was discovered by Christopher Columbus. The more cunning are disposed to believe that Columbus committed a grave error.
But seriously speaking, how many Americans have you met who know that the constructive ideas to which is due the creation of the North American Republic, the United States, were an Italian product? Does one speak at Harvard and in the other great American universities of the Leopoldien Reforms? The Tuscan history of the 18th century is almost completely ignored by the Americans. I say, "almost," advisedly. Have you met in America a man of politics who does know anything about 16th century Tuscany? Perhaps they have heard somebody speak about some painter or musician, but of the policy, the reforms--I wager-- never.
The American is disposed or was disposed to acknowledge theoretically an intellectual debt to France. Perhaps he believes that the American Revolution was due to the French revolution. This is to say that they are ignorant of the dates, also having forgotten that the French Revolution took place a decade after the end of the American revolution. The ideas
? of Leopoldo were largely experimented with under the Grand Duke Pietro Leopoldo, in Tuscany.
The errors of exaggerations, manifest in the materialization of ideas or ideals, were also known. And his son Ferdinand went about correcting them, aided by the very same counselors who had aided his father. This movement of castigation was interrupted by the French disturbances and by the chaos brought about by the Jews, who took part in the French chaos.
One waited more than a century to continue the rectification, to continue the historical process, in the constructive sense. I do not tell you on whose part, because perhaps many among you are not yet ready to recognize these further manifestations of the Latin's genius! The more or less military gentleman Fiorello La Guardia is not possessed of the Latin spirit (genio).
The classical mentality differs from the Rooseveltian. And it seems stupid to me for one to entrust himself to a Lehman or a Morgenthau. None among these American officials possesses the Latin spirit. I would say that the Italians do well, every time they run true to their own spirit, the Italic, the Latin (spirit). I would say that they are doing well to differentiate that spirit from the Gaelic spirit. I would say that you would do very well to investigate it a bit, to search, if possible, for the causes of the confusion.
I know that your situation is difficult. The American press does not guide you and does not help you, but rather admonishes you to forget your own culture, your Italic instincts, your language, the most beautiful daughter of the mother Latin (language). Do not yield! Persevere in reading your Italian books among yourselves. Those among you who have the opportunity to get into universities, must retain their Latin culture, not looking backward, but forward.
? France did not create Latinism. And rather, I say to you, insist, persist! You are American citizens. The America of the Fathers of the Republic worshipped Latin wisdom. That America of the-- --ones has almost disappeared, forgetting the Latin wisdom. That Latinism is preserved in Italy; it manifests itself anew.
I divide this short address into different parts. I say that the Americans around you ignore the Italian tradition. You ought to educate them, and first of all you ought to educate yourselves.
I say that in observing the Americans you will note that they are anarchic, profoundly anarchic, not organized, do not apply their own inventions. When an idea is born or seems to be born, in America, that idea does not sprout in America itself. When propaganda is made on a sound idea in America, something impedes its fertilization.
For instance, the battle against gold was fought half a century ago in the United States; it was fought by the Democratic party. William Jennings Bryan was a great orator--more or less an orator with a large popular following. But he cried out to the world that humanity was being crucified on a golden cross. But he did not speak with perfect frankness. He spoke of silver (sic) instead of speaking openly of money.
All the truth, or almost all the truth, about money had been known in the United States already for a century, but Bryan did not reveal it completely. Now the world all of Europe and a large part of Asia know that the monopoly of gold and the fiction of money based on gold is an infamy an instrument used to fool the people, to strangulate all the peoples. I say that this idea has had in the past, it has had great publicity in America. But the American is slow. He has not placed high the wisdom of his best men. And the same thing with electrical experiments. You probably do not know that in 1863, a certain Loomis succeeded in sending wireless electric signals, he invented wireless telegraphy. But the Americans did nothing about it. He was considered a madman, a
? fool. The world was waiting for the Italian genius of Guglielmo Marconi, before putting into practice the possibilities of wireless transmissions.
The same thing is taking place in the political and economic spheres. And, if you wish to understand true economics, you must look outside the damned American press. You must read that which is being printed in Europe, in Italy. And for the moment it being difficult to obtain printed press, you ought to listen as much as possible to the European transmissions and the European addresses in this connection, in connection with money, with credit, with money on the basis of work, with work that you have--every one of you--residing in your brains and brawn.
Ezra Pound speaks from Rome, in a regime under which liberty is considered a duty; and where one knows that economic freedom carries with it the freedom from falling into debts.
#92 (May 25, 1943) U. S. (D5)
AND BACK OF THE WOODSHED
I am not going to go into the details of Mr. Welles' schemes; I can't in ten minutes get down to as many details as he put forth in an hour. And as for your international currency scheme, your allies in London and Mr. Keynes can, I 'spose, be counted on to put up a much more audible howl. Though whether it will be loud enough, or have any effect, remains for the chroniclers of the future.
Economic aggression. Economic oppression. Economic oppression, the past tense, and the future tense of economic aggression.
Welles admitted that the U. S. had in the past participated in the aggression. Now does he propose, or does the State Department really propose to lay off certain forms of economic oppression after this war is
? over? If so, can the State Department really assure itself or anyone else that the American business man will consent to mislay or to lay off economic aggression?
