You will have to maintain some freedom of the press and get radio
stations
somehow.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
Cabala, for example, anything to make the word mean something it does NOT say.
Anything to distract the auditor from the plain sense of the word, or the sentence?
Even to communism that is NOT communism.
To communism of the episcopal sort, which they want in England.
A Bolshevism that is to leave the archibishops and curates just where they are, each with his living or benefice.
A revelation against capital, allegedly against capital, that attacks property and leaves capital setting pretty.
Lenin all out for making banking a state affair. And then twenty years during which it has seemed to drop decidedly into the background, when the world revolution was very busy about something else.
It should by now be clear that some people fear NOT the outcome of the war, but the END of the war. Churchill, for example. Not defeat, not the ruin of the Empire that worries him, but the END of the war. End of the slaughter, end of the war conditions.
Robert Clive has been clear enough, ex-British ambassador in Tokyo. Tells you and the world Japan can not be beaten. But the war must go ON, according to Churchill and Roosevelt. Churchill sees the end of monopoly and privilege, or at least a shift when the war ends, no matter HOW. That is the point you should consider. In regard to the protocols, either there is and was a plot to ruin all goyim, all nations of Europe, or some people are stark raving crazy. They want war to go on to certain wreck. WHO are they? Mere cannon fodder. The American troops in N. Africa know they are not there thru any wish of their own. The war was started for gold, to maintain the fetish value of gold. Plenty of other
? sidelines. Minor advantages have been COMMERCIALLY taken. Did the present regime in England WANT the troops to return after Dunkirk? Every move for reform in England is a fascist reform, or proposition along fascist lines.
The supreme betrayal of Europe is inherent in the alliance of Anglo- Jewry with Moscow. Debts rise. That is one part of the war. It is a contest between STOPPING the war and going on with it. And only one side does any fighting. Namely the party that STARTED the war. They are for its continuance. Who are they?
BUT they are also for starting the next one. They openly proclaim that AFTER (that is IF) America finishes with Japan, she will have to fight Russia. IF Russia should break into Europe.
Only blindness and deafness can keep you unaware of these proclamations. The U. S. must protect the world? Why? Does the world want it? The U. S. , once this war is over, must be strong enough to beat Russia.
The U. S. had a chance to maintain her prestige and unique position by staying NEUTRAL. Neutral while other powers exhausted themselves. And she DID not.
Who are the lunatics? Was there a deliberate plot? That is what should concern you. WAS there a plot? How long had it been in existence? Does it continue, with its Lehmans, Morgenthaus, Baruchs? Proposals to send the darkies to Africa, to work for Judea, and the rest of it? And WILL you, after Japan is thru with you, take on Russia? In order to maintain the banking monopoly? With Mr. Wille Wiseman, late of the British secret service, ensconced in Kuhn, Loeb and Co. , to direct you and rule you?
? #79 (April 24, 1943) U. S. (C34) CONSCIENCE
The Americans in French Africa have not a clear conscience. There are probably no Americans in North Africa with a clear conscience, tho' there may be some with no conscience whatever. An existence at gangster level, with no velleity above wanting to bust something or punish someone.
The American people have decency enough to know that they should NOT be attacking Europe from the East while Russia attacks from the West. And in the name of what? Of stealing French territory and British trade?
I have mentioned the small boys in Trenton N. J. who played at being Emperor of the World. Infantilism in high places! And Madame Chek, on February 18, made a stirring speech to the American Congress speaking better American than Sol Bloom and half the assembled delegates, and with a better delivery than Mr. Roosevelt. I have no doubt the audience fell for it as leaves in autumn.
It was an appeal to one's sympathies. I should have been swept off my feet if I hadn't been lying down at the time, next to my radio. Bedside habit of radio. The Chinese have a very old saying, that it is an ill omen if the hen crows. Canta la gallina. Mme. Chiang's appeal was clear enough. Everyone wants their own country to be governed by their own people. But it is Wang Chin Wei and not Mons. C. K. Chek who has got back the treaty ports, the extraterritorial rights for his country.
And the grouped ideograms that are translated, "man of high character," indicate, unless I miss my guess, the men through whom and in whom one hears the voice of his forebears. Order at home. China with 400 millions IN ORDER would indeed be an element for world stability. But that order must RISE IN CHINA. In 300 or more years of history, in fact
? in all the history we have of that country, the order must rise inside. At no time has China been at peace in the hands of a government run from outside on loan capital. That is Mme. Chiang's error. Her aim is admirable, but she climbs a tree to catch fish.
When Mencius said that to King Huei, of Liang, the King said: "Is it as bad as that? " And Mencius answered: "Worse, for you would do no harm. You would not of course catch any fish. But you would do no further damage. "
This loss of Chinese wisdom, under the smatter of Y. M. C. A. dogmatism, and occidental class teachings is not the answer.
I have heard from someone who knows him that Chiang himself did not want the war with Japan, but was worked into it, on sheer theory, sheer western nonsense. Kung is to China as water to fishes. Meaning Confucius, the Confucian doctrine is the true habitat of the Son of Heaven, and from the Emperor down to the common people, the duty or root is ONE. And that root is NOT to be found in an exotic government imposed in the interests of foreign loan capital.
