Looking to a possible place in your misty climate, some place in your Constable's typical landscrapes, Devon or Darset, or Norfolk, or the English race and
traditions
to continue.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
If I go on poundin' from day to day, every day and in every way, I will finally teach you kids why you got drug into this war (if you survive it), and when you know that you will know more than your fathers did by the end of the last one, that is, more than most of 'em ever discovered.
And I got to go back, and go over and over the same little table of facts, same little table puttin' the dates on 'em clearly. And this war started in 1696, or say '94, when Mr. Paterson got the idea for the Bank of England. That is a scheme for gettin' rich, scheme whereby a few men were to get rich without workin', and by defraudin' the general public.
"Bank hath interest on all the moneys which it creates out of nothin'. " All right, that was just before 1700. And what did it lead to:
SUPPRESSION of the Pennsylvania colony money, sort of Gesellite money, which had brung abundance to Pennsylvania, and the dirty old skunks in London shut down on that money and on other colonial money. And THAT is NOT in the school books, and that OUGHT to have been in all the public school textbooks for the past 150 years, and that is what kids ought to be learning about American history by the time they are 12 years old.
And after that shut down, and several other mean devilments that you ARE told about, unless the like of Lenin and Company has excluded
? ALL American history from the kosher districts of Brooklyn and parts adjacent. Bank of England suppression of Pennsylvania colony money. Then came the Revolution. Patrick Henry, George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, with Mr. Jefferson writin' the trimmin's, and some of his best ideas bein' deleted.
When I was a kid in school, and still worse when I got to the University, we were told about Paul Revere, and General Gates, and the rest of it, but we were NOT told about the Bank of England, and the Pennsylvania colony money, and we were told very little about John Adams. Well, Cornwallis surrendered and the Americans set up a government and no sooner had they won that Revolution than muckers began to undermine it. I believe Mr. Claude Bowers has said a word or two about "assumption. " Meanin' the scandal whereby some financiers and their left fins in Congress lit out to defraud the war veterans. In fact, war veterans are the special and habitual prey of one kind of swindler, specialize in swindlin' veterans of the wars, do some kinds of swindlers.
Well maybe that ought to have led to syndical representation. Well it couldn't have, because there had just been ONE revolution, and the United States of America was a century or more ahead of any other government on this earth in its ideology, in its principles; it was by God the best government system that the occident had up till then thought of and thought out, despite its flaws and deficiencies.
And they were inside particular men, NOT in the concept of government and that WAS the American heritage. Merely some shysters, a pink- haired half-breed named Hamilton, and some natural born sons of cheats in the Congress--Page, ole pop Schuyler, and 30 of the people's so called representatives. Representin' themselves, and the people's vices.
Well, that is in one way a parenthesis, and then Jefferson and Jim Madison compromised to git the national capitol transferred to the banks of the river Potomac. God bless 'em. I thought for a while they hadn't
? ought to have done that. Well, they were good men, far above human average, and they were right in at least one way. In those days it meant getting the government quite a few hours off and AWAY from the Banks of New York. But Lawdy! And John Adams was lackin' in tact. Or mebbe he was just strong in a confidence that the human mind can LEARN from experience. At any rate, he lived to see little Johnnie, Mr. John Quincy Adams, elected President, and he, old John said with great foresight, if you git in you will stay just 4 years, like I did. They will NOT reelect you.
Well, John Quincy was in some ways a communist. Wanted national ownership of most of the national land. Wanted the proceeds to go to education (includin', gil drat it, astronomy). Wrote a treatise on weights and measures INSTEAD of havin' the sense of Cleopatra and occupyin' his time with the question of MONEY. That was his error, that is one of his errors. But no slouch, and could swim the Potomac until quite late in his human career. I hear he could plow a straight furrow. I don't mean metaphorical, I mean with a plowshare.
Well, that is in some ways parenthesis. But it helps to understand how we got here. How we got into this war. One hundred and more years later.
However, to keep the main line: 1700, 1750, and the American Revolution betrayed by Hamilton, as far as he could, restored by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, upheld by the Adamses. And then came the next fight. NOT stressed in the American school boy's school books. The WAR of Biddle and his God damn bank against the American people. A war WON by the American people, duce Mr. Jackson, with Van Buren assistin', and that friendship is the second great friendship in our history. John Adams and Jefferson. Jackson and Martin van Buren. And there had been Jefferson and his circle, and the tradition of those men WAS the American heritage.
? And then come the Civil War. And the assassination of Lincoln. And that war was SAID to be about slavery. And the American school boy's school book says very little about the effects of DEBT. Debts of the Southern States to the bankers of New York City. And if Calhoun's name is still in the textbooks, his most significant words do NOT receive emphasis, not enough emphasis.
Both sides upholdin' an evil. South wantin' to keep chattel slavery. And the North wantin' something CHEAPER than slavery. Talkin' pious, but knowin', that is a great part of 'em, number of the worst of 'em sniggerin' that hired labor is cheaper than slave labor. And you don't really have to feed your employees. Whereas if your stock is in slaves, you damn well got to feed 'em. Rothschild, John Sherman, Ikieheimer, Morton, and Vandergould. Just put your mind on those dynasties. Just remember those family names, which WERE NOT the names of the men who freed us from the shysters of London, Ikieheimer, and Vandergould, and John Sherman and Rothschild.
That's what Bismarck was referrin' to, in his remarks about responsibility. And why did that war last SO LONg? Well, you can all of you look into that question. It is discussable, it is highly discussable. But the outcome was the shootin' of Lincoln. And the END of publicity, for Lincoln's idea, Lincoln's idea about money. Which was holy verity, and the health of the people. And gave to the people of this republic the greatest blessin' they ever had, their own paper to pay their own debts.
You boys will have to live a long time, and fight like hell and fight somethin' nearer home than the Philippines to get it. You will have to fight nearer home than kangaroo country to GET back to that blessin', and I suggest you start fightin' tomorrow mornin' if not now at once, when I get to the end of this discourse.
Greatest blessin' they ever had. Own paper to pay their own debts. When I think of the INTEREST you boys will be asked to pay, a thousand
? BILLION dollars of debt if you don't git busy and BUST the debt system, Jew system, Rothschild and Morgenthau ANTI-Lincoln system. Well, my heart, does it bleed for my country? I would rather have my head work for my country.
If you can't, or won't think of the cause of your misery and of this conducement to the slavery of your children for ten generations, God help you.
