Century of the Self

If you are a Revisionist, a free, critical thinker, or if you already possess a strong sense of historical truth at odds with that of the establishment and its mainstream media organs, I highly recommend viewing this documentary film. If you’re a gullible simpleton or a lazy academic, however, who automatically trusts as truth whatever you’re taught/told concerning the “Nazis” (or other historical “devils” for that matter), you’re rather unlikely to reap the reward of this four-hour investment. Intentionally or otherwise, the BBC misses the mark with respect to its peripheral mention of Joseph Goebbels and National Socialist propaganda (allegedly inspired by Bernays, which is rubbish)… But in this day and age, I could hardly expect otherwise. To their deserved credit, they do manage to get much correct and, in the course of their exploration, come much closer to certain forbidden truths than they likely intended. Thoughtfully counterbalance the information presented through this documentary with what you’ve (hopefully) already studied of the occupied news and entertainment media, the Neoconservative movement, the Zionist Power Configuration (Z.P.C.), the Frankfurt School/Political Correctness, the international “bankster gangsters”, and the chief proponents and beneficiaries of the wars of the last 100 years (as well as the unseen catalysts, historical deceptions, and false-flags which, more often than not, lead us there), and the value of its core-message will more than triple. -W

Read Full Post »

When the Darkness Falls

There are aspects of the delivery of this documentary, When the Darkness Falls, that I find a bit tasteless. Certain segments, for example, cannot help but feed anti-white stereotypes for those who are, perhaps, already looking for some sense of justification for the positions they have formed (or inherited) long ago. But I believe the message, at core, is solid and irrefutable, and therefore deserves attention and circulation. Any stylistic critique on my end, then, ought not to be interpreted as a condemnation of this film as a whole. It is merely to stress that not every video or documentary film posted on Ironlight would make it to production, as-is, if I were appointed editor. I am left to assume readers will understand my point, and, for obvious reasons, trust more in those who know me than those who do not. To see where and why I agree or disagree requires a level familiarity we are not afforded here. This explains my admittedly inelegant disclaimers. But back to the film and points of agreement… As I promote the continuity and advancement of my people first and foremost, I expect, and respect, that all those of sound mind and body should desire the very same for their people as well. It is so instinctive to desire the best for oneself, one’s family and one’s folk, that in any other time but the present these kinds of introductions (I’ll refrain from using the term “disclaimers” again) would be wholly unnecessary. I am neither an egalitarian nor a supremacist. Supremacy transcends “isms”. I neither believe in the grand leveling of qualities, nor in the concept of universal and immutable hierarchies. I believe that all men, from the level of race, to nation, to tribe, right down to family, are profoundly unequal in spite of their apparent similarities, and are, in countless ways, essentially sworn to competition of constructive and destructive forms until the end of their days. I believe that such competition, though, is natural, normal and healthy, and by no means particular to humankind, but rather standard for all living creatures. And believing thusly, I have an interest not only in consciously participating in this contest, but in ultimately prevailing in the long term and earning my distinction. The establishment of adequate living space for each and all is vital if anything approximating peace is desired, and as little can be accomplished in a state of constant strife, the thoughtful division of territory among the various peoples of the Earth is, then, a valid concern and a priority in my estimation. Segregation — not only racial segregation, but in innumerable forms — occurs voluntarily in most cases, anyhow, even in fields where it is officially forbidden. To restrict any inclination which occurs naturally and functions flawlessly in countless examples throughout the natural world, and to enforce, by contrast, policies which cannot be realized without dire consequences among such diverse human populations, is self-destructive. I choose another path. -W.

Read Full Post »

The Wrecking Crew and The War on Democracy

With the recent controversy surrounding Oliver Stone’s candor concerning Jewish media domination, Russians as suffering far greater losses in WWII than European Jewry, Adolf Hitler as an easy historical scapegoat lacking proper context, and the deleterious Zionist grip on America’s foreign policy, I was able to witness, point by point, the intricate workings of a Hollywood character-assassination ala the wrecking crew.

Following Stone’s recantation, I couldn’t help but notice that the wrecking crew was apparently not yet finished with him. What I did not expect, however, was Hugo Chavez to get dragged (quite literally) into the picture — another easy historical scapegoat lacking proper context. Photos of Stone and Chavez were now rather conveniently surfacing everywhere.

According to hawkish imperialists in D.C. and Tel Aviv, Hugo Chavez is “a brutal dictator,” which, according to the logic of the wrecking crew, only proves that Stone supports brutal dictatorships. But wait…

If Stone supports Chavez, and Chavez supports Ahmadinejad, and Ahmadinejad supports “wiping Israel off the map,” then my God, Haim Saban was right and good to demand the crucifixion of Mel Gibson — I mean, Oliver Stone — right?

This is how the wrecking crew works, and on account of widespread ignorance and indifference on both historical issues and current events of crucial importance, they typically surpass their objectives. I mean, why squander valuable time and energy in the character assassination of one opponent when you can line them up and take out two or three? And why stop there if you can accomplish more?
. . .

Admitting how little I knew of Hugo Chavez and politics in Venezuela, I sought, sifted, and extracted information which clarified precisely why he is an ongoing target of hawkish imperialists in D.C. and Tel Aviv. In short — and whether I agree with many of his positions or not is beside the point — Chavez fights for the right to self-determination. I support that right, and it isn’t necessary, in any case, that we agree on much else in this context. As he said himself, “We were trying to do the impossible. To have a revolution without crashing against the empire — it’s impossible.” I can appreciate that statement.

And while the documentary below has its faults and tends to run rather distastefully hard-left throughout, John Pilger’s “The War on Democracy” brings up some interesting points which accomplish more than he probably intended. Informed readers/viewers, for example, will have a more firm grasp of whom Mr. Pilger speaks when he refers to the well-funded organized coups, the puppet regimes, the destabilization of infrastructure, the theft of natural resources, the orchestrated paranoia, the art of “spin,” and the terror campaigns which masquerade behind “freedom and democracy” around the world this very instant. Informed readers/viewers will know that it is certainly not “the Fascists” who’ve profited from all of this madness, but rather their enduring enemies. The true patriots and nationalists of all lands naturally sympathize with more honest and honorable men than those traitorous cliques who claim to represent our national interests.

Once again, I trust my subscribers and regular readers have become, or have perhaps always been, adept in the art of separating gold from dross. Beyond appearances and titles, there is always something here to enrich and empower you. Discerning minds will reap what is essential and discard the rest. -W.

Read Full Post »

Methods of Conquest

Read Full Post »

A Conversation About Race

View Craig Bodeker’s documentary film HERE and support his work HERE. -W.

Read Full Post »

Demographic Winter

I, myself, welcome the thought of population decrease, worldwide, and there are a number of points of varying importance in this documentary that I happen to disagree with. But in stark contrast with the global trends of the last century, I emphatically support the procreation of the healthy, the intelligent, the creative, and the responsible — just as I support restrictions on the reckless reproduction of the unhealthy, the unintelligent, the destructive, and the irresponsible. This cannot, however, be accomplished without the conscious restoration and safeguarding of the traditional family unit, which must take place first and foremost in the developed countries of the world (if we intend to survive at all). -W.

Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family

One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree – we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.

Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world – demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:

The “population bomb” not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations [as things currently stand], and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.

The economies of the world will continue to contract as the “human capital” spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.

Government programs will slow-bleed by the decrease in tax dollars received from an ever shrinking work force. The skyrocketing ratio of the old retirees to the young workers will render current-day social security systems completely unable to support the aging population.

Our attempts to modernize through social engineering policies and programs have left children growing up in broken homes, with absentee parents and little exposure to extended family, disconnected from the generations, and these children are experiencing severe psychological, sociological and economic consequences. The intact family’s immeasurable role in the development and prosperity of human societies is crumbling.  

The influence of social and economic problems on ever shrinking, increasingly disconnected generations will compound and accelerate the deterioration. Our children and our children’s children will bear the economic and social burden of regenerating the “human capital” that accounts for 80% of wealth in the economy, and they will be ill-equipped to do so.  

Is there a “tipping point,” after which the accelerating consequences will make recovery impossible without complete social and economic collapse? Even the experts can’t tell us how far we can go down this road, oblivious to the outcomes, until we reach a point where sliding into the void becomes unpreventable.

Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.  

Just as it took the cumulative involvement of activist organizations, policy makers, the business world and the media to create the unintended consequences we are beginning to experience, so it will take the holistic contribution of all of these entities, together with civic and religious organizations, to change the hearts and minds of all of society to bring about a reversal.  

It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.

Questions & Answers

Question
What does the expression “Demographic Winter” mean?

Answer
The phrase “Demographic Winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of “The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity”) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century.”

Worldwide, birthrates have declined by more than 50% in the past 30 years (since 1979). There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. (The United Nations Population Division says that, worldwide, we could achieve below-replacement fertility by 2030.) At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach what demographers call population free-fall in our lifetimes.

Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.

The term “nuclear winter,” popularized in the 1980s, alluded to the catastrophic environmental impact of a nuclear war. The long-term consequences of Demographic Winter could be equally devastating.

Question
What is replacement fertility, and why is the number 2.13 so important?

Answer
Replacement fertility is the point of equilibrium at which a country’s population is neither growing nor declining. In order to maintain current population, the average woman must have 2.13 children during her lifetime. She needs to replace herself and a man. Because some children will die before reaching maturity and having children of their own, slightly more than two children are needed – hence 2.13.

A birthrate of more than 2.13 equals population growth. A birthrate of less than 2.13 means long-term population decline.

Question
If birthrates are declining, why does the world’s population continue to grow?

Answer
If it’s already in motion, car in neutral will continue moving forward for a while, especially if it’s going downhill, even if gas isn’t being injected into the engine.

Today’s population growth is due to two factors: 1. higher fertility rates in the 1950s and 60s, and 2. people living longer than ever before.

The thing to remember is this: Declining birthrates will equal a declining population worldwide at some point in the next few decades. In the West (especially in Europe) population decline will become a reality much sooner. In some countries, such a Russia, it’s already happening.

A nation’s demographic future can be seen in its current birthrate. In Europe, the number of children under 5 has declined by 36% since 1960. Worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children, 6 and under, today, than there were in 1990. If present trends continue, the United Nations estimates that by 2050 there will be 248 million fewer children in the world then there are now.

Question
Where are birthrates lowest?

Answer
Of the 10 countries with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe. Overall, the European fertility rate is 1.3, well below replacement level (2.1). No European nation [at present] has a replacement-level birthrate.

Italy’s fertility rate is 1.2. Spain’s is 1.1. That means in the not-too-distant future, absent massive immigration, these countries will lose half of their populace in every generation.

Russia’s birthrate fell from 2.4 in 1990 to 1.17 today – a decline of more than 50% in less than 20 years. Each year, there are more abortions than live births in the Russian Federation.

While birthrates are also plummeting in developing nations, most still have above-replacement fertility – for the time being.

The U.S. fertility rate is just at the replacement level, due in part to higher immigrant birthrates. How long this will continue is anyone’s guess. It’s also important to note that all of the factors driving down birth rates elsewhere in the world are present here as well.

Question
What are the consequences of demographic decline?

Answer
Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15, 2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “Europe as we know it is going out of business…. Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.”

By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. In developed nations, today, 20% of the population is over 60. By 2050, the proportion of elderly will rise to 36%. By then, these societies will have two elderly for every child.

If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.

Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the nation with the largest land mass?

Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.

This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.

Question
What factors contribute to demographic decline?

Answer
A number of social trends of the post-war era have converged to create a perfect demographic storm.

Men and women are delaying marriage, making it less likely they’ll have more than one or two children. Today in the West, almost one in two marriages ends in divorce. The children of divorce are less likely to marry and form families themselves. More married women are putting off having children for careers. After 35, it becomes progressively harder for women to conceive.

