Where is Patton’s diary, where is Roosevelt’s diary?  Someone has them…

from chapter 19 of Curtis B. Dall’s MY EXPLOITED FATHER-IN-LAW

Curtis b. dall

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Final

FDR really enjoyed the little incident I mentioned when in Chicago about
Pendergast’s Missouri Delegation, and my bold but amateurish effort on
his behalf at the Chicago Convention.
I casually mentioned it to Louis Howe, who looked quite startled and
pretended that he didn’t understand it.
But, he did.
As might have been expected, friction developed at times between Basil
O’Connor and Louis Howe, both men being close to FDR. The former was his
active law partner in the firm of Roosevelt and O’Connor and Louis Howe
was FDR’s close political adviser. Basically, their backgrounds were
quite different, as well as their respective objectives. They were in
friendly competition, therefore, for FDR’s time and attention.
At times I was brought in on some discussions which touched upon this
situation, usually in a three-cornered conversation after dinner with
Mama, Louis and myself. Both knew I was fond of Basil, nicknamed “Doc.”
Doc and I often had lunch together. Invariably, I would find myself
somehow in the position of defending Doc in those discussions, an
attitude on my part, however, which visibly irritated Louis and, to some
extent my former mother-in-law. After several of these incidents, I
began to feel that both Louis and Mama were out to “get” Doc,
particularly Louis, to take him out of the entire picture. I should have
been alerted to those tactics, for things to come later on in my own

Louis felt, and stated to me, that Doc had become “somewhat dangerous”,
and that he was also becoming much too social. He vaguely and cautiously
implied that perhaps Doc’s loyalty to FDR “might be slipping.”

I shot back, “Nonsense, Louis, Doc is just as loyal to Pa as you are!”
This did not please Louis, but it shut him up.

In any event, I decided to end the shadow boxing in that connection, if
possible. The next time I was having a pre-dinner confab with FDR, and
we were alone in his bedroom, I mentioned the situation which was
building up about Doc, and concluded my remarks by saying, “Doc is just
as loyal to you as Louis is and this ‘sniping’ at Doc should stop. In my
opinion, Pa, it is not quite fair.”

He replied at once, considerably surprised. “Thanks very much for your
information and for your frankness, Curt. I’ll stop it!” He did.

Christmas, 1932, was spent at Hyde Park with Granny. There was a big
Christmas tree, we sang Christmas carols around the piano, newspaper
photographers came to take pictures, and the atmosphere was charged with

During the pre-inauguration period from Election Day until March 4,
1933, much transpired. Many callers came and went at Hyde Park and New
York. The informal administration’s planning group, then unheard of by
me, was working early and late, preparing the “new” legislation for
Congress. “Mr. Herbert” had gone to Albany as Governor.

President Hoover had appealed unsuccessfully to FDR and his advisers for
“cooperation” in the weakening bank situation. On the domestic front, I
won the affection of FDR in the way I handled a delicate family matter
in connection with an impending divorce procedure. Wall Street showed
signs of coming to life. Better days for the country appeared just

By March 4, many people had lent a hand in the matter of preparing and
phrasing the President’s Inaugural Address. The activity in that
connection continued unabated, right up to about five minutes before its
actual delivery to the vast gathering of people assembled on Capitol
Hill. However, like the fine 1932 Democratic Platform, it was not a
commitment, as it should have been, but merely a political message aimed
to please the voters. After the key cabinet members and other high-level
appointments had been “suggested” to the new President and duly
confirmed, things rolled along quite smoothly. The Democratic Platform
was conveniently forgotten.

Anyone, including myself, can be easily removed as a member of our
society. Many U.S. citizens of real importance have been thusly treated
when exploring pertinent situations expressing “unauthorized” or
controversial opinions, and seeking constructive action. However, can
you imagine anything more improper than an American to allow his
thoughts, his frank observations to be censored by shadowy elements,
without legal remedial efforts on his part?

Well, good reader, they are molded and carefully censored! The freedom
of the press, something for which our forbears fought and shed blood to
establish, is largely a myth! Whose freedom? Whose press? Well, it is
time for improvement, for an overhauling and review of our whole
apparatus of communications in this country.