England and America made ugly, England pretty well gutted by economic oppression? By the economic aggression that has reduced England so largely to a C-3 population to national health statistics that no British government bureau dares print. When you talk of economic aggression or oppression your European hearers say: My God, their whole life, the whole life inside both those countries is one compost of economic oppression. That was what we were resisting. That was what was held over us. God knows Italy wanted to work, and to EARN economic freedom. She didn't go round weeping and asking someone to give her the earth on a platter, or any slice of the earth on a platter. She sent out her roadmakers and plowmen. No, no, by right a colonial space, land space ought to be administered by the folks who will use it.
Italy's colonies never tried to hide living conditions. Which is NOT what Mr. Welles can say for America's strange ally Russia. Vide the Stalin canal, vide all those known liquidations which lead the Christian Science Monitor to say "the thing was not such in itself as to arouse
incredulity" (or whatever the words were. I am quoting from memory, but that was the gist of it).
There is a great deal of undisputed and incontroversial evidence about Soviet Russia that makes many things "not impossible," not such as to 'rouse incredulity.
For every honest word, for every constructive statement in Mr. Welles' speech in Toledo, Italy was and IS the United States' natural ally.
She was England's natural ally UNDER any system that had even a tendency toward eschewing economic oppression. She was the natural partner and guardian of one of England's main trade routes.
? Twenty years ago, when I saw Italy risin', when I saw the constructive work toward economic justice startin' in Italy, I had a wild idea, an impractical idea due to my ignorance of economic geography at that time. I say AT that time; I wish more men of my age would come out and admit that they once knew less than they now know. Mr. Welles has made a good step forward. He has talked of aggression of the selfish and unenlightened kind. Well, aggression is probably selfish, and as for economic cooperation, if Mr. Welles' little group had started thinking of economic cooperation WITH Italy ten years ago, we would most certainly not be now in bloody conflict.
And I don't think Mr. Welles is yet ready to make a dispassionate and thought-out, reasoned, analyzed, articulate statement of the fact about Italy and about Germany and about the corporate state.
I think a man in his position ought to make honest comparisons. There is, God knows, enough ground for friction, there are enough REAL contrasts of interests without building up false horizons. You don't need to slander an enemy, not when you are bombing his cities, his women and children, the noncombattants.
A man might think he had to lie about some foreign country in order to get a war started. But now the war is a goin' on. It will take more than a clear statement about either opponent to bring it to a conclusion.
Further slander or further misrepresentation of the nature of the Axis regimes is just so much waste motion. Economic collaboration. That is the front name and the last name of corporate organization. And the doin' away with the laws of God is part of the Russian program, not of the Roman program. Hang it all, a new ethics has grown up, an ethics of responsibility, of the responsibility of him that hath. The revolution goes on, under the fireworks and the polemics.
? The corporate state is a state in which representation of interests have been revived, after its lapse in the parliamentary countries. I mean to say the division of the representation is programmed to be by trades; if America went corporate, I would be MORE represented in the confederation of artists and professional men than I would be as a citizen of Montgomery county, though I would or could also be a component of both articulations. And the YOUNG men in Italy, and the Hitler Jugend have nothing whatever to do with economic aggression. That ain't the way they are geared.
The Italians are, by the way, by temperament so full of the Renaissance tradition that you will know a man for two years without finding out how he spends his time. 1 mean he is autarchic, often to a surprisin' degree, whereas freedom in the anti-Axis countries has in many cases been perverted or watered down into the one freedom, namely economically to aggress onto everyone or anyone else.
Of course Mr. Welles was speaking interiorily. He wasn't speaking to the outer world as the representative of America's, of the U. S. A. 's foreign policy. He is merely part of the State Department and may have been speaking in propria persona, as part of some local political strategic plan. In which case, let us say, his aggression wasn't in the least economic, it was just political aggression directed against that soft egg Wendell Willkie, or something of that sort.
Has the State Department participated in Mr. Welles' view about ANY sort of aggression? The speech is of interest, but it hasn't exactly swept the world off its feet yet. And the root question subsists: How is the world to be expected to believe that any nation whose inner life consists, and has so persistently consisted for the past eighty years, or more years, in the absolutely unbridled, not to say, in the old sense, LICENTIOUS aggression of the rich against the poor, of the money lenders against those who do not print and coin money. How, I repeat, is the whole world to be led to believe that unbridled economic aggression in the
? home can in any degree whatsoever fit any country to acquire overnight a belief in international non-aggression?
England, Russia, America, certainly three outstanding aggressors.
#93 (May 29, 1943) U. S(C46) SURPRISE
America is a surprisin' country. A SURprisin' country, anything can happen there, provided it isn't too good. Anything, except let us say a treasury, a national treasury without Jews, or government contracts with a rake off. Why, now people here think that bootleggin' of licker might be being followed by bootleggin' of petrol and nearly everything else: everything that is supposed to be rationed.
But I dare say it hasn't been. I dare say no one started high jacking sardines and pimentoes and canned tomatoes.
Mr. John Adams, whom I have mentioned before in these causeries, remarked that very few people in his time had studied systems of government. He was referring to LEGAL system of government. It might be remarked that in our time very few people have written seriously of definitely criminal or illegal system of government. About ten years ago a very interesting study of gangsterism, gang rule, appeared in Paris. Had to be printed in Paris 'cause anything unfavorable to Mr. Churchill's owners, the Rothschilds, is unlikely to get printed in London; has for years been very difficult to print in London, which was during all the grimy and filthy XIXth century the chief stronghold of kikery; with Paris a formidable rival in high corruption, monopoly, and financial swindles, never so decorous as the top-hatted Yidd rule in London. Mebbe the book was printed a bit before 1933. My copy is labeled, 2nd edition enlarged.