The news and entertainment media tell young adults that satisfaction comes from careers, romance, travel and “personal growth” – not from having children. It’s rare that Hollywood even portrays large families (today, more than 2 children). The culture’s message is live-for-moment and live primarily for yourself, with no sense of obligation to generations past or concern for posterity.

The growth of cohabitation also has an impact. (In Scandinavia, almost as many couples are living together as married.) Cohabitation is not conducive to childbearing or childrearing.

For the past 20 to 30 years, children have been taught that over-population (the so-called population bomb) will wreak havoc on the environment and economic development. Not surprisingly, children thus indoctrinated frequently choose to have fewer [if any] children when they reach maturity.

Religious observance has been shown to correlate with higher birthrates. The increasing secularization of Western societies has been accompanied by lower birthrates.

Thus, every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness.

Question
Can’t the problem be fixed by increased immigration?

Answer
In a demographic sense, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The host country gains people, but the home country loses. The developing world, which has seen its own birthrate cut in half since 1970 (from almost 6 to barely 4) can ill afford to lose large numbers through emigration.

Mass immigration changes the national character of the host country. Immigrants tend to have a lower education level than natives. Many never learn the language of their new home or identify with its history and heritage. (Instead of being French-Algerian, they remain an Algerian who happens to be living in France.)

Citizens of developed countries often worry about the loss of national identity.

Question
Can’t demographic winter be countered by governments encouraging people to have more children?

Answer
This is being tried in Western Europe and Russia. The Russian Federation pays families a bonus of 250,000 rubles (the equivalent of $9,200) for every child after the first – in a nation where the average monthly wage is only $330. It’s not working.

Couples decide to have children for all kinds of reasons – religious, emotional, cultural, etc. Money isn’t one of them.

Children are a life-long commitment. While governments should make childrearing easier by lowering the tax-burden on families (out of self-interest if not fairness), cash incentives don’t work.

Question
If the United States has near-replacement fertility, why should we care?

Answer
All of the factors that are leading Europe into the depths of Demographic Winter are present in the United States as well, including high divorce rates, the rise of cohabitation, families putting off procreation to pursue careers, an anti-family culture and voluntary childlessness.

We may be a few decades behind Europe, but we’re heading in the same direction.

National economies are interconnected to such an extent that the impact of economic collapse in one country or region can be felt around the world.

The social, political and economic decline of previously stable nations can destabilize entire regions and create perils for neighbors and far-ways allies. The United States is connected to Europe economically, [culturally], and through multiple security treaties.

Question
What Is “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family”

Answer
“Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family,” is an hour-long documentary which explores every aspect of demographic decline based on interviews with hundreds of academics, scholars, researchers, elected officials and civil and religious leaders from more than 33 countries.

Produced by Barry McLerran and directed by Rick Stout, “Demographic Winter” brings together a number of disciplines to examine and analyze what could be the greatest threat confronting humanity in the 21st century.

Question
What role did declining birth rates play in the current economic crisis?

Answer
Economist Harry S. Dent notes that 70% of GNP in the U.S. is consumer-driven. As the Baby Boomers aged, they began spending less, moving to smaller homes and planning for their retirement. Gen-X can’t fill the gap of the decline of spending by 81 million baby-boomers. This contributed to the slump in the housing market – when Boomers began selling rather than buying, there was a glut on the market and home sales began to decline. “Demographic Winter” predicted the financial crash of 2008 to within 18 months. The “Demographic Bomb” forecasts worse in store for our economy.

Question
Can the economic impact of declining birth rates be seen outside the United States?

Answer
Yes, in Japan, which has a birth rate of 1.25. Of the 10 nations with the lowest birth rates today, Japan is the only one outside of Europe. [Ironlight: K strategists vs. R strategists] It also has the highest ratio of elderly to children in the world. As the rising sun sets, where will the next generation of producers and consumers come from? While much of the industrialized world saw their economies grow in the 1990s, from 1990 to 2005, Japan’s stock market fell 80%. Between 1990 and 2005. Its real estate market lost 60% of its value.

Question
What is the population control movement and how has it promoted demographic winter?

Answer
The population control movement includes organizations, governments and international bodies (like the United Nations), dedicated to lower birth rates. Their methods range from the voluntary to the coercive – including forced sterilization in Peru and China’s one-child-per-family policy, which has included forced abortions. Over the course of decades, population controllers have persuaded the public, through fear and hysteria, that there are too many people in the world and drastic action must be taken to curb population growth. Their fallacies have been institutionalized and become the “standard wisdom” of Western elites.

Question
Who is Paul Ehrlich and what is his relation to declining birth rates?

Answer
An etymologist by training, Paul Ehrlich is the author of the 1968 best-seller “The Population Bomb,” and the father of the modern population control movement. In “The Population Bomb,” Dr. Ehrlich argued that population would quickly outstrip resources, leading to global starvation. (“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famine … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”) Ehrlich also argued that if voluntary limitations on population didn’t work, coercion would be necessary – a refrain taken up by the movement he spawned. He described human population growth as a cancer that would require drastic action to treat. Currently a professor at Stanford, Erhlich continues to argue that (absent draconian measures) population growth will doom the planet – this notwithstanding that none of his more sensational predictions have come to pass.

Question
What is “The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny”?

Answer
Released in July of 2009, “The Demographic Bomb” is the long-awaited sequel to “Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family.”

It continues the examination of rapidly falling birth rates (and both the causes and consequences thereof) where “Demographic Winter” left off. “The Population Bomb” focuses on the economic impact of declining birth rates — especially as they relate to the current global economic crisis – and the role played by the population-control movement in this disaster in the making.

Like “Demographic Winter,” “The Demographic Bomb” includes input from distinguished economists, historians, demographers and other social scientists. It also includes the views of Dr. Erhlich, as well as the current and past heads of the United Nations Population Division.

To order a copy of “Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family” and “The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny,” or view a trailer for either documentary, go to http://www.demographicwinter.com

Read Full Post »

Breaking the Thralldom of Interest is the Kernel of National Socialism

The Case for Germany: A Study of Modern Germany Chapter 26
[The book may be read in its entirety, HERE, thanks to archivists at The Scriptorium.]
By Arthur Pillans Laurie, M.A.Cantab., D.Sc., LL.D.Edin., F.C.S, F.R.S.E.
Internationaler Verlag, Berlin, © 1939.
This digitalized version © 2004 by The Scriptorium.

Economics

“Why kill Germans when we can starve them.”
-Senator Pittman

The post war period is one in which economics have gone mad and the most extraordinary things are done by Governments. In Brazil the Government throws thousands of tons of coffee beans into the sea while the consumer in this country is paying 2/6 to 3/- a lb. for beans which merely require to be brought to his door; and the Government of the USA. has paid farmers large subsidies not to grow food and let the land go derelict, while millions of unemployed are starving. In this country while it is admitted that one third of the population is underfed, the farmer is ploughing his potatoes into the land, and millions of fish are being thrown into the sea to keep up prices in the Billingsgate market. Last summer in the south of England the magnificent plum crop was left to rot on the trees, and in Cambridgeshire where the smallholder was getting ½ for 12 lbs. of carefully picked and packed Victoria plums, the retail shopkeeper in London 40 miles away was getting 8d. a lb.

We are told in the papers that the chicken farmer is being ruined, yet a chicken costs 1/- to ½ per lb. in London with all the offal weighed in and charged for at the same rate.

Not only does Nature give us of her abundance as never before in the history of mankind owing to improvements in agriculture, but the engineer has invented marvellous means of transport – and yet the people are not fed.

Just as it is abhorrent to the German Government and the German people to see an idle man on the dole, so the modern economics which destroys food to keep up prices and fines heavily the man who grows more than his quota, is contrary to their economic principle. Hitler has said, “I am no student of modern economics, and I must believe that the German who by his labour produces an article of use, such as food, has enriched and not impoverished the Reich”. The implication is that what is needed to secure the food supply of a Nation is direction not destruction, and the first essential is to use the middle man for his proper function for which his experience fits him, – the distribution of food at a modest percentage to pay for his services. He can no longer rig the market in Germany, and force down prices for the farmer and force up prices for the consumer.

It is said, I know not with what truth, that a cabbage passes through the hands of twelve merchants between the farmer and the consumer in this country.

The problem of the proper distribution of food is no easy one and I discussed it with Germans over there, but they are satisfied that while adjustments may be necessary they are working on the right lines. The peasant farmer is as satisfied as any farmer would ever be, and the men, women and children in every quarter of Nuremberg, which is a small German Birmingham, look far better fed than in this country.

To give the farmer a sufficient living and feed the people is the first duty of the modern State.

There is another modern economic delusion which is not accepted in Germany, that work, especially manual work, is a curse, and that modern inventions should enable men to idle for 20 hours out of 24. Germany has not found it so. It is by hard work that she has been lifted out of the economic pit. Ask the boys in the Labour Camps if they would change the struggle with Nature, the use of pick and shovel, for sitting in a cinema watching a film, or packed in a crowd watching paid athletes play football, and they will laugh at you. Compare him, hardy and brown with the sun, marching singing through the streets, with our anaemic physically undeveloped city youth loafing with a fag in his mouth.

In dealing with the problem of the staple articles of food the German Government has fixed a price for the farmer, and a price for the consumer, and while the middle man distributes, the State supervises and arranges to deal with the distribution when there is a shortage in one part of the country and an excess in another. The importation of food is regulated according to demand, and the duty paid equalizes the price with the internal price. Owing to the fact that so large a proportion of the land is in the hands of the peasant proprietor, they are not faced with our problem that any increase of profit to the farmer soon leaves his pocket in the form of rent or excessive interest to the Bank. The assistance of extra labour for seasons when labour is short on the land is arranged, and many of the temporary assistants become permanent land workers. When land has been reclaimed or formerly unfarmed land is being broken up for cultivation the State provides the new settler with capital.

They have found it impossible to fix prices for perishable foodstuffs, and have divided Germany into districts, the perishable foodstuffs being collected at a centre and redistributed from there.

They claim that this has proved a success, securing the consumer from excessive prices and protecting the producer from a loss. The handling of perishable foodstuffs is one of our most serious economic problems, the grower frequently selling at a loss, while the price of perishable foodstuffs in our cities is much too high for the poor man’s family to eat the quota of vegetables and fruit which is necessary for health. As I have said elsewhere, in devising the four years’ plan the Government is not satisfied even with this organization, putting the wastage of food at 1500 million marks a year, one half of which takes place during distribution.

With our haphazard method of collecting and distributing and utterly inadequate markets and myriads of small greengrocers, with no proper methods of storage anywhere, the wastage must be enormous, and largely accounts for the excessive price to the consumer.

In Germany every encouragement is given to the allotment holder, with a view to the people in towns growing their own supplies. I have mentioned elsewhere the cheapness and excellence of the food in German restaurants.

The system of magnificent motor roads, the construction of which is being vigorously pushed on, will help the matter of perishable food distribution still further. One of the absurd falsehoods which is repeated at intervals is that these roads are being built solely for military purposes. They are being built for sound economic reasons, but would doubtless prove very useful in a defensive war enabling troops to be quickly concentrated on any frontier. It is unnecessary to enlarge on the economic problem raised by fixed prices which is a complete departure from the economic principle of supply and demand and an open market, but they claim in Germany that they have found – as we have found – that the open market fails as a method of food distribution, and they seem to have been much more successful than our Milk, Potato and Bacon Boards. The probable reason is that owing to our love of compromise, we have combined the evils of a competitive system with the evils of a socialistic experiment, without getting the benefits of either. Either have a free market, or fix prices right through from producer to consumer.

It must be remembered that Germany has the advantage of having educated the people to a new ideal of service upon which they can call, which makes all the difference between failure and success. The desire is to assist these experiments and not try and find how to use them for private aggrandizement. To say that all the German people have grasped the idea of social service would be absurd, but their education in a new conception of social order is being vigorously carried on, and behind all is the stern necessity of making both ends meet for the whole Nation. We are so overflowing with the wealth of the world, though we share it round so unequally, that we think we can afford to be extravagant.

