Instead of lining up your Sassoon before a firing squad, or dealing with your
criminals
INSIDE your empire, you dumped 'em onto the U.
Ezra-Pound-Speaking
The political idiot is the politician who does NOT look at his own ignorance, and try to chart it, to diminish it.
Knox, Stimson, Roosevelt, put 'em in a glass case and charge the public ten cents to look at 'em.
America WAS promises.
The possibility of forming a new trade route in collaboration with Japan,
? thence centering the world trade in America, running the Asian trade to Europe and the European trade to Asia via the U. S. A.
That was what the American acumen had charted in 1900, after the victory of Pittsburgh Steel. That was the material base of America's chance for preeminence. NO monopoly, I said preeminence, in a world system. Not the fool cluck idea of forcing the world into paying an unjust price, of starving the earth in the interest of a few slobs of upper Judea, but a collaboration in a world system wherein trade would follow the easy courses. BECAUSE those trade routes could have undersold other routes, because different goods lay at different termini. And the U. S. lay in the middle. SO long as she collaborated with Tokyo. That is what Frankie D. Roosevelt has foozied. He has cut off the trade with Europe. He has cut off the trade with Asia.
America recedes into something like where she was in the days of T. Jefferson. Larger, yes, larger: but not more powerful in proportion to the world powers.
Three generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves. Mebbe you folks will learn something BY it. Perforce constrained into thinking of autarchy, into isolation. That Anglo kikes have failed to force upon Europe. BUT which Europe had the foresight to provide for, and is increasingly attaining.
A little decency would have kept the U. S. from error. An amount of horse sense comparable to that reigning in the U. S. when Tom Edison was a young man, when H. Ford was making his first automobiles. Waaal, who would have thought that men of my age would ever have thought of lookin' back to the days of Wm. McKinley as a great and brilliant American era? Days of American engineering preeminence and of dollar diplomacy.
? #61 (February 19, 1943) U. S. (C9) THAT ILLUSION
Met an American lady on the seafront tother day. Married to an Italian, so she is still thaar on the seafront. Says to me: "That WALLACE, hasn't sense to come in out of the rain. "
I seem to recall a report of a Delphian convention about six years ago, when Henry W. was trying to tell 'em something about American agriculture; how you eat more if you grow less, or some such ingenious piece of Jew brow kikosophy.
Hank of course is appealin'. I mean, gives the effect of bein' a nice kind hearted feller, with infinite capacity for believin' what the wrong people tell him. He don't see that a world would be just as warless under an efficient Japanese or European police domination as under a kike monopoly--probably more so. I hear that in occupied Russia they get a Jew to supervise Jewish labor. In fact the lack of sequence. and coherence in H. W. 's kite flying would be remarkable if Hank didn't come from the corn belt. He must be gettin' his ideas from the B. B. C. latterly. He is not a sadistic slob like his leader, but still I s'pose he has no mother to guide him. Yet YOU, in fact you got your responsibility. Can't always blame it on the executive, and the pseudo-executive. Diagnose 'em. Diagnose 'em. IF you can't see how crazy some of their talk is, who is going to SEE for you?
Most of you never go near a political meetin'. Most of you don't know what are PRIMARIES. The young ought to start looking into the actual political system. Go round to the wigwam. You got a vote. The ward boys won't throw you out if you ask him politely what you can do for the party. It don't matter which party. Go round to the wigwam. Don't lie back on the divan and think not listenin' to my voice on the radio will bring political salvation and economic salvation to YOU and your honeybun.
? No political system will run itself without human intervention. All the intervenin' you can probably do is comprised of YOUR OWN intervention. Go, find out politely which political party is worse than the other, if either is, or conceivably could be, worse than the other.
Manners will probably be politer in the Republican wigwam. The obvious percentage of kikery will be lower. There will be possibly less humanitarian flimflam. BUT in any case diagnose 'em. And the first piece of quite foetid bunk to diagnose OUT of the Roosevelt-Wallace synagogue sob stuff is this bunk about FREEDOM, which does NOT include economic freedom. Take that every day and all day; and whenever an office holder, a sergeant, a chewish staff officer or a member of the cabinet or executive says FREEDOM, point out that his (if it's Wallace) HIS proposed freedom, omits freedom from debt. We fight for world freedom, says the dead cod in London, over the synagogue radio.
Wallace has the sour faced gall to get up and talk about the freedom of a world in DEBT to America. Whenever Wallace or any other palooka pulls that by word of mouth, on the radio or in private, git a shovel, or try and see if the flush mechanism is workin'.
THAT much at least you ought to learn from this war. Ought to have learned it in 1920. Ought to be there in the school books from the 1st grade and upward.
There is NO freedom without economic freedom. Freedom that does not include freedom from debt is plain bunkumb. It is foetid and foul logomachy to call such servitude freedom. And really Mr. Wallace, with his kindly smile, and his pious palavar ought to catch up with the 20th century and realize that that line does NOT work any longer. The whole of Europe, Asia and Arabia is ONTO that hoakum. Heckle him. Whenever Hank or any one of the high Jewsfeld committee pulls that wheeze about freedom, enforced by Jewish world police, centered in
? Panama and in Palestine, ask: does he mean freedom from debt? Ask: what does he mean by freedom. Freedom from debt? Freedom from payin' two dollars OUT of the people's pocket for every buck spent by the government? Ask about freedom. Don't shoot the guy, diagnose him.
Good God, have you no columnists, have you no caricaturists left in America? Even little Eddie asked you what you would do with your GOLD. Christ, you are in debt. You are indebted. You have for years been pouring out America's wealth. Pouring out the purchasing power that ought to have stayed in the American people's pocket.
