Shall we say that
something
had bust?
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
Before my British demise, or whatever it's listed as, it was my privilege to go up a tower.
That is, I went up stairs in a manor, where there are some I believe 14 century or thereabouts cloisters.
And I crawled over the roof beams of an attic, and thence into the top of a tower, where they conserve a Charter, not Magna Charter, but I think it is Henry II's guarantee or confirmation of what John had pledged to the barons.
And I believe her late Majesty Queen Mary, or one or the other, went over the same set of rafters about six weeks later.
? It's not my period, and some specialist in English history may correct me, but that is what I recall of the charter. It is the STATE of the manor that mattered to me as an observer of England. Some of the best pictures had been sold, the library was not in working order, there had been some restoration, about Walpole's time, I should imagine, but the ECONomic system of THAT time hadn't permitted FULL restoration. What had been done when England had far LESS money, was not to be done; and now the place, that OUGHT to have been a center of life, that would have housed 80 guests splendidly was as far from action as you might say Carcassonne or St. Bertrand de Cominges. Then, we drove some miles across country for tennis, and an amiable man explained to me how hound's feet ought to be formed.
I asked something about a hound in a sportin' print or perhaps it was a water color of the-- --sportin' print period, and he said the hound was, as I recall it, a bit long in the pasterns, if that is the word. And all of this, as far as it was ALIVE is, I suppose, what Sir P. Gibbs was upholdin' in his liberal way. In 1938 and before that. But as an economist, I say god damn, here you have the scene, you have the SHELL of the plant (to use a commercial term), you have the perfect setting. You have the OUTSIDE of the picture, and you go on from decade to decade, for hundred years or more years, eating the VITALITY out of it. And this is the work of the USURY system, you have done that with the adoration of PROFITS, you have done that with SLOP in your politics, and the JEWS have NOT saved you. Whatever they have done, they have not saved you and they have not helped you to SAVE IT. And by IT I mean all of your welfare. I mean all of your yeomanry. Jew Rothschild and his fellow Jew Goldsmid and his fellow Christian Baring have NOT helped you to save it.
And I now ask you and Sir Philip WHAT CAUSES that? I will leave one of the regular lecturers here in Rome to talk to you of slums that he knows better than I do. I will merely ask about a FEW rural scenes in England. What caused 'em? Or a few friends from the English country,
? or a landlord of my room in Church Walk, or some of the humbler GOOD people that I met at one time or another, who are the right sort of English, WHAT have THEY had from your system? Or takin' it a grade or two further up, when I was last over in London after a lapse of ten years, about the time Gibbs was writin' his book, a good poet motored me out to a suburb and looked at the shoestring building and said "Jerusalem in England's pleasant land" with FULL understanding of usury, and the dry rot and wet rot. And then went into the Army the minute this was got going, knowin' what started it, but wantin' his own hands clean from the beginning. What do these people, who are the BEST of England, expect from the union of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Gollancz's book club?
#118 (1941) U. S. [? ] QUISLING
Mr. Roosevelt seems determined that England shall not get out of this war alive, and that there shall be no end to the war until the English have been Dunkirk'd out of Cape Town and the Americans had a try at Dakar and the Azores.
It's a hard life, but we have an Italian proverb "chi la dura la vince" [he who holds out longest, wins]. Similar proverbs doubtless exist in other languages. But on the supposition that the war may end sometime, either before or after the collapse of Western civilization, in either case it will be necessary either to continue civilization or to start another, and Mis- INFOR MATION or policy based on ignorance is not recommendable for either purpose.
Several American publications have mentioned the UNWILLINGNESS of their political bigwigs to learn facts about Europe. If their editors are sincere in these expressions, it might be well to start on the case of Quisling. No man has had more mud and slime flung at him from the sewers of British newsprint.
? Mr. Roosevelt used up about ten pages of his twelve-page speech of May 27 with what might have been questions from the particularly low London Daily Mirror, from any issue printed during the past six or eight years. But at one point it appeared that he spoke not merely from prejudice (unconscious or other) but from plain ignorance. We ask what does he know of Quisling.
Norway, like other countries in 1936, had at least varieties of inhabitants. The lowest and vilest of human types represented by the international, and possibly non-aryan financier Hambro, an exploiter of the people, a money lender, who in time of crisis quite naturally fled the country, taking his bonds with him. This is to be expected whether these leeches are Jew or Gentile, whether they are millionaire socialists like Blum and Bullitt, or puppets or larger financiers.
And Norway had also men who wanted a better Europe. Now Italy has no debt to Mr. Quisling, but in the interests of truth and fair reporting we suggest that before America accepts an estimate of Mr. Quisling based wholly on reports from what might be called Harnbro sources and sources allied to Hambro, namely London Jewish and Aryan papers, controlled by Ellerman, Mend alias Melchett, Eden's friends, the Astors, et cetera, some one should go back and look at Quisling's plan for a north European federation, and then decide whether or not the real Quisling corresponds with the London distortion of Quisling. Quisling based his position on the belief that "an old world falls, a new is being born. " This is anathema to the unholy trinity Baruch-Roosevelt and Moses Sieff. NO conclusions drawn for a belief in or a desire for a better social order could bring favor from the Jew-Beaverbrook-Astor press.
Quisling not being in England, and not being dependent on British editors could not be starved directly, starvation being the financiers' FIRST and main mode of attack. There remained only vilification, and President Roosevelt is merely the last recruit to dirt-slingers emergency corps.