Their method of organizing the distribution of perishable food is well worth the study of the Ministry of Agriculture as it is one of our most serious economic problems to-day.

Finance

A series of articles attacking different aspects of National Socialism were published in The Banker two years ago. One is on the finance of the National Socialist Government, based on certain official figures. These articles are the only detailed examination of German finance by an expert, and therefore is made the basis of this chapter.

This article reveals a strong bias against Germany, a bias which is still more reflected in the introduction to the series of hostile articles in The Banker, an introduction which consists of a most ignorant and violent attack on the National Socialist Government.

In spite of the bias the actual figures given in the article prove an excellent defence of National Socialist Finance, and I propose to discuss them in this chapter.

The Two Problems

When the National Socialist Government came into power they were faced with two problems, which required for their solution a large capital expenditure – namely, the necessity for reducing to reasonable figures the huge number of unemployed, amounting to 6,000,000, and the pressing necessity of arming the German people for defence, surrounded as they are by nations spending larger and larger sums on armaments and increasing the number of soldiers on a peace footing.

A government has two sources of money: increased taxation and borrowing. In this country the Government adopts two methods of borrowing, Treasury Bills and loans over long periods. From time to time a portion of the indebtedness under Treasury Bills is converted into a permanent loan.

We have found it necessary in order to bring our armaments up to the standard set in France and Russia to face an expenditure of £ 1,500,000,000. France claims to-day to have the most powerful and best equipped army in Europe, the Soviet have 2,000,000 men on a peace footing and 6,000 bombing planes, and Germany by tremendous efforts can claim to have an army to-day sufficient for defence, which is all that she aims at having.

When we find it necessary to expend £ 1,500 millions merely to bring our existing armaments up to the modern level, it is evident that, beginning from nothing, Germany had a tremendous task.

The most urgent problem before the German Government was the unemployed, and before plunging into armament expenditure she tried to persuade France to accept a reduced number of men on a peace footing. Her proposals to do this were rejected.

There are two ways of dealing with the unemployed problem. One, the easier, is to pay them out of taxation a dole sufficient to keep them alive.

This has been our method since the War and has cost us hundreds of millions with nothing to show for it.

We have occasionally undertaken public works in a sporadic and inefficient manner, resulting in wastage of public money with nothing to show for it commensurate with the expenditure. The other method is to carry out public works which will increase the capital wealth of the nation on a well-thought-out plan.

There is a great deal of capital expenditure which can be undertaken only by the State, as it would yield a doubtful profit to private enterprise and would require a vast capital. It is impossible to assess exactly the increase in wealth due to such expenditure.

Roads

It has from earliest times been the task of the State to make and maintain roads and to carry out vast schemes of land drainage, irrigation and land reclamation.

From the first clearances made by primitive man in the primeval forest, land reclamation has never paid on a strict accountant basis, but it has paid the people a thousandfold through the centuries.

One man in this country, Mr. Lloyd George, has advocated for years expenditure on public works. He pointed out among other things the necessity of up-to-date arterial roads, and the danger of the long neglect of land drainage in this country.

The recent disastrous floods in the Fens involving an expenditure of many millions if the Fen country is to be saved, is due to this neglect, and we are just beginning to deal with the question of arterial roads.

Sweden’s Example

The little country of Sweden adopted the plan of public works and is to-day the most prosperous country in Europe.

The German Government decided on a bold policy of public works. They are constructing throughout Germany magnificent arterial roads for motor traffic; they have reclaimed vast areas of land; they have undertaken great schemes of building and reconstruction; and have spent money in various other ways of permanent benefit to the German people.

In five years they have reduced unemployment from 6,000,000 to nothing and have set up and equipped an army on a peace footing of 500,000 men. They are now proceeding to develop still further the internal resources of Germany under the four years’ plan, and to-day they are hiring labour from Italy and Holland.

Let me now return, from this long digression, to the financial problem.

In Great Britain, owing to the vast reserves of capital a Government can always float a permanent loan.

Germany, bled white by reparations and the vast confiscations after the War by the victorious allies, and heavily indebted by outside borrowing at exorbitant rates of interest, could not do that, although her internal war debt had been wiped out under the Socialist regime by a vast depreciation of currency.

The bold device adopted by the German Government was for the State to finance this large expenditure trusting to the economic recovery of Germany to take over this expenditure. This device has been fully justified by results, the expenditure being gradually converted into short term loans, corresponding to our Treasury Bills, followed by long term loans. The plan adopted is regarded as somewhat unorthodox by the writer of the article in The Banker, but he admits that owing to the control exercised over the banking system and finance in Germany it has been possible to do this without the consequences that usually follow such a policy – a rise in prices, and that the talk of approaching bankruptcy is absurd.

Taking as a reference figure the Budget of the year 1932, the expenditure was 6,700 million marks, the figures for
1933-4 are 9,700 million marks
1934-5 are 12,200 million marks
1935-6 are 16,700 million marks
1936-7 are 18,800 million marks,
showing a net increase of 31,100 million marks for these four years or £ 2,500 millions.

Steady Rise

The yield of taxation during the period has been 9,800 million marks above that of 1932, rising steadily and progressively from year to year, and owing to other sources of income less than half this amount had to be raised by loans, a total indebtedness which is not large for a country of the population of Germany, and may be compared with our figure of over £ 8,000 million sterling.

In order to make as impressive a figure as possible, the writer of the article in The Banker charges the whole of the sum of 31,000 million marks to the armaments account alone, and draws an entirely fictitious budget for 1936-7.

He ignores the large expenditure on public works which comes out of this total, the fact that the Government has not only met the interest on external debt but paid off one-third of the external debt and the increase of annual expenditure required for the civil service, the maintenance of the army on a peace footing and the extension of the social services.

The National Socialist Government has resisted the easy way out of their economic and exchange difficulties by borrowing abroad after the manner of other European countries. France has just borrowed £ 50 millions from us and proposes to borrow more.

This policy of self-sufficiency, or, as our Press call it, “economic isolation”, is, perhaps, a reason of the unpopularity of Germany in the City, the world’s biggest moneylender, an unpopularity which is reflected in our Press and in The Banker.

When our Government announced an expenditure of £ 1,500 millions to bring our armaments up to the level of other European countries, the public were astounded at the enormous cost of the equipment of a modern army and navy.

In the light of these figures the total expenditure by the German Government under all heads of £ 2,500 millions is not excessive even though the whole had been devoted to rebuilding a navy and equipping an army of 500,000 men up to the standard of the armies of France and Russia.

As an actual fact, 15,000 million marks have been spent on other purposes than on armaments.

The total amount borrowed is not excessive and the success of the capital expenditure is proved by the growing internal prosperity of Germany and the elimination of unemployment.

In fact the figures confirm the conclusion come to by other observers, that Germany has been satisfied to create and equip an army sufficient for defence, and has no projects of foreign conquest.

Since this date Germany has been compelled most unwillingly to fresh expenditure on armaments owing to the vast sums being spent by Great Britain and France as it is impossible to trust the foreign policies of Democracies. Daladier has just been saved by 9 votes and if at the next election here the Labour Party came in they would probably take the first opportunity to force war on Germany.

The difficult position in which Germany is placed by the heavy reparations she had to pay, forcing her to borrow money outside at high rates of interest, has never been properly appreciated in this country. When she had been bled to the last sixpence, and her economic ruin completed by the occupation of the Ruhr, she was left with a heavy external debt which had to be repaid some time and on which the interest was due.

In spite of her economic distress she has never adopted the facile expedient of repudiating her debt, and has paid off one third of the capital sum. We cancelled a thousand millions of the debt France owed to us, and also cancelled large sums due from Italy and Belgium, and we still owe four hundred millions to the United States and are neither repaying the capital nor paying the interest. The Soviet not only repudiated the debt of the former government, but confiscated wholesale the property of companies in Russia financed by foreign capital. It has been usual for countries after a revolution to repudiate the debts of the former government, and the Nazi government might well have followed this practice; on the contrary they assumed the whole burden, have done their best to pay the interest due, and have also taken over the Austrian debt on a reduction of interest of their own debt being agreed to. Other countries besides those mentioned have failed to meet either capital or interest since the war, and Germany is one of the very few countries who faced financial ruin as a result of the war and who are honestly meeting their obligations to the best of their ability.

They have also not adopted the device of depreciating their currency which has been done by so many other countries, having restored the gold mark after the disastrous financial crash.

Having to meet their foreign commitments, and having been deprived of their last ounce of gold by their foreign creditors, they have to control very strictly exports and imports and to prevent any capital leaving Germany. They have also been compelled by their financial position to enter bargains with foreign countries by which they exchange goods directly for goods, and in order to make the plan workable the bargain has to be made to cover several years. This has been described by Mr. Hudson in the House of Commons as an unfair method of trading and he has advised an economic war against Germany to compel them to abandon this method of trading which is forced upon them by their creditors in the city of London and in New York. Dr. Schacht has himself told us that he considers this method of trading “horrible”, and said that if Germany could come to some arrangement with her creditors she would adopt unrestricted trading like other countries. It is surely obvious that a buyer and seller have a right to make any bargain they choose, and that no method of trading can be described as unfair. Mr. Hudson was also mistaken in saying that the German government was subsidising the sale of their goods abroad and was by her policy lowering the standard of living in Germany, the attempt to calculate the values of this exchange of goods for goods by converting into sterling being quite misleading.

Germany has not only had a political revolution but has carried out an economic revolution in her method of calculating wealth. All other countries still adopt gold as their standard but Germany, deprived of gold, is calculating wealth in terms of labour production, a new method which is worthy of the study of economists.

When the Nazi party came into power they adopted the very bold policy of putting everyone to work by means of government credits. The result of this policy has been very remarkable. The government money being used to promote vast schemes of road building and land reclamation, the demand of these men for food and other products stimulated other industries and the national income increased so rapidly, that it has been possible to convert this government credit into loans based upon savings, and today far from having any unemployed, Germany has had to import labour, while by every figure by which the prosperity of a country can be tested the national wealth is steadily rising.

When they first proposed to provide work by means of government credit, they were told by the economists that this would result in an immediate rise of prices, but owing to the control of prices exercised by the government no such rise in prices has taken place. At every stage in these bold and new economic experiments the economists have prophesied disaster, and have been proved to be wrong. Dr. Schacht has told us that this economic policy would have been quite impossible unless the German people had first been converted to the Nazi doctrine, and were therefore willing to help the government by loyally carrying out their wishes, instead of making private profit out of the difficulties of the government.

Moreover, while other nations are spending more and more on armaments, Germany is directing her efforts to increasing the productivity of her soil, and the development of new and valuable products which the genius of her chemists is extracting synthetically from her two raw materials – coal and wood.

We find therefore that, after the author of the article in The Banker has written his worst against the German government, he has made out an excellent case for her financial policy and dispelled the wild rumours of an excessive expenditure on armaments.

The most recent figures for Germany reveal an increasing prosperity and increasing revenue from taxation. Borrowing by the Government is strictly limited by the amount required to pay interest out of taxation.

The Monopoly of Raw Materials

The graph on the opposite page makes it possible to see at a glance the monopoly of raw materials which is held by the British and French and Dutch Empires, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.

Striking as this diagram is, it does not tell the whole story, because countries outside these are largely financed by British and American capital.

The Argentine, for instance, is at present largely in the hands of British and U.S.A. capitalists.

Other nations wishing to buy raw materials are therefore faced by several difficulties.

In the first place they find a barrier of hostile tariffs against the sale of the goods with which they wish to buy raw materials.

In the second place they find preferential agreements like the Ottawa Agreement.

In the third place they find combines to limit supplies.

These combines are of two kinds. There are government combines, like the tin combine arranged by our government with the governments of the tin producing countries. And there are commercial combines, like that of the copper producers, for the limitation of output.

The world’s oil supplies are in the hands of some three or four big companies which arrange together the price of petrol and of other oils they produce.