You are in for billions of DEBT, and you have NOT got your own paper to pay for it. You, most of you, haven't the groggiest idea what Lincoln was sayin'. You don't know what he meant by it. Sheer ignorance of coin, credit, and circulation, said John Adams 80 years before Lincoln.
Ignorance, and of course GREED. Greed is your ruin. The lust of evil means to git labor for next to nothin'. Lust of the planter to get African labor and when that showed signs of not payin' ENOUGH, the lust of the North to get in immigrants, with NO regard to the national welfare, no regard to the RACE. No regard to keepin' the human breed high. Just blind greed, blind haste to get in as much cheap labor as possible. NOT noticin', my God--how many people did NOT! --the quick one Sherman and Rothschild put over. The whole government of' the United States of America handed OVER lock, barrel and stock, to a gang of kike bankers in 1863, several sub-kikes assistin'.
'We can not permit the circulation of greenback, because we can not control them. " Can not, that is, OWN the nation, BUY the public officials, bleed the whole population.
Well, there is no ambiguity about the Hazard circular and none about the correspondence between Ikleheimer and Rothschild. And until you learn it and its meaning, till you learn the bearin' and depth of every word I am tellin' you, you will be more IGNORANT than the American President, even if you do think yourselves more level-headed.
? Ezra Pound at the microphone. Why did you get into this war?
Of course I can't examine you. But you stick 'round and listen, and maybe in time I will teach you some history.
You ought not to be in the war.
#46 (June 14, 1942) U. K. (B32) THE BRITISH IMPERIUM
Savin' the British Empire is not my job. Time was when I sweat a bit thinkin' of how one could save England. I have no objection to conservin' the English race. I belong to one part of it.
That don't make me believe it ought to be an infamy or a world- nuisance. Bein' an all-fired persistent nuisance is perhaps NOT the road to self-preservation. And bookish men are proverbially led astray by analogies. Allus pickin' the wrong analogy or doin' their pickin' too late.
The way for England to have conserved quite [a] bit of her cushiness was I believed, and I still believe it, WAS by honest economic reform. By saving the people of England inside England. The baronial halls, etc. could have persisted for decades. PLENTY was possible. Plenty was CRYING to come into being.
Honest Englishmen after the last war were fed on sawdust. They wanted to work, they tried farming in Anglo-African colonies. They tried chicken raising in England. Someone of 'em wanted to increase England's farm output. There was finally a book, Famine in England, by Lord Lymington. There was 20 year's work by five hundred honest men ALL wantin' to save old England, by 50 thousand, by more honest men. Was all of it wasted? No, damn it, all of it was not wasted, but its yield is not yet. And the ruin of most of it is due to the liars. Has ANYone in
? England studied England's problem as Hitler studied the German's problem before and after the last war? NOT bein' led astray by analogies, but not blind to analogies. The analogy that most hits one in the eye NOW, if one is outside the uncharmed circle of your press--that is your smoke screen--is the analogy of England and of Austria as she was in her dying years.
You have three races on one hitherto privileged Island. The Irish you never swallowed, any more than the Germans of Last mark [? ] swallowed the Magyars.
Hitler's sanity shows in his perception of the difference of races inside the Austrian conglomerate. No, not conglomerate. Inside the Austrian stuck together, glued together, tied together with stray string dynastic contraption.
I don't want to waste time in retrospect. You are NOW dreaming of an Anschluss. Anschluss with America. The analogy is superficial. Your conglomerate of Scotch, Welsh, and English was and is fairly solid. It has been there for centuries. You have never crushed out the Welsh language, but the nationalism in those two races has not been political in times known to living men's memory, or their father's.
The Scotch like their own superiority: "Been to London, 'ave seen few Englishmen. Waal ye see I was seem' maistly heads of deepartments. " Aye, see what do you think of the English? Seen none.
The Welsh have dug out your coal and given you singularly little trouble for centuries. They make a queer noise at the Eidstedfod, and what does London care or think of them otherwise?
You were not and are not as was Austria on the eve of an internal bust up. Oh yes, there were and ARE sorrows in common, but not that particular trouble. As to Anschluss, all the sentiment toward an Anschluss was external. NO ten million Englishmen, ten million
? RACIALLY English sat in Rural England feeling a nostalgic longing for union with the GREAT main body of their own race, living on the other side of an immediate frontier.
Any Anglo-Saxon or English race nostalgia that there ever was, was from the descendants of American Tories, negligible in American politics, expressed in a few sketches by Kipling and Henry James [which] rather lit up, [as] Henry James did, some of the dangers of trying American, Anglo American nostalgia on the unblushing non-emigrants of the mother land.
The American colonies rebelled, they were not lost in dynastic squabbles. The United States is NOT a collection of folk of homogenous race in process of coalition, as was Germany, Bismarckian and postBismarckian Germany.
You now propose to Anschluss with the melting pot? Or do you propose merely to drop into the melting pot? Blindfold? I have met Englanders who have NO SUCH ambition. Indeed, I have known Englanders who I believe would find the very suggestion unwelcome. It is against your historic process. But a dirty part of your process has always been calling in savages. You did it in the case of the Red Skins against the colonists. You are doing it now, and HOW, with the bloody Russians.
Your habit of using mercenary troops may be petering out. CAN you save the English race by persistin' in your worst and most disastrous habits? Do you think the Yanks are just one more set of barbarians to be hurled against the older, more cultured [peoples? ] ? THAT analogy will be FAR more accessible to the man in the London street, real or faked, real or entrapped by the B. B. C. microphone when he looks ready to sign on the dotted answer.
"Oh you will come in and HELP us," not merely one Englishman or women said that to me. What the . . . ahem . . .
? Which leads me to considerin' your favorite pastime or parlor game for dark evenings. Your pastime of "after the war," or what will we do with and TO Europe, devastated by the Russian scourge?
In contrast to which lunacy, I still conserve one or two memories. I still think there must be a little sanity in England and some capacity to look ahead with greater clarity, meaning modesty, in this case: meaning modesty.
Looking to a possible place in your misty climate, some place in your Constable's typical landscrapes, Devon or Darset, or Norfolk, or the English race and traditions to continue. YOU will NOT get it by usury. You will not get it either by imposing the League of Nations, alias the system of lending money at interest. Or BY accepting that system, when the boots on the other foot, i. e. , when you are at the borrowing end of the swindle.
Usury never yet saved ANY race. And you have NO great solid racial block with whom you can Anschluss. Your dominions look far more like falling under the usury-yoke of a conglomerate NON-English people.
