Ezra Pound Speaking
Edited by Leonard W. Doob


Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Pound, Ezra Loomis, 1885-1972.
’Ezra Pound speaking.”
(Contributions in American studies; no. 37
ISSN 0084-9227)
Bibliography: p.

Includes index.
1. World War, 1939-1945—Addresses, essays,
lectures, 1. Doob, Leonard William, 1909-
II. Title.
D744.P65 940.53 77-91288
ISBN 0-313-20057-2
Copyright © 1978 by the Ezra Pound Literary Property Trust.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-91288
ISBN: 0-313-20057-2
ISSN: 0084-9227

First published in 1978
Greenwood Press, Inc.
51 Riverside Avenue, Westport, Connecticut 06880
Printed in the United States of America

E-text prepared by M.B.

Part I 110 FCC Recorded Scripts
1. Last Ditch of Democracy
2. Books and Music
3. The Golden Wedding
4. This War on Youth—On a Generation
5. Those Parentheses
6. On Resuming
7. 30 Years or a Hundred
8. The Stage in America
9. Canto 46
10. Sale and Manufacture of War
11. Power
12. America Was Intentions
13. Napoleon, Etc.
14. Why Pick on the Jew ?
15. Gold: England
16. England
17. And the Time Lag
18. But How ?
19. But How ? Second Item
20. McArthur
21. The Pattern
22. Destruction
23. Indecision
24. Comic Relief
25. Question of Motive
26. Clarification
27. To Social Creditors
28. Aberration
29. MacLeish
30. Blast
31. Opportunity Recognized
32. Non-Jew
33. Universality
34. The Duration
35. The Precarious
36. A French Accent
37. To Be Late (Essere in ritardo)
38. Free Speech in Albion (Alias England)
39. With Phantoms
40. E.E. Cummings Examined
41. Brain Trust
42. As a Beginning
43. Brain Trust: Second Spasm
44. As to Pathology and Psychoses
45. The Keys of Heaven
46. The British Imperium
47. Violence
48. The Fallen Gentleman (II signor decaduto)
49. That Interval of Time
50. The Giftie
51. Disbursement of Wisdom
52. Continuity
53. How Come
54. Freedumb Forum
55. Darkness
56. Perfect Phrasing
57. July 16th, an Anniversary
58. Superstition
59. Axis Propaganda
60. More Homely
61. That Illusion
62. Serviti
63. Complexity
64. Toward Veracity
65. Pots to Fracture
66. Anglophilia
67. To Explain
68. More Names
69. Pogrom
70. To Recapitulate
71. Financial Defeat: U.S.
72. Usurocracy
73. Lyric Tenors
74. Fetish
75. Valentine
76. J.G. Blaine
77. Canute
78. Zion
79. Conscience
80. On Retiring
81. On the Nature of Treachery
82. Romance
83. Philosemite
84. Lord Bleeder
85. Sumner Welles
86. Economic Aggression
87. Administration
88. Economic Oppression
89. In the Woodshed
90. Soberly
91. [Title Unknown]
92. And Back of the Woodshed
93. Suprise
94. Big Jew
95. Debt
96. [Therapy]
97. To the Memory
98. [Obsequies]
99. War Aims
100. [On Brains or Medulla]
101. Stalin
102. Materialism
103. Communist Millionaires
104. Coloring
105. [Title Unknown]
106. Credit: Legality
107. Audacia/Audacity
108. Objection (Protesta)
109. Civilization
110. Lost or Stolen (Perduto orubato)

Part II 10 Miscellaneous Scripts
111. Homesteads
112. March Arrivals
113. America Was Promises
114. Aristotle and Adams
115. To Consolidate
116. To Albion
117. Two Pictures
118. Quisling
119. Philology
120. Church Peril

Appendix 1. The Content Analysis: Methodology
Appendix 2. Quantitative Analysis
Appendix 3. Pound’s Critics
Appendix 4. Style and Techniques
Glossary and Index to Names

Series Foreword

The best reason for publishing Ezra Pound’s Italian broadcasts may be the simplest.  Thousands of people have heard about them, scores have been affected by them, yet but a handful has ever heard or read them.  Here they are.

There are other compelling reasons, the first having to do with the magnitude of their author.  No other American—and only a few individuals throughout the world—has left such a strong mark on so many aspects of the twentieth century: from poetry to economics, from theater to philosophy, from politics to pedagogy, from Provençal to Chinese.  If Pound was not always totally accepted, at least he was unavoidably there.

Those traits of mind and character that made Pound so inescapable are not only evident in the broadcasts but also present in ways that make them more fully understandable.  Here is that same fearless plunge toward the heart of the matter—often heedless of consistencies—that marked his study of ancient and exotic languages and cultures.  Here is that same urge to simplify and instruct that marked his unorthodox textbooks: ABC of Economics, ABC of Reading and the rest.  Here is that flair for dramatic hyperbole which peppered the Cantos and produced such deliberately shocking titles as Jefferson and/or Mussolini.  The broadcasts do not always show these traits at their best, but their blatant presence makes them useful clues in putting together the puzzle of that powerful enigma at their center.

Even if the shadow of Ezra Pound did not so broadly color this century, these broadcasts might still command a clinical respect for the way in which they interrelate so vitally with the rise of fascism in Europe and the accompanying extremes of feelings, with the cause and conduct of World War II as viewed from this special place by this very special commentator.  To the historians who have counted this an almost anti-ideological war, the broad casts offer considerable counterpoint.  Furthermore, they are the starting point for understanding two major cultural events of the postwar years: the trial of Ezra Pound and the literary prize controversies.  The Bollingen Prize debate—by itself the politico-literary cause célèbre of the generation—while once totally preoccupying has to this day refused to lie at rest.  Even this young Greenwood Press series, begun twenty-five years after the fact, offers two fresh and extensive treatments of the issue.  Such insistent unrest shows clearly the need for this essential evidence now at hand.

The broadcasts do not show Pound at his best.  War, bigotry, and totalitarianism are not sunny subjects.  Yet giant figures need their full dimensions, and unpleasant subjects can and should be studied for the best of reasons.  How indeed are we to lessen our chances for future encounters with shrinking horizons if we do not learn from episodes so recent, so strongly cast, and so richly charted ?

We applaud, then, the respect for a complete historic record which has allowed the Pound Literary Trustees to overcome an understandable reluctance toward seeing these scripts in print.  We applaud this same impulse which has motivated the patience and stamina of Leonard Doob.  There are, and there will always be, more motives behind an act like this than one can chronicle.  From our point of view, however, this work provides a singular and extensive collection of data for the pursuit of that most bewildering of cultural equations: the balance between the creative force, the individual personality, and the social context.  Seen in this light, Ezra Pound’s texts become a “Contribution in American Studies” at a profound and essential level.

February 1975


The title of this book is the signature Ezra Pound almost always used at the start and sometimes at the end of each broadcast from Radio Rome in World War II.  Pound himself had proposed to publish “300 Radio Speeches,” containing also the texts of his “Money Pamphlets,” newspaper articles published in Italian, and his translations from the Chinese: Ta Hio (The Great Digest) and Chung Yung (The Unwobbling Pivot).

