WAR! WAR! WAR! CINCINNATUS

JEWS AND THE CONSTITUTION, AND COURTS

Shylock—“A Daniel come to Judgment! Yea, a Daniel.”

Merchant of Venice.

"Suavity toward the Jews — although you have lived among them it is evident that you little understand those enemies of the human race—Haughty and at the same time base, combining an invincible obstinacy with a spirit despic­ably mean, they weary alike your love and your hatred.”

Anatole France.

Strangely, perhaps, the dominance of the Jew over American law and its interpretation is a relatively recent phenomenon. Two names—Brandeis and Frankfurter—have put their stamp upon it. We need make no more than passing reference to the liking of the Jew for the practice of law, and only a word to the fact that they are mostly brilliantly identified with the perversion of it. In case you doubt this, read the list of those disbarred—in New York City, for example—for violation of the legal code. In both of the recent iriminal scandals relating to McKesson and Robbins and Judge Manton only the Christians were punished. The rich Jews escaped punishment in New York City, as is usual.

The extra-legal, un-American activities of Mr. Justice Brandeis, who declares that as a Jew he has a Distinct Nationality, for ex­ample, have already been touched upon. The fact that, to quote Spring-Rice, "He (Brandeis) is said to have much influence with the President” is not important save in light of the nature of that influ­ence. Wc have already seen that he is credited—by the Jews tbem- idves and boastfully—with bringing us into the World War.

Roosevelt, in his second court packing plan, appointed Felix Frankfurter a Justice of the Supreme Court, where his influences arc pervasive. He presumptuously overshadows the Chief Justice and apparently exerts unfortunate influence upon four to six of the other Justices. At last the radical theories of Roosevelt, House, Brandeis and Frankfurter are now declared the law in government, economics and sociology.

"Brainy—and plus that—nervy. That is the two-word pic­ture of Felix Frankfurter, Byrne Professor of Administrative Law at Harvard Law School, the man behind the President of the United States.”

American Magazine, March, 1934.

Frankfurter has expressly declared that the due process clause which follows Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution "ought to go”.

“* * * We have had fifty years of experiment with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the centralizing authority lodged with the Supreme Court over the domestic affairs of forty-eight widely different states is an authority which it simply cannot discharge with safety either to itself or to the states. The due process clauses ought to go. It is highly significant that not a single constitution framed for English speaking countries since the Fourteenth Amendment has em bodied its provisions. And one would indeed be lacking in a sense of humor to suggest that life, liberty, or property is not amply protected in Canada, Australia, and South Africa.”

Law and Politics of Felix Frankfurter, P. 16.

The 14th Amendment provides:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Ruling Case Law, Vol. 6, states about the "due process clause" which Frankfurter says "ought to go”:

"The principle that no person should he deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of Law did not originate in the American system of constitutional law, but was contained in Magna Charta as a part of ancient Eng­lish liberties.”      Sec. 434

"As has already been seen the principle of due process of law had its origin in England as a protection to individuals from arbitrary action on the part of the crown. It has been said that in this country the requirement is intended to have <i similar effect against legislative power, that is, to secure the citizen against any arbitrary deprivation of his rights, whether relating to his life, his liberty, or his property. It is a limitation upon arbitrary power, and is a guaranty against arbitrary legislation. The primary purpose of the guaranty was the security of the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the estab lished principles of private rights and distributive justice.”

Ibid. Sec. 438.

When Frankfurter declared that the due process clause of the Constitution should go, he was thus demanding that the states have the arbitrary right to deprive the citizen of his “life, liberty and property"

without the protection of the Federal Courts. This means that the Jew controlled State of New York, among other states, shall have the arbitrary right to deprive its citizens of life, liberty and property, without interference from the Courts of the Federal Government. So speaks a non-combatant of Marxian sabotage.

JOHN MARSHALL

John Marshall, native, patriot, honored soldier, friend of Wash­ington, representative of his country at home and abroad, Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, defending the American form of government and the Constitution, held: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Felix Frankfurter, Austrian-born Jew, a defender of Communistic murderers, immediately after his ap­pointment as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in derision of Chief Justice Marshall and his warning against the destructive power of taxation, contemptuously called it “an unfortunate remark’’, "a flourish of rhetoric”, “ a doctrinaire application of generalities”, "a seductive cliche’ ”, and “a pernicious abstraction”. See Graves vs. New York, 306 U. S. 466, 488-9.

Frankfurter seems to have a penchant for attacking those most truly American. Not satisfied with sneering at Chief Justice Mar­shall, he adds to the category of his scorn Chief Justice Taft, Presi­dent Coolidge, Hon. John W. Davis, Democratic nominee for President—all native Americans whose forefathers fought in the Revolutionary War and served their country in times of peril with distinction and honor.

"* * * The door to the Holy of Holies has been opened. Others will follow where Mr. Taft’s profanation leads.”

Law and Politics, of Frankfurter, P. 40.

"* * * Mr. Taft, even before he was one of its members, had been rather obsessed by the notion that the Supreme Court is a sacred priesthood immune from profane criticism.”

Ibid. P. 41.

"Chief Justice Taft deals with abstractions and not with the work-a-day world, its men and its struggles. To him, also, words are things and not the symbols of things. The jejune logomachy of his judicial process is thus exposed by Mr. Justice Holmes.”

Ibid. P. 46.

Not the least significant of Frankfurter’s practices is the old habit of lauding Jewish Judges and Jewish concepts of law and mocking

American jurists and jurisprudence. In the case of Graves vs. U. S., 306 U. S. 466, to accomplish a reversal of a long current of deci sions, Frankfurter relied upon opinions of judges from Australia

and Canada, and stated:

“In this Court dissents have gradually become majority opin­ions." (He was referring to the dissents of Mr. Justice Brandeis and Mr. Justice Holmes.)

Patriotic Americans are invited to read Brandeis' and Holmes' dissents in Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, and Gitlow u. New York, 268 U. S., 652, in which these dissenting Judges de­fended, as supposed civil liberties, violations of criminal laws by Com­munist, New York City, Jews seeking, in the Abrams case, sabotage of our national defense in time of war, and in the Gitlow case, over­throw of our government by force and violence in time of peace. Some of the criminal articles were printed in Yiddish, and practically all of the criminal Jews involved were born in Russia.

Mr. Frankfurter seems to have been ever on the alert to add his condemnation to whatever Justice Brandeis condemned, and employed such extravagant language as:

“Against such an attitude, Mr. Justice Brandeis raised his magistral voice. It is not hazardous prophecy to believe that Mr. Justice Brandeis's opinion concurred in by Mr. Justice Stone (Mr. Justice Cardozo taking no part in the decision) merely anticipates history, even the history of future opin­ions cf the Court.”

Law and Politics of Felix Frankfurter, P. 58.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter is never laggard in singing the praise of his fellow-Jew, "Brandeis,” whom he terms “the master of fact as the basis of social justice.” Ibid. P. 31.

Of the Jew Cardozo, Frankfurter, the Jew, says:

”* * * The permanent influence of this great judge was achieved only partially by his own writings, for the current of his culture permeated in ways more subtle than even his opinions can express. Perhaps his qualities are best defined by saying that Cardozo completely satisfied the requirements of a judge wholly adequate for the Supreme Bench.”

Ibid. P. 102.

In a recent article by Secretary of the Interior Ickes, published in the Saturday Evening Post, he charges that Secretary of the In­terior Ballinger was the victim of a "despicable conspiracy”. Justice Brandeis, then Attorney Brandeis, Ickes charges, was the attorney for one of the conspirators, and for the weekly magazine which was used by the conspirators for propaganda purposes. Ickes charges that Brandeis’ employment was obtained through the agency of the Hon. Henry L. Stimson, one time Republican Secretary of State and now an ardent interventionist, war monger and ally of Franklin Roosevelt. Ickes charges that Brandeis prepared a "flimsy” accu­sation, that "there was nothing to which the break-Ballinger cabal would not stoop" and that the "astute” Brandeis built an enormous mountain out of a mole hill, until Brandeis’ assaults convinced the people that the President of the United States (Taft) and his Attor­ney General "were trying to cover up”.

The power and influence of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, an Austrian- born Jew, date from Woodrow Wilson's administration. He became assistant to the Secretary of War, Secretary and Counsel to the Presi­dent’s Mediation Commission, assistant to the Secretary of Labor, Chairman of the War Labors Policy Board and representative of the Zionist cause at the Peace Conference. (The Zionists brought Amer­ica into the World War.) While this recent-alien was being thus honored, other Americans, in the uniform of their country, but who possessed names, faintly German, were being imprisoned on the sus­picion of being pro-German.

According to Moley, Roosevelt’s fidus Achates until the summer of 1936, Frankfurter, Corcoran and Cohen had persistently assured the President that it was not necessary for him to amend the Con­stitution in order to get control of the courts. Their theory was that the trouble was with the court and not with the Constitution, and if control could be obtained over the personnel of the court, the President could have his way in determining what the Constitution means and what is the law of the land. "The methods they advocated could not have been better calculated to lead Roosevelt to the pro­posal of February 5, 1937, viz.: Court packing.”

The Judiciary Committee of the Senate, a majority of whom were Democrats, on June 14, 1937, issued a magnificent report that ranks as one of the major State papers in the history of the country. This report stated:

“We recommend the rejection of this bill as needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle * *

“It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.

"It contains the germ of a system of centralized admin­istration * *

"It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution."

“* * * a proposal that violates every sacred tradition of American democracy."

"Its ultimate operation would be to make this govern­ment one of men rather than one of law, * *

"It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free rep­resentatives of the free people of America."

In the early days of his career, Frankfurter, always active on the side of the radicals and aliens, was bluntly charged by President Theodore Roosevelt as one with the Russian radicals "engaged in excusing men precisely like the Bolsheviki in Russia, who are mur­derers and the encouragers of murder, who are traitors to democracy and to civilization, as well as to the United States * *

Frankfurter again plumped into the limelight by gratuitously injecting himself into the case of two Communist murderers, Sacco and Vanzetti, of Braintree fame, with the result that Dean John H. Wigmore, accepted authority on Evidence, writing in the Boston Transcript of April 25, 1927, said that Frankfurter "made errors and misstatements which if discovered in a brief of counsel filed in the case would qualify him for proceedings of disbarment.”

Wigmore’s words were strong:

"Now all this palaver," he says, "seeking to make the reader believe that the judge and the prosecutor thrust the defend­ant’s Reddism into the case, and then illegally and unfairly exploited it—all this palaver is a consummate misrepresenta­tion * * * These facts are so demonstrative of the cruelty and libelous falsity of the whole tenor of the plausible pundit’s article.”

When the Governor of Massachusetts nominated Frankfurter for a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, he stated that the "plausible pundit” was highly recommended by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis D. Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo. De­spite his unusual influence upon several national and many local administrations, Frankfurter has never held public office by election.

At one time or another in his American career, Frankfurter has belonged to a number of Left Wing organizations or to groups strong­ly sympathetic to radicalism. He was a member of the Advisory Committee of the socialist Worker’s Educational Bureau and the Labor Education League under James A. Maurer, a known radi­cal; the American Civil Liberties Union, which only purged its predominantly Communist executive board of its Red members when Stalin joined Hitler: the National Popular Government League, the creation of Louis F. Post, the millionaire radical. Frank A. Good­win, an executive of the State of Massachusetts says of him in the

Sacco-Vanzetti case: "The leader of the movement to set these two murderers free is Felix Frankfurter.” Deputy District Attorney Joseph W. Keith of Boston said: "I then believed and still believe that Frankfurter and men of his type are a menace to the country and to American institutions.”

In the Passaic textile strike in 1926, Frankfurter exhorted the strikers at a mass-meeting to remain on strike until their demands were met and he represented the United Front Committee (famil­iar phrase to those who know the Communist movement) in fight­ing a subsequent injunction. The “handbook” used by the strikers in this instance was Frankfurter's The Labor Injunction. In Reds in America, published in 1924, R. M. Whitney says:

“A certain group of lawyers, not all the same personnel, but invariably with many of the same individuals, seems always to be seeking ways to embarrass the Government and inter­fere with its functioning when it attacks radicalism in any of its forms. These lawyers do not seem to care as to the merits of their case, as was shown when they brought charges of illegal practice against the Department of Justice, charges which were quickly shown to be utterly without founda­tion, a fact which the veriest tyro would have known upon cursory examination of the ‘evidence’ they presented. The make-up of this particular group of lawyers * * * is inter­esting * * *. The self-appointed committee, which signed the charges against the Department of Justice, including Felix Frankfurter, Ernst Freund and Frank P. Walsh * * * Walsh is the lawyer who, on his return from Moscow was reported in Communist circles to have been retained to de­fend the Bridgman conspirators.”

Frankfurter’s dislike for the capitalist system is subtly conveyed in his writings and speeches. Speaking before the “pinko” New School for Social Research on February 2, 1933, as reported in the New York Herald-Tribune, he says, in part:-

“A good part of our past is dead. To hope for its revival is tragic illusion. New circumstances condition the nation’s wealth-making: how they are met will determine the na­tional welfare. The road to yesterday’s prosperity is largely barred.”

This is an old familiar strain — the things that have gone be­fore are useless and something new must be done. That he proposes that this way shall not be the familiar American way, is obvious:

“The way out lies in bold and laborious grappling with the basic forces of our economic leadership * * *. Moreover, the function of political leadership is to lead, and not to allow

action to be distracted because generalized public opinion is confused and distracted.”

Which is only another way of saying that public opinion should be overlooked because its judgments are neither wise, speedy nor universal. The Herald Tribune of September 25, 1933, indicates in a news story that Frankfurter was a force in the new Roosevelt ad­ministration:

"Professor Felix Frankfurter. Harvard liberal, and regarded as one of the unofficial advisors of President Roosevelt, sailed for Europe today * * *.

"Ostensibly Professor Frankfurter will be an exchange pro­fessor at Oxford University, but advices from Washington indicate that he also is on an unofficial Presidential mission, assisting the Chief Executive in keeping abreast of affairs, particularly financial matters all over the world.”

"More and more the influence of Prof. Frankfurter cf Har­vard is noted in selecting brilliant young liberals for key positions as legal advisors. By intellectual standards Frank­furter and Justice Brandeis are almost synonymous. It is a fact, therefore, that a respected Supreme Court Justice (Bran­deis) is influential within the executive branch of government under this administration.”

Kiplinger’s 'Washington News Letter, Dec. 2. 1933.

Paul Mallon names, among others of these "Anthony Advocates”. Ben Cohen, Max Lowenthal. Jerome Frank and Nathan Margold. He says:

"There are a dozen or so ethers hidden in the N. R. A., C. W. A. and elsewhere. They have several common meet­ing places at the homes of friends and at a house where a few of them are living together. If they set out to repeal the law of gravity legally, they could probably do it.”

The Jewish publishing house of Simon U Schuster in a boastful moment, issued a book called The New Dealers in 1934. On page 317, et. seq., it says of Frankfurter:

"Unlike that other great Jew, Bernard M. Baruch, who, after making a fortune in speculation, has mastered the text-book maxims of old-line economics and aspires to be known as the perpetual advisor to all Presidents of all parties at all times and upon all subjects, Frankfurter usually has something to say which is worth hearing.

"Felix more than any other one person is the legal master-mind of the New Deal, altho he is in large part only the transmitter of the apostolic succession of Louis D. Brandeis. Like Brandeis, he cannot watch the game without putting his hands on the

board * * *. His intimacy with Roosevelt dates back to the Wilson Administration when Frankfurter’s work on the War Labor Policies Board brought him in frequent contact with the Navy. Both being of the type 'who keep in touch’ they have continued their association ever since * * * Franklin frequently invited Felix to come to Albany for a general gabble and incidental diagnosis of that ever-interesting patient known as the state of the nation. And Felix urged in letters to his friends and in conversation Roosevelt's nomination for the Presidency, being one of the few liberal intellectuals who saw that Roosevelt was their man. * * *

“When Wallace and Tugwell planned their new farm ad­ministration, they asked Frankfurter to recommend a Soli­citor for the Department of Agriculture. He suggested Jer­ome N. Frank, a liberal Jewish lawyer of Chicago.

“When the first draft of the Securities Bill prepared by Hus­ton Thompson was practically wrecked, Moley sent for Frankfurter to rewrite it. Felix brought down Professor Landis, a younger protege named Ben Cohen, and borrowed still another of his proteges, Thomas G. Corcoran * * * When the Tennessee Valley Authority was organized and needed a smart lawyer, Frankfurter produced David Lilienthal, whom he had been farming out in Wisconsin in training for just such a job. Lilienthal knew public utilities and the laws governing them from right to left. For Secretary Ickes, Frank­furter produced Nathan R. Margold; for Miss Perkins * * * Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr.; and Secretary Hull found waiting for him in the State Department another Frankfurter econ­omic protege in the shape of Herbert Feis.

"Thus there are Frankfurter men established in key posts thruout the Administration. Most of them are young and brilliant heirs to the tradition of Holmes, Brandeis and Car- dozo, transmitted through the Harvard Law School under Professor Felix Frankfurter. * *

"Most of the Frankfurter products brought their own rolls and mustard along to Washington, until there are now be­tween seventy-five to a hundred men in the Administration who studied under Frankfurter * * *. Some Departments and emergency organizations won’t accept any lawyer who is not on the Frankfurter white list. The fact that so many liberal lawyers are Jews has succeeded in giving an accidentally Semitic cast * * * to the legal front of the New Deal * * Roosevelt has discovered what the English have known since the day of Disraeli, that a Jew is a bad servant and a bad master, but a superb partner in any bold enterprise.”

"So Frankfurter’s part in the New Deal was not confined to the provision of its legal personnel. He was an active though detached member of the Brain Trust * * * and he advised the Administration on its main strategy with regard to the Supreme Court. He urged against allowing any of the re­volutionary legislation to come before the Court until Con­gress had reaffirmed its intent by re-enacting the emergency measures. This strategy would also allow the Grim Reaper to do his stuff on some of the conservative dodos on the bench. So Frankfurter advised the Administration to ‘go slow' and that was his parting word to almost every one of his lieutenants in each of the experimental wings of the Roose­velt Revolution.”

The book, from which we take the above quotations, was pub­lished by a Jewish publishing house—a ‘‘bold enterprise” indeed. The book was reviewed in the American Jewish Weekly, with a comment, "Men and not principles make a government."

Fortune, April, 1934, says of Frankfurter:

‘‘The characteristic phenomenon of the New Washington is the dollar-a-day boy, the youngster recently out of Harvard or Yale or Columbia Law School who serves equally gladly the New Deal for the remuneration accepted by the Baruchs and Swopes (during the World War). The War was a crisis for the entire national economy. The New Deal is a crisis for the hopes of a younger generation.”

"The greater number of these youngsters — their ages run from twenty-five to thirty-five with the majority around thirty — are selections, directly or indirectly, of Felix Frank­furter, intimate advisor of the President, Professor of Law, etc., etc., and one of the great teachers of our time — a man whose influence over his students does not end with the awarding of an LL.B. degree. They therefore share Mr. Frankfurter’s point of view."

Paul Mallon, writing in the Chicago Daily News, June 22, 1933, says:

"The spare figure of Prof. Felix Frankfurter, liberal lawyer- economist, darted in and out of the White House unnoticed on several occasions, just before President Roosevelt sent his wealth-sharing tax proposals to Congress. This same Har­vard counselor paid several visits earlier to Hyde Park while the President was there, altho none noted his presence except the sparrows in the trees."

At this point we refer you to Page 89 of this book where you will please again note Mr. Belloc’s words on “the habit of secrecy”. We quote now from Kiplinger writing in Nation’s Business, August, 1935:

"Frankfurter, * * * is now a major influence with the Presi­dent * * *. He has no Government position, and he seldom appears in the flesh in Washington. When he visits there, he visits with Justice Brandeis, and then he goes around to visit with the President. He carries to the Presidential flower the pollen of Brandeis’ social and economic philosophy * * * Taxation of Bigness in Business is a Frankfurter idea.”

Roosevelt told Congress — Message of January 4, 1935, — “We have undertaken a new order of things.’’

"The foreword to his program for the so-called 'new order of things’ was written by another radical English pro­fessor — Harold J. Laski (Jew) who praises Brogan as highly as Brogan praises the radical professor at Harvard * * Felix Frankfurter * * whom Hugh S. Johnson has de­clared in the Saturday Evening Post to be 'the most influen­tial single individual in the United States.’ ”

Chicago American, Nov. 2, 1935.

Pearson and Allen, in the Times-Herald of August 12, 1940, in setting forth the efforts made by the Administration to prevent Col. Lindbergh from speaking to the American people against war over the radio, stated that Lindbergh was close to Col. Truman Smith of the U. S. Army Intelligence. Pearson and Allen then said:

"At any rate, reports of Smith’s collaboration with Lind­bergh, brought to Roosevelt by Justice Felix Frankfurter, caused the President to demand his court-martial. General Marshall, however, persuaded him that this would cause bad public reaction, and instead sent Colonel Smith south to the maneuvers.”

And so we see that even after the Austrian-born Jew Frankfurter became a Justice of our Supreme Court, he was plotting with Roose­velt to degrade and punish a patriotic American Army officer, who did not want to save World Jewry, at the expense of his own country.

Comment on the situation is unnecessary. The little Austrian- Jew who is today the “most influential single individual in the United States” — using his influence on behalf of avowedly alien principles and alien proposals, calling for a radical change in the form of the American Government, overthrowing the precedents of Mar­shall etc., and defending his viewpoint by citing conditions and legis­lation in foreign lands is an unwholesome spectacle.

The Harvard, Yale and Columbia Law Schools, the New York City Bar, Roosevelt and the Jewish judges and lawyers are largely responsible for the monstrous substitution of absolute, administra­tive bureaucracies, operating under the continental European sys­tem for the true and tried English and American rules and principles of adjective law.

JEWISH LAW — THE TALMUD

The following extracts are taken from 1935 edition of The Talmud, published by the Soncino Press, London, — under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, with a Foreword by the Very Rev. The Chief Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz. The edition is stamped ‘‘PRINT­ED IN THE NETHERLANDS/'

The Library of Congress has one set deposited May 6, 1935,

bearing official Library No. 439739, and catalogued BM 500. E6.

In the Foreword, it is stated:

“Only one edition of the Talmud has escaped defacement at the hands of the censors, having been printed in Holland.

It “forms a world of its own that must be judged ac­cording to its own laws."

Vol. I contains the following passages:

“Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law': so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say (to the other party) : ‘This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him/’ (p. 664, taken from Baba Kamma 113a).

“And with all lost things of thy brother, it is to your brother that you make restoration but you need not make restoration to a heathen.” (p. 666, taken from Baba Kamma

113b).

Vol. Ill contains the following:

“The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership/’ (p. 222, taken from Baba Bathra 54b).

Vol. V contains the following:

“Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar re­ligious law.” (Footnote on p. 382).

“For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty.” (p. 388, taken from Sanhedrin 57a.)

“It applies to the withholding of a labourer’s wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.” (p. 388, taken from Sanhedrin 57a, with footnote explana-

128

tion that “Cuthean” is a substitute “for the original goy (heathen) ”.)

“He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written, One who smiteth man (i. e. an Israelite) attacketh the Holy One.” (p. 398, taken from Sanhedrin 58b).

In the eyes of World Jewry, anyone but a Jew, is a heathen, a goy, or a cuthean,—all terms of contempt.

Many passages in this recently authorized edition of the Talmud are so vile and obscene that to print them would be a violation of criminal law.

The well known Jewish author, Josef Kastein, states (in History and Destiny of the Jews, p. 211) that “the laws of the Talmud proved exceedingly efficacious in binding the Jewish people together”, and that the Talmud was “carried with them everywhere” and “became their home”. This is corroborated by the outstanding World Jewry organization B'Nai B’rith, in its recent Fireside Dis­cussion Group pamphlet No. VII, which refers to the “self-governing Talmudic law” for the “world community”. The members of such world community, controlled by such an anti-social and anti-Ameri­can law, creating, in effect, a community of parasites to prey upon other peoples, are, obviously, incapable of assimilation with the laws and ideals of any civilized society founded upon the Christian doc­trine of the universal brotherhood of man.

Consequently, membership in organized World Jewry is patently incompatible with citizenship in the American Republic, and no Jew in America can honestly claim to be a loyal American citizen who recognizes such Talmudic law or has any connection whatever with such organized World Jewry. Nor should any Jew be treated as a loyal American citizen who defends, or fails to denounce, such outrageously anti-American Talmudic law, and certainly not be honored by the highest positions in the judicial, legislative and execu­tive branches of the Government.

The present attitude of the great body of Jews in America has been tersely stated by a leading American Rabbi, Solomon Schindler, in an article published in 1911 entitled “Breaking with Assimilation”, in which he stated:

“Fifty years ago we seemed near assimilation. Then a cloud came up out of the East and covered the world. It brought here to us two millions of people. Whilst they were different from us in appearance and habits, there were

129

ties of blood between us and they brought a new spirit amongst us. They surrounded us like an army.” (Jewish Chronicle, April 28, 1911).

Still more recently, another prominent American Rabbi, Julius T. Loeb, declared, in his autobiography published in “Who’s Who in the Nation’s Capital” (1930), his belief in—

"Jerusalem as head capital of a United States of the world.”

The magazine "The Torch of Israel,” issue of July 1940 (Vol.

• 3), carries an astounding article headed: “THE IDENTITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS MODERN ISRAEL.”

The article falsely describes George Washington, the Father of Our Country, as having Jewish blood, called “the Blood Royal of Israel” (p. 31), and our Nation’s Capital as—

"the great white city—‘the city that lieth four square'— The New Jerusalem."                                                                           P. 32.

Apparently the stage is now set and the curtain arrogantly lifted for an American-Israel to supplement British-Israel in a plan for world domination.

In an article published in the Montreal Daily Star on October

• 1940, by the British-Israel-World Federation (Canada) Incor­porated. with Headquarters in Toronto, it is stated:

"BRITAIN IS ISRAEL”—“Every Prophecy concerning Israel finds its fulfillment in the British Race. * * * The British Empire as the British Commonwealth of Nations alone answers this Description. * * Britain still rules the waves and possesses Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Singapore, etc., etc. * * BECAUSE BRITAIN IS ISRAEL it is essential that the leaders and people of the Empire become possessed of a clear vision regarding the origin and mission of our Race.”

JEWS AND MORALS

SHYLOCK

That souls of animals infuse themselves Into the trunks of men: thy currish spirit Govern’d a wolf, who, hanged for human slaughter,

Even from the gallows did his fell soul fleet,

And, whilst thou lay’st in thy unhallow’d dam,

Infus’d itself in thee; for thy desires Are wolfish, bloody, starv’d, and ravenous.

MERCHANT OF VENICE Act IV—Scene 1.

The criticism of outstanding Jewish leaders on the moral ques­tion, especially as it regards sex (and without venturing further into their known intimacy with the narcotic, liquor and vice traffic), trends from discussion of the wholesale seduction of Hollywood to their identity with the white slave trade. Some of these issues get into the law courts now and then and there is a promise of a "clean-up” but it usually ends there.

The whole of the philosophy of organized World Jewry, and its approach to the moral question, might well be synthesized in the recent cause celebre involving one Bertrand Russell. Russell—Earl Russell, an English "Nobleman” who prefers democratically to ignore his title—was recently appointed by the Trustees of a New York Uni­versity as an instructor. Unhappily for himself, Russell had expressed his views on morality rather too boldly for the "puritanical” minds of certain parents whose children were enrolled in that University and whose tax-monies support it. It so happened that a New York Jew, James Marshall, the son of Louis Marshall, who has figured in this discussion several times, was head of the Board of Higher Education in the city controlling the University in question. On March 30, 1940, Justice McGeehan—in response to a tax-payer’s suit, stated in effect that the action of the Board had illegally established: "A chair of indecency, and, in doing so, had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in direct violation of the public health, safety and morals of the people.”

Justice McGeehan quoted from various books written by Mr. Russell, in which the English Lord stated:

"I think that all sex relations which do not involve children should be regarded as a purely private affair, and that if a man and woman choose to live together without having children, that should be no one’s business but their own. I should not hold it desirable that either a man or woman should enter upon the serious business of marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experi­ence."

The Appellate Division of the New York Courts in upholding Justice McGeehan’s decision relating to Earl Russell said through Presiding Justice Francis Martin:

“People should not be appointed to the board of education who would designate persons who are unfit, or who have been convicted of a crime.”

Lord Russell speaks with authority. His first wife divorced him on the grounds of adultery, the details of which are aired in the English courts. On the subject of the morals of students, the dis­tinguished Lord says:—

“I am sure that university life would be better, both intel­lectually and morally, if most university students had tem­porary childless marriages. This would afford a solution of the sexual urge neither restless nor surreptitious, neither mer­cenary nor casual, and of such a nature that it need not take up time which ought to be given to work.”

The individual speaking, incidentally, is not an American citizen, a factor in the statute which his Jewish supporters ignore. But Lord Russell goes even further and injects himself vigorously in the ques­tion of perversion and degeneracy:

"It is possible that homosexual relations (sodomy, etc.) with other boys would not be very harmful if they were tolerated. but even then there is danger lest they should interfere with the growth or normal sexual life later on.”

A great number of Jewish Rabbis, professors, lawyers, statesmen and financiers, abetted by some radical ministers, professors and lawyers of Christian descent, rushed into their press with fierce and gratuitous condemnation of the Court ruling. Leading the pack was the famous idol of World Jewry, Professor Albert Einstein, Geiman- Jewish refugee, life member of the Institution for Advanced Study at Princeton, a member of several Communistic organizations and pundit on all questions of American politics and life. In a letter io Morris R. Cohen, a Russian-Jew and Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at City

College, New York, Professor Einstein assumed a lofty and superior attitude, in defense of Russell. He said, in part: “Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a humi does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices.”             New York Times, March 19, 1940.

So to Einstein, Jewry’s greatest living idol, those who oppose the appointment of teachers who advocate tolerance for homo-sexu­ality are mediocrities with hereditary prejudices. We have already seen how powerful are the “hereditary prejudices" of the Jew against Christian morals and religion. The amazing thing about Einstein’s statement is not that he made it, but that he did not seem to reckon with the fact that it was mainly his co-members of World Jewry who rushed to Russell's defense, thus identifying themselves in the public mind with an already well founded judgment of its standards of morality. Such support as Russell found from then on came largely from leading Jewish sources. A typical one reads:

“The writings of Bertrand Russell, British philosopher whose appointment to the faculty of the College of the City of New York was recently rescinded, were held up yesterday by Rabbi Louis I. Newman of Congregation Rodeph Sholom * * * 'as examples of ethical and spiritual wisdom.’ ”

New York Herald Tribune, April 14, 1940.

“Rabbi J. Howard Ralbag, at the Jewish Center of Wil- liamsbridge, 2910 Barnes Avenue, the Bronx, said he thought that the ‘mature, wholesome and inspiring’ influence of Ber­trand Russell, whose appointment as a professor at the Col­lege of the City of New York was revoked eight days ago, was ‘beyond reproach.’ ”

New York Times, April, 1940.

In addition to Einstein, other leading Jews who rallied to Rus­sell’s defense were Miss Peatl Bernstein, executive officer of the ap­pointive board, a group of thirty-six members of the radical American League of Writers, and the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, who urged the authorities to ignore the law as it concerned Earl Russell’s citizenship.

A number of Jewish publishers, including Bennett A. Cerf, Alfred- A. Knopf, and W. B. Huebsch, of Viking Press, a strongly Left Wing outfit, said their piece in defense of Russell, as did John Haynes Holmes, a prominent radical minister, Dr. Henry Neuman of the Brooklyn Society for Ethical (?) Culture, Professor Alonzo Meyers of New York University, Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, Professor George

1. Counts, and Professor Horace M. Kallen of the radical School for Social Research, where Professor (now Justice) Frankfurter often spoke, and who has been identified with a number of radical move­ments. The Rev. A. J. Muste, an extreme Left Winger, added his praise of Russell, and Carl Binger of the Willard Straight Post of the American Legion, the only Legion post in the nation to consistently defend radicals and radical organizations, rose in his defense. A number of Jewish members of the Government injected themselves into the picture on the side of Russell. Among them were Nathan R. Margold, Solicitor of the Interior Department, George Bronz, legal advisor to the Bituminous Coal Consumers Council Division; Stanley Surrey of the Treasury Department; Felix S. Cohen of the Board of Appeals of the Interior Department and Samuel Frankel from the Department of Agriculture.

Despite these sickening disclosures and the decisions of the New York courts, the noble Earl, Lord Bertrand Russell, is now lecturing to the select youths of “dear old Harvard’’, and he has been recently advertised to speak at a Town Hall meeting, in the National Capital, under the auspices of religious, social and civic leaders who should have known better.

It was only a year or two before this that Leon Blum, the rich French-Jewish Socialist and Prime Minister was publicly embarrassed by the reminder that he had written a book Du Manage containing certain references which even the least critical described as highly im­moral. In this book, Blum not only advocated incest between brother and sister but recommended that girls throw off their 'virginity gayly and early.’ After discussing this recommendation, Francis Yeats- Brown says in his European Jungle, (p. 193):

"From morning to night, * * the French citizen pays his tribute to the tribes of Israel. His coffee comes from the Cohens of Haifa; his bread has been handled by Louis-Drey- fus: when he listens to his radio he enriches the half-Jew, Louis Mercier; his newspapers are full of Jewish advertise­ments, especially of the patent medicines of Levi and Vidal; the Intransigeant is owned by L. L. Dreyfus, the Populaire by Lazarus Brothers, the Figaro by M. Cotnareanu, the Petit Parisien and Excelsior by M. Braun, and the Stock Exchange swarms with Levis, Lazards, Rothschilds, Cohens, Davids, Weils, Mayers, Sterns, Blochs, Baumanns, and their friends and relations.”

That sodomy was not sporadic in Sodom and Gomorrah, but a continuous characteristic of many Jews, is evidenced by the fact that Sodom is denounced thirty-nine times in the Old and New Testa­ments.

"Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.”

Isaiah, Ch. 1., v. 9.

"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

Gospel according to St. Matthew, Ch. 10., v. 15.

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.’’

The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Ch. 11., v. 8.

Jews control 90% of the production of liquor, and most of its distribution in metropolitan centers. In the Nation’s Capital Jew Milton S. Kronheim Sf Son, Inc. publishes a “Beverage Bulle­tin”. An application was recently made for the transfer of a license for a liquor store to a residential neighborhood, which was protested by a number of churches and property owners. Before final action was made known by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Kronheim's paper secured a “scoop”, stating that the Board would grant the per­mit. If national prohibition should again return, the Jewish control of the liquor business with their insistence upon letting the bars down, violating regulations, increasing the number of saloons, locating them in proximity to homes and churches, and selling to minors and drunk­ards, can be held responsible. The Jewish control of race-track gambling, the numbers or policy rackets, and the slot machines, which feed on and cheat the very poor, is beyond question.

In the field of poronographic literature and movies Jews, as anyone can easily ascertain, have almost a monopoly. During the past two decades in particular they have been extensively active in the United States in the writing and distribution of salacious books, and during the past five years at least a dozen such books have been subject to public controversy because of their indecency. An investigation will show that modern perversion of art and music are largely the result of Jewish influence.

The Jew Moving Picture industry has made many contributions to the undermining of morality in America through pictures and newsreels having such a tendency, and utilizing the system of block­booking to compel their introduction to houses which would not voluntarily accept them. The industry also loses no opportunity to produce and distribute pictures and newsreels to get America to fight

and die for World Jewry, and the Christians pay for their intended slaughter. Jimmie Rossevelt’s recent employment, at a fabulous sal­ary, obviously suggests harmony on the part of his family with what is going on in the industry, which no member of his family has sought to correct.

As reported by the Associated Press, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, has recently obtained a list of forty-two of the moving-picture industry’s foremost figures—actors and actresses, writers, producers and directors, in connection with a showing that Hollywood's film colony has been a prime source of Communist party revenue and recruiting.

Cruelty of the Jewish motion picture magnates to animals, par­ticularly to horses used in moving pictures, has recently been dis­closed, but we, Gentiles, should realize that the Jews are a law unto themselves and are permitted in the name of religion, to have their Rabbis, of course for compensation, superintend the killing of ani­mals for food, according to methods which the Association to Prevent Cruelty to Animals is not permitted to prevent.

Jewish perpetration of grossly immoral bolshevism is indicated by what our American Ambassador to Russia wrote in January 1918:

"The bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and ninety per cent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country, but are internationalists, and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution.” Russia From the American Embassy, by David R. Francis, P. 214.

It is further shown by what the Netherlands Minister to Russia wrote on September 6, 1918:

“The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once the civilization of the whole world will be threatened.” “I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshev­ism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even ex­cluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

Foreign Relations of the United States: 1918. Russia. (published by U. S. State Dept.) , Vol. I, pp. 678-9. British White Paper "Russia No. 1, April 1919”, p. 6, on "Bolshevism in Russia”.

136

JEWS AND RELIGION

“And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

“Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

“And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

“So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

Gospel according to St. Matthew, C/j.28,v12 to 15

It is properly the spirit of both the Protestant and Catholic churches in the United States to decry every suggestion of religious persecution and to promote the spirit of tolerance. The Jew — on behalf of his person, his rights before the law, his property and, above all his religion — demands all we can give of tolerance and respect. He insists upon them as his natural “right”. He understands, perhaps better than we ourselves, the instinctive dislike of the Anglo- Saxon American for persecution for any cause, good or bad, and our respect for religious freedom. It is a pity that the Jew does not reciprocate.

Whenever the question of the Jew and the Christian religion comes up, the Christian is reminded of the sweet virtues of tolerance. He is told that Jesus taught that he must “love his neighbor as him­self”. The Jew uses this argument with enthusiasm whenever World Jewry is attacked for its offenses against society. Is it not, then, time to question whether the Jew himself practices what he preaches? Does not the Jew, himself the originator of the Ghetto as a symbol of his exclusiveness, practice exclusion, indulge in hatred, contempt and arrogance?

"The Western mind is incapable of thinking religiously.” A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Harry Wator.. a Jew, p. 185.

“The time will come when all Christians will become mature, they will all embrace Judaism, and they will all justify them­selves by deeds. Then the Christians will become Jews.”

Ibid. p. 174.

"With deep insight into history Jesus foresaw what would happen to the Christians, that they would waste the trea­sure with harlots, but in due time the Christians will come back to Jehovah, and Jehovah will be glad to receive them.”

Ibid. p. 176.

"The Jews have always been with Jehovah, and all that Jehovah has belongs to the Jews.”                                               Ibid. p. 177.

"There never was a time when any Jew believed that Jeho­vah spoke to Moses or to the Prophets in any other sense than we believe today that Cod — that is, existence — re­veals himself through the minds of a Spinoza, a Hegel, a Marx, an Einstein and the like.”

Ibid. p. 217.

"His (God’s) intention will be realized through bloody struggles, wars and revolutions; the present social order will be destroyed together with all institutions that are bound up with the present social order. State capitalism and fascism will take the place of the present social order.”

Ibid. p. 225.

"Christianity does not concern itself about the material world * * its sole concern is immortality * *; it does not concern itself about conduct, its sole concern is faith * *”

Ibid. p. 118.

Christianity, therefore, is unhistoric and unmoral."

Ibid. p. 121.

"I cannot help feeling that Communism, whatever its ex­ponents may say, has recovered that essential core of a real belief in God, which organized Christianity has in our day largely lost.”

Ibid. p. 125.

"* * * this regenerated and true Christianity must identify itself with Marxism and communism.”

Ibid. p. 124.

"Only Judaism is a historic and moral religion; all other religions are neither historic nor moral.”

Ibid. p. 131.

" * * * between the Catholics and the Communists there is a life and death struggle because the Catholics regard their idea of co-operation as being right, true and good, while the idea of co-operation of the Communists the Catholics regard as wrong, false and evil * * *.”

Ibid. p. 136.

"The Communists are against religion, and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature

of Communism, we see that it is essentially nothing else than a religion."

Ibid. p. 138.

"But the Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism."

Ibid. ps. 143-144.

"The Jews should welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews.”

Ibid. p. 148.

"The Jews cannot be a part of a real national unity.”

Ibid. p. 201.

The above statements, read in the light of the power of the Jews whenever the question of national unity has been at stake — in the World War and again in the New Deal "emergencies” — are most enlightening. Waton’s book, with all its amazing frankness and its disclosures of Jewish attitudes is, at least, an honest expression of Jewish thought by one who is no stranger to the subject.

RABBI BROWNE

The approach of the eminent, imported, English-Jew Rabbi and American College Professor, Lewis Browne, however, is somewhat more offensive. He appears to think it his duty to mock the Chris­tian religion and especially Christian morals. An associate of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and an imported teacher in a Western University, Browne recently made hilarious fun of American traditions and American morality, in an address on the Town Hall of the Air. In his book. Stranger than Fiction, Browne attacked Martin Luther in the following intemperate words:

"He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Pass- over. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots.”

