I told you that a line of poetry could be poetry, could be poetry even if it did not contain precisely ten
syllables
arranged in the order of ti tumti tum ti tum.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
I am not an expert in military affairs, but even the B.
B.
C.
wishful thinkers haven't yet made out a case for the enlightenment or divine guidance of the Anglo-Jewish command.
And the word COLLABORATION, world collaboration, as an alternative to tyranny by the incompetent has not yet found its place in Mr.
Wallace's vocabulary.
In fact, I don't think he is very clear in his own mind, on the subject, and of course if Baruch or some other American patriot hasn't explained it to Mr.
Wallace, I don't suppose Franklin has troubled to go into the matter.
I am not advocatin' return to the horse and buggy days of American economy, but even what they knew seems to have perished without your having joined with the present.
#64 (March 7, 1943) U. K. (C13) TOWARD VERACITY
My talk this evening is not controversial but narrativie, in fact recounted from personal experience. I note that when I first began to listen to radio --that is, after two friends determined to break down my antipathy to radio had planted, that is, given me a small sized medium wave apparatus, and then fled the village--I began and listened sometimes to London. When I began to speak over the air, I definitely tried to listen to London but with the passage of time I listen to London less. I listen to Berlin more. This is the fruit or result of experience. It has not been done by directing or forcing my will, it has resulted from inclination; and to explain that inclination I have found nothing better than a passage from the letters of J. B. Yeats, old man who used to be rather better known as Yeats' father, a painter, who used to talk with his models, that in fact was his method of studying anthropology. His models were not exceptional people; and his conclusion about talking with them was that he listened with inter'st not to remarkable sayings, and not to displays of unusual
? brilliance, but that the interesting talkers were those who were simply telling the truth.
And now in the year 1943 I find it almost impossible to listen to London. I stuck along a while with your social comedy, the unconscious humor of your Hirntrust, sogenannt, the tortuous meanderings of Mr. Laski, etc. But now I just wearily turn the button.
The monotony of your evasions breeds infinite boredom. Berlin by contrast is placid, as against your gallic hysteria. Patient but firm German voices go on explaining urbe et orbe just what the war is about, just why it started. They go on EDUcating their public, fact on fact, many of the facts can be found in your own best writers, that is approximately all the facts that existed before the war started can be found in your own best writers. The injustice of the Versailles Treaty, the history of Danzig, German since, I think it is 1300, no 1200, Capital of the Duchy of Pommern.
The unqualifiable swinishness of the yittisch position at the League of Nations, against Italy. The absence of malice on the part of Europe toward the British empire; e. g. , C. Del Croix marvelling at English opposition "but we don't want to do any harm to their empire. "
The undeniable horror of your own slums, in contrast to slum clearance under fascism and national socialism. All that, plus details of bonifica, of improvements, just price, and the homestead. Exposition, calm and patient, of ideas that every decent Englishman accepts, and that are, I repeat, to be found in the minority books printed in England, by two dozen authors, by two score authors of books, and two hundred writers of articles. BUT which are opposed to the lies which you all know to be lies; the frauds which you--most of you--know to be frauds that are upheld by your Jews, your monopolists, and your internal national enemies. And against which the best men in England had been protesting for 20 years. So much for the positive facts, and secondly your
? repressions, or suppressions, and the omission of vital topics, such as international jewry.
You preferred Jews to news. And you've got 'em. You were extremely obtuse in dying for Jewish interests. You have poisoned America, that was perhaps imprudent. You perhaps got in, or mobilized the wrong lot of cannon fodder, after centuries of success in stirring up or exploiting backward nations, hurling savages against the more civilized nations, you have perhaps mobilized the wrong set of roughnecks.
A minor point has been made recently, namely, that you have discovered that the U. S. A. is not wholly pro-English. You have discovered that the invading American troops in Ulster stem from a number of continental stocks, and are NOT all sighing romantically for the British homes of the ancestors. That much I have told you. In fact I did tell my rare and select readers several plain truths about Anglo-Yank relations. And it is now being slowly discovered in England and her dominions that the Yanks are more interested in their own interests than in yours. Your sentimental hold on the U. S. was confined to a Tory sect, and to sentimentalists. BUT among the English stock itself you had and have always had your most strenuous opponents, those who had the American tradition, something stronger than Jew propaganda.
Ah, but, you say, look at Wallace, look at this solidarity of the kindred races. And there you are mistaken. You exported Anglo-Israel. A body of doctrine, or superstition NOT taken seriously in your governing classes; but which can be found in England among housekeepers, nursemaids, people with weak minds, but some leisure, or rather hours of enforced solitude, have to stay IN, for hours when nothing very exciting offers [itself]. And they, even in England mug up these fantasies about the Stone of Scone, and the prophet Jeremiah. But what you fail to note is that it is the ISRAEL end, not the Anglo end of the curious compound that has hooked the American Vice-President and his similars.
? When Cromwell betrayed the British race, unintentionally perhaps, but at any rate, when he "had to speak to these men," the religious sectaries "in their own language," as he said by way of his excuse to his cousin Waller when he brought back the Jews, and when Bible reading became prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic, the way was prepared for curious fanaticisms, witch burnings, etc. And traces of religious mania, or vagrant fantasy are still found. Wallace's hallucinations come from Bible reading, not from being pro-English. And of course the U. S. is being had. The sanity of the 18th century is gettin' snowed under. And it is NOT the Jew that America loves.
It is merely the dialect of that curious King James translation that has perturbed the mind of the simple hearted Americans. In fact has wormed into the American popular mind for some time, though the effect has considerably waned in the more sophisticated American circles. Post- Christianity has set in, as one of your better writers has dubbed it. Of course the minute a man says he accepts the decalog and the crucifix simultaneously, he has got into a tangle. As was shown in Engand where the crucifix went by the board, about the time Cromwell was committin' mass [muder? ] in Ireland. Old Crumwell feedin' on powder an' ball as he appears in that touchin' ballad, "Blarney Castle; me darlint. "
You have been singularly unconscious of that undermining and of subsequent underminings. One of your writers who died a few years ago made gallant efforts to awaken you. Her novels were not widely read. She wrote one called "The Death of Felicity Taverner" that would pay you to read, as sociological study. Dear Mary's work rather distressed one at times things came out with such a raw edge on 'em, and the style was sometimes so jammed and elaborate. She presented a couple of South Afrikanders in another book, more raw than the general reader was used to. In Felicity Taverner she has gone under the surface. If your people were painted by Holbein (the Lady Butts) and if your Great Grandfather was a patron of Blake, you might conceivably want to preserve something that Lord Beaverbrook hadn't heard of, that the
? Daily Express wasn't all out to uphold. That is the crux of the Felicity Taverner novel. In England an heritage going back at least to the days of Holbein but NOT limited to that period, and inimical to that tradition, to the fine elegance of the older houses, to clarity of English air on the western seacoast. There is (in the novel and in reality), as I think you may wake [up] too late to perceive, there is another force working. Something not very open, something that you decline to take very seriously.