If the Chinese ever get hold of a few copies of the Talmud, there will be even less room for the servants, Jewish or Goyim, of the doctrines therein contained. And if the root be confusion, the fruit cannot be order. Mme. Chiang appealing for help to a smaller nation may be a stirring figure. But the grab in French Africa in no way assists her husband in Chungking.
Japan is NOT the hereditary enemy of China. There are over two millenia of history wherein the two nations did NOT damage each other. Whereas the history of Anglo-Saxon relations with China is one record of infamy. One almost unmitigated stink. And the Japanese have recorded some of the more recent chapters in a work whose translated title reads: "The British Empire and British People. "
? Mme. Chiang arouses one's sympathies. BUT the error lies in this idea that a universal theory will govern the world WITHOUT local order. If neither Chungking nor Washington can bring order into their OWN country, what likelihood is there that a still looser and larger bureaucracy having still less definite responsibilities, and still less competent executive offices, would be able to do any better?
One of the key thoughts, the bedrock thought that the late A. R. Orage produced in 30 or 40 years ideological battle, was in an article on the recession of power, i. e. , FROM the people. As soon as people get control of ANY organ of government, deliberative body or whatever, the real control seems to retire into something INNER.
The ballyhoo vs. fascism was all tosh, insofar as it objected to organization and control. What one sees after 20 years, two decades, is that Italy has the professed Jeffersonian ideal. That of governing LEAST. That the Fascist ideal is well nigh unattainable; not from wrong direction, not from lack of aim toward organization, but from the natural chaos of man, the unfailing laziness of the average man, who WILL not be bothered to organize, who can not be persuaded to organize, save in moments of danger or of enthusiasm. Even co-directors have to be lured to board meetings by fees. Fifty dollars or whatever, to be bothered to go watch proceedings. Machiavelli Senior remarked: "Men live in a few, and the rest are sheep. " The idealists struggle against that. An occasional miracle happens. In China men have set up a series of dynasties. Acts of heroic creation, 160 to build or continue, and 160 years to decline. NOT one of the great dynasties, the durable dynasties, was built on gangster grab. Kublai was a great Kahn, but the Ming came 89 years later.
The cheap half baked smattering of western half learning, the lies of half trained professors, shot into foolish young students have NOT been of use to China. If the ancient Kings are too far back to be counted, the Chinese would have learned more from Han, Sung, Tiang, Hong-Vou and Tai Tsong, than from Woodrow Wilson and the Sassoons.
? No one can pronounce Chinese names so as to satisfy everyone. If you don't like my transliterations, that is, if any oriental auditor is puzzled, let me put the sentence: Chinese history itself contains more lessons, and better lessons, than have been learned by a scattered joblot of college students, hurled into jerk water colleges, or into the London Fool of Economics or Oxford.
That is perhaps Mme. Chiang's tragedy. Foreign loan capital is NO substitute for the tradition of Wen and Wu, for the lesson of pre- Christian dynasties.
#80 (April 27, 1943) U. S. (C37) ON RETIRING
I think quite simply and definitely that the American troops in N. Africa, all of 'em ought to go back to America: IF they can get there.
America ought not to be makin' war on Europe, and America knows it. I think it is time the American U. S. citizen studied Mr. Morgenthau's treasury reports, whether or not he is out in front proclaiming the coming of Zion or not. I think it is time you opened Kipling's memoirs "Something about myself. " I think it is time more American Masons developed a curiosity about the possible relations of their order to Jewry as such, and to at least a sect or portion or selection of ORGANIZED Jews as a possible enemy of mankind, and of the American people, the British people in particular.
I think it might be a good thing to hang Roosevelt and a few hundred yidds IF you can do it by due legal process, NOT otherwise. Law must be preserved. I know this may sound tame, but so is it. It is sometimes hard to think so. Hard to think that the 35 ex-army subalterns or whatever who wanted to bump off all the kike congressmen weren't just a bit crude and simpliste. Sometimes one feels that it would be better to get the job done somehow, ANY how, than to delay execution.
? A chair has been founded in the Sorbonne to study modern Jewish history, i. e. , the role of the kike in modern history. It would be well to have similar chairs in ALL American universities, though Harvard and the College of the City of N. York might find it hard to get the necessary endowments. I don't think there is any American law that permits you to shoot Nic. Butler. It is a pity but so is it. No ex post facto laws are to be dreamt of. Not that Frankfurter or any other damn Jews care a hoot for law or for the American Constitution. But we are not here to uphold Frankfurter or the Jewish vendetta. In the midst of which YOU jolly well are. And every American boy that gets drowned owes it to Roosevelt and Baruch, and to Roosevelt's VIOLATION of the duties of office.
It is on the ground of those violations, those that occurred before Pearl Harbor, that you should impeach him. It is time that the matter was studied. It is time that the practical means for doing the job were made subject of study. It will be difficult insofar as your press and radio are mostly in Chewisch hands. It will be difficult to coordinate effort in our so all-fired anarchic country. Instinctively anarchic BUT controlled, by an organization. An organization well worth your study. Be you Mason or Non-Mason. You will have to form cells, nuclei, and communicate.