? SECONDLY: Quisling observed that the Jewish international had had some effect on the affairs of Soviet Russia. How unfortunate! What an error this would have been had Mr. Quisling wanted favorable publicity in the Sieff-Mond Guardian-Eflerman papers! !
THIRDLY: Quisling regarded the League of Nations with suspicion, thereby forfeiting the support of the Keyneses, Welleses, Streits, and other bootlicking agents of the Bank of International Settlements and its then Paris, and still London affiliates; in short by all these three positions, he dissociated himself from the Mandels, Blums and Stavitskys.
Quisling's position against Bolshevism was to him a position against "universal materialist republic under Jewish dictatorship," a position analogous to that taken by Finland. But Quisling owned, so far as it appears, no nickel mines, and therefore the publicity controlled by "Anglo-Canadian nickel (alias, Melchett, etc. ) would hardly give him a "build up" in "Time" or other Jewish-owned American organs. At the time of Sanctions, Quisling's party was for Norwegian neutrality. This of course showed the cloven-hoof from the Morgenthau point of view. Quisling was and is, however a Norwegian and judged the matter in its relation to Norway's interest. His movement however took NO sides. He was worried by the Soviet participation in the League of Nations and by the Jewish factor in Russian politics. It annoyed him that the lives of people IN NORWAY were dominated by foreign policy and not by home politics.
The idea that the citizens of a country should consider their INTERNAL affairs does, of course, render Quisling incompatible with the Roosevelt way of life; but even so it was scarcely high treason on Quisling's part to observe the 1936 situation IN Norway. Quisling was capable of the magnificent axiom: "The influence of a state in foreign politics always corresponds to the degree of development of its INTERNAL strength. "
? How unlike the Roosevelt technique of raising hysteria, both for personal and national use. In fact Quisling advocated autarchy, rather than GRABarchy. Autarchy for Norway, and co-operation BY Norway and foreign states. He saw Czechoslovakia bucked by international Jews. He saw the Brito-yitto attempt to encircle Germany was provocative of unpleasant tension. AND he observed the GE-O-GRaphic position of his own country in case of Germano-Russian unpleasantness. "Norway, the cross-roads between Russia, Germany and England. "
BUT he did NOT turn against England, as the British Jews would have wished him to. He saw a RUSSIAN attempt to use Norway in a flank attack on Germany AND on England, and advocated a union of Norway with ENGLAND and Germany. A nordic world federation. Why do WE in Italy mention this?
Quisling was not pro-Mussolini, the Axis was not yet in being. Contrary to the Edens and Churchills WE in ITALY do not believe that continual lies about everyone will help to a new and better world order.
QUISLING considered that peace between England and Germany was vital to Norway. Therefore the Beaverbrook and hog press have for the past four years denounced him as a traitor to Norway. Which is what we expect from Lord Beaverbrook, Sieff, and the Astors, and why the prestige of the British press has during the past years notably declined on the continent of Europe, in Asia and in South America, though apparently NOT in the Morgenthau circle.
To Quisling, "peace and conciliation between Germany and England" was the one way in which Norway could escape from war and chaos. With no tenderness for the Latins, Quisling went beyond this conciliation of Germany and England and wanted a Nordic federation containing these two great powers, plus the Scandinavian countries, plus Holland and Flanders.
? OBVIOUSLY such a union would not have been as advantageous to Italy as the Axis. However it is not the Rome end of the Axis which is demanding Quisling's head. It is our opponents who have done their utmost to turn his name into a common verb and make him a synonym for anti-national activity whenever and wherever.
OBVIOUSLY Quisling's plan would have been to the benefit of the English. They would not have lost so many American bases, nor would our position in the Mediterranean have been, by that plan, at all improved. We might still be where we were in 1937. What is absolutely and uncontestably apparent is that Mr. QUISLING'S OWN country would not have suffered invasion, and this from the patriot's view is of chief importance. The present war would probably not have occurred. At any rate it could not have started as an Anglo-German conflagration.
In any case, what is ABSOLUTELY incontestable is that Norway would not have been invaded; and this from Mr. Quisling's point of view, that is from the patriot view, must be considered as important.
History will possibly decide whether Quisling's attempts to avert war or the efforts of Kuhn-Loeb and Co. , and the yitto-brito financial agents IN the United States to get the war started, and of their American colleagues, half-breeds Bullitts, et cetera to GET the war started, that the American effort to START war in Europe, in order to pick Europe's pocket, and ultimate[ly] to drive the American people into the shambles will have proved to the advantage of England.
At any rate, as indicated in our brief earlier comment on the Quisling paragraph in Roosevelt's speech of May 27th, we believe Roosevelt's allusion to Quisling was due, as are so many of the President's outbursts, to his reading the positively, the WORST type of newsprint, until it obscures his world outlook.
? To sum up, Quisling's plan might have averted war. It would in any case have kept war out of Norway. Hence the abuse of Quisling in the usurocrat, monopolistic, mercantilist press both Jew and Gentile. But the heads of states should not be wholly subservient to the lowest and yellowest papers.
#119 (1943) U. S. (14) PHILOLOGY
I have mentioned Brooks Adams in these talks? I hope I have mentioned his name often enough for it to have sunk in. I know of no better introduction to American history or the understanding of the historical process than Brook Adams' two volumes, Law of Civilization and Decay and The New Empire.
Of course you need collateral readin', other history books, general history of the U. S. No better introduction than Woodward's. Can't trust it at all points but will give you an outline. Unjust to Van Buren and the Adamses but clearly intended to be fair and not a mere smoke screen.
