No More Learning

There is nothing so very startling in my proposition, sell 'em Australia. It would at least shift the problem. Your problem, distinctly, is England, merry England, without slums, without usury, without a Jewish religion, without shoestring building. It would solve at least part of your problem, or some of your problems. Churchill hands over Venezuela and your American bases. Well, those go to the Jews who have already gone to America. Sell Australia. You won't much want it. Sell it to the Jews who have not yet left England. And then let 'em go out to develop the industry. It would solve some of your problems, it would help you to pay the compensation for worn out coal mines to the ex-owners: without bankrupting the people of England. I mean if they aren't already bankrupt.
As the Marchese C says: "In all matters having to do with the Jews, the Aryans name is MUGG. " Sell 'em Australia.
It has taken a long time to bring up the subject. Sell 'em Australia. I know you are compensatin' the mine owners and settin' up a commission to investigate the conditions of mining. Somebody even got up in or near Parliament and suggested you should humanize the living conditions of the poorer British inhabitants.
HOLY progress. The news of Europe is a-percolatin' into your island. Isn't it wonderful? The compensation idea is NOT new. There was a kike down in San Salvador GAVE his bank to the government. For a life compensation. Sell 'em Australia. Will the Countess of Oxford and
? Asquith lift up her wail in protest? Will she rush out to tell you of the benefits you have reaped from the Rothschilds? What of it?
She was telling us a few weeks ago, over the air, warmed to the B. B. C. temperature, that she had known eleven P. M. 's, from Gladstone--"Say your prayers, Margot"--down to the present. It is a great pity she didn't tell us what the OTHER ten thought of the present one, the present P. [M. ] That would have made snappy hearing. With a few quotes from William Watson.
However, as you can't bring the Duke of Wellington to the microphone, I suppose you have to do something. Now speaking of Jews, and the problem. The Jewish problem, which The Economist does NOT elucidate, because it belongs to the Jews, that is to Rothschild, and its editors serve their owners. The Economist has discovered officially that some Americans do not see eye to eye with the Anglo-Jews. Is it a pity? I think it is not a pity. The Jews have ruin'd every country they have got hold of. The Jews have worked out a system, very neat system, for the ruin of the rest of mankind, one nation after another. Now many Americans are ignorant of this fact, and The Economist does its periodical bit to maintain that ignorance; but YOU like the ignorance. I do not think the normal American likes his ignorance. That may produce a fundamental dichotomy.
The Economist and its affiliated papers; that is nine-tenths of your press wishes to uphold the present ignorance. That is very English, I mean that is what the American means by a newspaper policy being English. A more piercing eye might consider that it is, in a certain sense, anti- English. The Countess of Oxford was once an admirer of the Rothschilds, perhaps she still is. When last at the microphone, she said nothing about it. I don't know that the American people are very much interested in her views on finance and government; but they would be more likely to see eye to eye with some of the submerged factions in England if more people said something clearer on the subject of the
? Rothschild, and on the subject of loan capital, and international lending, and the Hebraic or semitic or kike elements in your economics and politics.
Such, for example as the patronymics of some of your peers; I mean the names that they started life with, or that their parents started in life with. AND the relation of your M. P. 's and governing class TO various financial establishments. Which sometimes have offices both in New York and in London, or chronologically speaking with regard to chronological sequence; whose business during the course of eh-hm, the last couple of centuries has spread from London westward, as the Sassoons' has in our time.
Now we Americans, when we hear of The Economist and Mr. Crowther, and Mr. Einzig, are apt to think of Einzig as a Jew, and of Mr. Crowther as a servant of Jewry, and The Economist as a Rothschild paper, NOT as a paper owned by a clean Englishman, or by an Englishman at all. Perhaps a more definite use of terminology would help Mr. Crowther, Einzig, and the other members of The Economist staff in establishing a clearer understanding between themselves and the American public. Of course, their understanding with Morgenthau, Ben Cohen, Frankfurter, Roosevelt, Mrs. Hull's Husband, Lady Halifax's husband, Mrs. Perkins, ne? e Rabinovitch or something equally Oriental is or WAS perfectly clear. But several Americans would regard that rather as an agreement between a set of kikes in London, and a set of sheenies on the other side of the fish pond.