For 25 years to my knowledge there has been a difference of view, I mean among the serious minority, of the intelligentsia, as to how far the attack is conscious, how far it is part of a plan, premeditated. How far the evil is brought in by carriers. Unconscious agents, that bring an Anschauung, an attitude toward life, poisonous as the germs of bubonic plague, carried by animals who don't know they have got it.
Maiski of course KNOWS he has it. Litvinov has made no bones about having it. But it is not merely political, it is molecular or atomic. It destroys all scale and all sense of proportionate values. It calls to the basic laziness of the mind, the basic softness of human organism. It profanes. It soils, it is greasy and acid. It revolts all men who have any desire toward cleanliness. But it entangles the clean, it entangles them because of their inconsequentiality, their inability to see the connection between one thing and another. Facilis descensus.
The young are unheeding. Nothing is more tiresome than the moralist. Nothing more difficult for a profane author than to draw the line somewhere, or to persuade his reader that certain sloppiness of outlook can possibly have any consequence.
I make a tardy acknowledgement to Mary Butts, author of the Death of Felicity Taverner. I did not advertise the book during her lifetime. It may have arrived while I was busy, and I was not a reviewer; not specifically. I was concerned with very rare books that conformed to a certain canon.
? Your own press and your own native critics might have done more for it. They might start doing so now. Add it to the list of books and add its authoress to the list of writers who did something for England. Tried to maintain something English, in the face of something unclean. Who knew that there had been values, in England, values based on tradition. Values that no nation can root out from itself, or allow to be lost, without losing its place among nations.
There again, under the slightly too jeweled style, the interest of the narrator, rises from the narrator's veracity.
#65 (March 9, 1943) U. S. (C17) POTS TO FRACTURE
By the time 1836 had come round the debt was liquidated. The government did not owe a cent and there was a surplus of 36 million dollars.
This refers to the U. S. National Treasury. But for havin' a Jew at the head of the U. S. Treasury in the present unfortunate century and a man of unsound mind, to say nothing of his personal character, at the head and stomach of the American government, the American people might today see their treasury in a similar happy condition. The adjectival term crackpot is sometimes applied to economics by persons of imperfect education, and ill furnished with historic background.
A measure for distributin' the national surplus of 37 million among the states was introduced by Henry Clay, for once being in agreement with Andy Jackson. And 28 million were so distributed, before the long and dirty hand of international finance working from some bank failures in London, brought on a panic, such as the usurers have always brought on whenever a government ANYwhere shows signs of NOT allowing itself and a nation to be bled by people like Roosevelt, Morgenthau and his British accomplices.
? But the New Yorker is often provincial; I mean when provincial a Parisian is the most limited of Frenchmen and the New Yorker the worst hecker in Uncke Sam's once happy dominions. There is NO sense; that is, there is no patriotism, no devotion to the welfare of the whole people, in fact there is nothing but downright devilment, or bone ignorance, in allowing a national debt to increase in normal times, or to be made a permanent yoke on the necks of the people.
Naturally if a nation is governed by swine whose sole, or main aim is to enslave the people, [it] will occur. In fact that is WHY such people go [into politics or are put] into office by kikes and the lenders [of money]. Nothing but unsoundness of the national mind as a whole could have led the American people to elect the present government. Nothing but bone ignorance and mental squalor would keep 'em dazzled by international complications, and steadily more and more unmindful of the havoc being wrought on 'em in the home, by the Kikefurter, Morgenberg, Cohen, and company administration.
And nothing but mud in the head would permit American college presidents to hold down their jobs with one buttock and prevent the study of American history with the other. Yes, they occupy chairs, that is the official designation of a professor's position, he HOLDS a chair. The French used to have chairs made in a pattern no longer needed in the houses equipped with modern convenience (ref. M. le Docteur Cabannes, for details of French domestic life in the earlier centuries). Quote:
A universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets the whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all countries of Europe. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. OURS they will not touch.
? Do you recognize the source of the quotation? If not, why not? 'We gave," I am quoting again, quote: "We gave the name great to the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us, for it was wholly the work of our hands. " Unquote. I am quoting from a brochure published some years ago; more American college students ought to read it.
Quote: When we have accomplished our coup d'etat we shall say then to the various people: Everything has gone terribly badly, all have been worn out with sufferings. We are destroying the causes of your torment, nationalities, frontiers, differences of coinage.
Considering that this program was printed, in its English version, some 20 years ago, and that Small Maynard brought out an American edition (and quite naturally went broke after doing so) but considering the date of the publication, MORE of you nice clean-limbed young college boys OUGHT by now, 20 years later, to take an interest in the nature of the program, so slickly carried out by Mr. Roosevelt, YOUR president, with the so able collaboration of the kikery whereby he is almost completely peninsula'd.
I continue quoting: "On the one hand to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and on the other hand, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy [productions] that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. " Yes, someone had thought it out with some detail.
Taxation will be covered by a progressive tax on property. When the comedy is played out, there emerges the fact that a debit and an exceedingly burdensome debit has been created. For the payment of the interest it becomes necessary to have recourse to new loans which do not swallow up but only add to the capital debt.
? Unquote and so on. But doesn't it strike you, doesn't it strike one per cent of the possible auditors under 20 or over 20, under 30 or over 30 that it would be useful for more of you to take a look at the full text of the quite interesting little brochure from which I am quoting and quote: "all these peoples were stage managed by us, according to program. " Well, now can it happen to you? Does this curious and fantastic brochure apply only to PAST and European actions? Quote again:
In the third rank we shall set up what will in appearances be an opposition to us, and which in at least one of its organs will appear to be our very antipodes. Our REAL opponents at heart will accept this opposition as their own, and will show us their cards.
How VERY fantastic. "The Great Power, the press which with a few exceptions that may be disregarded is already in our hand. " Unquote, that was printed in 1922. Do you think things are now less so, or more so?
All of this being printed, in 1922, less than a century after General Jackson had extinguished the American national debt. Well, now wouldn't it be more intelligent of the American people, or at least the American intellengentsia, to realize what was implied by Jackson and Van Buren in extinguishing the national debt as well as showin' a more active interest in political and/or economic programs, published during our present life times?
