["Inhibitorra in particular; and the\nU.S. also.", "An American imperialist answers a question.", "No, I do not object in any way to the United States\nabsorbing, or annexing all of Central, and most of\nSouth America and all of Canada; \\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\

2

AMERICAN IMPERIALIST writes.

## London Opinion

They / Times // It seems to me that the London Times, usually so deliberate in its pronouncements, has , for once, advance rather precipitously, where the proverbial angels might rather have retarded their utterance.

The Times wants, apparently, some clear statement, // as to what might happen if the territories lost by one or other of the lately allied, or in the case of Holland, merely incited, countries, have lost, in the far east should eventually be recaptured by the British and American forces.

Or perhaps I have misunderstood the limits of the Times' preoccupation. Perhaps their anxiety applies to all territories now under an on ownership that part of the contending governments hope is unstable.

And the Times' preoccupation moves one to several rather heterocite observations. as follows :

Firstly, in Churchill has been quite clear as to what he intends to do with anything in British hands at the end of the conflict eh — call it what you will, call it mandate, call it protectorate, call it allied occupation, call it tutelage, call it provisional retention until the powers of the empire can ...eh ...deliberate.

That ought to satisfy the Times, perfectly. In fact, it does. One does not suppose that the Times group of worthies is in a quandary as to what Britain is to do with what she holds, but rather that she wishes to establish a claim on something she does not, not at least, for the moment, but which might fall into American hands.

A point of view anyone
anyone can readily understand who has; I think, the verbal
word is " enjoyed ", long familiarity with the English,
especially of the ruling class of their Empire.

2

The second observation, quite a trite one, in short a quite obvious observation, is that Japan now holds some of the disputed territory, and there is no immediate sign of Japanese evacuation of it. So that allocation of it, either to Mr Churchill's friends, or to Mr Roosevelt's cronies might seem to be what we americans "used to call" counting one's chickens ", or what the Italians call " selling the tear skin".

The third observation is that no one has yet known Mr Roosevelt to keep a promise, so that, in short, why should the Times bother about asking him what kind of a promise he would make about island mandates if dollar diplomacy found itself constrained to make some form of draft agreement or project for the allocation of lands lying north or south of the Equator, and east or west of the isthmus of Tansame.

The fourth observation, or perhaps we should call it, the remaining component of the problem is: what does America want to do with such territories, as the either has or might have under favouring stars at the end of the present conflict?

On that point, it might be well for the English to consider that only one generation separates us from a time when the annexation of Canada was a not unpopular theme for American orator's. During the American Civil war, there were rather wild schemes about Canada. There is, in fact, an old tradition about the United States rounding out her frontiers and eliminating European ingerence into the affairs of which she will not, also the frontiers of the American Hemisphere. Territorial expansion is a frequent aim of strong nations, just as map making is a familiar pastime of amateur POHIFIKE diplomats.

And while the Americans never regard themselves as conservative, and many of them will run after almost any new no still Mr Churchill and the Times must count on a certain residence on certain slowness in the movement of opinion in such states as Tennessee and Kentucky.

On the moral side, we americans owe England nothing. The present British government filled "Washington

3

was swollen beyond all decent bounds. For years the "british
government and the controlling minority had flooded America
with the most unscrupulous propaganda. In the naval British
tradition. In judging one's relations with one's
acquaintances where social or business relations, one must, I think
take count of the other fellow's intentions.

England's intention was that U.S.A. should do as much
of England's dirty work as possible. I hear the "ermans are
now pointing out to London, that GERMAN is doing a lot
of England's dirty work for her, by reducing the savage
power of the/ Stalin's barbarians.

England hoped the U.S.A. would
keep down the rising power of the orient, and balance
the new industrial and military vigour of "span. England has
never in the known course of her history made an alliance
from the mere love of the beautiful eyes of her temporary
accomplices.

A fact which I suppose France now understands
even more fully than the Americans ever will.