If any man among you is RACIALLY thinking, he will see that there are two problems or rather that race conservation presents TWO or more possible tactics. EITHER reconstitute the RACE, the English, or the Anglo-Scotch, Anglo-Welsh, hardly figures. Neither is the extension over all the Island of Britain. The best probable approach toward a strong solution: you can either HOPE to reconstitute the RACE in England or you can divagate into wondering what can or could be done to reconstitute the race in Canada, the United States, or elsewhere.
Hitherto the best United States thought has not been racial. The majority, 99. 9%, of the serious thought in both England and America has been economic. And it has NOT brought reform into being. We may have been ALL of us wrong, except Lothrop Stoddard, and a half dozen writers: better known abroad than in either England or in America.
? Let your Brain Trust (or monopoly) speak on this question.
CAN you save your own race? Which is my race, though you may not like that phase of the problem? Or are you determined to bring that race to an end? For POLITICAL reasons? Or for reasons of finance, which have replaced the reason of STATE in so many of England's transactions? Such as futile atrocities, intended merely to stir hate, and impell the rest of the world to WANT your dire combustion. What in heaven's name IS back of your policy?
Have you got to that state where your vices are your dearest possessions? Meaning the END of your paideuma, the end not only of your imperial mandate but of your race consciousness, your race conviction. Brutality, perfidy, and pugnacity [are] all primitive instincts, but NOT enough for survival. Must be something more IN a race than those three instincts. Pugnacity, great asset in war, when NOT coupled with a superlative talent for being misled, which some people think you now show in a degree quite superlative; quite, almost astonishing to the outer spectator.
I hear the Times once printed Mein Kampf in installments. 'ow remarkable. Of course God knows HOW it was translated. But out of the mouths of your opponents you might someday learn something. From your opponents instead of putting up with stucco busts of Nicolai Ulianov Ilitch, etc. If you would look back to the old murderer's installments, and read what Hitler thought of the DlSgermanization of Austria. It might be good for what ails you.
I don't mean you need to be "converted to Hitlerism," I mean you might one day want to know how Hitler has done what he has done. Just as for a century you have been mildly interested in Bonaparte Napoleon. A CORSICAN. And from your point of view a foreigner. No longer known to mankind as the Corsican ogre. Hitler was worried by the DlSgermanization of Austria. Have you yet found an English LEADER
? who is sufficiently worried by the disEnglish-ation of England? Clumsy word. If I say deanglicization, someone will misunderstand it, and think I am gettin' religious.
Will you realize that if there weren't something IN Italy a damn sight better than you have ever dreamed of existing here, or been willing to admit COULD exist here, I would be writing these things in jail on waste paper, instead of tellin' 'em to the world via Rome Radio? And I do not mean a spirit of compromise. There was a time, 25 years long, when Europe would have welcomed COLLABORATION. There still is an INTEREST in the true answer, which is NOT YOUR answer, it is not an answer with England king-of-the-castle. But there are men who will not leave the English race even a place ON its own island. Those men are neither in Italy nor Germany.
I don't MIND an Anglo-American hookup if you hook up with the RIGHT kind of America. I should dislike seein' England, a mere provocative bridgehead, a Czechoslovakia financed from abroad to run Vickers gun works and bring on six or either other wars. Would it not be, in any case, GEOpolitic? After all, there is the shape of five continents to consider and the sea-space between the two hemispheres.
And one more factor: every German knows that he fights for Bismarck, for the work of Bismarck, every Italian knows that he fights for the work of Cavour, of Crispi, and Ricasoli.
But every American with a knowledge of his own history, possibly a MINORITY, but still a segment not wholly negligible, I repeat: every American with any sort of grasp of the glory of American history, knows that he is NOT in this war for the work of Adams and Jefferson, of Van Buren and Lincoln. Not yesterday that was written:
. . . try to drag us into their real or supposed coalitions.
? For my part thought that Americans had been embroiled in European wars long enough, easy to see that France and England will be constantly at manoeuvre to work us into their real or imaginary balances.
John Adams
Ezra Pound speaking.
The Americans are unqualified for intervention, they are DISqualified by reason for their intense, abysmal, unfathomable IGNORANCE of the state and past facts of Europe. Even my colleagues in the Academy of Social and Political Science have no competent perception of the DIFFERENCE, the basic difference between the American problem and that of Europe. And most of them have not made any adequate use of even such fragmentary fragments of knowledge as they possess.
#47 (June 15, 1942) U. S. (B58) VIOLENCE
I have been looking over a careful study of America by a careful writer, it is not an edition deluxe and the photo reproductions are not pretty. Some of them deal with gangsters, and gangsters' ends. There are also a few Negroes suspended from trees, without apparently due trial by law.
There are also photos of Mexican pyramids. The traveler was quite impartial, he recorded whatever he saw, or the parts that aroused his interest.
The book leads me to reflections on violence. American lynch law had its origins in the Jewish ruin of the American South. It is very hard to explain lynch law to Europeans.
The Ku Klux once had a reason. Today the survival of lynch law appears, at least from Europe, to be a sheer manifestation of
? COWARDICE. It is an expression of course of brutality. But the European sees nothing distinguished in a mob of a thousand men, chasing one man. It does not find lynch law heroic.
Neither does he find British treatment of Italian prisoners a convincing proof of British honesty or civility or of military capacity. All that will in time go into history.
What I am trying to work out in my head is WHY American violence always takes such a monotonous form. Perhaps Clemenceau found the answer in what he alleged to be the American incapacity for ideas.
You would think with all that anarchy and violence and contempt for everything, that political violence might be possible in America, yet it apparently is not.
I am asking, I don't know the answer, does anyone in the audience, in visible audience, know the answer? You lynch the Negro, you glory in the manhunt, but you are incapable of political violence. But the degraded Finkelstein, coward and accomplice of murderers, accomplice of the men responsible for the labor conditions on the Stalin canal, put such utter swine in an official position, and Americans at once become little Lord Fauntleroy.
The British poisoners have become sacred persons. The 5,000 members of a wholly corrupt secret government get diplomatic passports and all is suave and serene. Perhaps some of our college psychologists will explain it.
The American has the head, evidently of a chicken, he is incapable of political revery.
The existence of a secret and IRRESPONSIBLE government does not worry him. It has been there at least since 1863 and he takes it as a matter of course. It gets worse daily and hourly.