You will have to maintain some freedom of the press and get radio stations somehow. Congress should go on the air. Failing that, state senates and legislatures should go on the air. And state universities in states not wholly run by their ghettoes should start a study of history of the Jew's role in history, of the role of usury, and currency control BY extraneous private bodies, all that should be made subject of study. You've got to start some time.
You have got to learn a little, at least a little about the history of your allies. About Jew-ruin'd England. About the wreckage of France, wrecked under yidd control. Lousy with kikes. Blum, Zay, and the rest of 'em pushed France into war, when it was dead certain France would get beaten. Preparing ANOTHER. Oh, yes. ANOTHER ten or twenty years war between the U. S. and Slavic Russia to start just as soon as this
? one shows signs of relaxin'. Don't think the kike WANTS to stop wars as long as non kikes will go on killin' and drowning each other, in order to provide dividends for loan capital. And SOME capital. A part of loan capital is, mebbe you have heard this before, some part of loan capital IS really in chewish hands. Mebbe you haven't yet heard that. And some of the American dollars that went for gold, went OUT of America to buy gold, well some of that went out to KIKERY. And Heinrick ben Sloman, ben Soloman, ben Isaac, ben Morgenthau, son of his father, was the sheeny that sent it right out.
And you go on taking it, you go on being diddled, and listening to the Jerusalem synagogue radios from London and Jew York City. Gawd ellup you. Bags of money, offered thru fear or guilt, have been uniformly refused by the mobs, wrote Mr. Jefferson to John Jay from Paris, July 19th, 1789. Paris was lively. On September 6 Jefferson was blissfully dreaming an ideal republic as follows:
But with respect to future debts would it not be wise and just for the nation to declare in the Constitution that they are forming, that neither the legislature nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 34 years?
Think it over. That was T. J. writing to Madison, from Paris, 6 September 1789. It is the famous letter containing the words: "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living. " That theme he later repeated, in the form "the earth belongs to the living. " And the "within their own age" was reduced to 19 years.
First, he thought of the "own age" as the period into which the average inhabitant of a nation would survive. Then he figured that children and those under age wouldn't have any say in contracting the debt. So they ought not to [be] bound. That is, sold into slavery for its payment. These are fine points of the ethics. They won't appeal to Mr. Constantine
? Brown. They will have no effect upon those of you who are given over to the comforting (comforting if it comforts you) theory that devastation just doesn't matter and to whom.
Shakespeare and Bach are a bore. Architecture is dangerous. Sculpture is taboo. Mr. Brown wants a bright new world; and debt is after all only the prelude to slavery. One can conceive a regime in which there is NO economic liberty. I mean absolutely NO economic liberty for anyone. Not by accident, but by program. It is much easier, in fact, to conceive a slave state than a free state. A state wherein all men are slaves, and no man has any right whatsoever to life, liberty, and where even the pursuit --marvelous phrase that "pursuit" of happiness--would be illegal, or at least regarded as a grave misdemeanor.
A really severe Puritan like Eden or Morgenthau would probably tell you that the pursuit of happiness is on a level with chippy-chasing. I know you don't THINK you are ripe for a real revolution. You don't think YOU are ripe for the end of the capitalist system altogether. You would rather such revolutions occurred in the Punjab or in Bessarabia. But one thing leads to another.
And yet, Civilization was not yours to destroy.
#81 (May2, 1943) U. K. (C36)
ON THE NATURE OF TREACHERY
I should like tonight to get a little serious attention, yours, to a serious subject, or to several serious matters. I have in fact been trying for over 20 years to get a little serious attention; persuade you to direct a little serious attention to a few serious subjects. Nature of money, and mode of its issue, and usury. Before that and during the interim I have perhaps been more successful in drawing attention to a few literary problems, and authors. As to my remarks on economics, my methods have been such as were possible. Nobody ever suggested that I should improve
? 'em. When noticed, the reaction was in most cases merely a cordial invitation to join in the great betrayal. "La trahison des clercs," as Julien Benda called it. The cry was NOT, tell us more, perfect your own understanding of this knotty, or these knotty subjects. The cry was: be quiet, it is indecent for a man of letters to touch such a subject. And now you are in a mess. You are spiritually in the worst mess than you are in materially. Despite the loss of tonnage and markets, your loss of tonnage and markets.
I wonder if you have any concept of what Europe means by England's betrayal of Europe. I should like to sort certain things out. Your defense of your empire, for example, as distinct from the drive to START war. To keep the war going, to extend the area of the war. Both your attempt and that made by your pals in the U. S. A.
I should like to distinguish between war and mere violence. I should like to distinguish between valor on the field of battle, and the bombing of civilians, the sinking of hospital ships. I do not think the two kinds of activity are necessarily inseparable. And neither do you.
Nothing is without efficient cause. You can't beat Aristotle on that statement. Something causes the destruction of mosques, and museums. Something totally different from the will to die for freedom's cause: for King and country, for the defense of the homeland. The two activities are NOT identical; nor are they inseparable. Now, hospital ships have been bombed, and not by accident. And the typical American feeling is one of revulsion and the soldiers' is one of revulsion.
