The
remedies
vs.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
The ideal political prisoner, I suppose.
And the Commonwealth Party.
What is it?
Is it a real party?
Does it stand for the
? just price and the homestead, or is it just another fake opposition set up and financed by the financiers? Longnosed or shortnosed?
There is manifestly no freedom without economic freedom. Freedom to keep out of debt. In 1936 a discussion of Simonds and Emery's "The Price of Peace" appeared in London and contained a division of nations which seems to me inadequate. The first group, according to the criticisms of Simonds and Emery, consisted of status-quo powers, such as France and England, who were "naturally satisfied with their enormous possessions" and desired to see no change.
The second group consisted of revisionist powers: dissatisfied powers, Germany, Japan, and Italy, who wanted the world to move. Otherwise their standards of living would sink, and national existence shrivel. You will at once think of a third set of powers, namely, Roosevelt's Hebrew Republic, and Stalin's Russia, both possessed of vast wealth. No need to expand their borders, having vast need of clean sane and decent distribution INSIDE those borders. But rich beyond the dreams of anything but Rothschildean greed, and flagrantly determined to expand, grab and pervade.
And England certainly has entered some sort of plot, or gang, to betray Eastern Europe, to betray pretty much all of European civilization. There is no truce with Adam Zad, the bear that walks like a man. That on the one hand, and W. Manning Dacey, in the Observer for January 10, telling you and the world that the profits of the Big Five (that is BANKS), the chief banks of your country, are for the first time above the 1929 level. Cui bono, whom doth it profit?
For gold I arm their hands And for gold I buy their lands
and for gold I sell their enemies the yield Their nearest fees may purchase, or their furthest
friends may lease.
? Said, or as they say "sang," the late Rudyard Kipling in a poem called "The Peace of Dives," or dives.
Who grindest for thy greed Men's belly pinch and need.
What hope have you in a Russian invasion of Romania and Finland?
I hear your Sunday parsons howling to Christ. It is unconvincing, YOU know, at least many of you know as well and better than I do, what the Soviet system has been for the past 20 years. For yourselves you do not believe in the communal ownership of gardens, bathtubs, a woman, you like a bit of promiscuity, but you don't run to the communal system.
You had a decent proportion of communal ownership of pasturage; village commons, common lands, and you would do well to get back to it, 150 ducal filchings, somewhat tangled skein, but you could untangle it. He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. Tom Paine said it and died only partially honored. I repeat that, quote: "He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. " You don't appear to want to put that in practice. You do NOT fight for world freedom, you are stampeded. You, some of you, had dislikes, quite proper dislikes, dislikes of being oppressed; and a great laziness, a very great laziness, especially in the head.
Even Lenin saw that the "easiest way to debauch the capitalist system is to debauch its currency. " No, you don't exactly want the capitalist system either. Especially if it is to be somebody else's capitalist system, with you vainly trying to get back to the udders. And so this is the new opposition, the Commonwealth Party. [It] don't seem to have got to your microphones, not at the moments I have unhooked a receiver. It is said to be of Communist tendencies. That is suspicious, considering the
? presence of yiddo slays, and associates of the late Mr. Trotsky and the pressing desire of the Bolshies to get control of the Labor Party.
Why, God alone knows why they want to get hold of the fake opposition. But still they like to be as ubiquitous as possible.
I wonder, has the Commonwealth party said anything about money, control of the national power to buy? If so, of course a poll often thousand against eleven thousand votes for the Big Five, the City, the Gold exchange, is peculiar.
It might even be a real party . . . but Lord alone knows . . . can it be? Is it?
#76 (April 17, 1943) U. S. (C31) J. G. BLAINE
I was highly diverted, along in January, to hear that American historical sense had got down to an almost invisible minimum. They were havin' a celebration or commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Mr. Blaine, J. G. B. I couldn't quote the pertinent document, without a return to Rapallo, but I note that in late 1880 in August, August 27 to be exact, of the year wherein Grover Cleveland was elected, a stalwart Republican, state legislature 1864 and subsequent, Congress 1876 and subsequent, wrote to General E. Bryant a letter that was reproduced in a good number of papers western and eastern, includin' the N. Y. Evening Post.
