No More Learning

? As you have discovered, at least some B. B. C. boko discovered in Ulster, there are Americans who do not speak English, whose native stock is not English. I say do not speak English, I mean not even in its American dialect form. Even if they are choked up to the eyes with propaganda, they have not an interior basis for adorin' you and your empire. Many of the denizens of that empire do not adore you.
Why should they fight for your empire? You might get me on sentiment. The romantic period of my life was passed in London. Blood is thicker than corn juice. But I am not a majority specimen.
It would probably never occur to you that the attitude of my compatriots was hostile to me, during the 12 years I spent in London. It turned friendly in 1920 when I shifted over to Paris. What causes that? I am not trying to prove anything, I am just telling you. A truly representative American, the well known and very widely read writer, Mr. E. Hemingway considered me in 1922, the ONLY American who ever got out of England alive.
That was a perfectly sincere opinion, given in a decade when neither Hemingway nor I were being political. Mr. Hemingway is hardly ever political. I believe his father was English. The most violent Americans I have known, at least two of 'em had English grandfathers, they were NOT anglophile.
The charm of London is feminine. I suppose your colonials know that. London is romantic. That is, the three or whatever million surplus females in England open up possibilities to the traveler. BUT to balance that the young Englishman, in nine cases out of ten, strikes the young of ALL other nations as a fatuous sap head. The lack of the most intense stimulus to competition can but take effect in the course of the centuries. The exceptional man, the, as Mr. Hemingway would call him "the good guy," does NOT constitute the mass of the population. He goes out and gets shot in the first months of 1914. His mass weight in the democratic
? majority tends to diminish. You must take count of these things, these imponderabilia in estimating the force of the cohesion of nations.
Even to me, naturally prepared for Anglo American amity so long as it be not blatantly and palpably Jewish, and a mere wheeze of and for the usury system, even I can not pardon you for having poisoned America. Sending your WORST type of emigrant such as silk stockings Sassoon to that country, yes, Victor. The Emperor of Opium and the Orient, and your scum from the London School of Bankocracy. I try to tell you the story, your cramming of America with propagandists, culminating in Cuff Duper was NOT a motion conducing to amity. I have told you before the ONLY propaganda giving the Dies committee a headache in 1939 was YOUR propaganda. NOT German propaganda, not Russian red propaganda but YOUR propaganda. The American differs from the Englander, does not like to be humbugged. He likes to humbug someone else, but he has not your love of pageantry and your taste for maintaining a humbug.
I believe Bagehot said something rather good in that connection: "The mass of the English yield a deference rather to something else than to their rulers. They defer to what we may call the theatrical show of society. " Walt Bagehot [on] the English Constitution. Cf. that with [the] American condemnation of Polk (Congressional motion) complimenting the officers in the Mexican war. If had, the American admits it, he don't try to embalm the swindle in Busbys, and Beefeater uniforms, and pretend it was holy. I am not attemptin' to be insultin', but as simple narrative; I believe the average American considers the Englishman to be both a snob and a sycophant.
And as Roosevelt loses his puffed up bought ascendency, YOU lose. 50 thousand Americans owe him death or wounds or dispersal, but the democracy trend is to pass the buck, shift the blame. You get blamed for it. YOU dragged us into the war. I know Roosevelt was hell set on gettin' in, but the public will not stop to think of that. Even supposing
? the general American really KNOWS it. What the public knows is your propaganda. I quote: "Too many foreigners in Washington, natives are run by them and know it. " Letter dated October 27, 1940 from the fine old American stock, south of Mason and Dixon line, roaring democrat, of the era that took party line seriously. "Japanese are our biggest headache. " That from a senatorial family, six weeks before Pearl Harbor.
You might remember that during the last year of my broadcasts I was guided from inside America. I mean by personal and quite reliable notes sent me from most competent private observers, NOT in the pay of Jewry, NOT writing for Hollywood and Mr. Roosevelt's owners. It was my intention and endeavor to speak in KEY with the opinion of enlighted Americans.
At no time have I intended to use the radio to present personal idiosyncrasies, but to speak a true record. The U. S. A. will be no use to itself or to anyone else until it gets rid of the kikes AND Mr. Roosevelt. I don't mean the small kikes. I mean the LARGE kikes. Often YOUR castoffs and exports. When I say the Americans don't like being humbugged, I give you instances; to an American a Times correspondent means a drummer for Vickers, drummer, a traveling salesman, a bagman. He, the American, don't try to wrap that up. He LIKES to debunk, to drag the sham into the open, and to mock at himself for having been a sucker the day before yesterday or half hour ago in having been humbugged. That is at variance with the British theatrical temperament, which WANTS to maintain the sham.