You have bought gold at 35 bucks per ounce. You have paid quite needlessly 75 cents for 23 cents worth of silver. All paid INTO the pockets of other people. America was promises; "TO WHOM? " says Archie. Promises to Rothschild and Rothschild's co-nationals, Archie? That was promises TO WHOM? Paid into the pockets of people who keep the Roosevelts and Wallaces IN office for the sole purpose of having the levers held by people who will swallow that sort of bumcomb. Who will get up and talk about freedom without seein' that freedom is NOT unless it be freedom FROM debt?
Yes, freedom from all sorts of debt, INCLUDIN' debt at usurious interest. Two dollars fer one. Yet even Gallatin during the war of 1812 has sense enough to emit some purchasing power (notes under 100 bucks) that did not bear interest. You are SOLD. England is sold. France has been OBVIOUSLY put up at auction. Switzerland is still where she is because Jews weren't allowed to settle there until 1864. Wherever the Jew gets control of a nation, that nation gets into difficulty. I'll say: into difficulty.
I am taking my whole time on one point durin' this little discourse. Sometimes I try to tell you too much. I suspect I talk in a what-is-called incoherent manner: 'cause I can't (and I reckon nobody could) tell where to begin. What knowledge one can consider as preexisted in the mind of
? the AVERAGE American listener. When I was wonderin', the American press men left Rome; I was wonderin' if anybody listened to what I said on Rome Radio and an experienced well broken journalist said: don't worry, there'll always be some fellow in a newspaper office sitten there, trying to get something for his column or something.
Debt is the prelude to slavery. And you are now, I 'spose, arrived at the intermezzo. America WAS promises. America today is largely, shall we say, promissory notes that simply can NOT be honored. Britain's debts in the last war--who paid 'em? Oh, some of 'em didn't get paid. England in 1935 [was] a bankrupt trying to live by the lending of money. But, brother, England in 1939 was inhabited exclusively by millionaires. In comparison to what England is today under Churchill; and still spending her treasures. Still losing bits of her empire. No, no, your DEBTS will not be paid by England, nor by the French Jews headed by Jewsieur de Gaulle. And your debts: oh yes, you have some. One hundred billyum dollars unless some of your radio voices exaggerated. Well, has anyone offer'd to PAY those debts FOR you?
The pressure to increase hours of labor IN the U. S. of A. , where prosperity was just 'round the corner. Am I to believe that you no longer have complete liberty to eat and to use automobiles? Some of the reports from the U. S. A. seem exaggerated; but in a country that swallowed Morgenthau's reports of the goings on of the American treasury: what CAN be exaggerated?
One point for this evening. One point that the most humble citizen's political responsibility can stretch to. You, I mean YOU, can doubt the intelligence, or shall we be forced to say, the sincerity, of any speaker who uses the word freedom in any context where ECONOMIC freedom is not implicit in the meaning of his whole sentence or discourse. Without freedom from DEBT, there is NO total freedom; there is no condition that can be called freedom save for the purposes of babboozling the auditor or the elector. That is the primary lesson for the
? Mr. Wallace, before he ruins his bright and beamish hopes for incumbency in the White House by being indellibly branded as the Jew's mouthpiece.
That might show political ineptitude by the year 1944. Say that Mr. Wallace were UNIVERSALLY recognized as the Jew's choice for American president and were opposed by a non-Jewish, candidate. Mr. Wallace being, I mean 'sposin' he and his are dead set to carry him into the White House. Get him to inspect the source of his funny notions. Such as plowing under, and world freedom under Jewish police, or a Jew-owned police force. I know he thinks he thought it all out for himself, but get him to look back in his memory, and see WHO first explained it to him? Who first demonstrated over the dinner table or across the desk in his office, that you plow under for the good of the farmer, and to have better food and cheaper food for the workin' man, and that it is NECESSARY to force people to do what they would do anyhow if you didn't put a police force there over 'em. And how Russia is the true guide to humanity.
Get Mr. Wallace to tell you WHICH Jewish patriot first explained these things to him.
#62 (February 21, 1943) U. K. (C5) SERVITI
I regret the troubles of certain Englishmen, but I can't see that the blame falls outside the borders of England. I do NOT believe reports from America, because they are American reports. The American press lies. All Jewish news agencies lie. That is what they exist for. The American press, it would not be quite true to say, lies LIKE yours does. It lies differently. Yours lies from a sycophantic love of the LIE. The sycophantic love of keeping up hoary humbugs. The American, from the love of the tall tale. The technique of salesmanship implied in having a bigger headline, and a wilder imbecility.
? Result: I do NOT know what is going on in the U. S. , and I am not under any illusion that Roosevelt's press bureau will send out ANY reliable information. And until I can get personal reports I shall treat all U. S. reports with reserve. Just as I would treat with reserve a British official statement about anything under heaven.
BUT IF you are disliked in America, if there is a growing restiveness to the Judeocracy and a growing desire to let you down, pick your pockets, carve up the nick of your empire, you can blame yourselves! YOU flooded the U. S. with foul propaganda, and the offsweepings of the Economist, the London School of Economics and hybrids of the Anglo ghetto.
Instead of lining up your Sassoon before a firing squad, or dealing with your criminals INSIDE your empire, you dumped 'em onto the U. S. A. So that you deserve NO good from the American people.
It would have been better to send over a plague ship. A cargo of rats innoculated with tetanus bubonic microbes; typhus and leprosy would have been a better title to American gratitude. And as you have done unto others, Judas at the helm and Einzig in the chart room, why wouldn't the new Jerusalem, the new Jew Roosevelt oosalem do unto you?
I mean all in the usury, and usual process, the usual line of biszniscz, the Ellerman, Sieff, Norman method. All very regrettable from the cultural angle, but all very much in the financial process. Silk stockings and all. I am speaking against usurocracy. I am speaking against the spread territorially, and the protraction of the war because I think the protraction and distention, in themselves, constitute gains for the usurocracy. Whether you can LEARN anything from the flop of France I can not make out. Up to now you appear to have learnt NOTHING, absobloodylootly nothing. Yet the French debacle might still teach you ONE thing. Note that two such different authors as B. Adams writing in 1909 and W. Lewis publishing in 1936 both pay their respects to the
? power of French finance. Looking to Paris as the centre of banking power.