Of that understanding, i. e. , the understanding between various sets of international yidds, doing business simultaneously from various busnisch addresses located in different world capitals, the no longer in ALL the world capitals, there has never been any doubt. That is, not for the past 20 years, or past 40 years, save in uninformed circles. It is the increasingly well lit nature of the understanding between the Jews who run Russia and the Jews now pullulating in positions of power in
? London and Washington, that helps the better type of American to understand both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt, and the forces that have raised those highly undesirable specimens of inhumanity to the prominence they now enjoy, if enjoy is still the right word. I doubt they did enjoy it till quite recently. But we doubt if their personal pleasure is being increasingly shared by the governed. In any case the Jewish proposal to make Roosevelt world emperor and to locate the New Jerusalem on the Isthmus of Panama, with NO checks and controls imposed on it, by even the angry Saxons, is an idea which ought to inspire the Countess of Oxford, and Mr. Crowther. Perhaps the B. B. C. will explain it, with a footnote or two by Mr. Shaw.
#70 (March 25, 1943) U. S. (C22) TO RECAPITULATE
This war did not begin in 1939. It is not a unique result of the infamous Versailles treaty. It is impossible to understand it without knowing at least a few precedent historic events, which mark the cycle of combat. No man can understand it without knowing at least a few facts and their chronological sequence.
The war is PART of the age old struggle between the usurer and the rest of mankind: between the usurer and peasant, the usurer and producer, and finally between the usurer and the merchant, between usurocracy and the mercantilist system.
There are almost no absolute novelties in economics. One can, in most cases, merely say that such or such phenomena date AT LEAST from such and such dates.
The true basis of credit was known in Siena at least by A. D. 1620. This knowledge went into the founding of the Monte dei Paschi, a bank which still endures, and was the only bank in Italy that did not fail at the time of Napoleon.
? The true basis of credit consists in: the abundance of nature and the responsibility of the whole people. In that case: the whole people of Siena.
The present war dates AT LEAST from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the XVIIth century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony. A. D. 1750.
This is not usually given prominence in the U. S. school histories. The thirteen colonies rebelled, quite successfully, twenty six years later, A. D. 1776. The first Congress of the new American Union defrauded the revolutionary veterans by a very simple device, which appears in variant forms after most modern wars. The soldiers pay certificates issued by the states, depreciated. After they had been brought up at twenty cents to the dollar by speculators, the national government "assumed" the payment at par. That is at face value of one dollar per dollar.
This constituted the scandal of "assumption. " Claude G. Bowers gives a good account of it in his Jefferson and Hamilton. After writing at least three good books, two on Jefferson and. Hamilton, and one of the Reconstruction era, Johnson's administration after the American Civil War, Mr. Bowers was made ambassador to Spain. So far as I know his voice is not now heard in America.
It has been customary for well over a century, at least, that currencies become inflated in war time, the value of the monetary unit declines, as more and more human effort (WORK) goes into making munitions and instruments of destruction and less and less into things people want for their personal use.
Goods are destroyed rather than exchanged against other WANTED goods, during war time. The ratio of units of currency, money, to things people want to eat and to wear is altered, i. e. , there are more dollars in
? circulation in relation to goods, or pounds or other monetary units. Debts mount up. When they have reached hitherto unprecendented size, the manipulators of currencies "return" to what they have called "sound money. "
After the Napoleonic War, after the American Civil War, the world returned to gold, thus forcing Indian farmers to pay up twice as much grain to meet their taxes and the interest on their mortgages as they had done before the "return. "
Considering the vital importance, or the deadly importance of this process or swindle it would at first sight seem curious that mankind has not spent more energy in diffusing the knowledge of it.
The late Arthur Kitson spent a good deal of his life trying to educate the British and American publics along these lines. It is a pity that the press of both these ineffable countries did not more potently aid Mr. Kitson. Mr. Kitson believed that process was due to deliberate design of the usurocrats, the financiers who govern and outrage the world by financial, or in plain terms, the usury system, and various methods of monopoly and the control of the currencies of the nations.
Mr. Kitson heaped up a good deal of evidence in support of his theory. No rebuttal of Kitson has been attempted, the enemies of mankind prefer darkness.
There is a considerable library of polemical writin' and a vast mass of official documents which support Mr. Kitson's views.
The historic process operative during the past three hundred years can not [be] ascribed to the particular wickedness of men born since 1880. A knowledge of the world that we were BORN INTO is requisite for the understanding of the events subsequent to our birth. A deliberate attempt has, I believe, been made to blot out the historic record. And that attempt
? I propose to combat. I have, in fact, been combatting it, for some time. As did my grandfather before me.