I am not saying the U. S. could or should return to the rusticity of the Jacksonian era. I am saying, and repeatin' that it is a shameful, and ALSO dangerous thing to be bone ignorant, ham ignorant, ignorant to the point of squalor of so much that was known to Jackson, and Taylor; to be complete acephalous asses on so many matter wherein our great grand fathers showed a most laudible horsesense. You can not get all American history from one volume. Woodward's A New American History is an admirable introduction. It is better reading after you have
? digested Brooks Adams taking the grand, but inhuman sweep, seeing ideas, and material forces. Woodward realizin' as Voltaire had realized that ideas and forces move and are moved by human beings, each with his own quirks, kinks and limitations.
I think Woodward underestimates the Adamses and Van Buren. I also think he would be a good check on anyone who, like myself, tends preponderantly to see a man's aim, his idea, and what might have been. Seeing the reasons why certain ideas have not fully gone into action, or have not attained their completion as custom, as law, as event.
There are several points omitted by Woodward. And that fact should be borne in mind by the student. But the professors who high hat Woodward, because he does not write on stilts and carry a pair of lemon colored gloves peeking out of his pocket, are in error. There is probably more American history in Woodward's 875 pages than in any one volume that covers a similar stretch of American history. Needing checkup, needing additions, needing reference to the actual papers of four generations of Adamses and those of Van Buren.
#66 (March 14, 1943) U. K. (C15) ANGLOPHILIA
I have before now told you things too soon. I mean I told 'em to you (the small select elect who have listened), I told you that Wilson had NOT the power to sign treaties for the American people. And so on?
I told you that a line of poetry could be poetry, could be poetry even if it did not contain precisely ten syllables arranged in the order of ti tumti tum ti tum. And so ON.
And I told you, I think I told you over this radio that in the U. S. of America there is a basis of anglophobia, quite deep rooted, and having ascertainable causes. I hear that this simple perception is gainin' ground in your country.
? Mr. Kipling wrote Habitation Enforced, Mr. H. James replied to it in a rather more realistic study. In fact he took up Kip's romantic sentimental theme, and examined it.
Kip presenting the dear American who came over and fitted in perfectly, and Henry James the American sentimentalist who came over expecting and very much annoyed the British remnant of the family, who didn't understand what the fellow was up to. Well now, suppose you quietly try to analyze the basis for the supposed anglophilia. Apart from Whore Belisha's ad hoc propaganda, Anglo-Israel and other spurious articles.
Yes, there were, in America, Tory families and rebel families. I mean in 1776. At [the] start, say 1750 or 60, almost nobody wanted to separate. But the bullheaded swinishness, greed, dishonesty, meanness of King George's government's ruling pigs of the period finally forced half the Torys into the opposition. Remaining Tory families think very highly of themselves, but are not, and for 150 years have NOT been very highly thought of by others. The old revolution families think very, very highly of themselves, but no longer constitute a majority in America.
Alas the day, etc. they did NOT develop a lasting sense of responsibility. I know a few of 'em had it once. At any rate, with them it is kifkif, 50/50 as to whether they take snob in their ancestry, and British origin, or are still fighting the Revolutionary War (as I am, at odd moments) for your own good, oh naturally. The Anglo Saxon race never fights a war except for the good of somebody or other. BUT the ruling class in America is no longer wholly of English origin. People from Thraxstead married the Rileys, for example. And that wasn't all of it. In and about 1848 there was a beneficial German migration, not merely the oirish ever enamoured of the Crown of owld England, and later migrations. Slaves from Africa, chattel slaves, black ones, then more or less white ones, or swarthy ones, got over, dumped in for purpose of industrial slavery, and to work for the usury system.
? As you have discovered, at least some B. B. C. boko discovered in Ulster, there are Americans who do not speak English, whose native stock is not English. I say do not speak English, I mean not even in its American dialect form. Even if they are choked up to the eyes with propaganda, they have not an interior basis for adorin' you and your empire. Many of the denizens of that empire do not adore you.
Why should they fight for your empire? You might get me on sentiment. The romantic period of my life was passed in London. Blood is thicker than corn juice. But I am not a majority specimen.
It would probably never occur to you that the attitude of my compatriots was hostile to me, during the 12 years I spent in London. It turned friendly in 1920 when I shifted over to Paris. What causes that? I am not trying to prove anything, I am just telling you. A truly representative American, the well known and very widely read writer, Mr. E. Hemingway considered me in 1922, the ONLY American who ever got out of England alive.
That was a perfectly sincere opinion, given in a decade when neither Hemingway nor I were being political. Mr. Hemingway is hardly ever political. I believe his father was English. The most violent Americans I have known, at least two of 'em had English grandfathers, they were NOT anglophile.
The charm of London is feminine. I suppose your colonials know that. London is romantic. That is, the three or whatever million surplus females in England open up possibilities to the traveler. BUT to balance that the young Englishman, in nine cases out of ten, strikes the young of ALL other nations as a fatuous sap head. The lack of the most intense stimulus to competition can but take effect in the course of the centuries. The exceptional man, the, as Mr. Hemingway would call him "the good guy," does NOT constitute the mass of the population. He goes out and gets shot in the first months of 1914. His mass weight in the democratic
? majority tends to diminish. You must take count of these things, these imponderabilia in estimating the force of the cohesion of nations.
Even to me, naturally prepared for Anglo American amity so long as it be not blatantly and palpably Jewish, and a mere wheeze of and for the usury system, even I can not pardon you for having poisoned America. Sending your WORST type of emigrant such as silk stockings Sassoon to that country, yes, Victor. The Emperor of Opium and the Orient, and your scum from the London School of Bankocracy. I try to tell you the story, your cramming of America with propagandists, culminating in Cuff Duper was NOT a motion conducing to amity. I have told you before the ONLY propaganda giving the Dies committee a headache in 1939 was YOUR propaganda. NOT German propaganda, not Russian red propaganda but YOUR propaganda. The American differs from the Englander, does not like to be humbugged. He likes to humbug someone else, but he has not your love of pageantry and your taste for maintaining a humbug.
I believe Bagehot said something rather good in that connection: "The mass of the English yield a deference rather to something else than to their rulers. They defer to what we may call the theatrical show of society. " Walt Bagehot [on] the English Constitution. Cf. that with [the] American condemnation of Polk (Congressional motion) complimenting the officers in the Mexican war. If had, the American admits it, he don't try to embalm the swindle in Busbys, and Beefeater uniforms, and pretend it was holy. I am not attemptin' to be insultin', but as simple narrative; I believe the average American considers the Englishman to be both a snob and a sycophant.