The word FRENCH in this connection will raise a smile in some quarters. But so was it. Paris before the Russian revolution was, let us say, a great center of usury. The French Army in 1938 aroused professions of admiration, cras tibi. The eccentricity of France's material position, that is to say the way in which France lay OFF the main trade routes: her off-centerness, her not being in the center, had worried French rulers since the time of Louis XIV. You beat France and Holland. You grabbed the sea routes, and you HAD mineral under your grassy soil. Your iron mines hit high, yielded their maximum in 1882 with 18 million tons of ore. By 1900, that was down to 14 million. Copper, 1868, 9,817 tons; 1899, 637 tons. Lead, 73,420; 1899, 2,552. Tin, 1871, 10,900; dropped to 4,013 inside a year. And apparently a good deal of your coal was, at the turn of the century, already being bought by your own ships at your coaling stations abroad, so that it couldn't all count in trade balance. You know whether these trends have continued. By 1903 B. Adams thought that your END seemed only a question of time. I don't quote Brooks Adams as divine revelation, I quote him as a prospicient author whose perceptions are worth careful consideration. I also quote him as indicative of the most active American thought of his time, though he stood high above most of it. Let us say that the mercantilist outlook never had better exponent. It was a pragmatic age. It is highly interesting to measure human knowledge today against what his was at the turn of the century. To see where he left off. Where if ever, he erred. Mr. Adams was in a privileged position to estimate your position. I mean he had perspective far above the common. His father Charles Francis Adams had been ambassador at [The] Court of St. James during the American Civil War and wrestled with Russell; his brother, Henry had been secretary to their father during that period, and possessed a far from common capacity for leaving a very clear record of events. B. A. 's grandfather had been American Ambassador to Russia during earlier and eventful years, and Charles Francis had edited HIS
? grandfather's papers. B. A. at turn of century was nevertheless a bit elated by the contemporary elation of the U. S. , the period of great combines, of the new efficiency of combined (or trust) organization. He felt that America, by which word all U. S. 'ers meant the U. S. of North America was expandin', and that the U. S. of A. was headed for imperial destinies. He saw it with mercantilist eye, shall we say, as material tendency.
He noted that in 1870 a chief source of British prosperity had been agriculture, but that already a Bagehot had been writing about how British money circulated round via Lombard Street, saving British landed gentry, almost as that used in discounting bills from British industrial areas. That Bagehot's words were hardly in print, before a shift of the world equilibrium had set in.
Mr. Adams noted the apparently meager accumulation of POPULAR SAVINGS in England and that during the Boer war you seemed to be relying on foreign bankers. I don't want to insist unduly. But let us take a date five years later than the publication of Mr. Brooks Adams' The New Empire, say he meant the American empire. The great American reorganization WAS complete in 1897; a decade later almost any average American arriving in London would have been full up with ideas of PROGRESS. He would, if he had met an intelligent British Tory (the two words COULD at that time be joined in at least a few cases without being ridiculous) he, the imaginary, homme moyen sensuel, average American, young or middle aged, would have encountered something absolutely new TO him, something unknown, and I think undreamt in America. Namely the conSERVATIVE view, the utterly surprisin' idea that things weren't gettin' better, and that you, meaning England of course, but being an Englishman, the English Tory would have applied it to the universe, on which the British eye never rests. Well that people, mankind, etc. better go slow, better not agitate, better let things stay in status quo. I believe that any and every American who
? heard this view for the first time was "struck all of a heap. " It was unbelievable heresy.
What, not progress, not everything moving upward (not to say onwards) toward bigger and brighter bonanzas? Mr. Adams in 1907, or 1908, or 1900 would have been one of the few Americans capable of locatin' the Tory outlook, Anschauung, disposition, in relation to something concrete, to something real in the then status of England. I have said before that his perceptions pretty well covered the world as it remained during his life time. In 1903 he thought that England, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the core of Europe were "apparently doomed not only to buy their raw materials abroad but to pay the cost of transport. " That view is interesting today. It may shed a bit of light on lease and lend sport. He cast his eye fairly wide over the world. He found Siberia "a narrow belt of arable land bounded by ice on the north, and by mountains and deserts on the south. " Seemed to him a poor bet as against the American continent, plus [the] fact the Rhoosians were still a bit unhandy with new fangled machinery.
Those are a few items, say [a] few high lights of the world setup as seen by an American expansionist in 1903. And I 'spose the pale blue Tory eye that greeted me in Kensington five years later was lookin' backward. Backward toward Her own (that is' England's own) agriculture. Down till 1845 it nearly sufficed for her wants. ENGLAND. Ole Viktoria's England. Advantage over the olde Roman empire. Instead of bein' drained of her bullion England sold cotton to India, instead of havin' to buy grain from Sicily and from Egypt, and so on. . . . No such favorable conditions had perhaps ever existed. An equilibrium so stable, had not some fellow gone and invented the steam locomotive. "Given effective land transportation," wrote Mr. Adams, "the North American continent seems devised by nature to be the converging point of the cheapest routes between Asia and Europe. "
? Possibly not quite the present day view. But NO view of tomorrow's trade routes is a going to put England plumb in their middle. Brother: whaaar do you land?
Ezra Pound askin'.
#63 (February 23, 1943) U. S. (C10) COMPLEXITY
You have to have more than ONE idea in your head to understand anything. You have to have possibly one idea and a mass of concrete data either conducin' to your general idea, or opposin' it.