Pound started to write for radio toward the end of 1940.  The first scripts to be accepted were read in English by regular speakers of Radio Rome.  In January 1941 he was able to record his own speeches, which were broadcast, on an average, twice a week.  He wrote the texts at his home in Rapallo and on occasion in Rome where he traveled to record on discs a batch of 10 to 20 speeches.  He wanted the discs to be transmitted in a particular order, but it is apparent from the discrepancies between his numbering system and the dates on which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recorded the speeches that the Italian officials did not always follow his plan, although in general the deviation was not great.  He gathered news and information from Italian newspapers and whatever foreign papers he managed to obtain; from Italian broadcasts and any foreign station (especially the BBC) he could hear on his own radio; from conversations with friends, officials, and travelers; from letters of friends in America and other countries; and from his own library, which included back numbers of periodicals.  He envied the BBC’s supply of news and feature materials, since he himself had “not one disc” (July 25, 1943).

After the Fascist government fell in July 1943, Pound left Rome and eventually submitted scripts and ideas to Mussolini’s Republic of Saló.  No evidence exists to indicate that any of this material was ever broadcast to America in Pound’s name from Radio Milan while that station remained under the regime’s control.

The present collection consists of original manuscripts Pound prepared to read on Rome radio, divided into two parts:

Part 1 includes all of the available manuscripts (105) for the broadcasts recorded by the FCC: October 2, 1941, to December 7, 1941; January 29, 1942, to July 26, 1942; February 18, 1943, to July 25, 1943.  These are the speeches that have been quoted by Pound’s critics, and they include those selected by American authorities who sought to press the charge of treason against him.  The monitoring unit of the FCC, called the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, recorded every broadcast from Radio Rome, included among which were Pound’s speeches.  There are egregious errors and omissions in these FCC transcripts because recording equipment in those days was crude, because atmospheric conditions interfered with the monitoring, and because, I assume, the transcribers sometimes did not recognize Pound’s references.  The FCC versions of Pound’s speeches hitherto available, there fore, sometimes give a wrong impression.  Poundians and others have noted that the French novelist Céline was transcribed as “Stalin.” Other mistakes can be observed, in many instances probably resulting from the vagaries of shortwave.  One illustration: Pound’s sentence, “Even Lenin saw that the easiest way to debauch the capitalist system is to debauch its currency’ (April 13, 1943), became “Yet even seven saw that the easiest way to divorce the capitalist system is to divorce its currency.” To date, however, it has been impossible to locate five of Pound’s original manuscripts; hence the FCC versions in these instances, imperfect though they are, have been substituted in this volume.  In a few instances gaps in the manuscripts themselves have been filled by sections of the FCC transcripts; these substitutions are clearly indicated.

Part 2 includes 10 speeches written before the FCC monitoring unit had been established, some read by Pound and some read by others, as well as speeches either not used or not monitored.  They have been selected by Mary de Rachewiltz because in her opinion they represent a fair sample of Pound’s central ideas and themes.

The anonymous and pseudonymous scripts Pound also wrote are not included in this book because they merely repeat ideas already expressed in other speeches.

Most of the speeches in part 1 were intended for an audience in the United States, some for an audience in the United Kingdom, and some for both.  It is known that Pound was heard in the United States by people other than the monitors of the FCC, and eventually in April 1942 the Department of Justice began an investigation through the FBI.  There is no way of estimating how many persons listened to him regularly or how large his audience ever was.  Certainly his broadcasts never attained great popularity.  He himself in the broadcasts occasionally expressed jovial skepticism concerning the size of his audience: “I was wonderin’ if anybody listened to what I said on Rome Radio” (February 19, 1943).

After January 29, 1942, Pound was introduced by a statement he had drafted:

Rome Radio, acting in accordance with the fascist policy of intellectual freedom and free expression of opinion by those who are qualified to hold it, has offered Dr. Ezra Pound the use of the microphone twice a week.  It is understood that he will not be asked to say anything whatsoever that goes against his conscience, or anything in compatible with his duties as a citizen of the United States of America.

Pound always referred to himself as an American.

With the exceptions already noted, therefore, the texts of the speeches come from Pound’s original manuscripts, which he typed and then often amended in his not always intelligible handwriting.  Editing has been kept to a minimum.  Elementary misspelling has been corrected.  Punctuation and paragraphing have been altered in the interest of intelligibility.  Since the scripts were to be read and heard, abbreviations and initials of persons have been spelled out.  Pound’s penchant for achieving emphasis through capitalizing entire words has been retained.  Brackets have been added when my colleagues and I were unsure of a word or phrase after studying the manuscript and after examining the FCC transcript for possible clues.  The five PCC scripts have not been edited or amended.  Words that cannot be de ciphered or are missing from the manuscripts or the FCC scripts are indicated by a 2-em dash.

The following information is provided at the outset of each speech:

1. To the left

a. Part 1 a consecutive numbering system based on the dates recorded by the FCC Part 2 the order is perforce arbitrary since the speeches have been selected for content and since no reliable dating or numbering system has been located.

b. In parentheses Part 1 the FCC date part 2 the estimated year in which the script was written.

2. To the right

a. When available, the target audience indicated by Pound and/or the FCC.

b. Part 1 Pound s own numbering system in parentheses actually he used three separate numbering systems that have been distinguished here by placing the letter A, B, or C before his number.  Part 2: whatever number appears on the original manuscript is provided without relating that number to Pound’s different numbering systems.

3. To the left, second line

The title of the speech as given by Pound.

The book has four appendices that attempt, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to provide insight into Pound and his critics.  I would have preferred to provide additional information, but too many facts were obscure to express reliable judgments.  Neither the Italian archives, for ex ample, nor an examination of the papers at the Beinecke Library at Yale University have revealed why Pound ceased broadcasting between July 26, 1942, and February 18, 1943.

The glossary and index to names at the end of the book are as complete as my collaborators and I could make them, but we have not been able to identify every name to which Pound referred.  Admittedly we have often been able to provide only our best guesses.

This volume, in short, seeks to offer the speeches as Pound wrote them.  For the first time all of his monitored speeches and some of his other scripts are brought conveniently together.  No longer will Poundians or historians be dependent upon the FCC transcripts, pirated editions of the speeches, or hit-and-miss citations to learn what Pound said over Radio Rome.

Reproducing Pound’s admittedly controversial speeches over 30 years later requires justification.  Why publish this volume ?  Why have I agreed to function as editor ?  Pound wrote these scripts; they are part of his legacy.  He is so important in American and British literature of the twentieth century that whatever he wrote cannot be ignored.  The speeches, more over, are valuable from a historical standpoint: they reveal what one man, broadcasting from an enemy radio station during World War II, believed his countrymen should hear.  On the basis of what he said, moreover, Pound was arrested and accused of treason; he spent 13 years in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital (a government institution for the criminally insane in Washington, D.C.) as a result.  Anyone who seeks to understand Pound or to write about him and his times cannot overlook these speeches.  Although Pound’s reputation will forever rest on his poetry and other writings, and not upon these scripts, the broadcasts are part of his record.  Actually, the speeches should be of interest of Poundians not only because, according to Mary de Rachewiltz, they reflect his earlier writings but also because they affected his subsequent poetry.