The Philadelphia Times called it the most significant of many recent Republican protests. That is perhaps why Blaine's commemoration occurs during a Democratic administration, The Democrats owed him Cleveland's elections. It is a two-column letter and I don't think I can get it into my time. It began with reference to President Arthur, his integrity. Regretted that he had not been nominated for the subsequent term which, being the case, the writer supposed that the nominee should
? be a man of the highest type of political integrity, and republican principles.
He continued:
Mr. Blaine is not such a man. He embodies most in American politics that is menacing to public morals and INTEGRITY in government. [A] long public career distinguished mainly by a sort of declamatory and pugilistic statecraft, not the inspiration of a single valuable policy, or author of an important statute. Opposed good and supported bad legislation. Record clouded by suspicion and accusation of jobbery and corruption undefended. He brings to us personal antagonisms which have torn and weakened our party in the past, invading the administration of Garfield with demands of personal vengence so virulent as to inflame the spirit of assassination and culminating in the defeat of Judge Folger and the election of Grover Cleveland, Governor of the Empire State.
I skip some references to Roscoe Conkling, and continue re Mr. Blaine:
A speculator, enjoying a fortune too great to have been acquired by honest industry. Legitimate business enterprise of his country's service at five thousand dollars a year, he sympathizes with and profits [from] speculative stock jobbing and gambling methods of acquiring wealth, methods which have wrought ruin, disgrace and business disasters beyond computation, schooled youth and persuaded middle age to avoid honest and useful industry, made suicide and insanity commonplace, unsettled values, placed the fruits of honest toil in the power of Goulds and Armours, to bear down and bull up in the markets, as whim or interest may dictate, methods which gave us but an exaggerated illustration of their iniquitous consequences in the Grant and Ward 150 million dollar failure and robbery.
? Reference to Blaine's Congressional record relating to subsidies, class legislation, corporate exactions, etc. will readily satisfy the honest inquirer of his uniform support of monopolies and indifference to the common weal.
Little wonder that he omits from his letter to refer to, or explain, the cause of the great disparity in the distribution of this marvelous increase of wealth accumulated during the period he chooses for comparison, that he fails to note the fact that one 300th of [the] 44 billion dollars is held by one man, while others rank little below, and his own palatial residence [at] a rental of 11 thousand per year suggesting more than an average per capita of wealth. Little wonder he is silent on the subject of interstate commerce, the regulation of which is demanded by all producers and legitimate traders. Great corporate interests demand noninterference.
Sorry to skip reference to people fed at public crib, Brother Bob etc. Nor will the citation of his pacific assurances to Mexico quite cover up his
S. American policy and interference to protect the Landau Guano scheme. Death of his servant Hurlbut, etc. The disingeneousness of his letter of acceptance is further betrayed by its significant silence touching the events of the past three years (1881, 2, 3).
Bringing down his historic figure to the present would have revealed the fiction involved in his statements, would have shown a marvelous shrinkage in nominal values, would have noted the downfall of business prosperity and business morals and would have pictured as few can do so graphically as he, the furnace fires dying out, the wheels of factories standing still, wages reduced, beggary usurping the place of labor, bank and business failures, creditors and depositors wantonly defrauded, homes lost, and crookedness in public affairs.
Mr. Blaine is objectionable, furthermore, for the company he keeps, for the "friends he has made. " Will the chief promoters of his nomination be
? his chief advisors if elected? There's the rub. I need mention no names but will suggest that the least objectionable of his pet supporters are the Tribune supporters of Greeley in 1872, accusers of Blaine in 1876 and 1880, charging him with bribery and other penitentiary crimes. With no pronounced issues between the two great parties, we can safely afford to yield temporary executive control at this time.
It is vastly more important to good government that the Republican Party be restored to supremacy in Congress than that the administration of law be entrusted to an unworthy partisan surrounded by bad counsel. The N. Y. Times commented on the letter thus: that Blaine's advocate will be amazed to see how formidable is the list of his offenses and how small a part the Mulligan letters (sufficient in themselves) play in the arraignment.