D. R. Dewey's Financial History. Lot of facts, doubt if student ever remembers any of 'em. No key, no clue, nothing in the whole book to help the reader understand "what it is all about. " Nacherly it is THE standard work in the universities. Universities for the past 80 years, increasingly for past 50 or 40, have inculcated respect for lucre. Adoration of money grabbing, bred taste for luxury, called standard of livin', above what student is likely to attain, and told him the great man was the man who got MONEY, no matter how. Religion fadin'; religion, church buildin', a branch of the real estate business. All churches mortgaged. Church buildin', a means to get community groups to borrow money.
Pete Larranaga, Gold Glut and Government, tells you something. Kitson a bad writer in many ways, piles up obstacles for the reader, possibly
? knew more than any of 'em. Even Woodward does NOT give the clue. He gives some clues but not the debt clue. In course of long desultory readin', the FIRST book I ever struck that would lead the student to an understandin' of the whole historical process in the U. S. was Overholser, in 64 pages, published by Honest Money Founders of Chicago, now I hear; at least they would know where to find it.
Doc. Ames, H. V. , at University of Pennsylvania, in 1902 was already gettin' interested in reconstruction. The "Tragic Era" as C. Bowers calls it, period after the Civil War. But he hadn't got down to the debt component. And without study of debt and usury NO history of the U. S. can be written save as a smoke screen, consciously or unconsciously. I don't mean that historians haven't written with intention of tellin' the story, of writing true history, but those that did mainly had NOT found the clue, the pattern in the carpet. And don't run away with the idea that I told you Brooks Adams was the last will and testament of God Almighty. His books are merely, as far as I know, the best introduction. It is written from a mercantile position, with amazin' lucidity and power of synthesis, as you can see if you compare 'em with some of his very rare followers who have written BEFORE having so thoroughly digested their data.
I doubt if you will understand the full imbecility, the absolute squalor of the Knox-Roosevelt (F. D. Roosevelt) Baruch administration till you have read Brooks Adams. He writes about trade routes, the dislocation of trade routes, the FLOP of empires consequent on the dislocation or loss of trade routes. What Frankie and kikie have DONE to you NOW. No author can get the whole history of mankind into one book, or two books. The spectacular drama of history has, let us say, been consequent on the shift of the trade routes, caused by new discoveries of minerals, caused by magnetic compass, or new modes of transport, sometimes ruined by excess charges of administration, such as usury, and false accountancy, false accountancy having corroded all Mr. Adams' nice mercantile systems, though he don't put his main emphasis on that
? component. Wars rise from commercial competition, BUT to have that competition, down under it is the production, production system.
That is what Brooks Adams was not writing about. God knows he had enough to write about. Enough history that hadn't been sorted out in men's minds, in ANY man's mind. Over and above the books I have mentioned at the start of this talk are the actual papers of statesmen. John Adams and Van Buren and so on. Woodward suggests that the explanation of the Adams family is to be found in glandular secretions. I would say mebbe it was due to John Adams, the founder of the line, gettin' spliced to Abigail Quincy, that might explain some of that problem. However, one point that Brooks Adams more or less passes by is noted by Woodward and will do to fill in the chink of the story. Just to keep from introducin' Europe, and foreign systems, topics on which you run ravin' mad out of prejudice. Will you note that John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay worked out in theory what was called the AMERICAN system? Meaning that the U S was to be self supportin'. At a time when there was one party, [the] idea was broached that all sections of the country were to be harmonized, North East to develop manufacturing, supported by protective tariff to keep out European competition; and that the industrial towns would provide a market for the agricultural products of the West and South; and the rural sections would provide customers for goods produced by the factories. Nothing in it that is not plain commonsense. Of course most American prosperity rose from the application of those ideas, partial application. But still the good life in America has been due to 'em.
Well now Europe has GOT that idea. There is nothing fancy or new about THAT idea. It is just horse sense and intelligence. BUT it don't produce war. It don't produce gallopin' usury. It is not romantic enough for the sheenies. And you will never understand American history or the history of the Occident durin' the past 2000 years unless you look at one or two problems; namely, sheenies and usury. One or the other or BOTH, I should say, both.
? And dear ole Bill Woodward does NOT give you clearly the answer. He is not stallin', at least I don't think so, but some things escape him, or remain in penumbra, probably his own penumbra. For example, he notices that in the Quincy Adams-Jackson campaign a change came over American political method. For the first time there was a wild outbreak of vituperation in the press: wild slanders against both of the candidates -- --.
Shall we say that something had bust? TWO candidates, Quincy Adams and Jackson, who did not belong to the banks. Of course John Quincy Adams might not have disturbed 'em, but he was so gol' thunderin' honest, and his father had SO seen thru the bank swindle.
I don't mean that that is all of the story. And let's not get lost in retrospect. I tell you. FIRST, you can not understand American history without digging down into the problem of debt and usury. Up to now no American history has been written. Takin' due count of the personnel and the component of Jewry. Brooks Adams seeing that the Kike triumphed in England, after Waterloo, and Overholser givin' you the clue (along with Col. Lindbergh's papa)--the CLUE to the betrayal of the American nation, the American Government, the American system in 1863, the sellout to Rothschild.
But Brooks Adams havin' his limitation, at least the exposition in the two volumes mentioned, has the limitation of dealing with wars and the decline of empires--wars from economic competition. BUT down under that, if the thing for you to study if you be lookin' forward, is the production system. Possibly about to be reinforced ON the U. S. A. , as consequence of the squalor of Knox, the ignorance of the governing oligarchy. You may be too dumb to do it until you are forced. Seiff's embargo was a protective measure.
