Download Category: Mullins

Foreword

In my travels throughout the United States, I have found that the first complaint of our citizens is the sorry state of our legal system. They do not complain that the laws themselves are onerous, but rather that their administration is almost universally unfair and unjustified. I have even heard farmers arguing with each other at their markets, each protesting with inverted pride that “Our county has the crookedest lawyers and judges in this state,” only to be met with the fervent response from a farmer representing another county, “Oh, no, our lawyers and judges are a lot crookeder than the ones in your county!”

Americans recognize that we must have laws, and that we must abide by them, otherwise life would become intolerable. The problem is that law-abiding citizens are usually greeted in our courts with disbelief that anyone still obeys the laws in this nation, and two, that a legal system which is operated by and for criminals has no greater enemy than the law-abiding citizen.

The first purpose of law has always been “Salus Populi,” the safety of the people. I write this in a building which has five locks on every door. Twenty-five years ago, the doors were never locked. We hardly knew where the key to the front door was kept. With hundreds of other citizens in Washington during its tropical summers, I went to a nearby park to sleep in the era before air conditioning. Today, no one in his right mind would close his eyes in a Washington park, either by day or by night. It is rightfully known as the “murder capital of the world,” rather than as the capital city of the United States of America.

This situation has been created, not by the negligence of the police, who are working harder than ever, but by the legal system, which abruptly denied the previous basis of our legal system, “Salus Populi,” in 1933, with the advent of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who adopted the Marxist concept that the legal system was being used unfairly to defend property. Because of the Communist decree that all property was now the property of the state, the legal system need no longer defend crimes against personal property. This was soon extended to crimes against persons. The doctrine of compulsory equality meant that no citizen was entitled to wear a gold watch or to live in a large home.

Other citizens who wished to deprive them of their excess property, even at the cost of their lives, were looked upon with approval by the legal system. If they injured or killed too many citizens in their exuberance, they might be confined for a short time, but they were soon released to continue the Marxist campaign of “levelling,” that is, of reducing all citizens to a common level of fear and despair. This goal was first achieved in the Soviet Union, when Wall Street bankers financed the “noble experiment in compulsory equality.” Soviet Russia was reduced to a giant concentration camp, a Gulag in which tomorrow might be worse than today, but it would surely be no better. The United States has travelled that same road with remarkable speed, constantly accelerating the techniques which force our citizens to new levels of personal depth and degradation.

.

THROUGHOUT the history of civilization, one particular problem of mankind has remained constant. In all of the vast records of peace and wars and rumors of wars, one great empire after another has had to come to grips with the same dilemma . . . the Jews.

Despite the persistence of this problem, and despite the enormous amount of literature on this subject, not one writer, either pro or con, has ever faced the dilemma at its source . . . namely, who are the Jews and why are they here?

This question can be answered only if man brings to bear upon it his full intelligence. This question must also be approached on the highest spiritual level, with the deepest motives of Christian charity, and above all, with the greatest respect for man himself, what he is, what his roots are, and what he is becoming.

The history of man is the history of conflict, of wars between the haves and the have-nots, of exploitation of man by man, and of terrible massacres. In this blood-stained record, however, the scholar finds only one people who have aroused the most violent antagonisms, no matter where they have settled. Only one people has irritated its host nations in every part of the civilized world to the point that the host has turned against them and killed them or driven them out. This people is called the Jews.

“You are bankrupt, you have played out your role, go where you belong to the dustbin of history.”

Trotsky to Martov, when the Bolsheviks seized complete power at the Congress of the Soviets, October 25, 1917

WHEN LEON TROTSKY, president of the Congress of the Soviets and second only to Lenin, in the Bolshevik faction, uttered these words, he was one of the most powerful men in the world, he expelled the former Vulius Cedarbaum, known as Martov, leader of the Meshevick wing of the Soviets, and took absolute power. The slogan, “all power to the Soviets” which had brought then victory, became “all power to the Bolsheviks.” Yet Trotsky steadily let the absolute power slip from his hands until his famed “Clemenceau” ended his power in the Soviet government.

Leon Trotsky, born Lev Bronstein was the son of a provincial entrepreneur and he enjoyed a comfortable income. Young Bronstein as a student, worked himself up into a fine ideological frenzy over the rights of Marxism. He was one of those whirling dervishes which are set in motion by new ideas, and he became, a prominent writer in the movement. Inevitably he went abroad to visit Lenin the leader of the party. When he arrived at the Lenins flat in London, Madame Lenin called out to her husband, “the Pero (the pen) has arrived.”

THIS IS NOT A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES. For forty years I have schooled myself, not to write the Economic History of the U.S. or any other country, but to write an epic poem which begins “In the Dark Forest” crosses the Purgatory of human error, and ends in the light, “fra i maestri di color che sanno”. For this reason I have had to understand the NATURE of error. But I don’t think it necessary to refer to each particular case of error.

I do not believe that the method of historiography has progressed much since the days when Confucius selected the documents of the old kingdoms, and condensed his conclusions in the Testament. Aristotle toward the end of his life arrived at a similar method, in his collection of Greek State Constitutions. Voltaire used the “human” method which hinges on chance and the personal element. A prince eats a pudding and dies of acute indigestion at a critical moment. Caesar Borgia said : “I had anticipated everything except being bedridden the day my father died.” Michelet analyses the motives of different social groups and tells us that the manual labourer wants to own a shop because he thinks shop-keepers don’t work. Another method consists in analysing certain mechanisms invented to humbug the public. Perhaps it is the renewal of an Aristotelian tendency but, in any event, it is suitable for the present narrative, and I am following it in this essay or definition, of the struggle between the people and the usurers, or financiers, in the colonies, and then in the United States of North America.

The body of this ms. was written and left my hands in February 1933.  40 publishers have refused it.  No typescript of mine has been read by so many people or brought me a more interesting correspondence.  It is here printed verbatim, unaltered.  I had not seen the ms. from the time it left Rapallo till it returned here with the galley proof.  It is printed as record of what I saw in February 1933.  The September preface (1933) indicated a flutter of hope, that has grown steadily more fluttery and less hopeful.

ONE element of the Duce’s gamut is the continual gentle diatribe against all that is “anti-storico,” all that is against historic process.

Obviously a parliamentary system which is in Italy an exotic. a XIXth century fad, imported ad hoc, for temporal reason, a doctrinaires’ game in North Italy, a diplomatic accident in the South, is not in the blood and bone of Italians.

Vittorio Emanuele had reasons, and even necessities of state pushing him to it, at least as top dressing.

What it signified de facto in Turin, is best exemplified by the specific occasion on which a Peidmontese parliament refused to sign on the dotted line of a treaty.  Victor told the people to elect another that would.

The system went into effect in Naples to avoid technical terms in a treaty with Austria.

Given a little time and leisure (XII years) Mussolini emerges with a scheme for ascertaining the will of the people that will be at least in intention more efficient than elected politicians, divided by geographical districts.  He wants a council where every kind of man will be represented by some bloke of his own profession, by some deputy who has identical interests and a direct knowledge of the needs and temptations of a given profession.