And as Roosevelt loses his puffed up bought ascendency, YOU lose. 50 thousand Americans owe him death or wounds or dispersal, but the democracy trend is to pass the buck, shift the blame. You get blamed for it. YOU dragged us into the war. I know Roosevelt was hell set on gettin' in, but the public will not stop to think of that. Even supposing
? the general American really KNOWS it. What the public knows is your propaganda. I quote: "Too many foreigners in Washington, natives are run by them and know it. " Letter dated October 27, 1940 from the fine old American stock, south of Mason and Dixon line, roaring democrat, of the era that took party line seriously. "Japanese are our biggest headache. " That from a senatorial family, six weeks before Pearl Harbor.
You might remember that during the last year of my broadcasts I was guided from inside America. I mean by personal and quite reliable notes sent me from most competent private observers, NOT in the pay of Jewry, NOT writing for Hollywood and Mr. Roosevelt's owners. It was my intention and endeavor to speak in KEY with the opinion of enlighted Americans.
At no time have I intended to use the radio to present personal idiosyncrasies, but to speak a true record. The U. S. A. will be no use to itself or to anyone else until it gets rid of the kikes AND Mr. Roosevelt. I don't mean the small kikes. I mean the LARGE kikes. Often YOUR castoffs and exports. When I say the Americans don't like being humbugged, I give you instances; to an American a Times correspondent means a drummer for Vickers, drummer, a traveling salesman, a bagman. He, the American, don't try to wrap that up. He LIKES to debunk, to drag the sham into the open, and to mock at himself for having been a sucker the day before yesterday or half hour ago in having been humbugged. That is at variance with the British theatrical temperament, which WANTS to maintain the sham.
I state these things to illustrate one source of misunderstanding: 50 or more years ago the Americans invented the word Anglo-maniac. That meant a "dude" or a man who wore a high collar. It certainly meant the Astors and people who exported American money to England (capital, or pocket money), who married into English society. That was called "buying a duke. " You probably don't consider me an Anglo-maniac. When I lived in England, I was an "expatriate"; when I went to Paris I
? was white washed, I was again considered American. All this is probably very superficial. Permit me an easy evening: permit me for once to trifle with these bits of swansdown floating on the social and political stream.
#67 (March 16, 1943) U. S. (C20) TO EXPLAIN
It probably seemed very eccentric that a man, any man should suspend playin' tennis and trying to understand the Confucian anthology, and after a long period of years return to America to protest against ANYTHING, or to offer suggestions to his fellow citizens about anything whatsoever.
After four years, I should however like to have a few minutes MORE conversation' with Mr. Sam Pryor, and with young Elihu, and a few other lights of the party; and see whether they are more disposed now to believe what I then told 'em. I do NOT believe that the third election of Roosevelt was necessary. I take it the U. S. now knows that the election was an error. My contention then was that people wanted something different. Wilikie was NOT something different, he was the same, worse, and more so. And the people did not elect him.
Most sane Americans now wish Roosevelt and his kikes had never been born. But none of 'em seem to have any clear idea how to eliminate the nasty consequences of the untoward event. Sage Republicans in 1939 may have felt that Roosevelt had thoroughly puked on the American floor, and that his Party ought to clean up the mess.
I did NOT agree with 'em. The subsequent mess shows no signs of producin' its own vacuum cleaners. Well let bygones be bygones. I am NOT blaming the Republican chiefs for lack of omniscence. Few people have it.
? Some of 'em thought Mr. Gallup's Jew-aided poll was an indication of popular feeling, but failed to look at a calendar. They are still faced by a clever opponent, void of scruple, and likely to be backed in 1944 by all the billions that international Jewry has diddled out of the American people, and out of the subject races. Hope long fed on the bottle may not grow teeth at all.
As nobody is likely to believe me, I suggest that they start thinking it out for themselves. I suggest that a DUD candidate for 1944 is just as undesirable as it was two years ago. I suggest that consummate incompetence in the Cabinet is undesirable. The Republicans HAD in 1940 the makin's of a strong executive. Providin', that is, that they followed the early American system of having a President and a cabinet. Several Republicans in Washington could have functioned, and kept America out of war, piloted her thru the stormy period, and perhaps, though I doubt it, even have prevented the war bustin' out.
I reckon Jewry had Churchill by the short hairs so close that nothing would have saved him, or England, from him. Apart from war, the British Empire would have elegantly dissolved, or inelegantly dissolved. But whichever, the U. S. by staying OUT of the war could most certainly have absorbed the fragments: without being put [to] the extreme inconvenience which a great lot of the outer world now hears the U. S. is incurrin'.
Now Vandenberg, from my point of view, lives in the year 1858 or before then. But Vandenberg with a CABINET would have made a better President than either Roosevelt alias Cohen, or Wilikie, alias the rest of the synagogue. I would NOT have selected Senator Vandenberg because I do not think we have ANY economic views in common. All I am saying is that the Republicans HAD the makings of an administration, both strong and in many ways sane, though conservative, that is, set in their ways.
? I dunno that they have yet learned ANYTHING. Some of the old horse and buggy ways HAVE been jolted, by three years of conflict. But Vandenberg mayn't have heard of it. Bridges may not have heard of it. They may not yet know that Mark Hanna is dead.
My view was and IS that the cabinet should be the school for the executive. That system worked under Jefferson, the only thing I have against Jackson is that he had a theoretical notion against it which merely led Van Buren to desist from the cabinet long enough to qualify for the succession. Useless formality. An executive OUGHT to have some sort of executive training. No place like the cabinet for providin' it. Businessmen's government, NUTS. Mercantilist or usurious mind is NO good for any problem dealin' with the whole nation. Hence use of LEGAL minds in formin' governments. At least [they] have some sense of law, as something for the whole state, the whole of society.
Only man who ever raised any real objection to Gesell in argument with me puzzled me bit. He had arguments that comptrollers and cabinet ministers had not raised. He puzzled me. I had to think it out. Answer was, he represented a sort of shareholders union. He was looking at the whole show from point of view of a section of the community, NOT as to how it would effect the whole nation, the whole society congeries.
Man spends his whole life thinking how he can welsh a profit out of the public, produce more, regardless, I mean regardless of anything. Even thinking how to produce a good article, well, that is better. What happens to THEM. Get confiscated. BY the profiteer's, racketeers in the government in favor of Kaiser's coffins.
Mr. Williams gave me some space in Greenwich Time, not that he is to be implicated in my present opinions. But he might take up that idea about the CABINET on his own. I believe a man fit to be President ought to SEE his way to having a CABINET, and his party ought to see his way to having a cabinet, and WHAT kind of cabinet, before the
? people are asked to elect him. John Adams had a bad cabinet, duds left over from Washington's misfortune. I mean after about all the MEN had left Washington's cabinet he was left with the rinds and remnants; and John Adams from democratic feelin', [having] been badgered about his authoritative tendency etc. , kept on these duds out of sentiment, and about wrecked his administration. Good cabinets have made great administrations. As far as I recall there has been NO great administration without SOME cabinet talent. Even Lincoln had Seward; personality sufficiently interesting to get shot simultaneously with his chief, and NOT by an actor either. That simultaneity is NOT sufficiently stressed in the history books.