You will say: why rake it all up? Hasn't Woodward summed it all up very neatly? It was an unfortunate choice. Blaine was thoroughly tarred with financial scandals. The worst of it was that the public knew all about his slippery doings. He declared during the campaign that his life was an open book. It was, indeed, but it had been opened by somebody else. For the first time in our history a major political party nominated as its candidate a man who was known to be dishonest. All of which is, indeed, past history, and could have been let alone were it not that a Democratic administration, the Morgenthau-Lehman administration, has run a commemoration of a defeated Republican candidate. Now isn't that odd, just a bit odd? It is just part of [the] process of falsification of history.
I hope my little bit of reminiscence may shed a side light, and even back up Woodward's summary. He is sometimes laconic.
#77 (April 1843) U. K. (C35) CANUTE
? It is my considered opinion that the Canute Club, alias the BBC's Brain Trust, has not produced anything up to the level of Caedmon's Dream of the Road. Visionaries in retrospect, but placing their past in an unattainable future; I do not think the Continent attends to their gentle murmur. It needs a peculiar sense of the ridiculous, which I don't find here in Italy. Old buffers of my day, something of the period. Waverley novels, and divorce from reality. It takes so long to explain it to a non- English audience. All this pretense of free discussion with ALL the real issues barred.
Freedom to stay out of debt, for example. Imagine Masaryk and Doc Joad on THAT issue. Even if the more-enlightened load HAS got round to wondering how you would install a world bureaucrat without admitting at least a FEW of the indigenese of the European continent, for example. Now in 1919 England had a choice of curing one or the other of TWO economic diseases. Douglas having had practical experience, having a sense of justice, but no faith in the goodness of man, tried to cure possibly the lesser disease. At any rate the one with less popular appeal. He hit out against the swindle inherent in issuing all, or practically all the public's purchase power as interest-paying debt. That, as I think he saw it, would have allowed speculation to go on, would have needed if not a minimal of bureaucratic control, at least less, than guild socialism coordinated into a national central. He was probably out in his calculation, as he did not produce very detailed blueprints of HOW to control prices, toward the JUST price.
Hitler went to a deeper root with his "a great deal [of] purchasing power goes for something OTHER than labor, construction labor. " All of which now sounds pretty mild. The irrealists go on murmuring and the tide of Moscovite chaos rises. It becomes more and more evident that the old gang in Britain does NOT want ANY social amelioration whatever. And in that position, I think they tend to overplay their hand.
? Now it can't be said that England, via the ONLY medium still open for free (if you call it free) communication with the outer world, i. e. , via the radio, it can't be said that England shows any very acute desire to understand or to communicate an understanding of what the Continent calls the "historic moment. " What the late H. James called, seeing "where in a manner of speakin' we have got to. "
No one praised the social order, slums, etc. , in England before the war. "War was his only OUT," as an experienced American politician put it of Roosevelt. Most of the gold in the world is in the U. S. , in the British Empire, and in Russia, and I reckon any attempt to diminish the power of them that have it will meet with pretty serious resistance. Voice of experience that, not of theory. When I talked Douglas and Gesell, he replied: what effect will it have on the price of gold? Gold has been mentioned in Brain Trust or Dumb Freedom forum, but not usury.
History will note, whether you like it or not, that Hitler came on a phrase of Feder's: "A great deal of purchasing power is allocated for reasons other than the performance of useful labor. " Labor not limited to work of HAND, but would include work of head, organization, any act useful to the community.
In fact: damn well known that money, under the foetid usurocrat system was gained by speculation, rigging stock markets and by method of issuing so much of the nation's money as interest payin'--and how-- interest paying debt, debt on which the whole community was welched for interest. And the minute Hitler opened his mouth on the subject he became caput lupinum. Target for assassination like Mussolini became caput lupinum, target for repeated attempts at assassination: minute he opened his mouth reconnection of New York Jew capitalists and the Russian revolution.
Just like Abe Lincoln became target for assassination when he got round to resisting the desire of FOREIGN Jew bankers to control the currency
? of the U. S. A. by means of the great debt; inducted, erected, by the American Civil War. In a case that has never been cleared up. Oh yes, we know Booth shot Mr. Lincoln, but the protection of Booth, the nature of the trial of his alleged accomplices, has NOT been cleared up. Booth's getaway, his capture due to accident of sprained leg, etc. and the hoods worn at the trial. Lot of past history to go into. The unwillingness of the Reds to GO into MONEY, to go into the question of money, of potential abundence, OF the English Reds to go into question of people who financed [the] Spanish Revolution. There we get to the raw, the things the bolos will discuss and the things they won't.