An American airman had been floating about the middle sea for some days on an inflated rubber raft. He and his pals were at the end of their tether. They were picked up by an Italian hospital ship, put to bed, told they were patients for the time being but would be prisoners on landing. The hospital ship was sunk on a later trip, but one of the nurses who escaped tells this of one of the American airmen. She came to his berth
? to attend him; he said: turn out the light, I am ashamed to look at you. That is the soldier's feeling about baby killing, about bombing hospitals, the cad's feeling is possibly different.
The words "Palazzo S. Giorgio" probably mean nothing to you. A few art lovers, architects, may know what they refer to. The Palazzo was of no military importance. Neither were Gaudier-Brzeska's charcoal drawings. The Kensington Museum accepted some after Gaudier's death. The bulk of them were in a suitcase in Gertova, in a sculpter's studio. I knew that his father's flat had been burnt out, but was told the studio had not been hit. I thought it was time to remove the drawings. I found them. The suitcase covered 1/4 inch thick with dust and plaster. A hole in the ceiling six feet away, a pile of sand on the floor. I used the cover of Dick's bookcase to dust off the suitcase. The concierge said: "Yes, fortunately we noticed the spezzoni; and put it out quickly. " Gaudier gave his life in the last war, for France and England. I had shared the drawings with England. I suppose it is due to me that some of his sculpture is in the S. Kensington or the Tate Gallery. At least I believe no one will contradict that statement.
You came within an ace of burning up most of his drawings. Especially as the small abstract notebook was in the suitcase with the large charcoals. And a copy of Hughes and one or two other more or less irreplaceable objects. Another mark in Genova was the library [of] the S. Carlo theater.
"ONE spot of earth that is forever England. " Dick's father used to be Anglophile. He was a friend of your late Admiral Martin. He had forgotten or forgiven [the] Caracciolo incident, a chapter in Nelson's life that is not emphasized in your school books or official biographies of the columnist.
This vandalism is perhaps the minor part of your treachery. By treachery I refer to the alliance with Russia, any Russia. It may be unwisdom . . .
? eh; on your part. You meant, of course, MEANT to set the two great powers at each other's throats once again and to come in when both were exhausted. Might overdo it? Might find yourselves in the grip of the new pincers? It used to be felt that the Americans would get more soaviter in modo, than the Germans fortiter in re. Half time score seems to be to American advantage. Not my place as a Yank to complain of the material advantages gained by American policy. And yet I deplore the American policy. NOT because it was soaviter in modo, with YOU. And I do NOT hold you responsible for it, save insofar as you tolerated the precedent and falsifications.
On theory, on grounds of program, I have perhaps said a few words for Lenin. When asked to criticize the Kharkov Congress, I did so with perfect good will. I went on writing in Communist papers. I have quoted Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" over this radio. Not of course when expounding fascist doctrine. Merely from personal sympathy with various points made in 1922 by Joseph Stalin. In 1926 or whenever I got the brochure, it was not with Stalin's Bolshevism but with his backsliding that I should have quarreled. I disliked a year ago to see Stalin repeating the Czarist error, and sacrificing millions of Russians IN THE CAUSE of the usurers. The NON-slavic usurers. In fact one never does hear of Russian money lenders. I suppose Russians must have had jobs in banks, now and again, but one doesn't hear much of it.
I don't know that I should have any difficulties about accepting a REAL Bolshevik program. The artist does not, and never [has] been part of the bourgeoisie. I object to a pretended attack on captial, on usurocracy, that degenerates into a mere attack upon property and leaves the money lender, the pawnbroker, setting pretty and in full control of the exploitation system, milking the producer.
Producers of the world, unite. All right by me. The artist don't need to own property. Usually bores him. What he wants is to own his tools.
? NO, not even that, he wants the right to USE the tools of his craft. Bolshevism has never by program denied this to him.
I should never go and get scragged on a theoretical issue as to whether farmers should KOLKHOZ, or own homestead. I believe that in general experience, the latter has better results on production. But it is NOT a principle. It is empiric observation.
If Churchill had accepted Bolshie DOGMA, one might not think him a traitor. But he has NOT. At least no BBC stooge has claimed that for him. What even a pink might query is the practical executive capacity of Moscow in WORKING the communist system. One has read reports to the effect that a hitch now and again occurs among the angels of the Soviet paradise. As realist one wonders whether a judaic bureaucracy on the Dimitrov system, with Dimitrov and Co. running it, is the most desirable regime for Finland, Denmark, Rumania, Switzerland, Warwick, Kent, and the Midlands.
World revolution, with LOCAL executive autochthonous is one thing, world revolution with a strictly Jewish and Moscovite control is another.
It is England's betrayal of SELF determination that ought to lie on the English conscience. Your alliance with Adam Zad.
#82 (May 4, 1943) U. S. (C40) ROMANCE
Just why the campus Communist, the starry eyed idealist Communist, or realist Communist or Bill Bullit millionaire Communard, should suppose that Stalin is still leadin' a world revolution instead of playing power politics on the old Romanoff model; well, I leave it to you.
Back before the American young stopped reading Tennyson's Idylls of the King, or the Morte d' Arthur, or The Tristan of Beroul, or M. Hillaire
? Belloc's Avril, back then, I once called on old Harrison, sugar trust Harrison, and spoke of the S. P. C. A. Soc. Prev. etc. and he didn't question the aims of that society. He said, who administers, meaning who handles the funds of the society, and administers?