#64 (March 7, 1943) U. K. (C13) TOWARD VERACITY
My talk this evening is not controversial but narrativie, in fact recounted from personal experience. I note that when I first began to listen to radio --that is, after two friends determined to break down my antipathy to radio had planted, that is, given me a small sized medium wave apparatus, and then fled the village--I began and listened sometimes to London. When I began to speak over the air, I definitely tried to listen to London but with the passage of time I listen to London less. I listen to Berlin more. This is the fruit or result of experience. It has not been done by directing or forcing my will, it has resulted from inclination; and to explain that inclination I have found nothing better than a passage from the letters of J. B. Yeats, old man who used to be rather better known as Yeats' father, a painter, who used to talk with his models, that in fact was his method of studying anthropology. His models were not exceptional people; and his conclusion about talking with them was that he listened with inter'st not to remarkable sayings, and not to displays of unusual
? brilliance, but that the interesting talkers were those who were simply telling the truth.
And now in the year 1943 I find it almost impossible to listen to London. I stuck along a while with your social comedy, the unconscious humor of your Hirntrust, sogenannt, the tortuous meanderings of Mr. Laski, etc. But now I just wearily turn the button.
The monotony of your evasions breeds infinite boredom. Berlin by contrast is placid, as against your gallic hysteria. Patient but firm German voices go on explaining urbe et orbe just what the war is about, just why it started. They go on EDUcating their public, fact on fact, many of the facts can be found in your own best writers, that is approximately all the facts that existed before the war started can be found in your own best writers. The injustice of the Versailles Treaty, the history of Danzig, German since, I think it is 1300, no 1200, Capital of the Duchy of Pommern.
The unqualifiable swinishness of the yittisch position at the League of Nations, against Italy. The absence of malice on the part of Europe toward the British empire; e. g. , C. Del Croix marvelling at English opposition "but we don't want to do any harm to their empire. "
The undeniable horror of your own slums, in contrast to slum clearance under fascism and national socialism. All that, plus details of bonifica, of improvements, just price, and the homestead. Exposition, calm and patient, of ideas that every decent Englishman accepts, and that are, I repeat, to be found in the minority books printed in England, by two dozen authors, by two score authors of books, and two hundred writers of articles. BUT which are opposed to the lies which you all know to be lies; the frauds which you--most of you--know to be frauds that are upheld by your Jews, your monopolists, and your internal national enemies. And against which the best men in England had been protesting for 20 years. So much for the positive facts, and secondly your
? repressions, or suppressions, and the omission of vital topics, such as international jewry.
You preferred Jews to news. And you've got 'em. You were extremely obtuse in dying for Jewish interests. You have poisoned America, that was perhaps imprudent. You perhaps got in, or mobilized the wrong lot of cannon fodder, after centuries of success in stirring up or exploiting backward nations, hurling savages against the more civilized nations, you have perhaps mobilized the wrong set of roughnecks.
A minor point has been made recently, namely, that you have discovered that the U. S. A. is not wholly pro-English. You have discovered that the invading American troops in Ulster stem from a number of continental stocks, and are NOT all sighing romantically for the British homes of the ancestors. That much I have told you. In fact I did tell my rare and select readers several plain truths about Anglo-Yank relations. And it is now being slowly discovered in England and her dominions that the Yanks are more interested in their own interests than in yours. Your sentimental hold on the U. S. was confined to a Tory sect, and to sentimentalists. BUT among the English stock itself you had and have always had your most strenuous opponents, those who had the American tradition, something stronger than Jew propaganda.
Ah, but, you say, look at Wallace, look at this solidarity of the kindred races. And there you are mistaken. You exported Anglo-Israel. A body of doctrine, or superstition NOT taken seriously in your governing classes; but which can be found in England among housekeepers, nursemaids, people with weak minds, but some leisure, or rather hours of enforced solitude, have to stay IN, for hours when nothing very exciting offers [itself]. And they, even in England mug up these fantasies about the Stone of Scone, and the prophet Jeremiah. But what you fail to note is that it is the ISRAEL end, not the Anglo end of the curious compound that has hooked the American Vice-President and his similars.
? When Cromwell betrayed the British race, unintentionally perhaps, but at any rate, when he "had to speak to these men," the religious sectaries "in their own language," as he said by way of his excuse to his cousin Waller when he brought back the Jews, and when Bible reading became prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic, the way was prepared for curious fanaticisms, witch burnings, etc. And traces of religious mania, or vagrant fantasy are still found. Wallace's hallucinations come from Bible reading, not from being pro-English. And of course the U. S. is being had. The sanity of the 18th century is gettin' snowed under. And it is NOT the Jew that America loves.
It is merely the dialect of that curious King James translation that has perturbed the mind of the simple hearted Americans. In fact has wormed into the American popular mind for some time, though the effect has considerably waned in the more sophisticated American circles. Post- Christianity has set in, as one of your better writers has dubbed it. Of course the minute a man says he accepts the decalog and the crucifix simultaneously, he has got into a tangle. As was shown in Engand where the crucifix went by the board, about the time Cromwell was committin' mass [muder? ] in Ireland. Old Crumwell feedin' on powder an' ball as he appears in that touchin' ballad, "Blarney Castle; me darlint. "
You have been singularly unconscious of that undermining and of subsequent underminings. One of your writers who died a few years ago made gallant efforts to awaken you. Her novels were not widely read. She wrote one called "The Death of Felicity Taverner" that would pay you to read, as sociological study. Dear Mary's work rather distressed one at times things came out with such a raw edge on 'em, and the style was sometimes so jammed and elaborate. She presented a couple of South Afrikanders in another book, more raw than the general reader was used to. In Felicity Taverner she has gone under the surface. If your people were painted by Holbein (the Lady Butts) and if your Great Grandfather was a patron of Blake, you might conceivably want to preserve something that Lord Beaverbrook hadn't heard of, that the
? Daily Express wasn't all out to uphold. That is the crux of the Felicity Taverner novel. In England an heritage going back at least to the days of Holbein but NOT limited to that period, and inimical to that tradition, to the fine elegance of the older houses, to clarity of English air on the western seacoast. There is (in the novel and in reality), as I think you may wake [up] too late to perceive, there is another force working. Something not very open, something that you decline to take very seriously.