When the New Deal program began to bog down here, Adolph Hitler came
along. World money backed his early efforts. Then it obligingly switched
and backed ours, pleased by Pearl Harbour, with Churchill’s famous
remark, “Now we are in the same boat” indicating his complete
satisfaction also as a result of that planned incident.

After Louis Howe died, Harry Hopkins, a social worker, was dusted off
and brought forward from an obscure corner to replace him. In some,
respects, he did. In others, he never could. By always bowing low to his
one-world backers, he exceeded the efforts and influence of Louis on the
international stage. That was expected of him, of course, but was only
possible with the aid of the President’s wife, and the “run” of the
White House.

The President was too vulnerable to “guests”, particularly those not on
the White House official calling list. Those privileged “counsellors”
and operators included Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter, Henry
Morgenthau, Jr., General George Marshall, etc. Labour leaders, Council
on Foreign Relations moguls, and others buzzed like bees about a
honeycomb. What a honeycomb it was … the wealth, energy and power of a
great friendly people—the U.S.A.

When the Alphabet Boys, who appeared in 1933, had shot their bolt; when
the war drums in Europe, rising from the abortive 1919 Paris Peace
Conference, began to beat again, the Advisers prepared new plans and
gave FDR some new “plays” to call.
This familiar technique would usher in a diversionary chapter and divert
attention from awkward unsolved domestic problems.

The Democratic Administration, while calling ever so loudly for “Peace”—
a much overused word meaning six different things to six different
people employed various measures and plans that finally involved this
country in two foreign wars, via their peace-loving leaders, Woodrow
Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

For the Advisers, however, it was a matter of managed news and correct
timing, so the American people would not know that they were about to be
skillfully victimized and plundered. Their managed news repeatedly
pointed to political pie-in-the sky, “the war to end all wars”, etc.
The “pie” was in the sky, for sure, and the crusts of dereliction of
duty manifestly in Washington. By dint of the devious manoeuvring of
some leading American and British politicians and others, the “pie” was
rained down from the sky directly upon the unsuspecting heads of
thousands of our loyal, un-alerted American troops at Pearl Harbour one
December morning. Over 3,800 of them died! What treason!

Fixed in my mind forever is the bizarre picture of General George
Marshall reportedly riding his horse in the sunny Virginia countryside
and his other doings in Washington on that fateful Sunday morning. His
slothful warning messages, sent over slow channels, were merely a
ghastly gesture, timed to arrive after the “surprise” attack, as a
face-saving device.
How many of the 4 500 American casualties and how much of our enormous
naval losses suffered at Pearl Harbour could have been avoided?

I have often wondered if, as part of a long-range plan, FDR deliberately
ignored the possibility and danger of an attack on Pearl Harbor by the
approaching massive Japanese Task Force, an attack made on us almost by
engraved invitation.

He must have!

Then, if such were the case, he must have wanted it. Who told him to
“want” it? What manner of leadership was that? Had the virus of great
power so altered the chemistry and character of the man I was very fond
of to such an extent that I could not recognize him? Could he be the
same man whose arm I had once tightly held on numerous occasions as he
walked, so he wouldn’t fall? Was he the same man whose many hopes and
aspirations we had once shared?

It certainly appeared doubtful, in fact, incredible!

No doubt it is mighty fine to wear a navy cape and appear at a prominent
wind-blown spot on a heavy U.S. cruiser for a press picture. But, what
about our Pearl Harbor casualty list? The tears? The debt? Why the
betrayed dead?

Who told FDR that a “Pearl Harbour” was necessary? Did he fall for the
one-world-despot theory? Was that where he was supposed to come in for

Accordingly, is it very hard for me to take in what occurred then? No,
it is more than that. It is just impossible!

I did not see or converse with FDR again after my call at the White
House in early 1943.

Did our State and Treasury Departments match that performance in their
own spheres? Hardly!

Would it be suitable for me to suggest that a monument to Harry Hopkins
be erected in Great Falls, Montana, and monuments for Henry Morgenthau,
Jr., and Harry Dexter White be erected somewhere? Also, what about the
Frankfurter battalion quartered in Washington, D. C.? Has that group in
mind erecting its own monument? Possibly it has.

No doubt the far-flung foreign meetings were strenuous for FDR and took
a great deal from his limited physical reserves. He should have stayed
in his own Embassy, whether it was “bugged” or not. Far better still, he
should have stayed home in the White House. It would have been better
for his health and for the health of us all.