And I try occasionally to get you to think of one, the other or both. It may be confusin'. Get you to think of an economic system, or a MERCANTILE system, or a monetary system. That is, of an organization of facts. Brooks Adams wrote a good deal about a mercantile system. Called it an economic system sometimes. Anyhow, am I clear if I say he wrote about TRADE routes? Raw materials pass over a trade route TO a point where they are wanted. Sometimes to a place where they pass into manufacture, then to a place where the finished stuff is wanted for consumption. The seats of manufacturin' shift. Obviously convenient if they are or can be shifted to the sources of the raw materials, not always handy, but whether the stuff moves raw or in finished products, the merchandise tends to seek, as they say, the most expeditious trade route.
On one turnpike four horses could draw three thousand pounds 18 miles a day. On the Erie canal four horses could draw 200 thousand pounds 24 miles in one day. Hence the prosperity of Manhattan. That is a simple and homely case out of Woodward, "A New American History. " Brooks Adams took a wider sweep. Sargon, Alexander, the silver of Quedi, the Foires de Champagne, Flemish cities, working out a general law for the vortex of trade and dominion. Might call it the material base for an
? economic system. Only it isn't. It is the ADMINISTRATIVE BASE, the material base is the raw stuff and the labor.
Brooks Adams was the mercantilist philosopher, or theorist, or better say ANALYST, analyzer of mercantilist materialist process. Possibly the most distinguished mind that ever tackled the subject. He saw a great chance for the U. S. A. IF the U. S. A. kept awake and observed the general laws of mercantile progress. Natural flow of goods by the easiest routes (easiest routes ought to be cheapest and ARE the cheapest save when the usurer or blackmailer intervenes).
BUT Brooks Adams observed that after Waterloo the mercantilist had got the push and that usury reigned; blackmailing the terrestrial universe.
I want to separate in your minds the mercantilist administrative basis of an economic order, and the accountancy, the tricks played with bits of paper: bank ledgers, engraved certificates. You can't understand the dirty deal that has been put over you till you can keep those two things clear in your minds.
And you have got the gold damndest ASS of a government in Washington that ever the American people was called on to suffer from. Eastern idea about money, said Bankhead of that saddistic slob in the White House. Down on his knees every morning adoring the usury system, saying his prayers to the usury system, maintaining six sorts of racket for bleedin' the American people. That had been going on for some time. Mess of bleedin' by gold. Mess of bleeding the American people by silver, and then to war. The major ineptitude, the cutting of trade with the Orient, the cutting of trade to the European continent, the blackmailing of South America, and the dry pie crust left of French Africa.
Well, the French were NOT the world's star, the cynosure, best admired model when it come to colonial empire. You are not taking on a perfectly
? arranged productive system, such as Italy was setting up in HER colonies, and in Abyssinia. You were being rotted by a paleozoic usury system. I 'spose there are still cavemen and relics of the ice age in the Republican Party who don't yet know what was wrong with that system. It's a pity 'cause the Republican Party could have built up an opposition to the infamy of the Democrats.
And of course one of the first steps toward prosperity or toward sanity would have been to bring the U. S. , if not up to date, at least to shorten the time lag so as the people could have got to where Jefferson had arrived in 1816, or Gallatin in 1813 as camouflage perhaps to his bonds, which the New England Yanks were not buying 'cause the privateer racket paid better, and they did not trust Mr. Gallatin's government.
I may have been late myself, but not quite as tardy as most of you. Twenty years ago I had got onto the money racket. Mebbe I have learned something since then, movin' round on the continent.
Your economics professors are driftin' behind. Lot 'em were behind, oh, SOMEWHAT, when I was last in America, but it ain't enough for 'em to just get to where I was in '39. EUROPE has been a movin'. When I shifted out of London and Paris, I found a prejudice, what seemed prejudice, against what was called "money magic. " European economist saying, "no money magic," meaning hocus pocus accountancy.
Europe was thinking in terms of the material basis, NOT mercantilist, but productionist, with distributionist as the corollary. And they go further than the money reformer, perhaps because they started at the rock bottom, RAW materials, WORK. After that come the trade routes, and on top of it all the accountancy. Now being discussed by German and Italian economists. Not only Funk and Riccardi, but Dr. Hans Fischboeck. And what that Italian phrase about money magic meant was simply that you can't do it with money alone, you can't do it merely by changing accountancy IF the material base isn't there. And that, as
? mankind apparently can NOT grasp accountancy very quickly, and has, historically been flimflammed more easily by usurers' palavar and propaganda than by any other one swindle. It was politic, it was horse- sense to insist on the productive basis.
BUT your government violated EVERYTHING. In fact, there is apparently NO department, administrative, mercantile, monetary, where the maximum of stupidity has not been attained, coupled with errors which it is difficult from this distance to attribute to anything save the maximum of rascality. I may be in error, the actions of the Roosevelt- Frankfurter government may be due to sheer imbecility and not to ingrained rascality. Or the two may be twin born and inseparable in that milieu. Go to it: diagnose 'em. Don't shoot 'em; analyze their tropisms, their behavior, and tell us whether their policy is due to badheartedness or caries of the cerebellum.
NOT only did the present American regime NOT set up a monetary system which would distribute American abundance so that each American family could have enough, if not a just share, BUT they proceeded to destroy the mercantile base of a vast hunk of that prosperity.
The land was erodin'. Some sane steps were taken toward afforestation (at least so I heard); that was also before Morgenthau got into the White House. And something was done about power plants, bases of public convenience. BUT the trade with the outer world was BUSTED by the gold draddtest series of imbecile actions that are to be chronicled in ANY era of American chicken headedness, bar none.
The cutting off of the trade with the Orient; the severance of trade relations with the continent of Europe; the endeavor simultaneously to carry on war in the most diverse and widely separated areas on the planet: Iceland, the Solomon Levy Islands, Calcutta, the Sea of Azov. Well, you are out of the Sea of Azov and you are not garrisoning the
? hinterland of Czechoslovakia, and you are not putting up much of a show in Tibet at this moment. But Napoleon and Alex the Great would be hard put to it to determine the unity of your strategy in the lands of your alleged allies. I am not an expert in military affairs, but even the B. B.