? However, not to raise undue prejudice, let us consider some habits of gangster, or the nature of American gangsterism.
Has it been observed that the head gangster occasionally takes steps to get some guy acquitted? Not of course by proof of the ruffian's innocence, but by "other means," let us say "other means. " Has this a precedent? Have you looked into the history of crooked acquittal or an attempt at crooked acquittal?
Can you divide control into two sorts, open and secret? And if so, have you, or your professors, your teachers history, yet given sufficient attention to the history of secret controls, to the history of secret taxation?
Don't start with a parti pris, don't start with a prejudice. Don't assert that any one race has the monopoly of secret controls, or of a technique of secret taxation. Look into it. Think a bit about secret taxation. Then think of law. I know that is hard. It is antipathetic, unsympathetic, no American likes to think about law, let alone keeping it. But still, draw back a moment, think about law. What is the aim of law? And of law codes?
Is law there to preserve public order? Is it all like traffic regulations, designed to keep things moving more comfortably for the public? Or is there another kind of law, or code, or regulation, just made to give the beak a chance to shove FINES on to the public? And if so, can you distinguish it?
I should say it was fairly easy to distinguish the moment one starts looking at any law code from that angle. Code or hoax, or codification of fool regulations would be sought by the-- --"cui bono," the old question, WHO gits the rake off? Where do the fines go? Who gets 'em?
When you, those of you who are my age, and were old fashioned and read the Bible in childhood, when you did, IF you did, you did NOT
? read it with curiosity. Francis Train read it with curiosity. I remember him as an old man with white hair settin' tilted back, settin' in a wooden chair out in front of the Brevoort Hotel and being told as a seven year old kid, that is Francis Train, and wondering what that meant. A man who got jailed in our marvelous country for reprinting the Bible, in bit, and trying to distribute it via the postal system. I hear he was got on the charge of distributing indecent literature.
Is that history, or is it folklore? I have seen it printed as fact. But I don't assert it. But mebbe he did read The Pentateuch with curiosity. Ours is a marvelous country. I won't even swear it was before the Brevoort Hotel, but it was down in that part of town somewhere, I dare say Mencken would verify, or produce an accurate statement.
A hundred million dollars in TAXES were said to have been collected for the rebuilding of Palestine. How were they collected? One malicious author, not German I think, said that Rothschild, I think it was the Paris Rothschild, GAVE 80 million for Palestine but cleaned up 100 million by selling real estate in the desert and parts adjacent. That, I take it, did not refer to the collection of "taxes. "
Sampter in her guide to Zionism says that the League of Nations is an old Jewish idea. In practice the League at Geneva was certainly dirty, no prejudice was needed to see that. We saw it in London in 1918, I think, or shortly after. Long before the words antisemitism were widely current in my little entourage. The League was certainly DIRTY. And here is Rabbi, or mebbe not Rabbi Sampter, saying the idea is Jewish.
British mandate to the Holy Land, over which the Jews exercised complete control in practice, leaving the English taxpayer the expense of civil administration.
Well, you paid for that I suppose, in British defalcation on debts to America. But the AIM now, as it don't look as if the British would ever
? again pay up on anything, the aim, as for the civil administration pro tem in Persia, and anywhere else the loan capital percolates, the aim NOW is for the American taxpayer to pay the EXPENSE on all lands, eastern, western and central; Chinese (fading bet on the Chinese Nepalese) and West African, for all lands that the Jew is to control completely in practice. The AIM is to leave the expense of the civil administration to the American taxpayer. Along with the interest on billions of dollars, pesos, baksheesh, or other monetary units and denominations. Yes, the interest payment on ALL debts, ancient and modern, domestic and foreign, all debts contracted by friend and foe, inside or outside America is to fall on the AMERICAN taxpayer, along with the strain on all inflations and all deflations. You are to get into debt in CHEAP money. You are to have your canned goods controlled, your imports and exports cut off. And when you have got six hundred billion in debt, you are to be left with [the] debts of your Allies, and then will come Wee Willie Willkie or some other trump card from the left sleeve of Jewry, and quadrupple the burden, by putting you back onto a solid dollar, worth five or ten the one wherein you get indebted.
It is a marvelous country, yes, yes, the U. S. A. is a marvelous country.
#94 (June 1, 1943) U. S. (C47) BIG JEW
Don't go for the little Jews, go for the big Jews, and study KAHAL organization. Fry says you can start with the betrayal of Jews: the sell out of Maccabaeus or whoever to the Romans.
Barral goes back to the split between Judah and Israel. Fry states that he was attemptin' to present a study of the "inner structure of a system that has produced and still foments racial enmity," and has "even" undermined certain civilizations and overthrown established national governments.
? That was printed at least ten years ago. He seems to [have] been moved by the Balfour Declaration. The Russian steamroller was to have crushed Europe, and then it exploded. The English exploited the Arabs. Dear Lord Rothschild, yours sincerely Arthur James Balfour. Certain Jews, not all Jews wanted a national home. And you all remember Mr. Wilson, most of you forget if you ever knew the Balfour Declaration took the form of a letter to dear Lord Rothschild, signed, as I have just quoted, "Yours very sincerely A. J. Balfour. "
It was of course a lie as was pretty much the whole life of Balfour. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries. Six weeks later Allenby entered Jerusalem He had been loafing about in the desert for four months before that according to some accounts Colonel Lawrence was not wholly satisfied by his country's role in or rather subsequent to, the adventure.
