So that I have on
occasion
conferred with pathologists.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
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. 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.
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. 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.