? thence centering the world trade in America, running the Asian trade to Europe and the European trade to Asia via the U. S. A.
That was what the American acumen had charted in 1900, after the victory of Pittsburgh Steel. That was the material base of America's chance for preeminence. NO monopoly, I said preeminence, in a world system. Not the fool cluck idea of forcing the world into paying an unjust price, of starving the earth in the interest of a few slobs of upper Judea, but a collaboration in a world system wherein trade would follow the easy courses. BECAUSE those trade routes could have undersold other routes, because different goods lay at different termini. And the U. S. lay in the middle. SO long as she collaborated with Tokyo. That is what Frankie D. Roosevelt has foozied. He has cut off the trade with Europe. He has cut off the trade with Asia.
America recedes into something like where she was in the days of T. Jefferson. Larger, yes, larger: but not more powerful in proportion to the world powers.
Three generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves. Mebbe you folks will learn something BY it. Perforce constrained into thinking of autarchy, into isolation. That Anglo kikes have failed to force upon Europe. BUT which Europe had the foresight to provide for, and is increasingly attaining.
A little decency would have kept the U. S. from error. An amount of horse sense comparable to that reigning in the U. S. when Tom Edison was a young man, when H. Ford was making his first automobiles. Waaal, who would have thought that men of my age would ever have thought of lookin' back to the days of Wm. McKinley as a great and brilliant American era? Days of American engineering preeminence and of dollar diplomacy.
? #61 (February 19, 1943) U. S. (C9) THAT ILLUSION
Met an American lady on the seafront tother day. Married to an Italian, so she is still thaar on the seafront. Says to me: "That WALLACE, hasn't sense to come in out of the rain. "
I seem to recall a report of a Delphian convention about six years ago, when Henry W. was trying to tell 'em something about American agriculture; how you eat more if you grow less, or some such ingenious piece of Jew brow kikosophy.
Hank of course is appealin'. I mean, gives the effect of bein' a nice kind hearted feller, with infinite capacity for believin' what the wrong people tell him. He don't see that a world would be just as warless under an efficient Japanese or European police domination as under a kike monopoly--probably more so. I hear that in occupied Russia they get a Jew to supervise Jewish labor. In fact the lack of sequence. and coherence in H. W. 's kite flying would be remarkable if Hank didn't come from the corn belt. He must be gettin' his ideas from the B. B. C. latterly. He is not a sadistic slob like his leader, but still I s'pose he has no mother to guide him. Yet YOU, in fact you got your responsibility. Can't always blame it on the executive, and the pseudo-executive. Diagnose 'em. Diagnose 'em. IF you can't see how crazy some of their talk is, who is going to SEE for you?
Most of you never go near a political meetin'. Most of you don't know what are PRIMARIES. The young ought to start looking into the actual political system. Go round to the wigwam. You got a vote. The ward boys won't throw you out if you ask him politely what you can do for the party. It don't matter which party. Go round to the wigwam. Don't lie back on the divan and think not listenin' to my voice on the radio will bring political salvation and economic salvation to YOU and your honeybun.
? No political system will run itself without human intervention. All the intervenin' you can probably do is comprised of YOUR OWN intervention. Go, find out politely which political party is worse than the other, if either is, or conceivably could be, worse than the other.
Manners will probably be politer in the Republican wigwam. The obvious percentage of kikery will be lower. There will be possibly less humanitarian flimflam. BUT in any case diagnose 'em. And the first piece of quite foetid bunk to diagnose OUT of the Roosevelt-Wallace synagogue sob stuff is this bunk about FREEDOM, which does NOT include economic freedom. Take that every day and all day; and whenever an office holder, a sergeant, a chewish staff officer or a member of the cabinet or executive says FREEDOM, point out that his (if it's Wallace) HIS proposed freedom, omits freedom from debt. We fight for world freedom, says the dead cod in London, over the synagogue radio.
Wallace has the sour faced gall to get up and talk about the freedom of a world in DEBT to America. Whenever Wallace or any other palooka pulls that by word of mouth, on the radio or in private, git a shovel, or try and see if the flush mechanism is workin'.
THAT much at least you ought to learn from this war. Ought to have learned it in 1920. Ought to be there in the school books from the 1st grade and upward.
There is NO freedom without economic freedom. Freedom that does not include freedom from debt is plain bunkumb. It is foetid and foul logomachy to call such servitude freedom. And really Mr. Wallace, with his kindly smile, and his pious palavar ought to catch up with the 20th century and realize that that line does NOT work any longer. The whole of Europe, Asia and Arabia is ONTO that hoakum. Heckle him. Whenever Hank or any one of the high Jewsfeld committee pulls that wheeze about freedom, enforced by Jewish world police, centered in
? Panama and in Palestine, ask: does he mean freedom from debt? Ask: what does he mean by freedom. Freedom from debt? Freedom from payin' two dollars OUT of the people's pocket for every buck spent by the government? Ask about freedom. Don't shoot the guy, diagnose him.
Good God, have you no columnists, have you no caricaturists left in America? Even little Eddie asked you what you would do with your GOLD. Christ, you are in debt. You are indebted. You have for years been pouring out America's wealth. Pouring out the purchasing power that ought to have stayed in the American people's pocket.
You have bought gold at 35 bucks per ounce. You have paid quite needlessly 75 cents for 23 cents worth of silver. All paid INTO the pockets of other people. America was promises; "TO WHOM? " says Archie. Promises to Rothschild and Rothschild's co-nationals, Archie? That was promises TO WHOM? Paid into the pockets of people who keep the Roosevelts and Wallaces IN office for the sole purpose of having the levers held by people who will swallow that sort of bumcomb. Who will get up and talk about freedom without seein' that freedom is NOT unless it be freedom FROM debt?