Lenin and Stalin at one stage, both clear about export of capital. The questions that are NOT discussed in certain circles. That is the use of THIS radio, of me on this radio.
The Beveridge Plan, a lame duck, a blind alley, a Aunt Sally, a target for metaphor. And the position of the laborERS. As apart from the labor/ ites? The pie in the sky, the pie at the end of next century. The KNOWN and archi-known possibility of abundance in the U. S. A. before Mr. Roosevelt's war started.
The Church of England praying that a denser form of atheism than its own shall descend and engulf us. Now I repeat, England had economic diseases. Unemployment, distressed areas, slums, and the rest of it. Germany and Italy set out to remedy such conditions INSIDE their own borders. England did NOT. Whatever was done, was done tardily, half heartedly. Nothing about justice or any of that darn nonsense from Mr. Churchill. Not a word.
The remedies vs. speculation made great headway in Italy and in Germany. Men of good will wished something similar might happen in England. Men of good will IN ENGLAND thought monetary reform would be preferable. BOTH exits were barred, by whom? For whom? War is the greatest form of sabotage. The acute form of sabotage.
? Someone in England insisted on having a war. The devil's answer to the enigma of poverty amidst plenty is to sabotage plenty, to annihilate the PLENTY, so as to put an end to the problem. To enforce poverty, to enforce scarcity, to create scarcity, so as to enforce scarcity economics. The system of scarcity, which enables monopoly, gives monopoly power to exact the UNJUST price.
And men in America NOT content with this one, already aim at the next one. War with Russia. The time to object is NOW.
#78 (April 20, 1943) U. S. (C35) ZION
If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh, but they are a forgery.
Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we have of their authenticity. The Jews have worked with forged documents for the past 24 hundred years, namely ever since they have had any documents whatsoever. And no one can qualify as a historian of this half century without having examined the Protocols. Alleged, if you like, to have been translated from the Russian, from a manuscript to be consulted in the British Museum, where some such document may or may not exist.
What we know for certain is that they were published two decades ago. That Lord Sydenham wrote a preface to them. That their content has been traced to another sketch said to have appeared in the eighteen forties. The interest in them does not lie in [the] question of their having been, or NOT been concocted by a legislative assembly of Rabbis, democratically elected, or secretly chosen by the Mysterious Order of Seven Branched Antlers or the Bowling Society of Milwaukee. Their interest lies in the type of mind, or the state of mind of their author. That was their interest for the psychologist the day they first appeared. And
? for the historian two decades later, when the program contained in them has so crushingly gone into effect up to a point, or down to a squalor.
What is interesting, perhaps most, to the historian is their definite campaign against history altogether, their declared intention to blot out the classics, to blot out the record, and to dazzle men with talk of tomorrow. That is a variant on the pie in the bait. As far as reality is concerned, as far as you and I are concerned it makes little difference whether prosperity is in heaven, or in the year 2300, or just round a corner that will never be turned.
A religious man might think his reward might be in heaven, but even a religious man ought to know that his reward will not be on earth in a hundred years time. In fact, the pie in the sky is a more reasonable proposition: an opium with more to it than Mr. Keynes' day after tomorrow.
I am not concerned with fixing blame retrospectively so much as with judging the present: those who are against the true word, the protocolaires. Now Keynes whose fair is foul, foul is fair sentence can be taken as the quintessence of something or other, is the perfect protoclaire. It comes over me that on the one occasion I had the curious experience of seeing him, he managed to utter two falsehoods in a very short space of time. In fact never opened his mouth without doing so. First in stating that he is an orthodox economist, which he is not, second in saying that the then high cost of living was due to lack of labor, when there were millions of men out of work.
You couldn't have done much better in two sentences if you were out for a record in the falsification. Protocol No. 8, second [paragraph]:
We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form, etc. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers,
? industrialists, capitalists and the main thing, millionaires, because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures.
Is it possible to arouse any interest in verbal precision? Is it possible to persuade more than six or eight people to consider the scope of crossword puzzles and other devices for looking at words for something that is NOT their meaning? 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.