“Those other lands were Christian, and they boiled with bigotry. The rulers themselves were more or less tolerant, for they depended upon Jews as their financiers. But the lower classes had no use for them, and butchered them when­ever a righteous excuse could be found.

“And righteous excuses were not wanting. If a plague broke out, of course the Jews had poisoned the wells. If a war was lost, of course the Jews had aided the enemy. If a boy mys­teriously disappeared, of course the Jews had murdered him to procure blood for their Passover drink * *

Ibid. p. 217.

"The doctrines which the Jews had been spreading through­out the land for years could not hut have helped to under­mine the Church’s power."

Ibid. p. 222.

Of the Catholics, he says:

“So against both the Albigenses and the Jews this pope now directed ail his fury. * * * The beautiful city of Beziers was razed to the ground. ‘We spared neither dignity, nor sex nor age' writes the monk, Arnold, to his Holy Father, the pope. ‘Nearly twenty thousand human beings perished by the sword. And after the massacre the town was plundered and burnt, and the revenge of God seemed to rage over it in a wonderful manner.”

Ibid. p. 224.

“And finally it came Spain’s turn. Persecution had occurred there on and off for over a century, and, after 1391, became almost incessant. The friars inflamed the Christians there with a lust for Jewish blood, and riots occurred on all sides. For the Jews it was simply a choice between baptism and death, and many of them submitted to baptism.”

"But almost always conversion on these terms was only out­ward and false. Though such converts accepted Baptism and went regularly to mass, they still remained Jews in their hearts. They were called Maranos, ‘Accursed Ones,’ and there were perhaps a hundred thousand of them. Often they pos­sessed enormous wealth. Their daughters married into the noblest families, even into the blood royal, and their sons sometimes entered the Church and rose to the highest offices. It is said that even one of the popes was of this Marano stock.”

Some of Rabbi Professor Browne's choicest irony appears in his book, This Believing World.

"Much of the old love for Isis, and especially for Cybele, the Great Mother of the Gods, was taken over into the church and translated into the worship of Mary, the Mother of Christ

* * * Similarly the worship of the old local deities was made a part of Christianity. The pagan gods and goddesses were discreetly made over into Christian saints, as is instanced by the case of St. Bridget. (Here Browne reproduces a sketch of St. Bridget which resembles an obscene cartoon far more than a Saint of the Church). Their ‘relics’ were sold far and wide in Christendom as fetishes guaranteed to ward off evil; and their ancient festive days were made part of the Chris­tian calendar. The Roman Parilia in April became the Festi­val of St. George, and the pagan midsummer orgy in June was converted into the Festival of St. John; the holy day of Diana in August became the Festival of the Assumption of The Virgin; and the Celtic feast of the dead in November was changed into the Festival of All Souls. The twenty-fifth day of December, the winter solstice according to ancient reck­oning—celebrated the birthday of the sun-god of Mithraism, was accepted as the birthday of Christ, and the spring rites in connection with the death and re-birth of the mystery gods were converted into the Easter rites of the Crucifixion and Resurrec­tion.”                                                Ibid. ps. 294-295.

As Rabbi Browne mocks the Catholic Church, he makes sport of the Protestant believers, in the same light-hearted vein.

‘‘Protestantism includes every type of religious thought and organization from ‘high church' Anglicanism to high-prin­cipled Quakerism, from ecstatic Methodism to relentlessly intellectual Unitarianism. Only slowly, and with many pangs is even Protestantism shaking off the religion about Christ.”                  Ibid. p. 300.

On the subject of sex morals — a field in which he seems to be most competent and where he is a defender of the defender-of-per- version Bertrand Russell, Browne expatiates as follows:

"Christianity has always looked on sex as in some way in­decent and sinful; and for that reason most Christians can­not possibly associate a truly religious nature with an un­suppressed libido. But that is no more than a prejudice.”

Ibid. p. 326.

In 1924, the noted Jewish writer and editor, Maurice Samuel, published a book entitled "You Gentiles", declaring the impossibility of Jewish assimilation with any nation except a worldwide Jewish one. Many striking statements in the book illuminate such view­point, as follows:

"I suspected from the first dawning of Jewish self-con­sciousness that Jew and gentile are two worlds, that between you gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf.” (p. 9.)

"Wherever the Jew is found he is a problem, a source of

unhappiness to himself and to those around him. Ever since he has been scattered in your midst he has had to maintain a continuous struggle for the conservation of his identity.” (P- 10.)

"Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities com­pared with that which divides all of you from us.” (p. 12.)

"You may even have Jews in your midst who did not learn their way of life from us, and did not inherit it from a Jewish forebear. We may have authentic gentiles in our midst: these single protests are of no account; they are extreme and irrelevant variations.” (p. 21.)

"7 do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconciliable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irri­tation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever.” (p. 23.)

“You have your way of life, we ours. In your system of life we are essentially without ‘honor’. In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you must forever appear Godless.” (p. 34.)

“We belong to the One mastering God: you belong to the republic of playful gods.” (p. 36.)

"Our Jewishness is not a creed—it is ourself, our totality.

"Indeed, it may be fairly said that the surest evidence of your lack of seriousness in religion is the fact that your religions arc not national, that you are not compromised and dedicated, en masse, to the faith.” (p. 73.)

“In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew. Is your God an Englishman or an American?” (p. 75.)

"When Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours.” (p. 111.)

“We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.” (p. 155.)

“One thing is quite certain: a Jew is never baptized for the purpose of becoming a Christian; his purpose is to become a gentile. Yet obviously you do not make a gentile of a Jew by baptizing him any more than you would make an Aryan of a negro by painting him with ocher.” (p. 191.)

“We cannot assimilate: it is so humiliating to us that

we become contemptible in submitting to the process: it is so exasperating to you that, even if we were willing to submit, it would avail us nothing.” (p. 209.)

“Perhaps nothing that you have ever feared from the economic tyranny of Socialism approaches the oppressive spiritual tyranny of your great democracies.” (p. 213.)

It is strange indeed that patriotic Americans are invariably charged by leaders of World Jewry with religious intolerance if the anti- American and anti-social activities of organized World Jewry be so much as mentioned. Yet. to its own members, organized World Jewry frankly admits that it is not a religion.

The outstanding World Jewry organization, B’Nai B’rith, re­cently proclaimed, in its Fireside Discussion Group pamphlet No. VII, that organized World Jewry is “a world community", whose members are a “developed social type”, that those who become pro­fessed Christians, or even confirmed atheists, are not excluded from membership, and that, consequently, it "cannot be described as being a religion”.

This condition is corroborated in the latest “Who’s Who in American Jewry”, where Litvinov (Finkelstein) and Trotsky (Braunstein) are both featured as specially illustrious members, not­withstanding (if not because of) their notorious records as atheists, communists and bloody revolutionists. This strange condition is made even stranger by the inclusion of a number of Christian Clergy (Protestant Ministers and Catholic Priests) in this latest Jewish Who's Who. Surely, Christianity (which represents the universal brotherhood of man in a very true sense) cannot be compounded with atheism, communism and bloody revolution for human subju­gation and degradation. If present-day Judaism can be so com­pounded, it is manifest that it cannot be a religion in any legitimate sense of the term, and is far removed from the original Hebrew religion.

Prof, Albert Einstein, German-Jewish refugee and Jewry's great­est living idol, according to an Associated Press Dispatch of Septem­ber 11, 1940, in an address at the Conference of Science, Philosophy and Religion at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, urged religious teachers to “give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.” Prof. Einstein obviously in­tended the word "priests” to include ministers and preachers as well as priests. This is another way of advocating the false doctrine of Marx (Mordecai), Lenin, and Trotsky (Bronstein) that religion is the opium of the people.

ROOSEVELT —NEW DEAL — COMMUNISTS —
WORLD JEWRY

"God give us men! A time like this demands

Strong minds, stout hearts, true faith and ready hands;

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who express opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie;

Men who can stand before a demagogue

And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking;

Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fogs In public deeds and in private thinking.

For while the rabble with their thumb-worn creeds,

Their large professions and their little deeds,

Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps!"

Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps!"

The New Deal, through its leader, President Roosevelt and the chorus of his satellites, warns us that we must prepare to "defend” ourselves against a foreign aggressor. A tremendous drive is under way to arm this nation on a scale never before in our history, with a Stalin-like regimentation of men, women, children and all industry.

Leave out of the discussion for the moment, whether this danger is real or just another grossly exaggerated New Deal ' emergency” and whether these billions are for defense or for Roosevelt aggression on foreign soil for World Jewry and the British Jewish Empire. Let us concern ourselves with the question: "What have Roosevelt and the New Dealers done, in terms of domestic policy, to prepare us for this hysterical effort?”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt went into office in March, 1933, with a tremendous majority in both houses of Congress, the enthusiastic support of the entire country, the hopes of the people, and a platform which, he told the nominating convention. "I endorse 100%”.

Six months later that platform looked like Belgium when Hitler got through with it. Its authors would not have recognized its mangled remains. With that event the tried, experienced and trusted Democratic Party — the Party the people thought they voted into office in November 1932 — died. Its historic functions were taken over by a crowd of invaders who no more resemble true Democrats than Felix Frankfurter resembles Thomas Jefferson. Bull-Moosers,

and professional social workers, reformers, revolutionaries, visionaries, radicals, communists, the “president-can-do-no-wrongers”, political bankrupts and political prostitutes, a generous sprinkling of bemused Southern hereditary Democrats, the Hague machine, the Kelly-Nash machine, the Pendergast machine, some loose cogs from Tammany Hall, the Huey Long gang, the promoters of the millenium, the opportunists, the McCoy machine of Rhode Island, the Creel-Mc- Adoo-Olsen machine of California, the pinks and Reds, the Youth Congress and the Communist Party, the professional nostrum dis­pensers, and a potent fringe of “Big Business” who are selling all sorts of machines to the New Deal bureaus, buying insurance from Jimmy Roosevelt and licking their chops in anticipation of war pro­fits on munitions, etc.

Add to this galaxy the habitual malingerers who always infest every nation, the Fifth Column of professional “foreigners", a swarm of termite Jews, the professional reliefers and indigents, the subsidized propagandists for the higher life, and a lunatic fringe of chronic mal­contents.

We have already mentioned some of the more prominent Jews who led this army of invaders of the Government. Among the better known or more influential of those not yet men­tioned, were: Justice Sam Rosenmen of New York, credited by Ray­mond Moley in After Seven Years as one of Roosevelt’s real inti­mates: Gerard Swope, rich industrialist, said by many to have been the father of the unconstitutional NRA, if not of much of the New Deal itself: his brother, Herbert Bayard Swope, race-track owner and publicity man; Gov. Herbert Lehman of New York, long ago des­cribed by Roosevelt as “My good right arm": Prof. Harold Laski of Oxford, British-Jew Radical and powerful in the New Deal back­ground: David Lilienthal, head of TVA, one of the New Deal’s socialistic experiments: J. David Stern, radical publisher, now on the Federal Reserve Board: Nathan Straus, advisor on housing: Jesse Strauss, first New Deal Ambassador to France: E. A. Goldenweiser, Russian-Jew director of the Federal Reserve Board: David Dubinsky, Polish-Jewish advisor on labor problems and C. I. O. leader: Lee Pressman, pro-Communist labor leader and now counsel for C. I. O: Abe Fortas, counsel to several New Deal bureaus: Charles Michael- son, former Republican publicity man, then smearer of Hoover ad­ministration, now in charge of publicity for Democratic National Committee: Lawrence Steinhardt, now Ambassador to Soviet Russia: Harry F. Guggenheim, heir to copper millions, advisor on aviation: Arthur Garfield Hays, advisor on civil liberties, and active in defense

of Scottsboro criminals and Communists; Mordecai Ezekial, most influential in agricultural matters under New Deal, now an official of Department of Agriculture; David Lasser, bead of radical Worker’s Alliance, who has strongly influenced New Deal in keeping relief rolls at highest possible peak; Adolph Sabath, Chairman of all-powerful House Rules Committee; Emanuel Geller, head of House Judiciary Committee; Sol Bloom, head of House Foreign Affairs Committee and traducer of George Washington; Samuel Dickstein, Chairman of the House Immigration Committee (whose efforts have hamstrung every patriotic attempt to restrict immigration in both quantity and quality) ; Henry Morgenthau, gentleman-farmer and Secretary of the Treasury; Herbert Feis, State Department counsel, whose voice, according to Moley, Alsop and Kintner, and other writers, has colored New Deal foreign policy; Prof. Albert Einstein, German-Jew and refugee “scientist”, member of several pro-Com- munist organizations and often a White House guest; Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, radical propagandist who has coerced New Deal immigra­tion policies and who once said that he was a "Jew first—an Ameri­can after that”; Rose Schneidermann, called, in New York, “Red Rose”, dominant in labor politics; Max Zaritsky, left wing labor advisor; James P. Warburg, heir to Warburg millions, who, after giving early aid to New Deal, fled to shelter of Republican Party and is today back in New Deal favor; Isador Lubin, statistician of De­partment of Labor; Nathan Margold, counsel to several New Deal bureaus and accused by Indians of trying to “communize” them while he was counsel to Indian Bureau; the late William I. Sirovich, one-time head of House Patents Committee; the late Samuel Unter- myer, credited by Moley and others with sponsoring much of early New Deal and its radical legislation; Leo Wolman, labor advisor and active in labor legislation; Sidney Hillman, C. I. O. leader, friend of Lenin and Trotsky, very recently anti-Communist, now one of Roosevelt’s seven leaders of “preparedness’ drive; Bennie Cohen, driv­ing-force of New Deal "must” legislation and lobbyist for Roosevelt; Louis Kirstein, associate of late A. L. Filene, Jew Boston millionaire for whose company young John Roosevelt is now an executive; Charles Wyzanski, Jr., former Counsel to Madame Perkins’ Department of Labor; Chas. Taussig, molasses millionaire, advisor to the New Deal in its early days and now the employer of Dr. Rex Tugwell, the young Brain Truster whose stay in Washington was devoted to “mak­ing America over”. Among the hundreds of other Jews now in the Government or who flit in and out at intervals, and who have been employed at one time or another, are: Jacob Straus; Lucian Koch,

thrown out of his job as head of the notorious Commonwealth Col­lege of Mena, Arkansas, of which the wife and sister of Mr. Justice Brandeis were financial supporters, and given a job in the New Deal; Jerome Frank, present head of the S.E.C.; Louis H. Bean of the De­partment of Agriculture: Abraham M. Fox, former research director of the Tariff Commission; Benedict Wolf of the National Labor Rela­tions Board; William Leiserson of the National Labor Relations Board; David J. Saposs of the National Labor Relations Board; L. H. Seltzer, head economist of the Treasury; Edward Berman, Department of Labor; Jacob Perlman of the Department of Labor; Morris L. Jacobson, chief statistician of the Government Research Project; A. H. Meyers, New England division of the National Labor Relations Board; Jack Levin, assistant general manager of the Rural Electrification Au­thority; Harold Loeb, economic consultant for the N.R.P.; William Seagle, attorney for the Petroleum Labor Policy Board; Herman A. Gray, member policy committee of the National Housing Confer­ence; Alexander Sachs of Lehman Bros., early consultant of the New Deal, as was Paul Mazur, also of Lehman Bros.

The list is as long, if not longer, today than it was in 1933. To name them all would claim a substantial part of the New York and Washington City Directories and most of the B’nai Brith. Like Hitler on the Western Front, swarms of Jews have consolidated their positions in the New Deal and are taking over Americans to die for World Jewry.

Under the influence of these Jews and some "liberal” Gentile Fronts, the New Deal proceeded to make America over. One of their first acts was to debase our currency by reducing the value of the dol­lar to 59c; then to repudiate our obligations, domestic and inter­national, by going off the gold standard. In an alleged attempt to raise agricultural prices, great fields of grain were plowed under, and millions of pigs and cattle were destroyed. The relief rolls were pad­ded by the addition of thousands of persons whose jobs or relief checks depended upon their voting for the New Deal.

By crying "Emergency”, the President took away from Congress its Constitutional duty to write all legislation, and shoved down the throats of the crying representatives of the people, scores of bills writ­ten by the sly and facile pens of the "Happy Hot-Dogs” of Felix Frankfurter.

Hundreds of illegally appointed publicity men were encouraged to belabor the brains and ability of true Americans and assault the ideas and ideals of the sober, hard-working middle classes, while the

President himself took the lead in mocking the "economic royalists” and ‘ princes of privilege”.

Billions of dollars, today needed for a defense program, were squandered or boondoggling. Just a few samples of the many follow:

Thousands of dollars were spent for a community service cam­paign in Tempe, Arizona; to drain a piggery in Massachusetts, and to measure the area and cubic contents of buildings in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Uncle Sam hired a fan-dancer to entertain the C.C.C. in Min­nesota, and $19,000 was spent in Memphis to buy a dog-pound.

A Guide Book to the United States — in one of which George Washington Parke Custis was vilely slandered by a Jew author on "information” furnished by a negro research "expert” — cost you and me $2,689,000, or one dollar per word.

Johnston City, Illinois, asked for money to erect a flood control project but was refused and thousands of dollars were given to teach its unemployed how to play checkers, and to teach dancing, bridge and pinochle.

More thousands was the cost to the W.P.A. to relocate a brook at Winchester, Mass.

It cost us several thousand more to take a census of the trees in Harrisburg, Pa.

We spent still more thousands to build a waterhole on a fox- farm in Everett, Mass, and to blow away an overhanging rock at Buncombe, Wisconsin.

And while this was going on, our President says he knew, that we were facing the greatest crisis of our existence in which we would, as we are now told, need uncounted billions for defense!

One of the President’s favorite subjects for condemnation has been the "unscrupulous money-changers”. Let us quote from the Seattle Business-Chronicle, issue of February 2, 1936:

"In view of Mr. Roosevelt’s * * scolding of ‘the money­changers’ — and his own operations as a money-changer' in the boom years before the collapse of 1929, Spokane investors who bought $300,000 of his Cameo Stock will be interested in the recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune: ‘He talks of "unscrupulous money-changers” and forgets that he ran a neat little pool in German marks, when the exchange rates were running wild.’

He speaks, with justified contempt of ‘the manipulations of dishonest speculators', conveniently forgetting those stock­peddling circulars of only a few years ago, which bore his name. Mr. Roosevelt, who lent his name and * * reputation

to the flotation of Cameo, one of the wildest of boom-time speculations, now dares to denounce stock-jobbery. The suck­ers who placed faith in the business competence of Franklin

1. Roosevelt, director of the Consolidated Automatic Vend­ing Machine Company, do not speak over nation-wide hook­ups, but they have not forgotten.” (Henry Morgenthau, Jr., also lent his name to the same venture.)

Further illumination is obtainable from Country Squire in the White House, by Flynn, P. 35:

"For instance in 1927 Roosevelt and another set of directors organized the International Germanic Company. The directors met and organized in his law office. This company was going to finance German industries and buy the stocks of German corporations. This company too wound up in receivership.

"Another promotion of Mr. Roosevelt had to do with the airplane. * * He and others organized the American Inves­tigation Corporation and the General Air Service to operate dirigibles between New York and Chicago. * * * Altogether there were six or seven of these promotions only one of which turned out well—a small company to speculate in German shares. It sold its own shares for German marks and then used the marks in Germany, where the value was still better than abroad, to buy German shares.”

The worst of the New Deal’s many offenses against the people took place under the W.P.A. The most lurid of these were the so- called Arts Projects, under which writers, painters, musicians, actors and playwrights were paid to libel America and its citizens and to conduct open Communistic propaganda. Its director was Hallie Flanagan, frequent guest of Stalin in the Soviet and member of the Board of Editors of the Communistic magazine, New Theatre. She was given an initial fund of $27,000,000. Among those pro-Commu- nist and radical theatre workers to whom Mrs. Flanagan gave im­mediate employment were Virgil Geddes, Alfred Kreymbourgh (Jew­ish author of a foul revolutionary poem “America”), Meyer Levin, one of whose plays was so obscene that even the “liberal” city admin­istration of Chicago banned it: Langston Hughes, negro fellow- traveler: Michael Gold, recently convicted of labor blackmail in New York, and a Communist-Jew on the staff of the Daily Worker; Up­ton Sinclair: Ben Blake, Elmer Rice (Reizenstein), Jewish play­wright: Jacob Baker, Jewish assistant to Harry Hopkins when he was head of the W.P.A., and Clifford Odets, Communistic-Jew play­wright: Philip Barber, John Bonn, John Howard Lawson. Albert Maltz, Augustus Smith, M. Blankfort, H. W. L. Dana (radical Bos­ton professor hauled up several years ago on a perversion charge), George Sklar, P. 8 C. Sifton — all members of the American branch of the International Union of the Revolutionary Theatre — went to work under Mrs. Flanagan. The “P. Sifton” mentioned was later appointed as Assistant Administrator of the Wages and Hour Act.

Under the “Arts Project” division of the W.P.A., Jew Jacob Baker, appointed, as head of the Music Division, Nikolai Sokoloff, Russian-American director, and as head of the Creative Arts section, Holger Cahill, "fellow-traveler” and former member of the I.W.W.

The Writer’s Project was headed by Henry Alsberg, the Jew traducer of Geoge Washington Parke Custis, father of Mrs. Robert

1. Alsberg's right bower was Orrick Johns of the Communist magazine Neiv Masses; Reed Harris, too red even for Columbia Uni­versity and expelled for that reason: Leonard D. Abbott, Alsberg's field supervisor, an outstanding Anarchist: George Cronyn, "fel­low traveler”, and Floyd Dell of the American Society for Cul­tural Relations with Soviet Russia. One anti-Communist Gentile, Samuel Duff McCoy, accidentally got a job with the Writer’ Project, but was kicked out by Alsberg and Johns, as was Major William L. Ball, treasurer of the Theatre Project, who made the mistake of protesting against the Communistic nature of Mrs. Flanagan’s plays.

Among the flagrantly Communistic plays produced under Mrs. Flanagan, who, incidentally, is an intimate friend of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, were:

"Triple A, Plowed Under”, in which Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party of America is depicted as reversing a Supreme Court decision:

"Battle Hymn” by Mike Gold and Michael Blankfort, a play whose set-model was displayed in New York’s Communist Worker’s Bookshop:

"Turpentine”, a story about negro revolt in the South, in which religion is mocked and the negroes depicted as shooting the white "bosses”:

"We Live and Laugh” produced by the Yiddish Theatre Unit and praised by the Daily Worker;

"Prisoner 1936”, a review produced by the Yiddish Unit whose keynote is put in the words of one of its characters: “We love Amer­ica as one of the most beautiful flowers in the bouquet of the world Soviets of tomorrow.”

"America, America,” an obscene argument for revolution:

"The Dance of Death.” which not even the Daily Worker could pretend to explain:

"Class of ’29”, also praised by the Daily Worker;

It is a matter of record that the W.P.A. Theatre Project did not produce in all of its all-too-long existence — a single anti-Com- munist play or production.

The Jewish controlled Press and Radio concealed or played down these facts from Gentile America.

The Theatre Project was particularly active in making propa­ganda movies for use in C.C.C. camps. Aroused by a flood of pro­tests, Congress recently refused further funds for these "creative” arms of the Communist movement.

Roosevelt's R.E.R.A. appointed Hilda Smith, described by Drew Pearson and Robert Allen, Washington columnists, as Harry Hop­kins’ "Professor of Communism", director of worker’s education. Her job was to teach the teachers of some 50,000 American workers enrolled in work-projects schools. She was a member of the board of the notorious Commonwealth College of Mena, Arkansas, and though she denied teaching Communism, she ordered the use of Earl Browder's books as textbooks, as well as the Moscow Primer. Mrs. Smith was defended by Mrs. Roosevelt when she was criticized for her acts.

The Rev. Joseph Thorning, S. J. writing in America (Oct. 5, 1935), stated that under Mrs. Smith, students in the worker’s schools were forbidden to sing the Star Spangled Banner and en­couraged to sing the Internationale.

The New Republic for June 10, 1936, states that both President and Mrs. Roosevelt opposed "social discrimination” against the ne­gro, and Mrs. Roosevelt, on numerous occasions encouraged Govern­ment agencies to banish all "discrimination” against the colored race.

Incidentally, Mr. Roosevelt appointed Lucien Koch (head of Commonwealth College) to the consumer’s division of the short­lived N.R.A. after the Arkansas Legislature had dosed the school because of its almost indescribable immorality.

The story of the New Deal support to the radical Youth Con­gress is recent news. It is enough to point out that, despite the fact that Mrs. Roosevelt got young William Hinckley, head of the Youth Congress, a job on the Federal payroll as assistant to the head of the Department of Education, the Youth Congress, in its recent Washington meeting, was so embarrassingly blatant in its sympathies for Soviet Russia, that the President was forced to administer a mild spanking on the White House lawn and Mrs. Roosevelt to withdraw her more overt support of the body. During their stay in the Capi­tol, she entertained several of the officers of the Congress in the White House and even provided overnight hospitality to some of them.

In 1936, Roosevelt, after receiving high praise from the left-wing Co-operative League of the U. S. A., sent a three-man delegation to Europe to study the cooperative movement. The men he selected were all known left-wingers:

1. Charles E. Stuart, vice-president of the Export-Import Bank, set up to facilitate loans to Soviet Russia, director of the Russian- American Chamber of Commerce, and lecturer at the New School for Social Research of which Mrs. Roosevelt is a director:
2. The ineffable Mr. Jacob Baker, vice-president of the Com­munist aiding Garland Fund, a radical back-log for several communist organizations; and
3. Leland Olds, former industrial editor of the Communist Fed­erated Press, the Soviet-Russian news-agency in the United States, of which William Z. Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party in this country, was the head. In mid-June of 1940 Roosevelt gave Olds — one-time Industrial Editor of the pro-Communist Federated Press, the delicate task of ‘protecting’ our entire electric power system from sabotage by the ‘Fifth Column.’

Probably the most serious of all these attacks upon the American form of Government and our way of life have been the President's unconcealed attempts to stimulate class warfare, by methods both direct—such as attacks upon individuals who opposed his policies— and indirect, by coddling of aliens, agitators and radicals to conduct their own foul brand of warfare. He allowed his alien-minded Secretary of Labor to grant unlimited visas to hordes cf Jews, European scum and criminals, and encouraged her to defy those who fought such action.

While professing to be “profoundly disturbed" by the aggression of anti-Semitic Germany, he continued his special friendship for Soviet Russia after its attacks upon Outer Mongolia, Poland, Latvia, Es- thonia, Lithuania and Finland. Professing an adoration for “democ­racy” he refused, as the Jews control 90 per cent of the scrap iron business, to invoke the Neutrality Act against Japan in its war on China, or against Russia when, with Germany, she invaded Poland and attacked Finland. He extended a warm welcome to the Com­munist Ambassador Oumansky when he presented his credentials and, on the same day, displayed marked coldness toward the newly- appointed Ambassador from Christian Spain.

Within the last few days Joe Davies (who says he is not a Jew), guardian of Post Toasties millions, former Ambassador to Russia and Belgium, now special assistant to the Secretary of State, honored

at a royal entertainment Oumansky, Ambassador from Joe Stalin's Soviet Russia.

Roosevelt's official subordinates have persecuted honest opponents of the New Deal through abuse of the Income Tax Statutes, and drop­ped charges against the Huey Long machine, based on those Statutes, when Long died, and his political heirs rushed to Washington to make peace.

He winked at the W.P.A. when it openly and brazenly coerced votes of the poor and needy on behalf of New Deal candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.

He allowed the Democratic National Committee to borrow an immense sum from the radical and Communist-penetrated C.I.O.— and used that money for campaign purposes. He paid off this debt, in part, by blandly looking the other way when the C.I.O. began its war on industry by means of sit-down strikes. He rewarded the outstanding apologist of the sit-down, Governor Frank Murphy, by making him first Attorney General and then a Justice of the Supreme Court.

He protected and defended his National Labor Relations Board when its illegal assumptions of authority and abuse of the statutes became a public scandal.

He refused to entertain patriotic protest when Madame Perkins admitted such notorious revolutionaries as John Strachey and Tom Mann, English-Communists; Henri Barbusse, French-Communist; "Red” Emma Goldman, anarchist; Sandor Garbai, Hungarian- Jewish Communist and associate of the murderer Bela Kun; and Hans Eisler, writer of Communist songs, a German-Jew refugee; who, incidentally, is now a lecturer at the radical New School for Social Research, of which Mrs. Roosevelt is a director.

He ardently supported the Socialist Party’s recommendation for the cancellation of the war debts by taking no steps to collect them. He gagged the Naval Intelligence Department when it disclosed the extent of the Communist movement.

No greater offense to this nation could have been committed than Roosevelt's recognition of Soviet Russia from the bloody hands of Comrade Litvinoff (Finklestein). As he later told the radical Ameri­can Youth Congress, he took the stand that the Russian Revolution —he did not mention the over 5,000,000,000 persons shot and star­ved to death by its leaders—was a force "for great good”.

He denounced the Supreme Court and mocked one of its decisions as of "the horse and buggy days” and, failing in his effort to control the court by forcing a special Act of the Congress, managed eventually to pack it with a Klu Kluxer, an Austrian-born Jew, a principal apologist of the sit-down strike, a professor who never tried a case, and a political appointee; all this in order to get a Court that would undermine the Constitution and interpret the law of the land a la Brandeis, Frankfurter and Roosevelt.

He made a violent and overt attack upon certain members of Con­gress—distinguished figures of his own party—in order to punish them for their opposition to his extra-legal activities and political conduct. This was, in effect, an assault upon the voter and an at­tempt to hamper his right to vote as he chose.

The net result of these acts, plus their inevitable failure to restore industrial production, put the workless to work, and protect the right­ful interests of the farmer, was to create class warfare of the bitterest sort, pile up the greatest debt in all history, undermine internal sta­bility and water the blood of independence of the individual citizen. Added up, they have brought us to the verge of another and even greater "emergency' than any we have ever known—the threat of a great war: a nation torn by internal dissension and debt, dominated by radical bureaus and anti-American bureaucrats; a nation little pre­pared to defend itself against a formidable enemy.

Even this new threat, the President and the New Deal have turn­ed to political and selfish purposes. Crying for "unity” and the sup­port of all the people, it is now proposed that we get ready for Arma­geddon under the direction of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, Henry Morgenthau, Sidney Hillman, and the team of Cohen 0 Corcoran.

The New Deal and the New Dealers have systematically con­ducted a wordy warfare with nations with whom we are at peace. The President, the Secretary of State and the bureaucrats have preach­ed a neutrality which they do not even pretend to practice.

Through his aides and claque the President has let it be known that he "foresaw” this great war, which is not at all remarkable since his every act indicates that he encouraged it by interfering with the foreign policies of the belligerents—supporting and inciting one side and flouting the other—while at the same time weakening this nation’s capacity to defend itself.

The President has made several spurious offers of "mediation for peace”. None of the belligerents, and particularly Germany and Italy, paid the slightest attention to these proffers; for the very good reason that the President, by his many angry expressions of prejudice, had disqualified himself of all capacity to honestly meditate the dif­ferences between the quarreling nations.

When the President "foresaw” our need for guns, tanks, airplanes and bombers, and the probable conscription of America’s sons to fight and die in Europe, he asked Congress for a blank check and, getting it, allowed it to be spent on monkey-houses, fan-dancing, leaf raking, garden cities for job holders, free golf links, radical theaters, and other vote baits for loafers and ne’er-do-wells.

These are the facts as we consider Roosevelt’s foreign policy and its danger to the American people.

COUNTRY GOING BANKRUPT
THE ROOSEVELTS GETTING RICHER
COMMUNISM GROWING

"The President's family has been greatly admired by many for the resourceful manner in which its members have utilized their opportunities while in the White House. * * *

“The earnings of James, eldest son, are best known. After leaving Harvard, where he failed in his examinations, he be­gan to study law. In that very first year as a law student, an insurance company offered him a job at $15,000 a year. The work consisted, according to James, in merely sitting at a large desk. * * *

"Jimmy left his job as the President's secretary to take a position as some sort of vice-president with Samuel Goldwyn—getting $50,000 a year—at a time when Gold- wyn and other movie magnates were under indictment by the Federal government. Although his place of business was in Boston, he wrote insurance policies on large business fon- cerns all over the country—National Distillers Corporation, Associated Gas and Electric (also under government pres­sure) , Armour and Company, Stone and Webster, Columbia Broadcasting Company, insurance on Federal cotton shipped to China by the RFC. and many others. It was something new in insurance and in presidential family behavior. * * *

"Elliott Roosevelt got $25,000 a year as president and general manager of the Hearst chain of radio stations. * * *

"But of course the largest earner is Mrs. Eleanor Roose­velt, who puts them all in the shade, including the President. * * * But Mrs. Roosevelt has earned just about twice that much, or around $1,200,000—or will have by the end of this year. * * *

“Her magazine articles — which sell for one dollar a word—have brought her around $75,000. Her newspaper columns fetch $21,000 a year—more this year. Her lectures are very profitable—she charges $1,500 a lecture, but speaks

for less in some places. These bring in about $75,000 a year. What she has made on her books is unknown. Her broadcasts bring from $3,000 to $4,000 apiece. She has had about 150 broadcasts. She has broadcasted for Beauty Rest Mattresses, a shoe manufacturer, a toilet preparation and others and is now appearing for Sweetheart Soap. The fees from these broadcasts have aggregated about $450,000. Her total earnings are something near $1,200,000. * * *

“Her daughter, Mrs. John Boettiger, is now writing for a Hearst paper of which her husband, John Boettiger, is publisher—a job he got after he married Mrs. Dahl—where she is reported to be paid $12,000 a year. * * *

"The total earnings of the whole family during the eight years will amount to something over $2,500,000. This is certainly an excellent showing for a period of pronounced depression."

Country Squire in the White House, by Flynn, Pp.

114-119.

THE NEW WORLD WAR - RESPONSIBILITY OF
ROOSEVELT AND WORLD JEWRY

GEORGE WASHINGTON’S ADVICE TO HIS COUNTRY

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I con­jure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and ex­perience prove that foreign influence is one of the most bane­ful foes of republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and con­fidence of the people, to surrender their interests

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rival ship, interest, humor, or caprice?"

Washington’s Farewell Address.

PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS

“The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English and the French have been employed for centuries in every court and country of Europe. Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy, and Turkey for the last hundred years ... all the powers of Europe will be continually manoeuvering with us to work us into the real or imaginary balance of power."

John Adams.

PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON

"Their (Europe’s) mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eter­nal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people. On our part never had a people so favorable a chance of trying the

opposite system, of peace and fraternity with mankind, and the direction of all our means and faculties to the purposes of improvement instead of destruction. * * *

“And the system of government which shall keep us afloat amidst the wreck of the world will be immortalized in his­tory.

“I am so far from believing that our reputation will be tar­nished by our not having mixed in the made contests of the rest of the world that, setting aside the ravings of pepper-pot politicians, of whom there are enough in every age and coun­try, I believe it will place us high in the scale of wisdom to have preserved our country tranquil and prosperous during a contest which prostrated the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of every country on the other side of the AtlanticThomas Jefferson.

PRESIDENT JAMES MONROE

“The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of liberty and happiness . . . beyond the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent in­juries. .                                                                              James Monroe.

PRESIDENT JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

John Quincy Adams in 1820, then Secretary of State and after­wards President, according to Charles A. Beard in his recent book. A Foreign Policy for America, stated:

“The political system of the United States is essentially extra-European. To stand in firm and cautious independence of all entanglement in the European system has been a cardi­nal point of their policy under every administration of their government from the peace of 1783 to this day . . . Every year’s experience rivets it more deeply in the principles and opinions of the nation.”

Beard continues on his own behalf to state:

"Thus the head of the first league created in the nine­teenth century for the ostensible purpose of preserving the peace and the political status quo of Europe was politely but categorically informed that the United States could not abandon its extra-European position, that it could not be­come associated with collective efforts of European govern­ments, even to apply ‘Christian maxims of benevolence and brotherly love’ to the intercourse of nations.”

HENRY CLAY

Henry Clay, one time Secretary of State, said: “By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington ... we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and hap­piness . . . Far better it is for ourselves . . . and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe."

GROVER CLEVELAND—RICHARD OLNEY President Grover Cleveland’s great Secretary of State, Richard Olney, speaking for Cleveland, in 1895, against England’s violation of the Monroe Doctrine informed the British Foreign Minister, Lord Salisbury:

"That distance and three thousand miles of intervening ocean make any permanent political union between a Euro­pean and an American state unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be denied. But physical and geographical considera­tions are the least of objections to such a union. Europe, as Washington observed, has a set of primary interests which are peculiar to herself. America is not interested in them and ought not to be vexed or complicated with them . . .

"Europe as a whole is monarchial, and, with the single important exception of the Republic of France, is committed to the monarchial principle. America, on the other hand, is devoted to the exactly opposite principle—to the idea that every people has an inalienable right of self-government.”

PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON

“The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say and do . . . The spirit of the nation in this critical matter will be determined largely by what individuals and society and those gathered in public meetings do and say, upon what newspapers and magazines contain., upon what ministers utter in their pulpits, and men proclaim as their opinions on the street.

"It will be easy to excite passion and difficult to allay it, Those responsible for exciting it will assume a heavy respon­sibility, responsibility for no less a thing than that the people of the United States, whose love of their country and whose loyalty to its government should unite them as Americans all, bound in honor and affection to think first of her and her interests, may be divided in camps of hostile opinion, hot against each other, involved in the war itself in impulse and opinion if not in action . . .

"My thought is of America. I am speaking, I feel sure, the earnest wish and purpose of every thoughtful American that this great country of ours, which is, of course, the first in our thoughts and in our hearts, should show herself in this time of peculiar trial a nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self- control, the efficiency of dispassionate action: a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world . . .

“Shall we not resolve to put upon ourselves the restraints which will bring to our people the happiness and the great and lasting influence for peace we covert for them?”

Woodrow Wilson.

ROOSEVELT. THE MEDDLER

Roosevelt in his international policies on behalf of World Jewry, world-wide extension of his own power and might and that of the British-Jewish Empire, has dishonored the traditions, policies and advice of the great dead—Washington, John Adams. Jefferson, Mon­roe, John Quincy Adams, Clay, Cleveland and Olney and is, in words used by Benjamin Franklin,

“Enleagu’d with friends of that detested tribe,

Whose god is gold, whose savior is a bribe.”

A book called The Primer of New Deal Economics, published in 1933, contained a statement of the New Deal plans, hopes and policies to be put into operation by the Jews. Baruch, Swope, Mor- genthau, et al. On page 161 we read:

"In foreign affairs the greatest hope we have is that with the coming of the New Deal has also come the end of a par­ticularly costly one of these American fixed beliefs or ideas— the 'isolation' idea." * * * Foreign statesmen ^ave remarked how hopeful it is that a statesman is in the Whi- * House who understands the objective attitude, and who will realistically compromise and shift his ground when the facts indicate that he should."

Raymond Moley, for seven years Roosevelt’s brain truster, col­laborator, speech writer, insider, etc., who knew everything that was going on, has written at length about the efforts of the President and his group to change our foreign policy and draw America into the European melee. In a book entitled After Seven Years he writes:

“ * * for nearly twenty years our internationalists had assured us that neutrality was not only impossible, but ‘im­moral.’

“Day in and day out such doctrine as this had been preached by those who advocated our participation in collec­tive efforts to ‘enforce’ peace * * *

"Roosevelt himself, as a League advocate in the early 'twenties, had subscribed to the theory of a collective world order to maintain peace through force, if necessary. * * * "it might fairly be said that his foreign policy had been charac­terized. from the beginning, by a slowly deepening and strengthening internationalism."

After Seven Years. Morley, P. 377.

“He had gone beyond the terms of the Neutrality Act in October and November, 1933, to discourage shipments of raw materials to Italy. *                                                     *     *

“So much was largely a policy of scolding, protest, and ineffectual gesture. Added up, it amounted to more or less cautious adherence to the doctrines of the devotees of collec­tive security.”          Ibid. P. 378.

* * In a realistic world, by evading facts and talking about a strict enforcement of the letter of the law, we were dissipating not only our energies but our influence.

“Still, unfortunate as these forays into internationalism had been, they were a long step removed from the policy foreshadowed in Roosevelt’s ‘quarantine’ speech at Chicago on October 5, 1937.” Moley continues: "It was one thing to scold, lecture, and make diplomatic faces, and another to take a position of active leadership in mobilizing a concert of powers to prevent the repudiation of what force had achieved two decades before. And yet those intimates who had heard Roosevelt yearning, in the spring of 1935, 'to do something’ about Germany, could not be surprised by the open invitation (Prime Minister Chamberlain hailed it is a 'clarion call’) to the ‘peace-loving nations’ to join with the United States in ‘a concerted effort to uphold laws and principles.’

* * *

"And so the transition from viewing-with-sorrow-and- alarm to doing-something-about-it had already been made in October, 1937. By January, 1938, a policy of active, though unacknowledged, 'cooperation' with England * * * was under way.