Yes, freedom from all sorts of debt, INCLUDIN' debt at usurious interest. Two dollars fer one. Yet even Gallatin during the war of 1812 has sense enough to emit some purchasing power (notes under 100 bucks) that did not bear interest. You are SOLD. England is sold. France has been OBVIOUSLY put up at auction. Switzerland is still where she is because Jews weren't allowed to settle there until 1864. Wherever the Jew gets control of a nation, that nation gets into difficulty. I'll say: into difficulty.
I am taking my whole time on one point durin' this little discourse. Sometimes I try to tell you too much. I suspect I talk in a what-is-called incoherent manner: 'cause I can't (and I reckon nobody could) tell where to begin. What knowledge one can consider as preexisted in the mind of
? the AVERAGE American listener. When I was wonderin', the American press men left Rome; I was wonderin' if anybody listened to what I said on Rome Radio and an experienced well broken journalist said: don't worry, there'll always be some fellow in a newspaper office sitten there, trying to get something for his column or something.
Debt is the prelude to slavery. And you are now, I 'spose, arrived at the intermezzo. America WAS promises. America today is largely, shall we say, promissory notes that simply can NOT be honored. Britain's debts in the last war--who paid 'em? Oh, some of 'em didn't get paid. England in 1935 [was] a bankrupt trying to live by the lending of money. But, brother, England in 1939 was inhabited exclusively by millionaires. In comparison to what England is today under Churchill; and still spending her treasures. Still losing bits of her empire. No, no, your DEBTS will not be paid by England, nor by the French Jews headed by Jewsieur de Gaulle. And your debts: oh yes, you have some. One hundred billyum dollars unless some of your radio voices exaggerated. Well, has anyone offer'd to PAY those debts FOR you?
The pressure to increase hours of labor IN the U. S. of A. , where prosperity was just 'round the corner. Am I to believe that you no longer have complete liberty to eat and to use automobiles? Some of the reports from the U. S. A. seem exaggerated; but in a country that swallowed Morgenthau's reports of the goings on of the American treasury: what CAN be exaggerated?
One point for this evening. One point that the most humble citizen's political responsibility can stretch to. You, I mean YOU, can doubt the intelligence, or shall we be forced to say, the sincerity, of any speaker who uses the word freedom in any context where ECONOMIC freedom is not implicit in the meaning of his whole sentence or discourse. Without freedom from DEBT, there is NO total freedom; there is no condition that can be called freedom save for the purposes of babboozling the auditor or the elector. That is the primary lesson for the
? Mr. Wallace, before he ruins his bright and beamish hopes for incumbency in the White House by being indellibly branded as the Jew's mouthpiece.
That might show political ineptitude by the year 1944. Say that Mr. Wallace were UNIVERSALLY recognized as the Jew's choice for American president and were opposed by a non-Jewish, candidate. Mr. Wallace being, I mean 'sposin' he and his are dead set to carry him into the White House. Get him to inspect the source of his funny notions. Such as plowing under, and world freedom under Jewish police, or a Jew-owned police force. I know he thinks he thought it all out for himself, but get him to look back in his memory, and see WHO first explained it to him? Who first demonstrated over the dinner table or across the desk in his office, that you plow under for the good of the farmer, and to have better food and cheaper food for the workin' man, and that it is NECESSARY to force people to do what they would do anyhow if you didn't put a police force there over 'em. And how Russia is the true guide to humanity.
Get Mr. Wallace to tell you WHICH Jewish patriot first explained these things to him.
#62 (February 21, 1943) U. K. (C5) SERVITI
I regret the troubles of certain Englishmen, but I can't see that the blame falls outside the borders of England. I do NOT believe reports from America, because they are American reports. The American press lies. All Jewish news agencies lie. That is what they exist for. The American press, it would not be quite true to say, lies LIKE yours does. It lies differently. Yours lies from a sycophantic love of the LIE. The sycophantic love of keeping up hoary humbugs. The American, from the love of the tall tale. The technique of salesmanship implied in having a bigger headline, and a wilder imbecility.
? Result: I do NOT know what is going on in the U. S. , and I am not under any illusion that Roosevelt's press bureau will send out ANY reliable information. And until I can get personal reports I shall treat all U. S. reports with reserve. Just as I would treat with reserve a British official statement about anything under heaven.
BUT IF you are disliked in America, if there is a growing restiveness to the Judeocracy and a growing desire to let you down, pick your pockets, carve up the nick of your empire, you can blame yourselves! YOU flooded the U. S. with foul propaganda, and the offsweepings of the Economist, the London School of Economics and hybrids of the Anglo ghetto.
Instead of lining up your Sassoon before a firing squad, or dealing with your criminals INSIDE your empire, you dumped 'em onto the U. S. A. So that you deserve NO good from the American people.
It would have been better to send over a plague ship. A cargo of rats innoculated with tetanus bubonic microbes; typhus and leprosy would have been a better title to American gratitude. And as you have done unto others, Judas at the helm and Einzig in the chart room, why wouldn't the new Jerusalem, the new Jew Roosevelt oosalem do unto you?
I mean all in the usury, and usual process, the usual line of biszniscz, the Ellerman, Sieff, Norman method. All very regrettable from the cultural angle, but all very much in the financial process. Silk stockings and all. I am speaking against usurocracy. I am speaking against the spread territorially, and the protraction of the war because I think the protraction and distention, in themselves, constitute gains for the usurocracy. Whether you can LEARN anything from the flop of France I can not make out. Up to now you appear to have learnt NOTHING, absobloodylootly nothing. Yet the French debacle might still teach you ONE thing. Note that two such different authors as B. Adams writing in 1909 and W. Lewis publishing in 1936 both pay their respects to the
? power of French finance. Looking to Paris as the centre of banking power.