I state these things to illustrate one source of misunderstanding: 50 or more years ago the Americans invented the word Anglo-maniac. That meant a "dude" or a man who wore a high collar. It certainly meant the Astors and people who exported American money to England (capital, or pocket money), who married into English society. That was called "buying a duke. " You probably don't consider me an Anglo-maniac. When I lived in England, I was an "expatriate"; when I went to Paris I
? was white washed, I was again considered American. All this is probably very superficial. Permit me an easy evening: permit me for once to trifle with these bits of swansdown floating on the social and political stream.
#67 (March 16, 1943) U. S. (C20) TO EXPLAIN
It probably seemed very eccentric that a man, any man should suspend playin' tennis and trying to understand the Confucian anthology, and after a long period of years return to America to protest against ANYTHING, or to offer suggestions to his fellow citizens about anything whatsoever.
After four years, I should however like to have a few minutes MORE conversation' with Mr. Sam Pryor, and with young Elihu, and a few other lights of the party; and see whether they are more disposed now to believe what I then told 'em. I do NOT believe that the third election of Roosevelt was necessary. I take it the U. S. now knows that the election was an error. My contention then was that people wanted something different. Wilikie was NOT something different, he was the same, worse, and more so. And the people did not elect him.
Most sane Americans now wish Roosevelt and his kikes had never been born. But none of 'em seem to have any clear idea how to eliminate the nasty consequences of the untoward event. Sage Republicans in 1939 may have felt that Roosevelt had thoroughly puked on the American floor, and that his Party ought to clean up the mess.
I did NOT agree with 'em. The subsequent mess shows no signs of producin' its own vacuum cleaners. Well let bygones be bygones. I am NOT blaming the Republican chiefs for lack of omniscence. Few people have it.
? Some of 'em thought Mr. Gallup's Jew-aided poll was an indication of popular feeling, but failed to look at a calendar. They are still faced by a clever opponent, void of scruple, and likely to be backed in 1944 by all the billions that international Jewry has diddled out of the American people, and out of the subject races. Hope long fed on the bottle may not grow teeth at all.
As nobody is likely to believe me, I suggest that they start thinking it out for themselves. I suggest that a DUD candidate for 1944 is just as undesirable as it was two years ago. I suggest that consummate incompetence in the Cabinet is undesirable. The Republicans HAD in 1940 the makin's of a strong executive. Providin', that is, that they followed the early American system of having a President and a cabinet. Several Republicans in Washington could have functioned, and kept America out of war, piloted her thru the stormy period, and perhaps, though I doubt it, even have prevented the war bustin' out.
I reckon Jewry had Churchill by the short hairs so close that nothing would have saved him, or England, from him. Apart from war, the British Empire would have elegantly dissolved, or inelegantly dissolved. But whichever, the U. S. by staying OUT of the war could most certainly have absorbed the fragments: without being put [to] the extreme inconvenience which a great lot of the outer world now hears the U. S. is incurrin'.
Now Vandenberg, from my point of view, lives in the year 1858 or before then. But Vandenberg with a CABINET would have made a better President than either Roosevelt alias Cohen, or Wilikie, alias the rest of the synagogue. I would NOT have selected Senator Vandenberg because I do not think we have ANY economic views in common. All I am saying is that the Republicans HAD the makings of an administration, both strong and in many ways sane, though conservative, that is, set in their ways.
? I dunno that they have yet learned ANYTHING. Some of the old horse and buggy ways HAVE been jolted, by three years of conflict. But Vandenberg mayn't have heard of it. Bridges may not have heard of it. They may not yet know that Mark Hanna is dead.
My view was and IS that the cabinet should be the school for the executive. That system worked under Jefferson, the only thing I have against Jackson is that he had a theoretical notion against it which merely led Van Buren to desist from the cabinet long enough to qualify for the succession. Useless formality. An executive OUGHT to have some sort of executive training. No place like the cabinet for providin' it. Businessmen's government, NUTS. Mercantilist or usurious mind is NO good for any problem dealin' with the whole nation. Hence use of LEGAL minds in formin' governments. At least [they] have some sense of law, as something for the whole state, the whole of society.
Only man who ever raised any real objection to Gesell in argument with me puzzled me bit. He had arguments that comptrollers and cabinet ministers had not raised. He puzzled me. I had to think it out. Answer was, he represented a sort of shareholders union. He was looking at the whole show from point of view of a section of the community, NOT as to how it would effect the whole nation, the whole society congeries.
Man spends his whole life thinking how he can welsh a profit out of the public, produce more, regardless, I mean regardless of anything. Even thinking how to produce a good article, well, that is better. What happens to THEM. Get confiscated. BY the profiteer's, racketeers in the government in favor of Kaiser's coffins.