On a basis of autarchy and collaboration a peaceful world can arise. And on NO other basis. The mercantilist system, mercantilist disposition, or
? an Anschauung, never brought peace. Monopoly, megalomania, reading the Jewbrew texts never brought peace honor or decency, or the good life, neither did neglect of the Latin classics.
America declined. The whole tone of American life went down, slopped, grew foetid, step by step as the Latin classics went into the discard, and the reading of the Hebrew superstitions continued to be tolerated in the American colleges. Out of Sallust and Cicero a man might LEARN something useful. Out of Demosthenes he might git a line of the habitual human swindles that would help him understand the second bank of the United States, oh, ably described by Woodward, as to its personal habits, BUT not exposed in its perspective as it is exposed in the autobiography of Martin Van Buren.
Go on, read the Brooks Adams and then go on to the study of contemporary Europe. In the light of the Clay Quincy Adams project. Don't die like a beast, I mean if you are dead set to be sunk in the mid- Atlantic or Pacific or scorched in the desert, at least KNOW why it is done to you.
To die not knowin' why is to die like an animal. What the kike calls you: goyim or cattle. To die like a human being you have at least got to know why it is done to you.
#120 (1941) U. S. (142) CHURCH PERIL
I am speaking as promised to the students of Fordham, and professors, and other Catholic universities. When I was a young man in America, one heard a good deal of talk about the union of the churches. It was very nice and humanitarian on the surface. And one heard less of a more bizarre proposition, namely, that of Anglo-Israel, all dressed up with the Stone of Scone on which Scotch's King's were recrowned, now it is in Westminster Abbey, and about the prophet Isaiah, and the rest of the
? stage set, "hast given us the gates of thine enemies" and so on. Well, comin' to Europe I thought nothin' about either of these movements or drags for the next 30 years and very probably you didn't either, those of you who are old enough to have heard of the phantasies of the year 1900. But that is not the end of the story. A few weeks ago in London there was a powwow between the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Catholic Archbishop, or Cardinal, and a high Rabbi. And if I were a Catholic, I should want to know more about what that meeting was up to. I should want, quite seriously, to see that conventicle in historic perspective. That perspective is very clearly outlined, or indicated in a book called La Sibille, by Zielinski, a Polish writer who seems to me to be imbued with sincere piety. But who sees Judaism in direct contrast, spiritual, theological contrast, with the Christian faith.
Many other writers have written on the gift of earlier Mediterranean philosophers to the developments of the Church dogma. Zielinski calls this the MATERIAL influence of Hellenism on Christianity. But he takes what is, to me at least, a new angle of analysis. He speaks of the psychologic preparation for Christianity that was there in the Greek and Roman religions, both the religion of Delphi, that is of the cult of Apollo and in that of Ceres Demeter, Mater Dolorosa, and in less degree in some of the more-- --cults.
Few of us know that the Mithraic religion identified their saviour with Love. As in the gospels we read: God is love, so in Mithraic worship, or in at least one praise of Mithra, we find the same words: is Love; Mithra is love.
Zielinski offers a fairly complete list of prototypes, of the essentially Catholic beliefs, I say essentially Catholic because they are quite patently NON-Jewish, and ANTI-Jewish, and they are specifically the features of Catholicism which Protestantism has wiped out.
? I think you should consider these things. The Jews do not honor the Virgin, they do not honor the Mother of God in any form. Neither do the Protestants. Mother Mary gets a look in at Christmas, that is, on the anniversary of our Lord's birth, on about the same footing as the Sheperds and Magi, just as the Catholic Church notices the Semitic period once a year in the prayer for the perfidious Jews on the anniversary of the crucifixion.
And Zielinski's term for Protestantism is "REJEWdiazed religion. " But I am not so much intent on the theology as on the immediate ecclesiastical polity of the enemies of faith. He points out, I think uncontradictably, that the people who got converted to Christianity in the early centuries were, as Zielinski points out, the pagans, and the people who most pertinaciously opposed the new religion of Christianity were the Jews. Various attempts at syncretism preceded the Conversion of Constantine, and the formulation of the Catholic or general church and emperors of other empires had felt the need of a single religion for all their people. The Tarquins were converted to Apollo, there was a fusion of Delphi with the Persians, Ptolemy First wanted a single cult for his subjects, and Seleukos held out against Ptolemy and Lysimacus. In short, there is nothing essentially new in an emperor's wanting a synthetic and inclusive religion for political ends.
And remains of these syncretisms persist in great beauty in Christian ritual, and in the Catholic disposition. Isis, Demter Mary, the fans in the Easter Mass at Siena. The Greek church held out against Rome in calling itself orthodox and not the General Church. The Greeks by that time were not a people ruling an empire. Given the Roman empire there was a political need of a general or universal religion for the whole empire, which claimed more or less to be the circle of lands, the whole world.
As to the seriousness of the Anglican church, Brooks Adams sums that up fairly completely when he remarks with perfect accuracy, the relation of Christ's blood and body to the bread of the sacrament was changed
? five times in the course of a life time, by royal decree or act of Parliament.
The Brits are a theatrical and not a religious people. And the last meeting in London was not wholly religious in nature. The Anglican church is a national church. The Church of Rome was an imperial church at the outset. A Protestant sect is by definition cut off from universality. But today we are faced by a new INTERNATIONAL empire, a new tyranny, that hates and bleeds the whole world. I refer to the empire of international usury, that knows no faith and no frontiers. It is called international finance, and the Jew and the Archbishop in London are at work for that tyranny trying to draft a universal religion in defense of the infamy of the usurers. It is DEMOCRATIC in principles and I think the Catholic representative is ill-advised to put his head into the noose. As a democratic and usurious combine, the Catholic is in a minority of ONE against TWO. He will always be outvoted, and I can not see that this conduces to Catholic welfare. A universal church of the usurers would be very poor substitute for religion.