To the second question: why have I personally undertaken this editorial role ?  Admittedly, I am not a Poundian in any sense, and I have read and understood very little of his poetry.  I offer three reasons.  First, Mary de Rachewiltz asked me originally to work with her in preparing a definitive edition because she thought my knowledge of propaganda and World War II would be helpful.  During that war, I was actively engaged in psychological warfare against Italy, Germany, and Japan.  I remember vaguely seeing some of the FCC transcripts of Pound’s speeches at the time and dismissing them as irrelevant to my own work.  Then, secondly, I have been interested to see whether the technique of content analysis—which was useful to me during World War II and later in analyzing Goebbel’s diaries—would be helpful in comprehending this vast collection of words.  The analysis of the 110 speeches, the reader will note in appendices, is pitched on a modest level and simply seeks to answer a straightforward question: in how many of the broadcasts did Pound make one or more references to particular themes, persons, and countries ?  Finally, although I must add that my own attitudes and feelings have not been one bit changed after working with these speeches, it has been interesting to come to comprehend what Pound was trying to accomplish.  His attack on the profits some men reap from wars reminded me of my experience during the summer of 1934 when I was employed by the Senate Committee then investigating “The Merchants of Death.”

My own conscience is at peace on a mundane level.  Compensation to my research assistants has exhausted, nay exceeded, the funds allocated to me personally in my role as one of the Pound Literary Trustees.  My share of the royalties from this book will not go to me.  I am grateful to the Trustees of Pound’s Estate for giving Mary de Rachewiltz and me access to the original manuscripts.  Others who have faithfully cooperated with us are James A. Fishback, who performed the content analysis of the 110 broadcasts; Ellen S. Schell, who worked diligently on the index and glossary; Maryrose Coiner, who prepared the data from the content analysis for the computer and provided us with printouts constituting the basis for the tables; Jane C. Olejarczyk, who heroically managed to prepare typed copies of the manuscripts; and Marjorie A. Sa’Adah, who pitched into the project whenever extra assistance was needed, which was often.  Especially cordial gratitude is expressed to Olga Rudge who originally preserved Pound’s manuscripts and who conveyed to me a sensitive feeling for Pound’s philosophy and approach.

This volume could not have been prepared without the assistance and persistence of Mary de Rachewiltz.  This is Pound’s book, however, and with her help I have simply facilitated its appearance.


Part I
110 FCC–Recorded Scripts

#1 (October 2, 1941) U.S.(A43)

It’s a DITCH all right.  Democracy has been LICKED in France.  The frogs were chucked into war AGAINST the Will of the people.  Democracy has been licked to a frazzle in England where it never did get a look in ANY—HOW.  But even pseudo-democracy breaks down when a people is chucked into war against its will, and the Brits.  never VOTED Winston into the premiership.  In fact WHEN DID they have an election ?

Remember it is the government in England that decides WHEN to have an election.  Think where we would be if Mr. Roosevelt could merely POSTPONE elections till he got ready to have one.

Well, democracy is in her last DITCH, and if she ain’t saved in America.  NO ONE is going to save her in her parliamentary form.

As to UNITIN’ with England—taking on a lot of bad debts and new liabilities—one of the speakers on this radio was kind enough, that is, he showed respect enough for American intelligence (yes, even today, he showed respect for American intelligence) by saying only Britons were rootin’ for this FEDERATION.

On close examination the Brits themselves don’t seem to be so numerous in the movement toward merger.

Horeb Elisha [Hore-Belisha], well IS he English ?  And Victor Sassoon, ALL for the merger.

Twenty percent capital to be paid by the English.

Twenty percent PAID capital to be paid by the United States of America.  The balance of 60% UNPAID to remain in the hands of the promoters, probably as PREFERRED stock, with board of directors ready to grant special bonuses to their friends at ANY and every moment.

Well, is Vic Sassoon, that Jew pseudo-parsee, head of the Shanghai rackets, opium, brothels in probability and so forth, night life of Shanghai ?  IS he YOUR idea of David Copperfield and Mr. Pickwick ?

And Mr. Streit ?  And of course there are MILLIONS behind it.  Any one of 86 Jew millionaires can start a publishing firm and any one of the 4,000 hired troops in the British Embassy can print all the crap he likes.

I dunno where the rugged American INDIVIDUAL is going to git FUNDS to combat ’em.

BUT, on the other hand, you can annex Canada without taking on liabilities.  You can annex Newfoundland, and Jamaica and all the rest of it without either paying England OR paying Sir Victor.

Why this sixty percent cut to promoters who will do NOTHING for you ?  Yes, I know there is all the Sulgrave Manor association, all the glamour of cousinship; but it WAS cousinship with John Bull, in the old days, not with BULLesha, or Bullstein.

And Bulistein is apparently itchin’ to drop off the B and remain simple ULLstein, by means of the merger.

The MILITARY situation ?  Conducing to UNION ?  The number of troops that can be supported, and fed, and supplied by ONE line of railway from ArcAngel—from Vladivostock or via Teheran—is considerably less than the TWELVE Million which the Russians set out with.

That Slavic fatalism which induced these troops to die in large numbers has in this war appeared quite ALIEN to the sensibilities of the fighting force put in the field by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Belisha.

I don’t see even Winston inventing an echelon system.  I mean Tommy Atkins won’t shoot Tommy Atkins in the back on SYSTEM.  He would feel something after doing it once.

Doubtless Belisha’s bright eye, and invigorating etc. will one day suggest that the Aussies could shoot the Sepoys and as the Pathans enjoy shooting anything, and would enjoy shooting Australians especially if invited to do so.  And doubtless there could be found an even super-Slavic fatalism some where among the thousand alien races crushed by the Anglo-Jew empire.  But it mightn’t take a very active military form.  It might just sit down with a hand loom in face of the carnage.

But in ANY case it’s a question of QUANTITY.  And WHAT support does the United States GET from Anglo-Judaea ?  Just WHOM have the British supported in this so bloody series of swindles ?

They have EVERY reason NOT to waste their forces in enforcing American trade in the Orient.  They have every reason to leave America to pin up the diapers of their baby.

Except of course the feeling that the United States MIGHT take a leaf out of THEIR book, and grab this or that, as they have grabbed French possessions, and shot off the remaining French combatants.

In Persia it becomes a question of QUANTITY.  Walla walla, etc.  Twelve Million Russians did NOT stop Von Rundstedt and Baron Keitel.  They have not stopped ONE German army.

Nor have they reduced the German forces to a figure ANYwhere near the number of troops that England could maintain with SIX railways over the Caucasus.

So THAT is not exactly where the strategists expect YOU to help England win any wars.  Whatever Growler, Mr. McGrump, sez on the B.B.C. liary [lie-ary].

Now when I was a kid Admiral DEWEY ... that sounds like Napoleon at Moscow ?

Yes, that sounds to ME like the story about the “Fifth element MUD, said Napoleon.”

There are millions of Chinamen.  Many of them living on very short rations in the INTERIOR and about as much interested in Chiang Kai-Chek as they are in the White Socks and the Phillies.  If there still are any Phillies.  You could get more enthusiasm out of those Chinks for a Hot Dog Championship on the Northside than you could for Chiang’s FOREIGN party in China.