Well, do you watch the course of events? Of course most of you do not. But why should the proletariat dictate BY means of a secret committee of furriners? Why should the proletariat not dictate locally by means of itself? Why should it be administered by foreign agents, and men of alien race?
Yes, I know--those of us who are older [know?
Lenin all out for making banking a state affair. And then twenty years during which it has seemed to drop decidedly into the background, when the world revolution was very busy about something else.
It should by now be clear that some people fear NOT the outcome of the war, but the END of the war. Churchill, for example. Not defeat, not the ruin of the Empire that worries him, but the END of the war. End of the slaughter, end of the war conditions.
Robert Clive has been clear enough, ex-British ambassador in Tokyo. Tells you and the world Japan can not be beaten. But the war must go ON, according to Churchill and Roosevelt. Churchill sees the end of monopoly and privilege, or at least a shift when the war ends, no matter HOW. That is the point you should consider. In regard to the protocols, either there is and was a plot to ruin all goyim, all nations of Europe, or some people are stark raving crazy. They want war to go on to certain wreck. WHO are they? Mere cannon fodder. The American troops in N. Africa know they are not there thru any wish of their own. The war was started for gold, to maintain the fetish value of gold. Plenty of other
? sidelines. Minor advantages have been COMMERCIALLY taken. Did the present regime in England WANT the troops to return after Dunkirk? Every move for reform in England is a fascist reform, or proposition along fascist lines.
The supreme betrayal of Europe is inherent in the alliance of Anglo- Jewry with Moscow. Debts rise. That is one part of the war. It is a contest between STOPPING the war and going on with it. And only one side does any fighting. Namely the party that STARTED the war. They are for its continuance. Who are they?
BUT they are also for starting the next one. They openly proclaim that AFTER (that is IF) America finishes with Japan, she will have to fight Russia. IF Russia should break into Europe.
Only blindness and deafness can keep you unaware of these proclamations. The U. S. must protect the world? Why? Does the world want it? The U. S. , once this war is over, must be strong enough to beat Russia.
The U. S. had a chance to maintain her prestige and unique position by staying NEUTRAL. Neutral while other powers exhausted themselves. And she DID not.
Who are the lunatics? Was there a deliberate plot? That is what should concern you. WAS there a plot? How long had it been in existence? Does it continue, with its Lehmans, Morgenthaus, Baruchs? Proposals to send the darkies to Africa, to work for Judea, and the rest of it? And WILL you, after Japan is thru with you, take on Russia? In order to maintain the banking monopoly? With Mr. Wille Wiseman, late of the British secret service, ensconced in Kuhn, Loeb and Co. , to direct you and rule you?
? #79 (April 24, 1943) U. S. (C34) CONSCIENCE
The Americans in French Africa have not a clear conscience. There are probably no Americans in North Africa with a clear conscience, tho' there may be some with no conscience whatever. An existence at gangster level, with no velleity above wanting to bust something or punish someone.
The American people have decency enough to know that they should NOT be attacking Europe from the East while Russia attacks from the West. And in the name of what? Of stealing French territory and British trade?
I have mentioned the small boys in Trenton N. J. who played at being Emperor of the World. Infantilism in high places! And Madame Chek, on February 18, made a stirring speech to the American Congress speaking better American than Sol Bloom and half the assembled delegates, and with a better delivery than Mr. Roosevelt. I have no doubt the audience fell for it as leaves in autumn.
It was an appeal to one's sympathies. I should have been swept off my feet if I hadn't been lying down at the time, next to my radio. Bedside habit of radio. The Chinese have a very old saying, that it is an ill omen if the hen crows. Canta la gallina. Mme. Chiang's appeal was clear enough. Everyone wants their own country to be governed by their own people. But it is Wang Chin Wei and not Mons. C. K. Chek who has got back the treaty ports, the extraterritorial rights for his country.
And the grouped ideograms that are translated, "man of high character," indicate, unless I miss my guess, the men through whom and in whom one hears the voice of his forebears. Order at home. China with 400 millions IN ORDER would indeed be an element for world stability. But that order must RISE IN CHINA. In 300 or more years of history, in fact
? in all the history we have of that country, the order must rise inside. At no time has China been at peace in the hands of a government run from outside on loan capital. That is Mme. Chiang's error. Her aim is admirable, but she climbs a tree to catch fish.
When Mencius said that to King Huei, of Liang, the King said: "Is it as bad as that? " And Mencius answered: "Worse, for you would do no harm. You would not of course catch any fish. But you would do no further damage. "
This loss of Chinese wisdom, under the smatter of Y. M. C. A. dogmatism, and occidental class teachings is not the answer.
I have heard from someone who knows him that Chiang himself did not want the war with Japan, but was worked into it, on sheer theory, sheer western nonsense. Kung is to China as water to fishes. Meaning Confucius, the Confucian doctrine is the true habitat of the Son of Heaven, and from the Emperor down to the common people, the duty or root is ONE. And that root is NOT to be found in an exotic government imposed in the interests of foreign loan capital.
If the Chinese ever get hold of a few copies of the Talmud, there will be even less room for the servants, Jewish or Goyim, of the doctrines therein contained. And if the root be confusion, the fruit cannot be order. Mme. Chiang appealing for help to a smaller nation may be a stirring figure. But the grab in French Africa in no way assists her husband in Chungking.