? It's not my period, and some specialist in English history may correct me, but that is what I recall of the charter. It is the STATE of the manor that mattered to me as an observer of England. Some of the best pictures had been sold, the library was not in working order, there had been some restoration, about Walpole's time, I should imagine, but the ECONomic system of THAT time hadn't permitted FULL restoration. What had been done when England had far LESS money, was not to be done; and now the place, that OUGHT to have been a center of life, that would have housed 80 guests splendidly was as far from action as you might say Carcassonne or St. Bertrand de Cominges. Then, we drove some miles across country for tennis, and an amiable man explained to me how hound's feet ought to be formed.
I asked something about a hound in a sportin' print or perhaps it was a water color of the-- --sportin' print period, and he said the hound was, as I recall it, a bit long in the pasterns, if that is the word. And all of this, as far as it was ALIVE is, I suppose, what Sir P. Gibbs was upholdin' in his liberal way. In 1938 and before that. But as an economist, I say god damn, here you have the scene, you have the SHELL of the plant (to use a commercial term), you have the perfect setting. You have the OUTSIDE of the picture, and you go on from decade to decade, for hundred years or more years, eating the VITALITY out of it. And this is the work of the USURY system, you have done that with the adoration of PROFITS, you have done that with SLOP in your politics, and the JEWS have NOT saved you. Whatever they have done, they have not saved you and they have not helped you to SAVE IT. And by IT I mean all of your welfare. I mean all of your yeomanry. Jew Rothschild and his fellow Jew Goldsmid and his fellow Christian Baring have NOT helped you to save it.
And I now ask you and Sir Philip WHAT CAUSES that? I will leave one of the regular lecturers here in Rome to talk to you of slums that he knows better than I do. I will merely ask about a FEW rural scenes in England. What caused 'em? Or a few friends from the English country,
? or a landlord of my room in Church Walk, or some of the humbler GOOD people that I met at one time or another, who are the right sort of English, WHAT have THEY had from your system? Or takin' it a grade or two further up, when I was last over in London after a lapse of ten years, about the time Gibbs was writin' his book, a good poet motored me out to a suburb and looked at the shoestring building and said "Jerusalem in England's pleasant land" with FULL understanding of usury, and the dry rot and wet rot. And then went into the Army the minute this was got going, knowin' what started it, but wantin' his own hands clean from the beginning. What do these people, who are the BEST of England, expect from the union of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Gollancz's book club?
#118 (1941) U. S. [? ] QUISLING
Mr. Roosevelt seems determined that England shall not get out of this war alive, and that there shall be no end to the war until the English have been Dunkirk'd out of Cape Town and the Americans had a try at Dakar and the Azores.
It's a hard life, but we have an Italian proverb "chi la dura la vince" [he who holds out longest, wins]. Similar proverbs doubtless exist in other languages. But on the supposition that the war may end sometime, either before or after the collapse of Western civilization, in either case it will be necessary either to continue civilization or to start another, and Mis- INFOR MATION or policy based on ignorance is not recommendable for either purpose.
Several American publications have mentioned the UNWILLINGNESS of their political bigwigs to learn facts about Europe. If their editors are sincere in these expressions, it might be well to start on the case of Quisling. No man has had more mud and slime flung at him from the sewers of British newsprint.
? Mr. Roosevelt used up about ten pages of his twelve-page speech of May 27 with what might have been questions from the particularly low London Daily Mirror, from any issue printed during the past six or eight years. But at one point it appeared that he spoke not merely from prejudice (unconscious or other) but from plain ignorance. We ask what does he know of Quisling.
Norway, like other countries in 1936, had at least varieties of inhabitants. The lowest and vilest of human types represented by the international, and possibly non-aryan financier Hambro, an exploiter of the people, a money lender, who in time of crisis quite naturally fled the country, taking his bonds with him. This is to be expected whether these leeches are Jew or Gentile, whether they are millionaire socialists like Blum and Bullitt, or puppets or larger financiers.
And Norway had also men who wanted a better Europe. Now Italy has no debt to Mr. Quisling, but in the interests of truth and fair reporting we suggest that before America accepts an estimate of Mr. Quisling based wholly on reports from what might be called Harnbro sources and sources allied to Hambro, namely London Jewish and Aryan papers, controlled by Ellerman, Mend alias Melchett, Eden's friends, the Astors, et cetera, some one should go back and look at Quisling's plan for a north European federation, and then decide whether or not the real Quisling corresponds with the London distortion of Quisling. Quisling based his position on the belief that "an old world falls, a new is being born. " This is anathema to the unholy trinity Baruch-Roosevelt and Moses Sieff. NO conclusions drawn for a belief in or a desire for a better social order could bring favor from the Jew-Beaverbrook-Astor press.
Quisling not being in England, and not being dependent on British editors could not be starved directly, starvation being the financiers' FIRST and main mode of attack. There remained only vilification, and President Roosevelt is merely the last recruit to dirt-slingers emergency corps.
? SECONDLY: Quisling observed that the Jewish international had had some effect on the affairs of Soviet Russia. How unfortunate! What an error this would have been had Mr. Quisling wanted favorable publicity in the Sieff-Mond Guardian-Eflerman papers! !