The word FRENCH in this connection will raise a smile in some quarters. But so was it. Paris before the Russian revolution was, let us say, a great center of usury. The French Army in 1938 aroused professions of admiration, cras tibi. The eccentricity of France's material position, that is to say the way in which France lay OFF the main trade routes: her off-centerness, her not being in the center, had worried French rulers since the time of Louis XIV. You beat France and Holland. You grabbed the sea routes, and you HAD mineral under your grassy soil. Your iron mines hit high, yielded their maximum in 1882 with 18 million tons of ore. By 1900, that was down to 14 million. Copper, 1868, 9,817 tons; 1899, 637 tons. Lead, 73,420; 1899, 2,552. Tin, 1871, 10,900; dropped to 4,013 inside a year. And apparently a good deal of your coal was, at the turn of the century, already being bought by your own ships at your coaling stations abroad, so that it couldn't all count in trade balance. You know whether these trends have continued. By 1903 B. Adams thought that your END seemed only a question of time. I don't quote Brooks Adams as divine revelation, I quote him as a prospicient author whose perceptions are worth careful consideration. I also quote him as indicative of the most active American thought of his time, though he stood high above most of it. Let us say that the mercantilist outlook never had better exponent. It was a pragmatic age. It is highly interesting to measure human knowledge today against what his was at the turn of the century. To see where he left off. Where if ever, he erred. Mr. Adams was in a privileged position to estimate your position. I mean he had perspective far above the common. His father Charles Francis Adams had been ambassador at [The] Court of St. James during the American Civil War and wrestled with Russell; his brother, Henry had been secretary to their father during that period, and possessed a far from common capacity for leaving a very clear record of events. B. A. 's grandfather had been American Ambassador to Russia during earlier and eventful years, and Charles Francis had edited HIS
? grandfather's papers. B. A. at turn of century was nevertheless a bit elated by the contemporary elation of the U. S. , the period of great combines, of the new efficiency of combined (or trust) organization. He felt that America, by which word all U. S. 'ers meant the U. S. of North America was expandin', and that the U. S. of A. was headed for imperial destinies. He saw it with mercantilist eye, shall we say, as material tendency.
He noted that in 1870 a chief source of British prosperity had been agriculture, but that already a Bagehot had been writing about how British money circulated round via Lombard Street, saving British landed gentry, almost as that used in discounting bills from British industrial areas. That Bagehot's words were hardly in print, before a shift of the world equilibrium had set in.
Mr. Adams noted the apparently meager accumulation of POPULAR SAVINGS in England and that during the Boer war you seemed to be relying on foreign bankers. I don't want to insist unduly. But let us take a date five years later than the publication of Mr. Brooks Adams' The New Empire, say he meant the American empire. The great American reorganization WAS complete in 1897; a decade later almost any average American arriving in London would have been full up with ideas of PROGRESS. He would, if he had met an intelligent British Tory (the two words COULD at that time be joined in at least a few cases without being ridiculous) he, the imaginary, homme moyen sensuel, average American, young or middle aged, would have encountered something absolutely new TO him, something unknown, and I think undreamt in America. Namely the conSERVATIVE view, the utterly surprisin' idea that things weren't gettin' better, and that you, meaning England of course, but being an Englishman, the English Tory would have applied it to the universe, on which the British eye never rests. Well that people, mankind, etc. better go slow, better not agitate, better let things stay in status quo. I believe that any and every American who
? heard this view for the first time was "struck all of a heap. " It was unbelievable heresy.
What, not progress, not everything moving upward (not to say onwards) toward bigger and brighter bonanzas? Mr. Adams in 1907, or 1908, or 1900 would have been one of the few Americans capable of locatin' the Tory outlook, Anschauung, disposition, in relation to something concrete, to something real in the then status of England. I have said before that his perceptions pretty well covered the world as it remained during his life time. In 1903 he thought that England, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the core of Europe were "apparently doomed not only to buy their raw materials abroad but to pay the cost of transport. " That view is interesting today. It may shed a bit of light on lease and lend sport. He cast his eye fairly wide over the world. He found Siberia "a narrow belt of arable land bounded by ice on the north, and by mountains and deserts on the south. " Seemed to him a poor bet as against the American continent, plus [the] fact the Rhoosians were still a bit unhandy with new fangled machinery.
Those are a few items, say [a] few high lights of the world setup as seen by an American expansionist in 1903. And I 'spose the pale blue Tory eye that greeted me in Kensington five years later was lookin' backward. Backward toward Her own (that is' England's own) agriculture. Down till 1845 it nearly sufficed for her wants. ENGLAND. Ole Viktoria's England. Advantage over the olde Roman empire. Instead of bein' drained of her bullion England sold cotton to India, instead of havin' to buy grain from Sicily and from Egypt, and so on. . . . No such favorable conditions had perhaps ever existed. An equilibrium so stable, had not some fellow gone and invented the steam locomotive. "Given effective land transportation," wrote Mr. Adams, "the North American continent seems devised by nature to be the converging point of the cheapest routes between Asia and Europe. "
? Possibly not quite the present day view. But NO view of tomorrow's trade routes is a going to put England plumb in their middle. Brother: whaaar do you land?
Ezra Pound askin'.
#63 (February 23, 1943) U. S. (C10) COMPLEXITY
You have to have more than ONE idea in your head to understand anything. You have to have possibly one idea and a mass of concrete data either conducin' to your general idea, or opposin' it.
And I try occasionally to get you to think of one, the other or both. It may be confusin'. Get you to think of an economic system, or a MERCANTILE system, or a monetary system. That is, of an organization of facts. Brooks Adams wrote a good deal about a mercantile system. Called it an economic system sometimes. Anyhow, am I clear if I say he wrote about TRADE routes? Raw materials pass over a trade route TO a point where they are wanted. Sometimes to a place where they pass into manufacture, then to a place where the finished stuff is wanted for consumption. The seats of manufacturin' shift. Obviously convenient if they are or can be shifted to the sources of the raw materials, not always handy, but whether the stuff moves raw or in finished products, the merchandise tends to seek, as they say, the most expeditious trade route.