"After Munich, Roosevelt at once summoned home our ambassador to Berlin. There were consultations with Am­bassadors Phillips, Kennedy, and Bullitt. The consensus seem to have been agreement that the time had come to do 'something practical,’ to stop Germany, Italy., and Japan

and to assist England and France. That ‘something’ was to be a revision of the Neutrality Act to permit France and Eng­land to buy guns and munitions in this country. And the reason for that frankly and designedly unneutral step, it presently appeared, was no longer the ‘lawlessness’ of the axis powers so much as it was the belief that only by throwing our weight on the side of England and France could we pro­tect our own interests.

"Ambassadors Bullitt and Kennedy then went off to Florida. When they had spent some weeks there, it was suddenly discovered that they were in possession of burning secrets which must be communicated to the House and Senate Military Affairs Committees. There followed a magnifi­cently publicized dash back to Washington, intended to con­vey the idea that a world calamity was in the offing, and, on January 10, 1939, the imparting of information presumably so sensational that it could not be made public.

"Observers recognized in these dramatic maneuverings signs of a State Department campaign to 'educate’ the Ameri­can public to the need for a ‘stronger’ foreign policy.

"The drive apparently started four daps after the incor­poration of Austria into the Reich, on March 17. 1938. when Secretary Hull spoke of ‘collaboration’ along ‘parallel lines’ to prevent the spread of 'the contaaious scourge of treaty breaking and armed violence.’ It had been carried on through the device of speeches and statements by administra­tion subordinates during the spring and summer period. In the autumn it seems to have been given impetus with the myste­rious spread of fear-provoking stories out of Washington . . . The President himself had helped the ‘educational’ camnaign along with the announcement, in his annual message of Janu­ary 4, 1939. that ‘there are many ways short of war. but stronger and more effective than mere words, of bringing home to aggressor governments the aggregate sentiments of our own people.’

"But now, after January 10th 0939), and the ambas­sadors’ reports on conditions in Europe, a new argument gained currency. One variant of it was the statement that the preservation of the British sea power was essential to our national future. Another had been phrased by the Mar- ouis of J.othian. recently appointed British Ambassador to the United States, months before. ‘The British Common­wealth.’ it ran. ‘is the United States’ outer rina of security . . . If it disappears or is smashed by the Fascist states, so that Gibraltar, the Suez. Singapore. Capetown, and the Falk­land Island fall into the hands of Germany. Italy, or Japan, then, as the British Empire disintearates. the military powers uCould crowd around the United States.’

“To still a third variant, it was charged, the President 162

gave expression late in January, after the fateful crash of a new bomber designed for the United States Army drew the veil from an airplane deal with the French that mysteriously began in the Treasury, moved from there to the White House and from there to the War and Navy Departments, with the State Department apparently looking on inactively while Ambassador Bullitt acted as master of ceremonies.

“When the lid blew off this transaction, the President, instead of giving out the facts to the public, called in the Senate Military Affairs Committee, clamped a gag on them, addressed them for an hour and a half, and then sent them packing. He must have known that to talk to a consider­able number of members of Congress under such circum­stances was to invite not only leaks but the most unhealthy speculation. At any rate, stories of a fantastic foreign policy emerged. The President was alleged to have said that Amer­ica’s frontier was on the Rhine.

“This story was heatedly denied by the President on February 3rd (1939) ‘Some boob’ among the Senators had 'thought that one up,’ Roosevelt exploded, and the news­papers had embroidered it into ‘a deliberate lie.’

"But the facts were still not made public, though even so staunch a supporter of the President as Senator Logan of Kentucky said that he remembered ‘something being said about our frontier being in France.’ Instead, a vague four- point statement of American policy was given the press— a statement which left the Senate, the newspapers, and the country cold because it did not explain the bungled plane deal, it did not make clear what American interests were so endangered that the facts must remain a secret, and it cer­tainly did not convince reasonable people that the adminis­tration was not up to its neck in the game of power politics. (In June, 1940, Democratic Representative Faddis admitted that Roosevelt had used the words “our frontier is in France” on the aforementioned occasion.)

* * Thus the President’s message of April 14th to Hitler and Mussolini * * * was sent with the clear realiza­tion that its chances of favorable reception by Hitler and Mussolini were nil. It seems to have been designed largely for American consumption. As such, it was of a piece with Roosevelt’s ‘I’ll be back in the fall if we don’t have a war’ statement and his Pan-American speech, with its denuncia­tion of ‘Huns’ and ‘Vandals.’

"However well-intentioned this policy of building up support for our unneutral intervention in the affairs of Europe by arousing the fears and prejudices of the American people may be, the fact remains that it is a dangerous busi­ness. Hysteria rules by no half measures. When you touch off the powder of terror, you get not illumination but a blinding explosion. When you have awakened the animosi-

ties of a people, you have created the foreign policy that will carry you into war whether you will it or no.

“The American people have been told that they must help the democracies because two or more forms of govern­ment cannot coexist in the world, because the world must become either all democratic or all totalitarian. 'This, of course, is a fallacy. Should we act on it, entering a war in the belief that we were engaging in a holy war to 'save democ­racy,’ we would find ourselves embarked on wars as hopeless and as bootless as the religious wars of three or four hun­dred years ago. We should have to learn—as we learned that different religions could coexist within a state under the principle of toleration—that different political ideologies can live side by side.

"In point of fact, there has been no scintilla of evidence that Britain and France are at all concerned with the defense of abstract democracy or with a desire to bring all nations to the democratic form of government. The alliances with Turkey and the overtures to Rumania and Soviet Russia and Italy prove otherwise. War has threatened r.ot because of the internal horrors produced by Hitler’s intolerance but be­cause of a struggle over the boundary lines of Europe. Only our bellicose patriots forget the distinction.

But, however strongly we may feel on this subject, a practical consideration enters. Will war against a government because it is intolerant to its own people help those the gov­ernment persecutes? Or will it result in an intensification of their persecution and an immediate destruction everywhere of human lives and other precious human values which will be irreplaceable? Will it, for instance, strengthen democratic government in the United States? Or will war bring upon us here a centralized control of life and speech and press and property so absolute that we lose in the United States the very values for which we fight abroad?

"If we participate in another general war, we shall cer­tainly be compelled to ‘stand by the President.’ Free criti­cism will be restricted. Beginning with the communications industries, our industries will be nationalized one by one. Wages and hours will be fixed. Profits wilt be conscripted. The gamble we are asked to take is that, after it is all over, the iron hand of government will be withdrawn from our liberties and our property.

" * * You cannot frankly give to one side in a quarrel what you withhold from the ether side without courting, first, reprisals and, ultimately, hostilities. There is no such thing as a little unneutrality. When a nation declares and implements its hostile sentiments toward one side in a con­flict, the chances that it can persuade that side of its disinter­estedness are pretty slim. It is on this hairline margin of safety that we are now operating.

*' * * ive have contributed toward war in the illusion that we were serving the ends of peace. Like poor Romeo, who ‘thought all for the best’ when he threw himself be­tween Tybalt and Mercutio, we have merely heightened the tragedy.

"We have weakened our capacity to do our job in this hemisphere—which is to protect the integrity of the nations from the North Pole to Cape Horn and build up a genuine community of interests there.

"We have destroyed our ability to act, as Wilson im­plored in his neutrality plea of August 18, 1914, as ‘the one people ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the counsel of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as a friend.’

“We have lost the opportunity to show ourselves ‘in this time of peculiar trial, a nation fit beyond others to ex­hibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self-control, the efficiency of dispassionate action; a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world . . . ‘

"And whether we meant to, or not, we have neglected our unsolved problems at home."

Ibid. Ps. 379 to 385, inch

Moley also refers in After Seven Years, page 68, to a meeting called by Roosevelt to discuss foreign affairs, on November 13, 1932, at which the great internationalist, radical, socialist, America’s betrayer from 1914 to 1919, and author of Philip Dru, Colonel Edward Mandel House, was present. Moley says that “It was . . the pre­lude to a fateful struggle between two schools of thought . . The prize of the struggle was to be the foreign policy of the United States in the face of a war-infested and war-ridden Europe.”

In January, 1933, before he was inaugurated and after he had deliberately snubbed President Hoover's efforts to win his aid in settling the economic war at home, Roosevelt jumped into for­eign affairs by endorsing Secretary of State Stimson’s war-mongering efforts to solve Asiatic problems arising out of Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. Too busy or too proud to co-operate with the outgoing administration on pressing national affairs, he let it be known that he was interested in foreign affairs—even in a situation in which he had no real interest.

Roosevelt was in the Abyssinia fracas with a vengeance. He took an open hand in helping Foreign Minister, part Jew, Anthony Eden break the Hoare-Laval Treaty, which represented a sensible effort on the part of France and England to solve the Ethiopian question. Si­multaneously, the New Deal, with the valiant aid of Mrs. Roosevelt, began fairly to perspire with sympathy for the American negroes— Ethiopia, as everyone knows is populated with Semitic Negroes— and Roosevelt, invoking the Neutrality Act, promptly cut off the shipment of all arms to Italy. (The colored and Jew votes were very important). Secretary Hull and Roosevelt a few days later issued statements which had the highly unneutral effect of calling for a complete stoppage of shipments of every kind to Italy. Ethiopia was an Italian province before anything was done, but the Presi­dent, as it developed, had burned his fingers again. It was this ac­tion, more than all else, that threw Mussolini into Hitler’s arms— a truly fateful day in the history of a “peace-loving" President.

In a remarkable address delivered by Virgil Jordan, noted Econ­omist and President of The National Industrial Conference Board, before the Foreign Policy Association, on February 24, 1940, it was stated :

“Written constitutional guarantees designed to safeguard all individuals against the State were the unique contribution of American society to the humanist movement in Western civilization, and represented its supreme achievement. These have been substantially destroyed in this country during the past seven years through the subvention of voters by public funds, the delegation of law making power to bureaucratic agencies, and the degradation of the Supreme Court into a political party instrument. The fact is that government in America has become an accepted agency of internal aggression. It is no longer expected, and it can no longer be depended upon to perform its primary and essential function of pro­tecting the life, work and property of all individual citizens against attack by any of them. * * * Aggression is the essential spirit of the modern State. It animates the atmosphere, morals, manners and customs of every government today. Its character is most clearly expressed in the personalities in whom its power is embodied—all uniformly in every country warped, twisted, psychopathic personalities whose every word and deed is animated by malice, vindictiveness, hatred and destructive impulse toward individuals and groups who dis­agree with or oppose them, and who in every official action and utterance are in one sense or another bombing and machine- gunning their enemies and seizing their property. Shocking as the realization may be to us, these things are as true in America and England to-day as they are in Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan. They are the dominant factors that would mould the internal economic life and international relations of every country.”

CARP—RUSSIAN JEW—AMERICA’S COURTSHIP

As one more result of Roosevelt’s Jewish New Deal courtship of the Communist Soviet, a plot was discovered last fall by the Dies Committee probing un-American activities. The principal figures in this scheme, with one or two exceptions, were Russian Jews. Sam Carp, a little Russian-Jew from Bridgeport, Conn., the brother-in- law of Comrade Stalin’s principal hatchet-man, Comrade Molotov, had Morris Wolf as paymaster, and Joseph Z. Dalinda, another Russian Jew, as his contact man in Washington.

It was brought out that Carp had received, between July and De­cember, 1936, no less than $616,372 from Soviet Russia for the pur­pose of "buying a 35,000 ton battleship” from the United States. Carp confessed that over $50,000 of this sum was to be spent to obtain "influence” in the proper quarters. Dalinda testified that he gave over $20,000 to two Jews, one of whom was Aaron Benenson, now an Assistant District Attorney in New York City and the other the aforementioned and "repentent” Russian-Jew Communist D. H. Dubrovsky.

Carp was interested also in buying airplanes and destroyers. He stated that the State Department had authorized the release of plans for a 60,000-ton battleship, which he had sent to the Soviet, and that he had bought $300,000 worth of airplanes “without diffi­culty”. Carp stated that he paid $25,000 to Preston McGoodwin, a Democrat formerly connected with the State Department as Ameri­can Minister to Venezuela and afterward aide to the Jew Charles Michaelson, publicity director of the Democratic National Committee, and high salaried radio employee, and $32,000 to Scott Ferris, former Representative to Congress from Oklahoma and for years Democratic National Committeeman. Carp and his partner, Monis Wolf, said they paid McGoodwin and Ferris because they had “con­nections” which would aid them in getting the necessary Govern­ment authorizations for their purchases. Dalinda testified:

“Scott Ferris is the national committeeman from Okla­homa, is employed by me on this particular job because he was in Congress together with Hull for fourteen years, and is a close friend of his for thirty years: also because he is ex­ceptionally close to the President, all of which Carp and Wolf are well aware.”

“Secretary Hull suggested to Ferris, and here I quote Ferris’ wire to me: ‘When can you comply with Hull’s sug­gestion so that Hull can personally arrange conference with

1. eahy, Acting Secretary of the Navy?’ ”

Baltimore Sun, September 19th, 20th, 21st. 1939.

Congress had recently passed a law compelling all agents of foreign governments to register with the State Department. Carp had not complied with the law, which may explain his denial that he was Comrade Stalin’s agent. Nevertheless, he was not prosecuted for his failure.

In any case, the excitement over the disclosures died almost as soon as they appeared. Russia got nothing but her airplanes and some battleship plans. Mr. Roosevelt said nothing however — and this may have no meaning — the White House attacks on the Dies Committee, which had been numerous, violent and bitter, dwindled to a whisper and when Mr. Dies again came before the House to ask that his work be continued, he got the money and the men.

JEW MORGENTHAU TRIES TO GET SOVIET RUSSIA,
AMERICA. ENGLAND AND FRANCE
INTO PARTNERSHIP

During the past two years and since Europe's affairs have gone rapidly from bad to worse and the activities of the President and his backers have entered the stage of sheer frenzy, a number of dan­gerous but fascinating developments have appeared from time to time. One of these was Jew Secretary Morgenthau’s grandiose scheme to buy up all of the world's supplies of essential war materials, such as rubber, tin. manganese and The like, in order to keep them out of the hands of the aggressors. Communist Russia had not at that time joined Hitler as a fellow aggressor. Morgenthau after Prague, April 1939. apparently did not consider that possibility since he wanted us to ask bloody Russia to become a partner with the United States. Fnaland and France in the scheme. One of the Treasury economists made a survey and discovered that this could be done only at the ex­pense of $100,000,000 per month — a sum beyond even the "gen­ius" of a Morgenthau to produce — and so it was dropped. New York Times, December 18, 1939.

This was only one of a constant stream of attempts by the New Deal to woo Russia and which are going on today. Beginning with the recognition of the blood-stained regime of Comrade Stalin early in the New Deal, the Administration has conducted a campaign of open and avowed friendship for the Communists. An economic partnership of the sort proposed by Russia — a heavy producer of most of the essential war materials which Morgenthau wished to corner — could have had but one effect, to put us under further obligation to Moscow and to use more American money to bolster the Communist rule and revolution.

Nevertheless, Morgenthau was not content with being forced to drop this proposal and countered with the alternate suggestion that England, France, and the United States team up with Russia and put an embargo on these goods directed against Germany. That Jewish idea, too, could not be put across.

The extent to which the New Deal has gone to stay in the good graces of the Communists and their fatherland, Soviet Russia, have already been discussed in part. Probably the most significant fact in this picture is that it was not until Stalin became the partner of his alleged mortal enemy, Adolf Hitler, took over Esthonia and Latvia, invaded eastern Poland and attacked Finland, that our political leaders were compelled by public opinion, to make any criticism upon either our own Communists or Soviet Russia. Such warfare as was con­ducted against this murderous institution had been left to a few Congressmen, notably Hamilton Fish and Martin Dies: and both of these gentlemen suffered in consequence at the hands of the Presi­dent and his noisy army of Red and Pink adherents.

ROOSEVELT COLD TO THE NEW SPANISH AMBASSADOR
—AND VERY FRIENDLY TO THE NEW
SOVIET AMBASSADOR

On June 6, 1939, Roosevelt perfunctorily accepted the credentials of the new Spanish Ambassador from Christian Spain, a country which had just won a long and bloody war against Spanish anarchists and communists, who had been greatly aided by Commissars and fighting men, pilots, hombers, etc., from Soviet Russia. These Com­munists and anarchists had murdered bishops and priests, nuns and peasants, ruthlessly desecrated cathedrals and churches and pillaged the country far and wide. On the same day in June, 1939, Roosevelt effusivelv welcomed the new Ambassador from Communistic Stalin and pledged the friendship of America to bloody Soviet Russia.

ROOSEVELT CONTINUES A FRIEND OF THE SOVIET

In Liberty for June 8, 1940, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, of Michigan, came out with a blunt demand that our relations with Soviet Russia be broken off. He gave a number of grounds for this proposal, saying that "it is about time the smug, complacent Ameri­can attitude — the ‘it-can't-happen-here’ state of mind — gave way to vigilance and vigor in dealing with the problem of Communistic treachery inside the United States.”

Describing the presence of the Communist movement, under the control of Moscow as the "chief symbol of treachery is the notorious broken contract between Commissar Litvinoff (Finkel- stein) and President Roosevelt.”

"* * Bolshevik Russia,” he said, "has repeatedly and con­clusively violated the terms of its agreement with Government of the United States.”

“The pledges have been violated.” he stated. “The con­tract has been broken.”

Pointing out that the United States is the one and only republic in the New World maintaining diplomatic relations with the Soviet, Vandenberg says:

“* * _we should be put upon notice by this unanimous anti-Russian attitude * * that we need to have a powerful reason for officially fraternizing with the Bolsheviks.”

“There is no such reason.” he goes on. ‘On the con­trary, powerful reason runs the other way and recommends that we harmonize our attitude with that of our ‘good neighbors’ in the Western Hemisphere. The distinction of being the only Bolshevik bedfellow in the New World (No other state of North or South America has recognized the Soviet) must be as distasteful as it is lonely.” he adds.

The Senator relates how every previous administration, since 1917. had refused recognition to the Bolsheviks, citing the reports of Secretaries of State Colby, a Democrat, and Hughes as being truly American. He indicates that Roosevelt knew he was dealing with treacherv. so he sought to tie Stalin’s hands. Litvinoff-Finkelstein. of course agreed to everything Roosevelt demanded and. as Vandenberg puts it, “they exchanged a series of international love letters” all dated November 16. 1933.

Among the items in the contract to which the Communists bound themselves were a settling of the Russian debt to the United States and, most important, to quit all relationships with internal revolu­tion inside the United States or with agencies over there or over here that were working against the interests of the United States. Would anyone but a red or a fool expect such a contract to be respected? Apparently Roosevelt did. and he signed the recognition agreement with hosannas of praise to the great land of the Soviets, etc., etc., ad. nauseam. And then, as Vandenberg says, "things began to hap-

tr

pen.

First the debt talks bogged down. After a year of shadow-box­ing with the slipperv Bolshevik Commissars the State Department mournfully reported: “In view of the present attitude of the Soviet

Government we feel that we cannot encourage the hope that any agreement is now possible.” And that was that. As Senator Vanden­berg puts it: “It never was possible. It never has been. * * * Soviet Russia is just as much a defaulter as she was on the pious day when she agreed to quit being one.”

A half year later the situation was serious. "Our ordinarily placid State Department,” Vandenberg writes, "wrote Moscow that the Seventh All World Congress of the Communist Internationale—plotting its world revolution here as elsewhere—was guilty of flagrant violation of the pledge * * with respect to non-interference in the internal affairs of the United States.”

As was to be expected, Russia was evasive and nalty declined either to admit guilt or to do anything about it. Secretary Hull then called for more discussion by sending another note repeating in sub­stance what he had previouly charged. “* * he (Hull) had said — in response to my request for the official record — that we had an 'irrefutable case' against Moscow in 1935. Irrefutable! But nothing happened * * * The offense charged was a participation in an effort internally to overthrow the Government of the United States by force."

Vandenberg then points out that a House Investigating Commit­tee, in its report of January 3, 1940, specifically and flatly charged that the Communist Party in America “is a foreign conspiracy mask­ed as a political party" and asked that the recognition treaty be re­voked. Naturally the Senator said nothing about the fact that the Roosevelt Administration has always been only a little less radical than Moscow, but his conclusion is sound. “It is past time,” he says, "for the United States to tell the world that we are not run­ning a polyglot boarding-house in which the visitors can foul our hospitality and get away with it.”

A few days ago in a dispatch from Helsingfors, Finland, of Oc­tober 4, 1940, headed “Steinhardt Seen Helping British Seek Red Amity,” it is stated:

"Laurance A. Steinhardt, American Ambassador to Russia, who returned to his post a fortnight ago from Washington, is reported by his diplomatic colleagues to be actively supporting the effort of the British ambassador, Sir Stafford Cripps, to obtain the assistance of the Soviet Union for England.”

Steinhardt is a rich New York Jew, a personal friend of President Roose­velt and Morgenthau, and connected with the millionaire New York Jews Untermyers, Guggenheimers, etc.

The courtship of the Communistic Soviet by England and Roose­velt has again become most ardent. The Jewish and Roosevelt control of our radio companies permits Earl Browder, convicted felon and Communistic candidate for President, to promulgate his revolutionary doctrines over the radio at will, at the same time denying to patriotic Americans the freedom of the radio. In Boston, on October 6th, 1940, Browder advocated an alignment of the United States and the Soviet Union as "unmatchable in world politics and morally invincible.”

ROOSEVEL.T AND WORLD JEWRY INCITE POLAND,
ENGLAND, AND FRANCE TO A WORLD WAR
ON GERMANY

ROOSEVELT AND BULLITT PLEDGE AMERICA’S HELP

When, early in 1940, the German Government published its White Paper, including quotations from diplomatic documents seized in Poland, a great to-do was made in pro-Ally and New Deal circles about this "attempt to influence an American election.” Every effort was made to keep down discussion of the documents, and two of our Ambassadors mentioned in them — Bullitt in Paris and Kennedy in London — were allowed to dodge the questions Congress wished to ask. Secretary Hull hurried Bullitt back to Paris. The White House issued a half-way denial on behalf of both Kennedy and Bul­litt and uttered some vague nothings about taking such statements with a grain of salt. Hull and Kennedy, who are honorable, never made categorical denials. The chances are they did not know all that was going on. The half-Jew Bullitt was the only person who gave a direct denial, but this cannot be expected to carry much weight, if any, in view of his record. The documents were not released in full to the newspapers. Within a week the noise died down. We shall quote the passages showing some of Roosevelt's emissaries were against compromise and were instigating war.

The documents contained a great deal of background informa­tion about affairs in the United States and Europe, but most im­portant of all they detailed statements of Ambassador Bullitt, the substance of which was shocking to the American people.

One report, from Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, dated November 21, 1938, contained some startling disclosures. Po­tocki describes a long talk he had with Bullitt in Washington, and stated that Bullitt had great influence with the President.

According to Bullitt, so Potocki further states, “the United States, England and France must arm tremendously in order to face German power, and that when the moment was ripe a last decision could be sought * * He said that the democracies wished for martial con­flict between Germany and Soviet Russia which might subject Ger­many and force her to capitulate.”

At this point Potocki says that he asked Bullitt whether the United States would get into such a war, to which Bullitt replied: “Undoubtedly yes. But only if Britain and France move first.” This statement was probably the high-light of the public’s interest in the German White Paper. As usually happens when a sensational story hits the headlines, the headlines obscured more than they revealed. The significant thing in the aforementioned statement was not only that Bullitt thought this country would eventually go to war if England and France did, but that the democracies, viz-. England and France, with all the resources of the United States secretly pledged, were work­ing on a scheme by which they proposed to attack Germany.

Document dated Jan. 12, 1939. from Polish Ambassador in Washington, stating Propaganda mostly in hands of Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and peri­odical press. Although this propaganda extremely coarse and presenting Germany as black as possible—nevertheless ex­tremely effective since public here completely ignorant 'and knows nothing of situation in Europe * * * Situation here excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia, who with great many words inciting public, with most various calumnies. Thev are praising American liberty which con­trasts with totalitarian states. It is interesting to note that in this extremely welt-planned campaign which conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia almost com­pleted eliminated. Soviet Russia if mentioned at all men­tioned in friendly manner and things presented in such wag as if Soviet Union co-operating with block democratic states. Thanks to clever propaganda sympathies of American public completely on side of Red Spain. This propaganda war psy­chosis being artificially created. American people are told that peace in Europe only hanging thread * * that in case of world War America also must take active part in order defend slo­gans of liberty and democracy in world. President Roosevelt was first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving double purpose: first, he wanted to divert attention of American people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from * * struggle between cap­ital and labor. Second, by creating war psychosis * * he wanted induce American people to accept enormous armament

program. * * Unemployed today already number twelve million * * Only huge sums running into billion which treasury expends for emergency labor projects are keeping certain amount peace in country * * As to point two I can only say that * * Roosevelt, as clever player of politics * * speedily deviated public attention from domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy * * Munich Pact came to

• * Roosevelt as God-sent * * Reigning hatred against every­thing which in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by brutal attitude agains Jews in Germany and by emigree problem. In this action participated Jewish intellectuals, for instance Bernard Baruch. Governor of New 'York Lehman. * * judge of Supreme Court Felix Frankfurter, Secretary of Treasury Morgenthau and others who are close personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want President to become champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, who in future shall punish trouble mongers. This qroup, people who want to pose as represen­tatives of 'Americanism’ and 'defenders of democracy’ in last analysis are connected by unbreakable ties with international jewry.

"For this Jewish international, which above all is con­cerned with interest in its race, was putting of President of United States at this ‘ideal’ post of champion of human rights was clever move. In this manner thev created dangerous hotbed fo*- hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided world into two hostile camps. Entire issue worked out in mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy and simultaneously

• * to procure enormous stocks for coming war for which Jews are striving fully consciously * * *”

In this report. Potocki repeats his belief that attacking fascism helped Roosevelt divert attention from rapidly growing anti-Semitism. This is the oldest of political dodges — the "red-herring” trick.

In another report from Washington, dated January 16, 1939, eight months before Germany invaded Poland, Potocki told of an­other talk with Bullitt as the latter was leaving for Paris. Says Po­tocki, "I got the impression that he (Bullitt) had received Mr. Roosevelt’s precise reaction to the present political situation (in other words this is Roosevelt's foreign policy) which is roughly as follows:

An activation of American foreign policy sharply con­demning the totalitarian powers. (This is precisely what Roosevelt did do when he addressed Congress that same month).

2. An acceleration of military, naval and air rearmament costing $1,250,000,000. (Note. The President multiplied

this by three in May, 1940, and since raised it to over

$20,000,000,000).

3. Britain and France are not to enter any discussions in­volving territorial changes. (It was the refusal of England and France to discuss Germany’s demands for “territorial changes”, viz: the return of Danzig and a right of way across the Polish Corridor that started the war. The last item lets the cat out of the bag. In it we see the terms under which England and France were induced by Roosevelt, Bullitt, etc., to refuse to discuss peace and to precipitate a second World War).
4. A moral assurance will be given that the United States will jettison its isolationist policy and place total United States financial and raw material resources at the disposal of Britain and France, as well as acuvely participadng on the side of Britain and France. (Everything that has happened up to June 10, 1940, proves that Potocki’s report was accurate).

The subsequent report from Polish Ambassador Lukasiweicz in Paris, to his superiors in Warsaw, states that Bullitt also discussed the possibility of war between France and Italy and repeated his earlier statement about America going into the war "to end it.” The envoy went on to prophesy, on Bullitt’s information, that this country would sell France planes because the French army was Ameri­ca’s “first line of defense.” This, too, tallies exactly with what eventually Roosevelt declared.

The Polish envoy to Paris also quotes Bullitt as using almost the same words he had used to Potocki, to which he added that Bullitt had said that the United States “controls several means of compul­sion” which could be used against Germany and Italy which might prevent developments of a political situation not desired by the United States. “One thing seems certain,” are his prophetic words, "that Roosevelt’s policy will pursue the aim in the near future of sup­porting France’s resistance, resisting Italian and German pressure, and weakening England’s tendency to compromise.”

Roosevelt and World Jewry demand no compromise, but insist on another World War with all its terrible consequences.

This is a sufficient explanation of the Jewish Press, Radios and Roosevelt’s opposition to Chamberlain and Bonnet, who sought peace by compromise, and their support of Jewish Eden and Jew Mandel, who itched for battle: of Roosevelt’s ardor for Russia, his hints of war to come and everything else he has done to override American opposition to fighting Europe’s wars.

In reports from the Polish Ambassador in Paris, dated March 29, 1939, and June 16, 1939, it was stated that “Bullitt asked me”

(Polish Ambassador) “if we would accept a mutual alliance if Britain and France should propose such an agreement. Bullitt stated that he had asked U. S. Ambassador Kennedy in London to visit British Prime Minister Chamberlain and emphasize the responsibility of the British Government.”

“Bullitt re-asserted that the United States was in possession of means with which it could exert real pressure upon England. He will seriously consider the mobilization of these means.”

The report cited a memorandum of the Polish Commercial At­tache in London dated June 16, 1939, in which he reported a long conversation with United States Ambassador Kennedy, in which among other things, Kennedy stated: “He would emphasize the necessity for English financial help for us” (Poland) “when he saw the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary” (of Britain) "* * * he” (Kennedy) “emphasized that America’s sympathies for England in case of conflict would to great extent depend upon determination with which England would take care of European states threatened by Germany.”

It is timely to point out that no people in the world know the Jewish problem better than the Poles. Though the Polish Ambas­sador naturally denied authorship of this report, it is known to be accepted as true in Diplomatic channels.

The above Documents bring in a new note in this discussion. We hear of Roosevelt actively encouraging Britain and France to go to war and there are plenty of other factors indicating that this is precisely what Roosevelt did.

So much for the German White Paper. The question is not whether the German diplomacy is above “doctoring” such reports, but whether the facts, the prophecies and the policies contained in these documents disclose Roosevelt’s real and secret foreign policy. The answer to that is known to every American today.

Speaking of these Documents, General Hugh Johnson said:

“So the Germans say that Bill Bullitt said that if war should break out we wouldn't take part in the beginning but 'will in the finish.’ So what? Mr. Bullitt wasn’t Ambas­sador to Poland and he wasn’t speaking as Ambassador to France or in any official capacity. He was just shooting off his face. Everybody who knows him, knows he is strongly pro-Ally, and militant too, which is more important than this incident.”

Roosevelt, the Jews, England and France sicked Poland into the war and left her to die in all her misery without the aid of a single soldier, a gun or an airplane.

ALSOP AND KINTNER — ROOSEVELT WHITE PAPER

Recently two young Washington columnists, Joseph Alsop and Robert Kintner, published a book called the American White Paper. Alsop is related to Roosevelt and it is apparent from the disclosures, reservations and concealments of the book that he had an inside track to the White House and the State Department. The book was obviously issued at the instance of the New Deal to obtain more active intervention by the American people in Europe’s war. Roose­velt and the State Department are reducing to a minimum the use of the mail or the cable to our European representatives, and it has been stated that most of our foreign policy is determined at secret conferences and over the telephone to Europe. In the Wilson ad­ministration the treasonable activities of our roving Ambassador Edward Mandel House, Ambassador Page, Secretary of State Lan­sing, etc. have only come to light in recent years largely because they were foolish enough to put some of the record in writing. Roosevelt, Bullitt and the State Department are too cagy for that. The only way the American people will ever find out how they were sold down the river for the Jews and England will be from papers in foreign archives similar to the ones found and disclosed by the Germans when they captured Warsaw.

Alsop and Kintner sum up by asking “Should the war be of long duration, the future will hold many questions. If the demo­cracies exhaust their cash, as they probably will in about two years, will we give or lend them the wherewithal to carry on? Or will we close the American arsenal to them, and run the risk of their defeat? If defeat threatens them for other reasons — the superior German air power, for example — will we change our policy, to assist them in ways no longer ‘short of war’ ”?

Though Alsop and Kintner say the American policy-makers “seem already determined not to send troops abroad”, it must be perfectly apparent to anyone who reads the book that Roosevelt, in his lust for world power and his devotion to World Jewry, has not only meddled in Europe’s politics but has sought to dominate them, sought to overthrow the Chamberlain government and remove Bonnet from the French cabinet because of their unwillingness to precipitate a World’s War on behalf of World Jewry, and has pledged all of our resources to the British and French governments provided they would make war. This means, first, bombers and munitions without stint; second, the repeal of the Johnson Act and the supply­ing of billions of dollars worth of munitions, either as a gift or upon the scrap of paper promises of England and France; third, the use of our fleet in the Pacific; and if these do not suffice, first the sending of our young men to death and destruction as pilots of bombers; second, the sending of our fleet from the safety of America to waters in­fested with submarines and threatened with deadly bombers; and lastly, if all these are not enough, our boys will be sent to die in France and England for Worid Jewry and the British and French Empires.

Among the statements made in the Alsop-Kintner book are:

"The Munich crisis of 1938, when, as someone remark­ed, the end of our world began,' was the turning point in American foreign policy. Before Munich this country's role in world politics was chiefly that of a chorus, somewhat overgiven to gloomy gesture and exliortatory speech.

"* * * It is no wonder, therefore, that the American pol­icy-makers watched the course of events with extreme dis­quiet, and that even then there were signs their do-nothing mood would not prove durable.

"Although they had to be resisted, temptations to do something were not lacking in the days of Munich. From the start the English and French, frantically trying to satisfy Hitler by peaceable means, frankly longed for our influence to help hold him within bounds. Almost simultaneously with the Berlin embassy’s warning, Bullitt and Joseph Pat­rick Kennedy, our mercurial ambassador in London, reported overtures from officials of the French Foreign Office and from the British Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax. The overtures, probably concerted in advance, took the form of suggestions of ‘continuous consultation’ during the coming emergency. * * *

"Caution predominated, imposed both by American pub­lic opinion and by a European situation too explosive for Johnny come-lately interference. * * *

"Caution was not quite enough. * * * Almost daily he (Roosevelt) asked Bullitt and Kennedy, Hugh Wilson in Berlin and William Phillips in Rome, ‘Is there anything we can do to help?’ Regularly the answer came back, 'Not with­out making some commitment.’ And in view of American public opinion, a commitment was quite impossible. * * * * * * * *

“Then during the days of Munich, world peace itself, in which the country's vested interest was so immense, had been immediately threatened by the rise of the new kind of state. In trying to guard this immense interest it had been necessary to excise commitments, refuse joint action, avoid even a promise of further economic co-operation, and speak

only in those moralistic and exhortatory terms which are the common currency of American diplomacy. Public opinion still insisted that this was the proper course, but the policy­makers were no longer satisfied meekly to accept public opin­ion’s verdict.

* * * * *

“The President said he 'had all his fingers crossed' on
appeasement.

"Failing to make aggression impractible, the President still had a plan to make it dangerous. This was a revival of

the theory behind his 'quarantine' speech at Chicago in 1937. * * *

“The future was accepted and prepared for in the course of an event so amorphous that it is difficult to describe exactly, yet so significant that it may almost be called the crux of this history. This was a quiet, unrecorded series of talks after Munich between the President. Hull and Welles.

"* * * To the President, Hull and Welles our interest seemed clear. We must prevent war if possible, and if war proved inevitable, we must do our best to assure victory for the other democracies.

"* * * But. while we had the power, our people con­tinued to lack the will. Clear thouah our interests seemed, the President dared not assert our influence, utter a threat or offer a commitment, for fear of the political consequences. * * *

"A more vital second decision was reached late in Novem­ber ("1938). Do-notbingism had produced the Neutrality Act. and in the Neutralitv Act was embedded the arms em­bargo. withholding essential aid from the democracies in time of war. The embargo was an important point in Hitler's strategy. Its mere existence negated the policy of methods short of war. Without a move to repeal it. the peace offen­sive would he whistling in the wind. Aware that the time was politically unripe, the President and the other two dis­cussed the problem prayerfully and at length. Finally thev agreed they must attempt repeal” (of the Neutrality Act) “of the embargo in the next session of Congress.”

*'* * * 'fj_ie p_eacc offensive — the effort to cow Hitler into peacefulness on which the President, Hull, and Welles had also decided in their talks after Munich — was strictly an ersatz policy, in which every move had to be carefully calculated for maximum effect in Germany and minimum effect in the still isolationist United States. Furthermore, it was founded on a double anticipation, of a chanqe in opinion here, and of a change in Europe, where Enalish and French appeasement leaders like Bonnet and Chamberlain privately

resented it as placing them in a pusillanimous light before their followers. * * *

* * * * *

“Early in November (1938) the young Jew, Herschel Grinszpan, murdered an attache of the German embassy in Paris. Frightful programs promptly broke out all over the Reich. American opinion recoiled in horror at the news from Berlin, and the President saw his chance. In the State De­partment meeting a strong faction favored a mere written expression of disapproval to Hitler. They were overruled by the President in a long final discussion at the White House, and on November 13 a cable of recall was sent to Hugh Wilson in Berlin. * * *

The purpose was to convince Hitler, Ribbentrop, and the rest that if American opinion would support such violent affronts to Germany at this time, something much worse was to be expected later. By hind-sight it seems rather like sing­ing songs to a tiger, but then the President hoped that im­mediate repeal of the arms embargo would give substance to his big talk. It was with the double intention of seeking re­peal and hastening the change in American opinion that he set about preparing his annual message ‘on the state of the union’ to the incoming Congress. * * *

The President said: (quoted in the Alsop and Kintner “American White Paper”)

“Words may be futile, but war is not the only means of commanding a decent respect for the opinion of mankind. There are many methods short of war, but stronger and more effective than mere words, of bringing home to aggressor gov­ernments the sentiments of our people."

Alsop and Kintner continue:

* * * the President and Hull and Welles, had lost touch a little with domestic opinion. For them the European situation was an immediate reality which cried out to be dealt with. To others, who did not read the cables, the in­cidents of the peace offensive only suggested that the President was war-minded, unneutral in the legal sense, and even per­haps guilty of ponderable improprieties. These suspicions, whose public expression constantly negated the peace offen­sive. came violently to a head in the queer incident of the French air mission.

* * * Johnson” (Assistant Secretary of War, went over the head of the Secretary of War) "acting on his own. promptly reversed former procurement procedure and obtain­ed new designs greatly superior to the Heinkel. Meanwhile, for alt Woodring knew, the bombers built for his competition were the best the army had on order.

“Into this situation, in December, (balf-Jew) William Christian Bullitt injected a French mission bent on buying American planes. With great brilliance and remarkable far­sightedness, Bullitt mixes a failing for Oppenheimism. He kept the Frenchmen elaborately under cover, and persuaded the President to make (Jew) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., their liaison with the government. The French wanted bombers of the Woodring competition design. Woodring still wrongly believed these planes were the army’s best. When at last he learned of the presence of the mission, he” (Woodring) 'accused Morgenthau of trying to give mili­tary secrets to the French. There followed a ridiculous but bitter game of Box and Cox, which was only terminated when the President, advised by Louis Johnson, ordered the army to release to the French the superseded Woodring com­petition bombers and the Curtiss P36 pursuit ships which subsequently did so well against the German Messerschmitts. Then in February a French flyer crashed on the coast, and all the bitterness boiled over in an investigation by the Senate Military Affairs Committee. The President, disquieted by the committee's obvious feelings toward himself, invited the Sen­ators to the White House for a talk.

“Occurring in a lull in the rising storm, the Senate com­mittee’s visit to the White House oddly summed up the fun­damental misunderstandings in the matter of foreign policy.

“ * * * ‘War.’ (Roosevelt said to the Senate Committee, gesturing toward the listening Senators) . ‘would directly affect ‘the peace and safety of the United States. * *’

“Without noticing the Senators’ growing uneasiness, * * Then he added:

“ ‘That is why the safety of the Rhine frontier does necessarily interest us.’

“ ‘Do vou mean that our frontier is on the Rhine?’ asked one of the Senators, breaking the listening silence.

“ ‘No, not that. But practically speaking if the Rhine frontiers are threatened the rest of the world is too. Once thev have fallen before Hitler, the German sphere of action will be unlimited.’

"Such talk was strong meat even for internationalists. * * * Suspicion of him grew still stronger: repeal of the arms embargo was further deferred, and the ersatz quality of the peace offensive was fully revealed.

“Searching for weapons to implement the peace offensive, the President had meanwhile laid hands on the economic powers so casually granted by Congress, and so often turned to unfore­seen account in New Deal foreign policy.

“ * * * With war more imminent than ever, they began

to think of other aspects of American wartime policy besides aiding the democracies by ‘methods short of war.’ * * *

“Probably a quarter century must elapse before we know whether the European foreign offices were correct in fearing war last April. * * *

“As usual the President had been on the trans-Alantic telephone, calling his ambassadors to ask if there was anything he could do. As usual the answer had been coming back, ‘Not without making some commitment.’ And as always public opinion put commitments out of the question. * * * At worst," (President’s plan) "by asking the dictators point blank whether they would fish or cut bait, it ought to provide a breathing space in which England and France could contin­ue to re-arm. At best, it might give England and France time to make encirclement effective. * * * (German charge of at­tempted encirclement is here verified, and they tried to buy Soviet Russia into completing the encirclement.)