? All the means of intercommunication pass into the hands of the secret and largely Semitic control; and the American dreams of Thoreau and says, "who am I to interfere in such muchness? "
The Stalin Canal is a matter of psychological interest. The British treatment of Italian prisoners is a matter of pathological interest. But unfortunately I arrive at these points after the fact. The historian's job is not soothing. One would rather have used preventive measures. I, quite honestly, don't see what more I could have done to prevent this unholy shindy. I have tried, I think fairly, to diminish my personal ignorance. I have only two eyes, and not very good for readin'.
No one can accuse me of not trying to communicate what I knew, what I have known, during the past 20 years, often with tactless insistency, often when I might have gained official approval by not sayin' it quite so soon. History shows us certain recurrin' phenomena. Goin' back to Philippe le Beau or before that in Europe, going back to the days of King Wen, and before that.
I have done what I could to give some of these facts--what seemed to me significant facts--some publicity, as far as was in my means.
As to Churchill betrayin' England and the people of England, I don't know how far the boosy old hog knows what he is doing. I should lay a bet, and quite heavy, that Mr. Churchill was picked and put into the place he could do the most dirtiness exactly because he is an obstinate fool. A fool possessing almost unsurpassable cleverness in appealing to what is most utterly damned rotten, brutal, and stupid in the worst type of Englander. Just as I think other idiots and pathological specimens are often picked for a set job of wreckin'. I don't want to descend into vague general statements. When I was in England in November '38 a good soldier told me: We will lose India, we will lose all our Eastern possessions. Meanin' IF England goes into war. A Naval man told me how rotten material was bein' put into British submarines, or at any rate
? he was tellin' it to company at a lunch table where I was present. I heard it stated, with perfect truth, that the profit system was so rotten and stupid that no matter WHAT they spent, no matter how many millions sterling was spent, the British industrial system could NOT deliver the goods. That bein' so I consider that England has suffered treason, low treason, high treason, red, green, pink, purple treason. And that Eddie may have felt it was comin', at any rate he hadn't the backbone to stick it [out]. And the traitors were afraid that he might balk at the last moment and refuse to sign on the dotted line, for mobilization.
Well, that is guesswork. I don't know that the little shrimp was much fit for his job. But as to the betrayal of England, Mr. Churchill has at least some responsibility. But knowing EXACTLY what kind of an obstinate idiot he is, the men who put him into the Premiership have MORE responsibility. Concerning which the English have as yet shown no EFFECTIVE curiosity.
Well, you are their allies, and the allies of the Stalin canalites. Now what causes that? Press lies in part are responsible. Who HIRED the press lies? Are you, NONE of you, even amateur sleuths? Are all your Ellery Queens and Van Dines on cheap fiction paper? Is there NO Yankee curiosity left? Is New England (according to birth statistics) to be populated only by bohunks at the end of the next 60 years?
Razza, race? Is the ruck end of the old colonial stock so hog stupid, so sterile, so stubborn that NONE of 'em have the sense to raise the race issue? That none of 'em have an even polite parlor interest in enquirin' even the ouija board or the whist table whether the American colonial race shall survive?
Kipling said it: he said the Americans obligingly slaughtered each other during the Civil War, so that the Czechoslovaks could inherit Boston Common. Well, what causes that?
? Is it too late to inquire, is inquiry become impolite and unYankee? And what races coalesce or amalgamate? What races can dwell together without constantly inciting other races to start fraternal slaughter, and civil assassination?
The Welsh didn't spend 800 years trying to get English and Scotch to murder each other. The Irish refused to forget their race for hundreds of years, but they weren't continually fomenting internal warfare in England, no third race was at the bottom of even the Wars of the Roses. English, Scotch, Irish and few minorities made the American colonies. Germans, and Italians came in without causing civil slaughter. If the American intelligentzia ever THOUGHT about anything, these facts would enter the mental range.
[The] point I took up the other night might do with an emphasis. Also my curiosity; WHY does the intelligent American, the bright lad who CAN write, but doesn't, why does such a man take it as a matter of course that to earn his living he has to hide his intelligence and work for some blob-headed vulgarian SLOB?
Whence comes this superstition that the worst pays and the better doesn't and that the BEST is impossible; that America has NO place at all for the best, despite the American instinct [of] knowin' the best, and insistin' on having it, the minute they are in position to get it? No other race on earth [is] so almost fanatical on wantin' maximum, up to what they know. And then the refinement, the flair in some of these Americans who get over to Europe. Of course they may be exceptions, but I have known cases, I don't mean persons of genius, but people of moderate mental energy, and with that funny little flair for the best. How do you figure along with this, the acceptance of being bossed by pigheads, by almost inhuman objects; the equivalents of Litvinovs and Maiskys at the head of big industry, big radio corporations, the [whores? ] of the Hollywood ghetto? What is there in the ruck end of the American era that makes Americans stand it?
? Have they all been bred down into halfbreed and quarterbreeds? I ask you, I don't quite make it out. Doth avarice make cowards of them all?
As for their opposite numbers in Britain. They aren't quite opposite as against Americans working for blob headed kikes on your radio. England has naught quite similar, they have refinement. Perfect Alice in Wonderland, perfectly poisonous, but refined and unconscious. I don't suppose you take it very seriously either. I have always told you the Atlantic and Nation were festers, spoon fed from the nectar of England.
I daresay you can't see that. Well, get some of British equivalents, say by New Statesman and Nation. ALICE in Wonderland. G. D. H. Cole. As long as a printin' press functions in London, those blokes will go on gettin' 25 dollars an article: doing IMAGINARY geometry. Imaginary futures for the land that never was and never will be. Schizophrenia. Alice in Wonderland, Little Lord Fauntleroy, private worlds, in the gook house sense of these words. Over Hell's Kitchen. It is perhaps time for young Americans to start reading the classics, Plutarch, or Cicero against Verres.
#48 (June 19, 1942) U. S. (B59) THE FALLEN GENTLEMAN (IL SIGNOR DECADUTO)
Among my American memories is that of the fallen gent in shabby overcoat selling lead pencils in a Washington soda bar. Wishing to get something, other than Senatorial and Congressional views, on the results of the nude eel and subsequent American cataclysms in the year 1939, in fact about cherry time, I inquired of him (rather than of the wristwatch- swallowing ostrich) what HE thought of it all, and got the indubitably uncontrovertible reply: "AHG, we're all mixed UP, this gennerrrrashun! " That undoubtedly represented the real man in (or at that moment very slightly and momentarily removed from) the street, as contrasted with the B. B. C. hand-picked specimens.