Mr. Williams gave me some space in Greenwich Time, not that he is to be implicated in my present opinions. But he might take up that idea about the CABINET on his own. I believe a man fit to be President ought to SEE his way to having a CABINET, and his party ought to see his way to having a cabinet, and WHAT kind of cabinet, before the
? people are asked to elect him. John Adams had a bad cabinet, duds left over from Washington's misfortune. I mean after about all the MEN had left Washington's cabinet he was left with the rinds and remnants; and John Adams from democratic feelin', [having] been badgered about his authoritative tendency etc. , kept on these duds out of sentiment, and about wrecked his administration. Good cabinets have made great administrations. As far as I recall there has been NO great administration without SOME cabinet talent. Even Lincoln had Seward; personality sufficiently interesting to get shot simultaneously with his chief, and NOT by an actor either. That simultaneity is NOT sufficiently stressed in the history books. Do I ramble? One can't just isolate an idea. If it is real, it is bound to have bits of fact and sidelights clingin' to it. Dewey, a nice young man. But would make a better president AFTER four years in the cabinet, than he ever would if put in from outside, in the fair flush of his second moustaches.
I am of course glad Lehman is OUT. I wish all his friends were in Australia, and he with 'em. It would conduce to the good life in the American continent. But the movement toward eliminating Morgenthau's gangs from Albany has NOT gone far enough.
I know I said something rash a moment ago. I said the Republicans would have all kikeria, all the kikes profits OUT against 'em in 1944. Well, that ain't the sole possibility. Because if the Jews felt that it wuz time to leave Mr. Roosevelt, I mean if he is so loathed by 1944 that there is no chance of electing him for the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh terms, and if Hank Wallace has got too far out on the limb, why then of course all that kike money, profits of gold sales and of usury might come RIGHT over into the Republican Party, about two or more months before the election. Like perhaps some of it did last time; bringing that Trojan Horse (with apologies to the equine race) Mr. Willkie. Only next time they would bring something worse, with the intent to elect him, and rob the people.
? Your correspondent should of course note, in fact your correspondent HAD noted that most of the gold acquired by the Morgenthau Treasury was purchased AFTER it reached the U. S. and that gold sent to that country may have been owned by the government or individuals in another country. Yes, that is so, and perfectly rational. STILL it would, or SHOULD interest the American people and even the Republican National Committee to know which filthy kikes in New York acted as agents for the Rothschilds, and other branches of the candle stick of Judea. And the author of a standard and most highly respected university textbook, writes me: "I cannot recall any account of the activities of foreign banking or bank agents in the U. S. aside from the correspondence connected with President Jackson's efforts to get a settlement from France during his administration. Indeed I do not know that there is a clear account of these activities and presumably the data would have to be dug up from the correspondence of these state and treasury departments. "
Well damn it all, go start diggin'. You will find it as tough as Babylonian excavations. As crabbed as the clay tablets in Nineveh, but you may as well start excavation.
Not of course that your work will be immediately welcomed by publishers and universities, but still somebody ought occassionally to do an honest day's work for the nation or years' work for the nation.
How the hell [do] you expect to have any economic or financial history, or in fact any history writin' except dilletante impressions until you do have a clear and detailed account of the activities of international kikery and its agents IN the U. S. I do not know. And neither do you, and you won't, till you have put your mind to it and GOT the data. Mr. Morgenthau isn't going to just HAND it to you on a plate.
#68 (March 19, 1943) U. S. (C21) MORE NAMES
? I treat information from the U. S. and England with reserve. It is quite obvious that the only way the B. B. C. or the Lehman and Judah radio in America could deceive anyone would be by telling the truth, that perhaps the American people have really less to eat, perhaps some men are in jail. If Roosevelt's critics are muzzled BY the police, and by the incarceration method, perhaps they have taken the wrong line. Obviously no one can advocate America's losing a war. BUT floodlight on Morgenthau, Katz, and Sommerleigh can have no detrimental effect on American military and subnaval operations. The knowledge of Katz and Sommerleigh, OR of the peculiar ramifications of the Morgenthau family can not diminish the output of Kaiser's coffins, or make bad ships worse, or unskilled sailors less skillful.