"Accordingly the message was put on the wires for Rome and Berlin, where it had the effect of a sudden explosion. * * * the German and Italian peoples were angered by the intervention from abroad. * * * Mussolini’s came first, an infuriated single sentence in a speech. * * * Then, after the answers had been given, there was no more crisis, and the business of drumming up emotion had to begin all over again.

“ * * * Hull (whose wife is a Jewess) urged fighting for repeal (Neutrality Law) * * * This time, at last, Pittman confessed that the prospects were far from fair. Thereupon the President and Hull took the fight into their own hands, beginning a series of conferences with wavering Senators and Congressmen. Thev discussed what to say in advance, and each supplemented the other.

“ * * * The Senate was so slugaish that it was decided in June to start the final drive in the House, where repeal had to be sponsored bu Sol Bloom, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The pushing impresario of George Washington, the Constitution and. in the forgotten ‘90's, of a cooch dan­cer at the Chicago World’s Fair; Bloom is one of the Con­gressional seniority system’s broadest jokes.

“* * * Repeal of the arms embargo was the crux of the President’s foreign policy. ‘Methods short of war,' the dis­tinction between political and economic commitments in Europe, 'disarmament and an opening of trade,’ the theory that neutrals were ‘parties at interest’ in a modern world con­flict — all these concepts were less immediately important than repeal. With repeal refused the United States almost ceased, for a while, to have a foreign policy.

*****

(The President asked Morgenthau in April 1939):

" ’Henry, are you ready for the worst? Because things look so bad you ought to be.’

" * * * In the ensuing week, the Treasury was the scene of a remarkable succession of meetings, at which Morgenthau and his aides planned wartime protection of the American econ­omy with representatives of the State and Agriculture Depart­ments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and the New York Stock Exchange.”

Numerous and grandiose steps of Morgenthau at Roosevelt’s dir­ection to prepare for war are enumerated by Alsop and Kintner. but a deep and suspicious silence is maintained as to Morgenthau’s efforts at this time (April, 1939) to form a partnership of the United States with Soviet Russia, England and France, at tremendous cost, to corner all the war materials in the world. Not a word from Alsop and Kintner as to the courtship of the Soviet and Roosevelt’s cold and formal greeting on June 6, 1939, to the new Christian Ambas­sador from Spain and his fulsome welcome on the same day to bloody Stalin's Ambassador, notwithstanding the troops of the Soviet had but recently left Spain .where they had murdered priests, bishops, nuns and peasants, desecrated churches and pillaged private property; not a word about pledge of aid to Poland, England and France.

During the Summer of 1939, the President went ahead with his encouragement of England and France to war.

Alsop and Kintner continue:

Then, when every financial eventuality had been pro­vided for, the entire program was embodied in a group of executive orders, and when they had been passed by the President and the Justice Department, these stored in Mor­genthau' s safe, to be used as needed when war came.

*****

’’ * * * This boundary” (a bad public atmosphere and the people’s possible reaction) “was also unfortunately cross­ed, through small fault of the President’s with the appoint­ment of the War Resources Board.

“ * * * For some time Secretary of War, Harry A. Wood- ring, Assistant Secretary Louis Johnson, and the wise veteran of the last war, (Jew) Bernard M. Baruch, had been express­ing concern to the President over the state of national defense. A year or so before, Baruch had been so troubled by our small production of smokeless powder that he had offered to ad­vance $3,600,000 of his own to build a smokeless powder plant for the government. The office of the Assistant Secre­tary of War is legally charged with the periodic preparation

of industrial mobilization plans, and Johnson had been par­ticularly insistent in pressing the President for the appoint­ment of a civilian advisory committee of industrial experts to check his plan. During the spring both Baruch and John­son had revived this proposal. Iiarly in August, 1939, as soon as Congres was out, the President * * announced to them, 'I want to set up a War Resources Board.’

• * * the President * * told him that Edward L. Stet- tinius, chairman of the U. S. Steel Company, was ‘the man’. Stettinius, drafted by telephone from the White House, * * * When they had finished they called the President, and he ap­proved. Then came the rub. Although the board’s function was intended to be purely advisory, its mere appointment was sure to cause some alarm. Actually the alarm was vastly increased by a foolishly phrased announcement in which John­son and Edison implied the board would take over American industry when war came.

Alsop and Kintner do not stress the fact that upon our infor­mation and advice, England and France had at this time naval and military officers in Moscow endeavoring to win Stalin away from Hitler and complete Germany’s encirclement.

After the European war started, the President illegally declared a limited emergency in America.

Alsop and Kintner stated:

• * * j^_s limited emergency is not a legal concept, Jackson” (the Attorney General) "did not quite understand. The President thereupon scribbled the first paragraphs in

his own hand. (Roosevelt flunked at law school.)

* * * * *

• * * The Congressional chieftains had already warned the President, on the other hand, that if the arms embargo was to be removed from the Neutrality Act, some other man­datory regulation would have to be substituted. Their plan was to offer a cash-and-carry measure, forbidding the exten­sion of credit to belligerents and requiring them to transport their purchases in their own vessels. * * *

"It was curious because it did not once refer to the real aim behind the repeal drive, to permit the democracies to use the United States as their arsenal. Instead, it opened with a general statement that all must work together in the cause of peace. * * *

* * * * *

" * * * Garner and Warren Austin, both strong believers in the President’s constitutional supremacy over foreign policy, argued as Hull and Davis had, that outright repeal of the whole Neutrality Act ought to be demanded. ‘If you try that,’ said Key Pittman to the President, ‘you’ll be damn lucky to get five votes in my committee.” * * * The other moment of interest was also occasioned by a remark of Austin’s, 'If you want my opinion, I think we should indi­cate our purpose to support the democracies, and legislate with that in mind.' To this the President answered, ‘I’m glad to hear you say that, but I can’t say it myself.’ (Senator Austin is a Tory, Anglophile, Republican Senator from New Eng­land, who, together with four or more rich and fashionable senators from New England, has ardently supported the President in all of his efforts to put English and Canadian interests ahead of America and get billions of blood money for avaricious death merchants).

* * * The President’s oldest literary adviser. Judge Samuel Rosenman of New York, the last member of the original brain trust still in occasional active service, had been summoned from New York to be present, as he is commonly summoned when the President feels that a state paper has great import.

" * * * Yet somehow, as he (the President, in his ad­dress to Congress) spoke, there rose the collective emotion that must inevitably come when the representatives of a great people, even such unpicturesque, shambling, and often ludi­crous representatives as the Congress, meet together to decide a fundamental, future-changing question.

" * * * Then,” (from August 1938 to September 1939) “as now, the political tabus forbade public frankness.

* * * * *

"Present American policy is obviously a heavy bet on the first alternative, the second is that the war will develop into a prolonged stalemate. In that case, the theory that neutrais are parties at interest’ might be given a wartime application. Fearing the world chaos that would ensue when the greatest and richest nations had fought, quite literally, to a finish, the neutrals might agree to intervene under the leadership of the United States. * * *

“The third alternative is that the democracies will be seriously threatened with defeat by the dictatorships. In this war, there is no reason to count on a military victory of Eng­land and France, or even on their ability to maintain a stale­mate. Should they be on the eve of defeat, the square question would be presented, whether to aid them by methods no longer short of war.

" * * * We shall then have to choose between giving the Allies credit, supplies, or gold, and taking the consequences of German victory.

"Confronted with such a choice, the present American policy­makers would certainly prefer, if they could, to offer the Allies needed economic aid. Many of them would oppose loans, which could never be repaid and would become trouble-breeders like the First World War debts. But gifts of goods or gold to buy them, made in return for desirable political and economic con­cessions, would be in a different category.

“* * * On the other hand, ‘there is no reason to sup­pose that his (Roosevelt’s) mind would be closed, if the need arose, to assisting the democracies with our Navy and Air Force.’ He mentioned the possibility in his talk with Murphy. And he has been significantly chary of loose Wilsonian promises, declaring only that an American ARMY would not be sent to Europe, and expressing only the HOPE and BELIEF that we would remain at peace.”

Als .'p and Kintner in their inspired propaganda, with special accommodations behind the scenes of the White House and State Department, never mentioned nor denied the papers found by the Germans when they captured Warsaw, coming from the Polish Am­bassador in Washington, involving half Jew Bullitt, the letters from the Polish General Staff in Portugal to the Polish Foreign Minister concerning statements of the American Naval Attache not the re­port of the Polish Ambassador to London concerning our Ambas­sador Kennedy. Is it at all significant that these remarkable docu­ments, involving our intrigue inducing Europe’s second World War and the part the Jews played therein, are never faintly referred to, much less denied, in what was intended to be a complete picture of our foreign policy from Munich in September, 1938, to the present day?

Is it at all significant that shortly after Munich, Jewish Sir An­thony Eden, enemy of peace by compromise, and opponent of the Chamberlain government, was paid $5,000 and all of his and his wife’s expenses by the National Association of Manufacturers, who had announced that they wanted no “blood-money”, to make a half hour address of generalities in New York City. Eden arrived in Washington about December 14, 1938, and spent several days in conference with Roosevelt and high officials in the State De­partment; half Jew Bill Bullitt was summoned by Roosevelt from Paris and Kennedy from London, in November 1938, and an agree­ment reached that the time had come to do something practical to stop Germany, Italy and Japan and to assist England and France; that, according to the report of Polish Ambassador Potocki, Bullitt was conferring with him at length the latter part of November, 1938, and, in January, 1939, over inducing Poland to make war with England and France against Germany, promising we would be in

to end it; and on January 4, 1939, the President helped the edu­cational campaign for war with the announcement in his annual message of January 4, 1939, that “There are many ways short of war but stronger and more effective than mere words’’ of letting Germany know what would happen to her.

TRICKING AMERICA INTO EUROPE’S NEW WAR

‘‘I fear the vermin that shall undermine Senate and school and citadel and shrine;

The worm of fraud; the fatted worm of ease.

And all the crawling progeny of these;

I fear the vermin that shall honeycomb the towers And walls of State in unsuspecting hours.”

Edwin Markham.

Another World War, plotted by Roosevelt and World Jewry, the Jewish controlled American press and radio, the British-Jewish Empire and the French Empire with a large proportion of their press and banks owned by the Jews, is being fought as these words are put down. Another World War with its terrible tragedies of death, suffering and destruction of people, property and government. Again the American Gentiles are shocked and sympathetic with the sufferings of those caught in the dread machine of international conflict. At the outset we were hypocritically besought by Roosevelt and the Jewish press and radio to be “neutral” in deed but not "in thought”.

This is a war to renew Jewish domination of Germany and Central Europe and for the maintenance of the power and glory of the British-Jewish Empire. The conspirators in America, Eng­land and France are responsible for the greatest tragedy the world has ever known and their names will be dishonored and execrated in history. It never would have started had not Roosevelt and half Jew Bullitt guaranteed to Britain and France all of America’s resources, which meant, first, repeal of our neutrality act and sup­plying them with munitions and bombers without stint; second, in time the extension of unlimited credit; third, the use of our fleet in the Pacific to protect British. French and Dutch interests: if these did not suffice for victory, then our young men as air pilots and our fleet to be sent to Europe: and, lastly, if World Jewry and the British-Jewish Empire could not win without them, millions of our lads to die in Europe’s battles.

The premeditated killing of a human being by another, save in self defense, is murder—a crime against Christianity, morality, humanity, and civilization, and this applies with greatest guilt to the wholesale slaughter by one nation of the people of another who have not attacked or harmed them.

After this illegal, secret plot was negotiated, Roosevelt, the Jews and the war-mongers of this Country, of England and France

sought to overthrow the Chamberlain government and to replace

 it with Churchill, part Jew Eden, Jew Hore-Belisha and Duff Cooper. They plotted to get Bonnet out of the French Cabinet and to substitute Reynaud, Jew Blum and Jew Mandel. The ardent but unsuccessful courtship of bloody Stalin and Soviet Russia was insisted upon by Roosevelt, World Jewry and war-mongers of America, England and France.

One of the reasons for the Roosevelt-Eden plot to overthrow the Chamberlin government and remove Bonnet from the French Cabinet was because they would not agree to pay the price Red Stalin demanded to encircle and defeat Germany. At Roosevelt's and the Jews' insistence, England and France guaranteed the boundaries of Poland in order to encircle Germany and renew Jewish control. This guarantee of the boundaries of Poland was the direct and proximate cause of the World's War; in fact, it knowingly necessitated it.

As Chamberlin, distinguished author and correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in Europe, states in The Confessions of an Individualist:

“J cannot agree with the contention that the present war was unavoidable for trance and Great Britain. Certainly it was not inevitable until the British guaranty to Boland was granted, bio war is unavoidable unless the frontiers of a country have been violated or unless some country so close as to be essential to the strategic security of the neighbor state is attacked. It is certainly not true that any attack must pro­duce an international conflagration.

"Hitler, left alone in Eastern Europe, would have built up an economic empire there which might have occupied him for years. There would have been every possibility, had England and France kept their hands off in Eastern Europe, that the German dictator would have clashed with the Soviet Union, because his ambition would certainly have extended beyond the Soviet frontier.”   Ibid. p. 253.

“Poland had consistently rejected Hitler’s more moder­ate offer of a settlement based upon German annexation of Danzig, with a Polish free port in the city and an automobile road across the ‘corridor.’ ”

“ * * a general war was almost fatalistically pre-deter- mined from the moment when Great Britain gave its guaranty to Poland and with France, reversing its policy in regard to Czechoslovakia, placed itself at the head of the movement to block German expansion in Eastern Europe, thereby paving the way for the German-Soviet agreement. It is unlikely, I think,

that Hitler would have come to terms with Stalin if he had been given a free hand in the East.”

Ibid. p. 271.

‘ The refusal to permit Austria to unite with Germany, the placing of three and a halt million Germans, against their will, under Czech rule, the assignment to Italy of the solidly German South Tyrol were all violations of the principle of self-determination which was invariably invoked whenever it would work to Germany's disadvantage. The maintenance of the blockade against a half-starved people many months after the armistice had been signed (in November 1918), and the taking away of milch cows from a country where many children were dying of malnutrition and many more were growing up with rickets, were naturally not forgotten so quickly in Germany as in Allied countries.’’

Ibid. p. 278.

The Daily News of New York recently stated the following in an editorial:

The French catastrophe is a part of one of the great tragic ironies of history, as we see it.

Hitler said in "Mein Kampf” that he wanted to go east into Russia. The Ukraine looked to him like the ideal place for Germans to colonize and build up a farming and indus­trial civilization.

Hitler devoted pages in the same book to kind words about the British—how he considered them the same kind of people as the Germans, what fierce fighters the British were in an emergency, and how Germany’s best single bet would always be an alliance with England.

‘‘Mein Kampf” contains some harsh words about France; but by building the West Wall Hitler indicated that he didn’t want a war with France—that what he still wanted last August was to go East.

"The Allies wouldn’t let him go East. They insisted that he come West. He has come West, with a vengeance.”

Gen. Hugh S. Johnson recently said in the World Telegram:

‘‘The fall of France can’t be explained. Gossip filtering back indicates a stench to heaven. We are already officially blamed for not doing something that we were somehow sup­posed to be obliged to do. Who obligated us? Mr. Bullitt did say openly that we wouldn’t be in it at the beginning but would be in the end. * *

‘‘One by one they fell. Britain and France were helpless or unwilling to stop it. They are responsible for the threat to us today because, finally, came the case of Poland. Britain

and France at last were drowsily preparing. But neither was remotely ready. Nevertheless they shoved Poland into the guns. The case was weak. Danzig was a German city. The Polish Corridor was a monstrosity. Furthermore, worst of all, Hitler wanted no war in die west; he was headed east and southeast.

"France, under British pressure, joined in declaring war when Hitler marched. It was one of the greatest and most stupid blunders in history—if not the very greatest. It forced Hitler to turn to the west. The result already has been the destruction of six small neutral nadons—and the French empire. It terribly threatens the British Empire. It threatens us.

"Recriminadons have already begun. We hear that France didn’t want to go to war and Britain forced her; that the French government didn’t want to abandon the defensive and plunge into the disastrous Belgian pocket; that Britain forced it and didn’t support it. * * *”

The neutral nations would have succeeded, even after war had been declared, in negotiating peace had there not been the insuper­able barrier of American and English demands that the Jews be re­turned to power in Germany and Central Europe, under the guise of the protection of minorities, and Germany’s unyielding refusal to even discuss such terms.

JEW, ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAR PROPAGANDA

Propaganda in the Next War by Sidney Rogerson, published in England under the auspices of the British Government and edited by the noted military expert, Captain Liddell Hart, contains instructions as to how England can win the war and involve the United States. He states:

"Perhaps the most general vehicle of propaganda is the daily newspaper. * * Its practical influence is the greater be­cause it is not obviously propaganda. * * Newspaper propa­ganda can be insidious in that a paper, whose editorial com­ment is childishly impartial or non-political, can so present the news of the day as to give a decided propaganda bias to them. It can alter the balance of news by prominence, posi­tion and headlines.” (Jews have almost a monopoly of the American Press.)

Ibid, pages 86 and 87.

"One other point needs mention. The popular Press flourishes at the expense of the nerves of the public, whose emotions it assaults in each and every edition. ‘Sensation,’ ‘Amazing,’ 'Scandal,' ‘Tragic,’ ‘Horrible,* ‘Brutal’ — the words come tumbling out of the presses with the jangling crash of granite blocks unloaded on to an iron sheet."

Ibid, page 90.

* * * Ardent propagandists lashed the British public into a fury at the work of German Zeppelin and aeroplane raiders raining death and destruction on defenceless women and children. * * * The carnage caused by allied airmen in German towns has been kept very quiet, but two instances will be enough to show its quality. In June, 1916, British and French pilots bombed Karlsruhe during the Corpus Christi procession, killing and wounding 26 women and 124 children. In a second raid in September they caused 103 casualties in the same city.”

Ibid, page 14.

" * * * Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti-Semitic.” (This is more than true in America where it is dangerous to mention any truth derogatory to the Jews, and in New York it has been made a crime.)

Ibid, page 92.

"* * It has been estimated that of the world Jew popula­tion of approximately fifteen millions, no fewer than five mil­lions are in the United States. Twenty-five per cent of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorf to be the master stroke of Allied propaganda as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jetvs in America but to Jews in Ger­many as well."

Ibid, page 147.

"* * All over the world, and especially in the U. S. A., Jetvs will be active against Germany, and the Jew is a natural and very energetic propagandist, though perhaps not a very far-seeing one. There are, however, cross-currents in the tide of world Jewry—the identification of Russian Jews with Com­munism, for example, and Palestine, another of our war propaganda hens which may come home to roost!—which should warn us not to rely too much on having it entirely in our favour.”

Ibid, page 63.

«<* * * I h_{ave sa};d _a]ready that the Jew is a more energetic than skillful propagandist, but he is undoubtedly energetic. At present we are with traditional readiness giving shelter to large numbers of persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria. It would be against nature if these immigrants, whether per­manent or in passage, did not harbour resentment against the countries which had expelled, them, and it should not be grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism to point out that a great many of them are making an active propaganda to incite feeling against Germany.”

“ * * The U. S. A. will still supply the world” (with moving pictures, practically all owned by the Jews). “Not only is she far and away the greatest producer, but, much more important still, she largely controls the machinery of the world film distribution.”

Ibid, page 112.

“There remains the United States—the Great Neutral. In the next war, as in the last, the result will probably depend upon the way in which the United States acts, and her attitude will reflea die reaction of her public to propaganda properly applied.”

Ibid, page 144.

"* * they (the Americans) can perhaps hardly be expeaed, in the security of their own detached hemisphere, to see Euro­pean affairs realistically. For one thing, the American is the great champion of the oppressed—and frequently of the soi- disant oppressed which may explain why he is so frequently taken in by the 'hard-luck’ story of London confidence trick­sters! Secondly, the American peoples are still under the in­fluence of much of the Great War propaganda. They are more susceptible than most people, to mass suggestion—they have been brought up on it—and since 1918 they have shut themselves off from reality. Thirdly, they are at this moment the battle-ground of an aaive propaganda of Labels.”

Ibid, page 146.

"* * To persuade her (America) to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany.

"Fortunately with America our propaganda is on firm ground."

Ibid., page 148.

" * * American newspaper men in London are of ap­proved mettle, and, though impervious to any obvious propa­ganda, should nevertheless represent a valuable propaganda force on 'he strength of the dag to dag news theg send over, quite apart from the fact that mang of them like this countrg."  Ibid., page 149.

In the Jew New York Times of September 22, 1940, it is stated:

“There is no use shutting our eyes or trying to duck the matter: the moment has finally come when we in this corner must dig in and prepare for a wave of propaganda pictures. Ever since last January, when ‘The Lion Has Wings' came swooping down, there has been an increasing run of foreign and domestic films bearing directly, and with various parti­ality, upon matters which are foremost and critical today. Themes which had been skittishly skirted or avoided alto­gether in less perilous times have lately been advanced upon the screen with exceptional fervor and frankness. The bars on ticklish topics have been dropped for the duration, and films are fast assuming the role predestined for them in time of crisis.

"Within the past ten days three pictures have hit local screens which fall without any question into the category of propaganda. Two of them—‘Pastor Hall,’ which is showing at the Globe, and an item called ‘After Mein Kampf?' doing business at the Bryant (ne Cameo)—are British made and are therefore roundly and unreservedly anti-Nazi. The third and most significant is the March of Time's strictly American and frankly purposeful ‘The Ramparts We Watch,’ which is tenanting the Music Hall.”

The film "Pastor Hall” is sponsored by Mrs. Roosevelt and Jimmy. “The Ramparts We Watch” is produced by Luce, million­aire New York owner of Time, Fortune, and Life, and an ardent war monger. The Jews are behind all of this propaganda for the death of your sons in their foreign wars.

Mrs. Roosevelt, the Lady of the White House, who has pro­fessed great interest and fondness for our youth, especially of the Communistic persuasion, recently jeered at the mothers and fathers, and the sons of America who do not desire to die for the Jews and the British Empire. She said in her column My Day, replying to a statement by a Senator on neutrality. "Why must we approach these questions solely from the point of view of what will save our skins and our pockets?”

Why indeed—unless it is to save Jew and English skins and Jew and English pockets—are they more valuable to us than our own? A writer in Harper's magazine, as liberal a publication as is to be found on American news-stands, was shocked at the First Lady’s sentiments. Writing in the January 1940 issue, the writer said, apropos of one of Mrs. Roosevelt's utterances:

“Now, four years later, Mrs. Roosevelt’s utterances on peace and war will make ironic scanning for men who hold that women preach peace in peacetime and accept war in wartime.

"The keynote of her thinking on foreign problems, and of her husband’s too, as his 'quarantine' and 'short of war’ speeches have shown, is our responsibility to the rest of

the world . . If we should stay out, while feeling that we had something at stake in Europe and that England and France were fighting our battle, we should be, she thought, ‘doing something to our people spiritually—we should be living for ourselves alone.’ . .

“ ‘Did she think/ I put it to Mrs. Roosevelt, 'that a nation, like an individual, should be a knight errant?’ She said, ‘Definitely yes.’

" ‘But,’ I gasped, ‘how can any leader decide such a ques­tion for the millions of American boys who would be asked to risk their lives in a foreign war? Have not they the right to think of their own skins?’ ”

Admiral Joseph Taussig—our Jewish Admiral—in testifying before a Congressional Committee dragged the red herring of Japan’s possible invasion of the East Indies as a military threat to American security.

A newspaper article headed "Rear Admiral Joseph K. Taussig predicts war between U. S. and Japan”, quoted him as saying:

"I don’t see how we can escape being forced into an eventual war by the present trend of developments in the Far East. We would be warranted in using economic and financial means and, if necessary, force to preserve the integ­rity of China.”

The real "threat” to America appears in the words of Rabbi Louis I. Newman, of New York, in the Herald-Tribune of March 24, 1940:

. . Either a stalemate or an Allied defeat will be the outcome.

"This prospect strikes terror into the hearts of free men everywhere, and should awaken the United States to the fact that every possible aid, except military, should be extended to Britain and France, on condition, however, that a peace treaty be guaranteed which will right some of the wrongs now plaguing the nations. A victory for Hitler, or a stale­mate resulting in Hitler’s continuance in power, will spell disaster for European Jewry and will have its concomitant effect upon Jewry in the United States.”

According to the Baltimore Sun of May 8, 1940, Bernard M. Baruch, the New York Jew, urged the creation of an organization ‘‘to provide for an orderly conduct of war.”

During the World War, Bernard M. Baruch, to quote his own words, "probably had more power than perhaps any other man . .”

The late Senator Borah said that Baruch was the author of and

the power behind the fake Sol Bloom neutrality legislation. In Oc­tober, 1933, Fortune said of Baruch:

“Bernard M. Baruch is called into frequent conferences with the President. He has financed many a Congressional campaign: and is surrounded by a praetorian guard of Sena­tors, who hang on his every word. The figure of Baruch is swelling into enormous dimensions on the horizon of public life. He has been given credit for Hoover's appointment of Eugene Meyer, as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He is the Mystery Man of Washington and Wall Street.”

Some day we will learn the names of the Senators and Congress­men whose campaigns Baruch has financed. Mr. Meyer, a Jew, is now the ardent interventionist owner-publisher of the Washington Post.

Rabbi Nahum Goldmann, of London, Chairman of the Adminis­trative Committee of the World Jewish Congress, brought to America to get us to give our lives for World Jewry, told the Baltimore Branch of the organization:

“In this country the Jews must assume the responsibility and the leadership of the Jews of the world, whether you deserve it or not.

"Who, if not this big community of 5,000,000, leading comparatively normal lives economically, politically and so­cially, will assume that position?"

Dr. Goldmann declared that the mistake world Jewry made was in failure to organize as a political body to exert pressure on statesmen to avert anti-Semitism.

“We must understand,” he said "that our first reaction to persecution in Europe should have been a political one. But our leaders feared the reaction to a world political body, feared the charge of creating a super-government of Jews.

“They believed the Jews have not the right to organize for fear of what a Christian preacher would say over the radio. We did not dare to mobilize our forces, because the fight can only be fought on a world-wide basis.

"If we appeal to you (the American Jews), it is be­cause there is no privileged community in the history of the Jewish people. Finally, all Jews in the world will have one destiny. Even the Atlantic Ocean is no eternal barrier to the Jewish problem.

“If the European Jews lose, you will not long remain the one privileged Jewish community. Your Maginot Line is in Europe. Think of the Jewish problem in political terms. Make use of this chance, and bring what we want from this conflict."

Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig of London, Chairman of the politi­cal bureau of the British-Jewish Congress, at the Baltimore meeting criticized American Jews for failing to assume "the responsibility and leadership which their favored position in the world put upon them.” He then declared that he and Rabbi Nahum Goldmann had come to America with these ends in view.

Walter Winchell is a New York Jew whose parents were decent refugees from central Europe. His income is nearly $400,000 a year as a columnist, radio commentator, and scandal monger. He enjoys the friendship of President Roosevelt, Secretary Morgenthau, Jimmie Walker, etc. Of late, in his scandal columns, he has undertaken to tell America how it should wage this British-Jew war, and has im­pudently cabled advice to the Prime Minister of England, accord­ing to St. Clair McKelway, in his "The Life and Times of Walter Winchell.” He has joined Sol Bloom and other important Jews in endeavoring to ridicule George Washington. In February, 1938, he charged that Washington "wanted to be called ‘High Mightiness’ ” and “never was a General.”

As I recall, it was Henry Adams who said about the Jews of Warsaw: “They make me creep.”

According to the New York Times of May 6. 1940, at a rally of the Workmen’s Circle, Jewish fraternal and benevolent organiza­tion, at Madison Square Garden, New York City, the remarks of Abraham Cahan, Russian born editor of the New York Jewish Daily Forward, produced an enthusiastic outburst. He said that Amer­ica’s role should not be a passive one. He further stated:

"A good example is not enough. Hitler must be defeated. Hitlerism is the great curse of the world. And now that Hitler and Stalin are one, both of them must be destroyed.”

According to the New York Times, Mr. Cahan then lapsed into Yiddish and continued to denounce both Stalin and Hitler.

Cahan had fled to America from Russia to avoid arrest for revo­lutionary activity.

Frederick William Wile, Jewish columnist, continues incessantly to chatter miscellaneous gossip and comment, with the unconcealed purpose of making us die for his tribe throughout the world.

Walter Lippmann, Jewish pundit, solemnly argues week after week it is America’s destiny to fight for England and France, not to mention World Jewry.

“Walter Lippmann, I think, once boasted in the New Repub­lic that the intellectuals had brought America into the World War.” (Lippmann will not deny being an intellectual).

The Confessions of an Individualist, p. 260.

Dorothy Thompson, in many and varied ways very close to Jews, yells and shrieks that a Bundite is under every American bed, and that we had better die in Europe than be utterly destroyed in America,

Barnet Nover, Jewish columnist for Eugene Meyer’s Washington Post, assumes a profound acquaintance with world affairs to lead us to die for Israel on the Rhine.

Jules Semon Bache, a multimillionaire and international Jewish banker of New York City, President of one of the largest Canadian gold mines, Vice-President of the Chrysler Company, and numerous other large American corporations, recently made a speech in Toronto, Canada. Gen. Hugh Johnson wrote in the Scripps-Howard papers:

“Under the headline: 'Bache scoffs at isolationists,’ the United Press reports that Mr. Jules Bache, who is almost our only out-and-out Jewish international banker and inter­ventionist, made a speech in Toronto in which he said that he had not a ‘neutral hair in his head’ and that the United States should be behind the Allies against Germany ‘if for no other reason than that of good business.' He added that the 'professional isolationists were simply after the votes of parents who do not want their sons to go to war.'

“Well, if I must be called some kind of an ‘ist’, because I want to put American interests first, I suppose I am an isolationist. * * * But as between Mr. Bache’s argument as a banker that we ought to get into this war 'for good busi­ness’ and mine that parents ought to want to keep their sons out of war, I like mine best.”

Jew banker Bache is the father-in-law of Gen. Persh­ing's only son.

On October 9, 1940, Senator Holt called to the attention of the Senate the many millions of dollars that have been invested by the Lehman Corporation in companies having war contracts with the government. Jew Governor Lehman of New York is President Roosevelt’s “good right arm.” Holt said:

“Governor Lehman, when you were going through New York (with the President) making these speeches for conscription, for aid to Great Britain * * I would like to know, when you were doing these things, if you did not know that the Lehman Corporation, owned and controlled by your family, was making hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of dollars out of defense contracts. Was your patriotism spelled ‘p-a-y-triotism’ or was it ‘p-a-triotism’? Time will record, and your good strong right arm will be shown to be a good strong right arm grabbing contracts, and sticking that arm into the pocketbook of its country.”

Senator Holt went on to show that the General American In­vestor’s Co., of which Jew Frank Altschul of New York is President, had also invested millions in companies having war contracts. Alt­schul is an officer in the international banking firm of Lazard Freres, which also has a connection with the Lehman family. Among other members of the dangerous William Allen White Committee are Colonel Henry'Breckenridge of New York, director of a company investing in munition contracts, and Mr. Fred McKee, Treasurer for the National Casket Co. Major Abraham Robert Ginsburgh, in the office of the Ass’t. Secretary of War, born in Poland, son of a Rabbi, has most appropriately been designated to make a casket survey for the U. S. Army as to how many coffins can be quickly supplied for your sons. Polish Jew Ginsburgh at first tried to make light of the coffins to the newspaper men. Holt quoted from an editorial in the Ohio Valley Labor News entitled “Caskets for Whom, When and Where?” which stated:

“Then, apparently realizing the reporter was not falling for that line, the facile officer (Ginsburgh) moved a little closer to the actualities of the situation. * *

“Pressed in this manner, Major Ginsburgh finally popped out the truth. ‘Then, too,' he admitted, ‘when you have an army you have to figure that it’s going to fight some day. Fighting means casualties, and casualties call for caskets. * * • ’•

The great Jewish investment houses of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Lehman Bros., Lazard Freres, Goldman-Sachs, Seligman, Wertheim Co., Dillon, Read & Co., Bache & Co., etc., control the flotation of a large part of the business bond issues. Since all these issues must be passed upon by the Securities and Exchange Commission, with its difficult, complicated, massive and expensive forms of regulation and registration, it is not undesirable to have a close acquaintance with the Commission. The Chairman of this Commission is Jerome Frank, a Frankfurter Jew. Morgan’s son retains some clients of the old firm, and other Gentile bond houses, most of whom for existence have at least one Jewish partner, get a few crumbs that fall from the table of Lazarus. We have little sympathy for the Gentile investment bond houses of New York, because they are in the main decadent and pusillanimous, but growing Jewish monopoly of the underwriting of business securities, gives them a strangle hold on industrial corporations, large and small.

“We are in the war now”. So stated Eugene Lyons, Russian- born, New York, radical Jew, and editor of the "American Mercury”.

"Baltimore Sun”, March 5, 1940.

The Philadelphia Record, owned and published by Julius David Stern, noted New Dealer and radical Jew, stated after Roosevelt’s Charlottesville speech that we had declared war on Germany.

President Seymour of Yale, President Conant of Harvard, Presi­dent Dodds of Princeton. President Butler of Columbia, rushed into print calling for steps which would necessarily le^d to war, and Frederick William Wile, the Jew news chief, was thrilled by Presi­dent Seymour of Yale’s statement, as construed by Wile, that 90% of his Yale boys would be in the fight. The newspaper accounts, however, indicate that not over 10% of the American youth enrolled in the swank Eastern universities are anxious to give their lives for the Jews, Roosevelt and the British-Jewish Empire. Many of the parents of the young men, whom they had entrusted to these colleges for educational purposes alone, are indignant with the attempted donation to Europe’s Wars of their son’s lives by the college presidents.

The Chicago Tribune Press Service reports a dispatch of July 11, 1940, from Paris, which is quite revealing, stating:

"One of the important aspects of the situation in Paris is the rising feeling in all classes of the population against the Jews.

"This wave of anti-Semitism, which is growing daily, is based upon a widespread belief that the Jews, through their control of the French press, radio, and banks, were chiefly responsible for pushing France into the war.

"It was the French and British Jews, they declare, who were most violent in their criticism of the Munich agreement, and it is affirmed that they had pledged themselves to plunge Europe into war in order to avenge the wrongs of their race in Germany.

"It also is not forgotten that Jewish exiles from Germany flooded France with propaganda to the effect that Hitler would be overthrown if he declared war, that the German Army was incapable of fighting France and Britain, and that the Ger­man people were starving, thus leading the French to believe that they would win an easy victory.

"The fact that leading French Jews, including the Rothschild family and numerous great bankers and industrialists, were among the first to desert Paris in its hour of stress has likewise contributed to stimulate anti-Semitism.”

Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise, born in Hungary, and now bellow­ing for our entrance into the European War to protect European Jews, said he was “Jew first—an American after that”, and also declared: “I believe that of all the achievements of my people, none has been more noble than the part of the sons and daughters of Israel which has culminated in the free Russia.” This radical Rabbi is one of the most powerful leaders of World Jewry and also a member of William Allen White’s war-mongering committee. His relations with the White House are most intimate. On December 8, 1940, over the National Broadcasting Radio, managed by Russian-born David Sarnoff, Rabbi Wise was permitted to lecture Americans on Americanism. The Department of Justice honored Rabbi Wise by designating one of its staff to introduce him.

The then United States Minister to Canada, play-boy, multi­millionaire James Cromwell, now candidate for the United States Senate under the benign auspices of Frank Hague, Jersey City Demo­cratic dictator, declared for our participation in the war on the side of the Allies in a statement, which, says Mr. Ludwell Denny, “was an important addition to the German White Paper on alleged indiscre­tions of American Ambassadors.”

The New York Times for June 8th, under the heading “Cham­ber Favors Armed Aid by U. S.“, said:

‘‘An American armed force to aid the Allies was favored yesterday by the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York in a resolution amended to delete a clause opposing such action. * * *

“Moving to amend the resolution by removing the clause, Albert C. Lord, investment banker, said he was ‘amazed’ that a resolution asserting that ‘a supreme effort is needed to meet an emergency’ should be qualified by the addition of a statement opposing armed aid.

" 7 think it beneath the dignity of this chamber, when men in England and France and other democratic countries are bleeding themselves white in defense of what they believe to be the right and honorable way of life, for us to say we will send help in materials, but not shed a drop of blood.’ Mr. Lord declared. * *

“Mr. Johnston announced later his appointment of the following committee:

(Jewish) “Mayor La Guardia, honorary chairman: Gen­eral James G. Harbord, chairman of the Radio Corporation of America, active chairman: Colonel Julius Ochs Adler, vice president and general manager, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Sherman M. Fairchild, president, Fairchild Engine and Air­plane Company: William S. Farish, president, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; Dr. John C. Parker, vice president, Consolidated Edison Company: Walter S. Gifford, president, American Telephone and Telegraph Company: Major Gen. William N. Haskell, commandant, New York National

Guard; Charles G. Meyer, president, Cord Meyer Company; Gerrish H. Milliken, president, Deering, Milliken 8 Co.; Henry S. Morgan of Morgan, Stanley & Co.; Nelson A. Rocke­feller, president, Rockefeller Center, Inc.; George E. Roosevelt, partner, Roosevelt & Sons, and Matthew Woll, vice president, American Federation of Labor. All but Mayor La Guardia, Mr. Farish. General Haskell and Mr. Woll are members of the chamber.”

David Lawrence, Jew commentator and columnist, professes the most conservative and capitalistic beliefs, discreetly interlined with arguments for us to rescue by war his people in Europe. He is closely associated with the Rockefellers and the big financial interests of New York.

The New York Times, owned and published by the Jews Ochs- Sulzbergers, and Adlers, has until recently, on account of its owner­ship and unquestioned devotion to the Jewish cause, been permitted to adopt a more hidden and crafty, though not less strategic, effort to get us into Europe’s war on behalf of World Jewry than has been demanded by Jewish advertisers of Gentile newspapers. But on June

• 1940, in a leading editorial, it takes off the mask and urges forced Army training. It demands in peace time that the American people adopt a national system of universal compulsory military training and says that it has been remorselessly forced to this conclusion because of an immediate threat to America’s security. This is only another effort on the part of World Jewry to establish an enormous Army in America to fight the world over for international Jewry and the British-Jewish Empire.

Jew Julius Ochs Adler, multi-millionaire Vice-President and General Manager of the New York Times, is prancing around the country, yelling to arms, to arms, millions of boys to arms. On June

• 1940, he told the alumni and students at Princeton University that a bill would shortly be introduced in Congress which would make compulsory military training for every man in America between 18 and 65 years of age. This Jewish demand was the first information vouchsafed Americans that Congress would conscript them for War. The Jew Adler condemned the current system of voluntary recruiting for the Army and Navy as "inadequate during times of stress”. It is reported that a similar address will be made to the students of Yale and Harvard, where the Internationalists, Anglophiles and Jews are also in control. Washington, and his officers and soldiers, fought gallantly at Princeton and Brandywine, and after the Colonies had supposedly achieved their freedom from Britain, together with other great patriotic soldiers of the Revolutionary War, organized the

Society of the Cincinnati. The Revolutionary Army had been dis­banded, its heroes were opposed to a standing army 3nd named their society for Cincinnatus, the Roman, who after saving his country forsook the sword for the plough. Roosevelt gave his hearty ap­proval to the Jew editorial of the New York Times for universal compulsory military training in peace time, which is not at all re­markable since the editorial would never have been written without his connivance.

General Hugh Johnson recently said in the Scripps-Howard papers:

“As an illustration of snap judgments in the highest places on matters of great moment stands the President’s ap­proval after having read 'only the first paragraph’ of a New York Times editorial which said: ‘The time has come when in the interest of self-protection, the American people should at once adopt a national system of universal compulsory mili­tary training.’ Later on the editorial said: ‘We believe that it should be so drafted as to provide training not only for young men but for older men as well.’

“ * * That means that in its most restricted sense, ‘uni­versal compulsory military training’ would require us to be­gin training 7,316,000 men. If we decided to train all the classes that were in 1918 classified as fit and eventually liable to military service * * the total would be more than 10,000,- 000."

Commenting on this unofficial proposal to regiment the nation’s youth, the eminent authority, Mr. John T. Flynn, recently said:

" * * there is a movement which is far more serious for us than the dictators, because the dictators are not coming here and this movement is already here. I speak of the movement for compulsory military service.

"Nothing has been so repugnant to free people as compul­sory military service. * * But, short of the most desperate compulsion, it is a thing that has always been abhorrent to free men.

"It is abhorrent first because it is a seizure of a man’s body, time and service. Second, because it tends to organize a coun­try into military units. Third, because it cannot be kept alive without an immense propaganda to infuse the military spirit into the people. And fourth, this means the rise of military leaders. Fifth, it involves huge yearly outlays to keep the great army equipped and paid. Sixth, this cannot be extracted from the people without rendering them willing to submit to the burden. And this can be done only by sowing among them the seeds of fear and hatred of neighbors and exploiting the glamours and rewards of imperial enterprise. * * *

"And so for a group of reasons—fear in some places, love of militarism in others, a desire to create an armament econ-

omy for recovery—there is a powerful movement to turn this country into a militaristic republic-empire.