Japan is NOT the hereditary enemy of China. There are over two millenia of history wherein the two nations did NOT damage each other. Whereas the history of Anglo-Saxon relations with China is one record of infamy. One almost unmitigated stink. And the Japanese have recorded some of the more recent chapters in a work whose translated title reads: "The British Empire and British People. "
? Mme. Chiang arouses one's sympathies. BUT the error lies in this idea that a universal theory will govern the world WITHOUT local order. If neither Chungking nor Washington can bring order into their OWN country, what likelihood is there that a still looser and larger bureaucracy having still less definite responsibilities, and still less competent executive offices, would be able to do any better?
One of the key thoughts, the bedrock thought that the late A. R. Orage produced in 30 or 40 years ideological battle, was in an article on the recession of power, i. e. , FROM the people. As soon as people get control of ANY organ of government, deliberative body or whatever, the real control seems to retire into something INNER.
The ballyhoo vs. fascism was all tosh, insofar as it objected to organization and control. What one sees after 20 years, two decades, is that Italy has the professed Jeffersonian ideal. That of governing LEAST. That the Fascist ideal is well nigh unattainable; not from wrong direction, not from lack of aim toward organization, but from the natural chaos of man, the unfailing laziness of the average man, who WILL not be bothered to organize, who can not be persuaded to organize, save in moments of danger or of enthusiasm. Even co-directors have to be lured to board meetings by fees. Fifty dollars or whatever, to be bothered to go watch proceedings. Machiavelli Senior remarked: "Men live in a few, and the rest are sheep. " The idealists struggle against that. An occasional miracle happens. In China men have set up a series of dynasties. Acts of heroic creation, 160 to build or continue, and 160 years to decline. NOT one of the great dynasties, the durable dynasties, was built on gangster grab. Kublai was a great Kahn, but the Ming came 89 years later.
The cheap half baked smattering of western half learning, the lies of half trained professors, shot into foolish young students have NOT been of use to China. If the ancient Kings are too far back to be counted, the Chinese would have learned more from Han, Sung, Tiang, Hong-Vou and Tai Tsong, than from Woodrow Wilson and the Sassoons.
? No one can pronounce Chinese names so as to satisfy everyone. If you don't like my transliterations, that is, if any oriental auditor is puzzled, let me put the sentence: Chinese history itself contains more lessons, and better lessons, than have been learned by a scattered joblot of college students, hurled into jerk water colleges, or into the London Fool of Economics or Oxford.
That is perhaps Mme. Chiang's tragedy. Foreign loan capital is NO substitute for the tradition of Wen and Wu, for the lesson of pre- Christian dynasties.
#80 (April 27, 1943) U. S. (C37) ON RETIRING
I think quite simply and definitely that the American troops in N. Africa, all of 'em ought to go back to America: IF they can get there.
America ought not to be makin' war on Europe, and America knows it. I think it is time the American U. S. citizen studied Mr. Morgenthau's treasury reports, whether or not he is out in front proclaiming the coming of Zion or not. I think it is time you opened Kipling's memoirs "Something about myself. " I think it is time more American Masons developed a curiosity about the possible relations of their order to Jewry as such, and to at least a sect or portion or selection of ORGANIZED Jews as a possible enemy of mankind, and of the American people, the British people in particular.
I think it might be a good thing to hang Roosevelt and a few hundred yidds IF you can do it by due legal process, NOT otherwise. Law must be preserved. I know this may sound tame, but so is it. It is sometimes hard to think so. Hard to think that the 35 ex-army subalterns or whatever who wanted to bump off all the kike congressmen weren't just a bit crude and simpliste. Sometimes one feels that it would be better to get the job done somehow, ANY how, than to delay execution.
? A chair has been founded in the Sorbonne to study modern Jewish history, i. e. , the role of the kike in modern history. It would be well to have similar chairs in ALL American universities, though Harvard and the College of the City of N. York might find it hard to get the necessary endowments. I don't think there is any American law that permits you to shoot Nic. Butler. It is a pity but so is it. No ex post facto laws are to be dreamt of. Not that Frankfurter or any other damn Jews care a hoot for law or for the American Constitution. But we are not here to uphold Frankfurter or the Jewish vendetta. In the midst of which YOU jolly well are. And every American boy that gets drowned owes it to Roosevelt and Baruch, and to Roosevelt's VIOLATION of the duties of office.
It is on the ground of those violations, those that occurred before Pearl Harbor, that you should impeach him. It is time that the matter was studied. It is time that the practical means for doing the job were made subject of study. It will be difficult insofar as your press and radio are mostly in Chewisch hands. It will be difficult to coordinate effort in our so all-fired anarchic country. Instinctively anarchic BUT controlled, by an organization. An organization well worth your study. Be you Mason or Non-Mason. You will have to form cells, nuclei, and communicate.
You will have to maintain some freedom of the press and get radio stations somehow. Congress should go on the air. Failing that, state senates and legislatures should go on the air. And state universities in states not wholly run by their ghettoes should start a study of history of the Jew's role in history, of the role of usury, and currency control BY extraneous private bodies, all that should be made subject of study. You've got to start some time.