At the close of both world wars, our two Commanders-in-Chief, President
Wilson and President Roosevelt, suffered great frustration, just prior
to their death.

A brief comparison of certain qualities of the two Presidents are


Woodrow Wilson was a member of the. Princeton Class of 1879. FDR was a
member of the 1904 Class at Harvard, a quarter of a century later.

Perhaps, in my observations about these two prominent individuals, I
might be expected to favor the Princetonian because of my loyalty and
affection for “Old Nassau” and for all that it means to me. However,
such is not the case! I will make some observations and let you draw
your own conclusion.

Speaking politically, I regard Woodrow Wilson as a man who sold his soul
to the internationalists’ program, to the One-World Debt-Finance Forces,
and thereby opened the first big holes in our Constitutional and
financial “dikes.” I regard Franklin Roosevelt, after 1932, as likewise,
selling his political soul to the same One-World Internationalist
Debt-Finance Forces and, under their coercion, he made larger the
Woodrow Wilson “holes in the dike.” The net result devoid of political
and ideological fanfare, if such could ever happen, is obvious.

Both men failed in providing a sound leadership for America, but
succeeded in furthering themselves and a
pattern or policy which advanced various alien-backed programs, our
Foreign Policy. This result was
especially noticeable in respect to FDR as his health began to fail and
his Advisers took over. Eleanor
Roosevelt, however, was certainly not an Edith Galt Wilson, at that
The comparison is between the man who made the “first holes” and the man
who followed him and made those same “holes” larger. We are still
reeling under the vast damage inflicted upon this country by both men.
As a direct result, our country’s future today is by no means secure and
unimpaired! The “play” was largely the same. The actors had similar
leading roles to perform and they performed!

Woodrow Wilson was reared in a modest, intellectual environment. FDR
grew up in a sheltered environment of wealth, and in a much broader
field of social contacts.

Wilson was egotistical, conceited, ambitious, somewhat arrogant and very
stubborn. FDR was very egotistical, conceited, equally ambitious, and
somewhat arrogant at times. In his early years, he was known to be a
poor loser in sports. He was one who often resented the outstanding
ability in an opponent. For example, he was critical and jealous of
General Douglas MacArthur in certain areas, a man whom he doubtless
recognized as having more real native ability than he had, with a far
more outstanding all-around record.

Perhaps the General never knew that, but I hope he did.

Wilson, initially, had great idealism and a flair for words and phrases.
He did not hesitate to compromise his ideals. When a leading professor
at Princeton, I am told, his lectures in jurisprudence and international
law were often ear-popping and thrilling.

Wilson’s ambitions and stubbornness got him into trouble with
Princeton’s Dean Andrew West and in a struggle there for certain basic
university policies. Wilson came out a poor second. Then, with the
financial backing of several well-known Princeton alumni, a New York
editor, and a few others, he entered the political arena and became
Governor of the State of New Jersey. He appeared willing to say
anything, or do almost anything, to advance his gnawing political
ambitions. He was oblivious of the aftermath until near death.

It is fitting to mention that when Woodrow Wilson became Governor of New
Jersey, the brother of a close friend of mine, who was a member of the
Princeton Class of 1895, became Wilson’s actual right-hand adviser and
close counsellor. He was the recognized Dean of Legislative Reporters in
New Jersey, and represented the Newark News. His name was James F. Dale.
Jim Dale was an ardent Princetonian! He missed only two Yale-Princeton
football games in his entire adult life, and that occurred when he was
in the military service of his country.

It is reliably stated that Woodrow Wilson would not put his signature on
any important state document in Trenton unless there were the initials,
“J.D.” on its lower left corner, for Jim was able and trusted by all
high-level officials there.

When Jim Dale passed on, eastern papers marked that event with a column
of praise. I quote from the Newark News of January 29, 1945, page 18,
about the late James F. Dale:

“. . . He was State Correspondent for The News at the State House, since
1904 . . . (41 years) . . . while at Princeton, he studied jurisprudence
and International Law under Wilson… He split with Wilson…. A great
admirer of Wilson, Mr. Dale turned against him when he became Governor
in 1911. Covering the Executive Office, Mr. Dale claimed that Wilson
broke most of his precepts in Government practice that he had taught
at Princeton.” (italics mine.)