THIRDLY: Quisling regarded the League of Nations with suspicion, thereby forfeiting the support of the Keyneses, Welleses, Streits, and other bootlicking agents of the Bank of International Settlements and its then Paris, and still London affiliates; in short by all these three positions, he dissociated himself from the Mandels, Blums and Stavitskys.
Quisling's position against Bolshevism was to him a position against "universal materialist republic under Jewish dictatorship," a position analogous to that taken by Finland. But Quisling owned, so far as it appears, no nickel mines, and therefore the publicity controlled by "Anglo-Canadian nickel (alias, Melchett, etc. ) would hardly give him a "build up" in "Time" or other Jewish-owned American organs. At the time of Sanctions, Quisling's party was for Norwegian neutrality. This of course showed the cloven-hoof from the Morgenthau point of view. Quisling was and is, however a Norwegian and judged the matter in its relation to Norway's interest. His movement however took NO sides. He was worried by the Soviet participation in the League of Nations and by the Jewish factor in Russian politics. It annoyed him that the lives of people IN NORWAY were dominated by foreign policy and not by home politics.
The idea that the citizens of a country should consider their INTERNAL affairs does, of course, render Quisling incompatible with the Roosevelt way of life; but even so it was scarcely high treason on Quisling's part to observe the 1936 situation IN Norway. Quisling was capable of the magnificent axiom: "The influence of a state in foreign politics always corresponds to the degree of development of its INTERNAL strength. "
? How unlike the Roosevelt technique of raising hysteria, both for personal and national use. In fact Quisling advocated autarchy, rather than GRABarchy. Autarchy for Norway, and co-operation BY Norway and foreign states. He saw Czechoslovakia bucked by international Jews. He saw the Brito-yitto attempt to encircle Germany was provocative of unpleasant tension. AND he observed the GE-O-GRaphic position of his own country in case of Germano-Russian unpleasantness. "Norway, the cross-roads between Russia, Germany and England. "
BUT he did NOT turn against England, as the British Jews would have wished him to. He saw a RUSSIAN attempt to use Norway in a flank attack on Germany AND on England, and advocated a union of Norway with ENGLAND and Germany. A nordic world federation. Why do WE in Italy mention this?
Quisling was not pro-Mussolini, the Axis was not yet in being. Contrary to the Edens and Churchills WE in ITALY do not believe that continual lies about everyone will help to a new and better world order.
QUISLING considered that peace between England and Germany was vital to Norway. Therefore the Beaverbrook and hog press have for the past four years denounced him as a traitor to Norway. Which is what we expect from Lord Beaverbrook, Sieff, and the Astors, and why the prestige of the British press has during the past years notably declined on the continent of Europe, in Asia and in South America, though apparently NOT in the Morgenthau circle.
To Quisling, "peace and conciliation between Germany and England" was the one way in which Norway could escape from war and chaos. With no tenderness for the Latins, Quisling went beyond this conciliation of Germany and England and wanted a Nordic federation containing these two great powers, plus the Scandinavian countries, plus Holland and Flanders.
? OBVIOUSLY such a union would not have been as advantageous to Italy as the Axis. However it is not the Rome end of the Axis which is demanding Quisling's head. It is our opponents who have done their utmost to turn his name into a common verb and make him a synonym for anti-national activity whenever and wherever.
OBVIOUSLY Quisling's plan would have been to the benefit of the English. They would not have lost so many American bases, nor would our position in the Mediterranean have been, by that plan, at all improved. We might still be where we were in 1937. What is absolutely and uncontestably apparent is that Mr. QUISLING'S OWN country would not have suffered invasion, and this from the patriot's view is of chief importance. The present war would probably not have occurred. At any rate it could not have started as an Anglo-German conflagration.
In any case, what is ABSOLUTELY incontestable is that Norway would not have been invaded; and this from Mr. Quisling's point of view, that is from the patriot view, must be considered as important.
History will possibly decide whether Quisling's attempts to avert war or the efforts of Kuhn-Loeb and Co. , and the yitto-brito financial agents IN the United States to get the war started, and of their American colleagues, half-breeds Bullitts, et cetera to GET the war started, that the American effort to START war in Europe, in order to pick Europe's pocket, and ultimate[ly] to drive the American people into the shambles will have proved to the advantage of England.
At any rate, as indicated in our brief earlier comment on the Quisling paragraph in Roosevelt's speech of May 27th, we believe Roosevelt's allusion to Quisling was due, as are so many of the President's outbursts, to his reading the positively, the WORST type of newsprint, until it obscures his world outlook.
? To sum up, Quisling's plan might have averted war. It would in any case have kept war out of Norway. Hence the abuse of Quisling in the usurocrat, monopolistic, mercantilist press both Jew and Gentile. But the heads of states should not be wholly subservient to the lowest and yellowest papers.
#119 (1943) U. S. (14) PHILOLOGY
I have mentioned Brooks Adams in these talks? I hope I have mentioned his name often enough for it to have sunk in. I know of no better introduction to American history or the understanding of the historical process than Brook Adams' two volumes, Law of Civilization and Decay and The New Empire.
Of course you need collateral readin', other history books, general history of the U. S. No better introduction than Woodward's. Can't trust it at all points but will give you an outline. Unjust to Van Buren and the Adamses but clearly intended to be fair and not a mere smoke screen.
D. R. Dewey's Financial History. Lot of facts, doubt if student ever remembers any of 'em. No key, no clue, nothing in the whole book to help the reader understand "what it is all about. " Nacherly it is THE standard work in the universities. Universities for the past 80 years, increasingly for past 50 or 40, have inculcated respect for lucre. Adoration of money grabbing, bred taste for luxury, called standard of livin', above what student is likely to attain, and told him the great man was the man who got MONEY, no matter how. Religion fadin'; religion, church buildin', a branch of the real estate business. All churches mortgaged. Church buildin', a means to get community groups to borrow money.