My talks on the radio will eventually have to be judged by their content. Neither the medium of diffusion nor the merits or defects of my exposition can be the final basis of judgment. The contents will have to serve as that basis. I have taken up one point after another, one bit of evidence after another, trying to explain the facts in the simplest possible terms, trying to catch and hold the attention of individual hearers.
Wars in old time were made to get slaves. The modern implement of imposing slavery is DEBT. Usury is an instrument for increasing debt, and for keeping the debtor in debt perpetually or at least for the longest possible period.
It is foetid hypocrisy to prattle of liberty unless that liberty includes the freedom to KEEP OUT OF [DEBT]. There are ample records available from the agitation for the "new tables," tabulas novas, new account books, in the time of Julius Caesar down to the present. The auditor or reader who wants to understand these things, can not excuse his ignorance on the grounds that there are no sources of enlightenment at his disposition.
#71 (March26, 1943) U. S. (C23) FINANCIAL DEFEAT: U. S.
Quite apart from military operation, from the results of military operations, from the possible results of any military operations that may occur, the American people appear to have suffered crashing defeat, at the hands of the financiers.
There is no understanding of history without some understanding of finance. And nine people, at least nine people out of ten are ready to tell you proudly that they understand nothing about finance, and that they do
? not understand economics. It has become the hallmark of the end of the bourgeois era to proclaim ignorance of economics.
Yet you can not allocate the responsibility for an event, for a crime, for an accident, until you know what has happened.
Supposing that people DID want to know what has happened during the past three decades, during the past ten decades, or twenty, it might be helpful to stop using such cloudy and mysterious terms as finance, the social problem, economics.
It might be clearer to say: production, exchange, mortgages and the lending of money. People would then know what one meant. Or would they? Would any three of them or any two of them understand the lending of money? Not, until the term money were correctly defined, and the definition made so clear that everyone could understand it.
I took a banker's opinion about money, the other day. He replied: money is the statement of the government's debt to the bearer. Meaning it says how much the government owes to the bearer. I should have preferred to say the "state" or the community owes to the bearer.
I am perfectly aware that I might as well be writing Greek or talking Chinese with a foreign accent, so far as making this statement clear to the hearer or reader is concerned. And the public can most certainly not be blamed for this, as you could read a hundred books, by no means despicable books, on economics, without finding any hint that such an idea about money is possible.
The only statement in even an approximately similar form that I can recall at this moment was made by a Congressman, back in 1878. He said that an amendment offered by him to a bill about silver coinage had been: "an attempt to keep some of the NON-INTEREST bearing national debt in circulation as currency. "
? I repeat in quoting these statements that I might as well be talking Chinese or Tibetan so far as the average reader or bearer [hearer? ] is concerned. Money is a means of exchange, an implement by which exchanges are effected, it is a measure of exchange, it is called "a title to goods," a measured claim. It is both a title and a measure.
The use of measured quantities of metal should be considered as barter. Powdered gold was still being used in India when Kipling wrote "Kim. " He describes the gold broker dipping a wet fly in the gold dust, and popping it into a box, the adherent dust being his commission on the exchange.
For thousands of years men have been used to using metal discs, stamped with an alleged value, and intended to be of uniform weight and fineness. By the year 649 A. D.
the T'ang emperors had found something more convenient than lugging about bags of metal. Their metal was what has been metaphorically called earmarked, or held in deposit, and bits of paper marked with designs, and seals, remarkably beautiful designs, were put into circulation. Marco Polo found the Kublai Kahn using this system some centuries later. He thought it a clever wheeze. The idea is so practical that in-- --Sir Basil Zaharoff wrote to the Times about it; or rather about extending it so that gold wouldn't have to be shipped from the vaults of one bank to those of another, across national frontiers.
The Times referred to Zaharoff as a philanthropist. He shared other great munitioneers' floral tastes. He was, I believe, a grower, or at least a connoisseur of roses. Whatever you think money is, or whatever Zaharoff thought about gold, Arthur Kitson quite conclusively pointed out in his report to the Cunliffe Commission that something had happened to money not once but several times over. His report was printed under the title "The Banker's Conspiracy. "
METATHEMENON TE TON KRUMENON, as I think Aristotle remarked. The Voluntary variation of the value or purchasing power, or
? the metalic content, or the amount of metal, referred to by a given piece of money has attracted the attention of a great and e? lite set of people: Demosthenes, Dante, Cleopatra have all found the subject interesting, quite interesting.