? just price and the homestead, or is it just another fake opposition set up and financed by the financiers? Longnosed or shortnosed?
There is manifestly no freedom without economic freedom. Freedom to keep out of debt. In 1936 a discussion of Simonds and Emery's "The Price of Peace" appeared in London and contained a division of nations which seems to me inadequate. The first group, according to the criticisms of Simonds and Emery, consisted of status-quo powers, such as France and England, who were "naturally satisfied with their enormous possessions" and desired to see no change.
The second group consisted of revisionist powers: dissatisfied powers, Germany, Japan, and Italy, who wanted the world to move. Otherwise their standards of living would sink, and national existence shrivel. You will at once think of a third set of powers, namely, Roosevelt's Hebrew Republic, and Stalin's Russia, both possessed of vast wealth. No need to expand their borders, having vast need of clean sane and decent distribution INSIDE those borders. But rich beyond the dreams of anything but Rothschildean greed, and flagrantly determined to expand, grab and pervade.
And England certainly has entered some sort of plot, or gang, to betray Eastern Europe, to betray pretty much all of European civilization. There is no truce with Adam Zad, the bear that walks like a man. That on the one hand, and W. Manning Dacey, in the Observer for January 10, telling you and the world that the profits of the Big Five (that is BANKS), the chief banks of your country, are for the first time above the 1929 level. Cui bono, whom doth it profit?
For gold I arm their hands And for gold I buy their lands
and for gold I sell their enemies the yield Their nearest fees may purchase, or their furthest
friends may lease.
? Said, or as they say "sang," the late Rudyard Kipling in a poem called "The Peace of Dives," or dives.
Who grindest for thy greed Men's belly pinch and need.
What hope have you in a Russian invasion of Romania and Finland?
I hear your Sunday parsons howling to Christ. It is unconvincing, YOU know, at least many of you know as well and better than I do, what the Soviet system has been for the past 20 years. For yourselves you do not believe in the communal ownership of gardens, bathtubs, a woman, you like a bit of promiscuity, but you don't run to the communal system.
You had a decent proportion of communal ownership of pasturage; village commons, common lands, and you would do well to get back to it, 150 ducal filchings, somewhat tangled skein, but you could untangle it. He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. Tom Paine said it and died only partially honored. I repeat that, quote: "He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. " You don't appear to want to put that in practice. You do NOT fight for world freedom, you are stampeded. You, some of you, had dislikes, quite proper dislikes, dislikes of being oppressed; and a great laziness, a very great laziness, especially in the head.
Even Lenin saw that the "easiest way to debauch the capitalist system is to debauch its currency. " No, you don't exactly want the capitalist system either. Especially if it is to be somebody else's capitalist system, with you vainly trying to get back to the udders. And so this is the new opposition, the Commonwealth Party. [It] don't seem to have got to your microphones, not at the moments I have unhooked a receiver. It is said to be of Communist tendencies. That is suspicious, considering the
? presence of yiddo slays, and associates of the late Mr. Trotsky and the pressing desire of the Bolshies to get control of the Labor Party.
Why, God alone knows why they want to get hold of the fake opposition. But still they like to be as ubiquitous as possible.
I wonder, has the Commonwealth party said anything about money, control of the national power to buy? If so, of course a poll often thousand against eleven thousand votes for the Big Five, the City, the Gold exchange, is peculiar.
It might even be a real party . . . but Lord alone knows . . . can it be? Is it?
#76 (April 17, 1943) U. S. (C31) J. G. BLAINE
I was highly diverted, along in January, to hear that American historical sense had got down to an almost invisible minimum. They were havin' a celebration or commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Mr. Blaine, J. G. B. I couldn't quote the pertinent document, without a return to Rapallo, but I note that in late 1880 in August, August 27 to be exact, of the year wherein Grover Cleveland was elected, a stalwart Republican, state legislature 1864 and subsequent, Congress 1876 and subsequent, wrote to General E. Bryant a letter that was reproduced in a good number of papers western and eastern, includin' the N. Y. Evening Post.