? And any man's clarity must start inside his own head. I therefore propose to put my own ideas in order, and to communicate that order in the hope that it assists the hearer in finding out where he or she is.
And I got to go back, and go over and over the same little table of facts, same little table puttin' the dates on 'em clearly. And this war started in 1696, or say '94, when Mr. Paterson got the idea for the Bank of England. That is a scheme for gettin' rich, scheme whereby a few men were to get rich without workin', and by defraudin' the general public.
"Bank hath interest on all the moneys which it creates out of nothin'. " All right, that was just before 1700. And what did it lead to:
SUPPRESSION of the Pennsylvania colony money, sort of Gesellite money, which had brung abundance to Pennsylvania, and the dirty old skunks in London shut down on that money and on other colonial money. And THAT is NOT in the school books, and that OUGHT to have been in all the public school textbooks for the past 150 years, and that is what kids ought to be learning about American history by the time they are 12 years old.
And after that shut down, and several other mean devilments that you ARE told about, unless the like of Lenin and Company has excluded
? ALL American history from the kosher districts of Brooklyn and parts adjacent. Bank of England suppression of Pennsylvania colony money. Then came the Revolution. Patrick Henry, George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, with Mr. Jefferson writin' the trimmin's, and some of his best ideas bein' deleted.
When I was a kid in school, and still worse when I got to the University, we were told about Paul Revere, and General Gates, and the rest of it, but we were NOT told about the Bank of England, and the Pennsylvania colony money, and we were told very little about John Adams. Well, Cornwallis surrendered and the Americans set up a government and no sooner had they won that Revolution than muckers began to undermine it. I believe Mr. Claude Bowers has said a word or two about "assumption. " Meanin' the scandal whereby some financiers and their left fins in Congress lit out to defraud the war veterans. In fact, war veterans are the special and habitual prey of one kind of swindler, specialize in swindlin' veterans of the wars, do some kinds of swindlers.
Well maybe that ought to have led to syndical representation. Well it couldn't have, because there had just been ONE revolution, and the United States of America was a century or more ahead of any other government on this earth in its ideology, in its principles; it was by God the best government system that the occident had up till then thought of and thought out, despite its flaws and deficiencies.
And they were inside particular men, NOT in the concept of government and that WAS the American heritage. Merely some shysters, a pink- haired half-breed named Hamilton, and some natural born sons of cheats in the Congress--Page, ole pop Schuyler, and 30 of the people's so called representatives. Representin' themselves, and the people's vices.
Well, that is in one way a parenthesis, and then Jefferson and Jim Madison compromised to git the national capitol transferred to the banks of the river Potomac. God bless 'em. I thought for a while they hadn't
? ought to have done that. Well, they were good men, far above human average, and they were right in at least one way. In those days it meant getting the government quite a few hours off and AWAY from the Banks of New York. But Lawdy! And John Adams was lackin' in tact. Or mebbe he was just strong in a confidence that the human mind can LEARN from experience. At any rate, he lived to see little Johnnie, Mr. John Quincy Adams, elected President, and he, old John said with great foresight, if you git in you will stay just 4 years, like I did. They will NOT reelect you.
Well, John Quincy was in some ways a communist. Wanted national ownership of most of the national land. Wanted the proceeds to go to education (includin', gil drat it, astronomy). Wrote a treatise on weights and measures INSTEAD of havin' the sense of Cleopatra and occupyin' his time with the question of MONEY. That was his error, that is one of his errors. But no slouch, and could swim the Potomac until quite late in his human career. I hear he could plow a straight furrow. I don't mean metaphorical, I mean with a plowshare.
Well, that is in some ways parenthesis. But it helps to understand how we got here. How we got into this war. One hundred and more years later.
However, to keep the main line: 1700, 1750, and the American Revolution betrayed by Hamilton, as far as he could, restored by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, upheld by the Adamses. And then came the next fight. NOT stressed in the American school boy's school books. The WAR of Biddle and his God damn bank against the American people. A war WON by the American people, duce Mr. Jackson, with Van Buren assistin', and that friendship is the second great friendship in our history. John Adams and Jefferson. Jackson and Martin van Buren. And there had been Jefferson and his circle, and the tradition of those men WAS the American heritage.
? And then come the Civil War. And the assassination of Lincoln. And that war was SAID to be about slavery. And the American school boy's school book says very little about the effects of DEBT. Debts of the Southern States to the bankers of New York City. And if Calhoun's name is still in the textbooks, his most significant words do NOT receive emphasis, not enough emphasis.
Both sides upholdin' an evil. South wantin' to keep chattel slavery. And the North wantin' something CHEAPER than slavery. Talkin' pious, but knowin', that is a great part of 'em, number of the worst of 'em sniggerin' that hired labor is cheaper than slave labor. And you don't really have to feed your employees. Whereas if your stock is in slaves, you damn well got to feed 'em. Rothschild, John Sherman, Ikieheimer, Morton, and Vandergould. Just put your mind on those dynasties. Just remember those family names, which WERE NOT the names of the men who freed us from the shysters of London, Ikieheimer, and Vandergould, and John Sherman and Rothschild.
That's what Bismarck was referrin' to, in his remarks about responsibility. And why did that war last SO LONg? Well, you can all of you look into that question. It is discussable, it is highly discussable. But the outcome was the shootin' of Lincoln. And the END of publicity, for Lincoln's idea, Lincoln's idea about money. Which was holy verity, and the health of the people. And gave to the people of this republic the greatest blessin' they ever had, their own paper to pay their own debts.
You boys will have to live a long time, and fight like hell and fight somethin' nearer home than the Philippines to get it. You will have to fight nearer home than kangaroo country to GET back to that blessin', and I suggest you start fightin' tomorrow mornin' if not now at once, when I get to the end of this discourse.
Greatest blessin' they ever had. Own paper to pay their own debts. When I think of the INTEREST you boys will be asked to pay, a thousand
? BILLION dollars of debt if you don't git busy and BUST the debt system, Jew system, Rothschild and Morgenthau ANTI-Lincoln system. Well, my heart, does it bleed for my country? I would rather have my head work for my country.
If you can't, or won't think of the cause of your misery and of this conducement to the slavery of your children for ten generations, God help you.
You are in for billions of DEBT, and you have NOT got your own paper to pay for it. You, most of you, haven't the groggiest idea what Lincoln was sayin'. You don't know what he meant by it. Sheer ignorance of coin, credit, and circulation, said John Adams 80 years before Lincoln.