"This would be a terrible change in the whole course of our way of life. It certainly ought not to be done hurriedly, in panic, without grave thought. Yet the President, and the worst of die reactionary leaders at his back are trying to rush the nation into this course.”

Later Flynn said:

"Behind all this hysterical drive to turn America into a military camp are factors and forces upon which the light of day has not yet been turned.

“It is a fact that responsible Americans in Europe, some of them high officials, have been predicting that America would be in this war within a month. Who are these men? What is their authority for the assurances they feel that this country is to be in this war? Where does this originate?

"There has been in Washington and in Europe the feeling in very high quarters that some sort of commitments have been given somewhere by someone. Who? What are they? It is a matter of deadly seriousness to the American people.

"There is plenty of reason to believe that the people have not been dealt with honestly. Take two matters—neutral­ity and militarism. In September the President denounced the supporters of the Neutrality Act, demanded its revision, declared he was the leader of those who were for true neutral­ity and that it was his determination to keep America out of the war. Now is it not clear that he was not for neutrality and that, when he said that, he was not revealing his mind to the people?

“He said he was going to keep us out of the war. But he must have known as well as anybody else that in the war just then beginning either the Germans or the English might lose. He said unequivocally he would keep us out. He did not say he would keep us out unless the English and French were losing. He did not reveal his whole intention. For n< n that France and England are losing he is intriguing, fighting to draw us in.

"Take the matter of compulsory military service. Mind, what the President is now urging is not conscription for this war but compulsory service — conscription, the draft, as a con­tinuing policy of American life.

"Perhaps you think the President has been driven to this drastic step because of events. But this is not so. He has always been for compulsory military service. He said so in 1920. He has never changed his mind. This is something he has dreamed of. But the people did not know this when they elected him. In 1932 he did not come out and say: 'I favor a permanent draft army for America.’ That is the Prussian system of compulsory armies. He did not say it, because if he had he would have been defeated overwhelmingly.

"Instead he said the direct opposite. Then the Hoover Administration was spending five or six hundred millions a year on defense. Mr. Roosevelt denounced Mr. Hoover for spending so much. It was popular to denounce military spend­ing in a country that wanted peace and no part of militarism. So Mr. Roosevelt kept his real views to himself and de­nounced the pacific Hoover for being too warlike.

"Before America’s entry into the last war, Robert Lansing, then Secretary of State, said: 'We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be will­ing to go into this war.’ And while the Secretary of State was saying this, Woodrow Wilson was running on a slogan: ‘He kept us out of war.’

"Men and women might take a look at their young sons who will be ground tip in this dreadful war and ask them­selves if it is not time to quit being hysterical.”

The Draft Bill which has been passed is a hideous New York City, Atlantic seaboard, Jewish, Anglophile effort to permanently regi­ment our American Republic into a totalitarian, militaristic empire, with the immediate purpose of redressing, by an unprovoked war, the Jewish grievances in Europe. It is a new Roosevelt shackle. It, however, is now the law of the land, and unless and until it is repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is hardly possible by a Roosevelt-packed Court, it should be loyally obeyed, faithfully observed and fully complied with by every patriotic American. If you are, however, interested in your sons and your country’s future, you should do everything in your power to elect a Congress that will repeal it, and vote against every Senator and Congressman who imposed it upon you.

Sidney Hillman, an Ashkenazic Jew, born in Lithuania, fled to America after the Russian Revolution of 1905-6, returned to Russia in 1921 and in 1922, made a great bit with Lenin and the revolu­tionary leaders and brought back to America the message of Com­munism. During the last World War he was made a national figure by Justice Brandeis, Felix (now Justice) Frankfurter, and Louis E. Kirstein. President Roosevelt has appointed him labor's representative to the National Defense Advisory Commission. "His task is no less than to coordinate American labor in the defense industries and to supervise the industrial preparedness of our youth.” Saturday Evening Post, October 19, 1940.

Hillman, a Communistic Russian Jew selected by Roosevelt to take charge of Labor and Youth in preparation for war.

The Rabbis of New York in their Saturday sermons of June 8, 1940, gave their hearty approval of universal compulsory military training for war—of Christian youths as have Presidents Dodds of Princeton and President Conant of Harvard. Princeton and Presi­dent Dodds were so flattered at the multi-millionaire "spider” Ochs Adler’s cordial invitation to Christian lads to die for World Jewry that they promptly made him a trustee of the University.

When foreign and domestic Rabbis, Jewish international bankers, Jewish newspapers, columnists and radios clamor for war and the compulsory service therein of millions of our Christian youths, might it not be well to recollect that a resolution adopted June 25, 1936, by Central Conference of American Rabbis at their 47th Annual Convention, held at Cape May, N. J. (Vol. XLVI of Yearbooks of Central Conference of American Rabbis, p. 74), declared:

"The Central Conference of American Rabbis reaffirms its conviction that conscientious objection to military service is in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism and therefore petitions the Government of the United States to grant to Jewish religious conscientious objectors to war the same exemption from military service as has long been granted to members of the Society of Friends and similar religious organizations.”

General Hugh Johnson recently stated:

“ ‘Fairly and without fear or favor.' That is how the President told the governors the selective service law must be administered. * * *

"On the very day the President was making all this clear, his own son, Elliott, was commissioned and called to service as a captain in the Air Corps. As a flyer? Oh, deah, no. A young man has to work and train for that. Elliott goes in as what airmen call derisively a kee-wee—a bird without wings.

"He didn't apply to any recruiting office. The head of the Army Air Corps, Gen. Arnold himself, assigned him from the ‘specialists reserve’ to a job in ‘procurement’—which means something to do with buying supplies. When asked what kind of a specialist Elliott claimed to be, the officials said that was ‘confidential.’ * * *

"At his age of 30, he would have been in the selective draft pool. * * *

"Now the President's second son won’t even have to register for the draft and take his place on a footing of equality with all other young Americans of his age. Without any discernible military training, preparation or qualification, and without any known preparation for ‘procurement,’ he is made

a ‘captain by the scratch of a pen and an officer and a gentle­man by Act of Congress.’ * * *

“Guiltless as I believe this act was at heart, it ought to be undone just as quickly as it was performed. Otherwise it will remain a stench to heaven."

Jew Chairman of the Securities £< Exchange Commission, Jerome N. Frank, on May 8, 1940, outlined to high Army officers a war­time finance plan for the expenditure of $20,000,000,000 for arma­ments, according to the United Press.

In the papers of June 9, 1940, Pearson and Allen, able commen­tators, close to the White House, Department of Justice and State Department, stated:

“In a war emergency, Trotsky (Jew Communist) would be the most valuable aid the United States could have in un­earthing Communist plots. In fact, the Justice Department has even considered the idea of giving him a place of refuge here.”

In one of the Metropolitan papers of June 15, 1940, it was stated:

“The dynamic Bullitt is vigorously pro-French. The Germans know it well and blame him bitterly for egging on Roosevelt. They account for his attitude by pointing out that he is part Jewish. * * * *

"Washington diplomats of Europe’s and Asia’s neutrals who receive information through uncensored channels say privately that the working population of Paris—anti-war from the outset —blame the American ambassador for the letting of French blood. * * * ”

Flynn says: “It is very important, however, to realize the existence of various groups eager for American participa­tion in the war, if it should become evident that our partici­pation is essential to defeating Germany. These people con­stitute a small minority. They are to be found in certain groups, and everybody recognizes who they are. Some of them are intriguing actively to get us in.”

Country Squire In the White House, by John T. Flynn.

104. 104.

“But we must keep in mind the President’s long, constant attitude toward armaments and military training. He is a lover of arms. * * *

“But he (the President) goes further than this. If there is one thing that the people of America hate with all their souls it is militarism. By militarism I mean that sys­tem of compulsory military training, universal military serv-

ice and national armies that has made a shambles out of Europe. To escape militarism, millions of European immi­grants flowed past the Statute of Liberty to America before the Great War.

“Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the few Americans who has advocated the establishment of a national army and uni­versal military service—conscription during times of peace."

During the World War Roosevelt wrote:

‘Is it not time that the people of the United States should adopt definitely the principle of national government service by every man and woman at some time in their lives? * * * This means service in times of peace as well as in times of war and means service in the civilian branches as well as the military branches. The day will soon be at hand when the army and the navy of this great republic wilt be looked upon by its citizens as a normal part of their own government and their own activities.’

Flynn further states when America was at peace, Roosevelt pro­posed: “On October 11, 1919 (in peace time), he (Roosevelt) again proposed universal military training in the army and navy at the New York State Convention of the American Legion.

"The simple truth is—though Americans have not rea­lized it—that we have a militarist in the V/hite House who would, if he dared propose it, establish an army, with peace­time conscription, on the European model. And we must be aware of and weigh these facts about him properly before we can understand what the conflict in Europe is doing as it races through his mind."

Ibid. Ps. 105. 106, 107.

“However, it is not possible to get the people to consent to vast outlays fpr national defense unless you frighten them, make them fear that enemies are about to assail them, and this is what has now happened.

"Put all of these things together—the President’s love of military and naval might and display, his truculence about the command of the seas, his well-known sympathies both by blood and sentiment with England, his belief in the doctrine of col­lective security, his dilemma in finding means to spend money and ways of holding popular approval of spending, the rising tide of political antagonism that was generally recognized before the war began—and you have the conditions that set his mind off in the direction of military adventure.

"He has been playing with this subject ever since October, 1937, when the severe recession got under ivay. He, his State Department, his military subordinates are continuously doing and saying things of a provocative character. On October 11, 1937, before Roosevelt made his quarantine speech, he called in his admirals and asked their advise for an economic blockade of Japan in co-operation with European powers. The British shied away from this. The American people knew nothing about it. Then came the quarantine speech in which he advo­cated international action to quarantine aggressors. If that policy had been adopted, it would have meant that England, France, the United States and possibly Russia would have used military power to strangle Japan and Germany economically. That meant the President was actually talking about war under these euphemistic phrases."

Ibid. Ps. 108-109.

“Then came the spy scares. These spy stories were not given out by subordinates but by the President himself in order to give them the greatest explosive propaganda effect. The attorney general of the United States was put in the movies to call on Americans to report suspicious cases—to spy upon their neighbors.

"After the present war in Europe broke out, the Presi­dent began personally, directly from the White House, to give out in his own name statements about submarines cruis­ing along our coasts. All this could be multiplied many times to show the plain purpose of the President to fill the American people with a fear that this country was going to be attacked by Germany; that as soon as England and France were done for, the United States was next on the list, that Hitler and Mussolini were meditating invasions of South America. Assistant Secretary of War Johnson has been go­ing around the country making speeches saying that we should provide arms for a million men and build the world’s greatest navy to resist a German invasion of this country, while Senator Neely of West Virginia, speaking for the administra­tion’s so-called ‘neutrality’ policy, said that as soon as Hitler defeated England and France 'he would come to Canada with the French army in the English navy, build a Siegfried line along the Canadian border, organize Sudeten areas in German cities like St. Louis and Milwaukee and reduce the United States to the fate of Poland.'

"The President has now thrown off all pretense of neutrality. But he is still trying to make people believe that the Germans can invade the United States by airplane—a proposition, so preposterous that he cannot get a single military man to sup­port it."

Ibid. Ps. 110 and 111.

"And when an election approaches. Americans are think­ing of the eleven million people still unemployed, of the farm problem unsolved; of the utter paralysis of private invest­ment, of the mounting public debt, of the scandals in Wash­ington and local political machines and a score of other counts in the indictment by Roosevelt's political foes. And the war, the menace to our security, the call to national de­fense—all this will take the minds of our people off the failure to solve our own problems and will furnish a new excuse to spend another ten or fifteen billion dollars to return his party to power.

"What is more serious than all this, of course, is that the President has been 'meddling in’ on the European situation for two years, and is increasing his meddling. While proclaiming himself the true neutral, he has been inching the country more and more toward active support of the two great empires. He is now the recognized leader of the war party. There is not the slightest doubt that the only thing that now prevents his active entry on the side of the Allies is his knowledge that he cannot take the American people in yet. He has said privately that he does not want to send men, will, in fact, never do it. If he went in, it would be merely with naval and air forces and widi munitions and supplies. This, cf course, is another ex­ample of the President’s method of halfway thinking. Imagine this country going to war and then refusing to supply men to do the fipbline!”

Ibid. P. 113.

M-DAY

M-Day is a word we will hear more often from now on. It is the abbreviation for Mobilization Day. The War and Navy Depart­ments take over on M-Day. You can’t blame them for it. The War and Navy Departments, save at the top where Roosevelt rules, are professional bodies of soldiers and sailors, patriots, good, sound, responsible citizens, trained to obey orders and let politics be politics.

Such magazines as Colliers, Liberty, etc., have already warned us that when the Industrial Mobilization Plan—as the M-Day plan is called—goes into operation, democracy will die a sudden and violent death.

Our political leaders have tried to soften the blow in advance somewhat by saying: “The surrender of all individual rights in war time is undesirable, if it can be avoided, but the assumption of indi­vidual responsibilities will be essential to the efficient co-ordination of a national industrial effort.”

This blue-print of the future is supposed to be a public document but its details are secret. We can, however, give you some information about them. What they amount to is this—complete political control of industry, man-power, the press, finance.

As might be expected under an Administration which has gone in for setting up bureaus outside the control of the law and which operate without regard for individual or national welfare, the I.M.P. has set up several bureaus. One important bureau is:

Selective Service Administration. The third bureau of the I.M.P. has a personal meaning for you if you are between the ages of 18 and 45 and physically able to take a bullet be­tween the ribs. The job of this agency is to put you into uniform whether you like it or not. It would have some excuse for becoming law if and only if this nation were at­tacked or about to be attacked. Under it every citizen be­tween 18 and 45 is liable for service. What is more, he will be required to serve until six months after the emergency. And who is to decide—under this provision—the length of the “emergency”—.who but the President? The provision goes on to say that: “Persons subject to the act who fail to report for duty in the land and naval forces as ordered” can be court-martialed.

Mind you, no one has produced the slightest credible evidence that this country is in real danger of attack, no matter who wins the war now being fought.

The next bureau is:

Post-War Readjustment. This bureau will have charge of the plans for the end of the “emergency." This "emergency” —especially if it upsets the business of life very much, and surely it will do that,—can last as long as the President wishes.

We have a President who thrives on "emergencies”, creating them almost at will and whenever he finds that his schemes for deal­ing with the previous "emergency” have failed to work. We may assume, therefore, the "emergency” that begins when we go into the new World War will be prolonged for an indefinite period. If the people in power when the war begins are in power when its ends — and that is a certainty—we may reasonably expect the post war "emergency” to last as long as they wish it to last.

The answer to this proposal is simple. Our people need no I.M.P.—no M-Day blue-print of Communi-Fascism—to bring them into line for defense of our Republic. This is America. Destruction of Constitutional American Liberty does not prepare us to defend against an external enemy, but rather makes us succumb to internal enemies.

The I.M.P. is a plan designed to be put into operation not pri­marily when we are attacked. There is no prospect that we will be attacked. It is the machinery for that change of our form of govern­ment which has been built up during the past seven and a half years under the New Deal. The efforts of the New Dealers to remake our system of government have not succeeded to the extent they plainly wished. They have been slowed up by the Congress, speak­ing the voice of the people. Therefore, another "emergency”—this time the greatest and most dangerous of all—must be concocted. The war in Europe is that “emergency”.

Whatever our sympathies, whatever our dislike of Hitler and Mussolini, whatever our ties with “Mother England”, whatever our hatred of the sufferings of the war stricken countries, whatever our connection with their trade and business, none of these things is so important as our ability to maintain ourselves as we have always been—strong and self-sufficient under Constitutional American Lib­erty.

In the world that will follow the end of this war, we can be of immense service only as a strong nation, not as one made over in the pattern of those who have been too pro-English, too pro-Jew, too anti-American, too selfish and too dishonest to keep out of war. Not only did Washington see this, but Thomas Jefferson, the father of the party now in power in this country, was equally certain that we have no business, no right, to take part in the quarrels of other nations.

Thomas Jefferson warned against entangling foreign alliances with Europe. Europe did not die when Napoleon raged, and America moved strongly on her high road to strength and prosperity. Those forces which, in Jefferson's time, fought to involve us in Europe's troubles, are with us again to-day.

The question is, shall we allow them to drain our blood and our resources and our security? In the name of their evil cause they strive to do this. In the name of our peace, our rights, our very safety as citizens, in the name of our sons who will be maimed and killed they shall not again prevail.

ENGLAND SAYS WE ARE OBLIGATED
TO FIGHT FOR HER

ROOSEVELT

“I have ventured,

Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,

This many summers in a sea of glory,

But far beyond my depth.”

Shakespeare, Henry VII.

The London Daily Express correspondent in New York said, when Roosevelt demanded that we provide a program capable of turning out 50,000 planes a year, “There is no doubt that America is 100 per cent on our side . . We have all of America’s sympathy now. Some day we will be getting her help.”

The London Daily Mail, apropos of Roosevelt’s call to arms, said: “Britain and France are fighting desperately to defend vital interests—even their existence—of every democratic nation in the world, including the United States. In that struggle, we may be sure America will not stand idly by and see us defeated and de­stroyed.”

The English are never laggard in appealing to our idealism. General Johnson in one of his columns discusses the words of the Episcopal Bishop of Ely:

“If I were a citizen of the United States,” say the Bishop, “I would not have an easy conscience. Just standing aside doing nothing when a great struggle for liberty is progress­ing, doing nothing but getting rich quick in the supply of munitions to those engaged in slaughter would not give mg an easy conscience.”

General Johnson goes on to discuss the parallel with 1916-17. He says:

"Press reports say that our State Department isn’t going to write England any more tart notes about interfering with our rights on the high seas . . but just all such settle quietly —allee samee Walter Hines Page, Col. House and Robert Lansing. Why the hell not make public these impertinences and our record of protest, if any—unless Senator Borah was right and the State Department is just a British Embassy.”

During this period of debate, we have had frank expressions of their attitude from several foreigners, notably Attorney General Conant of Ontario Province, who, after praising our Ambassador Cromwell’s private declaration of war, said: "The Allies need America but they need more the moral and particularly the material resources of the United States.” Major A. G. Church, of England, said: “It is a melancholy reflection upon the spirit of our times that it is upon Great Britain and France, small communities in comparison with the great American republic, that the responsibility for safeguarding free institutions and the liberties of peoples throughout the world falls, and that numerically the greatest democracy in the world cannot justify, from the safe distance of 4,000 miles, its policy of aloofness.” On February 6, 1940, Sir Frederick Whyte, director of the American division of the British Ministry of Information, had some significant words to say about this nation.

* * the instinct of isolation still is deep-rooted and the change desired by President Roosevelt in the American mind might be slow in coming." he says, “but where the Kaiser could rely on strong American support, Nazi Germany has few friends. Considering the vehemence of the American temperament, it is not inconceivable that these sympathies may one day sweep away neutrality and sweep America into the crusade which to-day she shuns.”

Sir Frederick's reference to the absence of defenders of Nazi Germany in America makes it necessary to point out that the nature and extent of the recent propaganda about the "fifth column” of Nazi sympathizers in this country—which has already reached the point of near-hysteria—almost inevitably foreshadows another dan­gerous step in our movement toward war, to wit, the certainty that, any day now, those who insist upon minding our own business and not intervening in Europe's eternal wars, will be accused of being pro- Nazi, if not actual members of this imaginary Nazi "fifth column.”

"New York, June 2, 1940.

"Sir George Hubert Wilkins. British explorer, to-day predicted the United States eventually would enter the Euro­pean war.

“ 7 am sure this country will be drawn in,” the explorer said at LaGuardia Field as he boarded the Atlantic Clipper, bound for Portugal. ‘The Allies are greatly in need of Amer­ican resources.’

" ‘Do you think American soldiers will be taken to for­eign soil?’ he was asked.

" 7 think it likely,’ he replied, 'and Americans would have to assist in transportation to get supplies to Europe.’ ”

Dispatch from London, May 17th, 1940: "President Roosevelt’s message to Congress competes with the war news for front-page space in London newspapers this morning. The reaction here to the President's address is that he has overthrown a policy of isolation and is preparing America for war. That the United States soon will be dragged into the European struggle on the side of Britain and France is widely forecast.

"C. V. R. Thompson, Daily Express (London) cor­respondent in New York, for instance, informs British read­ers in a long article in to-day’s issue that ‘there is no doubt America is 100 per cent on our side . . . We have all of Amer­ica’s sympathy now. Some day we will be getting her help. I doubt if there is more than 1 out of 100 Americans in New York or Washington who believes now that the United States will be able to stay out more than a couple of months.”

“Similarly a Daily Mail (London) writer, G. Ward Price, purports to trace the change in American isolationist sentiment in the last month. In an article headed, ’Will America Enter the War?’ spread over its columns, he says, ‘Britain and Prance are fighting desperately to defend vital interests—even the existence—of every democratic nation in the world, including the United States. In that struggle we may be sure America won't stand idly by and see us defeated and destroyed.’

The conservative Daily Telegraph (London) describes Roosevelt’s message to Congress as ‘the gravest since Wilson asked for a declaration of war against Germany’ and com­ments editorially.

‘Roosevelt's appeal that no obstacle be placed in the way of swift delivery of war planes to the Allies despite America’s own rearmament needs is taken here as supporting the belief the President is prepared to throw American resources on the side of Britain and France against Germany.’

The liberal News Chronicle (London), however, urges “that America should go further in the Allied cause and send what would amount to an ultimatum to Premier Benito Mussolini”.

■A dispatch to the Daily News (Washington, D. C.) of June 5, 1940, is headed "Briton Insists U. S. Must Send War Aid", and states:

"The most out-spoken British appeal for American inter­vention in the war to appear so far was published to-day in The Daily Sketch. It was signed ‘Candidus,’ and called on the United States ‘to come quickly and unstintingly to the rescue of the Allies’ * *

In the brilliant article by Demaree Bess in the Saturday Evening Post, of May 11, 1940, to. he states:

"For years, the British and French peoples have been listening to a whole flock of American politicians and re­formers and other citizens crying that the democracies must stand together against the dictatorships. Now that they are actually fighting Germany, they cannot be blamed for ex­pecting their vociferous American sympathizers to attempt ta provide them with whatever help they may require. Under these circumstances, they count upon pro-Ally Americans to keep the war issue alive in American politics until the war ends, or until we get into it. [1] * *

• * To execute these new plans, they must bring more pressure upon European neutrals, perhaps even compelling some of them to enter the war. .And they must call upon their friends in other neutral countries, particularly the United States, to do everything possible to send additional help. * *

"The whole episode was reminiscent of another American election year, 1916, when President Wilson was getting ready to campaign for re-election.” * * *

"The American public did not know for years how far President Wilson had been willing to commit us in that spring of 1916. If they had known, they might not have responded so trustfully six months later to his campaign slo­gan: ‘He kept us out of war’.

"President Wilson’s rashness in committing his country was not revealed in 1916. * * *

"Americans who lived in Europe could see that Mr. Roosevelt’s eloquent phrases, combined with certain obscure diplomatic moves that he began to make, were creating exag­gerated hopes of American support in England and France. At that time I * * suggested that unless the American people were really prepared to join England and France in war against Germany, when and if such a war came, their Presi­dent was raising false hopes which eventually would prove humiliating.

that European conflicts cannot be resolved by sonorous phrases or by diplomatic moves."

"* * It is curious to observe that while Americans were thinking of the President’s moves in terms of peace, Europeans were estimating them almost entirely in terms of war. By that time, little hope of lasting peace remained in Europe. The question was how far America would help the Allies in a war against Germany.

“A few months later, after the Soviet-German pact had finally lighted the fuse to war, the peoples of Europe, in spite of their pressing personal anxiety over the dramatic pro­gress of the debacle in Poland, watched with strained atten­tion our Congressional debate upon the arms embargo. Once again the American political arena assumed, in European eyes, the aspect of that familiar drama in which the pro-Allv group, headed by President Roosevelt, battled against the dark forces of isolationism, and finally triumphed.

Bess continues:

"It is almost three years since President Roosevelt began to pull and push the American people back into the thick of world politics. His efforts recall those of a long line of American statesmen who had tried to convince us our ‘mani­fest destiny' beckons to us from the uttermost ends of the earth * * * Mr. Roosevelt has constituted himself, in European eyes, the rallying point for all Americans, whether Republi­cans, Democrats or mugwumps, who want to swing fur­ther Americans support to England and France. For almost three years, he has been dramatized by Europeans as the leader of the crusade which has marshaled the so-called ideal­istic and progressive portions of America to overcome the sel­fishness and ignorance of that mass of Americans who must be classed as isolationists.”

" * * * let us look at the record", Mr. Bess goes on to say, "upon which Europeans base their estimates of Mr. Roosevelt. Let us look particularly at the European reaction to three sensational moves which our President initiated. "First was his Chicago speech in 1937. The second was his message to Congress in January, 1939. The third was the peace pledge he sought from Hitler and Mussolini in April, 1939.

“7 was in America when Roosevelt made his famous ‘quarantine’ speech in 1937, and I recall Americans were not much excited about it. It was interpreted as chiefly directed against Japan. But when I came back to Europe that autumn, I was amazed to discover what a sensation that speech had created. It was hailed as a death blow to American isolationism and a return of the United States to world politics. * * *

“Mr. Roosevelt’s power and authority did not derive from his words, which were no more eloquent than those of many writers and professors. They gained their force because he was the Chief Executive of the United States, and his views were regarded as reflecting American policy. When he spoke, the shadow of the Army and Navy and Air Force fell across his rostrum.

" * * * European commentators foresaw the full conse­quences of that speech better than most Americans did. One Paris journal, L'Europe Centrale, flatly predicted that Mr. Roosevelt had foreshadowed revision not only of American foreign policy but of the arms embargo in our Neutrality Act. The speech proved to this journal that ‘American col­laboration with pacific powers will be proportionate to the danger which threatens the civilized portion of the world.’

"The French Review, L’Europe Nonvelle, derived particular satisfaction from the influence our President’s words were likely to have upon England. The British, it declared, were 'anxious not to undertake anything without the United States, but they are now assured that they may take certain initiatives and assume certain responsibilities without the risk of being disowned by the American Government.’ ”

How well the politicians and press of Europe knew our foreign policy, but the American people are only of late finding out its true import, its parallel understandings and its hidden agreements. The compiler of this pamphlet warned those high in office over a year ago that Roosevelt was plotting to overthrow the Chamberlain Govern­ment and remove Bonnet from the French Government, because they were trying to prevent the carnage and chaos of a New World War.

Mr. Bess continues:

“It was easy to understand why Englishmen and French­men, all through the year 1938, snatched whatever comfort they could from encouraging words coming over the Atlantic * * To those of us who were present at the Munich Con­ference, there was no evidence that the American President’s peace appeals had much influence one way or the other. The British and French Governments did not need Mr. Roosevelt’s help to make the Peace of Munich. They needed American help only in case they decided to go to war.”

Mr. Bess goes on to say that the British and French "joyously greeted * * * Roosevelt's message to Congress the following January” (1939) because they well knew that Munich did not end the threat

of war and his denunciation of dictatorships were "hailed, not as the personal opinion of one individual but as the voice of the Amer­ican people.” He cites the comments of two British publications:

"President Roosevelt had issued the same warning that the United States would be aligned with Great Britain and France in the event of a major European war. although, of course, the nature of the American participation cannot be defined in advance."

(London Round Table).

"President Roosevelt is using the full power of his lead­ership to hurry along the change to a strong foreign policy.”

(New Statesman and Nation).

The Swiss Voelker-Bund said that the Axis Powers must "con­sider what the intervention of a country of the importance of the United States would mean to them.”

"The high point of Mr. Roosevelt’s efforts to outbluff the dictators came in April. 1939, when he addressed his peace pledge to Hitler and Mussolini. * * Mussolini became so impressed with Hitler’s apparent ability to get away with things that he decided to pick up Albania. This was the most chaotic period of Europe’s recent history. And into Europe’s turmoil and confusion Mr. Roosevelt hurled his messages to the dictators. This move caused a tremendous reaction in every European country. The Paris Temps de­scribed it as a sensation and declared: ‘This message has put an end, at least in part, to the state of uncertainty upon which the totalitarian states have speculated.’ J. L. Garvin wrote in the London Observer: 'Now for the first time Hitler and Mus­solini have no doubts. They know it is a certainty that America will be upon them if they strike again at any independent nation whatsoever.’

"The Swiss Basler Nachrichten expressed the neutral view that ‘If the German and Italian governments return negative answers, it must be known, both in Berlin and Rome, that the United States would very rapidly assume an active role, as soon as the floodgates of war were opened any­where in Europe.’"

In so far as we here in America could see, Roosevelt was not in the least upset by these interpretations. According to Bess, he un­doubtedly took then as a fitting part of his scheme to block the dictators.

From Mr. Bess’s report we must conclude that either Europe or the American people were fooled by Roosevelt’s maneuvers, and it appears likely that it was America. In this booklet we will quote further evidence to back our conviction that the New Deal, the Jews and the President not only had a big hand in starting the fight, but did so with the knowledge that we would eventually get into it, and that Roosevelt did everything in his power to let Europe know this.

Bess continues:

“* * British and French strategists have had to change their ideas about the conduct of the war, and some of their new plans are founded on the belief, cr at least the hope, that they will have American military assistance before the war is over. * * *

"When the war broke out last September, British and French statesmen told some of their American sympathizers: "If you lift your arms embargo, we can win this war. Your airplanes and munitions will give us the means to tip the balance. We can then bring Germany to her knees by an economic blockade.’ * * *

"The most powerful neutral, the United States, had un­mistakably revealed that its sympathies are more one-sided in this war then they were in 1916. President Roosevelt had proclaimed himself the Allied champion much more definite­ly that President Wilson did before 1917. * * *

"All European governments are aware that Americans were so thoroughly disillusioned by the propaganda of the last war that we are allergic to propaganda. So the British and French governments, especially, are leaving us, at least to some extent, to fight out this battle alone. Their hope for further help from us resides largely in the efforts of pro-Ally Americans. It is for this reason that they are watching our presidential election this year with such eager attention. It is for this reason that they are watching President Roosevelt so closely.

" * * * the delight of the ordinary Englishman and French­man was unmistakable. They had steadfastly refused to believe that the coming of war had changed our President’s attitude toward the European conflict. Englishmen and Frenchmen would have been profoundly disappointed if Air. Roosevelt had not given some indication soon that he was still watching for opportunities to help them.

"Meanwhile, French newspaper readers ivere finding even more solid comfort in such reports as those of George Lech- artier, correspondent in the United States for the Journal Des Debats, where Al. Lechartier explained that Mr. Roosevelt, by farsighted and subtle political leadership, had made it possible for the United States to intervene in this war with much more immediate and deadly effect than we did in the last war. Point­ing out that Air. Roosevelt had not made the mistakes during the present war in terms of the last one, the French corres­pondent continued: 'Let us not forget, as President Roosevelt has never forgotten, that one of the greatest weaknesses of the military assistance brought by America to the Allies immedi­ately after their declaration of war against Germany in April, 1917, was the total lack of military preparedness of the Ameri­can people. Three months elapsed before the arrival of the first American contingents in France.

"President Roosevelt has taken care to avoid a repetition of this inadequate preparedness. By his words and his actions, he has persuaded the American general public, first, of the ad­vantage, and then of the necessity, for the United States to have 'the largest navy in the world’ and when the public understood this, he obtained from Congress appropriations to increase the American Fleet and Army enormously.

" 'Today America is ready, or will soon be ready, for any eventuality.’

"It is obvious that M. Lechartier does not regard our pre­paredness as wholly defensive in character. Fie pointed out that American opinion 'is infinitely better educated today, thanks to the press and the initiative taken by Mr. Roosevelt, than it was in 1914-1917He found that a growing majority already favored assistance to the Allies 'without any restrictions in the economic sphere.’ As for military assistance, the French writer suggested that the American Army, Navy and Air Force are being prepared for action just as quickly and probably more efficiently than if we had actually come into the war last No­vember, when we made the first breach in our neutrality legis­lation by lifting the arms embargo. This astute French corres­pondent drew attention to a fact which few Americans have grasped so clearly. The great difference between 1940 and 1916 is that we were totally unprepared then for an extensive war, whereas now our Navy and Air Force are all dressed up and ready to go.

"So there you have the picture as it looks from Europe. Allied statesmen see across the Atlantic a country whose Presi­dent for three years has appointed himself the spokesman for democracies and the scourge of dictatorships. They see that his boldest moves in Europe have been greeted with applause by prominent Americans of every political faith. They see that the American people, under his leadership, have created a Navy and an Air Force which is one of the world’s great offensive forces. They see that our armaments added to their own, might smash Hitlerism just as they smashed Kaiserism.”

The New York World-Telegram of July 9, 1940, reported an interview with Vivien Kellems, America’s leading woman electrical engineer, in which she stated:

"In London, where she went at the invitation of the British War Office to discuss orders for the new shell-lifter which her firm is manufacturing, she heard them say in the city, 'We’ll hold out as long as we can, then we’ll let the two yellow races, America and Japan, fight it out.’ * * *

"Wherever Miss Kellems went, in England or France, people demanded to know why the United Stctes wasn’t in the war. The last American woman out of Paris before the Germans captured it, she was asked why the United States hadn’t lived up to its promises.

" ‘People were furious because President Roosevelt hadn't declared war the night he made that speech in Charlottes­ville,’ she said. ‘In vain I tried to tell them that the President couldn’t declare war — that only Congress could do that, but they didn’t believe me.’

’”* * * I came home convinced the European war was none of America’s business. Why should we shed blood for a people who hold us up in contempt? They call us yellow? England says she is fighting for democracy. Believe me, there are no lofty ideals to save. The issues are mixed, but they are far from being quixotic. It’s for money, for trade, not for democracy, that they are killing one another, on the one hand.’ ”

A dispatch to the Chicago Tribune of September 21, 1940,

es:

"Swiss papers are more directly outspoken. In an ar­ticle entitled 'From One Continent to Another,’ the Gazette De Lausanne declares that Roosevelt 'has interfered in Europe with an extremely maladroitness,’ while another Swiss paper—suggests that American intrigues in European affairs conducted by William C. Bullitt, ambassador to France, were in a measure responsible for the war.”

In an article published in the Baltimore Sun of August 25, 1940,

tten by a correspondent of The Sun in France, it was stated:

" 'Our government (France) unfortunately believed that the United States would enter the war almost immediately after we declared war on Germany,’ a number of Frenchmen have said to me. 'If our government had not believed it, perhaps we would not be where we are.’

"The implication is unescapable. Many Frenchmen believe that we, either directly through the heads of our State, or through our accredited representatives, encouraged these for­eign powers to go to war, and, worse, raised their hope that it would not be long before armed forces of the United States would be crossing the Atlantic.

"Upon returning to Europe about the time the French army was defeated, I was not, however, unprepared for accusations of this character. Long before the war I, as an American living in France, was increasingly worried over the assurance, growing in many minds to a certainty, that the sympathy of the United States for the Allied cause, openly

expressed by our highest spokesmen, meant nothing short of an avowed intention of going to war on their side.

"Two years ago * * I called attention to the dangerous situation which could arise if the British and French govern­ments took too much for granted, even if they had received what among European nations would have been considered direct diplomatic ’ ;nts susceptible of interpretation as assur­ances, that the armed assistance of the United States would not be long delayed in the event of war.

"At the time I wrote that article it was not surprising that this opinion was prevalent. President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Hull had both made speeches showing a pronounced sympathy for the democratic cause which Great Britain and France were championing. Both Ambassador Kennedy in London and Ambassador Bullitt in Paris ex pressed the same sentiment publicly in speeches.

“This gained force through the fact that both were held up to the public in Britain and France as enjoying unusually confidential relations with the governments of London and Paris. The newspapers almost daily revealed in official state­ments that both were in frequent consultation with the re­sponsible ministers of the governments to which they were accredited. At one time Mr. Bullitt was widely quoted as saying that he did not let a day go by without having personal contact with the French government.

"At the same time, stories were circulating in England and France, and given the support of many volunteer, if un­official, American sympathizers, that American opinion was already aroused and it would take but a few weeks, instead of thirty-two months as in the case of the World War, to bring the United States into war.

"At the time, I examined into the state of credulity of the French Government and found to my amazement that many of the most influential members of the Government seemed to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. As to the credulity of the British Government I did not have the same possibility for accurate measure, but it appeared also to be yielding to wishful thinking. The Opposition appeared to be completely sold on immediate American Aid.

"I did not, however, realize pntil very recently during a visit to the temporary French capital at Vichy how wide­spread is the belief in France that the United States encouraged France to declare war against Germany, and that our accredited representative in France had promised—almost immediate armed aid.

***** small group of newspaper correspondents of all countries who covered tne World War and the many interna­tional conferences between the two wars. * * * There are not more than twenty of us altogether and the other day in Vichy

a dozen of us were seated around the same table. Half were French, one Dutch, two Swiss, one Belgian, one Pole and myself.

"One after another they opened fire on me regarding the relation of the American Government to the war, its past responsibilities if any, and its probable future action.

"I explained to them the divided state of opinion in the United States, and sounding them out in turn, / found that they all considered that the United States by its official statements, acts and general conduct toward the European states during the past few years had on the whole and to a large degree led Europe to believe that it would again intervene in a European war on the side of Britain against Nazi Germany.’*

In a rush dispatch to Roosevelt on June 10th, Paul Reynaud.

President of the French Council of Ministers, stated:

“ ‘Mr. President: I wish first to express to you my grati­tude for the generous aid that you have decided to give us in aviation and armament.

" 'We shall fight and if necessary in our American pos­sessions.

" ‘I beseech you to declare publicly that the United States will give the Allies aid * * * I know the gravity of such a gesture.

" ‘You said to us yourself on the fifth of October, 1937: "I am compelled and you are compelled to look ahead.”

” ‘The hour has now come for these.’ ”

On June 13, 1940, Reynaud made a speech in which he said he had sent a second appeal to Roosevelt in which he stated:

“France wounded, has the right to turn to other democ­racies and to say: ‘We have claims on you.’ * *

“But it is one thing to approve and another thing to act. Will they hesitate still to declare themselves against Nazi Germany?

"The time has come for them (Americans) to pay their debts.

“You know that I have demanded it {help) of Presi­dent Roosevelt.

“It is necessary that clouds of war planes from across the Atlantic come to crush the evil force that dominates Europe.

"We have the right to hope that the day is coming when all that power will be placed in force.”

On June 14, 1940, the London News Chronicle expressed the hope that the United States would declare war, and stated:

“A declaration of war by America now would inject an impulse of bounding hope into every Frenchman's heart.”

The Right Honorable Winston Churchill made a dramatic speech in the House of Commons in Parliament on June 4, 1940, in which he said that Britain will carry on the fight till New World aids. Churchill developed his speech into an appeal for American help.

" 'Even if—which I don’t for a moment believe—this island or a large part of it, were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God’s good time the New World, with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescues of the Old.’ ”

This gallant knight-errant, Winston Churchill, who wanted so much to shed American blood in the last war, and who now is willing to fight until the last dollar of American money is spent and the last drop of American blood is spilt, arranged for the campaign and conducted the retreat of the English forces from Antwerp and the Dardenelles in the last war. In the present war he ordered “the glorious retreat” of the English forces to Albion, from Bergen, Narvik, Dunkirk and Dakar, thus deserting the Norwegians, Bel­gians and French, whom the English had inveigled into the war. Churchill lays great store upon his descent from the Duke of Marl­borough. That English Duke won his title by defeating the French and obtained his military opportunity by his complacence with his sister, Lady Arabella Churchill, becoming the mistress of the King of England.

On June 8, 1940, Lord Lothian, His Britannic Majesty's Am­bassador to the United States, on his way to address the graduat­ing class of Washington and Jefferson College (God save the mark!), suggested that Britain, the ruler of the seas for centuries, needed and would expect our naval destroyers, as well as our airplanes, guns, machine guns and antiaircraft.

Prime Minister Churchill of the British Government, in com­menting upon our Dictator President’s deal for the transfer of Amer­ican destroyers for British bases, stated:

“There is of course no question of any transference of sovereignty or of any action being taken against the wishes of the various colonies concerned, but for our part His

Majesty’s Government is entirely willing to accord defense facilities to the United States on a ninety-nine year leasehold basis. * * *

“Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organizations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and gen­eral advantage.

"For my own part, looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. No one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, to broader lands and better days.”

A cable from London, June 6, 1940, is headlined "Campaign to ‘Stampede’ U. S. Into War Gains in London”. The article states:

"Since Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s appeal to America on Tuesday to back the Allies with all its resources, newspapers here have been publishing long articles urging the United States to get in without delay.”