For 25 years to my knowledge there has been a difference of view, I mean among the serious minority, of the intelligentsia, as to how far the attack is conscious, how far it is part of a plan, premeditated. How far the evil is brought in by carriers. Unconscious agents, that bring an Anschauung, an attitude toward life, poisonous as the germs of bubonic plague, carried by animals who don't know they have got it.
Maiski of course KNOWS he has it. Litvinov has made no bones about having it. But it is not merely political, it is molecular or atomic. It destroys all scale and all sense of proportionate values. It calls to the basic laziness of the mind, the basic softness of human organism. It profanes. It soils, it is greasy and acid. It revolts all men who have any desire toward cleanliness. But it entangles the clean, it entangles them because of their inconsequentiality, their inability to see the connection between one thing and another. Facilis descensus.
The young are unheeding. Nothing is more tiresome than the moralist. Nothing more difficult for a profane author than to draw the line somewhere, or to persuade his reader that certain sloppiness of outlook can possibly have any consequence.
I make a tardy acknowledgement to Mary Butts, author of the Death of Felicity Taverner. I did not advertise the book during her lifetime. It may have arrived while I was busy, and I was not a reviewer; not specifically. I was concerned with very rare books that conformed to a certain canon.
? Your own press and your own native critics might have done more for it. They might start doing so now. Add it to the list of books and add its authoress to the list of writers who did something for England. Tried to maintain something English, in the face of something unclean. Who knew that there had been values, in England, values based on tradition. Values that no nation can root out from itself, or allow to be lost, without losing its place among nations.
There again, under the slightly too jeweled style, the interest of the narrator, rises from the narrator's veracity.
#65 (March 9, 1943) U. S. (C17) POTS TO FRACTURE
By the time 1836 had come round the debt was liquidated. The government did not owe a cent and there was a surplus of 36 million dollars.
This refers to the U. S. National Treasury. But for havin' a Jew at the head of the U. S. Treasury in the present unfortunate century and a man of unsound mind, to say nothing of his personal character, at the head and stomach of the American government, the American people might today see their treasury in a similar happy condition. The adjectival term crackpot is sometimes applied to economics by persons of imperfect education, and ill furnished with historic background.
A measure for distributin' the national surplus of 37 million among the states was introduced by Henry Clay, for once being in agreement with Andy Jackson. And 28 million were so distributed, before the long and dirty hand of international finance working from some bank failures in London, brought on a panic, such as the usurers have always brought on whenever a government ANYwhere shows signs of NOT allowing itself and a nation to be bled by people like Roosevelt, Morgenthau and his British accomplices.
? But the New Yorker is often provincial; I mean when provincial a Parisian is the most limited of Frenchmen and the New Yorker the worst hecker in Uncke Sam's once happy dominions. There is NO sense; that is, there is no patriotism, no devotion to the welfare of the whole people, in fact there is nothing but downright devilment, or bone ignorance, in allowing a national debt to increase in normal times, or to be made a permanent yoke on the necks of the people.
Naturally if a nation is governed by swine whose sole, or main aim is to enslave the people, [it] will occur. In fact that is WHY such people go [into politics or are put] into office by kikes and the lenders [of money]. Nothing but unsoundness of the national mind as a whole could have led the American people to elect the present government. Nothing but bone ignorance and mental squalor would keep 'em dazzled by international complications, and steadily more and more unmindful of the havoc being wrought on 'em in the home, by the Kikefurter, Morgenberg, Cohen, and company administration.
And nothing but mud in the head would permit American college presidents to hold down their jobs with one buttock and prevent the study of American history with the other. Yes, they occupy chairs, that is the official designation of a professor's position, he HOLDS a chair. The French used to have chairs made in a pattern no longer needed in the houses equipped with modern convenience (ref. M. le Docteur Cabannes, for details of French domestic life in the earlier centuries). Quote:
A universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets the whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all countries of Europe. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. OURS they will not touch.
? Do you recognize the source of the quotation? If not, why not? 'We gave," I am quoting again, quote: "We gave the name great to the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us, for it was wholly the work of our hands. " Unquote. I am quoting from a brochure published some years ago; more American college students ought to read it.
Quote: When we have accomplished our coup d'etat we shall say then to the various people: Everything has gone terribly badly, all have been worn out with sufferings. We are destroying the causes of your torment, nationalities, frontiers, differences of coinage.
Considering that this program was printed, in its English version, some 20 years ago, and that Small Maynard brought out an American edition (and quite naturally went broke after doing so) but considering the date of the publication, MORE of you nice clean-limbed young college boys OUGHT by now, 20 years later, to take an interest in the nature of the program, so slickly carried out by Mr. Roosevelt, YOUR president, with the so able collaboration of the kikery whereby he is almost completely peninsula'd.
I continue quoting: "On the one hand to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and on the other hand, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy [productions] that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. " Yes, someone had thought it out with some detail.
Taxation will be covered by a progressive tax on property. When the comedy is played out, there emerges the fact that a debit and an exceedingly burdensome debit has been created. For the payment of the interest it becomes necessary to have recourse to new loans which do not swallow up but only add to the capital debt.
? Unquote and so on. But doesn't it strike you, doesn't it strike one per cent of the possible auditors under 20 or over 20, under 30 or over 30 that it would be useful for more of you to take a look at the full text of the quite interesting little brochure from which I am quoting and quote: "all these peoples were stage managed by us, according to program. " Well, now can it happen to you? Does this curious and fantastic brochure apply only to PAST and European actions? Quote again:
In the third rank we shall set up what will in appearances be an opposition to us, and which in at least one of its organs will appear to be our very antipodes. Our REAL opponents at heart will accept this opposition as their own, and will show us their cards.
How VERY fantastic. "The Great Power, the press which with a few exceptions that may be disregarded is already in our hand. " Unquote, that was printed in 1922. Do you think things are now less so, or more so?
All of this being printed, in 1922, less than a century after General Jackson had extinguished the American national debt. Well, now wouldn't it be more intelligent of the American people, or at least the American intellengentsia, to realize what was implied by Jackson and Van Buren in extinguishing the national debt as well as showin' a more active interest in political and/or economic programs, published during our present life times?
I am not saying the U. S. could or should return to the rusticity of the Jacksonian era. I am saying, and repeatin' that it is a shameful, and ALSO dangerous thing to be bone ignorant, ham ignorant, ignorant to the point of squalor of so much that was known to Jackson, and Taylor; to be complete acephalous asses on so many matter wherein our great grand fathers showed a most laudible horsesense. You can not get all American history from one volume. Woodward's A New American History is an admirable introduction. It is better reading after you have
? digested Brooks Adams taking the grand, but inhuman sweep, seeing ideas, and material forces. Woodward realizin' as Voltaire had realized that ideas and forces move and are moved by human beings, each with his own quirks, kinks and limitations.