The Philadelphia Times called it the most significant of many recent Republican protests. That is perhaps why Blaine's commemoration occurs during a Democratic administration, The Democrats owed him Cleveland's elections. It is a two-column letter and I don't think I can get it into my time. It began with reference to President Arthur, his integrity. Regretted that he had not been nominated for the subsequent term which, being the case, the writer supposed that the nominee should
? be a man of the highest type of political integrity, and republican principles.
He continued:
Mr. Blaine is not such a man. He embodies most in American politics that is menacing to public morals and INTEGRITY in government. [A] long public career distinguished mainly by a sort of declamatory and pugilistic statecraft, not the inspiration of a single valuable policy, or author of an important statute. Opposed good and supported bad legislation. Record clouded by suspicion and accusation of jobbery and corruption undefended. He brings to us personal antagonisms which have torn and weakened our party in the past, invading the administration of Garfield with demands of personal vengence so virulent as to inflame the spirit of assassination and culminating in the defeat of Judge Folger and the election of Grover Cleveland, Governor of the Empire State.
I skip some references to Roscoe Conkling, and continue re Mr. Blaine:
A speculator, enjoying a fortune too great to have been acquired by honest industry. Legitimate business enterprise of his country's service at five thousand dollars a year, he sympathizes with and profits [from] speculative stock jobbing and gambling methods of acquiring wealth, methods which have wrought ruin, disgrace and business disasters beyond computation, schooled youth and persuaded middle age to avoid honest and useful industry, made suicide and insanity commonplace, unsettled values, placed the fruits of honest toil in the power of Goulds and Armours, to bear down and bull up in the markets, as whim or interest may dictate, methods which gave us but an exaggerated illustration of their iniquitous consequences in the Grant and Ward 150 million dollar failure and robbery.
? Reference to Blaine's Congressional record relating to subsidies, class legislation, corporate exactions, etc. will readily satisfy the honest inquirer of his uniform support of monopolies and indifference to the common weal.
Little wonder that he omits from his letter to refer to, or explain, the cause of the great disparity in the distribution of this marvelous increase of wealth accumulated during the period he chooses for comparison, that he fails to note the fact that one 300th of [the] 44 billion dollars is held by one man, while others rank little below, and his own palatial residence [at] a rental of 11 thousand per year suggesting more than an average per capita of wealth. Little wonder he is silent on the subject of interstate commerce, the regulation of which is demanded by all producers and legitimate traders. Great corporate interests demand noninterference.
Sorry to skip reference to people fed at public crib, Brother Bob etc. Nor will the citation of his pacific assurances to Mexico quite cover up his
S. American policy and interference to protect the Landau Guano scheme. Death of his servant Hurlbut, etc. The disingeneousness of his letter of acceptance is further betrayed by its significant silence touching the events of the past three years (1881, 2, 3).
Bringing down his historic figure to the present would have revealed the fiction involved in his statements, would have shown a marvelous shrinkage in nominal values, would have noted the downfall of business prosperity and business morals and would have pictured as few can do so graphically as he, the furnace fires dying out, the wheels of factories standing still, wages reduced, beggary usurping the place of labor, bank and business failures, creditors and depositors wantonly defrauded, homes lost, and crookedness in public affairs.
Mr. Blaine is objectionable, furthermore, for the company he keeps, for the "friends he has made. " Will the chief promoters of his nomination be
? his chief advisors if elected? There's the rub. I need mention no names but will suggest that the least objectionable of his pet supporters are the Tribune supporters of Greeley in 1872, accusers of Blaine in 1876 and 1880, charging him with bribery and other penitentiary crimes. With no pronounced issues between the two great parties, we can safely afford to yield temporary executive control at this time.
It is vastly more important to good government that the Republican Party be restored to supremacy in Congress than that the administration of law be entrusted to an unworthy partisan surrounded by bad counsel. The N. Y. Times commented on the letter thus: that Blaine's advocate will be amazed to see how formidable is the list of his offenses and how small a part the Mulligan letters (sufficient in themselves) play in the arraignment.