I don't know that Rothschild shed a tear when speaking to Balfour. But either he or some subsequent series of events aroused Monsieur Fry's curiosity, so he concluded that in studying the Jewish people, special attention should be given to Jewish community. Peculiar secret order that for 20 centuries had got itself disliked and talked of, administrated its own laws, often in defiance of the laws of the land it was lodged in.
Jewish history doesn't STOP with Josephus. It continued, but has been singularly neglected by people who disliked the Jews. This was just as dangerous for the mugs, or Aryans as some call 'em, as to leave the evidence unstudied. The American school books have been wholly castrated. They say nothing of [how] Cromwell brought back the Yidds into England. They do NOT compare the dates of the Battle, of Newbury, Marston Moore, Laseby, execution of the English 1649, with the date of the foundation of the Bank or Stank of England, a bit over 1/2 a century later. Nothing about the embassy that the Kikes in
? Constantinople sent over to see [whether] Cromwell was really the chewisch Messiah (he possibly wasn't). Mebbe he wasn't. There was blood shed in Ireland. There was ultimately a split between the English in America and the English and England.
My table of dates marks 1693, "The national debt begun. " Well that is all an old story. Nicole's tables start with the year 200, so he don't mention the chews at all, not even Josephus. Fry on the other hand is interested in chewisch organization, the separated and Sadoc, "certain political clubs," the siege by Vespasian.
After which they were entrusted with imperial government and administration of Palestine. After the sack of Jerusalem, destruction of the temple and death of the patriot leaders, and all the family.
Erafman, Jewish Brotherhoods, I don't suppose there is an American edition? Or is there? It was published in Vilna.
Other agents were posted at doors of shops, hotels, business houses, lawcourts, and even in the private houses of government officials. These trained agents had each a special field to cover: police, export, import, exchange, government supplies, lawsuits, etc.
The duty of an agent assigned to lawcourts was to keep constantly in touch with the proceedings or with the officials, meet the petitioners, and when practical, fix the sum they must pay for a favorable judgment. Report on all this carefully filed. Don't think America is the true home of all novelties. All this is very old story. Don't go for the poor Jews. Don't pick on the amhaarez. Look into the system.
In fact the lone Jew is subject of study. He seems a good fellow, but is he in some way cut off from the organization? Has he declined to kiss the magic rod . . . is he in exile . . . is that why he has apparently no more luck than the goyim?
? What the devil do YOU know, what the devil does anyone in America know of the Shulchan Aruk, or the alleged fights between Ginsberg and Herzl? The whole subject is so infernally boring. It is so sickening that we would rather pass over it. God knows, I don't want to go into it.
If you would run your own government properly. If you would think out a clean code of ethics. If you would make use of the machinery our respectable forebears bequeathed us, you wouldn't need to be bothered with Jewry, and the peculiar story of Jewry and its peculiar, oh VERY, organization.
But you have not used the machinery set up by our forebears. You have betrayed the national founders.
You have NOT kept the Constitution in force. You have not developed it according to its own internal laws. You have not made use of the machinery provided IN the Constitution itself, to keep the American government modern. The main protection of the WHOLE people is in the clause about Congress issuing money. But that is not the whole of the Constitution.
There is nothing in it to prevent an adjustment of, or progress from, LOCAL articulation; administration divided by geographic division, toward articulation by trade and professional organization.
Would Mr. Welles specify? At the time he said he just hadn't noticed the map, it was just part of French government scenery.
How, Sumner?
#90 (May 23, 1943) U. K. (D6) SOBERLY
The moment is serious, just as serious for you as it is for anyone else. For twenty years you have fought against shadows. And now a real danger affronts you. In fact several enemies confront you. Quite solid dangers. You have been stirred up against a Germany that did not exist. For two decades your press has conducted a campaign of defamation against Italy. The campaign of lies does no good to anyone. You included. One expects you to be a bit up in the bottle. Perhaps it will be easier, or more nearly possible for you to hear in such a moment than when you are in the doldrums.
The moment calls for realism of a kind more real than you are accustomed to. Let us take down the stage set. It is very easy to fall into
? rhetoric. It is very easy for people to be swayed by cliche? . No one is immune from THAT danger. Least of all men who write in a hurry.
YOU are threatened. You are threatened by the Russian METHODS of administration. Those methods are not theoretic. The theory of Bolschevism has never constituted a danger to England. Mr. Churchill knows quite as much about Bolshevik METHODS of administration as anyone else. Mr. Churchill has in the past expressed himself quite clearly on that subject. Nothing equivocal about Winston's words when referring to Russia under Bolshevik rule. The mass graves at Katyn surprised NO one.
BUT the Russian system of administration in Iran, for example, is not your sole danger. It is, in fact, so far from being your sole danger that I have, in over two years of talk over this radio, possibly never referred to it before.
Usury has gnawed into England since the days of Elizabeth. First it was mortgages, mortgages on Earl's estates; usury against the feudal nobility. Then there were attacks on the common land, filchings of village common pasture. Then there developed a usury system, an international usury system, from Cromwell's time, ever increasing. That system gave you your slums. It brought in that civic leprosy that has made England a byeword. It has taken the shock of this war, three years of war to jog your memory, to bring your slums up again into headlines.
The usury system does NO nation good, it does no nation any good whatsoever. It is an internal peril to him who hath, and it can make NO use of nations in the play of international diplomacy save to breed strife between them and use the worst as flails against the best.