A LOT of China is NOT pro-Kai-Chek.  A lot of China is NOT FOR that gang of foreign investors.  Then, of course, you might rescue the de Gaulle interests.  Namely you might go die in the GLORIOUS cause of the Bank of the Paris Union, AGAINST General Pétain, the victor of Verdun.

Do you think the French people would thank you ?  Listen to the FRENCH radio, that is NOT paid by London; and ASK me.

Yes, the Vichy radio is twisty, it is trying to hold onto France, and double cross the Axis, and hold ONTO FRANCE, and hold or get every inch of French soil, and hang onto every French sou it can lay eye or hold on.

BUT it is NOT working for the famille de Gaulle.

AND it knows that Winston wanted Paris razed to the ground, as was Rotterdam, and as Leningrad either is being or has been.

And Pierre Laval was about all that stopped Winston from attaining that so desired result.  Because “we as lenders of money” would be able to intervene and LEND money for reconstruction.

A lovely ambition.  But will any born Frenchman thank you for exercising that at this moment, will any FRENCHMAN thank you for exercising that kind of ambition ?

The French peasant wants his field for himself.  He has a healthy MISTRUST of all mortgages.

As to the DATA whereon the American government bases its “judgment” (I believe they still call it judgment).  Roosevelt is reported in the Herald Tribune of New York on August 17 as being in complete agreement with Churchill and saying Russia could fight all winter.

Mebbe he meant that Siberia could remain outside German protection during that period.  He did go so far as saying that “events in Crete” had delayed his meeting with England’s public enemy Number 3. That was some thing but not quite enough to win the Ukraine campaign.

He might have told you that events in Russia had delayed my gettin’ the Japan Times.  Copy for June 19th has just come.  I suppose it was sittin’ at Kieff to git through.  One lap writer at that time allowed like, as if Franklin was gettin’ you folks into the war.  But it didn’t look to me as if he thought it was an act of idealism.  He didn’t confuse it with savin’ democracy.

In the meantime do LOOK at Belisha’s Anglo-Saxon face, as reproduced in P.M. and other organs of similar nature.

That is what the American branch of Sulgrave Manor Association is asked to Unite with.

#2 (October 26, 1941) U.S.(A47)

Mr. Churchill, EVEN Mr. Churchill hasn’t had the brass to tell the American people WHY he wants ’em to die to save what.

He is fighting for the gold standard and MONOPOLY.  Namely the power to starve the whole of mankind, and make it pay through the nose before it can eat the fruit of its own labor.

His gang, whether kike, gentile, or hybrid is not fit to govern.  And the English OUGHT to be the only people ass enough, and brute enough to fight for him.

Now as to my personal habits, the few of you who know that I exist know that I have given most of my time to muggin’ up kulchur, that I have writ a few books, and spent my spare time trying to learn musical composition, or else playin’ tennis and floatin’ round the gulf of Tigullio, in which act I make, so far as I know, a nuisance of myself to no one whatever.

And in the mornings I write letters to and read letters from the most intelligent of my contemporaries, and Mr. Churchill and that brute Rosefield, and their kike postal spies and obstructors, kikarian and/or others annoy me by cuttin’ off my normal mental intercourse with my colleagues.  But I am NOT going to starve, I am not going to starve mentally.  The culture of the Occident came out of Europe and a LOT of it is still right here in Europe, and I don’t mean archeology either.

So a few weeks ago Monotti sez: ever read Pea’s Moscardino So I read it.  and for the first time in your colloquitor’s life he wuz tempted to TRANSLATE a novel, and did so.  Ten years ago I had seen Enrico Pea passin’ ’ along the sea front and Gino [Saviotti] sez: It’s a novelist.  Having seen and known POLLON IDEN, some hundreds, or probably thousands I was not interested in its being a novelist.  But the book must be good or I wouldn’t be more convinced of the fact AFTER having translated it, than I was before.  Of course, my act was impractical so far as you are concerned.  I haven’t the ghost of an idea how I am to get the manuscript to America or get it published.  Pea has never made a cent out of the original.  Well neither had Joyce nor Eliot when I started trying to git someone to print ’em.

What’s it like ?  Well if Tom Hardy had been born a lot later, and lived in the hills up back of Lunigiana, which is down along the coast here, and if Hardy hadn’t writ what ole Fordie used to call that “sort of small town paper journalese,” and if a lot of other things, includin’ temperament, had been different, and so forth ... that might have been something like Pea’s writin’—which I repeat is good writing—and was back in 1921 when Moscardino was printed.  Moscardino is the name of the kid who is tellin’ about his granpop, a nickname, like Buck.

As soon as the barriers are down I shall be sendin’ a copy along for the enlightenment of the American public.

In the meantime, if any one wants to learn how to write Italian let ’em read the first chapter of Forastiero, or the couple of pages on the bloke who had been 20 years in jail.  This is just announcin’ that Italy has a writer, and it is some time since I told anybody that ANY country on earth had a writer.  Like Confucius, knocked ’round and done all sorts of jobs.  Writes like a man who could make a good piece of mahogany furniture.

I sent in a hurry call from the Siena music week, but I reckon it was too late, not time to get retransmittal, but I wanted the clean and decent Americans to hear the Vivaldi Oratorio Juditha Triumphans; which makes ole pop Handel look like a cold poached egg what somebody dropped on the pavement.

Of course it’s not THAT kind of an oratorio, it is a musical whoop in two parts, to celebrate the retaking of Corfu from the Turks in 1715; and it was very timely and suitable as a bicentenary funeral wreath on red-head Vivaldi.

I got it once from the top centre, and once in a box hangin’ over the orchestry, once for the whole and once for the details.

And I think it’s O.K. brother.  You’d have to hear it alternate with Johnnie Bach, say the Mathias, seven times over, at least I would, before I would think I was ready to say just HOW good it is.

There has been some good Vivaldi done for orchestra over Rome Radio, but I dunno whether it has been short-waved over to Amerika.  There was some good Vivaldi done two years ago, when the Chigi organization had the sense to devote the whole of the Sienese fest to Vivaldi, but the Juditha is one up on that.  Better than the Olympiade, as then presented.  In fact I think it is better built up as a whole, and you don’t have to be annoyed by ginks walkin’ about and doin’ stage actin’.  Well some people like their music with that distraction.  When you stop shootin’ and stop pilin’ up profit for kikes by conveying their guns to the god damn English who ought to be spanked and put to bed by their nurses, you might be able to come over and HEAR IT.

That would be a saner way of passin’ the time than doublin’ your taxes and being robbed by the American treasury.  God, my god, you folks are DUMB!!!

Now as to criticism of the Juditha; I affirm that Vivaldi knew more about using the human voice than Johnnie Bach ever discovered.  That may sound like heresy.  Waaal, you decide after you have listened to both of ’em.  And I affirm that Tony Vivaldi knocks the spots off of Handel.  I got no doubt on that point whatsoever.  Very nice bit for viola d’amore and naturally it pleases me on account of a kink I had before I knew Vivaldi had done it.  I have a high opinion of Rossini and Mozart.  I.e., use of mandolin in serious orchestra.  So has everyone who ain’t stark ravin’ goofy.  But Mozart when he came down to Italy did NOT set the public crazy.  And part of the reason was, as I conjecture, that the Italian had then had an earful of Tony Vivaldi.  That is guess work.  But there are things to set against Bach.  In fact things Bach took hold of and rearranged; without as I think improvin’ ’em.