You will say: why rake it all up? Hasn't Woodward summed it all up very neatly? It was an unfortunate choice. Blaine was thoroughly tarred with financial scandals. The worst of it was that the public knew all about his slippery doings. He declared during the campaign that his life was an open book. It was, indeed, but it had been opened by somebody else. For the first time in our history a major political party nominated as its candidate a man who was known to be dishonest. All of which is, indeed, past history, and could have been let alone were it not that a Democratic administration, the Morgenthau-Lehman administration, has run a commemoration of a defeated Republican candidate. Now isn't that odd, just a bit odd? It is just part of [the] process of falsification of history.
I hope my little bit of reminiscence may shed a side light, and even back up Woodward's summary. He is sometimes laconic.
#77 (April 1843) U. K. (C35) CANUTE
? It is my considered opinion that the Canute Club, alias the BBC's Brain Trust, has not produced anything up to the level of Caedmon's Dream of the Road. Visionaries in retrospect, but placing their past in an unattainable future; I do not think the Continent attends to their gentle murmur. It needs a peculiar sense of the ridiculous, which I don't find here in Italy. Old buffers of my day, something of the period. Waverley novels, and divorce from reality. It takes so long to explain it to a non- English audience. All this pretense of free discussion with ALL the real issues barred.
Freedom to stay out of debt, for example. Imagine Masaryk and Doc Joad on THAT issue. Even if the more-enlightened load HAS got round to wondering how you would install a world bureaucrat without admitting at least a FEW of the indigenese of the European continent, for example. Now in 1919 England had a choice of curing one or the other of TWO economic diseases. Douglas having had practical experience, having a sense of justice, but no faith in the goodness of man, tried to cure possibly the lesser disease. At any rate the one with less popular appeal. He hit out against the swindle inherent in issuing all, or practically all the public's purchase power as interest-paying debt. That, as I think he saw it, would have allowed speculation to go on, would have needed if not a minimal of bureaucratic control, at least less, than guild socialism coordinated into a national central. He was probably out in his calculation, as he did not produce very detailed blueprints of HOW to control prices, toward the JUST price.
Hitler went to a deeper root with his "a great deal [of] purchasing power goes for something OTHER than labor, construction labor. " All of which now sounds pretty mild. The irrealists go on murmuring and the tide of Moscovite chaos rises. It becomes more and more evident that the old gang in Britain does NOT want ANY social amelioration whatever. And in that position, I think they tend to overplay their hand.
? Now it can't be said that England, via the ONLY medium still open for free (if you call it free) communication with the outer world, i. e. , via the radio, it can't be said that England shows any very acute desire to understand or to communicate an understanding of what the Continent calls the "historic moment. " What the late H. James called, seeing "where in a manner of speakin' we have got to. "
No one praised the social order, slums, etc. , in England before the war. "War was his only OUT," as an experienced American politician put it of Roosevelt. Most of the gold in the world is in the U. S. , in the British Empire, and in Russia, and I reckon any attempt to diminish the power of them that have it will meet with pretty serious resistance. Voice of experience that, not of theory. When I talked Douglas and Gesell, he replied: what effect will it have on the price of gold? Gold has been mentioned in Brain Trust or Dumb Freedom forum, but not usury.
History will note, whether you like it or not, that Hitler came on a phrase of Feder's: "A great deal of purchasing power is allocated for reasons other than the performance of useful labor. " Labor not limited to work of HAND, but would include work of head, organization, any act useful to the community.
In fact: damn well known that money, under the foetid usurocrat system was gained by speculation, rigging stock markets and by method of issuing so much of the nation's money as interest payin'--and how-- interest paying debt, debt on which the whole community was welched for interest. And the minute Hitler opened his mouth on the subject he became caput lupinum. Target for assassination like Mussolini became caput lupinum, target for repeated attempts at assassination: minute he opened his mouth reconnection of New York Jew capitalists and the Russian revolution.
Just like Abe Lincoln became target for assassination when he got round to resisting the desire of FOREIGN Jew bankers to control the currency
? of the U. S. A. by means of the great debt; inducted, erected, by the American Civil War. In a case that has never been cleared up. Oh yes, we know Booth shot Mr. Lincoln, but the protection of Booth, the nature of the trial of his alleged accomplices, has NOT been cleared up. Booth's getaway, his capture due to accident of sprained leg, etc. and the hoods worn at the trial. Lot of past history to go into. The unwillingness of the Reds to GO into MONEY, to go into the question of money, of potential abundence, OF the English Reds to go into question of people who financed [the] Spanish Revolution. There we get to the raw, the things the bolos will discuss and the things they won't.