It is curious that no snobism has yet been openly erected by monetary economists, Bacon, Hume, Bishop Berkeley a most respectable set of men have all thought it worth their attention. John Adams, Lincoln, Jefferson, Gallatin, Justice Taney, naturally men in official position HAVE glanced at the problem, ever since Phillippe le Bel caused such distress to his subjects, both since then and before then.
Monetary crime is divisible into perhaps two major sections: the usury wangle, and the wangles in variation of value, both of which are sometimes forced by monopoly, by cornering the control of the currency. The sovereign power over the issue of money CAN of course be used for maintaining justice. Kitson's study related to flagrant injustice. He found that men who had become indebted in cheap or depreciated currencies had been forced on more than one occasion to pay those debts in money worth twice or much more than the money wherein the debts had been contracted. In Kitson's opinion this was not by accident. He thought it was the fruit of design. He cited a good deal of conclusive evidence in support of his view.
Now supposing that Kitson's view was correct, would it not be interesting to pursue the subject further? Would it not be of interest to know whether the SAME banking firms had indulged in this little practice or wheeze, several times over? Let us say after the wars of Napoleon, after the great and terrible Civil War in America of the 1860's and after the "diktat" of Versailles?
#72 (March 30, 1943) U. S. (C24) USUROCRACY
? Brooks Adams observed that after Waterloo no power had withstood the power of the usurers.
We will try to maintain a distinction in our own minds between the production system, the system of exchange of actual goods, and the wangles or corruptions of accountancy or the money wangles that corrode both the system of production and the processes of exchange.
The page of the usury system which we are trying to analyze dates more or less from Paterson's perception that the "Bank" (of England) would have benefit of the interest on all the money that it creates out of nothing.
According to Lord Overstone, everything rolled on merrily as long as the Bank actually discounted all bills rising from legitimate transactions. Overstone is now considered an idealist among usurers. The Bank according to him was there to "satisfy the true needs of commerce. "
But Sam Loyd thought up another one. He saw, as Brooks Adams puts it, the possibilities of the single standard. He understood that as business and exchanges increase, the value of the monetary unit IN AN INELASTIC money system, will increase.
That is to say, with the same amount of money and increasing goods, the goods get cheaper in relation to money, and money more valuable in relation to goods.
He saw that a class or gang possessed of sufficient means could wangle a rise almost at pleasure, and could doubtless run it to almost any length. Also maneuver a contraction of the fiduciary circulation. As for example had been done in 1935, debtors could be made to accept almost ANY conditions dictated by the creditors.
The wangling of foreign exchange, that is, foreign money exchanges, were used for this purpose. There is no item in this present talk that I
? have not mentioned in preceding communications, but the historic importance of every one of these items is so tremendous, and the difficulty of getting them [in] their sequence, their cumulative significance into the public head is so difficult that I should be justified [in] repeating them ten times over. Kitson's Bankers Conspiracy was written to show that extortioner Loyd's little perception had become the base of a system. A regular practice among Rothschild's and the rest of the bleeders.
The world was to be enslaved according to plan. Slavery consists in having to do uninteresting work, at another's bidding. The modern means of getting a man to work are lack of money, his lack of money, and debt. Mr. Kitson quoted Mr. Lindbergh's quotation of the now famous Hazard circular of 1862:
It will not do to allow the Greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money for any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues.
The "we" naturally refers to the financiers.
The great debt, capitalists will see to it, is made out of the war, must be used as a mean to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis.
They were. Lincoln said "and gave to the people of this republic (the U. S. A. ) the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper to pay their own debts. " Lincoln was shot. The bankers triumphed. It was all very simple. Some 30 years later another letter was sent to the AM. nat. (as they are called), the American national bankers.
Dear Sir, etc. The interest of national bankers requires immediate financial legislation by Congress. Silver, silver certificates, and Treasury notes, must be (note that imperative) must be retired and national-bank notes upon a gold basis made the only money. This requires the
? authorization of some five hundred million to one billion dollars of new bonds, as a basis of circulation. You will at once call in one half your loans. Be careful to make a money stringency felt among your patrons, especially among influential businessmen. Advocate an extra session of Congress for the repeal of the purchase clauses of the Sherman Law, and act with other banks of your city in securing a large petition to Congress for its unconditional repeal as per accompanying form.
I. e. , sign on the dotted line. Quote continues:
Use personal influence with Congressmen and particularly let your wishes be known to your Senators. The future life of national banks as fixed and safe investments, depends upon immediate action, as there is an increasing sentiment in favor of governmental legal tender notes and silver coinage.