The brief significant expressions just quoted accurately summarize the
price that Wilson’s political ambitions frequently exacted from him. It
made him vulnerable.

Governor Wilson, when he became President-Elect of the United States,
invited Jim Dale to go to Washington with him as Secretary to the
President. Jim declined the flattering offer.

Jim Dale, however, did obtain the services of another man for the
President-Elect, and was responsible for the bringing together of Wilson
and Joe Tumulty, also from New Jersey. Tumulty was offered the important
post of Presidential Secretary, and readily accepted it.

Another early admirer of President Wilson who became disenchanted with
him was Colonel George Harvey, Editor of Harper’s Weekly. Quoting:
“Colonel George Harvey was one of the original prime movers in
promoting Woodrow Wilson’s candidacy for the Presidency. Then he broke
with Wilson, became Wilson’s bitterest enemy.”

What Woodrow Wilson stated idealistically in his classroom lectures at
Princeton was soon set aside and replaced by political opportunism when
he assumed high public office.
In 1912, the Democratic Party Headquarters in New York City was located
on lower Fifth Avenue. A good friend of mine, then a young man, spent
considerable time at the headquarters working as a sort of messenger
boy. He
mine, then a young man, spent considerable time at the headquarters
working as a sort of messenger boy. He was the son of a well-known New
York family of Judaic background, and he related to me the following
intriguing story which occurred there right before his eyes.

Occasionally, on a Saturday morning in the summer of 1912, Bernard
Baruch would walk into the Democratic Headquarters with Woodrow Wilson
in tow, “leading him like one would a poodle on a string.”

Wilson would be quite solemn-faced in appearance, dressed in dark,
formal clothes, having just arrived in New York from Trenton.

According to my friend, Wilson would be given his special
“indoctrination course” in politics, by several of the top Advisers
assembled there. The course consisted chiefly of outlining to him and
his agreeing in principle to:

1.Aiding and pushing the projected Federal Reserve Bank Legislation
through Congress when Paul Warburg approved the final draft of the
proposed Act, then being worked on.

2.Aiding in changing the method of electing U.S. Senators, by
establishing a direct vote of the people, which provided more control
over the Senate by the professional politicians.

3.Agreeing to aid and introduce the graduated, personal income tax,
which was brought over here from England to drain off the results of our
individual initiative.

4. If called upon, to lend a sympathetic ear and aid indicated “policy”
if war should break out in Europe.

5.To lend a thoughtful ear to recommendations made by “policy”, in
respect to filling key Cabinet posts.

Wilson dutifully received and absorbed his indoctrination, shook hands
all around, and then departed.

Whereupon the leaders and Advisers went into “the back room” of
headquarters, shut the door, and “had a big belly laugh!” Someone would
then ask, “How is our other candidate doing?”

The other candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, the Bull-Moose leader.
Hence, the strong support of that “steering committee” in the 1912
election went out to both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt who had
lined up against President Taft. It appeared that President Taft had not
been very receptive and disapproved of the political desires expressed
by certain pro-Zionist political leaders here in respect to U.S.
relations with Russia.

Thus, the Republican vote was neatly split by the insurgent “Bull
Moosers”, and the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, won!

I was interested to read on page 54 of Felix Frankfurter Reminisces his
comments about the 1912 election, saying, “I . . . candidly supported
Mr. Roosevelt.” (T.R.)

In due course, Mr. Frankfurter’s uncle, Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis, was soon to become important in Washington in the new Wilson

I need hardly say that Woodrow Wilson reversed his role of classroom
idealist to become a well-behaved, political pupil, mindful of his
careful indoctrination. In due course, he really delivered for his

Pausing for a comparative look at FDR, it appears he had less native
idealism than Wilson, and was more politically minded. He was advised in
the late Twenties and early Thirties by quite a few people, particularly
Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Howe, Jim Farley, Herbert
Lehman, his wife, Sam Rosenman, and others. He was also “advised” by his
mother, who possessed great common sense. He should have listened more
attentively to her on numerous occasions, and we would have fared
better. This calm observation on my part is made in the face of much
self-serving criticism of FDR’s mother, “Granny”, by some left-wing
writers, who were not discouraged by “Mama” in preparing their distorted
efforts. That sort of political writing is quite unfair and should have
been nipped in the bud, but it was not.