It is the usurer's game to hurl the savage against the civilized opponent. The game is not pretty, it is not a very safe game. It does no one any credit.
? A ruined Europe gives you no market. A ruined England will give no market to the new usury control.
Systems grow rotten and die. You have thrown Poland, had thrown half of Poland, to Russia, not in any attempt to save Poland. With the new Russia you have no longer any need of that particular dagger thrust into Germany's vitals. Russia constitutes a quite sufficient counterpoise to German force, now that they have a common frontier.
Let me interrupt myself at this point, to be perfectly clear as to my own convictions. EVERY social reform that has gone into effect in Germany and Italy should be defended. And the best men in England know that as well as I do. The time of calumny is past, and its passing should be seen very clearly. It should be seen very clearly IN England. Colonial empires should be administered by those nations who can best TEACH how such empires can and should be administered. That sentence perhaps needs a whole talk to itself.
The usury system rots the earth. It is a malady dangerous to ALL people. As your own slums can testify. The usury system has ruined millions of poor devils in England just as it has brought misery to millions in India. And that system is shifting its central. That shift represents NO gain to your American allies. It merely means an increase of vigor, it means a new and more violent infraction of America's 120 millions, and that infection will do YOU no good. Your middle class will be engulfed, London will feel the blow as Vienna felt the blow after the last war. That is to say, the glitter of scum, the feverish distribution of tidbits among a privileged few, and among the art world surrounding "society" will decline.
The nomadic parasites will shift out of London and into Manhattan. And this will be presented under a camouflage of national slogans. It will be represented as an American victory. It will not be an AMERICAN victory. The moment is serious. The moment is also confusing. It is
? confusing because there are two sets of concurrent phenomena, namely, those connected with fighting this war, and those which sow seeds for the next one. Your leading men ought to see that. You ought to see it.
It should constitute food for reflection. For YOUR reflection. You are between two very rough millstones.
#91, FCC Transcript (May 24, 1943) U. S. [? ] [TITLE UNKNOWN]
The Italians in America will have noted the American inability to understand what Italy is, the inability to acknowledge the American debt to Italy. The average American admits that the continent was discovered by Christopher Columbus. The more cunning are disposed to believe that Columbus committed a grave error.
But seriously speaking, how many Americans have you met who know that the constructive ideas to which is due the creation of the North American Republic, the United States, were an Italian product? Does one speak at Harvard and in the other great American universities of the Leopoldien Reforms? The Tuscan history of the 18th century is almost completely ignored by the Americans. I say, "almost," advisedly. Have you met in America a man of politics who does know anything about 16th century Tuscany? Perhaps they have heard somebody speak about some painter or musician, but of the policy, the reforms--I wager-- never.
The American is disposed or was disposed to acknowledge theoretically an intellectual debt to France. Perhaps he believes that the American Revolution was due to the French revolution. This is to say that they are ignorant of the dates, also having forgotten that the French Revolution took place a decade after the end of the American revolution. The ideas
? of Leopoldo were largely experimented with under the Grand Duke Pietro Leopoldo, in Tuscany.
The errors of exaggerations, manifest in the materialization of ideas or ideals, were also known. And his son Ferdinand went about correcting them, aided by the very same counselors who had aided his father. This movement of castigation was interrupted by the French disturbances and by the chaos brought about by the Jews, who took part in the French chaos.
One waited more than a century to continue the rectification, to continue the historical process, in the constructive sense. I do not tell you on whose part, because perhaps many among you are not yet ready to recognize these further manifestations of the Latin's genius! The more or less military gentleman Fiorello La Guardia is not possessed of the Latin spirit (genio).
The classical mentality differs from the Rooseveltian. And it seems stupid to me for one to entrust himself to a Lehman or a Morgenthau. None among these American officials possesses the Latin spirit. I would say that the Italians do well, every time they run true to their own spirit, the Italic, the Latin (spirit). I would say that they are doing well to differentiate that spirit from the Gaelic spirit. I would say that you would do very well to investigate it a bit, to search, if possible, for the causes of the confusion.
I know that your situation is difficult. The American press does not guide you and does not help you, but rather admonishes you to forget your own culture, your Italic instincts, your language, the most beautiful daughter of the mother Latin (language). Do not yield! Persevere in reading your Italian books among yourselves. Those among you who have the opportunity to get into universities, must retain their Latin culture, not looking backward, but forward.
? France did not create Latinism. And rather, I say to you, insist, persist! You are American citizens. The America of the Fathers of the Republic worshipped Latin wisdom. That America of the-- --ones has almost disappeared, forgetting the Latin wisdom. That Latinism is preserved in Italy; it manifests itself anew.
I divide this short address into different parts. I say that the Americans around you ignore the Italian tradition. You ought to educate them, and first of all you ought to educate yourselves.
I say that in observing the Americans you will note that they are anarchic, profoundly anarchic, not organized, do not apply their own inventions. When an idea is born or seems to be born, in America, that idea does not sprout in America itself. When propaganda is made on a sound idea in America, something impedes its fertilization.
For instance, the battle against gold was fought half a century ago in the United States; it was fought by the Democratic party. William Jennings Bryan was a great orator--more or less an orator with a large popular following. But he cried out to the world that humanity was being crucified on a golden cross. But he did not speak with perfect frankness. He spoke of silver (sic) instead of speaking openly of money.