On one turnpike four horses could draw three thousand pounds 18 miles a day. On the Erie canal four horses could draw 200 thousand pounds 24 miles in one day. Hence the prosperity of Manhattan. That is a simple and homely case out of Woodward, "A New American History. " Brooks Adams took a wider sweep. Sargon, Alexander, the silver of Quedi, the Foires de Champagne, Flemish cities, working out a general law for the vortex of trade and dominion. Might call it the material base for an
? economic system. Only it isn't. It is the ADMINISTRATIVE BASE, the material base is the raw stuff and the labor.
Brooks Adams was the mercantilist philosopher, or theorist, or better say ANALYST, analyzer of mercantilist materialist process. Possibly the most distinguished mind that ever tackled the subject. He saw a great chance for the U. S. A. IF the U. S. A. kept awake and observed the general laws of mercantile progress. Natural flow of goods by the easiest routes (easiest routes ought to be cheapest and ARE the cheapest save when the usurer or blackmailer intervenes).
BUT Brooks Adams observed that after Waterloo the mercantilist had got the push and that usury reigned; blackmailing the terrestrial universe.
I want to separate in your minds the mercantilist administrative basis of an economic order, and the accountancy, the tricks played with bits of paper: bank ledgers, engraved certificates. You can't understand the dirty deal that has been put over you till you can keep those two things clear in your minds.
And you have got the gold damndest ASS of a government in Washington that ever the American people was called on to suffer from. Eastern idea about money, said Bankhead of that saddistic slob in the White House. Down on his knees every morning adoring the usury system, saying his prayers to the usury system, maintaining six sorts of racket for bleedin' the American people. That had been going on for some time. Mess of bleedin' by gold. Mess of bleeding the American people by silver, and then to war. The major ineptitude, the cutting of trade with the Orient, the cutting of trade to the European continent, the blackmailing of South America, and the dry pie crust left of French Africa.
Well, the French were NOT the world's star, the cynosure, best admired model when it come to colonial empire. You are not taking on a perfectly
? arranged productive system, such as Italy was setting up in HER colonies, and in Abyssinia. You were being rotted by a paleozoic usury system. I 'spose there are still cavemen and relics of the ice age in the Republican Party who don't yet know what was wrong with that system. It's a pity 'cause the Republican Party could have built up an opposition to the infamy of the Democrats.
And of course one of the first steps toward prosperity or toward sanity would have been to bring the U. S. , if not up to date, at least to shorten the time lag so as the people could have got to where Jefferson had arrived in 1816, or Gallatin in 1813 as camouflage perhaps to his bonds, which the New England Yanks were not buying 'cause the privateer racket paid better, and they did not trust Mr. Gallatin's government.
I may have been late myself, but not quite as tardy as most of you. Twenty years ago I had got onto the money racket. Mebbe I have learned something since then, movin' round on the continent.
Your economics professors are driftin' behind. Lot 'em were behind, oh, SOMEWHAT, when I was last in America, but it ain't enough for 'em to just get to where I was in '39. EUROPE has been a movin'. When I shifted out of London and Paris, I found a prejudice, what seemed prejudice, against what was called "money magic. " European economist saying, "no money magic," meaning hocus pocus accountancy.
Europe was thinking in terms of the material basis, NOT mercantilist, but productionist, with distributionist as the corollary. And they go further than the money reformer, perhaps because they started at the rock bottom, RAW materials, WORK. After that come the trade routes, and on top of it all the accountancy. Now being discussed by German and Italian economists. Not only Funk and Riccardi, but Dr. Hans Fischboeck. And what that Italian phrase about money magic meant was simply that you can't do it with money alone, you can't do it merely by changing accountancy IF the material base isn't there. And that, as
? mankind apparently can NOT grasp accountancy very quickly, and has, historically been flimflammed more easily by usurers' palavar and propaganda than by any other one swindle. It was politic, it was horse- sense to insist on the productive basis.
BUT your government violated EVERYTHING. In fact, there is apparently NO department, administrative, mercantile, monetary, where the maximum of stupidity has not been attained, coupled with errors which it is difficult from this distance to attribute to anything save the maximum of rascality. I may be in error, the actions of the Roosevelt- Frankfurter government may be due to sheer imbecility and not to ingrained rascality. Or the two may be twin born and inseparable in that milieu. Go to it: diagnose 'em. Don't shoot 'em; analyze their tropisms, their behavior, and tell us whether their policy is due to badheartedness or caries of the cerebellum.
NOT only did the present American regime NOT set up a monetary system which would distribute American abundance so that each American family could have enough, if not a just share, BUT they proceeded to destroy the mercantile base of a vast hunk of that prosperity.
The land was erodin'. Some sane steps were taken toward afforestation (at least so I heard); that was also before Morgenthau got into the White House. And something was done about power plants, bases of public convenience. BUT the trade with the outer world was BUSTED by the gold draddtest series of imbecile actions that are to be chronicled in ANY era of American chicken headedness, bar none.
The cutting off of the trade with the Orient; the severance of trade relations with the continent of Europe; the endeavor simultaneously to carry on war in the most diverse and widely separated areas on the planet: Iceland, the Solomon Levy Islands, Calcutta, the Sea of Azov. Well, you are out of the Sea of Azov and you are not garrisoning the
? hinterland of Czechoslovakia, and you are not putting up much of a show in Tibet at this moment. But Napoleon and Alex the Great would be hard put to it to determine the unity of your strategy in the lands of your alleged allies. I am not an expert in military affairs, but even the B. B.