So that, really, taking into account the
circumstances which led up to loss of England's oriental
possession, along with a few odds and ends belonging to MEXICO
Holland, a much weaker and more obsolete power, one can hardly
see what share England could morally claim in their
possession, or status, if the United States forces ever managed
to obtain dominion, or treaty port rights or whatever
in them.

One can not, really, see what England has done
in the matter, save to undergo a quite phenomenal defeat at
Ghent/ Shalonko and other point in that rather large area.

So far as one knows, at Roosevelt
has entered into no "open agreement freely arrived at"
with the ex-queen of Holland, or with Dutch shell, or
any of the great constellations of the British and Dutch
financiers.

4

In fact one does see, exactly, what the Times is flying its kite about. If Churchill is to keep all he gets from the French and the Belgians, obviously it would follow the precedent, and retain all he gets from the French, Dutch and English, with the tidbit of Iceland.

Dutch

We observe that the English are in some ways peculiar. They are, per excellence, an imaginative people. A Frenchman will boast of his wit, and lucidity. A Latin feels proud of his legal sense, of the solidity of his reasoning. The Germans are 'justly proud of their t are justly proud of their thoroughness, but of all these major groups, the English make boast of their imagination, sometimes of their sentiment.

They sing, they have been singing of FREEDOM for a very long time."Britons, never never", and so on ... they repudiate slavery, but they conserve every vestige of feudal treachery that they can lay hands on. Beef eaters in the Tower. The Chelsea Pensioners, and the rest of it. The enormous "busby" surmounting the Horse Guards. Pomp and pageentry!

It was Sir Walter Scott who pointed out in one of his novels that the native population had sunk somewhat in splendour at the time of the Norman conquest. There is a scene introducing a swine herd, and Scott insists on the change in language. The language of the workmen was applied to things needing labour. That is the live animal was a SHIRE, but the flesh served roast on the master's table was "MUTTON". The pig and swine WEREH roved abroad and were taken to stye, but the dressed meat was FORK on the table.

The Norman words applied to what was served to the overlord. And the adjective went on to provide the victims.

English history is the story of conquests. There are now many English names in the aristocracy, or there are people with English place names, like Reading and Burnham, who were not born with those names, or born to the "Lanor".

5

And yet the great " merger " under alien management,
the merger of the two subject peoples of the United States
and of Great Britain, hangs fire,

There seems to be a fly in the ointment . .
Somebody put a BBD in Belisha, but it is quite useless,
even quite ludicrous for the Sunday Dispatch correspondent to
complain that the English are being deprived of acquaintance
with the American point of view BECAUSE OF the American
censorship.

Doubtless the Lehen control of the hidden
control of the American press would like to keep both the
subject veals in ignorance of a good deal of what
is being done to them. And doubtless the new deal bureaucracy
is galling to active visiting journalists.

But if the American censorship didn't
veil the American mind from the British reader, the British
censorship would most certainly do so. Both censorships being
superfluous. For the BRITISH people has never yet shown the
faintest desire to know ANYTHING about the point of view of
the American people. I think it never will.

And I don't think it ever will.

expense of policing yet another extended sea-to-ocean in peace time, after the war, would render the experiment profitable.

At any rate we have no guarantee that it would do so.

In any case the whole move is previous. Our expansion into the East Indies had NOT proved a model of executive efficiency. Our relations with the inhabitants of the islands were nothing to boast of. In fact we had hardly improved on the British methods at all. The French colonies and dependencies have been a scandal for decades. It was not a scandal that received much publicity, but still, whoever takes over those countries will have to face the arrests of French mal-administrators as well as the conservatism, to put it mildly, of the native population.

France had shamelessly exploited her colonial dominions in Africa. She had sinned irreparably against Europe in bringing in the black troops to fight Europeans, and for that crime she is now paying. Her annoyance with all her allies in the last war, in fact a sign of her encomium debacle, was shown in her relations not only with Italy but also with the United States. A good deal of the traditional good will have worn rather thin already before the present war started.

The French were not an adaptable people, and when we see them today, many of them incapable of seeing that the English are their traditional enemies, and unable to understand that the Jews are their enemies, we can only conclude that the French pretensions of intellectual superiority have ceased to have valid basis.