I think Woodward underestimates the Adamses and Van Buren. I also think he would be a good check on anyone who, like myself, tends preponderantly to see a man's aim, his idea, and what might have been. Seeing the reasons why certain ideas have not fully gone into action, or have not attained their completion as custom, as law, as event.
There are several points omitted by Woodward. And that fact should be borne in mind by the student. But the professors who high hat Woodward, because he does not write on stilts and carry a pair of lemon colored gloves peeking out of his pocket, are in error. There is probably more American history in Woodward's 875 pages than in any one volume that covers a similar stretch of American history. Needing checkup, needing additions, needing reference to the actual papers of four generations of Adamses and those of Van Buren.
#66 (March 14, 1943) U. K. (C15) ANGLOPHILIA
I have before now told you things too soon. I mean I told 'em to you (the small select elect who have listened), I told you that Wilson had NOT the power to sign treaties for the American people. And so on?
I told you that a line of poetry could be poetry, could be poetry even if it did not contain precisely ten syllables arranged in the order of ti tumti tum ti tum. And so ON.
And I told you, I think I told you over this radio that in the U. S. of America there is a basis of anglophobia, quite deep rooted, and having ascertainable causes. I hear that this simple perception is gainin' ground in your country.
? Mr. Kipling wrote Habitation Enforced, Mr. H. James replied to it in a rather more realistic study. In fact he took up Kip's romantic sentimental theme, and examined it.
Kip presenting the dear American who came over and fitted in perfectly, and Henry James the American sentimentalist who came over expecting and very much annoyed the British remnant of the family, who didn't understand what the fellow was up to. Well now, suppose you quietly try to analyze the basis for the supposed anglophilia. Apart from Whore Belisha's ad hoc propaganda, Anglo-Israel and other spurious articles.
Yes, there were, in America, Tory families and rebel families. I mean in 1776. At [the] start, say 1750 or 60, almost nobody wanted to separate. But the bullheaded swinishness, greed, dishonesty, meanness of King George's government's ruling pigs of the period finally forced half the Torys into the opposition. Remaining Tory families think very highly of themselves, but are not, and for 150 years have NOT been very highly thought of by others. The old revolution families think very, very highly of themselves, but no longer constitute a majority in America.
Alas the day, etc. they did NOT develop a lasting sense of responsibility. I know a few of 'em had it once. At any rate, with them it is kifkif, 50/50 as to whether they take snob in their ancestry, and British origin, or are still fighting the Revolutionary War (as I am, at odd moments) for your own good, oh naturally. The Anglo Saxon race never fights a war except for the good of somebody or other. BUT the ruling class in America is no longer wholly of English origin. People from Thraxstead married the Rileys, for example. And that wasn't all of it. In and about 1848 there was a beneficial German migration, not merely the oirish ever enamoured of the Crown of owld England, and later migrations. Slaves from Africa, chattel slaves, black ones, then more or less white ones, or swarthy ones, got over, dumped in for purpose of industrial slavery, and to work for the usury system.
? As you have discovered, at least some B. B. C. boko discovered in Ulster, there are Americans who do not speak English, whose native stock is not English. I say do not speak English, I mean not even in its American dialect form. Even if they are choked up to the eyes with propaganda, they have not an interior basis for adorin' you and your empire. Many of the denizens of that empire do not adore you.
Why should they fight for your empire? You might get me on sentiment. The romantic period of my life was passed in London. Blood is thicker than corn juice. But I am not a majority specimen.
It would probably never occur to you that the attitude of my compatriots was hostile to me, during the 12 years I spent in London. It turned friendly in 1920 when I shifted over to Paris. What causes that? I am not trying to prove anything, I am just telling you. A truly representative American, the well known and very widely read writer, Mr. E. Hemingway considered me in 1922, the ONLY American who ever got out of England alive.
That was a perfectly sincere opinion, given in a decade when neither Hemingway nor I were being political. Mr. Hemingway is hardly ever political. I believe his father was English. The most violent Americans I have known, at least two of 'em had English grandfathers, they were NOT anglophile.
The charm of London is feminine. I suppose your colonials know that. London is romantic. That is, the three or whatever million surplus females in England open up possibilities to the traveler. BUT to balance that the young Englishman, in nine cases out of ten, strikes the young of ALL other nations as a fatuous sap head. The lack of the most intense stimulus to competition can but take effect in the course of the centuries. The exceptional man, the, as Mr. Hemingway would call him "the good guy," does NOT constitute the mass of the population. He goes out and gets shot in the first months of 1914. His mass weight in the democratic
? majority tends to diminish. You must take count of these things, these imponderabilia in estimating the force of the cohesion of nations.
Even to me, naturally prepared for Anglo American amity so long as it be not blatantly and palpably Jewish, and a mere wheeze of and for the usury system, even I can not pardon you for having poisoned America. Sending your WORST type of emigrant such as silk stockings Sassoon to that country, yes, Victor. The Emperor of Opium and the Orient, and your scum from the London School of Bankocracy. I try to tell you the story, your cramming of America with propagandists, culminating in Cuff Duper was NOT a motion conducing to amity. I have told you before the ONLY propaganda giving the Dies committee a headache in 1939 was YOUR propaganda. NOT German propaganda, not Russian red propaganda but YOUR propaganda. The American differs from the Englander, does not like to be humbugged. He likes to humbug someone else, but he has not your love of pageantry and your taste for maintaining a humbug.
I believe Bagehot said something rather good in that connection: "The mass of the English yield a deference rather to something else than to their rulers. They defer to what we may call the theatrical show of society. " Walt Bagehot [on] the English Constitution. Cf. that with [the] American condemnation of Polk (Congressional motion) complimenting the officers in the Mexican war. If had, the American admits it, he don't try to embalm the swindle in Busbys, and Beefeater uniforms, and pretend it was holy. I am not attemptin' to be insultin', but as simple narrative; I believe the average American considers the Englishman to be both a snob and a sycophant.
And as Roosevelt loses his puffed up bought ascendency, YOU lose. 50 thousand Americans owe him death or wounds or dispersal, but the democracy trend is to pass the buck, shift the blame. You get blamed for it. YOU dragged us into the war. I know Roosevelt was hell set on gettin' in, but the public will not stop to think of that. Even supposing
? the general American really KNOWS it. What the public knows is your propaganda. I quote: "Too many foreigners in Washington, natives are run by them and know it. " Letter dated October 27, 1940 from the fine old American stock, south of Mason and Dixon line, roaring democrat, of the era that took party line seriously. "Japanese are our biggest headache. " That from a senatorial family, six weeks before Pearl Harbor.