In the light of Churchill’s flagrant and persistent efforts to get us into this war, it should be well to recollect what he said about four years ago, according to an address delivered by Sen. Rush Holt of West Virginia at the American Forum of the Air on November 24, 1940, Churchill said:

"America’s entrance into the war was disastrous not only for your country but for the Allies as well, because had you stayed at home and minded your own business we would have made peace with the Central Powers in the spring of 1917, and then there would have been no collapse in Russia, followed by communism: no break-down in Italy, followed by Fascism: and Nazi-ism would not at present be en­throned in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war and minded her own business, none of these ‘isms’ would today be sweeping the Continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government.”

Substantially the same statement by Churchill in 1936 was recently reported in a column of the Washington Daily News.

The Patterson chain of papers published an article by Arthur Sears Henning, in which it was stated:

"Impatience is being manifested by a portion of the British public with American public sentiment opposing par­ticipation of the United States in the war again ‘to make the world safe for democracy.’ The same type of British mind that coined the term ‘Uncle Shylock” in exasperation at the suggestion that Britain pay her war debt to America is now wise-cracking that ‘the next war will be between the yellow countries: Japan and the United States.’ ”

The Times Herald of Washington, on June 12, 1940, contained a dispatch from London, which was headed "British stirred by hope U. S. will enter War—full conscription of men, materials soon is pre­dicted”. The article stated:

London, June 11 (C.T.P.S.)—Diplomatic sources in London today, after close study of President Roosevelt's lat­est speech, expressed the view America now has moved from benevolent neutrality to the status of ‘‘prebelligerency.”

The question is raised as to how long it will be before American pilots, American planes and American warships will be actively engaged in the European war.

This interpretation of the President’s pronouncement is being actively propagated in the press here. The London Daily Express, in an article in Wednesday’s issue announces jubilantly, “the United States is coming in," and predicts American conscription within a month.

“Not only will manpower be conscripted but money, materials, factory space and everything else,” * * *

Admitting America’s inability to send an expeditionary force abroad for some months at least, the correspondent points out that she could send a highly efficient air force and vital supplies to aid the Allies and “build up her vast striking power for a decisive blow early next year.”

The Daily Express (London) writer purports to trace a decline of isolationism, declaring “Smart Aleck Gerald P. Nye and aging Hiram Johnson, who framed the laws forbidding credits to debtor nations, are the only bulwarks of isolation­ism left.”

On August 26, 1940, Senator Wheeler charged on the floor of

the Senate that Sir George Paish, a guest at the White House on August 16th:

“had been lobbying among Senators in favor of legislation that would aid Great Britain although not registered as an alien agent at the State Department."

Senator Wheeler declared that Sir George had said to him:

" 'I am responsible for getting the United States into the last war. I am over here now and I am going to cross the United States on a speaking tour. I am going to get this country into this war.’ ”

ENGLAND DEMANDS OUR SONS AND MONEY

A most astounding and disgraceful book was published in Sep-

tember, 1940, by the McGraw-Hill Book Company of New York City, with London offices, written by a radical Englishman by the name of H. N. Brailsford, who in the introduction states that he was invited to write it by the McGraw-Hill Book Company after he had published an article in the Pinko Sheet, "The New Republic.” Brailsford is a noted and influential English author, newspaperman and professor. The book shows that the English people, with their New York City allies, have determined that at last through press, radio, and President, they have created sufficient fear and hatred in the American public against Germany and Italy to throw off their hypocritical mask and now confess that they want our blood as well as our money. At this time the English say they only need five hundred thousand of our men, but when they have obtained a spacious bridgehead in Europe, millions more will be required. He also advocates a union of the United States and England. In other words, we are to die on the Rhine to save England and assume its responsibilities for a war which it declared without the consent of our Congress or people.

"An Englishman might reply that though England does not, in this defensive phase of the war, require more men, she certainly will require them if she ever is able to pass to the offensive. The enemy has almost twice her population. He would add that though he may, greatly daring, venture today to raise the issue of American participation. * * *

"* * But if the United States ‘came in,’ her government would do what the British government has done in its island. It would require every industry to adapt its machinery for the needs of the war. It would limit or even forbid the produc­tion of such things as motorcars for civilian use in order to harness for victory all the vast resources that American manu­facturers possess.

From England to America, by H. N. Brailsford,

Ps. 93-94.

"* * We have to face in Ireland, divided by the accursed feud between North and South, a baffling problem, both military and political.”

Ibid. P. 97.

"Sooner or later, in 1941 or in 1942, this free island must dare to take the offensive, and contemplate the invasion of a continent solidly organized by its German masters. * * * Eng­land has performed this feat before, but never alone; * * ”

Ibid. P. 101.

"Before it (England) can receive much help from the local populations, it will have to win a spacious bridgehead against the most formidable German opposition.

“How great an army will be necessary? That is a question for soldiers, but any civilian can foresee some of the difficulties. England could not send her whole army, for she must keep at home a force sufficient to fend off renewed attempts at in­vasion. * *

“I shrink from naming a figure, but any guess that I dare make is well above the total that England alone could furnish, even with the help of the Dominions.”

Ibid. Ps. 104-105.

"* * Our population is too small; our wealth, deeply drained already, insufficient. Then, may we hope for the comradely aid. in men and money, of the United States?

“Men? In 1940 both major political parties took their stand against the sending of men to Europe, and the President’s message to Congress reinforced this view. I do not know how abolute and final such under­takings are. Men rarely intend in such matters to bind themselves under all circumstances and for all time; no statesman in this changing world ought to give an eternal pledge. In any case, Europeans have listened to these deliberations and negations from across the Atlantic with sinking hearts. * * *

“A way out of this difficulty occurs to me. If America has forbidden the sending to Europe of drafted men, and also of enlisted men from the regular army, would it equally forbid the raising for this ex­press purpose of an army of volunteers? In plain words, if there are young men who will freely offer them­selves to fight the battle of civilization in Europe, would Congress remove any legal obstacles in their way? Would it go further, and bear the cost of their equip­ment, pay and maintenance? Would it permit officers and men of the regular army to join such a force?

“* * An American volunteer army of half a million eager and resolute men, equipped with all that mechan­ized war demands, would turn the scales for victory and ward off for ever, by its achievements in Europe, the threat that darkens America’s future.

“On the question of money, 1 need make no express appeal. To escape slavery England is ready to face financial ruin. She will pour out what she has to free her neighbors and friends. But there are limits to her means, nor has she in her granaries an embarrassing surplus of food. She can do much, but she lacks the wealth to rearm a vanquished Europe and carry the need of all its stricken peoples upon her shoulders. But if Americans have settled in principle the main ques­tion of their duty in this struggle, they will give, as a grateful continent remembers that they gave before. (Uncle Shylock.)              ibid. Ps. 106-107-108-109.

“England is grateful for arms, but as its own ranks grow thinner, it calls to American gallantry for an army of volunteers. Above all, it prays that it may hear from a free continent a declaration of war.”

Ibid. P. 130.

On October 6, 1940, Col. Robert McCormick, editor and pub­lisher of the Chicago Tribune, analyzed the cost of an American invasion of Europe. Col. McCormick said:

“Such an invasion would cost the United States at least 400 billion dollars, a million deaths, and several million ruined lives."

SOME AMERICANS SPEAK FOR AMERICA

General Hugh Johnson, writing in the New York World Tele­gram during the debates on the Sol Bloom fake “Neutrality" (?) bill, said that the public utterances and actions of this administration at one time indicate involvement in war and another time assurance against it, adding: "They don’t make sense when re2d together."

“In 1937, the President wanted to join with the 'peace- loving nations’ to quarantine the aggressors.' In April. 1939, he (Roosevelt) hinted that we couldn't stay out, and prompt­ly approved a Washington Post editorial which so interpreted him and openly insisted that when he said at Warm Springs, ‘If we don't have war * * .' he meant, by 'we' to include this country.”

General Johnson points out that—

“ . . these open utterances tie in with others . . denied or not confirmed, like ‘our frontier is in France’ the public must take to mean that sooner or later we will have a stake in the outcome of Europe's troubles. The submarines re­ported (by the President in an interview) ‘sighted’ off the Pacific and North Atlantic Coasts and in the Caribbean and the subsequent prompt denial of harborage to subs. To these add holding up the Bremen, the close accord between Ambassadors Kennedy and Bullitt and the British and French Governments, the occasional revelations of secret mili­tary and naval missions, and finally the late, but open, ad­mission of Administration Senators that lifting the arms embargo was not really intended as a neutrality move but as an effort to help England and France.”

“These hints do not gibe with assurances that we will stay out. Couple these inconsistencies with many other de­partures from announced policies and clever surprises by un­suspected legalistic curves and spit-balls, and it is not at all hard to understand the cry of ‘ship trick.' ”

General Johnson, again writing in the New York World Tele­gram, said:

“We were sloganeered into the last war—at least as a partial cause. 'If England and France are licked our turn is next.’ That one pulled heavily. ‘This is a world war of democracy against autocracy. Our place is on the side of the democracies—they are fighting our war.’ Boiled down to 'make the world safe for democracy,’ that was a honey.

“There is a good deal of doubt as to whether they were fighting our war, but there is none whatever that we fought theirs and did it in time to win it. Then we paid a lot for it. We asked for nothing and got considerably less than that.

"About the only difference between the sloganeering ap­proach in that war and this is that this time it is working three times as fast.

" 'Fighting our war* was what Jimmy Cromwell said to Canada and, while he got an official spanking, no small part of the press on the Eastern Seaboard said he spoke the truth, or at least what most Americans think.

“I doubt if he spoke the truth. West of the Alleghenies, at least, it has been mv observation that most Americans think no such thing. 'Our turn will be next’ is a variation of the ‘democracy’ theme of ‘fighting our war’ but it packs more weight. It slants toward the strategy of ‘self-defense’ which is something most Americans would fight for if they thought the need existed. * * *

"Whether this becomes a bloody war of movement or action or a white war of nerves and strangulation, neither side has much hope of coming out of it either with total victory or with enough strength left to tackle us in 20 vears —especially not if we arm on the plan we have adopted.

"It would be a lot safer, and cheaper for us in blood and money, to count on these thinas to avoid its being 'our turn next', than to keep repeating that we are sure it will be until we sloaaneer ourselves into another terrible trimming, and make it our turn, not only next but now, by self- hypnosis."

In articles appearing in the Baltimore Sun, H. L. Mencken states:

“My belief is that they are much nearer yielding at this min­ute than they were at the end of 1916. and that it would take only a week or two of intensive radio crooning to bring them over almost unanimously. A few die-hard pacifists might hold out. but surely not many. The overwhelming maioritv of publicists would trail with the mob. and in a brief space both the clergv and the laity among them would be howling for blood as fiercely as they howled in 1917.

“There is always, first, a period of preparation. * * * There must be a steady flow of alarms and a steady fan­ning of indignation. Evidence must be adduced, whether real or imaginary, (a) that the prospective enemy is of an incurably criminal and abandoned character, and (b) that in the face of American virtue and American valor he can be quickly and gloriously disposed of.

"The Hon. Mr. Roosevelt has been engaged upon this double-headed enterprise ever since the current war began: indeed, he launched it so long ago as the time of his Chicago speech. The White House and the State Department, at this moment, are busy agencies of English propaganda, and so effective that the English have almost given up propaganda on their own. It would take only half a dozen fireside chats to finish the job. In a few short weeks the plain people would be convinced that Hitler was about to seize South America, blockade New York, and bomb Miami. And in another week or two Congress would be panicked into wip­ing out the English war debt and starting a new one."

"When a Lindbergh rises up to speak a few words of common sense, he is treated as if he had proposed to burn the flag. The Chaldeans and the soothsayers have the right of way. * * *

“Six successive nights of White House crooning will make them pant for Hitler’s poisonous blood: indeed, it would take only seven or eight to make them pant for Churchill’s. That crooning will be on us anon, beginning for the same at middle C. and running up gloriously to A above the clef.

John T. Flynn, columnist, writes in the New York World Telegram:

"Therefore this writer repeatedly predicted that at the first sign of real war in Europe there would be a tremendous drive for huge national-defense plans, which would be a perfect way to spend money and to borrow it because the conservatives, loudest in their attacks on spending and bor­rowing. would lead the pack for more spending and bor­rowing.

"I also pointed out that there would be no way to draw the American people along into such a vast outlay of funds for national defense save by convincing them that they were about to be attacked, that thev were in deadly peril of inva­sion, and to do this it would be necessary to carry on all sorts of propaganda based on the fear technique. I also called attention to the fact that since the day of the quarantine speech the President has persistently carried on this fear propaganda, and on several occasions I listed the dates and contents of these shots at the public fears. Now, of course, the frantic, panicky hysteria is in full flower. And some of those who started it are a little frightened by it.”

* * it is difficult to argue with the man who yells for national defense, talks about the danger of invasion, sees planes swarming over our country from Greenland and Brazil and the West Indies, but, while talking that, is actually thinking about raising armaments to send to England and France.

"If we are planning to send naval and air and munition aid to the Empire-allies, then we have to proceed along one course. If we are planning to protect ourselves in this hemisphere from a German invasion we have to follow a quite different course.

"In one case we have to prepare for an aggressive war on foreign soil. In the other, we have to prepare for a war to defend our own shores. The American people are in sympathy with the Empires in this war, but they are over 90 per cent opposed to getting into the war in any way.

"Those who are trying to lead the country into this war know that. They dare not come out and advocate joining this battle and building armaments for it. But behind the screen of protecting this continent they are attempting by war alarms and terrors to hurry the people into a swift, panicky program of preparation which will he preparation, not for what the people think, but for something quite different—something that they profoundly oppose.

“The question then arises — are the people being honestly dealt with or are they being played upon? Are they being subtly drawn along upon a course which they oppose and is this being done by men who they now confidently believe are trying to keep them out of war instead of leading them into war?

“There leaders are piling up a terrible responsibility for themselves before the bar of history when the whole truth is seen ”

Mencken also stated in the Baltimore Sun:

“An effort is being made to convince the country that the Archfiend Hitler, if, when and as he wrecks the stews of Paris and the prayer-cellars of Holy England, will fling his insati­able goons upon the United States and, a3 the Hon. Mr. Roos­evelt forecast in his radio croon of May 16, proceed to bomb Omaha. Second, it is taught officially that not only the United States but also all the other American countries are infested by hundreds of thousands of Nazi agents, who will leap out of hiding the instant Omaha is bombed, and blow up every bridge, airport, railway junction, orphan asylum, waterworks, hospital, Y.M.C.A., radio croonery, and other public utility from Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego.”

"Both these propositions are heady stuff, and well calcu­lated to alarm a moral and credulous people, but it must be manifest that the first is considerably less plausible than the second. After all, it is hard to believe that Hitler, having been forced to seize Holland and Belgium in order to get near enough to tackle England, will be able to leap facilely to Omaha, or even to New' York, which is exactly 192 times as far from his nearest flying-field as the English coast. Again, it is manifest to the meanest understanding that send­ing huge fleets of tanks into Holland, Belgium and France, which adjoin Germany as closely as Highlandtown adjoins Baltimore, is one thing, and sending the same tanks to the United States, which is more than 3.000 miles away, with a very deep ocean between, is quite another thing.”

“What really upsets the Hon. Mr. Roosevelt and the rest of the Ersatz Englishmen is not the remote and infinitesimal possibility that Omaha may be bombed, but the high probability, amounting almost to certainty, that London will be bombed. In brief, they sweat for England first, leaving the United States for future consideration, and to that end, as everyone knows, they now rush to England the airships which, according to their own statement, the United States so desperately needs, leaving Omaha to its fate.”

Ludwell Denny says, in the Daily News:

“What will happen if and when Paris falls and actual fighting is carried to England, is a matter of guess. Some of the President’s supporters, who insist that this is ‘our war,’ predict that large-scale German bombing of England will inflame American sentiment and force the G. O. P. cam­paigners to change.”

“Italy’s anticipated entry into the war increases the de­mand for turning over to the Allies present U. S. Army and Navy planes and other equipment.

"Altho the President has not yet officially proposed this, he is using Sen. Pepper and others to prepare Congress and the public mind. * * *

“The President considers the Italian threat of the utmost gravity. Most of his war-time diplomacy and pressure have been designed to prevent this. His Friday defense message, asking a fourth billion dollars and warning that the war might spread to this continent, was intended to stop Mussolini * * *”

“All of these grisly facts will be used by the Administra­tion in its drive for increased American aid to the Allies, if Italy goes in. But the furnishing of United States military planes and equipment to the Allies is not so simple as the earlier steps taken. The difficulties are mechanical, military, diplomatic and political.

“We have very few planes which would be of value to the Allies even if they could be delivered this week. The

exact number of our really ‘modern’ combat planes is a matter of dispute.

"Maj. Gen. Arnold, Army Air Chief, testifies that the Army does not have a single plane in service embodying lessons of the European war, and less than half a dozen that could be modern­ized. Rear Admiral Towers, Naval Air Chief, testified that the Navy has only 192 combat planes less than a year old. Maj. A1 Williams, who has flown both the foreign and American planes, says we do not have more than one squadron in service able to fight the German planes.

"One reason we lack new planes, of course, is that our own deliveries already have been deflected to the Allies.

"On the military side, many officers and members of Con­gress say we are so short now that we cannot defend the vital Caribbean bases, and that we dare not let the Allies have our handful of good planes.

"On the diplomatic side, the proposed step would constitute a virtual abandonment of our already thin ‘neutrality’ and make us in effect an ‘ally,’ even tho a non-belligerent. The repercus­sions of this, both during and after the war, would be wide­spread and incalculable.

‘‘Politically, this action would be interpreted by Roose­velt opponents as the final step short of war — leading to direct military involvement if the war runs long enough. As such it would precipitate, probably on the eve of the Republi­can convention, the major political battle between interven­tionists and anti-interventionists, which the President so far has avoided.”

In an editorial in an American newspaper of high standing it is said:

‘‘More than a few American are already saying that we must extend credit to the Allies after their gold is gone. Plenty of publicists and propagandists are already trying to condition the majority of our minds to accept such a pro­position.

‘‘For our part, we’re opposed to any such thing. We think the war will go on as long as there is the faintest hope that Uncle Saw will eventually finance a goodly part of it. We believe if that hope could be killed off the war would end soon.”

In no important aspect is the situation different to-day than it was during those days before the World War. If anything, the fever for war among the editors, teachers, preachers, bankers, law­yers and American society leaders’— especially in the East, is even hotter than it was then. Hitler, not the Kaiser, is the villain and the Allies are again fighting our war. The son of Congressman

Lindbergh argues against hysteria—which is good advice at all times —and is called unpatriotic. The politicians and Jewish press hasten to slander his name by calling him pro-German.

General Hugh S. Johnson in the New York World-Telegram for May 23, 1940, exposed the prevailing deceptive propaganda as fol­lows:

"One principal reason why I came out here to St. Louis, the metropolis of the great valley, was to check up * * * on certain statements so frequently repeated in the East recently. One is that this great hinterland people, so short a time ago opposed to our taking any part in the war in Europe, have now changed their minds. Another is that the President’s message on defense has so ‘electrified’ and ‘unified’ them for his foreign policies that an election this fall would be a mis­take * * * . They want a third term for Mr. Roosevelt as a measure of national preparedness. Mr. Walter Lippman, Miss Dorothy Thompson and radio commentator H. V. Kal- tenborn seem to have fallen for this line, or at least to have stressed various angles of the move to suppress our two-party system on a belief that what we need is unity. That is also the White House janissariat and third-termite line. It is at the bottom of the President’s dramatic, but tricky, presenta­tion of the preparedness bill * * *.

“Well, it is my observation among this valley of my own beginnings that it is all a bunch of bunk. This Mid­western country no more approves the President’s policy of sticking our necks out into the foreign embroglios of Europe and Asia than it ever did, and that was not at all.

"It does approve the spending of whatever is necessary for American defense. It always did * * *. It is shocked to learn at so late a date that this administration, while spend­ing so many billions for boondoggling and some useful works, has permitted us to remain so delinquent in defense that we have practically no armament against the dreadful weapons of modern war. * * *

“Mr. Roosevelt made an effective re-armament speech and got a lot of applause. But the facts are leaking out that he was making a virtue out of his own neglect and inaction in defense * * *. That speech * * * was pure third-term poli­tics and had little to do with increased industrial defense pro­duction * *. This tragic failure is of a piece with its (the Administration’s) unbroken record of failure in every major effort—industrial recovery, re-employment and agricultural ‘parity.’ It has had unprecedented powers. * * * It has suc­ceeded with almost nothing.

"This is no record upon which to base a demand for re-election, the suppression of opposition and a coalition to support such invariable and dangerous errors. If anybody

believes that the burghers of the Middle West swallow this stuff, they must have been born east of the Hudson River.”

Washington Times-Herald, Sept. 20, 1940, also stated:

“With the possible exception of the (Boston Area), the (New York Area), has supplied a lower percentage of vol­unteers than any other of the nine corps areas since the army began its recruiting drive. Consequently, the New York area will have to furnish a higher percentage of draftees than any other area with the possible exception of Boston.

"The joke on New York is made the more acid by the fact that New York is the interventionists’ heaven. New York newspapers have been louder than any others in their demands for all aid to England short of war, and broader in their hints that we’d better actually declare war on Germany. Most of the movements like William Allen White’s committee for helping the Allies head up in New York. * * *

"For all this interventionist hoopla by influential New Yorkers, the humbler New Yorks have been evidently less anxious than the Atlantans, San Antonians and Ohioans to volunteer. * * *

"But not only in New York but in the whole country volunteering is slow. This shows, we think, that the in­terventionist fervor which glows in the hearts of the power­ful and middle-aged hasn’t percolated down to the humble young Americans who would have to do the fighting.”

From several of his own supporters we have recently been told that the President, in effect, knew all along that this was to be another World War. Why. then, if he knew this, did he not issue a call for increased armament funds for America before it started—or if not then —after it did start? Was such a failure the act of a peerless leader? Why did he not take the country into his confidence? Was he more interested in the defense of England and France than of America?

At Chicago in October of 1937. nearly three years ago, he said if these aggressions and inhumanities increase, let no one imagine that America will escape, or that it may expect mercy, or that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked.

The noisy, torch-singing demagogue, Senator Pepper-pot, mouth­piece of Roosevelt, almost daily offers a resolution in Congress whereby the President would be authorized to sell at any price he sees fit all the munitions, airplanes and bombers our Army has for protection against Germany, Italy and Japan, who are supposed to be ready to unite in attacking America.

Despite the opposition by a vote of 19 to 2 of the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee against the irrepressible Senator Pepper’s re­solution that would have deprived our Army and Navy “in the great emergency that now confronts us” of its airplanes, bombers, rifles, field-guns, by a ruling of the acting Attorney General of the United States on June 5, 1940, at the request and with the ap­proval of the President, a trick method was adopted to send what we have for our own defense to Great Britain.

In an able editorial, recently published in the Patterson news­papers of New York and Washington, it was stated:

“What worries us chiefly is that with this perhaps decisive battle of the war opening up, a vast clamor is being raised by United States interventionists for American help to the Allies of a kind which would cut down our own defense forces to the point of weakness, perhaps disaster.”

In the early part of June, 1940, the President decided to take away from our Army and Navy their best airplanes and bombers for shipment to England and France, with added war materials, arms and ammunition much needed by our Army and Navy. He announced that he had obtained an opinion from Francis Biddle, Acting Attorney General, determining that it was entirely legal to so do. Mr. Biddle is a member of the well-known and wealthy Biddle family, at least six members of which family appeared upon the famous Philadelphia “sucker list” of the Workers' party, the "legal expression” in politics of the Communist party.

One of our leading newspapers in a recent editorial stated in reference to this transaction:

“Even with Congress in Washington, the executive branch has been putting some policies into effect without legislative concurrence.

"The surprise arrangement by which Army and Navy planes were made available to the Allies, for instance, was accomplished by dusting off an old law permitting the Gov­ernment to turn planes back to the factory as a sort of down payment on new models. The factory then, also acting legally, resells the planes to the Allies.

“Maybe that was the wise thing to do. The only point made here is that it was done without the knowledge or consent of Congress—and while Congress was in session. Moreover, it was done at a time when Congress, after several days’ urging, had failed to give its sanction to the Pepper resolution authorizing the Government to make direct sales of weapens to the Allies. One can’t help wondering what things might be done with Congress gone home.”

ENGLAND AND FRANCE DEMAND WE RE-ELECT

ROOSEVELT

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jeal­ousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake.”

President George Washington

“Who Shall Touch These Blind Eyes.”

President John Adams.

Since tricking us into Europe’s war in 1917, met with our hearty approval, is it surprising that England and France are send­ing again their titled diplomats, statesmen and politicians, their mili­tary and naval experts, their literary lights, their big industrialists, their Jewish international bankers and their secret service men to consult and confer with us, to praise us, to lecture us, to dine with us, with the unconcealed purpose of getting us to again fight their war? The Jewish controlled radio companies of America provide special accommodations for appeals to us by the King of England, Premiers Chamberlain and Churchill, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, Lloyd George, etc., and our Jewish controlled press publishes reverent­ly word for word their utterances, and even pays for articles by some of them, etc. Lord Lothian, the British Ambassador, Von Zeeland, former Premier of Belgium, Benes, former dictator of Czechoslavakia and close friend of Stalin, etc., are loaded down with degrees from swank Eastern universities, and are not merely permitted but begged to tell us it is our duty to die in Europe’s wars.

The British and French press have even ventured in the strongest terms to insist that it is the duty of the American public to re­elect Mr. Roosevelt. A few of the many available instances will be given you.

Demaree Bess, in a recent article in the Saturday Evening Post, said:

"As far as Europe is concerned, there is only one issue in the American presidential election this year, and that is the war issue. Europeans are amazed that so many Ameri­cans . . believe they have already settled this question; that the United States can and will remain neutral, and that do­mestic affairs, therefore, are more important than foreign policy in the coming campaigns

239

That Britain and France want Roosevelt to be President for the third term is to be expected. According to their way of looking at him he alone of all Americans can lead us into Europe's battles. Bess continues:

"Americans living in wartime England and France know that if these countries could name an American President, Mr. Roosevelt would be elected by acclamation. Allied men and women echoed the words of one Communist Englishman who said to me: 'It would be wonderful for us if Mr. Roosevelt received a third term.' His European rooters have no particular interest in our President as a person. They don’t care about his views on domestic questions. They simply count upon him, more than upon any other American, to promote the Anglo- French cause in the United States.”

Of this situation, Bess closes with sober words:

" . . the stage seems to be set for a final struggle between those Americans who want to bring us into the Allied-German war and those Americans who want to keep us out. That struggle coincides with our presidential election, and seems likely to dominate it."

In an article appearing in the London Spectator, an outstanding and influential publication, of May 3, 1940, it is said about our neutrality, that it is a neutrality which is strained at all times in practical matters in England’s favor, and to such an extent that some American writers are writing better propaganda on behalf of Eng­land and France, and American newspapers are printing better prop­aganda on behalf of England and France than their own writers. It continues:

“It is the fault not of Mr. Roosevelt but of the framers of the American Constitution in 1788 that 1940 happens to be a Presidential year and that the present President must eschew, so far as possible, any course which will lose his party’s votes next November”.

What this means is that Roosevelt, who is England’s candidate for President of the United States, cannot afford to lose any votes for his re-election by a straight-out declaration of war until after the election, and that the framers of our Constitution were at fault in making this the year for a Presidential election, thereby delaying for a time Roosevelt’s completion of his secret agreement with the English.

Plainly the courageous and honest Americans who will fight and pay for this war, if Roosevelt and his Jewish Anglo-French Bund succeed in their effort to force them to this bloody necessity, have been sold down the river by their elected leader and his chosen Janizaries.

We submit that this perilous program is the result of a specific plot, magnificently organized and paid for by your tax-monies and operated by Government machinery, run by your own elected and appointed administrators. That these individuals neither have the ability nor the wish to conduct American affairs in an American way and in the interest of the American people is an obvious fact.

If we had any doubt of this before the latest and greatest World War broke out in the Fall of 1939, the conduct of these schemers and of the President since that time has settled it forever.

When America was governed by Americans and for America, how different was the reception given to any interference or sugges­tion in relation to our policies—foreign or domestic. Genet, the French envoy, arrived in America in 1793 and proceeded at once to violate our neutrality, urged our people to pay no attention to its government, and treated President Washington with the utmost rude­ness and discourtesy. He insisted that we engage in warfare against Britain on behalf of France. Washington said:

"Is the minister of the French Republic to set the acts of this government at defiance with impunityt                          And then

threaten the executive with an appeal to the people: What must the world think of such conduct, and of the govern­ment of the United States in submitting to it?”

Bailey’s History of the American People, p. 78.

Washington's cabinet met and unanimously agreed that the re­call of Genet should be demanded.

In 1809, the British envoy, Francis James Jackson, arrived in the United States, proceeded to blackguard our President and people and to demand that we fight on behalf of Britain as against France, whereupon Madison’s Secretary of State refused to receive him or any further communications from him.

Apparently these incidents taught France and Britain a lesson, for not until eighty years afterwards—in 1888—was any effort made to interfere in America’s affairs. In that year Sir Lionel Sack- ville-West, the British Minister, wrote a naturalized citizen of Eng­lish birth that his vote for Cleveland was a vote for England. Cleveland peremptorily dismissed Sackville-West. Europe stayed out of the affairs of America for twenty-six mote years, viz. until 1914, when, having sounded out President Wilson, the Anglophiles, the press, pulpits and universities and found that their interference would be welcome, they sent a swarm of propagandists to inveigle us into the then World War. We received them with entertainment, flattery and adulation.

ROOSEVELT-WORLD JEWRY—ANGLOPHILES
STARVATION OF FRIENDS
THE FOUR HORSEMEN

"For I was hungered, and ye gave Me no meat. I was thirsty and ye gave Me no drink.”                              —Matthew 25:42.

‘‘Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me.”

Matthew 25:45.

“Man’s inhumanity to man Makes countless thousands mourn!”

Robert Burns, a Scotchman.

Meanwhile our Christian? Government unites with the British- Jewish Empire, in a plot to starve not merely German women and children (that has had our active support since the war started), but also the women and children of France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Hungary, Italy; in fact, all of Europe except Britain until, by provoked revolution, it is hoped general chaos will come, Germany will be destroyed, and the Brit- ish-Jewish Empire once more put in control of Europe.

The starvation of men, women and children has been the most approved English method of warfare since the Jews became dominant there—Ireland, China, India, the Boers, Germany, Aus­tria, Hungary, Italy, and now France, Holland, Belguim, Norway and Spain. England and the Jews, with our help, in the name of civilization and Christianity, have illegally made food contraband against friendly peaceable nations and call it economic warfare— viz: Jewish warfare—the Four Horsemen.

Bishops, Clergy, Presidents of Eastern Colleges, Anglophiles, Jew and an attorney close to Morgan & Co. recently joined in an appeal to continue an embargo on food for France, Norway, Poland, Bel­gium, Holland and Denmark. They said “The United States must be as hard as Great Britain is hard” and that the American people should have no part "in the scheme” to feed the women and children of these countries. They appealed to the American public to harden its heart against the movement, led by ex-President Hoover, based upon the plan issued by officers of organizations for relief in Norway,

Holland, Belgium and Poland—not for the Germans—which stated among other things:

"The shortage affects the children the worst. They must have fats and milk; otherwise they become stunted or die whole­sale. * * *

"We can say flatly that there is no source of supply in Europe from which these occupied nations can adequately pre­vent famine during the forthcoming winter, and if there is not to be starvation and disease on a wholesale scale, it must be pre­vented by overseas supplies through the British blockade.”

In an article by the President's cousin, Joseph Aslop, and Robert Kintner, on September 19, 1940, it was said:

“When the new French Ambassador, Gaston Henry- Haye, recently arrived here, there were credited reports that the Vichy government would ask for food from this country for stricken free France. * * that his government would like to discuss with the State Department and the Red Cross the plight of the sick and the children of free France. And he is said to have suggested the pressing demands for con­densed milk, medical supplies and some clothing — the tougher attitude of the British on the blockade. — the enormous French assets in this country that the Treasury has frozen. While the fact is not generally known, it is reported that French assets here total about $1,500,000,000, * * An idea of the stiict watch which (Jew) Morgenthau and the Treasury are keeping on this huge pile of wealth can be gleaned from the attitude toward the expenses of the French Embassy here. * * Morgenthau was agreeable to releasing some funds, but he requested a budget of the Em­bassy's expenses. After this was presented, he freed only enough money for two months’ operation, with 10 per cent added as a good-will payment.”

Major George Fielding Eliot, self-styled military expert, educated in Australia and first a soldier in the British Army, in an article in the Anglophile, war-mongering, pro-Jew New York Herald-Trib­une, September 25, 1940, said:

"The people of the United States are about to be faced with a grim, indeed a terrible, problem. It is a problem in whose decision their hearts will incline them in one way, their heads— it is to be hoped—in the other. Sentiment, the feelings of humanity, the natural wellsprings of human kindness, even the sacred name of Christian charity, will be called upon by those who will urge us to the one course; against which we shall have to remember who the Devil it is that can quote Scripture to his purpose.

"We are, as famine gnaws deeper into the vitals of the con­quered nations of Europe with the approach of winter, going to be asked to feed their suffering peoples. We shall be tola, and rightly, that these are the innocent, that they have done nothing to bring upon themselves the fate that has befallen them; and we shall be besought with the invocation of all those urging* of generosity which have always made so great an appeal to American hearts, to succor these starving peoples of Norway, of the Netherlands, of Belgium, of France, and, per­haps, of other lands.

"This appeal, however persuasively presented, however highly sponsored, we must in our own higher interests, in the interests of our own country and our American way of life, steel our hearts to resist.

"We are at this moment doing all we can to aid Great Brit­ain in her struggle with a Germany which has conquered all organized resistance on the continent of Europe. * * that this blockade, resting on British seapower, is indeed the chief weapon with which Britain is fighting Germany.”

Major Eliot, pro-English, pro-Jew, pro-War, in his crusade for chaos and the starvation, disease and death of our traditional friends on the continent of Europe, thus brazenly tells us that anyone who suggests the application here of the greatest of virtues—Christian charity and humanity—would be in the service of the Devil.

And so the Administration, World Jewry and the Anglophiles ille­gally take and hold billions of the French money banked and entrusted to our Government, and refuse the woman and children of France food, clothing and medicine to prevent death by starvation and disease, in order to help England, and our good people approve—Lafayette we are here.

In a very startling article written by a political editor, Frank Waldrop, on October 11, 1940, headed “Why Do We Help Starve Finland?”, Waldrop said:

"And on through the winter, the enthusiasm grew. Fin­land fought grimly and well in the frozen North (against the bloody Soviet), and all the United States poured out millions to help. It was a noble gesture, well meant and deeply appreciated.

"Have you ever wondered whether that help ever got to Finland?

"This is to tell you the sad news.

"In warehouses at New York City right this instant are stacked bales and bolts of bandages, medical supplies, food, clothes, X-ray machines, vitamin extracts, cotton, wool,

layettes for babies, splints and shoelaces furnished by the Red Cross and other agencies, long since earmarked for Fin­land.

“They have never been moved though Finnish ships are waiting and ready to take them, the Red Cross has marked them as disposed of, * *

"In Finland now those things are needed even more desperately than when they were given. It is cold in Helsinki, now, and the cold stars glitter down on people who have been living on just potatoes since May, who have not accu­mulated any fat against the frost, who haven’t those fine sheepskin coats they had this time a year ago, who even have not yet got back the window panes that went flying when Molotov’s breadbaskets came tumbling down out of the gray winter skies last January. * *

"The combined efforts of the U. S. State Department and the government of Great Britain are all that prevent them from doing so. * *

“Finland is still a nation of integrity and character. * * And Finland has certified it needs desperately those supplies in New York. It promises not to surrender them to any­body. * *

“Is this to be remembered in history as what American admiration for Finland had fallen to one year after all the cheering?”

Roosevelt, the Jews and the British-Jewish Empire are again courting bloody Stalin, who wants all of Finland, and we are unit­ing with England and the Soviet to starve and freeze the Finns to death.

In the Times-Herald of October 16, 1940, it is stated:

"Soviet to Get Needed Tools From U. S.

1. , Wooing Stalin From Axis, Calls Russia ‘Friendly’

"President Roosevelt yesterday made an important and specific gesture of friendship toward Russia. Going out of his way to characterize the Soviet as ‘a friendly power,’ Mr. Roosevelt announced the Russians now will receive all of their orders for machine tools and machinery, except for such items as Army and Navy experts decide are vitally needed by U. S. defense industries. * * a major diplomatic triumph for Ambassador Constantine Oumansky, * * At the same time, yesterday's compromise represents an advance in the present British-American campaign to woo Stalin from the axis powers * *”

In the Times-Herald of December 12, 1940, an article was pub­lished by an American writer of mixed Norwegian and Irish descent.

who had been in Norway after its invasion, which said: "Unless the British allow food relief to reach Norway this winter, it is pos­sible virtually the entire population of 2,500,000 may be extermi­nated by spring. * * * "the 1,000,000 Americans of Norwegian descent gladly would furnish food through the relief organization headed by former President Herbert Hoover, if the British would lift the blockade for that purpose.”

In "Pilgrims Way”, a charming book written by a Scotchman, John Buchan, Lord Tweedsmuir, recently Governor-General of Canada, he tells how, in his youth, brooding over Scotch history, had made him an intense Scotch patriot. He stated: (P. 39)

"Against our little land there had always stood England oast, menacing and cruel. We resented the doings of Edward I —Henry VIII and Elizabeth as personal wrongs. The Bru­talities of Cumberland after forty-Hoe seemed to us unfor­givable outrages which had happened yesterday."

John Buchan was a member of Parliament, Lord High Commis­sioner to the General Assembly of the Church (Presbyterian) of Scotland. This Cumberland was known as the Butcher Duke and was a son of King George II. He gained his name by his ferocity and hangings of Scotchmen after 1745, and many of our bravest revo­lutionary soldiers from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania had fled from Scotland owing to the brutalities of the English. I am told that the people of Scotland, where there are fewer Jewish magnates than in London, while loyal to the British Emp’re, were less desirous of fighting for World Jewry than were the English.

Lloyd George, former Premier of England, in an article on the bombing of cities and towns, published in the American papers on September 22, 1940, stated:

"I do not believe either side is achieving any serious military objective by the devastation which is necessarily wrought on both sides. * *

"Unhappily it is inevitable that men, women and chil­dren who are either Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian, or French and have their abode in these ports should in the course of these activities be killed or injured.”

In an article in the American newspapers of October 6, 1940, Lloyd George, former Premier of England, later said:

"Norway was another major blunder in strategy. We succeeded in antagonizing every party in a most friendly country by invading her territorial waters without consent

or warning, and thereby we made easy the occupation of Nor­way by Germany.”

This is an admission by a former Premier of England, that Eng­land had blundered in invading the territorial waters of Norway without Norwegian consent and without warning to her, thereby giving the Germans an excuse for subsequently invading and occupy­ing Norway. Somebody in Norway gave the English a wink and a nod before they invaded the territorial waters of Norway. Carl J. Hambro was at that time President of the Norwegian Storting (Parlia­ment) . A large international banking house of London is owned by the Hambro family and one of its members, Charles J. Hambro, is a director in the Bank of England. Carl J. Hambro, like Baron Roth­schild of France and many Jewish refugees, is now in America, well heeled with this world’s goods, and is being toasted and feted by the Administration and the other interventionists. We have not heard that Hambro is making any effort to relieve the starvation of those Norwegians who were without sufficient money or influence to flee from Norway, or that he disapproves of our selling bombers to England, with which, as Lloyd George, former Premier of Eng­land, says: “It is inevitable that Norwegian men, women and chil­dren * * will be killed or injured”.

Our Jews, humanitarians and some so-called Christians are advo­cating the sale of more and more bombers to England, with which, as Lloyd George says, it is inevitable that Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian, and French friends—men, women and children, will be killed or injured in their homes: that means the men, women and children, who have not had the money and influence to arrive in America with gold and diamonds. The press, radio and President are thus urg­ing us to aid, quickly and efficiently, in the barbarous slaughter of innocents—our traditional friends—Lafayette we are here.

“Oh God! that bread should be so dear And flesh and blood so cheap.”

Thomas Hood.

WAR HYSTERIA PROPAGANDA EXPOSED

“Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the fa­vorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”

Washington’s Farewell Address.

Wars are the Jews’ Harvests.

Werner Sombart. a Jew.

Raymond Clapper, columnist, writing for the Scripps-Howard papers, on May 16, 1940, states in reference to the recent report of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, of whom the majority are Democratic Senators;

"There is a current rising hysteria in this country, sprouting from the idea that we ought to enter the war as a preventive measure to kill off the danger of later invasion of the Western Hemisphere. Rarely is the proposition stated so baldly, but that is the thought behind a good many words that are being uttered today.