We own practically the whole of the world’s output of nickel, which is worked by one financial organization with British and American capital.

We, Russia and the U.S.A. possess practically the whole of the world’s production of gold.

It may be argued that, for example with tin, the German buyer and the British buyer both have to pay a monopoly price. But, as the British seller lives across the street, what we lose on the swings we make on the roundabouts. We are transferring money from one pocket to another.

Nations like Germany are not in that position.

The conference on raw materials is a meeting of monopolists to discuss their monopoly and is of as much practical value as the disarmament conferences.

The question of raw materials is an international question, in that there are monopolies held by some nations to the impoverishment of other nations.

Monopolies within a nation can be dealt with by the people of that nation, but world-wide monopolies in which groups of nations are plundering other nations is a policy of modern world-wide finance for which no solution has been suggested, or rather the obvious solution will be passed unanimously as a pious opinion but will have no possible practical result, the nations owning the monopolies having not only enormous capital reserves, but overwhelming military forces.

The main business of politicians is to create false issues to deceive the people and President Roosevelt did so the other day when referring to the China-Japanese war, when he proclaimed that the World issue is between Peace loving Democracies and aggressive nations who are in favour of war.

The main issue in the World to-day is the old primitive issue – the need for food.

The World monopoly of raw materials, controlled principally by the British Empire and international financial interests, which are held principally in Great Britain and the U.S.A., is creating a serious economic problem in many nations of which three are most prominent to-day – Japan, Germany and Italy – but France and Russia naturally stand in with us. I have already mentioned the attempt of Italy to find an open door by the conquest of Abyssinia forced upon her by England and France.

Japan is fighting in China to obtain extended markets for her manufactures.

The problem is, as I have said, the primitive one of food, and Japan, Germany and Italy are the three nations of the first rank who form the triple spearhead for a world demand for free trade in raw materials.

For the possessing nations to meet and reprove Japan is pure hypocrisy. The Abyssinian war was forced on Italy, and the Chinese war forced on Japan by the Empires and by international financial control of necessary supplies, and unless a World war is to come, their reasonable demands will have to be met.

The monetary system existing in the world before the war was simple. All money was based on gold and paper or token coinage in every country in the world except China, was interchangeable for a certain weight of gold, and the amount of paper notes issued had a certain fixed ratio to gold reserve.

The reasons for selecting gold are the durability of the metal, the large gold reserve – the accumulation of centuries – and the scarcity of the metal as an ore and cost of extracting, the result being that the output each year did not increase by a large amount the quantity of gold in use. The Mint bought all the gold offered them and converted it into gold coins which were freely used.

It had been possible to handle the increasing trade of the world partly by the printing of paper money, and partly by the increasing use of promises to pay, or cheques.

During the war the whole system was abandoned, and the war financed by the creation of credit and the printing of paper notes as required. Since the war the coinage of gold has never been resumed, and there is no necessary connection between gold reserves and the number of notes issued, we having just abandoned the last residue of such a control. Vast quantities of gold are being accumulated by the U.S.A., France and Great Britain, gold is being mined in larger quantities than ever before and the price of gold measured in sterling is always rising.

In the case of the paper franc and the paper dollar, they have a fixed value in terms of gold but they cannot be exchanged for gold at the national bank. There is no fixed ratio in terms of gold for the pound sterling. The French Government has had repeatedly to alter the ratio between the paper franc and gold, depreciating their currency more and more.

Gold reserves have some value to a country as the gold can be sold in small quantities at the current price to another country to settle debts, and is still used in that way; but obviously if a large quantity of the gold reserves were thrown on the market gold would drop rapidly in price and the “gold is wealth” delusion would vanish never to return; consequently Great Britain, France, and the U.S.A. cannot part with their vast stores of gold which has merely a fictitious value which is not realisable. In case of war involving the three democracies, if they tried to utilise the gold it would lose its value.

To return to paper money, if we imagine an entirely self-contained country with no external trade the amount of paper money in circulation is a matter of indifference as far as prices are concerned, as earnings would have to be at once adjusted to change of prices. It would also obviously be necessary to adjust interest and rent. If before inflation one pound bought twenty loaves of bread and after inflation one pound bought only ten loaves of bread, wages, salaries, interest and rent would have to be adjusted accordingly.

As far as it is possible to discover any intelligible policy on the part of our Government the aim has been, since we abandoned our attempt to return to gold, to keep the cost of living fairly level. The abandonment of gold and the drop of the pound from twenty to fourteen shillings measured against gold produced no change in our economic life.

The problems arise when the self-contained country begins to trade with other countries. Trade consists of the exchange of goods for goods and their price in terms of a fixed standard roughly approximates to the cost of production in each country, and if there is a common measure of money such as existed before the war, the process of barter settles the amount of an article to be exchanged for so much gold, but since the war as the value of money in terms of gold fluctuates in different countries, the exchange of goods is no longer a simple matter. If for instance owing to printing paper money it now takes two pounds instead of one pound to buy twenty loaves, while in the other country it takes twenty francs which were equivalent to one pound before the inflation, the franc is now worth two shillings instead of one shilling in the new currency.

As the money of each country is only legal tender in that country, trade involves two transactions – the exchange of goods and the purchase of the money in the one country with the money in the other country to settle the account, and the relative value of money in the two countries is constantly fluctuating.

In order to obtain some approach to stability in prices, France, Great Britain and the U.S.A. have entered into an arrangement to try and keep the value ratios of the pound sterling, franc and dollar approximately the same, and the British Government has put aside £ 500 millions which is used to buy and sell gold, pounds sterling, and the money of other countries in an attempt to keep the ratios fairly stable. Their transactions are secret and of course might end in disaster if a big world slump took place or war broke out.

It is not too much to say that those responsible for finance in the various countries in the world have no longer any clear understanding of what they are doing in a mass of complicated transactions in values which are purely fictitious. To take an example, the Bank of England buying gold at the current price, entered it in the books at the old value of the sovereign. The Bank has now decided to write up the value of the gold they hold to the market price, and seem to think that by a book entry they have raised the wealth stored in the Bank by some hundreds of millions.

Another big war would bring the whole fictitious system crashing down.

The result of these fictitious systems of currency and the piling up of tariffs, quotas and restrictions on trade, has been a series of financial crises in France, the two million unemployed in this country, the eleven million unemployed in the U.S.A., and distress in more distant parts of the world like Burma where the peasants are starving.

Each economist has a new theory of money more elaborate than the last which all his fellow economists attack.

Germany, when the Nazi party came into power, was in the position of having been stripped of all outside investments, of all gold, and in addition being heavily in debt to the financiers in outside countries for money borrowed to pay reparations.

The new Government would have been quite justified in doing what other revolutionaries had done and repudiated the external debt, and it might have been better for Germany and the outside world if she had done so. Other war debts have been repudiated right and left. France has never attempted to pay what she was owing after we had let her off a thousand millions, and we are not even paying the interest on our debt to America. Germany alone had been an honest debtor and is paying for it.

With no gold, no foreign exchange, six million unemployed and starving farmers she determined to go back to the fundamental principles of economics which have been lost sight of by the financiers of other countries. One thing she was determined on. Not to go into the world financial market and borrow money ever again.

This is the real quarrel that we and the U.S.A., the two big moneylenders, have with her. If she came to the “city” to borrow £ 100 millions all the attacks in the Press, the denunciations on platforms, the utilization of the fugitive Jew as a political stunt would stop. The City pulls the strings and the Press obey.

The fundamental principles are that wealth is the product of labour applied to raw materials to make articles of utility. Labour may be employed to make goods for immediate consumption, or to increase capital values by carrying out work which will enable more articles of utility to be produced at a lower cost. The building of motor roads is an excellent example of the second application of labour as it facilitates and cheapens the transport of goods. The German Government decided to introduce a new method of measuring the value of the mark, discarding gold and making the mark represent a labour unit. Taking the total output of labour in the country the number of marks in circulation is limited to that output, and so prices are kept very level, only small fluctuations taking place.

They also proceeded to make a very bold experiment by creating credit through the State to set everyone to work on some useful employment. They were under no delusion as to this fictitious capital. They realised it would have to be replaced by the only real capital, savings from the product of labour, and they took care that every penny was utilised as far as possible to increase the capital wealth of the country. Unfortunately it could not all be utilised for this purpose, because France and Great Britain having refused to consider Hitler’s offer to limit standing armies and carry disarmament as far as they were willing to go. People in this country including members of Parliament and newspaper editors are under the delusion that making guns is a legitimate employment of labour and are astonished that the more they spend in this way, the larger the number of unemployed. Making guns makes the country poorer not richer as it is labour misdirected from increasing capital value.

The building of motor roads, the reclamation of land, the improvement of land already under cultivation and forests, the remodelling of factories, the capital expenditure necessary to utilise more fully Germany’s raw materials was all useful expenditure increasing the national wealth. When the Nazi Government proceeded by the creation of credit to set everyone to work, the economists here said that inflation and a rise in prices must follow.

No rise in prices took place. This was due in the first place to the centralised control and the willingness of the German people to obey orders, and the fact that no speculative cornering of raw materials and gambling on the stock exchange was allowed, and in the second place to the utilization of the money to produce capital goods of real value. There were no strikes for shorter hours and higher wages. The German workman, knowing that he is not being utilized to pile up huge profits for the capitalists, plays the game. Gradually but steadily this created credit was replaced by real capital, savings obtained from industry.

The interesting result of the calculation of the mark in terms of labour, is that while the other capitalistic countries have millions of unemployed Germany has had to import foreign labour. It is true that most unwillingly she is spending money on munitions owing to the colossal expenditure in munitions here and in France but that is only a fraction of her expenditure which is going to increase the economic strength of Germany.

The mark stands today practically at its value in gold of the old gold mark.

As other countries are busy depreciating their currency, a depreciation which is shown in the rising value of gold, it is necessary to prevent money being taken out of Germany and to make the taking of money out of the country a severely punishable offence. In spite of every care smuggling does go on and there is a market for marks in London where they increase in value as the money of other countries is depreciated more and more.

Germany in trading with other countries is faced by the difficulty that she has no gold, no reserves of foreign exchange and no outside investments the interest on which is paid in goods. She has the further difficulty that she is faced everywhere by high tariffs, quotas and restrictions of output. These restrictions of output and artificial prices for raw materials do not affect us and the U.S.A. who own directly or indirectly most of the world’s raw materials which are not owned by France, Holland and Russia.

The English buyer has to pay an artificial price for tin but the owner of the tin mine across the street reaps the advantage. It is money from one English pocket into another English pocket. Germany buys the tin at our artificial price and the same applies to practically all raw materials. She needs colonies especially for semi-tropical products, palm oil, cocoa and so on. It would pay us a thousand times to give back her colonies. The £ 2,000 millions we are spending on armaments is because we refuse to give them back.

It cost us £ 8,000 millions to destroy her export trade which existed before the war. How much is it going to cost us to crush her again if we can succeed in doing so?

When trying to develop her export trade Germany could not do it on the plan followed by us with reserves of gold, and foreign exchange, and vast sums from investments abroad, so she applied the same principle that she had applied to her internal economic problem.

She knows the real labour value of her goods in marks, and going to a foreign country she proceeds to barter an exchange of goods for goods which is advantageous to both sides of the bargain. To do this she had obviously to arrange the exchange for a period of several years and give the other country credit to the extent of her immediate purchase of raw materials to be paid in manufactured goods. She has therefore brought trade to its ultimate real basis and cut out the complications of varying currencies.

This is called over here “unfair” method of trading. Every buyer and seller has the right to make such a bargain as suits them both and no one has a right to interfere. Germany is accused of subsidizing exports. This is not peculiar to Germany. We subsidize our coal exports, and this is not a new accusation. It was made after the War and caused Lloyd George to pass the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I believe no action was ever taken under this Act which is still open to anyone who can prove Germany is selling below cost of manufacture.