One takes an example from Cleveland's time rather than from Van Buren's in the hope that some aged survivors of the 1890's may still dimly remember the actions referred to.
Mr. Churchill as Chancellor of the British Exchequer, the Cunliffe Committee, quite naturally paid no attention to Kitson's recommendations. And a few years, merrily, after the Indian farmers were paying up twice as much grain to meet their interest payments and taxes. Naturally the usurocrat press supported the Loyd system of altering the value of the monetary unit, right along from the day the newspapers were invented. That is perhaps the main reason for having newspapers, especially large newspapers in usurocratic regimes.
Newspapers govern the world, remarked the Conte de Vergennes to Mr. John Adams. The American Bankers Association circular of 1877 reads: "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such newspapers, especially in the agricultural and religious press as will oppose the issue of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage and
? favors from all applicants who are NOT willing to oppose the Government issue of money. " Unquote. The quite exquisite spirit of illegality and treason in these manifestations of the usurers SHOULD need no comment.
It takes five million dollars to start a daily paper of any size in the U. S. A. One should have ten million to do so with any chance of getting a paper going. It is hardly safe to attempt it without twenty million, and in that case you must be willing to "CONSIDER" the views of your advertisers.
Hence the totalitarian states, hence fascism, and nationalist socialist revolution.
The American citizen can, of course, appeal to his Constitution, which states that: "Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. "
Such appeal is perhaps quixotic.
#73 (April 4, 1943) U. K. (C30) LYRIC TENORS
A few faint voices have been raised in England to request a new order; but the speakers have possessed an unrivaled talent for avoiding any honest discussion of the means whereby a new order would be possible. The men who had done some WORK toward that end, are either in jail or excluded from the microphone, and so far as one knows, from the press.
The supreme betrayal of Western civilization is manifest in the alliance with Russia. The perfect and swinish readiness to have all Europe destroyed in order to maintain the domination of all of us, the British people included, by a gang of extremely unpleasant monopolists, many
? of whom have moved their chief offices right over to Wall St. , that is, to the new ghetto. Debt is the prelude to slavery. And neither Baruch, Lehman, nor any of their British bootlickers and servants says a word about freedom from debt. Or the freedom to keep OUT of debt. It is nine years since Jeffrey Mark published The Modern Idolatry.
Interest payments due on Western capital have been made possible by the creation of slavery conditions in Western countries.
In the past the progressive accumulation of debt claims has brought about the ruin of civilizations as single units. Nearly all the creations of the nineteenth century capitalists such as, for instance, the power loom cotton industry of Lancashire, have been broken by usury.
Forty years ago it was the habit to make much of Shakespeare and the styge [stage]: by people who seem never to have thought about the text, the meaning of the words used by Henry Irving and other darlings of the theatre public.
The daughter and ducats theme is familiar to many who have not meditated [on] the six lines that Mark uses to introduce the third part of his volume:
I hate him for he is a Christian, But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis and brings down The rate of usance here in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
I strongly suspect these lines have been omitted in more than one Jewish performance of Shylock. There is something too near to nature, something too pertinent: "Brings down the rate of usance. "
? That just won't do; and the Times, Telegraph, Yorkshire Post, and the Beaverbrook papers are all there to keep discussion off that so dangerous topic. And Reggy McKenna and the big Five are there to deplore OUTSIDE interference. Discussion of usury, that is, banking as understood by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, and I imagine Lord Lee would deplore the use of the very word usury in polite conversation. And yet the big FIVE are making higher profit now than they were before the war started.
France brought in the black troops. Churchill's England is allied to Soviet Russia. And the Times on September 12, 1933 spoke thus of Rumania:
Rumania can not make the payments (that was debt payments) in foreign currency until markets have been assured abroad for her surplus products.
The Times was quoting M. Modgearu.
This has not been done up to the present and to make things worse, prices of the products which Rumania exported have fallen considerably. Rumania cannot leave its officials, widows and invalids to starve in order to pay debts abroad which have become burdensome.
Just why England today has learned nothing from Rumania's position a decade ago would be a mystery if one didn't know how little the usual Briton cares for looking at ANYTHING. Yes, ANYthing that could serve to enlighten him. Mr. Mark observed pertinently at that time that Sir Otto Niemeyer had left a trail of economy, increased taxation, and a lowered standard of living behind him in every country he had visited. Twenty-six central banks formed since the other war to facilitate the service on internal and external debt. Note the title Sir, and the implications, racial implications in the name Niemeyer.