You have got to learn a little, at least a little about the history of your allies. About Jew-ruin'd England. About the wreckage of France, wrecked under yidd control. Lousy with kikes. Blum, Zay, and the rest of 'em pushed France into war, when it was dead certain France would get beaten. Preparing ANOTHER. Oh, yes. ANOTHER ten or twenty years war between the U. S. and Slavic Russia to start just as soon as this
? one shows signs of relaxin'. Don't think the kike WANTS to stop wars as long as non kikes will go on killin' and drowning each other, in order to provide dividends for loan capital. And SOME capital. A part of loan capital is, mebbe you have heard this before, some part of loan capital IS really in chewish hands. Mebbe you haven't yet heard that. And some of the American dollars that went for gold, went OUT of America to buy gold, well some of that went out to KIKERY. And Heinrick ben Sloman, ben Soloman, ben Isaac, ben Morgenthau, son of his father, was the sheeny that sent it right out.
And you go on taking it, you go on being diddled, and listening to the Jerusalem synagogue radios from London and Jew York City. Gawd ellup you. Bags of money, offered thru fear or guilt, have been uniformly refused by the mobs, wrote Mr. Jefferson to John Jay from Paris, July 19th, 1789. Paris was lively. On September 6 Jefferson was blissfully dreaming an ideal republic as follows:
But with respect to future debts would it not be wise and just for the nation to declare in the Constitution that they are forming, that neither the legislature nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 34 years?
Think it over. That was T. J. writing to Madison, from Paris, 6 September 1789. It is the famous letter containing the words: "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living. " That theme he later repeated, in the form "the earth belongs to the living. " And the "within their own age" was reduced to 19 years.
First, he thought of the "own age" as the period into which the average inhabitant of a nation would survive. Then he figured that children and those under age wouldn't have any say in contracting the debt. So they ought not to [be] bound. That is, sold into slavery for its payment. These are fine points of the ethics. They won't appeal to Mr. Constantine
? Brown. They will have no effect upon those of you who are given over to the comforting (comforting if it comforts you) theory that devastation just doesn't matter and to whom.
Shakespeare and Bach are a bore. Architecture is dangerous. Sculpture is taboo. Mr. Brown wants a bright new world; and debt is after all only the prelude to slavery. One can conceive a regime in which there is NO economic liberty. I mean absolutely NO economic liberty for anyone. Not by accident, but by program. It is much easier, in fact, to conceive a slave state than a free state. A state wherein all men are slaves, and no man has any right whatsoever to life, liberty, and where even the pursuit --marvelous phrase that "pursuit" of happiness--would be illegal, or at least regarded as a grave misdemeanor.
A really severe Puritan like Eden or Morgenthau would probably tell you that the pursuit of happiness is on a level with chippy-chasing. I know you don't THINK you are ripe for a real revolution. You don't think YOU are ripe for the end of the capitalist system altogether. You would rather such revolutions occurred in the Punjab or in Bessarabia. But one thing leads to another.
And yet, Civilization was not yours to destroy.
#81 (May2, 1943) U. K. (C36)
ON THE NATURE OF TREACHERY
I should like tonight to get a little serious attention, yours, to a serious subject, or to several serious matters. I have in fact been trying for over 20 years to get a little serious attention; persuade you to direct a little serious attention to a few serious subjects. Nature of money, and mode of its issue, and usury. Before that and during the interim I have perhaps been more successful in drawing attention to a few literary problems, and authors. As to my remarks on economics, my methods have been such as were possible. Nobody ever suggested that I should improve
? 'em. When noticed, the reaction was in most cases merely a cordial invitation to join in the great betrayal. "La trahison des clercs," as Julien Benda called it. The cry was NOT, tell us more, perfect your own understanding of this knotty, or these knotty subjects. The cry was: be quiet, it is indecent for a man of letters to touch such a subject. And now you are in a mess. You are spiritually in the worst mess than you are in materially. Despite the loss of tonnage and markets, your loss of tonnage and markets.
I wonder if you have any concept of what Europe means by England's betrayal of Europe. I should like to sort certain things out. Your defense of your empire, for example, as distinct from the drive to START war. To keep the war going, to extend the area of the war. Both your attempt and that made by your pals in the U. S. A.
I should like to distinguish between war and mere violence. I should like to distinguish between valor on the field of battle, and the bombing of civilians, the sinking of hospital ships. I do not think the two kinds of activity are necessarily inseparable. And neither do you.
Nothing is without efficient cause. You can't beat Aristotle on that statement. Something causes the destruction of mosques, and museums. Something totally different from the will to die for freedom's cause: for King and country, for the defense of the homeland. The two activities are NOT identical; nor are they inseparable. Now, hospital ships have been bombed, and not by accident. And the typical American feeling is one of revulsion and the soldiers' is one of revulsion.
An American airman had been floating about the middle sea for some days on an inflated rubber raft. He and his pals were at the end of their tether. They were picked up by an Italian hospital ship, put to bed, told they were patients for the time being but would be prisoners on landing. The hospital ship was sunk on a later trip, but one of the nurses who escaped tells this of one of the American airmen. She came to his berth
? to attend him; he said: turn out the light, I am ashamed to look at you. That is the soldier's feeling about baby killing, about bombing hospitals, the cad's feeling is possibly different.