The real reason for the ferocity of Fleet Street against Germany is that the German Government has determined to work out its own economic problems and avoid international finance like the plague. If Germany came to the City for a loan the financial syndicates that control our “free” press would call off the journalists.

“Breaking the thralldom of interest is the kernel of National Socialism.”
-Adolf Hitler

Read Full Post »

In Defence of Germany

In Defence of Germany
By G. E. O. Knight

The Golden Eagle Publishing Co., Fetter House, Fetter Lane, London E.C.4, © 1934
This digitalized version © 2009 by The Scriptorium.

[3]
Preface

It is a pleasure to me to write a few words to the twentieth Edition (20th thousand) of Mr. G. E. O. Knight’s most excellent brochure in its revised form. Mr. Knight has a perfect understanding of the difficulties confronting the new Germany, and, what is equally important, he possesses a fair and independent judgment. We Germans feel grateful to him, and to all our English friends who have taken the trouble, at no little expense and inconvenience to themselves, to study our revolution without prejudice. I hope sincerely that this pamphlet will be read all over England, and that it will help towards a better understanding between Great Britain and Germany.

Baronesse von der Goltz.
Rogzow, über Belgard/Pers,
Pom, Germany.

August 10th, 1934.

[4=blank] [5]
A Personal Note

For some time past, a handful of Englishmen and women, all pro-German, and each anxious to see a better and more intimate understanding between the two countries, have found themselves considerably handicapped in their work of reconciliation by the report of happenings in the German Reich which have gained impetus without any manifestation of disapproval from official German sources. Not that we wish it to be thought that it would redound to the dignity of the German or any other Government to go out of their way to refute statements which on the face of them are manifestly absurd and published to serve political ends. But the hard fact has to be faced that Germany to-day is culturally isolated from the rest of the world. In the main, this is due to the new form of government now found in Germany, obviously a matter that concerns the Germans alone, and no part of our business to discuss. But we do not think that Germany is giving of her best to-day. No doubt this is attributable to the fact that she has been torn by internal strife and the haunting fear that Communism and other subversive forms of government are even yet capable of doing the country infinite harm unless a strong hand is [6] used to keep them in check. Whereas German culture was formerly the admiration and inspiration of every thoughtful man and woman the world over, there has been a serious setback during the last two or three years in her contribution to letters. We think that this is but a passing phase. In the meanwhile, we can but work for the cause of Anglo-German amity, conscious of the fact that with the lifting of the clouds, we shall secure the aims we have in view – Justice for Germany and World Peace.

The Committee of the Friends of Germany.
July 6th, 1934.

[7]
Foreword

Who is behind the present unparalleled anti-German campaign in this country? What are their motives? All the facts point to the existence in the principal cities of Europe and America of a world-wide organisation whose object is to bring discredit on a country which has suffered more during the last twenty years than can ever be recorded. The present orgy of calumny and abuse is pitiful, to use no stronger word. The most sinister aspect of the campaign is the attempt, through the Press of the world, to overthrow the existing European order and tradition and place the Communists in power. How often must it be repeated that there is no alternative to the Hitler regime in Germany but Communism. Once Communism gets control there it will speedily spread its evil influence to every country in Europe. I can scarcely believe there is a responsible Englishman who wishes to see the German Reich fall into the hands of Communists. Every article that appears in the London and Provincial Press to-day against Germany and its Government is a direct incitement to the Communists. If anyone questions the truth of this statement let him read the exulting Communist Press, [8] who boast of having every country on their side in so far as Germany is concerned. The British Press will one day realise the significance of what they are now doing and curse the day they countenanced the anti-German campaign. It is a double-edged weapon full of the gravest consequences, perhaps not so much to England for the time being, but certainly to Germany’s nearest neighbours, destined to become impregnated with the Communist theory of government once it establishes itself in the German Reich.

London, E.C.4. G. E. O. K.
July 5th, 1934.

[9]
In Defence of Germany

1.

If one is to judge from the facts of history, it will be seen that Nations are not for long permitted to run their respective lives and affairs without outside interference. The last twenty years alone suffices to prove the truth of this much under-emphasised fact. Since the Armistice, the various European countries have adopted measures against Germany that aimed at the virtual ruin and degradation of the people and country. It is true that the policies pursued have brought economic havoc to the world at large, and created a situation the end of which is as yet difficult to determine. Just as Germany was blamed before the War for wanting a war, so was she blamed for the War itself. She had grown prosperous, and needed a strong navy to defend her economic and political interests. England watched her every movement as a cat watches a mouse. She saw, or fancied she saw, her markets threatened everywhere. Germany’s growing influence was a continuous source of anxiety to British statesmen and industrialists. A five year anti- [10] German newspaper campaign was inaugurated in London; this led to considerable bitterness and misunderstanding on both sides of the North Sea. The ground, it seems, was slowly being prepared for bigger things; the seeds of hatred and mutual mistrust among them. Parliament did not interfere with the “glorious and hard won liberties of the British Press.” The armaments racket was in full blast; war-mongers reaped no inconsiderable pecuniary gain for their patriotism. “We want eight and we won’t wait,” was the temper of the country in general. No one will ever forget it. The ex-Kaiser was caricatured everywhere and became the laughing-stock of Great Britain. The spy mania was rampant. When the War actually came, it needed little effort on the part of Whitehall to convince the British public that Germany, and Germany alone, was responsible for the outbreak of hostilities. No one but a lunatic thinks so to-day. While some of the more foolish among us are sighing for a return to the status quo ante bellum, others are clamouring for yet another war with Germany for some as yet unspecified act of atrocity she has committed, or will commit if she be permitted to re-arm. At the conclusion of the last war, the European nations had a glorious opportunity of shewing their mettle and vindicating their honour in the matter of disarmament. The question had been before the League of Nations for many years. Con- [11] ference after Conference has been held to no good purpose. The old double game of lying and shuffling so sickened the German Delegation that Germany left the last Conference and the League of Nations convinced that the European nations never had the slightest intention of disarming then or at any other time. Now, of course, Germany is blamed for the failure of the Conference.

2.

A world-wide reorganisation of the political and economic systems of every country seems to be called for. The present cannot for long endure, the edifice is cracking most ominously and will soon be tumbling about our heads. Unless we are very careful, the forces against us will prove too much for statesmen, and not alone Europe, but the world in general, will be engaged in the greatest holocaust yet vouchsafed man to wage. The spectre of Communism stalks every land. The fact that we have no obvious solution to hand for our present overwhelming difficulties is enough to indicate the bankruptcy of Parliament and politicians. A change of heart may go a long way towards solving some of our problems, but will the on-coming tide abate its fury while men are thinking about things? The Germans are still a very great people, possessing an independent will, indomitable energy and courage, [12] with an undying love for their country, a people who, in their dynamics, occupy themselves more with kinetics than statics.

3.

A casual glance at the columns of the Press of this country is disturbing, to say the least. Not a few of the old, wartime stories and their variants are again in evidence, and every conceivable device known to war-mongers in particular and their allies in general is being used to stir up the worst passions in the least intelligent portion of the population – men and women who have no opportunity, time, inclination or even money to combat anything that is being circulated. To find a parallel to the present newspaper talk, one has to go back to the years preceding the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. For long the yellow Press of Great Britain was conducting a newspaper campaign against Germany, clamouring for more battleships, more guns, and a bigger army, aye, even for conscription, to meet the “expansionist” policy of Imperial Germany.

There is scarcely a newspaper or review in this country that will open its columns to the realities of the German situation; indeed, anything that is favourable to the Hitler regime is turned down with the deepest scorn, while the contributor himself is roundly accused, or silently suspected of being in the pay of the Reich.

[13]
4.

The British Press is virtually unanimous in agreeing that our erstwhile enemies are out for revenge, that the members of the Nazi Government are thugs, thieves, liars and even murderers; that nothing good can ever come out of the German Government; that it would be better to march into the country now and crush the Nazis rather than wait until they have re-armed. Almost every item of news is falsified and exaggerated to meet the exigencies of a lying campaign.

5.

Politics are at the root of the evil. The ex-Allies and Associated Powers are naturally anxious to save their faces for the failure to carry out their part of the Treaty of Versailles. What better excuse for their not so doing than that Germany is re-arming? Germany, they tacitly argue, must not be allowed to rise from her ashes, or if she does, it must not be under the leadership of demagogues.

The principal Labour organ of London sees in the German “dictatorship” an attack on the “freedom” enjoyed by British “wageslaves” of this country. It damns every form of tyranny save that exercised by the Trades Union Congress. It hates the British Communists and expels them from membership of the National [14] Labour Party, but a German Communist is a brother, and his arrest and incarceration in a Concentration Camp a crime against civilisation! The Jews of Germany, no matter whether they be leaders of the German Communist Party or men engaged in “big business,” must on no account be touched by the brutal Nazis!

6.

Before the revolution of March 1933, the Jews in the Reich overran many Government Departments, and enjoyed the highest privileges in every profession and calling. They were the principal organisers of the German Communist Party, and became identified with every one of the warring political sects in the country. In every way they proved themselves eminently capable business men and politicians. Many had grown very wealthy. Nearly every German war profiteer was a Jew; the native German seems to have regarded with feelings of shame and horror the idea of making money out of his country during times of great distress. It is not denied that the Jews are clever and amiable people, that they have contributed very materially to science, literature, art and music. That one per cent of the population of Germany should impose their rule and culture – however eminent that culture may be – on seventy million native-born Germans is un- [15] thinkable, to use no stronger word. Modern Germany will not have it. It is obviously inimicable to the best interests of the country, and if the reader objects, then he must ask himself whether a Government of Jews in the House of Commons would be tolerated in this country, and if so, for how long. So when the Nazi worm turned, and the services of many Jews were dispensed with, Jewry throughout the world rose in arms and through the medium of the Press and public meetings in London and the provinces, denounced the German Government in violent terms.

The Germans have assumed control of their country, and for weal or woe they mean to maintain their position. The German people are perfectly entitled to possess what form of government they please; it ill becomes us to dictate to them.

7.

The time is drawing nigh when the position of foreign correspondents should be dispassionately reviewed by the Foreign Offices of all countries. Some sort of understanding or convention is necessary. It is notorious that foreign correspondents are not above abusing their privileges. The temptation to exaggerate the truth; the restrictions put upon them by representatives of their own countries, the harm done by news-editors who insist upon [16] “frightfulness,” and not faithfulness in telegraphic reports, are matters that need investigation. I would feel disposed to make it a legal offence for any foreign correspondent to send false or exaggerated accounts of happenings when his sole object is to do harm to that country because his own Government is pursuing a policy calculated to bring discredit upon it for political purposes.

The British Foreign Office is well aware that not a few men attached to newspapers in foreign countries are employed for purposes of espionage. In the course of my wanderings round the European capitals I have met newspaper men who openly boasted of having been employed in this and that country’s secret service, who have accepted the hospitality of people whom they later on wantonly betrayed. That, you will argue, is all part of the business. But it seems to me a pity that foreign correspondents should not be above suspicion and devote themselves to their specific jobs and to their specific jobs alone.

8.

Recent happenings in Germany have not redounded to the prestige and interests of British foreign correspondents accredited to that country, and although Fleet Street has obscured the real issue, it is felt everywhere that irreparable damage has been done the call- [17] ing of a foreign correspondent by men whose sense of duty has been obscured by their insensate quest for sensation, wilful lying, and even espionage. If men want to pursue the role of a spy, it would be better and more honourable for them and their country if they carried on their work without camouflaging themselves as foreign correspondents. The British Government do not offer protection to the professional spy, although he is in the service of the State. He knows the conditions attached to his office and takes all risks. Columns of the most pathetic sob-stuff were recently printed and published in a well-known London morning daily when its Berlin correspondent was bundled out of Germany, lock, stock and barrel. Questions were asked in the House of Commons about the ” indignity and outrage,” and Sir John Simon was pretty hard put to it when called upon to reply. The Foreign Minister, of course, did his best for the deported man, but he also had Germany to consider – and satisfy.

