Transcript and text from Get Off This!
By Will Rogers, from a recording released May 31, 1923, by Victor Records. The origins of the speech are unknown; Rogers may have been speaking before the annual convention of the American Bankers Association in 1922, in New York City. The document is included in The Papers of Will Rogers, Volume Four, published by the University of Oklahoma Press.
Loan sharks and interest hounds,
I have addressed every form of organized graft in the United States, excepting Congress, so it’s naturally a pleasure for me to appear before the biggest. You are without a doubt the most disgustingly rich audience I ever talked to, with the possible exception of the bootleggers’ union, Local No. 1, combined with the enforcement officers.
Now, I understand that you hold this convention every year to announce what the annual gyp will be. I have often wondered where the depositors hold their convention. I had an account in the bank once, and the banker, he asked me to withdraw it. He said I had used up more red ink than the account was worth.
I see where your convention was opened by a prayer, you had to send outside your ranks to get somebody that knew how to pray. You should have had one creditor there; he’d have shown you how to pray. I noticed in the prayer the clergyman announced to the Almighty that the bankers were here. Well, it wasn’t exactly an announcement. It was more in the nature of a warning. He didn’t tell the devil, as he figured he knew where you all were all the time anyhow.
I see by your speeches that you’re very optimistic of the business conditions of the coming year. Boy, I don’t blame you. If I had your dough, I’d be optimistic too.
Will you please tell me what you all do with the vice presidents the bank has? I guess that’s to get anybody more discouraged before they can see the main guy. Why, the United States is the biggest business institution in the world. They got only one vice president. Nobody’s ever found anything for him to do.
You have a wonderful organization. I understand you have 10,000 here, and what you have in federal prisons brings your membership up to around 30,000. So goodbye, paupers. You’re the finest bunch of shylocks that ever foreclosed a mortgage on a widow’s home.
Experiment on the Cause of the Loss of Activity of Indian Hemp, National Druggist, May 1909
Eleven years ago, as part of an investigation on the pharmacological action of cannabis indica, I made some experiments to determine the cause of the loss of activity of this substance. My attention was first drawn to the matter by noting that cannabinol, isolated from charas by Wood, Spivey, and Easterfield, began to darken at the surface when left in an open test tube. This at once suggested that oxidation was occurring and, on thinking over the matter, it seemed not improbable that oxidation might account for the loss of activity of preparations of Indian hemp on keeping.
This explanation had been suggested by Leib Lapin four years previously, but his experiments on the point were not convincing. He had isolated an active, semi-solid, cherry-red substance from Indian hemp which possessed reducing properties, and which, on being rubbed up with chocolate and left for a week, lost a considerable part of its physiological activity. This he explained as being due to oxidation of the active substance owing to its finely divided state.
My own experiments were made by passing oxygen through cannabinol. Two test tubes containing a specimen of the same cannabinol were placed in a bath of sulphuric acid at 150°-160° C, in order to keep the cannabinol quite fluid, and through one specimen a gentle stream of oxygen and through the other a similar stream of carbon dioxide was passed. The cannabinol subjected to the action of oxygen rapidly darkened, and its consistence increased, and after the oxygen had bubbled through it for six hours its physiological action was found to be decidedly less than at first. The oxygen and carbon dioxide were passed through the specimens for thirteen hours more, the temperature of the bath being raised towards the end of the experiment to 185° C, in order to keep the oxygenated cannabinol fluid. On cooling, this cannabinol set to a hard, brittle mass, resembling pitch in appearance. It was found to produce no physiological effects unless dissolved and administered in oil, when a slight reaction was observed. An analysis made by Dr. Easterfield showed that the cannabinol had undergone oxidation.
The cannabinol subjected to the action of carbon dioxide was scarcely changed: there was no evident alteration in consistence, and only a very slight darkening, due in all probability to the presence of a small amount of air in the carbon dioxide, had occurred. Its physiological action was practically the same as before the experiment.
Owing to these results. I decided to seal hermetically a specimen of cannabinol in a test tube. This was done on December 28, 1898. The tube was opened for the first time on February 15, of this year, having lain for ten years and fifty days. For most of this time it has been exposed to the light of a well-lit room with a north aspect. It has undergone no apparent physical change, and has lost none of its physiological activity.
For comparison, a large mass (about 8 kilos) of the original charas from which the cannabinol was prepared was kept exposed in a dark store, and from the central part an alcoholic extract has been made and fractionally distilled. The fraction coming over at 260°-295° C. under 15 Mm. Hg. pressure, which should have been mainly active canabinol, was found to be almost inert. It was at least ten times less active than the cannabinol which had been sealed up.
There is good reason to believe that preparations of cannabis indica relatively quickly deteriorate. My experiments suggest that if these — and the remark applies more particularly to the extract and similar preparations — were put up in hermetically sealed vessels, and the vessels resealed each time after use, greater uniformity in the action of a particular preparation would be obtained.—Pharm. Jour.
*By C. R. Marshall, M. A., M. D., Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics in, the University of St. Andrews.
“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” -Thomas Jefferson
The posts on this blog are rather short for a reason. I’m no longer interested in writing (or reading) long screeds that detail the circular history of human political and economic folly. Either you get it or you don’t. If you don’t get it, you need to detach from the Mainstream Teat and read more history. If you do get it, I extend my respect and gratitude to you for being able to see through the smokescreens created by The Powers That Be.
100 years ago, Compulsory Health Insurance (CHI) was an issue in America. CHI went on to a resounding defeat in state legislatures around the country because Americans used to be more educated than they are now about the proper place of government.