All the truth, or almost all the truth, about money had been known in the United States already for a century, but Bryan did not reveal it completely. Now the world all of Europe and a large part of Asia know that the monopoly of gold and the fiction of money based on gold is an infamy an instrument used to fool the people, to strangulate all the peoples. I say that this idea has had in the past, it has had great publicity in America. But the American is slow. He has not placed high the wisdom of his best men. And the same thing with electrical experiments. You probably do not know that in 1863, a certain Loomis succeeded in sending wireless electric signals, he invented wireless telegraphy. But the Americans did nothing about it. He was considered a madman, a
? fool. The world was waiting for the Italian genius of Guglielmo Marconi, before putting into practice the possibilities of wireless transmissions.
The same thing is taking place in the political and economic spheres. And, if you wish to understand true economics, you must look outside the damned American press. You must read that which is being printed in Europe, in Italy. And for the moment it being difficult to obtain printed press, you ought to listen as much as possible to the European transmissions and the European addresses in this connection, in connection with money, with credit, with money on the basis of work, with work that you have--every one of you--residing in your brains and brawn.
Ezra Pound speaks from Rome, in a regime under which liberty is considered a duty; and where one knows that economic freedom carries with it the freedom from falling into debts.
#92 (May 25, 1943) U. S. (D5)
AND BACK OF THE WOODSHED
I am not going to go into the details of Mr. Welles' schemes; I can't in ten minutes get down to as many details as he put forth in an hour. And as for your international currency scheme, your allies in London and Mr. Keynes can, I 'spose, be counted on to put up a much more audible howl. Though whether it will be loud enough, or have any effect, remains for the chroniclers of the future.
Economic aggression. Economic oppression. Economic oppression, the past tense, and the future tense of economic aggression.
Welles admitted that the U. S. had in the past participated in the aggression. Now does he propose, or does the State Department really propose to lay off certain forms of economic oppression after this war is
? over? If so, can the State Department really assure itself or anyone else that the American business man will consent to mislay or to lay off economic aggression?
England and America made ugly, England pretty well gutted by economic oppression? By the economic aggression that has reduced England so largely to a C-3 population to national health statistics that no British government bureau dares print. When you talk of economic aggression or oppression your European hearers say: My God, their whole life, the whole life inside both those countries is one compost of economic oppression. That was what we were resisting. That was what was held over us. God knows Italy wanted to work, and to EARN economic freedom. She didn't go round weeping and asking someone to give her the earth on a platter, or any slice of the earth on a platter. She sent out her roadmakers and plowmen. No, no, by right a colonial space, land space ought to be administered by the folks who will use it.
Italy's colonies never tried to hide living conditions. Which is NOT what Mr. Welles can say for America's strange ally Russia. Vide the Stalin canal, vide all those known liquidations which lead the Christian Science Monitor to say "the thing was not such in itself as to arouse
incredulity" (or whatever the words were. I am quoting from memory, but that was the gist of it).
There is a great deal of undisputed and incontroversial evidence about Soviet Russia that makes many things "not impossible," not such as to 'rouse incredulity.
For every honest word, for every constructive statement in Mr. Welles' speech in Toledo, Italy was and IS the United States' natural ally.
She was England's natural ally UNDER any system that had even a tendency toward eschewing economic oppression. She was the natural partner and guardian of one of England's main trade routes.
? Twenty years ago, when I saw Italy risin', when I saw the constructive work toward economic justice startin' in Italy, I had a wild idea, an impractical idea due to my ignorance of economic geography at that time. I say AT that time; I wish more men of my age would come out and admit that they once knew less than they now know. Mr. Welles has made a good step forward. He has talked of aggression of the selfish and unenlightened kind. Well, aggression is probably selfish, and as for economic cooperation, if Mr. Welles' little group had started thinking of economic cooperation WITH Italy ten years ago, we would most certainly not be now in bloody conflict.
And I don't think Mr. Welles is yet ready to make a dispassionate and thought-out, reasoned, analyzed, articulate statement of the fact about Italy and about Germany and about the corporate state.
I think a man in his position ought to make honest comparisons. There is, God knows, enough ground for friction, there are enough REAL contrasts of interests without building up false horizons. You don't need to slander an enemy, not when you are bombing his cities, his women and children, the noncombattants.
A man might think he had to lie about some foreign country in order to get a war started. But now the war is a goin' on. It will take more than a clear statement about either opponent to bring it to a conclusion.
Further slander or further misrepresentation of the nature of the Axis regimes is just so much waste motion. Economic collaboration. That is the front name and the last name of corporate organization. And the doin' away with the laws of God is part of the Russian program, not of the Roman program. Hang it all, a new ethics has grown up, an ethics of responsibility, of the responsibility of him that hath. The revolution goes on, under the fireworks and the polemics.
? The corporate state is a state in which representation of interests have been revived, after its lapse in the parliamentary countries. I mean to say the division of the representation is programmed to be by trades; if America went corporate, I would be MORE represented in the confederation of artists and professional men than I would be as a citizen of Montgomery county, though I would or could also be a component of both articulations. And the YOUNG men in Italy, and the Hitler Jugend have nothing whatever to do with economic aggression. That ain't the way they are geared.
The Italians are, by the way, by temperament so full of the Renaissance tradition that you will know a man for two years without finding out how he spends his time. 1 mean he is autarchic, often to a surprisin' degree, whereas freedom in the anti-Axis countries has in many cases been perverted or watered down into the one freedom, namely economically to aggress onto everyone or anyone else.