I had a chance to hear both together two years ago in Siena, in a good orchestral concert, one up to Casella, the way that program was built.  Man named Guarnieri conductin’, been doing three years now in Siena, at this summer fest.  And I would by god rather hear Guarnieri conductin’ Vivaldi than hear Toscanini conductin’ Beethoven in Salzburg.  An idea which occurred to me, dunn’ the Juditha performance.

I try to tell you that Italy is carryin’ ON.  La rivoluzione continua.  This is the kind of thing Italians go on doing, despite that dirty mugged bleeder and betrayer of his allies, Winston babyface Churchill.

And his gangsters.  Those blighters have never done one damn thing for civilization.  They have rotted their country, and should not be allowed to rot anyone elses.  They didn’t start the process of corruption, but they have been, everyone of ’em for it, all day and every day, and for the 24 hour period.

Di Marzio is runnin’ a paper.  Vicari is runnin’ a monthly devoted to the “narrative” nothin’ but narrative or careful discussion of narrative, and how one should do it.  Over in Barcelona, they are printin’ a series, Poesia en la Mano, bilingual editions of everyone from Villon to Mallarme’ and Rilke, and, I am told, your present colloquitor if they can git anyone to translate me.

EUROPE is an organic body, its life continues, its life has components and nearly every damn thing that has made your lives worth livin’ up to this moment, has had its ORIGINS right here in Europe.

Yes, we HAD some colonial architecture and 30 pages of Whitman (Walt Whitman, not Whitemann) and then Whistler, and Henry James left the country.  In fact it warn’t no bed of roses fer authors and painters.  Though my generation allus thought we ought to plant something or other, and try to git a new crop of somethin’ or other.  The idea of the Returnin’ Native was prevalent, except possibly to Thomas S. Eliot who saw from the start that you folks weren’t episcopal enough to suit his episcopal temperament, and he somewhat looked down on my pagan and evangelical tendencies.  Waaal, frankly, I allus though it would be a good thing to come back and put some sort of a college or university into shape to teach the young something.  Not merely the god damn saw dust and subsitutes for learnin’ and literature they git handed.  However, ca hold up the whole course of civilization.  If you wanna line up with bone heads, you will line up with bone heads.

And you will go on having conductors instead of composers and European authors who have resigned.

But don’t get that Anglican attitude, of the old story, storm in the channel called by the English, the English channel—the straits between Calais and Dover—and the dirty old Times out with a headline “Continent isolated.”

Nobody here is layin’ flowers on the tomb of Columbus, not this year.  But don’t go and run away with the idea that Europe is no longer here, or that books aren’t being written.  I mean bein’ WRITTEN, and that we have no painters, or writers, or musicians.

I regret the personal correspondence of a small number of writers, who mostly don’t write to each other.  And I would like to see what Hillaire Hiler is paintin’, and to git kumrad cumminkz’s last set of verses.  Or to go on get tin’ Kitasono’s Japanese magazine.  But I ain’t gittin’ weak and pindlin’ or goin’ into a pronounced and delicate melancholy fer the extinction of all human intercourse.

#3 (November 4, 1941) U.S.(A51)

The sight of elderly wedded couples dwelling in mutual devotion sometimes impells one to think of their early loves.  In the present case the spectacle of Mr. Churchill’s government wedded to Stalin’s, and Mr. Roosevelt’s in violable word mixed into it; in short, this triangual Darby and Joan of the three hebraicized governments leads one to look back at the forgotten incidents of their courtship.

In particular, the love feasts between our American Reds and Moscow in vite beautific contemplation.  Our idealists loved Moscow while Mr. Churchill was still playing the bashful Swain.  In fact he was scowling at Stalin, and from the incomprehension of his eternal love for the Moscovites he was being not only sulky, but insulting.  So with true love.  Never, Never, NEVER would he come and kiss the Russian Joan under the sickle and mistletoe.

Our own American Trade Unionists were more oncoming.  They LIKED the bud of Russian promise.  Ref. Worker’s Library No. 3 bearing the dim and lavender date: Sept. 9, 1927.

Jay Lovestone (né possibly Liebstein) on the first page of amorous paean inscribes the luminous words “THE establishment of the 7-hour day in Russia.” Well that’s far off enough and long enough before the Stakhelevites, and Mr. Lovestone is very hard on the American Federation of Labor. “Reactionary trade union bureaucrats” he call’s ’em.

And in that memorable day an’ year our dewey-eyed workers (trade unionists and idealists) technical advisors they figger in the catalog, Brophy, R.W. [?] Dunn, C.H. Douglas, Rex Tugwell, Stuart Chase, a lot, as you see, of brawny fellows who had used either the hammer or sickle in daily life, went over to visit the Kumrad.  And apart from the general, as op posed to the specific nature of the answers, the kumrad didn’t do so bad.  The questions being rather more nebulous and UNspecific than the answers.  How could the debonair murderer get down very near to brass tacks in his answers ?

After all Marx was pretty good at history and diagnosis.  Nobody on the Axis side denies that Marx discovered several genuine faults in the usury system.

All we ask is a way to CURE ’em.  And the torture chambers in most countries where Stalin’s power has reached, and in a few embassies where he had been unable to get control of the total police force, rather indicate that the Boishie system never got UNIVERSAL approval from its victims.

However, when next dining with Rabbi Lehman, or Scholem Mosestha and the rest of the international bankers, spring a few pages of the kumrad’s answers between the caviar and the pheasant and see if it don’t enliven the dinner.

Sure Stalin approves of Marx and Engels wantin’ to take ECONOMIC, political, cultural and organizational measures.  And seem’ as he put ’em in that order, you would expect me to fall for it ?

ECONOMIC first.  Of course the Bolshies didn’t.  Any party that comes into power, probably puts ORGANIZATIONAL measures first, and the economics belong, alas to the almost inaccessible part of culture.  So FEW people seem able to grasp simple economics without, as Senator Bankhead remarked, about three centuries delay.

Three centuries, to get people to understand anything about anything havin’ to do with money.  An’ it is now demonstrated on the corpus vilis of British reformers’ hopes that very little economic reform gets into practice without precedent organizational and political measures of an almost earth shaking nature.  A curious phrase about “reconstruct capitalist society” must belong to the translator.  I don’t want to pin that on Joseph, tho’ mebbe that was part of his muddle.  I am far less concerned with Joe’s lacunae than with a few clear positive statements.  Joe said he was aware that “a number of capitalist governments are controlled by big banks,” notwithstanding the existence of “democratic” parliaments.

Not bad for a Georgian assassin.  And possibly several decades ahead of the American public and professoriat.  Not a single power in which the Cabinet can be formed in opposition to the will of the big financial magnates.  I wonder: is that why they took Joe for a ride ?

“It is sufficient to exert financial pressure to cause Cabinet Ministers to fall from their posts as if they were stunned.”