On March 17, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt journeyed to New York
City from Washington to make an important political address. This event
was concluded by mid-afternoon, after which another important event
occurred. This, however, was on the social front. Relatively speaking,
what followed might not have out-ranked the speaking engagement in
political importance, but the social event far outranked it in
historical importance.

Among many flowers in the decorated home of Mr. and Mrs. Henry Parish on
East 76th Street, New York, stood a shy but attractive young bride. She
was from Long Island, New York and her name had been Eleanor Hall
Roosevelt. Beside her was the handsome young groom from Hyde Park, New
York. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Guests had been invited for the happy occasion of the marriage . . . in
fact, many guests, well known in old New York and Hudson River Valley
Society. It was an important social affair. The President of the United
States had just given in marriage his niece, Eleanor, and the usual
wedding reception for the bride and groom was about to take place at the
Parish home when something, by chance, injected a new note. What
happened, unfortunately, was that most of the wedding guests were
initially more desirous of shaking the hand of the distinguished guest
from Washington, President Theodore Roosevelt, than shaking the hands of
the waiting bride and groom.

The new bridal couple, standing quite alone, looked at each other and
waited. Perhaps in those few moments of waiting, which must have seemed
like hours, the values of life with its varied flourishes and
embellishments made a deep impression on the young bride and groom. It
was certainly their afternoon, and yet it was somehow being pre-empted
by one “Uncle Ted” from Washington.

After awhile, however, normalcy returned and the gathering at the Parish
home recalled Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and the receiving line
began to move. The occasion, a very happy one, then proceeded as

Twenty-five years later, Mama said to me, “Both Franklin and I felt
quite incidental to politics on that occasion, and Uncle Ted
inadvertently stole the show.” The impression remained, nevertheless,
and I have no doubt that both bride and groom vowed to each other. . .
someday, we will occupy the center of the stage! That day finally came,
and they did!

The seeds planted in New York on that St. Patrick’s Day bore fruit.
Ambition to go out and do likewise had its “Inauguration Day” on March
17, 1905, long before March 4, 1933.

As previously mentioned, one of the important qualities in a budding
statesman is his burning ambition, and perhaps a vulnerability to some
sort of blackmail, always a handy tool to have available, if needed, in
the hands of high-level advisers.

Franklin Roosevelt had the burning ambition, to be sure, and so did
Woodrow Wilson. In addition, Wilson managed to get himself a bit off
first base, as it were, in meandering down Lover’s Lane.

In the area pertaining to jurisprudence, this is not too important. In
the area of political programs and budding statesmanship, however, it
could make a candidate more valuable because of the factor of his
controllability, if that should become necessary.

It is well known that one evening the Trenton, New Jersey Fire
Department was suddenly called upon to offer safe transportation, by
means of a long ladder, for the state’s Chief Executive from the top
floor to an alley in the rear of a private home just across from the
Capitol. No doubt it was a suitable opportunity for the Chief Executive
to test the efficiency of that department of civil government.
Apparently, the inspection of that duly provided public service received
warm, gubernatorial praise. It should have!

As a political factor in Woodrow Wilson’s case, it became part of the
record that was off-the-record.

A few months ago I read the interesting book When the Cheering Stopped
by Gone Smith. (Published by William Morrow and Company, New York,
1964). It indicates the necessity of the American people being
more adequately protected in the Executive Branch of our government in
the event the Chief Executive should become very ill or suddenly

The book throws interesting lights upon the second marriage of President
Wilson to Mrs. Edith Galt and to her complete devotion to him over the
years; also, how she ran the country for awhile when he became ill. In
perusing pages 20 to 23, I was intrigued with the treatment of the
well-known matter of the “Peck” letters, the numerous letters written to
Mrs. Mary Allen Peck (later, Hulbert) by, Woodrow Wilson. Ultimately,
Mrs Hulbert re-assumed the name of Peck, after a divorce. My own
feelings about the Peck letters, however, do not quite agree with some
observations made in the book just mentioned.

As I heard the story related, the matter does not center around Mrs.
Galt and Mrs. Peck. It indicates to me more as to how Louis Brandeis
came to be appointed by Wilson to the U.S. Supreme Court. It centers
around Louis Brandeis . . . and illustrates, allegedly so, politics at
its best, not women.