Pete Larranaga, Gold Glut and Government, tells you something. Kitson a bad writer in many ways, piles up obstacles for the reader, possibly
? knew more than any of 'em. Even Woodward does NOT give the clue. He gives some clues but not the debt clue. In course of long desultory readin', the FIRST book I ever struck that would lead the student to an understandin' of the whole historical process in the U. S. was Overholser, in 64 pages, published by Honest Money Founders of Chicago, now I hear; at least they would know where to find it.
Doc. Ames, H. V. , at University of Pennsylvania, in 1902 was already gettin' interested in reconstruction. The "Tragic Era" as C. Bowers calls it, period after the Civil War. But he hadn't got down to the debt component. And without study of debt and usury NO history of the U. S. can be written save as a smoke screen, consciously or unconsciously. I don't mean that historians haven't written with intention of tellin' the story, of writing true history, but those that did mainly had NOT found the clue, the pattern in the carpet. And don't run away with the idea that I told you Brooks Adams was the last will and testament of God Almighty. His books are merely, as far as I know, the best introduction. It is written from a mercantile position, with amazin' lucidity and power of synthesis, as you can see if you compare 'em with some of his very rare followers who have written BEFORE having so thoroughly digested their data.
I doubt if you will understand the full imbecility, the absolute squalor of the Knox-Roosevelt (F. D. Roosevelt) Baruch administration till you have read Brooks Adams. He writes about trade routes, the dislocation of trade routes, the FLOP of empires consequent on the dislocation or loss of trade routes. What Frankie and kikie have DONE to you NOW. No author can get the whole history of mankind into one book, or two books. The spectacular drama of history has, let us say, been consequent on the shift of the trade routes, caused by new discoveries of minerals, caused by magnetic compass, or new modes of transport, sometimes ruined by excess charges of administration, such as usury, and false accountancy, false accountancy having corroded all Mr. Adams' nice mercantile systems, though he don't put his main emphasis on that
? component. Wars rise from commercial competition, BUT to have that competition, down under it is the production, production system.
That is what Brooks Adams was not writing about. God knows he had enough to write about. Enough history that hadn't been sorted out in men's minds, in ANY man's mind. Over and above the books I have mentioned at the start of this talk are the actual papers of statesmen. John Adams and Van Buren and so on. Woodward suggests that the explanation of the Adams family is to be found in glandular secretions. I would say mebbe it was due to John Adams, the founder of the line, gettin' spliced to Abigail Quincy, that might explain some of that problem. However, one point that Brooks Adams more or less passes by is noted by Woodward and will do to fill in the chink of the story. Just to keep from introducin' Europe, and foreign systems, topics on which you run ravin' mad out of prejudice. Will you note that John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay worked out in theory what was called the AMERICAN system? Meaning that the U S was to be self supportin'. At a time when there was one party, [the] idea was broached that all sections of the country were to be harmonized, North East to develop manufacturing, supported by protective tariff to keep out European competition; and that the industrial towns would provide a market for the agricultural products of the West and South; and the rural sections would provide customers for goods produced by the factories. Nothing in it that is not plain commonsense. Of course most American prosperity rose from the application of those ideas, partial application. But still the good life in America has been due to 'em.
Well now Europe has GOT that idea. There is nothing fancy or new about THAT idea. It is just horse sense and intelligence. BUT it don't produce war. It don't produce gallopin' usury. It is not romantic enough for the sheenies. And you will never understand American history or the history of the Occident durin' the past 2000 years unless you look at one or two problems; namely, sheenies and usury. One or the other or BOTH, I should say, both.
? And dear ole Bill Woodward does NOT give you clearly the answer. He is not stallin', at least I don't think so, but some things escape him, or remain in penumbra, probably his own penumbra. For example, he notices that in the Quincy Adams-Jackson campaign a change came over American political method. For the first time there was a wild outbreak of vituperation in the press: wild slanders against both of the candidates -- --.
Shall we say that something had bust? TWO candidates, Quincy Adams and Jackson, who did not belong to the banks. Of course John Quincy Adams might not have disturbed 'em, but he was so gol' thunderin' honest, and his father had SO seen thru the bank swindle.
I don't mean that that is all of the story. And let's not get lost in retrospect. I tell you. FIRST, you can not understand American history without digging down into the problem of debt and usury. Up to now no American history has been written. Takin' due count of the personnel and the component of Jewry. Brooks Adams seeing that the Kike triumphed in England, after Waterloo, and Overholser givin' you the clue (along with Col. Lindbergh's papa)--the CLUE to the betrayal of the American nation, the American Government, the American system in 1863, the sellout to Rothschild.
But Brooks Adams havin' his limitation, at least the exposition in the two volumes mentioned, has the limitation of dealing with wars and the decline of empires--wars from economic competition. BUT down under that, if the thing for you to study if you be lookin' forward, is the production system. Possibly about to be reinforced ON the U. S. A. , as consequence of the squalor of Knox, the ignorance of the governing oligarchy. You may be too dumb to do it until you are forced. Seiff's embargo was a protective measure.
On a basis of autarchy and collaboration a peaceful world can arise. And on NO other basis. The mercantilist system, mercantilist disposition, or
? an Anschauung, never brought peace. Monopoly, megalomania, reading the Jewbrew texts never brought peace honor or decency, or the good life, neither did neglect of the Latin classics.