Joey was talkin’ of European cabinets; not of the so very different American DEMocracy (as they call it) etc. where, unless there is absolute surety that financial pressure won’t be used, the blighters seldom or never get in.  Joe SAID that the control of government by money-bags is inconceivable and absolutely excluded in the U.S.S.R.  How different from the home life of our own DEMOCRACY (as they call it), etc. and how different from anything any British politician has ever encountered, and how different from any state of things that Churchill’s group would desire.

“Narrow circle” said Joe of individuals connected in one way or another with the large banks and because of that they strive to conceal the part they play in this from the people.

What a PERFECT ally for Churchill, Morgenthau, Lehman, and the present Anglo-Jewish regimes !  Well, the starry eyed Mr. Tugwell, and the cautious Mr. Chase and Jim Maurer and Brophy took it all down hook, line and sinker.  Seven hour day and the rest of it.  It was a stirring occasion.  The only thing is that the idealist’s ideals have got going so much faster and gone so much further.  The Axis side of the present hard feelings.

Here the TRADE UNIONS, with their syndic. organization, and their recognized legal status whereby they propose, formulate, and GET what they want in Italy is really of so much MORE interest for any member of ANY trade union, or for any leader of labor who cares a hang about the welfare of the led that one only hopes the American trade unionist will someday read Por, or at least read something about Italian organizational measures.

The Stalin interview is a tough piece of reading, very hard to take hold of.  That was probably the secret of his hold—plenty of people who KNOW Russia have been puzzled by the gap between their effective propaganda and their local failure in solving human problems.  I believe the human material they had to work on explains part of the latter.  I mean why they did NOT make a paradise, but mostly a sweat shop—machines before men—men as material.  But the other side, the devilish efficiency of their propaganda, is worth study.

And it seems to be a variant on the old political wheeze of sticking to general statements that each auditor interprets to mean what HE would mean IF he said it.

And now for contrast, close harmony, let us look at a recent emission from Joe’s faithful companion, fellow idealist, and pledged ally, Mr. N.M. Butler. On June 3, 1941, year current, as delivered at the commencement of Columbia University, when Ole Nick was awaitin’ another Waterloo, and as is common with his kind, he wasn’t puttin’ it in the first person singular.  Nick wanted Americans to go fight for the British exploiters; so he said “THE WORLD” etc.  In this case THE WORLD (meaning Nick and his pay masters).  The World he sez, awaits another Waterloo.  And on the fifth page it turns out he meant a defeat of Hitler!! Which might be called “metonomy” or takin’ a part for the “whole,” and not the better whole either.

Now the WORLD, as any college president ought to know, before the trustees pay him his fat annual salary, is spherical in form, and is composed of MORE than one continent, and not wholly and totally enraptured with the big usury central.

However let Nick Butler speak for himself, as he has never failed to do in all his oleaginous lifetime.

Several pages of the old scamp’s palaver contain statements by which no right thinking man would be offended.  The slabs of print, the page undivided by paragraph divisions, tends to lull the reader or auditor into security.

Mr. Butler even disapproves (mildly, of course) of the “controlling desire for gain,” alias our old enemy the profit motive.  Of course he keeps off the specific MEANS of gain, exercised by his owners.  He then pays a delicate compliment to Lord Holy Fox, without committing himself, in fact nothing could be more downy.

The FIRST Lord Halifax, unaided by his charming and formidable Lady, said there were three hundred years ago many things that riches cannot buy.  Therefore the American boys should bleed for the present Lord Holy Fox.  Now Ole Nick don’t go as far back as all that, he stops back in the 17th Century; before Robert Cecil was so vigorous in defense of the British OPIUM interests in Shanghai.

Victory for a moral ideal is not enough, according to Nicholas, because the “gain-seeking interest has control of so vast a proportion of mankind.” That is true enough, but it ain’t reduced the moral ideal to ABSOLUTE impotence.  This is what was worrying Butler; but he hadn’t got down to bed rock.  He said there was a time, back apparently when Mark Hanna was running the United State of America, when the moral ideal was to all appearances gainin’ ground.

Of course if by that he means that some empires were GAINING territory, he might have said so, only he didn’t.  Ole Nicholas puts the rise of the triumph, real or apparent, the IDEAL, from the McKinley to the Wealsohn administration.

Note of HOpe and progress.

In 1910, the American Congress was unanimous for the moral principle (so long as no questions were asked about the privileges of the usury central).  Nic complains that the moral ideal has disappeared in all that has to do with international relations.

Which shows the state of DEEP ignorance in the WORLD; as distinct from Nicholas Butler’s circle or pot.

And lookin’ at dates, he must have been blurrin’ this blurb the same week that a Chinaman, not of Wang Ching Wei’s party, but of Chiang Kai-shek’s party, and FAITHFUL to Chiang, saying what Hitler’s justice in scuttling international affairs was such that the Chinese of the ANTI-JAP, anti-Wang party might accept Hitler’s arbitrage.

Mr. Butler then seems to fall into incoherence.  He talks of a PLEDGE as something to be kept; what price, England, Churchill, and Roosevelt ?  He objects to having the savings of generations swept away; he asks what has become of the influence of and guidance of the great religions; Christian, Mosel, HEBREW, and Buddhist, and begorrah, of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, leaving out St. Ambrose and St. Antonio da Firenze, and graciously waivin’ a hand to the captains of the mind, Spanish, Italian, French, English, German.  And of course Abraham Lincoln, not quoting old Abe on the currency issue.  And then barbarous brutality, without mention of Esthonia, Finland, or places occupied by the— —Bustin of churches and museums.  Wot price Louvain and Cyrenaica ?  And all this “However dark the skies,” etc. ends up with a historic parallel; the WORLD waitin’ for a new Vaterloo; because Napolean BonypartY went into Russia, and if Hitler ain’t licked in Europe, it will come in Asia or Africa.  Well that is a bad slip, because Knox and Stimson, etc. are retching for to rape Africa.  But at any rate you git a picture of Nicholas, and METONOMY or takin’ a part for the HOLE.  A figger of Rhetorik sez Sam Johnson, whereby one word is put for another.

Now if Butler, the old goof, wants me to give him a clean bill of health, he can use the enormous power conferred on him by his position, to get Columbia University to issue a series of volumes containing the GIST of the beliefs and knowledge of John Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren, and Lincoln.  NOT leaving out every phrase and paragraph which I, and men like me, consider vital to the understanding of American history.

#4 (November 6, 1941) U.S.(56)

A consignment of the unpopular American magazines has reached me.  I don’t mean doctrinal magazines, but magazines in which a serious article occasionally appears.  Thus I have learned that Professor I.A. Richards, one of England’s few respectable high brows in America, is lecturing; yes, naturally, lecturing.

And apparently the normal effort to keep things going, goes on.  Wallace Stevens, J.G. Fletcher, ole Doc Williams, and kumrad kumminkz knowing a bit more about writing than the younger men who haven’t quite made up their minds whether they want to do a real job of work, and LEARN how.