In 1919, Frederick Hoffman (a respected statistician at Prudential Life Insurance) studied CHI and released his report “More Facts And Fallacies Of Compulsory Health Insurance”. I’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to peruse this work as you see fit. One quote from the collection serves my purposes at the moment:
“In countries with low standards of labor and life, with a government administered by an entrenched autocratic governing class, remote from the life and labor of the wage-earning element, the compulsory insurance principle is quite likely to appeal as a panacea or a solution, even though, as in Germany, it proves merely the means of postponing the inevitable disaster for a generation or two. For the principle itself is unsound and has been proved unsound, because it does violence to the universal law of all social progress, that “Nothing but the slow modification of human nature by the discipline of social life can produce permanently advantageous changes,” and it is equally true, in the words of Herbert Spencer, that “The root of a well-ordered social action is a sentiment of justice which at once insists on personal freedom and is solicitous for the like freedom of others.”
Mr. Hoffman is correct in any century: CHI is the product of “an entrenched autocratic governing class, remote from the life and labor of the wage-earning element”. If you’re in favor of ObamneyCare, why do you support the Autocrats?
The Answering of Kautski
by Richard Mitchell
Why should we bother to reply to Kautski? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautski is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.
TYRANNY is always and everywhere the same, while freedom is always various. The well and truly enslaved are dependable; we know what they will say and think and do. The free are quirky. Tyrannies may be overt and violent or covert and insidious, but they all require the same thing, a subject population in which the power of the word is dulled and, thus, the power of thought occluded and the power of deed brought low. That’s why Lenin’s bolshevism and American educationism have so much in common.
“Give me four years to teach the children,” said Lenin, “and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” He wasn’t talking about reading, writing, and arithmetic. He wanted only enough of such skills so that the workers could puzzle out their quotas and so that a housebroken bureaucracy could get on with the business of rural electrification. Our educationists call it basic minimum competency, and they hope that we’ll settle for it as soon as they can cook up some way of convincing us that they can provide it. For Lenin, as for our educationists, to “teach the children” is to “adjust” them into some ideology.
Lenin understood the power of that ready refuge from logical thought that is called in our schools the “affective domain,” the amiable Never-never Land of the half-baked, to whom anything they name “humanistic” is permitted, and of whom skillful scholarship and large knowledge are not required. Lenin approved of the “teaching” of values and the display, with appropriate captions, of socially acceptable “role models.” He knew all too well the worth of behavior modification. He knew that indoctrination in “citizenship” is safer than the study of history, and that a familiarity with literature is not conducive to the wholehearted pursuit of career objectives in the real-life situation, or arena.
On the other hand, Lenin knew that there was little risk that coherent thought could erupt in minds besieged by endless prattle about the clarification of values. He knew that reiterated slogans can dull even a good mind into a stupor out of which it will never arise to overthrow the slogan-makers. In this, our educationists have followed him assiduously, justifying every new crime against freedom of language and thought by mouthing empty slogans about “quality education.”
“Most of the people,” Lenin wrote, not in public, of course, but in a letter, “just aren’t capable of thinking. The best they can do is learn the words.” If that reminds you of those bleating sheep in Animal Farm, try to forget them, and think instead of the lowing herds of pitiable teacher-trainees, many of whom began with good intentions and even with brains, singing for their certificates dull dirges of interpersonal interaction outcomes enhancement and of change-agent skills developed in time-action line. Lenin’s contempt was reserved for the masses. These educationists, pretenders to egalitarianism, hold even their own students in contempt, offering them nothing but words.
If you think it too rash to charge our educationists even as unwitting agents of tyranny and thought control, consider these lines from a recent proclamation of the Association of California School Administrators:
“Parent choice” proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. “Family choice” is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the “wants” of a single family rather than the “needs” of society.
So what do you think? Would it suit Lenin?
And if you’d like to object, you’ll see that these people also know how to answer Kautski. They’ll just pronounce you an elitist, and everybody will understand everything.
“President Garfield once said that whoever controls the supply of currency and bank credit will largely control all American business. Thomas Jefferson, when opposing the issuing of public currency by a private central bank, declared that a private bank issuing and controlling the volume of the public currency would be more dangerous to the country and the liberties of the people than a standing army. Andrew Jackson when President took the same position. That, historically, is the Democratic policy. It is now the view of the progressives of all parties.”
Alfred O. Crozier, March 2, 1913
Note: this post was just censored by reddit.com in its “politics” section.
Rarely do the hyperambitious actually admit to wanting more power but in the first decade of the 20th century, the High Priests of Finance were so drunk on possibility that they couldn’t contain themselves. In the early 20th century, those in finance and government were aware that a new Central Bank was about to be formed in the United States. This was good news to the hyperambitious as a new Bank meant new opportunities and power.
In 1906, The New York Chamber of Commerce charged a special committee to report on how a central bank might work. The committee was composed of bankers, naturally. John Claflin, chairman, was a member of the Jekyll Island Club. Jekyll Island was where the conspiracy against the American people, The Federal Reserve, was hatched in 1908. The vice-chairman of this special committee was Frank Vanderlip, one of the architects of the Federal Reserve.
In the section titled “Advantages of a Central Bank”, we find a rather stunning admission about what bankers of all ages desire:
“By the control of its rate of interest and of its issues of notes it would be able to exert great influence upon the money market and upon public opinion. Such power is not now possessed by any institution in the United States. ”
October 4, 1906
Judging by google’s results, no one in the past 100 years has paid any attention to the above quote.
Seven years after this report, bankers imposed the Federal Reserve on the American people. The horrors of the 20th century can be laid directly at the feet of those men that sought and still seek “such power” as well as our own desire to be taken care of like house pets of the Monied Class.
What do Bankers want? The World and the power to tell you what to believe. They’ll even tell you if you’ll only listen closely enough.
I have an older and better quote to counter the influence of the grimy banker porn just quoted above:
“The love of money and the love of learning rarely meet.” – George Herbert