Equally, if the English are unable to see that the migratory Jews are a peril to England, we must conclude that the British have very remarkably lost contact with reality.

All the three countries are in the hands of short sighted men. And this is nowhere more obvious than in Roosevelt's present policy of selling half used factory plants to South America. One sees that the move is initially against British commerce; but it can have no lasting

bring no lasting benefit to the United States. The process did not begin with the sale of these half used factory equipments, but

but it is both a sign of an economic malady, and a sign of a step toward pejoration.

Every factory that is sent abroad, or every factory that is set up abroad means in the first place that there is a competition, and that the financiers of the factories want cheaper products, either for sale in the countries where the factories are set up; or from dumping upon those countries some others, including the United States.

Even were the leaca demand in, let us say, Brazil, sufficient to absorb all the product of the new factories, it would mean that much less employment inside the United States.

Jobbers are no displaced for war work. It may be that peace plants are idle, but every factory sent out of the United States mean just so many fewer jobs for American workmen after the war. Hence, I say, the export of "plant" is injudicious.

When the plants are experted and paid for with money borrowed by Brazilians or other subject peoples, there is also a new tax for debt which nullifies the supposed benefit of having the facet factory on the spot, and capable of delivering the goods without expenses for long-distance transport.

A good deal of vain theory has been expended on this question of transport. Thereticularly goods should be cheaper at the door of the factory, than in the far corners of the earth. Protective tariff has sometimes altered that theory when anyone attempted to practice it. We have all heard of farm machines sold at 90 dollars in Chicago, and for 40 in North Canada. But this was not to the detriment of the American factory worker whose pay was, at least, in theory adjusted to the price in Chicago. And his wages were: at least in theory, supposed to provide him with money enough to recompense the American farmer. Protective tariff was d/so in principle; complicated in practice, a local issue in the sense that the adjustment of a tariff scale could only be worked out by good will and a balancing of interests inside the nation. And this function congress was supposed to perform. All of which has no effect on the damage done

4

that will be done to the american people, and that in the past
always has been done to any state that ed exports its man"fact
man"fact"ring plants; where they be large scale or small at all.

The question of our exchanges with South America
was already difficult in the extreme. South America was already
our competitor in food stuffs. The mere desire to export
english trade is insufficient excuse for demoting our own
and getting rid of the South Americans as industrial competitors
against us, as well as against the English; when of course
we could have easily ousted had we remained neutral and
divided South American market with Germany and with Italy.
the

I am not surprised at the friction in Africa,
as a republic of a moderate sort, - have long believed that
any and every democratic administration, any and ever
administration in the heads of the democratic party meant a
degradation of american administrative standards. Wilson follied
the departments with "unsuitable persons. His party had been
"employed for a long time. Howevethere the government service had
had a tradition, they had been largely filled by nepotistic
process, if you will, but that meant that thespitless were
nephews of congressmen and of senators, younger sons,
relatives in moderate circumstances who looked up to their
patron, and who were held by some sort of respect for him or
at least fear of robbing his wrath by "unsuitable conduct."

The system may have been particular, but it was not
Jewish. In fact America in moments of stress had been often
guided either by gentlemen or by p'ritans, and even minister
offices had been held by gentlemen or by p'ritans. The
snobism of the former had been tempered by the pop lar
and humanitarian ideology. Even Wilson was a p'ritan in
decomposition. Roosevelt being neither a gentleman nor a
p'ritan, his administration has no guiding line. Howev-
His whole policy is a record spectacle of greed and
vulgarity. And it has not even the merits of MME
such efficiency as was displayed by him earlier
bandits of Wall Street. In place of the Morgans and Fords
by Roosevelt is surrounded by the cheap Jewish "substitute."