Ignorance, and of course GREED. Greed is your ruin. The lust of evil means to git labor for next to nothin'. Lust of the planter to get African labor and when that showed signs of not payin' ENOUGH, the lust of the North to get in immigrants, with NO regard to the national welfare, no regard to the RACE. No regard to keepin' the human breed high. Just blind greed, blind haste to get in as much cheap labor as possible. NOT noticin', my God--how many people did NOT! --the quick one Sherman and Rothschild put over. The whole government of' the United States of America handed OVER lock, barrel and stock, to a gang of kike bankers in 1863, several sub-kikes assistin'.
'We can not permit the circulation of greenback, because we can not control them. " Can not, that is, OWN the nation, BUY the public officials, bleed the whole population.
Well, there is no ambiguity about the Hazard circular and none about the correspondence between Ikleheimer and Rothschild. And until you learn it and its meaning, till you learn the bearin' and depth of every word I am tellin' you, you will be more IGNORANT than the American President, even if you do think yourselves more level-headed.
? Ezra Pound at the microphone. Why did you get into this war?
Of course I can't examine you. But you stick 'round and listen, and maybe in time I will teach you some history.
You ought not to be in the war.
#46 (June 14, 1942) U. K. (B32) THE BRITISH IMPERIUM
Savin' the British Empire is not my job. Time was when I sweat a bit thinkin' of how one could save England. I have no objection to conservin' the English race. I belong to one part of it.
That don't make me believe it ought to be an infamy or a world- nuisance. Bein' an all-fired persistent nuisance is perhaps NOT the road to self-preservation. And bookish men are proverbially led astray by analogies. Allus pickin' the wrong analogy or doin' their pickin' too late.
The way for England to have conserved quite [a] bit of her cushiness was I believed, and I still believe it, WAS by honest economic reform. By saving the people of England inside England. The baronial halls, etc. could have persisted for decades. PLENTY was possible. Plenty was CRYING to come into being.
Honest Englishmen after the last war were fed on sawdust. They wanted to work, they tried farming in Anglo-African colonies. They tried chicken raising in England. Someone of 'em wanted to increase England's farm output. There was finally a book, Famine in England, by Lord Lymington. There was 20 year's work by five hundred honest men ALL wantin' to save old England, by 50 thousand, by more honest men. Was all of it wasted? No, damn it, all of it was not wasted, but its yield is not yet. And the ruin of most of it is due to the liars. Has ANYone in
? England studied England's problem as Hitler studied the German's problem before and after the last war? NOT bein' led astray by analogies, but not blind to analogies. The analogy that most hits one in the eye NOW, if one is outside the uncharmed circle of your press--that is your smoke screen--is the analogy of England and of Austria as she was in her dying years.
You have three races on one hitherto privileged Island. The Irish you never swallowed, any more than the Germans of Last mark [? ] swallowed the Magyars.
Hitler's sanity shows in his perception of the difference of races inside the Austrian conglomerate. No, not conglomerate. Inside the Austrian stuck together, glued together, tied together with stray string dynastic contraption.
I don't want to waste time in retrospect. You are NOW dreaming of an Anschluss. Anschluss with America. The analogy is superficial. Your conglomerate of Scotch, Welsh, and English was and is fairly solid. It has been there for centuries. You have never crushed out the Welsh language, but the nationalism in those two races has not been political in times known to living men's memory, or their father's.
The Scotch like their own superiority: "Been to London, 'ave seen few Englishmen. Waal ye see I was seem' maistly heads of deepartments. " Aye, see what do you think of the English? Seen none.
The Welsh have dug out your coal and given you singularly little trouble for centuries. They make a queer noise at the Eidstedfod, and what does London care or think of them otherwise?
You were not and are not as was Austria on the eve of an internal bust up. Oh yes, there were and ARE sorrows in common, but not that particular trouble. As to Anschluss, all the sentiment toward an Anschluss was external. NO ten million Englishmen, ten million
? RACIALLY English sat in Rural England feeling a nostalgic longing for union with the GREAT main body of their own race, living on the other side of an immediate frontier.
Any Anglo-Saxon or English race nostalgia that there ever was, was from the descendants of American Tories, negligible in American politics, expressed in a few sketches by Kipling and Henry James [which] rather lit up, [as] Henry James did, some of the dangers of trying American, Anglo American nostalgia on the unblushing non-emigrants of the mother land.
The American colonies rebelled, they were not lost in dynastic squabbles. The United States is NOT a collection of folk of homogenous race in process of coalition, as was Germany, Bismarckian and postBismarckian Germany.
You now propose to Anschluss with the melting pot? Or do you propose merely to drop into the melting pot? Blindfold? I have met Englanders who have NO SUCH ambition. Indeed, I have known Englanders who I believe would find the very suggestion unwelcome. It is against your historic process. But a dirty part of your process has always been calling in savages. You did it in the case of the Red Skins against the colonists. You are doing it now, and HOW, with the bloody Russians.
Your habit of using mercenary troops may be petering out. CAN you save the English race by persistin' in your worst and most disastrous habits? Do you think the Yanks are just one more set of barbarians to be hurled against the older, more cultured [peoples? ] ? THAT analogy will be FAR more accessible to the man in the London street, real or faked, real or entrapped by the B. B. C. microphone when he looks ready to sign on the dotted answer.
"Oh you will come in and HELP us," not merely one Englishman or women said that to me. What the . . . ahem . . .
? Which leads me to considerin' your favorite pastime or parlor game for dark evenings. Your pastime of "after the war," or what will we do with and TO Europe, devastated by the Russian scourge?
In contrast to which lunacy, I still conserve one or two memories. I still think there must be a little sanity in England and some capacity to look ahead with greater clarity, meaning modesty, in this case: meaning modesty.
Looking to a possible place in your misty climate, some place in your Constable's typical landscrapes, Devon or Darset, or Norfolk, or the English race and traditions to continue. YOU will NOT get it by usury. You will not get it either by imposing the League of Nations, alias the system of lending money at interest. Or BY accepting that system, when the boots on the other foot, i. e. , when you are at the borrowing end of the swindle.
Usury never yet saved ANY race. And you have NO great solid racial block with whom you can Anschluss. Your dominions look far more like falling under the usury-yoke of a conglomerate NON-English people.