You might remember that during the last year of my broadcasts I was guided from inside America. I mean by personal and quite reliable notes sent me from most competent private observers, NOT in the pay of Jewry, NOT writing for Hollywood and Mr. Roosevelt's owners. It was my intention and endeavor to speak in KEY with the opinion of enlighted Americans.
At no time have I intended to use the radio to present personal idiosyncrasies, but to speak a true record. The U. S. A. will be no use to itself or to anyone else until it gets rid of the kikes AND Mr. Roosevelt. I don't mean the small kikes. I mean the LARGE kikes. Often YOUR castoffs and exports. When I say the Americans don't like being humbugged, I give you instances; to an American a Times correspondent means a drummer for Vickers, drummer, a traveling salesman, a bagman. He, the American, don't try to wrap that up. He LIKES to debunk, to drag the sham into the open, and to mock at himself for having been a sucker the day before yesterday or half hour ago in having been humbugged. That is at variance with the British theatrical temperament, which WANTS to maintain the sham.
I state these things to illustrate one source of misunderstanding: 50 or more years ago the Americans invented the word Anglo-maniac. That meant a "dude" or a man who wore a high collar. It certainly meant the Astors and people who exported American money to England (capital, or pocket money), who married into English society. That was called "buying a duke. " You probably don't consider me an Anglo-maniac. When I lived in England, I was an "expatriate"; when I went to Paris I
? was white washed, I was again considered American. All this is probably very superficial. Permit me an easy evening: permit me for once to trifle with these bits of swansdown floating on the social and political stream.
#67 (March 16, 1943) U. S. (C20) TO EXPLAIN
It probably seemed very eccentric that a man, any man should suspend playin' tennis and trying to understand the Confucian anthology, and after a long period of years return to America to protest against ANYTHING, or to offer suggestions to his fellow citizens about anything whatsoever.
After four years, I should however like to have a few minutes MORE conversation' with Mr. Sam Pryor, and with young Elihu, and a few other lights of the party; and see whether they are more disposed now to believe what I then told 'em. I do NOT believe that the third election of Roosevelt was necessary. I take it the U. S. now knows that the election was an error. My contention then was that people wanted something different. Wilikie was NOT something different, he was the same, worse, and more so. And the people did not elect him.
Most sane Americans now wish Roosevelt and his kikes had never been born. But none of 'em seem to have any clear idea how to eliminate the nasty consequences of the untoward event. Sage Republicans in 1939 may have felt that Roosevelt had thoroughly puked on the American floor, and that his Party ought to clean up the mess.
I did NOT agree with 'em. The subsequent mess shows no signs of producin' its own vacuum cleaners. Well let bygones be bygones. I am NOT blaming the Republican chiefs for lack of omniscence. Few people have it.
? Some of 'em thought Mr. Gallup's Jew-aided poll was an indication of popular feeling, but failed to look at a calendar. They are still faced by a clever opponent, void of scruple, and likely to be backed in 1944 by all the billions that international Jewry has diddled out of the American people, and out of the subject races. Hope long fed on the bottle may not grow teeth at all.
As nobody is likely to believe me, I suggest that they start thinking it out for themselves. I suggest that a DUD candidate for 1944 is just as undesirable as it was two years ago. I suggest that consummate incompetence in the Cabinet is undesirable. The Republicans HAD in 1940 the makin's of a strong executive. Providin', that is, that they followed the early American system of having a President and a cabinet. Several Republicans in Washington could have functioned, and kept America out of war, piloted her thru the stormy period, and perhaps, though I doubt it, even have prevented the war bustin' out.
I reckon Jewry had Churchill by the short hairs so close that nothing would have saved him, or England, from him. Apart from war, the British Empire would have elegantly dissolved, or inelegantly dissolved. But whichever, the U. S. by staying OUT of the war could most certainly have absorbed the fragments: without being put [to] the extreme inconvenience which a great lot of the outer world now hears the U. S. is incurrin'.
Now Vandenberg, from my point of view, lives in the year 1858 or before then. But Vandenberg with a CABINET would have made a better President than either Roosevelt alias Cohen, or Wilikie, alias the rest of the synagogue. I would NOT have selected Senator Vandenberg because I do not think we have ANY economic views in common. All I am saying is that the Republicans HAD the makings of an administration, both strong and in many ways sane, though conservative, that is, set in their ways.
? I dunno that they have yet learned ANYTHING. Some of the old horse and buggy ways HAVE been jolted, by three years of conflict. But Vandenberg mayn't have heard of it. Bridges may not have heard of it. They may not yet know that Mark Hanna is dead.
My view was and IS that the cabinet should be the school for the executive. That system worked under Jefferson, the only thing I have against Jackson is that he had a theoretical notion against it which merely led Van Buren to desist from the cabinet long enough to qualify for the succession. Useless formality. An executive OUGHT to have some sort of executive training. No place like the cabinet for providin' it. Businessmen's government, NUTS. Mercantilist or usurious mind is NO good for any problem dealin' with the whole nation. Hence use of LEGAL minds in formin' governments. At least [they] have some sense of law, as something for the whole state, the whole of society.
Only man who ever raised any real objection to Gesell in argument with me puzzled me bit. He had arguments that comptrollers and cabinet ministers had not raised. He puzzled me. I had to think it out. Answer was, he represented a sort of shareholders union. He was looking at the whole show from point of view of a section of the community, NOT as to how it would effect the whole nation, the whole society congeries.
Man spends his whole life thinking how he can welsh a profit out of the public, produce more, regardless, I mean regardless of anything. Even thinking how to produce a good article, well, that is better. What happens to THEM. Get confiscated. BY the profiteer's, racketeers in the government in favor of Kaiser's coffins.
Mr. Williams gave me some space in Greenwich Time, not that he is to be implicated in my present opinions. But he might take up that idea about the CABINET on his own. I believe a man fit to be President ought to SEE his way to having a CABINET, and his party ought to see his way to having a cabinet, and WHAT kind of cabinet, before the
? people are asked to elect him. John Adams had a bad cabinet, duds left over from Washington's misfortune. I mean after about all the MEN had left Washington's cabinet he was left with the rinds and remnants; and John Adams from democratic feelin', [having] been badgered about his authoritative tendency etc. , kept on these duds out of sentiment, and about wrecked his administration. Good cabinets have made great administrations. As far as I recall there has been NO great administration without SOME cabinet talent. Even Lincoln had Seward; personality sufficiently interesting to get shot simultaneously with his chief, and NOT by an actor either. That simultaneity is NOT sufficiently stressed in the history books.