Lenin and Stalin at one stage, both clear about export of capital. The questions that are NOT discussed in certain circles. That is the use of THIS radio, of me on this radio.
The Beveridge Plan, a lame duck, a blind alley, a Aunt Sally, a target for metaphor. And the position of the laborERS. As apart from the labor/ ites? The pie in the sky, the pie at the end of next century. The KNOWN and archi-known possibility of abundance in the U. S. A. before Mr. Roosevelt's war started.
The Church of England praying that a denser form of atheism than its own shall descend and engulf us. Now I repeat, England had economic diseases. Unemployment, distressed areas, slums, and the rest of it. Germany and Italy set out to remedy such conditions INSIDE their own borders. England did NOT. Whatever was done, was done tardily, half heartedly. Nothing about justice or any of that darn nonsense from Mr. Churchill. Not a word.
The remedies vs. speculation made great headway in Italy and in Germany. Men of good will wished something similar might happen in England. Men of good will IN ENGLAND thought monetary reform would be preferable. BOTH exits were barred, by whom? For whom? War is the greatest form of sabotage. The acute form of sabotage.
? Someone in England insisted on having a war. The devil's answer to the enigma of poverty amidst plenty is to sabotage plenty, to annihilate the PLENTY, so as to put an end to the problem. To enforce poverty, to enforce scarcity, to create scarcity, so as to enforce scarcity economics. The system of scarcity, which enables monopoly, gives monopoly power to exact the UNJUST price.
And men in America NOT content with this one, already aim at the next one. War with Russia. The time to object is NOW.
#78 (April 20, 1943) U. S. (C35) ZION
If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh, but they are a forgery.
Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we have of their authenticity. The Jews have worked with forged documents for the past 24 hundred years, namely ever since they have had any documents whatsoever. And no one can qualify as a historian of this half century without having examined the Protocols. Alleged, if you like, to have been translated from the Russian, from a manuscript to be consulted in the British Museum, where some such document may or may not exist.
What we know for certain is that they were published two decades ago. That Lord Sydenham wrote a preface to them. That their content has been traced to another sketch said to have appeared in the eighteen forties. The interest in them does not lie in [the] question of their having been, or NOT been concocted by a legislative assembly of Rabbis, democratically elected, or secretly chosen by the Mysterious Order of Seven Branched Antlers or the Bowling Society of Milwaukee. Their interest lies in the type of mind, or the state of mind of their author. That was their interest for the psychologist the day they first appeared. And
? for the historian two decades later, when the program contained in them has so crushingly gone into effect up to a point, or down to a squalor.
What is interesting, perhaps most, to the historian is their definite campaign against history altogether, their declared intention to blot out the classics, to blot out the record, and to dazzle men with talk of tomorrow. That is a variant on the pie in the bait. As far as reality is concerned, as far as you and I are concerned it makes little difference whether prosperity is in heaven, or in the year 2300, or just round a corner that will never be turned.
A religious man might think his reward might be in heaven, but even a religious man ought to know that his reward will not be on earth in a hundred years time. In fact, the pie in the sky is a more reasonable proposition: an opium with more to it than Mr. Keynes' day after tomorrow.
I am not concerned with fixing blame retrospectively so much as with judging the present: those who are against the true word, the protocolaires. Now Keynes whose fair is foul, foul is fair sentence can be taken as the quintessence of something or other, is the perfect protoclaire. It comes over me that on the one occasion I had the curious experience of seeing him, he managed to utter two falsehoods in a very short space of time. In fact never opened his mouth without doing so. First in stating that he is an orthodox economist, which he is not, second in saying that the then high cost of living was due to lack of labor, when there were millions of men out of work.
You couldn't have done much better in two sentences if you were out for a record in the falsification. Protocol No. 8, second [paragraph]:
We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form, etc. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers,
? industrialists, capitalists and the main thing, millionaires, because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures.
Is it possible to arouse any interest in verbal precision? Is it possible to persuade more than six or eight people to consider the scope of crossword puzzles and other devices for looking at words for something that is NOT their meaning? 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.