9.

British foreign correspondents at present in Germany have been placed in an invidious position, and there are few among us to-day who envy them their job, or who would like to accept it, were it offered. Never was the status of a British foreign correspondent in Germany [18] lower than it is to-day, and it will be many years, I fear, before the stigma attached to the profession is removed. If the innocent suffer with the guilty the fault lies with the employers of men quite unsuited to their posts. It is of international importance that only the very best and most trustworthy men shall be employed as foreign correspondents of newspapers.

10.

International Jewry, at the moment, would seem to be destroying the best in British journalism, and that in a cause which is both worthless and futile. If British journalism is to sink to the level of the gutter, the fault will certainly be found at the door of the Jews.

11.

Convinced that the Press of this country was conducting a political campaign against Germany, I resolved to go to Berlin and make free and independent investigations on the spot. I was determined to do pretty much as I pleased when I got there, and no one interfered with my movements. I found Germany, comparatively speaking, a free country, much freer than some of its neighbours. My own views were not always acceptable to my friends, among whom I can count Jews and Gentiles, Nazis and Com- [19] munists, Democrats and Socialists. I discovered that being a Nazi does not preclude one holding views that few Labour men of my own country would express to their “comrades ” of the National Labour Party! Young Germany is keenly interested in social and political questions; I wish to goodness the British working man showed the same interest and intelligence in matters that pertain to his welfare. My visits to the Concentration Camps were full of interest, and recalled the days of my own internment in the Dual Monarchy during the War. Consequently I felt I could regard myself as something of an authority on Concentration Camps in general. I was up to all the tricks of the Camp Commanders at Sonnenberg and Oranienburg, where I made free and personal contact with many of the prisoners, without any interference from the Camp Commanders or their assistants. Indeed, I let it be known to the responsible authorities that unless I was privileged to do as I liked within reason, I would not accept the invitation extended to me to visit the Camps. I was also much struck by the many Workers’ Lagers I visited, and the splendid efforts now being made by the German Government towards ameliorating the lot of the unemployed. I saw no murders of Jews or assaults upon their persons. Order and cleanliness were everywhere. Courtesy and kindness from all and sundry favoured me wherever I went. My private [20] conversations with Jews were illuminating. They did not bear out what the British newspapers suggested. Mountains had been made out of molehills, melodrama out of comic opera. The majority of the “assaults” were committed by over-zealous youths, and in nearly every instance they consisted of “ratting” unfortunate men who were not particularly respectful towards the new regime. Physical harm very little, mental, perhaps much. The laws relating to the freedom of movement of Jews are substantially the same as those of other people. Much of the trouble that has arisen has nothing to do with the domiciled German Jew, many of whom are still employed by the Government in various spheres of usefulness. There are about 80,000 undesirable Jews that Germany wants to get rid of for all time, and willingly would she deport them all to Great Britain or the United States of America if the request were made. These are the Jews who since the Armistice have penetrated the country and created a situation that has wrought considerable social and political harm in Germany. Among these undesirables are murderers, ex-convicts, potential thieves, fraudulent bankrupts, white slave traffickers, beggars of every description that beggar description, and political refugees. Many have come from the Baltic States, others from Poland, and not an inconsiderable number from Russia.

[21] The Jewish question in Germany, as indeed elsewhere, will naturally be settled sooner or later. The best possible solution to the present impasse is to treat all Jews as aliens, as indeed they are in tradition, race and culture, and to extend to them the same privileges, courtesy and consideration as those granted to all foreigners.

12.

The Press of the world, speaking generally, has made no attempt to interpret the views of the German Government on the Jewish or any other question. The campaign of “assaults” had the effect of keeping thousands of tourists out of the country, and there was scarcely an hotel or pension in Berlin last summer that was not empty. The handful of British and American subjects who had been roughly treated by some Nazi youths in mistake for their own countrymen for not giving the Nazi salute was made the occasion for diplomatic protests, but not a word was printed here of the apologies offered by the German Foreign Office; one looked in vain for any such generous gesture from Fleet Street.

Things have cooled off a bit since I left Germany insofar as the Jewish question is concerned. The British public, ever slow to understand the truth, is now asking nasty questions. Was it all true? Who was behind the [22] “atrocity” stories? Is the British Press controlled by Jews? In whose hands lies the power of Fleet Street? Was the propaganda campaign a smoke screen to cover up the failures of the Disarmament Conference? Did the Jewish armament interests of Great Britain see an opportunity of scaring the public into believing that unarmed Germany was preparing for a war of revenge? Should the public be permitted to know that Germany is the only country that has honoured the Treaty of Versailles?

13.

Of Herr Hitler’s peace policy I cull the following from an address given by the Reich Chancellor on October 14th, 1933, and which speaks for itself: –

“I speak in the name of the entire German nation when I say that all of us most sincerely desire to root out an enmity whose sacrifices are out of all proportion to any possible gain.

“The German people are convinced that their honour has remained pure and unstained upon a thousand battlefields, just as they see in the French soldier only their ancient but glorious opponent. We, and the whole German nation, should all be happy at the thought that we could spare our children and our children’s children what we ourselves as honourable men have had to watch in the long and bitter years and have, [23] ourselves, had to suffer. The history of the last hundred and fifty years, with all its various changes and chances, should have taught both at least one lesson; that important and permanent changes can no longer be purchased by a sacrifice of blood. I, as a National-Socialist, and all my followers, absolutely refuse, however, by reason of our national principles, to acquire, at the cost of the life-blood of those who love and are dear to us, men and women of a foreign nation, who, in any case, will never love us. It would be a day of untold blessing for the whole of humanity if the two nations could once and for all banish the idea of force from their mutual relationships; the German nation is prepared to do this.

“While boldly asserting the rights which the treaties themselves give us, I will, however, declare equally boldly that in future there will be for Germany no more territory conflicts between the two countries.

“After the return of the Saar Basin to the Reich it would be insanity to think of a war between the two States. For such a war there could no longer be, from our point of view, any reasonable or moral excuse.

“For nobody could demand that millions of young lives should be destroyed in order to correct the present frontiers. Such a correction would be of problematical extent and even more problematical worth.”

Continuing his address, Herr Hitler said:
[24]

“Earlier German Governments trustfully joined the League of Nations in the hope that it would prove to be a forum for a fair adjustment of national interests, but, above all, for honest reconciliation between former opponents. But the prerequisite for this was the recognition of the final restoration of the equality of rights of the German nation. The German nation took part in the Disarmament Conference on the same condition. To be disqualified to the rank of a member without equal rights of such an institution or conference is an unbearable humiliation for a nation of sixty-five millions with a sense of honour, and for a Government with an equally strong sense of honour.

“The German nation has more than fulfilled its obligations with regard to disarmament. It is now the turn of the highly-armed States to fulfil similar obligations to no less extent. The German Government does not take part in this Conference in order to haggle for a few guns or machine guns for the German nation, but to co-operate as a factor with equal rights in the general appeasement of the world. Germany has no less right to security than other nations. If the English Minister, Mr. Baldwin, represents it as obvious that, for England, disarmament can be understood only as the disarmament of the more highly-armed States simultaneously with an increase of England’s armaments up to a common level, then it would be [25] unfair to overwhelm Germany with reproaches if, as a member of the Conference with equal rights, she maintains the same view in her own case. Germany’s demand in this respect cannot constitute any menace to the other Powers. For the defensive works of other nations are constructed to withstand the most powerful offensive weapons, while Germany does not demand any offensive weapons but only those defensive weapons which are not forbidden even in future but sanctioned for all nations. And in this case, too, Germany is ready from the start to be satisfied quantitatively with a minimum which is out of all proportion to the gigantic stocks of offensive and defensive weapons of our former opponents. The intentional disqualification of our nation, however, contained in the fact that an obvious right is granted to every nation in the world and denied only to us, is felt by us to be the perpetuation of a discrimination that is intolerable for us. I already stated in my peace speech in May that under such conditions we should, to our regret, no longer be in a position to belong to the League of Nations or to take part in international conferences.”

14.

If I were asked what is uppermost in the minds of the average man and woman in Germany to-day, I would unhesitatingly answer – [26] the fear of invasion. What have Germany’s neighbours done to dispel this fear complex? An unarmed Germany is an anachronism and the greatest danger to the peace of Europe.

15.

There were some seven thousand political prisoners interned in the whole of Germany in August, 1933. Of this number, about seven hundred were Communists interned in Oranienburg. The site of this camp is that of a disused brewery; there is no question of the place being large enough for the men and their one hundred guards. Not more than one hundred of the seven hundred internees belonged to the intelligentsia class. The remainder were workers, not a few of whom were mentally deficient. Some had already served terms of imprisonment for offences other than political, among whom Jews predominated. The discipline in the camp was of the robust kind. Every man had some kind of work to do, but this was not always enforced. The camp rose at 6 a.m. and all lights were out at 9.30 p.m. The meals consisted of breakfast, dinner, supper with meat served daily except on Fridays. There was a dispensary attached to the camp and a German doctor was in charge. Severe cases of illness were sent to the local hospital. On an average, ten men reported themselves daily to the doctor, and it was generally found that of [27] this number only two or three needed treatment. Various trades were carried on within the camp, such as carpentry, tailoring and shoe-making. Part of the camp was set off for bathing. Shower baths and facilities for sun bathing were shown me. There was also a splendid sports ground. The sleeping apartments consisted of wooden beds and straw mattresses, with three blankets for each prisoner. The working hours were from 7 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., and from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. A library was in course of being introduced. Visitors were allowed once a week, and were received in the dining room which accommodated some three hundred people. There were apartments set apart for music and dramatic performances. In addition to receiving free board and lodging, each of the prisoners was drawing Rm.10 to Rm.12 per week, which represented his unemployment allowance pay. Instruction in ethics, religion, the new form of Government in Germany, history, languages were given daily to those who desired to attend. There was little or no crime among the men in the camp. Good order prevailed among all classes. The guards ate the same food as the prisoners, and were subject to the same discipline as the internees, although they were Government officials. One of the guards was a Prince of the House of Hesse! Letters and parcels were subject to censorship. In not one case out of many thousands received had it been found necessary to [28] destroy any parcel or letter forwarded. Newspapers were permitted and smoking allowed. When a prisoner desired to light his pipe or cigarette, he had to go to a guard detailed off to supply lights for the prisoners, as no matches were permitted prisoners. Services were held every Sunday, and the majority of the prisoners availed themselves of the opportunity. No objection was raised by the authorities to me taking photographs of both camp and internees. The men looked in splendid physical condition. Having heard so many dreadful stories of brutal treatment being meted out to the Communists in this particular camp, I asked some of the men to confide in me and tell me the truth of these allegations. Not a few laughed “at the bloody capitalist liars of your country!” I took fifteen men at random and asked them to strip in my presence. I wanted to see if they bore any marks of violence about their persons. I saw nothing indicative of bad treatment. When I asked if I could help any of the prisoners in any possible way, a young Communist stepped forward and in pathetic tones enquired if England could now send raw materials to Germany to get work started once again in the Fatherland!

16.

It is not necessary for me to give any details of my visit to the Concentration Camp at Son- [29] nenberg, for exactly the same conditions prevailed there as at Oranienburg.

17.

Stories of starvation of prisoners in German Concentration Camps having been circulated throughout the world, I append herewith the diet of prisoners since the date of their internment. Both at Oranienburg and Sonnenberg I took occasion to make enquiries into the starvation reports, and found them lacking in truth. Save for the loss of personal liberty, no complaints were forthcoming, in spite of the fact that every opportunity was given the men to speak to me privately and without fear of being overheard by officials. Here is the daily prison menage: 1,000 grammes of bread, 500 grammes of potatoes, meat, except on Fridays, soup (Sauerkraut), tea or coffee, vegetables (cabbage or potatoes), fish (Fridays). Those on the sick list are dieted in accordance with the orders of the resident doctor. [For our readers not familiar with the metric system, Scriptorium notes: 1,000 grammes = 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds, 500 grammes = just over 1 pound.]