Of course Mr. Welles was speaking interiorily. He wasn't speaking to the outer world as the representative of America's, of the U. S. A. 's foreign policy. He is merely part of the State Department and may have been speaking in propria persona, as part of some local political strategic plan. In which case, let us say, his aggression wasn't in the least economic, it was just political aggression directed against that soft egg Wendell Willkie, or something of that sort.
Has the State Department participated in Mr. Welles' view about ANY sort of aggression? The speech is of interest, but it hasn't exactly swept the world off its feet yet. And the root question subsists: How is the world to be expected to believe that any nation whose inner life consists, and has so persistently consisted for the past eighty years, or more years, in the absolutely unbridled, not to say, in the old sense, LICENTIOUS aggression of the rich against the poor, of the money lenders against those who do not print and coin money. How, I repeat, is the whole world to be led to believe that unbridled economic aggression in the
? home can in any degree whatsoever fit any country to acquire overnight a belief in international non-aggression?
England, Russia, America, certainly three outstanding aggressors.
#93 (May 29, 1943) U. S(C46) SURPRISE
America is a surprisin' country. A SURprisin' country, anything can happen there, provided it isn't too good. Anything, except let us say a treasury, a national treasury without Jews, or government contracts with a rake off. Why, now people here think that bootleggin' of licker might be being followed by bootleggin' of petrol and nearly everything else: everything that is supposed to be rationed.
But I dare say it hasn't been. I dare say no one started high jacking sardines and pimentoes and canned tomatoes.
Mr. John Adams, whom I have mentioned before in these causeries, remarked that very few people in his time had studied systems of government. He was referring to LEGAL system of government. It might be remarked that in our time very few people have written seriously of definitely criminal or illegal system of government. About ten years ago a very interesting study of gangsterism, gang rule, appeared in Paris. Had to be printed in Paris 'cause anything unfavorable to Mr. Churchill's owners, the Rothschilds, is unlikely to get printed in London; has for years been very difficult to print in London, which was during all the grimy and filthy XIXth century the chief stronghold of kikery; with Paris a formidable rival in high corruption, monopoly, and financial swindles, never so decorous as the top-hatted Yidd rule in London. Mebbe the book was printed a bit before 1933. My copy is labeled, 2nd edition enlarged.
? However, not to raise undue prejudice, let us consider some habits of gangster, or the nature of American gangsterism.
Has it been observed that the head gangster occasionally takes steps to get some guy acquitted? Not of course by proof of the ruffian's innocence, but by "other means," let us say "other means. " Has this a precedent? Have you looked into the history of crooked acquittal or an attempt at crooked acquittal?
Can you divide control into two sorts, open and secret? And if so, have you, or your professors, your teachers history, yet given sufficient attention to the history of secret controls, to the history of secret taxation?
Don't start with a parti pris, don't start with a prejudice. Don't assert that any one race has the monopoly of secret controls, or of a technique of secret taxation. Look into it. Think a bit about secret taxation. Then think of law. I know that is hard. It is antipathetic, unsympathetic, no American likes to think about law, let alone keeping it. But still, draw back a moment, think about law. What is the aim of law? And of law codes?
Is law there to preserve public order? Is it all like traffic regulations, designed to keep things moving more comfortably for the public? Or is there another kind of law, or code, or regulation, just made to give the beak a chance to shove FINES on to the public? And if so, can you distinguish it?
I should say it was fairly easy to distinguish the moment one starts looking at any law code from that angle. Code or hoax, or codification of fool regulations would be sought by the-- --"cui bono," the old question, WHO gits the rake off? Where do the fines go? Who gets 'em?
When you, those of you who are my age, and were old fashioned and read the Bible in childhood, when you did, IF you did, you did NOT
? read it with curiosity. Francis Train read it with curiosity. I remember him as an old man with white hair settin' tilted back, settin' in a wooden chair out in front of the Brevoort Hotel and being told as a seven year old kid, that is Francis Train, and wondering what that meant. A man who got jailed in our marvelous country for reprinting the Bible, in bit, and trying to distribute it via the postal system. I hear he was got on the charge of distributing indecent literature.
Is that history, or is it folklore? I have seen it printed as fact. But I don't assert it. But mebbe he did read The Pentateuch with curiosity. Ours is a marvelous country. I won't even swear it was before the Brevoort Hotel, but it was down in that part of town somewhere, I dare say Mencken would verify, or produce an accurate statement.
A hundred million dollars in TAXES were said to have been collected for the rebuilding of Palestine. How were they collected? One malicious author, not German I think, said that Rothschild, I think it was the Paris Rothschild, GAVE 80 million for Palestine but cleaned up 100 million by selling real estate in the desert and parts adjacent. That, I take it, did not refer to the collection of "taxes. "
Sampter in her guide to Zionism says that the League of Nations is an old Jewish idea. In practice the League at Geneva was certainly dirty, no prejudice was needed to see that. We saw it in London in 1918, I think, or shortly after. Long before the words antisemitism were widely current in my little entourage. The League was certainly DIRTY. And here is Rabbi, or mebbe not Rabbi Sampter, saying the idea is Jewish.
British mandate to the Holy Land, over which the Jews exercised complete control in practice, leaving the English taxpayer the expense of civil administration.