And a man with a Scotch front name married a gal who would appear from the nomenclature to be Scotch, Welsh, and British.  And Ted Spencer has got his dancing man into print where it ought to be, and the objections to it are as silly as one would expect them to be and mebbe the young are comin’ on, as Mr. Calder Joseph; and Langston Hughes has a book in press; probably out by now, which is allus a good thing and Dr. Gogarty or goGARTY, better known to the outer world as Buck Mulligan, has got to New Jersey, and keeps writin’ poems, and is accused of being engaged on a novel.  [He] has written a rather fine ode for the revival of the Tailltean Games, Irish Olympics.  I don’t quite know why it is only published now, as the Tailtean Olympics were restored nearly 20 years ago.

Well, that’s a human touch, and a relief from the noise of the American papers.  We need more communication between the five continents.

And some of the younger professors appear not to have been WHOLLY hoodwinked by propaganda.  Got tired of Georgian poets and so forth.

And that brings me to the question of AGE.  Can you or can you not see that this war is a war against YOUTH ?  That there is in England a whole generation or two generations ready to vomit at the mention of Churchill, Beaverbrook, Garvin, and Baldwin and these senilities want vengence for the lack of respect.

Back in the other war W.B. Yeats said of the old politicians: War, of course they want war, they want all the young gals for themselves.

And in one way or another—lust for power, lust, jealously of the next generation—pretended anxiety for the world as it will be in the time of their grandchildren. Hurry, for fear they won’t be able to kill off the present younger generation before the IDEAS of my generation go into effect.  It is NOT necessary to have the earth ruled by senile bleeders and swindlers.  The youth of Europe has discovered that cardinal fact.

Hence the senile outcry Europa-Delenda.  Europe, according to the Financial News of London, must be wiped OUT, or certain monopolies will disappear.  Men will be able to eat the grain of their own fields, UNLESS Europe is blown to flinders.

HAVE you read the DETAILS of British blackmail on Chile, on the men in Chile who want to trade with the outer world ?  Details of Roosenstein’s “freedom of the seas,” NAVICERT, that was what they tried on Italy and Italy came in on the German side.

If Chile don’t, that merely means that every man in Chile who is black mailed into signing those papers will store up a silent hate against every thing English, and against any nation that participates in such a policy.

STARVE ’em out.  Will YOU separate the starvers from the producers, the growers, the makers ?

Look at Hank Wallace, good guy, nice presence, led down one garden path after another.  Perfect Hampton Court maze, Lord Halifax.  First you are asked to reduce production, plow under, then after a few years you are threatened with rationing.


In the United States of America, the land of abundance, the land the Loeb chart showed beyond any possible shadow of doubt whatsoever to be the land of abundance.  Every family of four COULD have had then a standard of living equal to what then cost 4000 dollar a year.  Needed monetary reform, of course, had to have honest national money to get it.

The United States of America needed INTERNAL reform, not a war in Africa or in Asia.  Not a war for the mine owners AGAINST the farmers of Rhodesia, not a war for the opium of Shanghai and Singapore.  From IN TERNAL reform could have come collaboration with the other four continents.  AND freedom of the seas, the KIND that will permit Chile and the Argentine to trade with France, Spain, and Sweden, and Switzerland and will let ole Hoover tote food into Belgium.

Will you look at the AGE of the chief war pimps ?  Roosevelt now says he saw war coming in 1937.  In 1937 there was NO necessity of War.  Roosevelt did all he could to make it inevitable.  There is no record of any single act of Roosevelt aimed sincerely at staving off war.  Ignorance of Europe, government in charge of hicks, all the outer world thinks Roosevelt took orders from the worst gang in Europe.

Don’t say I affirm that he did, what I affirm is that he never showed the faintest inclination to learn the facts and come out for a JUST solution.  That is a fairly conservative statement.  He has NEVER been neutral.  But get down to this one point of AGE How old are these blokes who are trying to throw America into the conflict ?  What is their business ?  What is their civic record ?  What is, or ever has been, their desire to let YOU get the facts ?

Have any of ’em ever come out for the JUST PRICE ?  Which is basic in all economics.

Even the old laissez-faire or Whig economics believed at the start that free competition led to the just price.

The wheeze against it was worked partly by faking the FREEDOM of that competition.

If you start a ten years war ?  Yes, IF you start a ten years war.  None of these old swine will be there at the end of it.  It won’t be their world, it may be your ruin.

As to RUIN.  What about Petrograd ?  No military purpose in its destruction.

Laval saved Paris.  Churchill would have had ’em lay Paris flat, to gain three days time that would have had NO effect whatsoever on the result of the German campaign in France.  What causes that ?  Criminality ?  Imbecility ?  Or what Napoleon would have called lack of imagination, meaning incapacity to form a picture in the mind’s eye of what the TOTAL destruction of Paris would mean.

Those of you who want to see Paris again will owe it to Pierre Laval whom the British tried to have murdered.

Those of you who ever do see Paris either for the first time or again will not owe it to Mr. Churchill.  Had that criminal ape got his way, there would have been absolutely NO PARIS there.

Yes, we were once young or younger, and many of us fell for the Russian Red Revolution.  Because the Marxist diagnosis was pretty near right.  The remedy did NOT work.  AND the revolution was betrayed.  Another revolution, a youth, has NOT been betrayed.  It is moving, it is moving toward what the decent Reds wanted.

A lot of ’em saw no further, wanted no more than the end of certain abuses.  The fools got control.  Now YOU are NOT communists.  The United States of America and France and every other nation East of the Volga WANTS the homestead.  The French peasant wants his own bit of land, without the dead hand over him; without mortgage.  The working man does NOT want to govern; he wants good government.

You Americans and the English want government to be good without ANY effort on your part whatsoever.  You don’t even look at what is done by your governments.  Takes an awful heave to get ANY of your attention turned onto the vital facts of a government policy.  Most men want certain things IN their own lives, largely in or inside the sphere of their own trade or business.  Very few analyze that want or carry their thought thru into the realization of what they want with a practical system of government.

Our system was O.K. for the open and unsettled continent, etc.  The frontier, individualism in a state of things where man who couldn’t stand on his own feet in the forest and live on the plain and live, possibly on horseback, merely died off.

First intellectual reaction to mere approach of industrialization Thoreau tried to see how little he need bother about other humanity

Amateur move.

COHABITATION with other men.  POLIS, a city, politics, right way for people to live together in a city.  Greek cities very small; Aristotle bothering about a system for 5000 citizens, etc.

Five million, 130 million, bit more of a job; better regulations needed.

Great swindle, money issue, the exchangeable measured titles to goods.

AS our Constitution got well out in front, was for more than a century, in fact for 130 years, far and away the BEST on earth.  I had allus thought we could get all the social justice we need, by a few sane reforms of money, such as Adams and Lincoln would have thought honest AND CONSTITUTIONAL The grafters would rather throw you into a ten years war and kill off five or ten million YOUNG men than even let the discussion of monetary reform flower on the front pages of the American papers

What causes that ?  Dirtiness causes it; greed, lust, avarice, petty vindictiveness and senile swank cause it

Europe with systems of government less modern than ours, Germany and Italy with the leftovers of earlier centuries especially Germany saw revolutions Worked out a new system suited to EUROPE It is NOT our American affair.  We could with honor advocate freedom of the seas.  For EUROPE as well as for a few Jew controlled shipping firms.  We could, with honor advocate NATURAL commerce; that is, a commerce wherein each nation would exchange what it has, what is has in superfluity or abundance, with what other nations can or will spare.