? You have NOT had to learn harakiri from the Samurai. The Japanese do it with a difference.
To maintain the loan capital swindle, Britain has been ready to wreck all of Europe. That is the ONLY explanation of the alliance with Russia. There is no honor in it. And it does NOT serve the people of Britain. By liquidating your empire to the kikes and semi-kikes in N. York you are NOT conferring a benefit on the American people. You are doing nothing that will or should earn you the gratitude or tolerance of the American people. Basset Jones, writing to the editor of Electrical Engineering in December 1932, wrote:
Taxes and obsolescence included the fixed charge on debt are 34 billion dollars a year, practically half the national income.
England's forty million inhabitants by acquiescing in the debt swindle merely aid the bleeders and cheaters to keep on going and sink the Americans under the same imposition.
As Mark points out, Basset Jones was writing not of a debtor nation, but of the greatest creditor nation in the world. That ought to put a rock through the sham term NATION when applied to any particular section of the usury system. A Warburg, Sassoon, Beit, Goldsmid, Schiff or other potentate of the bleedery can get to N. York by plane in a very few hours. First the gold, then the Jews, then one helluva war in the place where the Jews are not.
According to the fashionable system of accountancy, the wealth of the American nation shrank from 36 billion in 1928, to 160 billion in 1933, Now just what do you think causes that sort of flimflam? Does it sound crazy? Does it sound as if something or someone MONKEYED with the account books?
I am not for the moment engaged in selling you the Axis, OR the European system, or the late desires of the late Napoleon Bonaparte. I
? am trying, still patiently trying to excite a little curiosity among my possible hearers in Britain. In 1943 one of those voices that sound like an advertisement for Bird's custard was complaining that the Germans use metaphor. In June 1932 more than ten million gallons of port wine was poured to waste by the wine growers and distillers of the Duoro district in Portugal as, quote, "the only hope of preventing wide misery and privation among the workers. "
Oh no, it wasn't only in pore little Portugal. In Lancashire, nearer home to you, a proposal was made to dismantle or immobilize ten million spindles and 100,000 looms as quote "a means of restoring prosperity to the British textile industry. "
When are you going to look into this? These statements are absolutely free from all trace of metaphor.
#74 (April 6, 1943) U. S. (C27) FETISH
I am opposed! I believe that no American should kill or be killed in order to maintain the fetish value of metal, of ANY metal.
The pattern of the crime is known. The patterns of the various component parts of the major crime are known. They have been witnessed time after time.
A weak and cowardly nation invokes the aid of savages to crush a rising more honest power. England, inciting red Indians against ENGLISH colonists in America; France, in the grip of her usurers bringing black troops into Europe. London and New York inciting aid of the Tartar and Muscovite. And no man knows better than Churchill the meaning of the Stalin canal. NO literate man in Europe or America is ignorant of what Judeoslavic domination has meant and means.
? Sheer terror and lust of greed, and no amount of evasion and hired propaganda will hide it. The governments of London and Washington have betrayed civilization and KNOW it. They fight for monopoly, and the American people have been betrayed into fighting for the gold bugs.
Throughout the ages it has been the favorite device of the creditor class first to work a contraction of the currency, which bankrupted the debtors, and then to cause inflation which created a rise, during which they sold the property they had laid hold of.
This alternate lifting and debasing the value of money is not accidental. When Kitson met Bryan, Bryan already knew that the silver propaganda was an implement or a camouflage over a major issue, that namely of the control of the national credit, or the national power to buy.
England makes war to HAVE war, war being the maximum sabotage. And without sabotage on this scale it was impossible by 1939 to create scarcity, and without scarcity no monopoly, and without monopoly of goods, or more particularly of money itself, extortion is difficult.
Samuel Loyd understood the use of the single standard, After Waterloo no effective power withstood the usurers until, by 1914, the complete usurocracy had been constructed. For fifty years or for seventy it had been almost impossible to get any large scale propaganda against the fetish value of gold save by ballyhoo about silver. By 1978 [1878] silver ballyhoo was already necessary to get in a motion to keep at least some of the NON-Interest bearing national debt in circulation as currency. Those words are Greek to most hearers. Bryan denounced the cross of gold, but needed support from the silver interests, and it was insufficient.
Most of the gold in the world is in the British Empire, in the U. S. and in Russia. And mankind is against dying to maintain the fetish value of gold. Thousands of Americans have already died for that metal.