“That viewpoint, which is steadily gaining ground be­cause of the importance of some who hold it, now finds its thesis sharply opposed by the Senate Naval Affairs Commit­tee in a most significant report which advocated additions to the Navy. Because it is the voice of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, this report is bound to become a textbook for those who believe the Administration is moving toward deep­er involvement in Europe. * * *

"In effect the committee stands on hemisphere defense. It states that some of our best informed naval experts are of the opinion that the United States should not participate in the European war under any circumstances now conceivable, and that United States soldiers should never again be landed on a foreign continent.

"The Senate Naval Affairs Committee says we are not pre­pared to participate in the European war, that we do not possess the necessary weapons, and that we should not consider our naval needs with any such object in view. We should, the com­mittee says, profit by the experience of the last World War and avoid becoming too greatly involved in European affairs. The committee said that if we are to remain at peace, we must avoid becoming interested financially in the outcome of the

European war, and our industries must not become too greatly compromised by foreign war orders. That is a statement which seems to have come a little late, since American industry, par­ticularly aviation, already is deeply involved. * * *

‘‘The naval committee report is based upon the argu­ment that adequate naval power, supplemented by air strength and a relatively small Army, gives us complete protection.

‘‘The report goes into some detail to make the point that if Germany can, by air and submarine, subdue Britain's vast naval force around the British Isles, the same fate would be in store for any naval force we would send over. On the other hand, our Navy, operating at home, and protected by air strength, is immune to anything except a superior battle fleet.

"As to Japan, the committee states baldly that at the present time the U. S. Navy could not undertake a war in far eastern waters. We should have to increase our fleet perhaps 100 per cent, and build an impregnable naval base in the Philippines. Says the committee: ‘The cost to us of such a war would be so great that we must, by every means in our power, avoid the necessity of having to undertake it.’ ”

RECENT REPORT OF SENATE NAVAL COMMITTEE This remarkable report, coming unanimously in May, 1940 from the Senate Naval Affairs Commiteee, should be read, at this time, by every American who has the interest of his own country first at heart. So little publicity was given to it by the Jewish controlled newspapers and radio that it might almost be said to have been suppressed. It states:

“Why should we go to war to defend freedom, if we must begin by destroying it with our own hands? We need not do this. The cold, hard military fact is this: Our Navy, if adequate, supplemented by a highly efficient Army and air force, will be so effective that few nations, not excluding victorious totalitarian nations, will challenge its power; and if any does we shall be the deliverer and not the recipient of the terrible hammer strokes of war.

"The naval, military, and air forces necessary to prevent any foreign nation or group of nations from challenging us in our part of the world are well within the power of this Nation to create and maintain without regimenting all our vast resources under a single control, without wiping out our democracy, and without abandoning our American ways of life and free gov­ernment.

"If we realize that the important causes of war are in human minds and emotions; that force cannot change materially human nature; give up the illusion that American armed force can bring permanent peace to a warring world and confine our military

objectives to the defense of this country, we shall find that our problem of national defense becomes relatively simple. An impregnable defense for America will be costly, but infinitely less costly in the long run than engaging in another futile at­tempt to 'save the world for democracy and certainly less costly than conquest and consequent confiscation of resources and en­slavement of all our people. It is believed that the American people are ready and willing to make any sacrifices necessary to protect their birthright and their liberties, but that they are not willing to endure the horrors of war to take part in the age-old quarrels of Europe and the game of power politics. * * * “No attack of a serious nature can be made upon our country, unless an enemy secures command of the waters which wash our shores to such an extent that he can bring troops or aircraft within striking distance for assault, or un­less his blockading forces can operate effectively against our vital trade routes to the countries bordering upon the Carib­bean Sea to South American countries and to Hawaii and Alaska.

“So long as our Nation possesses an adequate fleet, an adequate air force, and the necessary number of secure bases from which these forces may operate effectively, there is little chance of a successful attack upon us. Our fleet, including the fleet air force, however, must be kept concentrated, and must be superior in fighting power to any fleet or combination of fleets which can be brought against us. * * *"

"We alone, of all great peoples, are so fortunately situated that we can remain at peace and be secure in our homes and our means of livelihood.

"In the words of George Washington:

'Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?’

"Why not take advantage of our peculiar situation, develop the sources of raw materials available in this hemisphere and construct the instrumentalities of war which will enable us to pursue our way in peace, free from the horrors of invasion, the perils of bombs from the sky above us, the burdens of supporting vast armies, and the perils to our liberties which any involvement in war would bring?

“The committee's attention has been directed to arti­cles and items which have appeared in the public press alleg­ing that military and naval experts are of the opinion that it is inevitable that the United States will become involved in the European war and that the United States should take an active military part in the war.”

“The committee can state that some of our best in­formed naval experts are of the opinion that the United States should not participate in the present European war under any circumstances now con­ceivable and that United States soldiers should never again be landed on a foreign continent. None of the naval experts or civilian witnesses who appeared be­fore the committee recommended that this country participate actively in the present European war. Pri­vately some military and naval officers may believe that we should enter the war, but they have not so recommended publicly to the committee.

*****

The Senate Naval Affairs Committee in May, 1940 reached the following conclusions, among others:

"The United States at the present time is not vulner­able to direct attack by any means whatsoever save those with which a thoroughly modern navy and air force can deal ade­quately.

"Air power, due to its limited radius of action, has not yet changed the fact that in a military sense we are an insular nation and that we are not vulnerable to direct attack if we prevent the establishment of air bases in this hemisphere.

"Military power can always be exercised more efficiently and to much greater effect within a reasonable radius of action than it can by fighting thousands of miles away.

"We are more fortunately situated than any other peoples. We should take advantage of our fortunate situation and avoid entangling our peace and prosperity in the quarrels of Europe or Asia.

"We should make every effort to preserve peace in the Far East. We can, if we have to, defeat Japan, but the effort re­quired would be enormous. At the present time, due to lack of United States naval bases in this area, a war in the Far East could be undertaken only in conjunction with Great Britain, France, and Holland.

"No circumstances were presented to the committee which would indicate the necessity for United States naval forces being sent to operate in European waters or United States air forces being sent to operate from bases in Europe. Our naval forces should not be subjected to the hazards of European shore-based aircraft and small submarines. Our naval and air forces should be preserved for our own defense if and when needed.

"We should face the basic military and economic facts that we do not have the power or the means to police the world; that we cannot bring peace to a warring world,

but that we do have the power and the means to prevent others from transporting their wars to this hemisphere.

The Senate Naval Committee recommended that —

"Thoughtful consideration be given its conclusions that the best interests of our country will be served if we remain at peace; that we very probably can remain at peace, be free from the horrors of war, the fear of invasion, the crushing burdens of vast armies, the fear of bombs from the sky above us, and be able to work out our own domestic problems in a sensible American way; and that should any unscrupulous aggressor at­tack us, we will be able to meet and defeat him quickly and decisively far from our homes and our firesides, if we provide ourselves with ample sea and air power to command the seas which wash our own shores and the sea approaches to the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Sea."

See Report of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs No. 1615, 76th Congress, 3d Session.

In one of the ablest and most patriotic editorials ever written it was stated, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on September 3, 1940:

"DICTATOR ROOSEVELT COMMITS AN ACT
OF WAR

“Mr. Roosevelt today committed an act of war.

"He also became America’s first dictator.

“Secretly, his Secretary of State, Mr. Hull, entered into an agreement with the British Ambassador that amounts to a military and naval alliance with Great Britain. This secretlv negotiated agreement was consummated yesterday, Sept. 2.

“Today Congress is informed of the agreement. Note well the word 'informed.' Although the President referred to his under-cover deal as ranking in importance with the Louisiana Purchase, he is not asking Congress—the elected representatives of the people—to ratify this deal. He is telling them it already has been ratified by him—America’s dictator.

“The President has passed down an edict that compares with the edicts forced down the throats of Germans, Italians and Russians by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

"He hands down an edict that may eventually result in the shedding of the blood of millions of Americans; that may result in transforming the United States into a goose-stepping, regi­mented slave state.

“Under our Constitution, treaties with foreign powers are not legal without the advice and consent of the Senate.

This treaty, which history may define as the most momentous one ever made in our history, was put over without asking the Senate either for its advice or its consent.”

"The authority which the President quotes for his fatal and secret deal is an opinion from the Attorney-General. Whatever legal trickery this yes-man may conjure up, the fact is that the transfer of the destroyers is not only in vio­lation of American law, but is also in violation of the Hague Covenant of 1907, solemnly ratified by the United States Senate in 1908. It is an outright act of war.

"Undeterred by law or the most primitive form of com­mon sense, the President is turning over to a warring power a goodly portion of the United States Navy, against the repeated statements of Senators, Navy Department officials and officers of the Navy that the ships are needed for our own defense. * * *

“But, in doing so, he commits an act of war. He strips our navy of fifty valuable ships and he enters into leases which might not be worth the paper they are written upon in a month’s time.

"And all this is done in utmost contempt of democratic processes and of the Constitution of the United States.

"If this secretly negotiated deal goes through, the fat is in the fire and we all may as well get ready for a full-dress parti­cipation in the European war.

"If Roosevelt gets away with this, we may as well say good-by to our liberties and make up our mind that henceforth we live under a dictatorship.

"If Congress and the people do not rise in solemn wrath to stop Roosevelt now—at this moment—then the country deserves the stupendous tragedy that looms right around the corner.’’

Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, that fine, honest, able and patriotic young American, a recognized authority throughout the world on aviation and defense by air, in a recent address stated:

"In times of war and confusion, it is essential for our people to have a clear understanding of the elements upon which our national safety depends. * * *

"Judged by aeronautical standards, we in the United States are in singularly fortunate position. * * *

"From the standpoint of defense, we will still have two great oceans between us and the warring armies of Europe and Asia. In fact, there is hardly a natural element contri­buting to air strength and impregnability that we do not now possess. Aviation is for us an asset. It adds to our national safety. With a firm and clear cut policy we can

build an air defense for America that will stand above these shifting sands of war. * * *

"Let us not be confused by this talk of invasion by European aircraft. The air defense of America is as simple as the attack is difficult when the true facts are faced. We are in danger of war not because European people have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of America, but because American people have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of Europe.

“A foreign power could not conquer us by dropping bombs in this country unless the bombing were accompanied by an invading army. And an invading army requires thousands of small bombers and pursuit planes. It would have little use for huge transatlantic aircraft.

"No, the advantage lies with us, for great armies must still cross oceans by ship. Only relatively small forces can be transported by air today, and over distances of a few hun­dred miles at most. This has great significance in Europe, but it is not an element that we have to contend with in America. Such a danger can come, in any predictable future, only through division and war among our own peoples.

"As long as American nations work together, as long as we maintain reasonable defense forces, there will be no in­vasion by foreign aircraft. And no foreign navy will dare to approach within bombing range of our coasts.

"Our danger in America is an internal danger. We need not fear a foreign invasion unless American peoples bring it on through their own quarreling and meddling with affairs abroad. Our eyes should not search beyond the horizon for problems which lie at our feet. * * *

"The greatest inheritance we can pass on to our children is a reasonable solution of the problems that confront us in our time—a strong nation, a lack of debt, a solid American char­acter free from the entanglements of the Old World. Let us guard America today as our forefathers guarded it in the past. They won this country from Europe with a handful of Revo­lutionary soldiers. We certainly can hold it now with a popu­lation of 130,000,000 people. If we cannot, we are unworthy to have it.

"But the course we have been following in recent months leads to neither strength nor friendship nor peace. It will leave us hated by victor and vanquished alike, regardless of which way the tide of battle turns. One side will claim that we aided its enemies; the other, that we did not help enough."

Lindbergh continues:

“Let us turn again to America's traditional role — that of building and guarding our own destiny. We need a

greater air force, a greater Army, ar 3 a greater Navy: they have been inadequate for many years. Let us form with our neighboring nations a clear-cut and definite policy of Ameri­can defense. But above all, let us stop this hysterical chatter of calamity and invasion that has been running rife these last few days. It is not befitting to the people who built this nation.

"That the world is facing a new era is beyond question. Our mission is to make it a better era. But regardless of which side wins this war, there is no reason, aside from our own actions, to prevent a continuation of peaceful relation­ships between America and the countries of Europe. If we desire peace, we need only stop asking for war. No one wishes to attack us, and no one is in a position to do so.

“The only reason that we are in clanger of becoming involved in this war is because there are powerful elements in America who desire us to take part. They represent a small minority of the American people, but they control much of the machinery of influence and propagada. They seize every opportunity to push us closer to the edge.

"It is time for the underlying character of this country to rise and assert itself, to strike down these elements of personal profit and foreign interests. This underlying character of America is our true defense. Until it awakes and takes the reins in hand once more, the production of airplanes, cannon and battleships is of secondary importance.

"Let us turn our eyes to our own nation. We cannot aid others until we have first placed our own country in a position of spiritual and material leadership and strength."

Senator David I. Walsh, Chairman of the Senate Naval Commit­tee, stated in the Senate on June 4, 1940, that the round-trip limit of modern bombers was 1.000 miles, and added "that Col. Charles A. Lindbergh, in his recent broadcast, 'expressed a military point of view exactly in accord with the army and navy that it is impossible for this country to be invaded from the air.’ "

Major A1 Williams, noted aviation expert, formerly a Navy speed pilot and now an able writer and Reserve Officer in the Marine Corps, recently stated at a meeting of the National Aviation Forum: that "panic first, then war", was Roosevelt’s policy, and that:

" * * America was in no danger of invasion by air or sea. that the President's speeches have been 'panic-creating,’ and strongly intimated the President’s plan for 50,000 ships was not actually for home defense but to hand over to the Allies."

"They (the Allies) want our airplanes * * * and they want those planes right now. And Mr. Roosevelt wants to give them airplanes right now without first providing an American air

force organization for the permanent air defense of America. The airplanes are for Europe."

"The President knows all this—but I fear that the President wants airplanes in great numbers right now—to toss into this war. If he wants thousands of planes as soon as he can get them—and without waiting to build an air force first—then pro­duction of planes for Europe is his goal—not the defense of America.

"The Administration for five years * * * has persistently meddled in international power politics and at the same time, failed to provide an adequate national defense system for this country."

In a United Press dispatch of October 1, 1940, Alf Mossman Landon is quoted as saying:

"According to distinguished Democratic Members of Congress, the President has already asked Congress to do everything but declare war and do everything that was ever done by any government in any way at any time. Senator George, (Democrat) of Georgia, said, hardly 30 days ago: ‘Do not deceive yourselves, gentlemen: do not try to deceive the American people. They will know that you are not pre­paring for peace, for national defense, but that you are pre­paring for war."

William Henry Chamberlin, distinguished author, editor, and since 1922 correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in Europe and Asia, has within the last few days published, through the Mac­Millan Company, one of the most remarkable books on Europe and Asia that has come to our attention. Chamberlin is and has remained a true American, liberal, scholarly and objective in his viewpoint. He writes:

“I was profoundly skeptical as to the feasibility of all far-reaching schemes of so-called collective security. It seem­ed to me that one could not expect equality of obligations when there was no equality of risk. In other words a coun­try which was not itself exposed to attack could not reason­ably be expected to come to the aid of some other power which lay in the pathway of danger, more particularly if this other power had provoked or aggravated the danger by its own policy. To put it still more bluntly and specifically, in the light of contemporary issues, I should consider it criminal folly to conscript Americans and send them to fight over­seas because France and England had gone to war not to de­fend their own frontiers but to support an extremely brittle ally in Eastern Europe.” The Confessions of an Individualist,

247. 246-247.

" * * I was implacably opposed to ‘preventive’ wars, undertaken for the purpose of defeating a power that might or might not be an enemy at some future time. Such wars seemed to me about as sensible as jumping off a cliff because of the fear that some day one might be attacked by cancer.”

Ibid. p. 247.

" * * And 1 can conceive of nothing more disgustingly immoral than the statesman or legislator who sends others to die for a cause in which he does not believe sufficiently to be willing to risk his own life.”                                                        Ibid. p. 248-249.

" * * nothing shocked me so profoundly as the British unconditional guaranty to Poland. Then for the first time I became convinced that war of the worst kind was inevitable in Europe—a war in which the democracies and the fascist powers would wage a struggle of mutual exhaustion and near exter­mination, all for the ultimate benefit of the delighted Asiatic in the Kremlin, who would be ready at the end of the slaughter to step in and promote the social revolution which would destroy what little civilization the war had left.” Ibid. p. 254.

"As for the moral side of the question, I considered that there is no higher moral responsibility for a government than to keep its people out of unnecessary wars. And my definition of an unnecessary war, for the United States, is one unprovoked by hostile aggression against the American continent.”

Ibid. p. 258.

"If only America will have the common sense and self-restraint not to yield to foreign-inspired propaganda, not to waste the lives and substance of its people in fighting foreign quarrels, the future of the civilization which will inevitably move to its decline and fall if Europe persists in tearing itself to pieces, will belong to the western side of the Atlantic.” Ibid. p. 261.

" * * And, thanks primarily to the neo-Napoleonic ambitions of Hitler, secondarily to a French and British guaranty which neither country was in a geographical position to implement, Europe, for the second time within a generation, faced the grim prospect of war to an end that would certainly be bitter, if there was an end at all: millions of men struggling and dying for microscopic bits of soil in the blood and slime of the trenches; slow starvation of German women and children through block­ade matched against a German effort to starve England by means of its submarine blockade, with all its attendant horrors of death at sea.”                                                                                  Ibid. p. 269.

“I learned of the outbreak of the war at the American Embassy on the morning of September 1. My first reaction was one of overwhelming pessimism. This. I thought, was the beginning of the last act in the decline and fall of European civilization. The fabric of this civilization, with its basis of individualism, had survived the shock of the World War, but with terrible rents. What pathetic self-deception to be­lieve that a new European war, waged with still more de­structive weapons, could have any happier result!

“Just one hope remained on this day when all Europe was, or should have been, in mourning: America must be preserved from this new slaughter. This feeling was very much strengthened when another visitor to the Embassy on the day of the outbreak of the war, an enthusiastic interventionist, de­clared vehemently: ’America will be in this war if men like me have anything to say about it. We could crack Hitler in five years.’

"Five years! A good many Americans—millions most prob­ably, as against the hundreds of thousands of our casualties in the World War—would have most probably fallen before the Siegfried Line and on other battlefields of what would most probably be not a single war, but a whole cycle of wars, national and civtl. Was there any compelling reason why this should be?

“One idea which I simply could not take seriously, al­though it was hotly maintained by some old acquaintances in Paris, was that Hitler’s victory in Europe would be the prelude to a Nazi invasion of the United States. This seemed to me as fantastic as H. G. Wells’ conception of an invasion from Mars. There are some eighty million Germans. I do not underestimate their fighting quality, their scientific and technical achievement, their capacity for disciplined organiza­tion. But to believe that these eighty million Germans could first conquer a somewhat larger number of Frenchmen and Englishmen, far richer in natural resources, hold down tens of millions of discontented Slav subjects, fend off the Soviet Union, and then launch an invasion of America, a country of one hun­dred and thirty million people, backed by the strongest indus­trial plant in the world, and protected by two oceans, simply does not make sense to me.

“More appealing and familiar, perhaps, is the argument in the name of the common democratic tradition of the United States, Great Britain, and France. But a full-fledged modern war (it is most unlikely that a war, once begun, could remain a war of limited liability) is too desperately serious to be undertaken without some cause more compelling than sentimentality. A democratic government, based on respect for the individual rights of its citizens, cannot, with­out being untrue to its own principles, throw these citizen^ into war unless its own independence or territorial integrity is threatened. This was not the case in the World War; I do not think it will be the case in the present conflict.

"Moreover, l confess to a certain weary impatience when I hear a propagandist broadcast about the war as a struggle for liberty, democracy, and humanity, about Hitler as the source of all the world’s ills. Liberty, democracy, humanity are fine words. But war, in the light of very recent history, is a singu-

larly unpromising method of promoting their realization. As is evident from a preceding chapter in the book, Hitler and everything he stands for are abhorrent to me. But if Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were the distinctive products of the last great war, also announced as a crusade for democracy and the rights of small nations, what reasonable prospect is there that the results of the new war will be more favorable? Have we forgotten how many four-minute experts on international affairs told us that all that was necessary to make a free and happy world was to smash the Kaiser? The Kaiser has gone. The world has not become more pacific or more orderly.

“My strongest feeling whenever l hear someone like the interventionist who was in the Embassy light- heartedly talking about the necessity for America to ‘crack Hitler,’ even if it takes five years, is one of the cruel injustices to the future American ‘unknown soldiers’—Detroit mechanics, Iowa farmers, New Eng­land college professors—who would be sacrificed in this alien quarrel. We are not responsible for this new acute phase of the decline and fall of European civilization. We were not associated with the British and French guarantee to Poland, so recklessly given, so manifestly impossible to implement after Germany had fortified its western frontier. Every people must pay for the mistakes of its own government; but it seems to me outrageously unjust and unreasonable to expect Amer­icans to pay for the mistakes of foreign governments, to give up their lives because of mistaken judgments in the making of which they had not the slightest voice, to give a blank check of support to any foreign gov­ernment.

“So, whenever / hear someone announcing his in­tention to do what he can to bring America into the war, / feel strengthened in my own resolution to do what little I can to keep America out. I know that terribly powerful forces, compounded of skillful foreign propaganda, of honest emotional sympathy with Great Britain and France and hatred of Hitler, of the short-sighted material self-interest which finds reflection in the boom on the stock market whenever there is the prospect of a good long sanguinary war, are at work to drag America into the world butchery. Much the same combination of circumstances drew us into the last one.

“But I have enough faith in the reason and common sense of our own democratic system to believe that we are not fatalistically predestined to succumb. It is not the men like Senator Robert M. La Follette, whom American public opinion has judged wrong in the light of its ultimate

reaction to America’s participation in the World War. The Neutrality Act, abused by every war-monger, but passed, it may be recalled, with the virtually unanimous approval of the American people, definitely places peace above war profit. Had it been in existence during the World War, our oarticipa- tion would have probably been avoided, because the issues involved in the sinking of American ships carrying supplies to the Allied countries and the deaths of Americans traveling on belligerent ships would not have arisen, and the huge stake which America had acquired in an Allied victory through a swollen war trade would not have grown up. Friends of peace for America should be most insistent that the only changes in the Neutrality Act should be in the direction of stiffening it.

“Let America’s destiny be to keep aight the Home of civilization which was lit in Europe and which is now apparently going out there. Let us keep clear of ad­venturous crusades which, after wasting our lives and property, will inevitably end in futility and disillusion­ment. Let us be strong for the preservation of peace in our own hemisphere, in the regions where we can reasonably hope to make our military and naval and economic strength decisive. Let us shut our ears to the barrage of conscious and unconscious propaganda that will play on us with increasing force as Europe’s death gamble becomes more and mores desperate. Let us remember that, by every Christian, humanist, demo­cratic standard, every individual American life is sacred and precious, to be sacrificed only if our own security is threatened, not to be thrown away in the interest of foreign powers. And lei us never forget that the surest road to fascism, to communism, to every other form of the brutalitarian state is through war.

The Confessions of an Individualist, ps. 271-275.

“ * * * In the light of the plain facts of the last two decades, can anyone place faith in the Wilsonian phrases, now being furbished up for new use about war as an agency to end war, to create a better world, to make right and justice prevail? The fruit of the war to make the world safe for democracy was three of the most brutally antidemocratic revolutions in history. The sequel to the war to end war was an era of numerous minor wars and acts of international aggression, culminating in what is essentially a renewal of the World War, with far more terrible means of destruction available to the combatants.”           Ibid. p. 281.

“Where I do take issue with the trend of official opinion in France and Great Britain and with a good deal of unofficial opinion in America is in refusing to believe that all will be for the best in a happy world if only Hitler is defeated. I tvas

talking with one of my American interventionist friends in Paris shortly after the outbreak of the war. He was blithely predict­ing five or six years of sanguinary struggle, in which he wished America to supply a good deal of the cannon fodder. I sug­gested that civilization would not last so long.

" 'To hell with civilization!’ he said. 'We’re going to beat Hitler.’

“ * * * Is there any reason to believe that the downfall of Hitler will be any surer pledge of the future peace and security of the world than was the deposition of the Kaiser?”

Ibid. p. 282.

“ * * * There are several prospective beneficiaries waiting like vultures around carrion to take advantage of Europe’s war to an end that will certainly be bitter for all concerned. The most obvious of these beneficiaries are the half Asiatic and wholly barbarous Soviet Union and Japan.

"Perhaps the most disastrous and permanent result of the war will prove to be the westward expansion of the territorial possessions and influence of the Soviet Union, that implacable enemy of everything individualistic and humanistic in the Euro­pean cultural tradition. Within a few weeks after the outbreak of hostilities some thirteen million unfortunate human beings— Poles, White Russians, and Ukranians—had been brought under Stalin’s rule, while the freedom of several little peasant democ­racies in the Baltic had been destroyed or gravely threatened.”

Ibid. p. 283.

"At the very least, much that gave support and character to the individualistic civilization of Europe seems certain to disappear under the impact of war. The British national debt increased roughly tenfold during the World War. Can it stand another gigantic increase without financial collapse, with its accompaniments of inflation and repudiation and all the grave social consequences which these would entail? The French franc, worth twenty cents in gold before the first World War, is now worth a little over two cents in terms of the present devalued American dollar. What will it be worth after the end of the present war?

‘‘The belligerent nations must reckon with cruel losses, economic as well as human, in the form of lost maikets, bankrupt investments, destroyed shipping and property. * *”

Ibid. p. 291.

«* * * There is a confused feeling that America should ‘do something about it,’ perhaps in the best style of the crusade of 1917, designed to make the world safe for democracy to the tune of ‘Over There.’ My own conclusions as to America’s proper role is en­tirely different. It seems to me that any statesman who would directly or indirectly work for American

involvement in what is not a single war but simply an episode in a long series of wars and revolutions would incur a crushing responsibility before history and before his own conscience. The spectacle of a great civilization in decline must arouse our deepest grief; but there is nothing we can effectively do to avert it.

"America does not possess the infinite power or the infinite wisdom that are supposed to be the attributes of Almighty Providence. It is first of all beyond our physical power, unless we propose to out-Hitler Hitler in militarization, with all the disastrous consequences which this would entail for our demo­cratic ideal, to put every obstreperous nation in Europe and Asia into what we regard as its proper place. And, even apart from this very important consideration, America seems to me singularly ill adapted for the role of world judge and arbiter.

"Because we are a young people our judgments are likely to be intolerant and impatient, naive and half-baked. We are clay in the hands of a skillful propagandist from one of the older lands of Europe with designs on our men and our money. We succumb far too easily to thinking of complicated world developments in oversimplified terms of 'menaces’ against which we must go out and fight. * * *”

Ibid. p. 292.

“It may prove to have been wishful thinking, but I do not believe there is anything fatalistically preordained about American entrance in the present war. Our national destiny, properly conceived, would be to keep our own hemisphere free from aggressive foreign penetration (a big enough job even for an ambitious people), to work out our own great problem of insuring that mechanical progress will mean work and a steadily rising standard of living for all, to take the lead in the relief enterprises that will be only too necessary through­out Europe’s ordeal. The argument is sometimes used that American economy will be so much affected by the war that participation will become ultimately inevitable. This seems to me open to the obvious retort that whatever losses may be incurred by staying out of war will be negligible, compared with those which will be entailed by going in. Moreover, the costs of remaining aloof would be only material. The costs of entering war would have to be measured in human lives and in greatly increased liability to reactionary modifications of our democratic and individualistic system.”

Ibid. p. 293.

There is just a shadow of a possibility that the plain people everywhere will rebel at last against the sanguinary game of which they are always the victims, that they will set up s new order in which would-be dictators will be shot at sight, and conscription and balance-of-power politics and competitive armaments and all the other toys with which politicians and diplomats and generals like to play until they go off in the ultimately inevitable explosion will be banished forever. It is only on this basis of a free United States of Europe, the product of free men firmly and implacably re­solved never again to be misled into the dark and bloody insanity of war and prepared to make the infinitely lesser sacrifices which permanent peace would require, that the present century in Europe may be an epoch not of servitude and barbarism, but of freedom and rebirth.”

Ibid. ps. 297-298.

On June 12, 1940 after Roosevelt, instead of addressing Congress, had made a war speech to the boys at the University of Virginia, according to the newspapers Senator Wheeler threatened to quit the Democratic Party if Roosevelt continued his war policy. Roosevelt made a bitter attack on the Italians accusing them of stabbing France in the back. The proceedings in the Senate were reported as follows:

"Charges that President Roosevelt’s program of aid to the Allies is leading the country into war were made on the floor of the Senate yesterday by Senator Burton K. Wheeler (D1 of Montana. Other Senators joined in his attack on the Ad­ministration.

Senator Wheeler, warning the American people to wake up. served notice that “if it becomes necessary to break with the Democratic party I shall break with it if it is going to be a war party.” He said he would not support “any candidate for President of the United States who is going to try to get us into this war.”

After Senator Rush D. Holt (D), of West Virginia, and Senator D. Worth Clark (D) of Idaho, had assailed President Roosevelt’s indorsement of full page war propaganda ad­vertisements bv the so-called committee to defend America by aiding the Allies. Senator Wheeler asked Holt what had be­come of a resolution calling for an investigation of foreign war propaganda.

“I do not think it has the approval of Lord Lothian, the Rritish ambassador,” Holt replied.

“Whether it has the approval of Lord Lothian or any­body else,” Wheeler declared, “it seems to me that here is an advertisement published in the great newspapers of the coun­try at great cost.”

“Every member of this body knows that somebody is paying for it. We ought to know who is paying for it, and where the money comes from. If there is money being put out for Nazi propaganda in this country we ought to know that, too.

"I think the overwhelming majority of the members of this body is opposed to getting into this war, and I may say that no matter what the English press and the English news­paper writers thought about the speech made by the President, we ought to serve notice that the great majority of the mem­bers of the Senate are not going to vote for war and we are not going to get into it.”

“We do not want to fool Great Britain or France into thinking that we are going to send American boys across the water again to be shot to pieces on the battlefields of Europe. We are not going to see them come back here and fill our in­sane asylums and our hospitals, with their legs off and their arms off, blind and deaf.

"America ought to wake up! American mothers ought to wake up; American youth ought to wake up; the American workingmen ought to wake up, because anybody who has any sense at all knows what is happening. We know the propa­ganda that is going on and we know and every member of the Senate knows that every move is being made to lead us, if you please, down the road to war.

Holt said it was well known that here in Washington “the social lobby controlled by the dictates of the British Embassy has enlisted for the duration of the war.”

Senator Millard E. Tydings (Dj, of Maryland, * * * denounced President Roosevelt's speech accusing Premier Mus­solini of stabbing France in the back.

Senator Tydings observed that the business of making war is not a one-way street, agreeing with Senator Holt that bluffing may cause others to declare war on us.

Another incident which elicited expressions of amaze­ment was a radio broadcast Tuesday night by Edwin C. Hill, a commercial commentator. Senator Holt quoted Hill as say­ing that the President had discussed the question of getting this country into the war with certain individuals who called at the White House.

Senator Wheeler said he too had been informed that Hill “made a statement over the radio to the effect that the Presi­dent of the United States called in some people last evening and questioned them as to whether or not we should have a declaration of war at the present time.”

“It seems to me that a statement of that kind, given out by a radio commentator, if it was not true should certainly be sufficient reason for not permitting him to speak further over the radio as a commentator in this country,” Senator Wheeler declared.

Senator Holt touched off the Senate debate when he began a speech denouncing the Administration’s policy of trading in surplus or obsolete airplanes and other war supplies for resale to the Allies.

"We have seen our country led away from neutrality to non-belligerency,” he said, "and if certain individuals in the Government have their way we will strike out the word 'non’ and will be a belligerent before the snow flies. That is why I am trying in my humble way to tell the American people that unless they awaken to the danger American boys will be sent over there to man the obsolete planes and the obsolete guns.”

Noting that Mr. Roosevelt had indorsed the advertise­ments of the committee to defend America by aiding the Allies, Holt submitted data as to its background and origin.

"Of course, they have a front, a stufFed shirt, William Allen White, but let us see where that committee started.” Holt said. "Eighteen prominent bankers and others met secretly on the 29th day of April in New York to set up this committee. They were called by Frederick R. Coudert. Do Senators know who he is? He was the legal advisor of the British embassy who helped lead us into the last World War. Frederick Coudert was the man who helped generate the pro­paganda that took the American boys to their death in 1917 and 1918, while he was on the pay roll of the British govern­ment.”

On July 11, 1940, Senator Holt placed in the Congressional Record a partial list of those who helped finance the full page war propaganda advertisement published by the group styling itself "Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.” Such partial list included directors and members of the families of international bankers and prominent persons in the broadcasting and movie busi­ness, among whom may be mentioned:

Mrs. Averell Harriman: Mrs. H. P. Davison; Mrs. Daniel Gug­genheim: Mrs. John SchifF: Frederick Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb Co.; Cornelius D. Whitney: Thomas M. Lamont, of J. P. Morgan & Co.: Joseph Thomas, of Lehman Bros.: I. D. Levy, of Columbia Broadcasting: Jerome H. Loucheim, of Columbia Broadcasting: Henry Luce, editor of Time Magazine: Samuel Goldwyn: Maxwell Anderson; Fred Astaire: Irving Berlin; Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.; Lynn Fontanne; Myrna Loy: Alfred Lunt: Paul Muni; Robert Sherwood.

This list includes many New York millionaires, a few Chris­tians? hot for England and many Jews demanding the lives of our boys and the destruction of our liberties to punish Hitler. They smell of blood. About two-thirds are for Roosevelt and one-third now for Willkie.

Senator Holt stated his purpose to give, at a later date, names of the corporations contributing, which he explained were of the follow­ing types:

“Iron and steel, chemicals, mechanical equipment, oil, metals, celluloid, electrical equipment, aircraft, munitions, steamship lines, smelting and refining, steel castings, barbed wire manufactures, shell casings, foreign owned and con­trolled industrial companies, other corporations producing other materials necessary for war, international banking, international insurance.” (Vol. 86 Congressional Record, p. 14360).

It will be recalled that the full page advertisement contributed to by this war-mongering group of corporations was declared by the President of the United States to be a great piece of work and extremely educational for the people of the country.

Ogden Mills Reid is the owner and editor of the pro-Jew, pro- English, pro-war New York Herald-Tribune, though it is largely run by his wife in cooperation with Dorothy Thompson, former wife of Josef Bard, of Budapest, Hungary, and with Walter Lipp- mann, Jew of New York City. Ogden Mills Reid is a director and a heavy stockholder in a large company with a plant in New York and England, which has been in the red until recently, but through blood money it has lately succeeded in getting into the black. A recent edi­torial in the Herald-Tribune declared:

"It is quite probable that the least costly solution, in both life and welfare, would be (for the United States) to declare war on Germany at once."

Despite the efforts of the Jewish controlled press and radio and the New Deal character-assassinators and hatchet-men. Col. Charles Lindbergh made another address on June 15, 1940.

"There is an attempt to becloud the issue that confronts us. It is not alone an issue of building an adequate defense for our country. That must and can be done.”

"But we must not confuse the question of national de­fense with the question of entering a European war.” * * * Arming for the defense of America is compatible with normal life, commerce and culture. * * But aiming to attack the conti­nent of Europe would necessitate that the lives and thoughts of every man, woman and child in this country be directed toward war for the next generation, probably for the next several generations.

"We cannot continue for long to follow the course our government has taken without becoming involved in war with Germany. There are some who already advocate our entry into such a war. There are many perfectly sincere men and women who believe that we can send weapons to kill people in Europe without becoming involved in war with those people. Still others believe that by gestures and applause u>e can assist France and Englantj to win without danger to our own country.

“In addition to these, however, there are men among us of less honsty who advocate stepping closer and closer to war, knowing well that a point exists beyond which there can be no turning back. They have baited the trap of war with requests for modest assistance. This latter group is meeting with success at the moment.”

"This dabbling we have been doing in European affairs can lead only to failure in the future as it has in the past.” * *

"We demand that foreign nations refrain from interfering in our hemisphere, yet we constantly interfere in theirs. And while we have been taking an ineffective part in the war abroad, we have inexcusably neglected our defenses at home. In fact we have let our own affairs drift along until we have not even a plan of defense for the continent of North America.”

"No people ever had a greater decision to make. We hold our children’s future in our hands as we deliberate, for if we turn to war the battles will be hard fought and the outcome is not likely to be decided in our lifetime. This is a question of mortgaging the lives of our children and our grandchildren. Every family in the land would have its wounded and its dead.”

“ * * * If we decide to fight, then the United States must prepare for war for many years to come, and on a scale un­precedented in all history. In that case we must turn to a dictatorial government, for there is no military efficiency to be lost * *

"We must have a nation ready to give whatever is re­quired for its future welfare, and leaders who are more in­terested in their country than in their own advancement."

"With an adequate defense, no foreign army can invade us. Our advantage in defending America is as great as our disadvantage would be in attacking Europe. From a military geographical standpoint, we are the most fortunate country in the world.”

"If the British Navy could not support an invasion of Norway against the German Air Force, there is little reason for us to worry about an invasion of America as long as our own air force is adequately maintained. As far as invasion by air is concerned, it is impossible for any existing air force to attack effectively across the ocean.” * * *

"Now that we have become one of the world’s greatest nations, shall we throw away the independent American des­tiny which our forefathers gave their lives to win?"

“Shall we submerge our future in the endless wars of the Old World?”

“Or shall we build our own defenses and leave European war to European countries?”

“Shall we continue this suicidal conflict between Western nations and white races, or shall we learn from history as well as from modern Europe that a civilization cannot be preserved by conflict among its own peoples, regardless of how different their ideologies may be?”

“You men and women of America who believe that our destiny lies in building strength at home and not in war abroad — to you I say that we must act now to stop this trend toward war.” * * *

"If you believe that we should not enter a European war, you must support those of us who oppose such action. We cannot stop this trend alone. Some of your Representatives in Washington are already considering a declaration of war, but they are responsible to you for the action they take. Let them know how you feel about this. Speak to your friends and organize in your community. Nothing but a determined effort on the part of every one of us will prevent the disaster toward which our nation is now heading.”

In Herring’s great book "And So To War”, recently published by the Yale University Press, he states:

"These three chapters in American—and British—his­tory served the two nations in different degrees. The first, the Monroe Doctrine, served both Britain and America. The second, our entrance into the Far East and our espousal of the Open Door policy, served Britain greatly, America little. The third, our participation in the World War, served Britain and cheated America. The record reveals the growing inept­ness of American diplomacy.”

101. 101.

"* * On October 5, 1937, he (Roosevelt) reminded the world that 'the foundations of civilization are seriously threatened.’ The following day, in the Daily Worker, Mr. Earl Browder echoed, ‘The Communist party welcomes the President’s declaration. * *’ * *

“In 1914, when war broke in Europe, Mr. Wilson de­clared American neutrality. By 1915 we were lending money to the Allies, accepting the British ‘blockade,’ demanding ‘strict accountability.' By 1916 we accepted the British black list which even Canada rejected. By 1917 we declared war.”

“But Roosevelt travels faster.”                          Ibid. P. 22.

“There are two things to be said of Mr. Roosevelt and his associates in the international crisis of 1937-38.

"Either they are bluffing, and are therefore futile.

"Or, they are not bluffing, and are therefore dangerous.”

Ibid. P. 24.

“November 30 (1937) the (Jew) New York Times, in a three-column editorial, ‘America's Aloofness,’ denounced those who would spread the conviction abroad that the United States would remain neutral.”

Ibid. P. 36.

"January 13, (1938) Washington announced that three American light cruisers would participate in the ceremonies in connexion with the opening of the new British naval base at Singapore on February 14.”

Ibid. Ps. 45-46.

"On the question of an ‘agreement’ with Great Britain, it was revealed that Captain Ingersoll, the naval chief of war plans, had recently (Feb. 1938) spent some days in London. His visit was kept a great secret, and was only accidentally revealed. Congressman Brewster of Maine and others demanded the meaning of that visit. Admiral Leahy refused to say what had transpired.”

Ibid. P. 52.

"The puzzled public had all this to mull over.

"Mr. Hull said that we had no agreement with Britain.

"Admiral Leahy said that he wouldn’t tell anything ex­cept in executive session.

"Mr. Krock (a Jew—New York Times) spoke of 'a nod’ and 'a wink.' ”

Ibid. P. 53.

"February 8, 1938, the new industrial mobilization bill was introduced by (war mongering) Congressman May. This bill (was) written to meet the President’s request of Janu­ary 3, (1938) * * The May Bill provides that in event of war the President shall be granted wide control of price levels, which automatically carries control of wage levels, the control of all industry, of the radio and of 'public services,’ virtual control of the press through the power to determine priority in ship­ments of paper and other essentials, the control of labor unions through proclaiming them 'industrial organizations,’ and es­pecially the control of all workers on railroads and other public carriers. The one thing which the bill failed to provide was machinery for taking the profit out of war.”

Ibid. Ps. 54-55.