He is unfortunate without being sympathetic. Wilson
removed his superiors from his cabinet. For Roosevelt has

5

never had any superiors to remove. The two cases ate
in no way similar. Bryan was a vociferous and active
force in American politics, capable even of self-effacement.
HOBBS Wilson was an obstinate man, selected because of
mistake of the democratic party politicians who had hoped to
dial merely with a man inexperienced in public affairs. There have
been neither Bryans nor Lensings in Roosevelt's governing
oligarchy. These are causes of ineffective policy, though
they do not excuse it.

most certainly no indications that the English have
sufficient organizing sense to succeed in such an
endeavour even had they the will to attempt it.

American Imperialist's note & continues.

It would have been perfectly possible to for either the
British Government or the Washington administration to have
considered the Russian campaign as an opportunity, or at
least a respite without holding prayer meetings for
the endorsement of Russian aims.

The endorsement of Stalin by Churchill
and Roosevelt can hardly be/ be the considered judgment
either of the American or the British people

Remembering the effects of Brest Litovsk, I should, were
I an Englishman, which thank god I am not, I should
be somewhat preoccupied with the possible results of
the meeting of British and Russian forces in Iran.

The further part of Iran is most certainly sacrificed,
but the buffer state is lost to India, which unstable
country now has a direct bolchevik frontier.

Which fact can not be of the slightest use to American business

NOTES OF AN AMERICAN EXPERT

My Italian grandson greeted me the other morning rather disrespectfully. "Old Group," he said, "you don't look satisfied yet." "I'm Brazil..."

My grand daughter who is a year or two older, and more
respectful, added: Yes, surely grandpa, certo, you are
pleased that EMM the United States of North America have
occupied the United States of Brazil.

"And" added Elico "have put an American General at the
head of the inletto forfes, and a ferry boat captain
in charge of the Brazilian navy.

I have accepted the table "Imperialist" but beer with these
things. It's proper included the occupation of small European
possessions and a solid guard of the Caribbean. For
fifty years I have believed in the Monroe Doctrine. I have
considered the remaining French, English and Dutch possessions in the western hemisphere as a
relief of past age.

Proper protection of the United States
under modern conditions required a careful and modernized
fortification to the south, and adequate air and naval bases.
There is nothing in the virtual domination of Brazil that
seems to be contrary to the general trend toward larger
political units in a world order.

And yet !

There are two distinct forms of imperialism. ONE
It might be more exact to say that there are two distinct
IMPERIALIST processes that have nothing in common save
the extension of a national frontier.

When the United States took over the Philippines
the distinction between the two was different at activities
had not been very clearly drawn in the American mind.
A few protests wereuttered, a few parodies of Kipling's
famous white man's burden" appeared in American newspapers.
One beginning "File on the Brown Man's Burden

between the two imperialist processes? Or should we say between
sound colonization, and the mere exploitation of economic
hinterland.

When colonization proper consists in sending out
the adventurous or superfluous elements of a nation to occupy
foreign territory. Since the discovery of America there has
been no need to invade territory of people living at a European
stage of material development. In America the thirteen or
original states colonized the Great West. Italy recently
went into Abyssinia. The Italian colonies in Africa have
been a model of what sound colonization can be.

I say sound colonization because it has no evil
effect on the country which performs the colonization. More
is produced, and therefore the product occurs rather after the
market is ready. A country in narrow bounds wants more food
 stuffs; and the colonies supply them.

The contrast between colonization of this sort, and
shameful diseased expansion, is the difference between sending
out men, and sending out money.

As I see it, the United States now aim to send
money, money on loan, money that will, at least in
intention, bring in enormous profit in money.

This process in many cases has not
brought ease to the colonizing state. England, following a long
line of bad precedents, has set up both in the orient end
in South America competitors for her own people. She has
ruined agriculture in England; thus vying with France.

// ... and she has; I think, done no good to English civilizing raising. She has set the cheap labour of India at the cost of the toil of the factory workers of England.

EMMELI a limited number of investors in England
have grown rich by the cut throat competition between the
two sets of wage slaves.

If the United States takes over this heritage
from a declining England, or if she creates a new
foreign competition with the American home producers, I see
that this bodes very good for the American people.