The words "Palazzo S. Giorgio" probably mean nothing to you. A few art lovers, architects, may know what they refer to. The Palazzo was of no military importance. Neither were Gaudier-Brzeska's charcoal drawings. The Kensington Museum accepted some after Gaudier's death. The bulk of them were in a suitcase in Gertova, in a sculpter's studio. I knew that his father's flat had been burnt out, but was told the studio had not been hit. I thought it was time to remove the drawings. I found them. The suitcase covered 1/4 inch thick with dust and plaster. A hole in the ceiling six feet away, a pile of sand on the floor. I used the cover of Dick's bookcase to dust off the suitcase. The concierge said: "Yes, fortunately we noticed the spezzoni; and put it out quickly. " Gaudier gave his life in the last war, for France and England. I had shared the drawings with England. I suppose it is due to me that some of his sculpture is in the S. Kensington or the Tate Gallery. At least I believe no one will contradict that statement.
You came within an ace of burning up most of his drawings. Especially as the small abstract notebook was in the suitcase with the large charcoals. And a copy of Hughes and one or two other more or less irreplaceable objects. Another mark in Genova was the library [of] the S. Carlo theater.
"ONE spot of earth that is forever England. " Dick's father used to be Anglophile. He was a friend of your late Admiral Martin. He had forgotten or forgiven [the] Caracciolo incident, a chapter in Nelson's life that is not emphasized in your school books or official biographies of the columnist.
This vandalism is perhaps the minor part of your treachery. By treachery I refer to the alliance with Russia, any Russia. It may be unwisdom . . .
? eh; on your part. You meant, of course, MEANT to set the two great powers at each other's throats once again and to come in when both were exhausted. Might overdo it? Might find yourselves in the grip of the new pincers? It used to be felt that the Americans would get more soaviter in modo, than the Germans fortiter in re. Half time score seems to be to American advantage. Not my place as a Yank to complain of the material advantages gained by American policy. And yet I deplore the American policy. NOT because it was soaviter in modo, with YOU. And I do NOT hold you responsible for it, save insofar as you tolerated the precedent and falsifications.
On theory, on grounds of program, I have perhaps said a few words for Lenin. When asked to criticize the Kharkov Congress, I did so with perfect good will. I went on writing in Communist papers. I have quoted Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" over this radio. Not of course when expounding fascist doctrine. Merely from personal sympathy with various points made in 1922 by Joseph Stalin. In 1926 or whenever I got the brochure, it was not with Stalin's Bolshevism but with his backsliding that I should have quarreled. I disliked a year ago to see Stalin repeating the Czarist error, and sacrificing millions of Russians IN THE CAUSE of the usurers. The NON-slavic usurers. In fact one never does hear of Russian money lenders. I suppose Russians must have had jobs in banks, now and again, but one doesn't hear much of it.
I don't know that I should have any difficulties about accepting a REAL Bolshevik program. The artist does not, and never [has] been part of the bourgeoisie. I object to a pretended attack on captial, on usurocracy, that degenerates into a mere attack upon property and leaves the money lender, the pawnbroker, setting pretty and in full control of the exploitation system, milking the producer.
Producers of the world, unite. All right by me. The artist don't need to own property. Usually bores him. What he wants is to own his tools.
? NO, not even that, he wants the right to USE the tools of his craft. Bolshevism has never by program denied this to him.
I should never go and get scragged on a theoretical issue as to whether farmers should KOLKHOZ, or own homestead. I believe that in general experience, the latter has better results on production. But it is NOT a principle. It is empiric observation.
If Churchill had accepted Bolshie DOGMA, one might not think him a traitor. But he has NOT. At least no BBC stooge has claimed that for him. What even a pink might query is the practical executive capacity of Moscow in WORKING the communist system. One has read reports to the effect that a hitch now and again occurs among the angels of the Soviet paradise. As realist one wonders whether a judaic bureaucracy on the Dimitrov system, with Dimitrov and Co. running it, is the most desirable regime for Finland, Denmark, Rumania, Switzerland, Warwick, Kent, and the Midlands.
World revolution, with LOCAL executive autochthonous is one thing, world revolution with a strictly Jewish and Moscovite control is another.
It is England's betrayal of SELF determination that ought to lie on the English conscience. Your alliance with Adam Zad.
#82 (May 4, 1943) U. S. (C40) ROMANCE
Just why the campus Communist, the starry eyed idealist Communist, or realist Communist or Bill Bullit millionaire Communard, should suppose that Stalin is still leadin' a world revolution instead of playing power politics on the old Romanoff model; well, I leave it to you.
Back before the American young stopped reading Tennyson's Idylls of the King, or the Morte d' Arthur, or The Tristan of Beroul, or M. Hillaire
? Belloc's Avril, back then, I once called on old Harrison, sugar trust Harrison, and spoke of the S. P. C. A. Soc. Prev. etc. and he didn't question the aims of that society. He said, who administers, meaning who handles the funds of the society, and administers?
Well, do you watch the course of events? Of course most of you do not. But why should the proletariat dictate BY means of a secret committee of furriners? Why should the proletariat not dictate locally by means of itself? Why should it be administered by foreign agents, and men of alien race?
Yes, I know--those of us who are older [know?