If any man among you is RACIALLY thinking, he will see that there are two problems or rather that race conservation presents TWO or more possible tactics. EITHER reconstitute the RACE, the English, or the Anglo-Scotch, Anglo-Welsh, hardly figures. Neither is the extension over all the Island of Britain. The best probable approach toward a strong solution: you can either HOPE to reconstitute the RACE in England or you can divagate into wondering what can or could be done to reconstitute the race in Canada, the United States, or elsewhere.
Hitherto the best United States thought has not been racial. The majority, 99. 9%, of the serious thought in both England and America has been economic. And it has NOT brought reform into being. We may have been ALL of us wrong, except Lothrop Stoddard, and a half dozen writers: better known abroad than in either England or in America.
? Let your Brain Trust (or monopoly) speak on this question.
CAN you save your own race? Which is my race, though you may not like that phase of the problem? Or are you determined to bring that race to an end? For POLITICAL reasons? Or for reasons of finance, which have replaced the reason of STATE in so many of England's transactions? Such as futile atrocities, intended merely to stir hate, and impell the rest of the world to WANT your dire combustion. What in heaven's name IS back of your policy?
Have you got to that state where your vices are your dearest possessions? Meaning the END of your paideuma, the end not only of your imperial mandate but of your race consciousness, your race conviction. Brutality, perfidy, and pugnacity [are] all primitive instincts, but NOT enough for survival. Must be something more IN a race than those three instincts. Pugnacity, great asset in war, when NOT coupled with a superlative talent for being misled, which some people think you now show in a degree quite superlative; quite, almost astonishing to the outer spectator.
I hear the Times once printed Mein Kampf in installments. 'ow remarkable. Of course God knows HOW it was translated. But out of the mouths of your opponents you might someday learn something. From your opponents instead of putting up with stucco busts of Nicolai Ulianov Ilitch, etc. If you would look back to the old murderer's installments, and read what Hitler thought of the DlSgermanization of Austria. It might be good for what ails you.
I don't mean you need to be "converted to Hitlerism," I mean you might one day want to know how Hitler has done what he has done. Just as for a century you have been mildly interested in Bonaparte Napoleon. A CORSICAN. And from your point of view a foreigner. No longer known to mankind as the Corsican ogre. Hitler was worried by the DlSgermanization of Austria. Have you yet found an English LEADER
? who is sufficiently worried by the disEnglish-ation of England? Clumsy word. If I say deanglicization, someone will misunderstand it, and think I am gettin' religious.
Will you realize that if there weren't something IN Italy a damn sight better than you have ever dreamed of existing here, or been willing to admit COULD exist here, I would be writing these things in jail on waste paper, instead of tellin' 'em to the world via Rome Radio? And I do not mean a spirit of compromise. There was a time, 25 years long, when Europe would have welcomed COLLABORATION. There still is an INTEREST in the true answer, which is NOT YOUR answer, it is not an answer with England king-of-the-castle. But there are men who will not leave the English race even a place ON its own island. Those men are neither in Italy nor Germany.
I don't MIND an Anglo-American hookup if you hook up with the RIGHT kind of America. I should dislike seein' England, a mere provocative bridgehead, a Czechoslovakia financed from abroad to run Vickers gun works and bring on six or either other wars. Would it not be, in any case, GEOpolitic? After all, there is the shape of five continents to consider and the sea-space between the two hemispheres.
And one more factor: every German knows that he fights for Bismarck, for the work of Bismarck, every Italian knows that he fights for the work of Cavour, of Crispi, and Ricasoli.
But every American with a knowledge of his own history, possibly a MINORITY, but still a segment not wholly negligible, I repeat: every American with any sort of grasp of the glory of American history, knows that he is NOT in this war for the work of Adams and Jefferson, of Van Buren and Lincoln. Not yesterday that was written:
. . . try to drag us into their real or supposed coalitions.
? For my part thought that Americans had been embroiled in European wars long enough, easy to see that France and England will be constantly at manoeuvre to work us into their real or imaginary balances.
John Adams
Ezra Pound speaking.
The Americans are unqualified for intervention, they are DISqualified by reason for their intense, abysmal, unfathomable IGNORANCE of the state and past facts of Europe. Even my colleagues in the Academy of Social and Political Science have no competent perception of the DIFFERENCE, the basic difference between the American problem and that of Europe. And most of them have not made any adequate use of even such fragmentary fragments of knowledge as they possess.
#47 (June 15, 1942) U. S. (B58) VIOLENCE
I have been looking over a careful study of America by a careful writer, it is not an edition deluxe and the photo reproductions are not pretty. Some of them deal with gangsters, and gangsters' ends. There are also a few Negroes suspended from trees, without apparently due trial by law.
There are also photos of Mexican pyramids. The traveler was quite impartial, he recorded whatever he saw, or the parts that aroused his interest.
The book leads me to reflections on violence. American lynch law had its origins in the Jewish ruin of the American South. It is very hard to explain lynch law to Europeans.
The Ku Klux once had a reason. Today the survival of lynch law appears, at least from Europe, to be a sheer manifestation of
? COWARDICE. It is an expression of course of brutality. But the European sees nothing distinguished in a mob of a thousand men, chasing one man. It does not find lynch law heroic.
Neither does he find British treatment of Italian prisoners a convincing proof of British honesty or civility or of military capacity. All that will in time go into history.
What I am trying to work out in my head is WHY American violence always takes such a monotonous form. Perhaps Clemenceau found the answer in what he alleged to be the American incapacity for ideas.
You would think with all that anarchy and violence and contempt for everything, that political violence might be possible in America, yet it apparently is not.
I am asking, I don't know the answer, does anyone in the audience, in visible audience, know the answer? You lynch the Negro, you glory in the manhunt, but you are incapable of political violence. But the degraded Finkelstein, coward and accomplice of murderers, accomplice of the men responsible for the labor conditions on the Stalin canal, put such utter swine in an official position, and Americans at once become little Lord Fauntleroy.
The British poisoners have become sacred persons. The 5,000 members of a wholly corrupt secret government get diplomatic passports and all is suave and serene. Perhaps some of our college psychologists will explain it.
The American has the head, evidently of a chicken, he is incapable of political revery.
The existence of a secret and IRRESPONSIBLE government does not worry him. It has been there at least since 1863 and he takes it as a matter of course. It gets worse daily and hourly.