When I turn over my letter files of the past decade, I don't know where to start quotin'. I have quoted a notable speech in the House of Representatives. I shall probably requote it. "Involve her," that is the U. S. , "in advance in the next European war. " House of Representatives, February 3, 1933. That from north of the Mason and Dixon Line. From Carolina, in 1934, I quote the following:
Henry Morgenthau is related by marriage to Herbert Lehman, Jewish Governor of the State of New York (the Lehman to whom President Roosevelt has referred to as "his right arm") and is related by marriage or otherwise to the Seligmans, of the international Jewish firm of J. and W. Seligman, who were publicly shown before the Senate committee of investigation to have offered a bribe to a foreign government, and to the Lewisohns, a firm of Jewish international bankers, and to the Warburgs, whose operations through Kuhn, Loeb and Co. , the international acceptance bank, and the Bank of Manhattan and other foreign and domestic institutions under their control have drained BILLIONS of dollars out of the U. S. Treasury and the bank deposits belonging to U. S. citizens. Etc. , etc. This clique of international bankers or certain members of this clique before the rise of Hitler, every year sent hundreds
? of millions of American dollars out of the country to Berlin from whence it passed into Soviet Russia.
And that incorrigible kike Isidore ben Isaac Solomon ben Henrich Morgenthau is STILL taking dollars out of your pocket and gold out of Russia to pile debt on debt, Pelion on Ossa; to turn the U. S. into one grand Stakhano vite hell, that is into a concentration camp of forced labor. ALL according to kikifications. And you being suckers. As since the record in Genesis. It is a very long story, dating from the forgeries of 500 B. C. parable against usury, faked into allegory against procreation. Medieval propaganda for suppression of procreation of the intelligentsia. Iconoclast struggles: Guelfs vs. Ghibbelines, decalogue against crucifix, all that story needs reexamination.
The Japs are unlikely to fall for that line of hebe propaganda. In fact, they are being sternly New England pioneers, that is of the large family era. The office boy of the Japan Times was printin' photos of villages, where, as he said, the inhabitants just don't do nothing else BUT.
And according to Amery there are 150 thousand political prisoners in England, Mr. Churchill's and Margot's England, probably for nothing more than attemptin' to raise the race issue, and to ask for the genealogy of a few hundred chewisch peers; and the printing of the interlocking Jew directorates who control the stooges in Parliament, and Mr. Vansittart.
I take it the Americans are still backward about coming forward to examine the racial origins of the alleged French refugees now in America. Eighty per cent of them chewisch or playfellows and bedfellows of sheenies, and sheeniessesses. I don't quite know what pattern you THINK this war is fitted into. It was certainly NOT planned by the Englishmen and Americans who fought in the last one. It was certainly not huggermuggered through by the YOUNG men of England or America. The youngest pink toed advertisement for Piccadilly and
? Burlington Arcade collars and ties is Anthony Eden, who was dead sure NOT to be called on to face bullets. Stuck into a nice cushy job.
The rest of the war makers were senile bed bugs and usury vermin. And it was NOT unexpected. Let American youth remember that it was NOT unexpected. And NOT for the conservation of England, not for the benefit of the sailors, the brave merchant sailors, any more than the kikes had been out for the past 100 years to maintain the agricultural population of England. In fact that bright halcyon (if that is the word), that bright prospect of American domination may have been hit by Henry Adams' theorem about acceleration. You may be awaitin' the great boom that has Horace Greeleyed. Go WEST young man, go west. Well maybe it has wested RIGHT across the Pacific ocean. Calculat' THAT on Henry Adams' theorem. Yes, this time I said HENRY, not B. Adams, Henry. I said look at Henry's equation about the acceleration of historic process and ask mama or Uncle Ted whether that may not have hit the trade vortex. The two oriental races which are not yet bekiked are the Japanese and the Chinese. And possibly Wang's millions will never more accept a KIKE cheque.
Well, all that is conjecture. What it would be useful for you and George and the rest of you to ask one another is: just WHICH of you are free from Jew influence? Just which political and business groups are free from JEW influence, or, bujayzus, from JEW control? Who holds the mortgage? Who is a dominating director? Just which Jew has asked what Jew to nominate which assemblyman who is in debt to WHOM? And which whom is in debted to Jewry, or dependent on credits which he can not get without the connivance of Jewry?
Just which college or university will distinguish itself by adding to its history courses a course in the study of chewisch history, and the Fuggers, and the effects of Jewsury and of usury on the history of Europe during the past thousand years? Or two thousand five hundred years, ever since the so touching experiment of Cyrus the Persian, who
? sent 'em out, but not OUT enough. With of course reference to Cromwell, and the French revolution and the role played by kikes in the French Revolution. And where all that happens to us, where it concerns us, why it is not all old lace and retrospect, embalmed and perfumed with lavendar.
What I would like to do in these talks is to arouse curiosity, even ten cents' worth or two bucks' worth of those rare virtues: intellectual awareness and curiosity. Alice James, the Great Henry's sister, complained that we Americans would not show moral indignation, that is, at times when she would get all set for having an American show moral indignation the American would just fold up and not do it.
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.