We could stand for that sort of commerce instead of trying to throttle it

Why do we NOT ?

Why should all men under forty be expected to die or be maimed in sup port of flagrant injustice, monopoly and a dirty attempt to strangle and starve out 30 nations ?

For whom ?

It is NOT even for the people of England, to whom a ten years war means death by starvation.

#5 (December 7, 1941) U.S. & U.K.(A66)

Europe callin’, Pound speakin’.  Ezry Pound speakin’.  And I think I am perhaps still speakin’ a bit more TO England than to the United States of America but you folks may as well hear it.  They say an Englishman’s head’s made of wood, and the American head made of watermelon.  Easier to git something INTO the American head, but nigh impossible to make it stick there for ten minutes.

Of course I don’t know what GOOD I am doin’, I mean what IMME DIATE good.  But something you folks on both side of the wretched ocean will have to learn, war or no war, sooner or later.

Now what I had to say about the state of MIND in England in 1919, I said in my Cantos (14 and 15).  Some of your theosophists and fancy thinkers would have called it the spiritual state of England.  I am content to say state of mind.

I can’t say my remarks were heeded.  I thought I had got ’em simple enough.  Words short and simple enough.  In fact some people complained that several of ’em contained no more than 4 or 5 letters (some less).

Now I hold NO Catholic has ever been or ever will be puzzled by what I said in those Cantos.  I have, however, never asked for sympathy when misunderstood.  I go on trying to make my meanin’ clear and then clearer.  And in the LONG run people who listen to me (very few do, but members of that small and SElect minority) do know more in the long run, than those who listen to Mr. H.G. chubby Wells and the liberal stooges.

What I am gitting at is, a friend said to me the other day that he was glad I had the politics I have got, but that HE didn’t understand how I, as a North American, United Stateser could have it.

Well that looks simple to me.  Things OFTEN DO look simple to me.  On the CONfucian system that if you start right, and then go on, start at the root and move upward, the pattern often is simple, whereas if you start constructin’ from the twig downward, you get into a muddle.

My politics seem to me SIMPLE.  My idea of a state OR an empire is more like a hedge hog or porcupine, chunky and well defended.  I don’t cotton to the idea of my country being an octopus WEAK in the tentacles and sufferin’ from stomach ulcers and chronic gastritis.

I wish Brother Hoover had spilled his facts about the stinking and rotten Treaty of Versailles while he was still in the White House.  But I am glad he has done so now.  Tho’ he could also confess his OWN errors and aid even now to acceleratin’ the United States of America welfare.

Anyhow, I have, in principle, NO objection to the U.S. absorbin’ Canada and the whole NORTH American continent.

The rot of the British Empire is from inside, and if the whole of that syphilitic organization, headed by Montagu Skinner Norman, makes war on Canada, or Alberta, I see no reason for Canada not making war on the Jews in London.  Whether they are born Jews, or have taken to Jewry by predilection.

What I am ready to fight AGAINST is havin’ ex-European Jews making another peace worse than Versailles, with a new two dozen Danzigs.  Namely the United States bein’ left with war baby bases in Aberdeen, Singapore, Dakar, South Africa, and the Indian Ocean! All draggin’ the tail of their coat, and making dead mathematically sure of another war for Dupont, Vickers, Mond, Melchett, Beit, Ellermann in ten or fifteen years after the present one (present war).  And to that end Roosevelt, Morgenthau, Lehman are working, day and night, not to mention the Warburgs.  And precisely on the subject of Warburgs, I wish Herb Hoover would say MORE about the stink of Versailles.

God knows I have loathed Woodie Wilson, and I don’t want to see more evil done to humanity than was done by Woodrow codface.  And the sooner all America and ALL England wake up to what the Warburgs and Roosevelt are up to, the better for the next generation and this one.

And as an American I do NOT want to see my country annihilatin’ the population of Iceland, as the British annihilated the Maoris.  And as for the Australians, they deserve a Nippo-Chinese invasion.  Criminals were their granddads, and their contribution to civilization is not such as to merit even a Jewish medal.  Why the heck the Chinese and laps don’t combine and drive that dirt out of Australia, and set up a bit of civilization in those parts, is for me part of the mystery of the orient.

And in any case I do NOT want my compatriots from the ages of 20 to 40 to go git slaughtered to keep up the Sassoon and other British Jew rackets in Singapore and in Shanghai.  That is not my idea of American patriotism.  We are gittin’ on for the centenary of the opium war, that never did any good to the lads of Lancashire or of Sussex, and that brought no prosperity in Dorset or Gloucester.

Hardy’s England, aye, aye sir, where is it ?  Did Rothschild save it ?  He did not.  Did the Goldsmid save it ?  He did not.  Does Churchill endeavor to save it ?  He does NOT.  I repeat the rot and stink of England, and the danger to her empire is inside, and has been: from the time of Cobbett.

And NO number of Rabbis and bank touts in Wall Street and in Washington can do one damn thing for England, save let her alone.  And a damn pity they didn’t start doin’ sooner.  That is a pity for England.

And a peace with American war bases all over the whole of the planet would be no more a real peace than Versailles was.  And as to all visible signs Roosevelt is MORE in the Jew’s hands than Wilson was in 1919.  I am against havin’ him mixin’ into ANY post-war matters whatever.  This objectin’ being academic.

An’ I think it would be well for ALL men, from China to Capetown to SEE as soon as possible what Franklin is up to.  Let him keep his paws on the North American continent.  Even if it means DIMinished gun sales for all his pals, and for all gold-bugs.

Eight years ago he was sayin’ “nothin to fear but fear.” Well what has become of THAT Roosevelt ?  What has he done for three years but try to work up a hysteria on that basis ?  He got his face into a paper called Life, eight or ten photographs.  Jim Farley would have been less nuisance in the White House than snob Delano, who objected to Farley NOT on moral or ethical grounds, but PURELY as snobism; didn’t want a mere henchman to succeed him.

And as to American labor.  When will American labor start lookin’ into the currency question ?  “Question,” of course there ought not to be any INTERROGATIVE element in it.  Even a hod carrier OUGHT to be able to learn why interest payin’ debt is NOT so good a basis for money as is productive labor.

But will they ?  Will the American hod carrier and skilled engineer (includin’ Mr. Hoover) ever git round to the currency issue ?  (I call it issue, not question.)

And will the American big employer or financier, except Baruch, ever start studyin’ the solution of HIS problem, which is a corporate solution, in the sense of that word now current in Europe ?

A CORPORATE problem, or issue, which does NOT mean starving the workman, or breakin’ him up by scab mobs.

Lord knows I don’t SEE how America can have fascism without years of previous trainin’.  Looks to me, even now as if the currency problem was the place to start savin’ America.  As I have been sayin’ for some time back, call it ten years or call it twenty.  At this moment it looks like as if John Lewis would take just as long to git round about feedin’ my books to his troops, as it would take the Harvard faculty to git Mr. William G. Morse’s permission to use ’em in Harvard (Economics Department).

Both sides will have to come to it.