America declined. The whole tone of American life went down, slopped, grew foetid, step by step as the Latin classics went into the discard, and the reading of the Hebrew superstitions continued to be tolerated in the American colleges. Out of Sallust and Cicero a man might LEARN something useful. Out of Demosthenes he might git a line of the habitual human swindles that would help him understand the second bank of the United States, oh, ably described by Woodward, as to its personal habits, BUT not exposed in its perspective as it is exposed in the autobiography of Martin Van Buren.
Go on, read the Brooks Adams and then go on to the study of contemporary Europe. In the light of the Clay Quincy Adams project. Don't die like a beast, I mean if you are dead set to be sunk in the mid- Atlantic or Pacific or scorched in the desert, at least KNOW why it is done to you.
To die not knowin' why is to die like an animal. What the kike calls you: goyim or cattle. To die like a human being you have at least got to know why it is done to you.
#120 (1941) U. S. (142) CHURCH PERIL
I am speaking as promised to the students of Fordham, and professors, and other Catholic universities. When I was a young man in America, one heard a good deal of talk about the union of the churches. It was very nice and humanitarian on the surface. And one heard less of a more bizarre proposition, namely, that of Anglo-Israel, all dressed up with the Stone of Scone on which Scotch's King's were recrowned, now it is in Westminster Abbey, and about the prophet Isaiah, and the rest of the
? stage set, "hast given us the gates of thine enemies" and so on. Well, comin' to Europe I thought nothin' about either of these movements or drags for the next 30 years and very probably you didn't either, those of you who are old enough to have heard of the phantasies of the year 1900. But that is not the end of the story. A few weeks ago in London there was a powwow between the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Catholic Archbishop, or Cardinal, and a high Rabbi. And if I were a Catholic, I should want to know more about what that meeting was up to. I should want, quite seriously, to see that conventicle in historic perspective. That perspective is very clearly outlined, or indicated in a book called La Sibille, by Zielinski, a Polish writer who seems to me to be imbued with sincere piety. But who sees Judaism in direct contrast, spiritual, theological contrast, with the Christian faith.
Many other writers have written on the gift of earlier Mediterranean philosophers to the developments of the Church dogma. Zielinski calls this the MATERIAL influence of Hellenism on Christianity. But he takes what is, to me at least, a new angle of analysis. He speaks of the psychologic preparation for Christianity that was there in the Greek and Roman religions, both the religion of Delphi, that is of the cult of Apollo and in that of Ceres Demeter, Mater Dolorosa, and in less degree in some of the more-- --cults.
Few of us know that the Mithraic religion identified their saviour with Love. As in the gospels we read: God is love, so in Mithraic worship, or in at least one praise of Mithra, we find the same words: is Love; Mithra is love.
Zielinski offers a fairly complete list of prototypes, of the essentially Catholic beliefs, I say essentially Catholic because they are quite patently NON-Jewish, and ANTI-Jewish, and they are specifically the features of Catholicism which Protestantism has wiped out.
? I think you should consider these things. The Jews do not honor the Virgin, they do not honor the Mother of God in any form. Neither do the Protestants. Mother Mary gets a look in at Christmas, that is, on the anniversary of our Lord's birth, on about the same footing as the Sheperds and Magi, just as the Catholic Church notices the Semitic period once a year in the prayer for the perfidious Jews on the anniversary of the crucifixion.
And Zielinski's term for Protestantism is "REJEWdiazed religion. " But I am not so much intent on the theology as on the immediate ecclesiastical polity of the enemies of faith. He points out, I think uncontradictably, that the people who got converted to Christianity in the early centuries were, as Zielinski points out, the pagans, and the people who most pertinaciously opposed the new religion of Christianity were the Jews. Various attempts at syncretism preceded the Conversion of Constantine, and the formulation of the Catholic or general church and emperors of other empires had felt the need of a single religion for all their people. The Tarquins were converted to Apollo, there was a fusion of Delphi with the Persians, Ptolemy First wanted a single cult for his subjects, and Seleukos held out against Ptolemy and Lysimacus. In short, there is nothing essentially new in an emperor's wanting a synthetic and inclusive religion for political ends.
And remains of these syncretisms persist in great beauty in Christian ritual, and in the Catholic disposition. Isis, Demter Mary, the fans in the Easter Mass at Siena. The Greek church held out against Rome in calling itself orthodox and not the General Church. The Greeks by that time were not a people ruling an empire. Given the Roman empire there was a political need of a general or universal religion for the whole empire, which claimed more or less to be the circle of lands, the whole world.
As to the seriousness of the Anglican church, Brooks Adams sums that up fairly completely when he remarks with perfect accuracy, the relation of Christ's blood and body to the bread of the sacrament was changed
? five times in the course of a life time, by royal decree or act of Parliament.
The Brits are a theatrical and not a religious people. And the last meeting in London was not wholly religious in nature. The Anglican church is a national church. The Church of Rome was an imperial church at the outset. A Protestant sect is by definition cut off from universality. But today we are faced by a new INTERNATIONAL empire, a new tyranny, that hates and bleeds the whole world. I refer to the empire of international usury, that knows no faith and no frontiers. It is called international finance, and the Jew and the Archbishop in London are at work for that tyranny trying to draft a universal religion in defense of the infamy of the usurers. It is DEMOCRATIC in principles and I think the Catholic representative is ill-advised to put his head into the noose. As a democratic and usurious combine, the Catholic is in a minority of ONE against TWO. He will always be outvoted, and I can not see that this conduces to Catholic welfare. A universal church of the usurers would be very poor substitute for religion.