"February 28, 1938. the New York World-Telegram carried a headline ‘U. S. Prepared to Mobilize Million Troops,’ revealing that plans had been completed by the War Department to place 1.230,000 well-equipped troops in the field within four months after outbreak of war, also to mobilize 10.000 industrial plants capable of instant conver­sion for manufacture of war materials.”

Ibid. Ps. 62-63.

"March 7, 1938, a press dispatch from London quoted the remarks of Winston Churchill, former cabinet member, made during a debate in the House of Commons. ‘Excellent arrangements,’ he said, 'have been made with the United States, * *’ ”

Ibid. Ps. 63-64.

"Those who lead us into war have first the task of persua­sion, or ‘education,’ as Robert Lansing put it. They must take people who do not wish to fight and make them want to fight. They must take peace-loving people and convince them that the war is a just war, a generous war, a war for their own good and for the ultimate good of future generations.”

Ibid. P. 65.

"* * It seems almost rude to point out to the (London) Times that the American stake in China of less than two hun­dred millions is about one-sixth that of Britain, that instead of our cherishing ambitions to serve as the protector of Western interests in the Far East, we are definitely committed to with­drawal from the Philippines, and that our trade with the entire Far East represents only 10 per cent (most of which is with Japan) of our total trade with the world. If America is persuaded to play the hero in Asiatic waters, she must be persuaded on senti­mental, not economic grounds. * * *

"But the myth of our stake in the Far East has grown to respectable bulk. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, Henry L. Stimson, President Hoover’s Secretary of State, boldly denounced Japan, thinking he had reason to believe that Britain was prepared to take similar action. But Sir John Simon, perhaps aware that Britain stood to gain more from friendly trade with Japan than from warring for China, announced British neutrality. Mr. Stimson had played the game in the now approved American fashion, by putting the United States out front on the firing line.”

Ibid. Ps. 102-103.

"Franklin D. Roosevelt is the latest of God’s good gifts to the British Empire.”

Ibid. P. 105.

"* * * But these ties are not enough to explain the generous ardor with which the United States rushes to the aid of the British Empire, for over against them are other indisputable facts which stir a gentle suspicion of British diplomacy. After all, we fought two wars with Britain. After all, Britain, during our Civil War, encouraged the secessionists and embarrassed Washington in devious ways. After all, England propagandized us into the World War, with notable help from our own Anglo­philes, and even the average reader of black print knows some­thing of that story. After all, England borrowed four billions from us, and some think that she made no heroic effort to repay it.

"So, while we may be in favor of loving and honoring the British Empire, there are some who prefer not to obey her. * * *

"One of these is the spiritual atmosphere of those areas of New England and New York in which the leaders of the nation are housed and schooled. These leaders include the young men who will one day be members of the first banking houses of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston; who will one day be ministers to Denmark and ambassadors to London; who will one day occupy the desks in the State Department, who will per­haps serve in the Senate and sit in the White House. * * * There is nothing occult or obscure about this process. The places are on the map—along the Hudson, in Long Island, the suburbs of Philadelphia and of Boston. The schools are also namable—Groton, St. Mark’s, St. Paul’s, Harvard, Yale, Prince­ton. * * * There is an unmistakable and increasing flavor of London and Oxford clinging to them. It is all quite intan­gible, but nonetheless apparent that among the leaders in Amer­ican finance, politics, diplomacy—and especially in diplomacy— there is open recognition of the superior merits of the English ways of thinking and acting. It appears in the cut of trousers and the intonation of the letter a. * * *

"Of course, the church helps mightily, the Protestant Episcopal Church, that is, which is one Station * * of the Church of England, and to which belong with delightful agreement practically all of the better sort of people. The Church, by setting an example of perfect decorum, serves to remind its worshipers that English ways are the best ways. There is scarcely a priest who does not know that there is none greater than a Bishop, unless perhaps a Lord Bishop. Moreover, the Church takes pains to duplicate the English pattern as faithfully as possible. If she is denied Canterbury she has Manning (Bishop Manning was born in England). If she cannot have St. Paul’s she does have St. John the Divine; for Westminster she substitutes the National Ca­thedral on the hills above the Capitol. * * Deprived of the House of Lords, the Episcopal Church delights in her hold upon the Lords of finance and diplomacy. (This criticism, according to the knowledge of the compiler of this pamphlet, applies mainly to the rich and fashionable Anglophile Epis­copalians of the New York, Washington, and New England areas, and to the aristocracy of the South, real or imaginary, and even in these areas most of the laymen are devoted, pa­triotic Americans.)

"This gathering of influences which moves American sym- pathies on toward England is not a conspiracy but an aura. It is an atmosphere in which the better born and the better paid of the Eastern seaboard live and breathe. They do not speak softly of the British because of any command from the British Admiralty or the British Colonial Office, but because New England and New York have learned reverence for British ways, seeking to cloak their uncertainty in British assurance. And as go New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, so go Cleve­land, Chicago, and San Francisco. The better people of the lesser provinces take their lead from die rulers in the East. They seek to speak like them, to pray like them, to dress like them, to think like them.

"The cause of Anglo-American comity has strong support in the ablest newspaper of the Western Hemisphere, the (Jew) New York Times. * * * And if at times there seems to be a British s ant to (its) news, it may be explained by the fact that so many of its crack newswriters are British citizens—Frederick T. Birchall and Walter Duranty, with wandering commissions in Europe, G. E. R. Gedye in Central Europe, P. J. Philip in Paris, and Hugh Byas in Tokyo. * * *

"So it is that in full good conscience and with admirable skill the New York Times serves as a sounding board for the British point of view on almost every issue of our international life. It fought the Nye munitions inquiry with words which might have been written in the British Foreign Office. It con­sistently opposed all genuine neutrality measures.

And So To War, ps. 110-115.

"The British Empire needs the support of the United States. * * * Since 1914 it has become imperative, and it has sometimes been given with disastrous effects upon the United States. We were drawn into the war as England’s ally. We fought a war in which she buttressed and increased her Empire. We loaned her money which she has made scant effort to repay. We tied our financial policy to hers and were outplayed. We followed her lead in building a navy which can have small use other than the protection of the status quo in the Far East.”

Ibid., p. 116.

"The British government invites the United States to join her. The invitation bears the announcement that it will be an alliance for preserving democracy in a wanton world. Closer examination reveals that the chief result of such alliance will be the preservation of the British Empire.

"And Americans, being inquisitive and having yielded to that seductive call before, are answering: For what do you propose that we fight—democracy or the British Empire?”

Ibid., p. 117.

“So the issue is drawn. If Britain has her way with the United States, we will line up our new and mightier navy alongside the mighty navy of Britain. Together we will speak harshly to all disturbers of the present imperial peace. We will try to force the disturbers to cease their troubling. And then, if unsuccessful in those attempts, we will draw a band of steel around Japan, forcing her to loosen her hold on China and to remove her threat to British interests in Asia. If the present drift of official Washington opinion and action is not blocked, we will do just these things. We will anticipate or join with Britain whenever she de­cides to threaten or to fight. If her weapon is a threat, it. will be delivered in the name of justice and humanity. If it is a war, it will be a noble war for all mankind. Britain will not need these words for her own moral support but will use them freely for our edification. The men whom we draft will be assured that they fight to save democracy for their children’s children. Not until the echo of the last gun is stilled, and another victor’s peace is signed will these men—the ones who do not die—discover that they have fought for the melancholy satisaction of postponing for a season the disruption of the British Empire. And unless all signs fail, the survivors of that war for democracy’s golden gifts will return to an America in which the genius of a living democracy has beer, atrophied through disuse.”

Ibid., ps. 118-119.

"* * * yy_e are now being prepared for war—psycho­logically. A war situation could develop at any moment. * * *

"We can go in. We can loan our new allies more billions, no dollar of which we will ever see again. We can draft ten million men, certain that a sizable fraction of them will never return to their homes, their shops, their offices. We can build transports. We can land them in China, in France. Our mills and factories will be busy. Man power, woman power, will be drafted. Prices will skyrocket. The nation, in thought and action, will be mobilized. We will move and think as one. And, being powerful in men and money and raw materials, we and our allies—perhaps no /« nger democracies—will crush the autocracies, impose an­other Treaty of Versailles dividing the earth between us, and return each to our separate nations to discover what war has left which justifies the cost. Frightful as it may be, this will be the easier procedure for us. There will be the surge of righteous wrath, the whip­ping of hate, the lilt of marching music, the glamour and the sacrifice, and the proud imposition of peace upon defeated enemies. There will also be the ultimate agony and chaos. Such a war will inevitably fail of its purpose no matter what victories are won East or West.”

"Or we can stay out.”          Ibid., ps. 166-167.

"This attack upon American neutrality comes from the stal­wart Right and the bellicose Left. The New York Times and the Daily Worker make common cause. One group would punish the fascists in order that a capitalist democracy might prevail, the other seeks fascism’s destruction in order that com­munism may be assured. Both announce their devotion to peace; both are willing to use the instruments of war.”

Ibid., p. 168.

"The President of the United States, with excellent con­science and pure intention, is doing those things which are calculated to yield him a place in history with Woodrow Wilson —as one of the two most dangerous men ever to occupy the White House.

"The Secretary of State by his inflexibility and consuming belief in the virtues of coercion is making his bid for the harsh judgment of the future.

"Theirs is the way to war.”                                            ^ j -j j

"The one hope is that an energized citizenry, awakened to the peril, may demand of Congress a swift staying of the pres­ent trend.

"Congress alone can recall us to the sane path of neu­trality, * * * "Congress can do these things if the people speak.”

Ibid., p. 172.

XX

WAR! WAR! WAR!

In Foreign Affairs the
President Is a Usurping Dictator

“War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandize­ment. Hence it has grown into an axiom that the execu­tive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war; hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.’’

President James Madison.

In his illuminating book, "And So To War,” Herring states:

"In the conduct of foreign affairs, the President of the United States is the most powerful constitutional ruler of our times. For all of the constitutional checks upon him, he exerts an almost absolute power in the area of the greatest na­tional danger. He can on his sole responsibility take steps which make war inevitable for one hundred and thirty millions.”

136. 136.

"Moreover, the President can say whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, upon any subject of international mo­ment. By such impulsive utterance, swiftly cabled to all the capitals of the world, he can commit one hundred and thirty million free citizens of the United States to a course not of their choosing. By words for which he is alone responsible, and in the framing of which he has neither asked nor accepted the counsel of his associates of the Congress, he can take us on the road to war. Mr. Roosevelt’s Chicago speech of October 5, 1937, is sufficient instance. To be sure, the bulk of the speech had been prepared in the State Department, but in his last-minute enthusiasm, and in one of those flashes of genius which make Mr. Roosevelt danger­ous, he inserted the sentence advocating ‘quarantines,’ a word which brought consternation to the more cautious officials in the State Department.

"In other words, the President, by his uncontrolled right to send notes of any tenor, by his right to make speeches which are inevitably interpreted as the expression of the official view of the nation, by his right to grant or to with­hold recognition from any new government, bv his major hand in treaty-making, by his appointment of diplomatic officers, by his dominance over the State Department, and by his powers as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, can bring about international situations that make war likely, and invite those 'incidents' which make war inevitable. These rights, added together, give the President of the United States the power to make war.”

Ibid., ps. 137-138.

‘‘The framers of the Constitution of the United States, who met in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, faced the question of the warmaking power of their new government. A few of those fifty-five founding fathets, im­perfectly weaned from the royal breast and intent upon mod­eling the presidency after the British throne, toyed with the idea of granting power to dec^re war to the President. Others wished to reserve such decision to the representatives of the people. The proponents of democracy won. The right to declare war was withheld from the President, withheld even from the more detached Senate, and granted to Congress as a whole. Thereby, exulted Jefferson, 'the dogs of war’ have been held in leash.

"It was a sizable victory"; James Madison remarked:

"In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. . . . War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.

"Hence it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war; hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.”

Ibid., ps. 139-140.

Herring shows, in his book “And So To V/ar”, that Jefferson did not make war upon Tripoli in 1801 until he had the approval of Congress; that in 1834 Jackson recognized a similar obligation, but that in 1846 President Polk, in his war on Mexico, departed from the Constitution and the Jefferson tradition. Then Abraham Lincoln warned;

" ‘The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the fol­lowing reasons: Kings had always been involving and impov­erishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly- oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon

1. But your view destroys the whole matter and places our President where kings have always stood.’ ”

Ibid., p. 142.

‘‘Despite the warnings of the framers of the Constitution, the example of Jefferson and Jackson, and the further warn­ing of the Supreme Court, the President of the United States today possesses the power to embroil us through naval ma­neuvers and the movement of troops to foreign territory and to commit us fatally through ill-advised and irresponsible statements.”

,                And So To War, p. 143.

“* * * To Wilson, however, belongs the chief respon­sibility for departure from our traditional American doctrine of the exclusive right of Congress to initiate and declare war. From first to last, he withheld from Congress vital knowledge of his purposes and commitments, and told them such things, and only such things, as he thought suitable for their ears.”

Ibid., p. 145.

"The concentration of power in the hands of the President has been further accelerated under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Grants of power may well prove dangerous in the formulation of domestic policies, but they are doubly dangerous in the con­triving of foreign relations.”

Ibid., p. 146.

"The well-nigh dictatorial power of the American President to say the words and to take the first steps which make war is not consistent with the genius of democracy. It is a power possessed by no other head of a democratic state. In England, no Premier or Foreign Minister would presume to make a public utterance upon foreign affairs without the counsel and the substantial assent of his cabinet. Nor would he take any action, or dispatch any note which committed the nation, without tangible assurance of the support of his Parliament. To do so would be to invite a swift note of ‘no confidence’ and his unseating.”

"It is time that an amendment be launched by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification limiting the President’s powers in the control of foreign affairs. Such an amendment will be consonant with the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution. It will follow the clear purpose of Article II, Section 2, in which the President is empowered 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties,’ and of Article I, Section 8, in which the Congress is granted the sole 'power to declare war.’ It will follow the course laid down by Jeffer­son and Jackson. It will accord with the decision of the Su­preme Court: 'The President has no power to initiate or declare war.’

"Under the terms of such an amendment, the President’s 277

powers must be checked at those points where decisions make for war.”

Ibid., ps. 151-152.

"And most important, a way should be found to divide the powers of the President, already discussed, among a larger body of advisers. At present, the President is under no compulsion to take anyone into his confidence when steps of international importance are contemplated. In actual practice, he usually consults his Secretary of State. He may, or may not, consult the Committees on Foreign Relations of the Senate or the House. The President may issue ulti­matums to Japan or Germany without notifying Congress. He may even use the army and the navy for hostile purposes without consulting Congress.”

Ibid., p. 154.

"Congress might achieve such a check upon the President by a resolution requiring that no important notes be sent, no public declarations of foreign policy be made, and no commit­ments entered into without the counsel and consent of the Foreign Relations committees of the House and the Senate. Or, if Congress wishes to go a step further, such a resolution—or, if necessary, an amendment—should provide for a larger Com­mittee of Congress, with specific provision for the inclusion of leaders of minority parties.”

Ibid., p. 155.

"And if the friends of Mr. Roosevelt dislike the proposal and condemn it as unnecessary and unjustified, let any quali­fied historian take them aside and recite tactfully and clearly the story of Woodrow Wilson, of the way in which his good intentions were defeated by his secret commitments to Great Britain, by his failure to uphold the neutral rights of the United States, and by his insistence on demands upon Germany that had no legal warrant. It will not be necessary to draw lessons from the living. The dead offer abundant evidence of our dire need for effective restraint upon the chivalrous instincts of presidents who would rush us to the succor of other peoples.”

Ibid., p. 156.

"Franklin D. Roosevelt has taken the steps by which Amer­ica can readily be involved. He has deliberately removed us from the neutral list. He has said, in unmistakable terms, that we stand with England and France and presumably Russia, against Japan, Germany, and Italy. He has speeded up our armaments, he has spoken fighting words, he has ordered greater maneuvers in the Pacific. He has refrained from withdrawing our nationals from the Chinese war zones, he has told them not to take precautions against injury, he has kept our warships in that war zone, exposing us to inevitable incidents.”

Virgil Jordan, noted Economist and President of the National In­dustrial Conference Board, in a notable address delivered at Phila­delphia in February, 1940, before referred to, with prophetic vision stated:

"In the case of our own country, our relationship to the war must be regarded as an expression of the internal situa­tion and as an instrument of the internal political aggression which has developed during the past seven years. * * * We are in fact participating in the war now, and we will inevitably share its consequences, with special features arising out of our internal situation.

" * * * It is in accord with the indolence of human na­ture to select the easiest and most pleasant possibilities and to ignore or discount the facts with them. The American and many other people have been doing that since the World War, and that is why the facts have relentlessly overtaken them and why they are now finally faced with the difficult and painful possibilities which they have persistently ignored. On this basis, and in this sense, therefore, I say I think the fol­lowing things will happen in consequence of the war, unless the war stops before the middle of this year, and unless a tremendous effort is made to prevent them from happening.

“Within the next month the total phase of the war will begin in Western Europe, with unrestrained bomb­ing of civilian populations in the principal cities, and with efforts of Germany to flank or break the Allied lines, and of Russia to overrun and pillage the Baltic peninsula, the Balkan States and the Near East.

“These expected events, which Mr. Sumner Welles has been sent abroad to confirm, will determine the President to announce his decision to run for another term on the platform of national emergency, hemi­sphere defense and pacification of Europe. He will be renominated, and by November the situation of Eng­land and France will appear to the American people to be so serious that the present Administration will be re-elected. Within a year from now our army, navy and air forces will be actively engaged in hostilities in Europe, Asia, and South America, against, Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy.

“Such a war will continue through the forties (until 1950), under the present Administration. Until we are actively engaged, the Allies will be supplied through government selling agencies and financed by govern­ment loans. In the course of the war, after active par­ticipation begins, all man-power will be conscripted for domestic labor as well as military purposes; the bank­ing system will be fully nationalized; our gold re­serves will be repeatedly revalued; the currency will be progressively depreciated; liquid private property will

be confiscated by successive capital levies; all volun­tary private saving and investment in enterprise will cease; prices and wages will be fixed, and the opera­tion of all basic industries and of power transportation and communication systems will be conducted by politi­cal agencies. There will be increasing internal disorder due to sabotage and resistance by alien groups, unem­ployables, strikes, pacifists, political dissenters, and groups of property owners and taxpayers, which will be suppressed by armed force, espionage, censorship and suspension of civic rights and civil processes.

«<* * * Th_e p_rod_ucti_{on an}d sale of airplanes, and possibily other military supplies abroad is now con­ducted by the Secretary of the Treasury. The resist­ance of China and Finland is already or is about to be financed through loans by government agencies. The voluntary hiring or discharge of most employees is now subject to government regulation and taxation. Our gold reserves have already been revalued, and execu­tive discretion in revaluing them has been continued by Congress. The extent to which one believes the cur­rency has already depreciated depends upon one’s view of the normal price level; but, though so far unsuccess­ful, a primary purpose of government policy in the past seven years has been to raise the price level and reduce the purchasing power of the dollar; and I have no doubt that this will take place rapidly when the active phase of the war begins. Extensive capital levies on liquid private property have already been made by reducing the interest return on small savings, and by taxation which has continuously confiscated capital and depreciated property values. Voluntary invest­ment in productive enterprise has already practically ceased, and the securities markets have been killed. Wages, the prices of basic commodities and services, the financial management, administration of personnel, and the marketing practices of all basic industries, elec­tric power, transportation and communication systems are already controlled by political agencies.

“I have no doubt that the extension of these pro­cesses in consequence of the war will be justified, like the changes made during the past seven years, as in­dispensable for the defense of democracy and the preservation of the enterprise system; and it must be admitted that one sure way of protecting both against the possibility of further damage is to kill them promptly and completely.

“At the end of this period every important nation, including the United States, will be hopelessly insolvent and will have dissipated its private capital resources

and repudiated its public debts. Most of Europe will be physically devastated; an enormous part of the population will have been killed by explosives, disease and starvation; the rest will be ruled by the armed gangs upon which they will be dependent for a living, and which will control all economic resources and conduct all industry and trade. In this country all free enterprise of any importance will have disappeared; the standard of living of most of the population except political job-holders and dependents will be lower than it was at the beginning of the century; and our eco­nomic organization and political institutions will have been transformed into the current European form of mechanized bureaucratic feudalism.

"/ hope that these things will not happen, but / think they will because there are so few people in this country who now realize that they can happen and are happening, and who are now willing to make any per­sonal sacrifice or take any risk to try to prevent them from happening. Most of the American people since the World War have become very sheepish in face of the increasingly aggressive trend of government. If they are fed and amused by their political gangs they are willing to be sheared and even occasionally slaugh­tered. The proportion of private citizens who regard the conduct of their public employees with the relent­less vigilance and persistent suspicion which has al­ways been imperative in the preservation of human liberty has diminished almost to a vanishing point; and to the great majority the latter have beome an indis- pensible source of entertainment and reverent awe, second in importance only to the transient stellar con­stellations of Hollywood, and equally worth paying any price for. Until some substantial part of our people regain through bitter experience a little of the pro­found distrust and aggressive resentment toward politi­cal power which was traditional in American life for two centuries we need expect no great change in their taste for the gladiatorial games which their govern­ment conducts in domestic and international affairs. Most of them will continue to feel that it is better to be a live sheep than a dead lion.”

For nearly three years the President, the Jewish-owned or con­trolled press, the Jewish-owned radios, and the crafty Judas radio commentators, have, to the almost complete neglect of our domestic problems, created a psychosis of fear and hate on the part of the American public, until there exists an insane desire among a num­ber of our people to commit suicide in Europe rather than to stay

at home and defend America. In this effort of World Jewry and Roosevelt to continue to make Europe’s wars our wars, they have been aided by the Bourbons, the Anglophiles, the war-mongers and blood profiteers, the munition makers, the chemical companies, big bankers, big steel, copper barons, international oil companies, big motor and rubber companies, airplane industry, shipping com­panies, Morgans, Lamonts, Rockefellers, Aldriches, Astors, Harri- mans, Vanderbilts, Duponts, Cromwells, Joe Davies, Gerards, etc. and it goes without saying big Jew barons of finance and industry, including the New York City octopus.

After Mr. Roosevelt made his war-like speech to the University of Virginia lads at Charlottesville, June 1940, in a headline, “Surge of ‘War’ Buying Boosts Stocks $4 to $9”, it was stated by the Associated Press:

“The stock market surged upward $4 to $9 in leading issues to-day. in the most striking upswing since the huge wave of ‘war’ buying which swept the market last September

5. "

This meant billions of dollars of gain to these New York City death merchants.

During the McKinley Administration the foreign affairs of the Republican Party were manipulated by Anglophile Secretary of State John Hay, aided by Theodore Roosevelt, Senator Lodge, Sen­ator Beveridge, Admiral Mahan, New York City, Wall Street, in­ternational finance and big business, into the party of imperialism, “manifest destiny” and recurrent meddler in Europe and Asia.

Seduced by Woodrow Wilson, House, Lansing, McAdoo, Anglo­philes, World Jewry and the hidden hand of Elihu Root, the Demo­cratic Party violated all of its traditions and became also a party of imperialism and internationalism with an added taint of socialism. Under Franklin Roosevelt and the Jews, abetted by the incessant propaganda of Jewish newspapers, radio and movies, the Democratic Party no longer exists. Its battle cry is Internationalism. God help America!

Again the same forces, no longer subtle but brazen and con­scienceless beyond belief, are at work, trying to convince us that we are a necessary element to the solution of Europe’s difficulties. Again there is talk of our duty to “democracy”; again the same deluge of tear-wrenching horror stories; again the same arguments from the Allies. We are unable at this time to give you all the facts from the mouths of the plotters, but we predict that you will not have to wait twenty years for them, as you did after the last World War.

Big business, big finance and Wall Street are proverbially dumb where anything but money grubbing is concerned, but we warn them they are playing into the hands of Roosevelt, World Jewry, the radicals and the Communists in their war-mongering and pursuit of blood money. The great middle class of this country is conservative and desires to remain so, but it will bitterly resent another dis­closure of scandals and war profiteering, such as was revealed in the hearing before the Senate Committee investigating the Munitions Industry, in the last World War. American capitalists, we desire to be your friends and give you our support. Come back to America. Forsake international finance and the British-Jewish Empire.

If you have no sympathy for the sons of the common people, realize on your own behalf that participation in this war on behalf of England means inflation, hopeless insolvency, dissipation of pri­vate capital resources, and a repudiation of public debts. It means a dictatorship during the period of our participation and some form of Fascism thereafter. Our recent Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, stated on November 10. 1940, that, "Democracy is finished in England;” that "National Socialism is coming out of it (the war)” in Britain. He further said:

"If we get into war it (National Socialism) will be in this country, too. A bureaucracy would take over right off. Everything we hold dear would be gone. They tell me that after 1918 we got it all back again. But this is different. There's a different pattern in the world.”

The Jews and Gentiles of this country, who by secret under­standings and promises inveigled England into this world conflagra­tion, have much to answer for. Many of the kid-glove Gentiles thought they were England’s friends, but they have brought upon her a terrible affliction, destruction and National Socialism.

From all that has gone before, all experience and the record of the facts, it is easy to say that we are nearer another great war to-day than we were even as late as February, 1917, two months before we declared war on Germany. This time, however, we are up against a much more dangerous situation. Not only are we facing the prob­ability of fighting in Europe on behalf of England — no longer are France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Serbia, Belgium, and Rumania dying for her — fighting a Germany much stronger than the Germany of 1917, in alliance with Italy and Japan, but we are facing an infinitely more dangerous condition at home.

For nearly eight years our national Treasury has been looted by a series of raids on behalf of exactly those kinds of citizens who are

least interested in preserving our form of government. Led by Jews, the Communists have become strong in our Government, so strong in fact, that over 2000 supporters have been reported by the Chair­man of the Dies Committee to be in strategic posts in Washington— an organized, able and vicious ‘Fifth Column”.

Already, by legislative trickery and political sabotage, with open or secret co-operation of the Administration, they have undermined our courts, our currency, our national defense system, our industries, banks, schools, colleges, and what is most important, our ability to stand upon our own feet. We are on the verge of bankruptcy as the result of a long series of fake “emergencies”, each designed as an excuse for further attacks against our Republic.

If the American people, who love their sons and their country, will refrain from buying products advertised by war mongering alien-minded newspapers, radios, columnists and Judas commenta­tors, they will touch this un-American horde where they are most susceptible, viz: their pocketbooks—their chief source of World Power.

Is it a mere coincidence that Lenin and Stalin have both urged "practical bankruptcy” to make a victim Nation "fully ripe” for communist take-over, and that Mr. Roosevelt has persistently led us in that direction? We cannot help recalling his amazing assertion on July 7, 1938:

"It has taken courage for the Federal Government to go into the ‘red’, . . . But it has been worth it.”

Worth it to whom? Surely, not to those interested in preserving the American Republic. Does not the New Deal occupy an unde­niable status of fellow-traveler with communism, promoting Marxian sabotage?

Notwithstanding Mr. Roosevelt is under solemn oath, along with all other Federal officials, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet, in an official letter of July 5, 1935, favoring a piece of New Deal legislation, he unhesitatingly and brazenly urged that members of the U. S. House of Representatives—

“not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reason­able, to block the suggested legislation.” (Vol. 79 Congres­sional Record, p. 14363).

Nor have we forgotten his unrepentant confession on January 3, 1936:

"We have built up new instruments of public power . . . (which in other hands) . . . would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.” (Vol. 5, p. 16, Public Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

Constitutional American Liberty precludes, of course, instruments capable of shackling. It is difficult to conceive of any loyal American being willing to thus surrender the safeguards of a Republic, and submit to any untrammeled power of Despotism in the childish hope that it will be exercised benevolently. Consequently, those who favor the continuance in office of such a President for a third term are, obviously, lacking in fundamental Americanism, and unworthy to be called public leaders in the American Republic.

Now we have a new and infinitely dangerous “emergency” — as false and evil as any that has confronted us since 1933 when the New Deal came to power. With our national resources weakened and our ability to protect our vital interests lower than it has ever been, we are told that we may have to "fight for our lives”.

We know who asks us to shed our blood, give our money and resources and to sacrifice the rights that made us once the strong­est nation on earth. They are the very persons who have done more than any one else to create the emergency. We are now told that we must have Roosevelt and the New Deal for four years more to “guar­antee national unity” and to “protect our sacred institutions of demo­cracy.” We are told that we must not change horses in the middle of the stream. “Who got the horse in the middle of the stream." The slogans, the war-cries of today, are not the slogans of peace but of a war actually here.

Unless Jewish monopoly of press, radio, movies and other forms of communication are definitely and finally ended, we and our poster­ity shall remain in servitude to that tribe. We will for all time be com­pelled by a false hypocritical barrage of propaganda to conduct our foreign relations and fight foreign wars as to World Jewry seems de­sirable. Jews buy or threaten, flatter or denounce, praise or ridicule weak-kneed Americans and those who “crook the pregnant binges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning” into doing their bidding.

Within the past week a bulletin designed to place everyone, in the category of Fifth Columnists, who fights the efforts of World Jewry and Roosevelt to draw us into this war has been published. What this amounts to is an accusation that any American who ob­jects to being killed in Europe or Asia for World Jewry, Roosevelt and the British-Jewish Empire, is a traitor to America regardless of his motives, his devotion to his country and his antecedents.

In 1940 America is operated as a English Colony. The British Ambassador informs us how to cone, ct our foreign affairs, in lan-

guage approved by the President and the State Department, at pub­lic meetings arranged by the government—and our Anglophile- Jewish press and radio cry: “Hosanna in the Highest’’.

Jewish Wall Street, New York City death merchants, multi­millionaires, big business, high society, and the Anglophiles along the Atlantic Seaboard who throughout Roosevelt’s seven long years have applied every epithet in the English language to him — radical, Communist, un-American, demagogue, megalomaniac, spendthrift, untrustworthy, violator of pledges, promises, platforms and tradi­tions, dictator of Congress and the Supreme Court, and complete general incompetency — now declare that in international affairs he is a genius and a statesman, the only man in America who can be trusted to steer the Ship of State through turbulent waters, the only man in America who should be permitted to break the tradition against a third term honored since the days of Washington. Why? Is it possible that they put their sordid profits and the interest of Britain, World Jewry, international finance, and blood money before the safety of their own country?

Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters of America! You now know the facts! We have told you truths no Jewish newspaper or radio will disclose. If you delay or neglect the performance of your plain duty to spread these truths through every possible means, the blood of your sons, their suffering and their destruction will be on your heads. You will have become a co-conspirator for their slaughter and for the ruin of our Republic. AWAKE AMERICA!

AFTERWORD

HOW THE JEWS FORCED AMERICA
INTO WORLD WAR II

by William Anderson

In the years before World War II, the American public had no desire to go to war in either Europe or Asia. We, as Americans, had no interest in warring with Germany, Italy or Japan. Yet America was forced to battle the Axis Powers for four long years at the sole behest of International Jewry.

In fact, World Jewry commenced its war against Germany in 1933, the year Hitler came to power, even before he had time to begin im­plementing a program for pulling Germany out of its own economic depression.

Jewry’s declaration of a “holy war” against Germany was issued by Samuel Untermeyer of the World Jewish Federation who said in the New York “Times” of 7 Aug. 1933 that it would be means of an “economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.”

Furthermore, the Toronto “Evening Telegram” of 26 Feb. 1940 quotes Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig of the World Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that “the World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years” (i.e. 1933).

Jews were obviously willing to back up their threats, for the London “Sunday Chronicle” of 2 Jan. 1938 reported that “leaders of Interna­tional Jewry” had met in Geneva, Switzerland to set up a $2.5 BILLION fund to undermine the economic stability of Germany.

However, Jewish boycotts against Germany failed to bring that na­tion to its knees as Hitler had already freed Germany from dependence on Jewish usury. Since economic pressure by World Jewry could not break the back of Germany, it was determined that an actual war would be necessary to destroy Hitler.

This desire to decimate Germany is understandable when one recognizes that Jews are a parasitic race and as parasites will fight to the death when the host attempts to expell them.

The Jewish desire for war was admitted to by Rabbi Felix Mendelsohn in the Chicago “Sentinel” of 8 Oct. 1942 where he states: “The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fun­damentals of Judaism.” Thus, Rabbi Mendelsohn flatly expresses the view that WWII was a Jewish war.

This Jewish scheme came to fruitation in 1939 when Germany in­vaded Poland. Britain and France, under Jewish domination, then declared war on Germany, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union (under Jewish rule) had also invaded Poland.

As proof, James Forrestal, later to become Secretary of Defense, in his diary of 27 Dec. 1945 notes that he played golf with Joseph Kennedy, FDR’s ambassador to Britain, who told him that ex-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain “stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war.” For his candor and later opposition to the bandit state of Israel, Forrestal was murdered in 1949 (ruled a “suicide”).

Jews throughout the world screamed that Germany was intent on ruling the world, but Gen. George C. Marshall admitted after the war, in testimony before Congress, that no proof could be found that Hitler planned any conquest of the world.

In fact, Hitler’s actions against Czechoslovakia over the Sudentenland and Poland over Danzig were just part of Hitler’s long stated desire to re-acquire the territory taken from Germany after WWI in the Treaty of Versailles.

While stones are being cast, it should be recalled that after Germany took back the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia, Poland seized the territory of Teschen from the Czechs which it had no claims toward.

So, after the Jews had ignited a war in Europe, it was found to be necessary to draw America into that war as France had fallen and Britain tottered on the brink of defeat.

To bring the U.S. into this Jewish war, International Jewry had the services of a master at corrupt politics — the one and only Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Interestingly enough, Col. Curtis Dali who was once FDR’s son-in-law accused Roosevelt of being partly Jewish. In any event, Roosevelt was surrounded by plenty of Jew advisors such as Bernard Baruch, S. I. Rosenman, Sidney Weinburg, Sidney Hillman and Felix Frankfurter.

For the first time, Jewry had a President who was totally subservient to them and they spared no effort to keep him in office. For example, when it appeared that Sen. Huey Long would defeat Roosevelt for the 1939 Democratic nomination, he was assassinated by Dr. Carl Weiss, a Jew.

Nevertheless, American public opinion was overwhelmingly op­posed to any involvement in WWII. Americans realized that they had been duped into WWII and were not interested in losing the lives of loved ones in a war that offered no benefits to the U.S. In effect, Americans were heeding the advice of George Washington in his “Farewell Address” where he warned that Americans must not become involved in intangling alliances with foreign nations.

Those patriots who followed Washington’s sound advice were disparagingly referred to as “isolationists,” but they were, in actuality, neutralists. Thus Congress, acting on the will of the people, passed the Neutrality Act of 1935 which embargoed any U.S. arms from being sent to a warring nation.

About three years later, in 1938, Rep. Louis Ludlow of Indiana in­troduced a resolution requiring a public vote of support of any declaration of war by Congress. Roosevelt and the Jews knew this measure could easily destroy their efforts, so an all out attack on the resolution was launched. As a result, the Ludlow bill was narrowly defeated.

The Jews had good reason to block the resolution for the American Institute for Public Opinion (AIPO) released at that time a poll showing 83% of the citizens opposed to U.S. intervention in an European war.

Moreover, in April 1939, during the height of war fever, a whopping 95% opposed American entry into a war against Germany. That’s right, virtually every citizen was soundly against the U.S. involving itself in a foreign war. As a result, Congress strengthened the Neutrality Act by barring commerce and travel, as well as arms, to any belligerent power.

At this point, the Jews began to show signs of desperation, but these wily manipulators of world events still had a few tricks up their collective sleeve. So, in 1939 an immense popaganda campaign, the likes of which had never before been seen, was launched. No stone was left unturned in Jewry’s assault on the minds of the American people.

One was bombarded with the most outlandish lies about Hitler and Germany from all sides — in newspapers, magazines, books, radio and motion pictures. FDR also unleashed the powerful, persuasive techniques of the federal government in the blitz to “hate Germany.”

To get an idea of just how far this propaganda attack went, one should note that Jew Theodore Kaufman wrote a book entitled “Germany Must Perish,” which outlined a plan to exterminate Germans by sterilizing 48 million of them. Believe it or not, this call for genocide by a Jew was well received in many influential circles.

Conversely, Germany never carried out a “holocaust” against the Jews, but after the war was accused of doing so any way. This “holocaust” hoax trumped up by Jewry has been used since WWII to divert attention from their own machinations to plunge America into the maelstrom of yet another war.

The Jew orchestrated assault of hate against Germany was suc­cessful in cowering Congress into lifting the arms embargo and allowed the free flow of weapons to Britain and later to the Soviet Union. This ac­tion made U.S. ships carrying the arms fair targets for German subs; but no attacks occurred, which is certainly odd behavior for a “mad­man” (Hitler) bent on “world rule.”

While Congress succumbed to the barrage of hate propaganda, the public remained totally against the war. For instance, in Oct. 1940 about 83% polled were opposed to U.S. involvement. In April 1941, it was 85% against and in July 1941, opposition was pegged at a healthy 79%. Not surprisingly, the pollsters quit asking the question at this point, as FDR and Jewry had all but gotten war officially declared.

By 1940, Roosevelt had rammed through Congress a draft and con­scription although polls indicated at least 50% of the public was against such a move. By now it should be perfectly obvious that World Jewry had begun planning for U.S. entry into the war at least three years before Pearl Harbor, despite overwhelming opposition.

Speaking of Pearl Harbor, it is important to understand the com­plete facts surrounding the “surprise attack.” While 95% of all respondents were opposed to war in 1939, about 90% indicated they were willing to fight if directly attacked. Operating on this information, Jewry did everything possible to goad either Germany or Italy into at­tacking America. However, the bait was refused as Hitler was attempting at that time to negotiate a peace with England, which was flatly re­jected by the Jew lackey Churchill.

Thus Jewry’s attention turned toward Japan, which had a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy. Japan had been engaged in a war with China which FDR and the Jews tried to use as an excuse for American intervention, even though the events in Asia were of no concern to America.

Jewish, not American, interests however were what concerned Roosevelt and in July 1941, he froze Japanese assets in the U.S. and embargoed trade. This was reason enough to declare war, but Japan humbly proposed to sit down and negotiate U.S.-Japanese differences. Instead of accepting the offer, FDR insulted Japanese Ambassador Nomura and refused to meet with Prime Minister Konoye.

As a result, Konoye and his “peace party” were replaced by Gen. Tojo and his “war party,” yet Japan continued to make peace over­tures only to have them all flatly rejected. Finally, on 26 Nov. 1941, Roosevelt sent an ultimatum to Japan which amounted to a virtual declaration of war. This ultimatum, according to Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, was actually drafted by Jew Harry Dexter White (Weiss) in collaboration with Jew Treasury Secretary Harry Morgenthau.

It was this ultimatum, penned by two Jews, that forced Japan to at­tack or else “lose face,” which in Oriental thinking is a fate worse than death. The final, sorry episode of this disgusting chain of events is that Washington knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor at least 12 hours before the blow fell, but refused to warn military officers there.

The U.S. had been forewarned since the Japanese message code had been broken and America was thus able to monitor Japanese

dispatches. No word was sent to Pearl Harbor by FDR and the Jews as the messages revealed that the attack should be called off if it appeared that the Americans were prepared.

So International Jewry by going through the “back door” had suc­cessfully ensnared America into WWII; a war that would cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. The bottom line of the war would be a world under the total subjugation of Jewry through its twin arms of Communism and Zionism.

These facts have been covered up and ignored in the mass media, but Charles Lindbergh, for one, recognized where the finger of proof pointed. In his “Wartime Journals,” he states that “the Jews, the Roosevelt administration, and British sympathizers combined to en­courage the U.S. to enter World War II.”

Lindbergh and other patriots sought to stop Jewry’s war plans by setting up the America First Committee. The committee found widespread support, but could not overcome the billions spent by Jews to brainwash the public into accepting war after Pearl Harbor.

And it is Jewry which best recognizes why the U.S. entered WWII. “The American Hebrew,” in an editorial of 24 July 1942, declared that “whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur’s men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: the real reason that boy went to his death was because Hitler’s anti-semitic movement succeeded in Germany.”

The above quotation from a Jew newspaper is an admission that the U.S. entered WWII only at the behest of World Jewry — a war Jewry declared all the way back in 1933! Of course, this admission was intended only for consumption by a Jewish audience to keep them in the know, which tends to make it all the more revealing.

Any American involvement in a foreign conflict should be judged as to whether it is in the best interest of the American nation; yet the U.S. entered WWII because it was in the best interest of International Jewry.

Thus, the Jews forced the U.S. into war against the public’s will in 1941 and the $64 million question is will it happen again? Events are already pointing towards a build-up of war hysteria. Without a doubt, Jewry is leading America by the nose towards war in the Middle East on behalf of the bandit state of Israel.

Will we learn from the lessons of the past or will we once again find ourselves forced into war for the benefit of World Jewry?

[1]  * History has repeated itself. Once again an Ameri­can President was intervening in European power politics because he believed he could use his great position to force peace in Europe. Woodrow Wilson had followed that same course in the spring of 1916. And, once more, events proved