18.

The Workers’ Lagers are wonderful examples of what a Government can do for the unemployed. These are voluntary institutions run solely by the German Government, and the camps are scattered all over the country, about 5,000 all told. At the time I left Germany, [30] (August, 1933) there were more than 300,000 men and women working in various spheres of usefulness. At Bernau I was shown over a Lager that contained 276 men, all of whom were engaged in agricultural work. They had converted an old mill into a barracks which were to form the future headquarters of the workers. In addition to free board and lodging, each of the workers received 30 Pfennigs per day. All the men I saw were enjoying excellent health. The discipline, while strict, was not of a military character.

The object of these Workers’ Lagers is to raise the morale of the men who have known years of unemployment. In each camp the worker stays for 40 weeks, and the period will be renewed on application of the worker and with the permission of the Government. Preference is always given to those young men who are really likely to pursue the life of a farmer. What I saw of the Workers’ Lagers in various parts of Germany convinced me that the Government is doing an excellent work and one which the British Government could emulate with advantage to the community.

19.

Everywhere one goes on the Continent one finds mistrust and disillusionment. The fear of invasion is rampant in France. It is common to Germany, Belgium, Poland, Russia; [31] it permeates the Balkan States, it is to be found as far afield as the Americas. No nation seems capable of ridding itself of this fear. It is not a product of Fascism, it is not peculiar to Democracy. It may be a symptom of our mechanical age, the fear of a rival inventing some easy and damnable lethal weapon that will destroy whole populations without reply. The malaise is briefly referred to by newspapers, who, in their turn, fear to let the public know the truth of things political and the possibility of a new war. It is everywhere taken for granted that our pro-French policy is the correct one, that the isolation and encirclement of Germany must be pursued at all costs. We seem to have learned nothing from past experience. France, the hysterical young lady of Europe, wants “security.” So does Germany and England, and Belgium, and Russia, and every nation in the world. Why French “security”? What about British security? Who is going to guarantee the security of Russia, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Tibet, etc.?

20.

It has become patent to the meanest intelligence that if the whole world were to support France and grant her all she demands in the way of security, that country would still insist on arms and ammunition in the last resort. France is well aware that she cannot now rely [32] upon the promises of nations to support her in her eagerness to keep intact the Treaty of Versailles. The security cry does not deceive the meanest intelligence. It is French armament interests that France demands Britain to guarantee. It needs little emphasis to say that France is the most powerful nation in the world just now, and she alone, if she felt so persuaded, could march into Germany at any moment and invoke the Treaty of Versailles for taking possession of every vantage point in the Reich, and England could not plead the Locarno Pact in reply to her action. To-day French ‘planes could lay waste Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, the Ruhr, Hanover and every city in the Reich with scarce a response from the German people. She could dictate her own terms; in a few words, France is so strong militarily that unaided she could crush Germany within twenty-four hours and emerge from her triumphs with no apparent loss to her power as the greatest military force in Europe.

21.

When one begins to realise the manifold forces at work against Germany to-day, with that country insisting upon re-armament if others fail to disarm, one is appalled at the impudence of the claim that Germany will be responsible for a disturbance of the peace. Ever since the Peace treaties, France has pursued a [33] policy which in every respect is identical to that she followed before 1914 – a combination of formidable groups to support her own political ends. Pro-Jewish France has used all her influence to destroy the political and economic aspirations of anti-Jewish Germany. Germany left the League of Nations because that organisation can no longer be regarded as providing machinery for the preservation of peace. Its whole procedure, as events have proved, is too cumbrous and dilatory, it possesses no effective means of exercising its authority.

22.

First and foremost, Germany wants peace and friendship with France in particular and the world in general. The concord she demands of France must be based on goodwill and understanding, there must be a sincere regard for each other’s interests, and an end put to the ancient feuds that have wrought such incalculable mischief in Europe. It was a thousand pities that France rejected the offer of a peace pact made by Germany. The accord with Poland may be the cause of the contemptuous tone of the French reply.

Germany has no need for the League of Nations at the present time, and in no circumstances will she rejoin that organisation until her demands are satisfied. Her abandonment of the League is the consequence of the refusal of equality implied in the attitude of the highly [34] armed powers in the Disarmament question. Germany’s demand for practical equality does not mean that Germany wants heavy tanks, heavy mobile guns, or bombers, or other arms which, according to the stipulations of the proposed Convention, will be abolished in the future. But it does mean that Germany wants at once those arms which, being of a defensive character, will be definitely retained under the Convention, and that she wants these arms from the beginning in quantities sufficient for her security.

It is quite clear that as long as this equality is not granted, international control of arms would be a one-sided affair, directed against Germany alone.

23.

The question is being asked – Why was unarmed Germany invited to sit in consultation with the heavily armed powers? That she consented to do so must prove goodwill and a desire for a common understanding. Germany accepted because she thought she would be able to make her whole weight felt on the side of the Disarmament cause. It will be seen that Germany’s participation made it very difficult for the highly armed powers to get away without some appearance of disarmament. Germany’s reason for refusing to participate further in the deliberations was quite simple – [35] there had been a crisis in the Disarmament Conference in May, 1933. This crisis had been overcome by Germany granting a concession in regard to the reorganisation of the Reichwehr. After that, the Conference unanimously adopted the MacDonald plan as “a basis for the future Disarmament Convention” (June 8th, 1933). This resolution went much farther than the previous resolution, which was adopted soon after the MacDonald plan. During the recess of the Disarmament Conference, secret negotiations took place between the Governments of the highly armed powers in which Germany was not invited to take part. The results of these negotiations were the proposals made by Sir John Simon in his celebrated speech on October 14th, 1933. As is well known, these proposals introduced an entirely new element into the whole of the Disarmament question in the form of a trial period for Germany, and thereby constituted a vital modification of the MacDonald plan which only four months previously had been unanimously adopted by the Conference in all its main features. Faced by these questionable tactics, there was no option for Germany but either to capitulate and re-open negotiations on questions which had already been settled or to leave the Conference altogether in the conviction that such methods of negotiation would never lead to real Disarmament.

Germany left the Disarmament Conference.

[36]
24.

Since all the above was written, events in Germany have greatly increased the political and economic uncertainties of Europe. The encirclement of Germany is almost a fait accompli. The country is now politically, economically, and culturally shut off from the rest of the world. Every conceivable issue has been confused and discussion now rages round not how to prevent Germany re-arming, for rearmament by the Reich is a foregone conclusion and the exercise of a legitimate right, but how more and more to spread the gospel of hate and restore pre-war anti-German alliances. We are back to the bad old days. Since the War, Germany has not been given even a dog’s chance to set her house in order. The gentlemen who made the Treaty of Versailles must now be thinking hard and furiously how best to get Germany out of the mess they themselves have created for that country. It requires little vision to see that nearly all of Germany’s present day troubles arise from the most objectionable clauses of the Treaty, and as a pro-German, I shall never cease shouting this from the house-tops until justice is done the German people. As I understand things at the moment, Germany is faced by the alternatives of standing aloof from the rest of the world if she can, and working out her own destiny by the strength of her own political and [37] economic systems – an Ishmaelite among the nations of Europe – or taking part in the future of the world and helping to bring order and peace into it. I doubt she can stand alone for long. I doubt any nation can hope to achieve anything worth while single handed. I am confident that Herr Hitler is aware that an insane nationalism leads the world nowhere. To my mind there is no greater crime than to fire a people with ideas of their own super-eminent superiority. Incalculable harm has been done the world in the promotion of the idea among the peoples. A magnified sentiment of national pride always despises humanity at large. We saw it in the last War, the doctrine involved every nation in the direst peril. No country to-day is free of the scourge. It is useless blaming Germany for this complex as some of her foes are too prone to do. Nationalities-by-mutual-rights obtain the world over, and while they dominate every issue, I can see little hope for the realisation of humanity’s emancipation. They forced themselves on the World Economic Conference, they smashed the Disarmament Conference. And they will smash every well-meant political and economic issue and lead to further bloodshed unless they are scotched in time.

Herr Hess, in a speech to a congress of East Prussian Nazis on July 8th, 1934, made an appeal for frankness. Inter alia, he said:

“I appeal to the front line comrades of the [38] war, on both sides. Be frank. We felt then we were real men; we sometimes had pleasure in a life which was in direct contrast to the effeminacy which civilisation and over-civilisation bring; we felt ourselves better men than those far behind the front; we felt ourselves the defenders of the nation, the guardians of its future. We sometimes had happy hours, and tried to live every minute of them double. But be frank. We felt the fear of death. We saw it probably in more powerful form than any men before us. We crouched in dug-outs, waiting for the disintegrating impact. We held our breath when our trained ears heard the grenades whistling, the trench-mortars rumbling through the air towards us. Our hearts beat fit to burst as we vainly sought cover against machine-gun fire. We thought to suffocate beneath our gas-masks. We struggled through sodden trenches, froze in shell holes. We were then nearly desperate. We heard the shrieks of the wounded, saw the gassed men writhing, met blinded men staggering along, heard the last rattle of the dying. Among the piled corpses of our comrades we lost our last hope of life. We saw the widows and orphans, the cripples, the sickly children, the starving women. Be frank. Did we not all ask ourselves: What is the use of it all? Must it be so? Cannot mankind be spared this in future? But we held out – on both sides.

“Now I take up this question, and call it [39] accusingly to the world – as front-line soldiers to front-line soldiers, as the leaders of a nation to the leaders of other nations. Must it be so? Can we not with good will spare mankind all this?”

How shall we answer Herr Hess? With the usual lies of Germany’s bad faith? I hope not.

More from [The Scriptorium‘s] English Archive:

The Case for Germany

What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939

Read Full Post »

Ezra Pound on Money

Ezra Pound on Money
Carolina Hartley
May 26, 2010
Source: The Occidental Observer

We’re never far from money. We spend most of our time and energy in quest of money.

But how did this thing become an intermediary between us and the world around us? Before money, we bartered. Why did money supplant barter and who is custodian of the money system?

These questions are dangerous: they cost Ezra Pound twelve years. Pound was a victim of political persecution at the behest of financiers and their minions like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These people feared Ezra because he asked “what is money for,” and came up with an inconvenient answer.

Pound understood that money is a ticket for exchange. People who make things can trade more easily with other people who make things using money. There should only be as much money as there are things to trade. Another way of saying this is: money supply should increase and decrease along with the change in economic output.

Here’s the rub. If money supply grows faster than the amount of things made, then theft is taking place. The thief creates extraneous dollars and spends them first: at the time when the rest of us expect a dollar to be worth a certain amount. By the time the thief’s dollars have been absorbed into the economy, we notice our dollars are buying less. This is inflation. The thief has dipped into our savings and traded with shoddy bills.

What happens when money supply shrinks compared to things made? Then a new characteristic of money emerges. Things made don’t always last — take bread for instance. A baker must sell his bread in a matter of days, otherwise it’s lost. Money isn’t bound by such considerations. A thief can horde money until the baker’s goods rot, then buy his bakery at a huge discount.

The “thief” in both these examples holds a special place in society: he controls the supply of money and “future money” called credit. Controlling money supply is economic power; it is a sovereign privilege. The people who really control a nation are those who control its money supply. [1]

Pound’s criticism of the financial class was that they were bad sovereigns. They managed money supply for their own benefit: they were thieves. In contrast, the Founding Fathers were good rulers because they designed a system where Congress managed the money supply; and Congress was accountable to a large segment of the population.

Pound identified the grasping, vampire-like nature of international finance, and the venal nature of its supporters in national governments.[2] He was interested in finding ways to systematically limit their power: perfecting what the Founding Fathers started in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. This is why Pound studied the work of Silvio Gesell.