? All the means of intercommunication pass into the hands of the secret and largely Semitic control; and the American dreams of Thoreau and says, "who am I to interfere in such muchness? "
The Stalin Canal is a matter of psychological interest. The British treatment of Italian prisoners is a matter of pathological interest. But unfortunately I arrive at these points after the fact. The historian's job is not soothing. One would rather have used preventive measures. I, quite honestly, don't see what more I could have done to prevent this unholy shindy. I have tried, I think fairly, to diminish my personal ignorance. I have only two eyes, and not very good for readin'.
No one can accuse me of not trying to communicate what I knew, what I have known, during the past 20 years, often with tactless insistency, often when I might have gained official approval by not sayin' it quite so soon. History shows us certain recurrin' phenomena. Goin' back to Philippe le Beau or before that in Europe, going back to the days of King Wen, and before that.
I have done what I could to give some of these facts--what seemed to me significant facts--some publicity, as far as was in my means.
As to Churchill betrayin' England and the people of England, I don't know how far the boosy old hog knows what he is doing. I should lay a bet, and quite heavy, that Mr. Churchill was picked and put into the place he could do the most dirtiness exactly because he is an obstinate fool. A fool possessing almost unsurpassable cleverness in appealing to what is most utterly damned rotten, brutal, and stupid in the worst type of Englander. Just as I think other idiots and pathological specimens are often picked for a set job of wreckin'. I don't want to descend into vague general statements. When I was in England in November '38 a good soldier told me: We will lose India, we will lose all our Eastern possessions. Meanin' IF England goes into war. A Naval man told me how rotten material was bein' put into British submarines, or at any rate
? he was tellin' it to company at a lunch table where I was present. I heard it stated, with perfect truth, that the profit system was so rotten and stupid that no matter WHAT they spent, no matter how many millions sterling was spent, the British industrial system could NOT deliver the goods. That bein' so I consider that England has suffered treason, low treason, high treason, red, green, pink, purple treason. And that Eddie may have felt it was comin', at any rate he hadn't the backbone to stick it [out]. And the traitors were afraid that he might balk at the last moment and refuse to sign on the dotted line, for mobilization.
Well, that is guesswork. I don't know that the little shrimp was much fit for his job. But as to the betrayal of England, Mr. Churchill has at least some responsibility. But knowing EXACTLY what kind of an obstinate idiot he is, the men who put him into the Premiership have MORE responsibility. Concerning which the English have as yet shown no EFFECTIVE curiosity.
Well, you are their allies, and the allies of the Stalin canalites. Now what causes that? Press lies in part are responsible. Who HIRED the press lies? Are you, NONE of you, even amateur sleuths? Are all your Ellery Queens and Van Dines on cheap fiction paper? Is there NO Yankee curiosity left? Is New England (according to birth statistics) to be populated only by bohunks at the end of the next 60 years?
Razza, race? Is the ruck end of the old colonial stock so hog stupid, so sterile, so stubborn that NONE of 'em have the sense to raise the race issue? That none of 'em have an even polite parlor interest in enquirin' even the ouija board or the whist table whether the American colonial race shall survive?
Kipling said it: he said the Americans obligingly slaughtered each other during the Civil War, so that the Czechoslovaks could inherit Boston Common. Well, what causes that?
? Is it too late to inquire, is inquiry become impolite and unYankee? And what races coalesce or amalgamate? What races can dwell together without constantly inciting other races to start fraternal slaughter, and civil assassination?
The Welsh didn't spend 800 years trying to get English and Scotch to murder each other. The Irish refused to forget their race for hundreds of years, but they weren't continually fomenting internal warfare in England, no third race was at the bottom of even the Wars of the Roses. English, Scotch, Irish and few minorities made the American colonies. Germans, and Italians came in without causing civil slaughter. If the American intelligentzia ever THOUGHT about anything, these facts would enter the mental range.
[The] point I took up the other night might do with an emphasis. Also my curiosity; WHY does the intelligent American, the bright lad who CAN write, but doesn't, why does such a man take it as a matter of course that to earn his living he has to hide his intelligence and work for some blob-headed vulgarian SLOB?
Whence comes this superstition that the worst pays and the better doesn't and that the BEST is impossible; that America has NO place at all for the best, despite the American instinct [of] knowin' the best, and insistin' on having it, the minute they are in position to get it? No other race on earth [is] so almost fanatical on wantin' maximum, up to what they know. And then the refinement, the flair in some of these Americans who get over to Europe. Of course they may be exceptions, but I have known cases, I don't mean persons of genius, but people of moderate mental energy, and with that funny little flair for the best. How do you figure along with this, the acceptance of being bossed by pigheads, by almost inhuman objects; the equivalents of Litvinovs and Maiskys at the head of big industry, big radio corporations, the [whores? ] of the Hollywood ghetto? What is there in the ruck end of the American era that makes Americans stand it?
? Have they all been bred down into halfbreed and quarterbreeds? I ask you, I don't quite make it out. Doth avarice make cowards of them all?
As for their opposite numbers in Britain. They aren't quite opposite as against Americans working for blob headed kikes on your radio. England has naught quite similar, they have refinement. Perfect Alice in Wonderland, perfectly poisonous, but refined and unconscious. I don't suppose you take it very seriously either. I have always told you the Atlantic and Nation were festers, spoon fed from the nectar of England.
I daresay you can't see that. Well, get some of British equivalents, say by New Statesman and Nation. ALICE in Wonderland. G. D. H. Cole. As long as a printin' press functions in London, those blokes will go on gettin' 25 dollars an article: doing IMAGINARY geometry. Imaginary futures for the land that never was and never will be. Schizophrenia. Alice in Wonderland, Little Lord Fauntleroy, private worlds, in the gook house sense of these words. Over Hell's Kitchen. It is perhaps time for young Americans to start reading the classics, Plutarch, or Cicero against Verres.
#48 (June 19, 1942) U. S. (B59) THE FALLEN GENTLEMAN (IL SIGNOR DECADUTO)
Among my American memories is that of the fallen gent in shabby overcoat selling lead pencils in a Washington soda bar. Wishing to get something, other than Senatorial and Congressional views, on the results of the nude eel and subsequent American cataclysms in the year 1939, in fact about cherry time, I inquired of him (rather than of the wristwatch- swallowing ostrich) what HE thought of it all, and got the indubitably uncontrovertible reply: "AHG, we're all mixed UP, this gennerrrrashun! " That undoubtedly represented the real man in (or at that moment very slightly and momentarily removed from) the street, as contrasted with the B. B. C. hand-picked specimens.
? And any man's clarity must start inside his own head. I therefore propose to put my own ideas in order, and to communicate that order in the hope that it assists the hearer in finding out where he or she is.