Well, you paid for that I suppose, in British defalcation on debts to America. But the AIM now, as it don't look as if the British would ever
? again pay up on anything, the aim, as for the civil administration pro tem in Persia, and anywhere else the loan capital percolates, the aim NOW is for the American taxpayer to pay the EXPENSE on all lands, eastern, western and central; Chinese (fading bet on the Chinese Nepalese) and West African, for all lands that the Jew is to control completely in practice. The AIM is to leave the expense of the civil administration to the American taxpayer. Along with the interest on billions of dollars, pesos, baksheesh, or other monetary units and denominations. Yes, the interest payment on ALL debts, ancient and modern, domestic and foreign, all debts contracted by friend and foe, inside or outside America is to fall on the AMERICAN taxpayer, along with the strain on all inflations and all deflations. You are to get into debt in CHEAP money. You are to have your canned goods controlled, your imports and exports cut off. And when you have got six hundred billion in debt, you are to be left with [the] debts of your Allies, and then will come Wee Willie Willkie or some other trump card from the left sleeve of Jewry, and quadrupple the burden, by putting you back onto a solid dollar, worth five or ten the one wherein you get indebted.
It is a marvelous country, yes, yes, the U. S. A. is a marvelous country.
#94 (June 1, 1943) U. S. (C47) BIG JEW
Don't go for the little Jews, go for the big Jews, and study KAHAL organization. Fry says you can start with the betrayal of Jews: the sell out of Maccabaeus or whoever to the Romans.
Barral goes back to the split between Judah and Israel. Fry states that he was attemptin' to present a study of the "inner structure of a system that has produced and still foments racial enmity," and has "even" undermined certain civilizations and overthrown established national governments.
? That was printed at least ten years ago. He seems to [have] been moved by the Balfour Declaration. The Russian steamroller was to have crushed Europe, and then it exploded. The English exploited the Arabs. Dear Lord Rothschild, yours sincerely Arthur James Balfour. Certain Jews, not all Jews wanted a national home. And you all remember Mr. Wilson, most of you forget if you ever knew the Balfour Declaration took the form of a letter to dear Lord Rothschild, signed, as I have just quoted, "Yours very sincerely A. J. Balfour. "
It was of course a lie as was pretty much the whole life of Balfour. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries. Six weeks later Allenby entered Jerusalem He had been loafing about in the desert for four months before that according to some accounts Colonel Lawrence was not wholly satisfied by his country's role in or rather subsequent to, the adventure.
I don't know that Rothschild shed a tear when speaking to Balfour. But either he or some subsequent series of events aroused Monsieur Fry's curiosity, so he concluded that in studying the Jewish people, special attention should be given to Jewish community. Peculiar secret order that for 20 centuries had got itself disliked and talked of, administrated its own laws, often in defiance of the laws of the land it was lodged in.
Jewish history doesn't STOP with Josephus. It continued, but has been singularly neglected by people who disliked the Jews. This was just as dangerous for the mugs, or Aryans as some call 'em, as to leave the evidence unstudied. The American school books have been wholly castrated. They say nothing of [how] Cromwell brought back the Yidds into England. They do NOT compare the dates of the Battle, of Newbury, Marston Moore, Laseby, execution of the English 1649, with the date of the foundation of the Bank or Stank of England, a bit over 1/2 a century later. Nothing about the embassy that the Kikes in
? Constantinople sent over to see [whether] Cromwell was really the chewisch Messiah (he possibly wasn't). Mebbe he wasn't. There was blood shed in Ireland. There was ultimately a split between the English in America and the English and England.
My table of dates marks 1693, "The national debt begun. " Well that is all an old story. Nicole's tables start with the year 200, so he don't mention the chews at all, not even Josephus. Fry on the other hand is interested in chewisch organization, the separated and Sadoc, "certain political clubs," the siege by Vespasian.
After which they were entrusted with imperial government and administration of Palestine. After the sack of Jerusalem, destruction of the temple and death of the patriot leaders, and all the family.
Erafman, Jewish Brotherhoods, I don't suppose there is an American edition? Or is there? It was published in Vilna.
Other agents were posted at doors of shops, hotels, business houses, lawcourts, and even in the private houses of government officials. These trained agents had each a special field to cover: police, export, import, exchange, government supplies, lawsuits, etc.
The duty of an agent assigned to lawcourts was to keep constantly in touch with the proceedings or with the officials, meet the petitioners, and when practical, fix the sum they must pay for a favorable judgment. Report on all this carefully filed. Don't think America is the true home of all novelties. All this is very old story. Don't go for the poor Jews. Don't pick on the amhaarez. Look into the system.
In fact the lone Jew is subject of study. He seems a good fellow, but is he in some way cut off from the organization? Has he declined to kiss the magic rod . . . is he in exile . . . is that why he has apparently no more luck than the goyim?
? What the devil do YOU know, what the devil does anyone in America know of the Shulchan Aruk, or the alleged fights between Ginsberg and Herzl? The whole subject is so infernally boring. It is so sickening that we would rather pass over it. God knows, I don't want to go into it.
If you would run your own government properly. If you would think out a clean code of ethics. If you would make use of the machinery our respectable forebears bequeathed us, you wouldn't need to be bothered with Jewry, and the peculiar story of Jewry and its peculiar, oh VERY, organization.
But you have not used the machinery set up by our forebears. You have betrayed the national founders.
You have NOT kept the Constitution in force. You have not developed it according to its own internal laws. You have not made use of the machinery provided IN the Constitution itself, to keep the American government modern. The main protection of the WHOLE people is in the clause about Congress issuing money. But that is not the whole of the Constitution.
There is nothing in it to prevent an adjustment of, or progress from, LOCAL articulation; administration divided by geographic division, toward articulation by trade and professional organization.