One of Gesell’s ideas was to eliminate the disparity between money and perishable goods. A way to do this is to discount large bills over time: holders of large bills would need to get them stamped every month, each stamp representing a decrease in their value. This way, hoarders bear the cost of their behavior and investment is encouraged. Small denominations would not be discounted.

Gesell recognized that the economy is like a body and money is like its blood. If blood builds up systematically in any one place, a disease results. His discounted script discouraged people from taking advantage of others’ simple lack of cash. (Note: this is quite different than being forced to lend to those who are unworthy of credit.) Saving in the form of investment was systematically encouraged.

Pound notes that Gesell’s system worked imperfectly in Alberta, Canada, mostly due to planning errors that could easily be fixed. The system worked very well in the Austrian village of Wörgl, and it was promptly closed down by mainstream financial interests.

These mainstream financial interests were trying to preserve their privilege: they benefited from the increasing productivity of the societies they milked. Pound didn’t see how being born into a banking family, or buying the latest politician, should give them the right to those benefits. Ezra liked the ideas of Major Clifford Douglas: the people who worked should accrue those benefits. This is the essence of Social Credit.

The text of the 1933 version of Major Douglas’ book Social Credit, can be found here. Pound appreciated Maj. Douglas’ ideas, but thought they needed further exploration. What Pound really felt passionate about was fixing the money problem. Ezra wrote during the Great Depression when, much like now, people were captivated by the supposed security of gold.

Pound was never an advocate of gold-backed money. He understood how easily such systems can be subverted by controlling the supply or the clearing market for the backing commodity. Much of Britain’s power during the 19th century came from the fact that London was the clearing market for gold, and other nations relied upon a gold-standard currency. They had to go to England to manage their money!

In Ezra’s words:

The trick is simple. Whenever the Rothschild and other gents in the gold business have gold to sell, they raise the price. The public is fooled by propagandizing the devaluation of the dollar, or other monetary unit according to the country chosen to be victimized. The argument is that the high price of the monetary unit is injurious to the nation’s commerce.

But when the nation, that is, the people of that nation own the gold and the financiers own the dollars or other monetary units, the gold standard is restored. This raises the value of the dollar and the citizens of “rich” nations, as well as citizens of other nations, are diddled.

Preventing nations from being “diddled” is why Pound supported Fascism in Italy. He saw Fascism as the only system available to the Italians that was likely to deal with the threat from international finance. Mussolini’s Fascism let Italy be ruled in an Italian fashion — and until Anglo-American banking interests were threatened, things worked better in Italy than they had in a long time.

Pound never supported Fascism in America. We have our Constitution, which describes a government for Americans run in the American fashion. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Pound realized that America’s challenge was implementing the laws we already have. Read Jefferson and/or Mussolini for his whole argument. [3]

Ezra was a true economic historian. He explained his analysis in the following way:

“The definition of an idea, as observed by someone who understands the events of the day, may shed more light on the historical process than many volumes.”

“History, as seen by a Monetary Economist, is a continuous struggle between producers and non-producers, and those who try to make a living by inserting a false system of book-keeping between the producers and their just recompense.”

“The usurers act through fraud, falsification, superstitions, habits and, when these methods do not function, they let loose a war. Everything hinges on monopoly, and the particular monopolies hinge around the great illusionistic monetary monopoly.”

Pound’s analysis identified the canker in American life: the cooperation between government and finance to defraud the public — the “monetary monopoly.” Monopolies don’t exist without tacit government approval. Beneficiaries of the financial monopoly have collaborated with venal officials against producers for a long time. The history of the largest American fortunes, since the Civil War at least, have followed this trend.

Historically, banking was begun by families as private businesses. As these businesses grew and issued receipts for gold and silver deposits, they gradually developed “fractional reserve” banking by issuing more notes than they had gold on deposit. Although kings would mint coins of gold and silver they owned at their royal mints, fractional reserve banking was a dangerous business, and Kings did not want to gamble with their sovereign power by going into that business. Rather, kings and especially parliaments, became dependent upon these fractional reserve bankers for loans, and would grant monopoly charters to a group of private bankers to create a national or central bank which would then have the power to regulate the size of the money stock through its fractional reserve activities, as it collected taxes, issued the national paper currency and sold sovereign debt on behalf of the government.

These national or central banks conferred significant advantages on the private banks that organized and owned them. Private banks were allowed to borrow at the discount window at special rates provided that they posted reserves with the central bank. Of course, the real advantage of the central bank for its owners and organizers was inside information. During the years of the gold standard, having a seat on the board of a central bank meant that the insider would know when emergency borrowings ticked up, telegraphing the probable start of a bank crisis and stock market crash. In the case of war, it was an easy task for a private bank with seats in several different national banks to calculate the deposits and income of the contesting states and the loans they secured to raise their armies, thus allowing the privileged few to bet on the probable winner. [ed: Although it should be added that it is not at all historically uncommon for the bankers to fund both sides of a given conflict, considering they would then be entitled to the victor’s wealth, as well as to the oft enormous reparation sums of the vanquished. So do keep this in mind — particularly when you hear about this or that private lender or institution “financing” the National Socialists in their formative years. The lender cares not who wins or loses in the long run; his loyalty is to profit — nothing more, nothing less. And if he can cover both bases — and he often manages to do just that — then surely his lack of attachment has proven profitable.]

The gold standard was popular among bankers for the simple reason that the supply of gold increased irregularly but on average more slowly than the increase in population, meaning that the value of loans would gradually increase over time as would the burden of repayment. Debtors resented the power of gold, hence William Jennings Bryan’s political appeal and his famous “Cross of Gold” speech. Coincidentally the gold standard was finally abandoned in 1971, six years after the birth control pill descended upon the civilized world.

Pound recognized two very important threats to the international banking community that arose out of the Third Reich. First, Hitler abandoned the gold standard, meaning that National Socialist Germany suddenly had the power to prevent defaulting on its future debt simply by printing money — a power that the U.S. copied from Germany just as it copied the autobahns. Second, and much more important, the Reich took back the power of central banks by financing infrastructure projects directly, issuing notes in payment to the laborers, contractors, and suppliers rather than first borrowing the money from a central bank at interest. (See here and here.) If this practice had spread, bankers would be no more powerful than plumbers.

Furthermore, as long as the supply of this newly printed money in the form of notes [marks] matched the increase in GNP and future productivity from these new highways, rails, and factories, the printing of money would not necessarily produce inflation. The Reich also issued debt directly to German citizens and businesses to finance Hitler’s economic miracle, but the central banks lost control over the money supply and lost the ability to trigger banking panics and depressions inside the Reich. It was a mortal threat [for the bankers], and [from their perspective] it had to be stopped. Pound was right.

Hitler’s experiment in freedom from banking was thus broken, and the finance/government partnership was preserved at the cost of millions of lives in World War II.

This finance/government collaboration explains the American elites’ love affair with international socialism. They don’t know how to make money any other way. Competition is a sin. Government organized monopolies are profitable when you control the government. If there are no national restrictions on moving profits around, they can hide their loot offshore. The perfect crime.

Pound recommended the writings of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Van Buren[4] for a practical explanation of how the young Republic wrested itself from London finance. He recommended Classical study (Aristotle’s Politics and the works of Demosthenes) for understanding the tricks financiers use. Nationally-controlled money was popular politics until the Civil War, when Pound notes a collective amnesia took the mind of the American public. Tragedy and forgetfulness. This is also the time when Lincoln let the bankers back in with the National Banking Act.

Ezra didn’t revel in victimhood. The “monetary monopoly” was made possible by voters’ laziness. In his ABC of Economics, Pound castigates the American public for letting its money fall into the hands of enemies and irresponsible men. Americans circa 1930 were ignorant about money and banking; the situation today is even worse. It is a national tragedy that we have been lazy enough to allow Congress sell its responsibilities and hostile elites control our credit.

The way to fix the situation is to dissolve the Federal Reserve; force Congress to manage money supply as described in the Constitution; and vote the venal or incompetent out of office. The revolutionary patriots gave us the tools; we need to step up to the plate and use them.

Our amnesia and laziness have been granted every assistance. Pound pointed out that hostile elites were overrepresented in academia and the media — a situation which has worsened with time. Now we are reaping the harvest: schools devoid of the Classics; universities teaching castrated Economics; and Gloria Vanderbilt’s boy on TV. Ezra saw it coming, and he told us how to fix it.

Carolina Hartley (email her) has a degree in Finance and Economics from the University of Chicago. She is also student of aesthetics and social history, though not from the orthodox perspective.

[1] Pound’s repeated recommendation of Christopher Hollis’ work The Two Nations is based on the book’s excellent explanation of British economic power over the centuries.

[2] “Ezra Pound Speaking”: Radio Speeches of World War II. Edited by Leonard W. Doob. Greenwood Press, 1978. Return to text.

[3] Pound recommended the correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the writings of Van Buren for the economic history of the United States.

Pound’s Pamphlets on Money are excellent; the first “An Introduction to the Economic Nature of the United States” and “A Visiting Card” are particularly useful. (Published by Peter Russell, London. 1950.) Return to text.

[4] The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States: with A Life of the Author, notes and illustrations, by his Grandson, Charles Francis Adams. Little, Brown and Co. Boston 1850–56.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, XX Volumes, Washington, 1903-04.

The Autobiography of Martin Van Buren, written in 1854 and remaining in manuscript until its publication as Vol. II of the “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1918,” Government Printing Office, Washington 1920.

Pound also recommends Jefferson and Hamilton by Claude G. Bower.

Read Full Post »

The Money Masters

The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America
Source: http://www.themoneymasters.com

THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned “central” bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

The success of the central banking scheme developed into a far-reaching plan described by President Clinton’s mentor, Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, “to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank….sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the levels of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Several short-lived attempts to impose the central banking scheme on the United States were defeated by the patriotic efforts of Presidents Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln. But with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, America was firmly lashed to the same yoke, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses a yoke little better than slavery itself. That yoke inevitably grows heavier with ever-compounding interest, and totals over $20 trillion of debt owed by the American people today ($80,000 per American) ultimately to these bankers.

This vast accumulation of wealth concentrates immense power and despotic economic domination in the hands of the few central bankers “who are able to govern credit and its allotment, for this reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of the economy so that no one dare breathe against their will.”

Segments: The Problem; The Money Changers; Roman Empire; The Goldsmiths of Medieval England; Tally Sticks; The Bank of England; The Rise of the Rothschilds; The American Revolution; The Bank of North America; The Constitutional Convention; First Bank of the U.S.; Napoleon’s Rise to Power; Death of the First Bank of the U.S. / War of 1812; Waterloo; Second Bank of the U.S.; Andrew Jackson; Abe Lincoln and the Civil War; The Return of the Gold Standard; Free Silver; J.P. Morgan / 1907 Crash; Jekyll Island; Fed Act of 1913; J.P. Morgan / WWI; Roaring 20s / Great Depression; FDR / WWII / Fort Knox; World Central Bank; Conclusions.

View the documentary in its entirety directly below.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
– Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“…The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
-James Madison

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
-The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“The death of Lincoln was a disaster… There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilization.”
-Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination

“Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands.”
– Theodore Roosevelt

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
-Woodrow Wilson

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
-Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
-Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”
-John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).
—————————————————–
The documentary above is outstanding, overall, and I am sincerely grateful to all those who contributed to its research. I only wish that more would have been said in the WWII segment concerning the successful economic reforms which took place under Adolf Hitler. I am naturally aware that this is an unpopular subject in the mainstream, of course; but by failing to adequately explore the issue of National Socialist Germany’s debt-free national revival, as well as the foundation of its stable currency against the gold standard, the primary causes of WWII are sure to remain misunderstood. Nevertheless, you can study the matter in greater detail HERE and HERE, and I hope that you will. Until Hitler’s economic revolution is understood, the establishment’s artificial excuses for that terrible war will continue to be used against us. I trust critical thinkers to review the information available here and elsewhere and make up their own minds. -W.

Read Full Post »