Woodrow Wilson was often referred to as “Peck’s Bad Boy” before 1913
(page 23) and also whatever the “wits” felt called upon to say about
him. That title went back to his days at Princeton.

It appeared that Mrs. Peck’s son allegedly got into some financial
difficulties in Washington. He needed about $30,000 to get straightened
out, but Mrs. Peck did not have that sum of money handy. She allegedly
retained Samuel Untermeyer, a powerful New York lawyer, to represent her
and help raise the money for her son.

The events allegedly proceeded something like this: An appointment was
made at the White House and Mr. Untermeyer called upon President Wilson
and presented his client’s case, saying that his client needed money and
that for the sum of $250,000 she would return to President Wilson
certain letters, or else dispose of them to others.

President Wilson . . . “I haven’t that kind of money, Mr. Untermeyer.
Let me think it over. Let’s take up this matter again, say in a week or
so, and I will see what I can do.”

Later, at the next meeting, Wilson continued, “Mr. Untermeyer, I cannot
come up with $250,000, but I may be able to raise something like
$100,000, if that would satisfy your client.”

Mr. Untermeyer “No, Mr. President, that would not satisfy my client, but
I have just had an idea … and, well, perhaps, it might be developed
into a happy solution. If you indicate to me that you will consider
appointing Mr. Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, I will then discuss
this unfortunate matter of the letters with friends of mine. They might
be able to then arrange to settle this matter to the benefit of all
parties concerned.”

President Wilson thought over the matter; so did Counsel Untermeyer and
his friends. In due course, Louis Brandeis sat on the Supreme Court

The Peck incident was forgotten in political Washington.

Justice Brandeis made a distinct addition to the Court. Soon he was
regarded by all as a very able Justice. In the world pro-Zionist
movement, he proved an important aggressive figure and exerted great
efforts in that connection, both here and abroad.

In the prime of FDR’s life, as most everyone knows, his legs became
badly crippled after his severe attack of polio. With great personal
courage, however, he overcame that severe handicap, and he pursued his
political objective to reach the high office of President. His illness
did not render FDR more “controllable” (he had to be that way on
important political matters) but it rendered him much more “available.”

Both FDR and Woodrow Wilson had great personal ambition. Both were
readily exploited!

Needless to say, fellow citizens, we must perform the labor to repair
that damage and plug the gaping holes in our financial and political
dike, to make sure at least for awhile of a non recurrence of a flagrant
misrule beginning in 1913, that is, if we desire this nation to survive.

It might be deemed appropriate to extend congratulations to the
entrenched forces of New York money power, to those who successfully
indoctrinated Woodrow Wilson and FDR (not overlooking their most
cooperative and obedient front man, Dwight Eisenhower, who has furthered
their internationalist aims). To those forces must go the choicest
fruits derived from discerning, political judgement, along with many
billions of dollars of profits picked up handily along their fourlane
political highway, coincidental with the vanishing of most of the gold
reserve of the U.S.A. placed in Fort Knox.

The continued exploitation of the Presidential Group points to decay.

A word of appreciation should be extended also to the smooth functioning
of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) with its counterpart in
London, the Royal Institute of International Affairs — truly, the
“Gold-Dust Twins”. Woodrow Wilson set the stage—FDR became the leading
actor. Later, Dwight Eisenhower lavishly paid the stage hands in
preparation, it would appear, for another show.

May the next one not be so expensive for the American people.

* * * * *

The most difficult part of this book for me to record is a correct
analysis of my feelings in respect to my former father-in-law and his
wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, after 1933.

When the startling headlines of April 12, 1945, announced the sudden
death of Franklin Roosevelt at Warm Springs, I was caught quite
unprepared for such an event. The distressing news seemed to conclude
for me the final chapter of an increasingly tragic spectacle.

There were some who may not have been surprised at the news, but I was.
I believed what the papers stated. Later on, various books were
published and voluminously discussed that matter in somewhat
half-confident tones.

The accounts concerning FDR’s death differed considerably.

For me, the subject was such a sad one, I never wished to dwell upon it.

Soon after moving to San Antonio, we were dining at a country club one
Saturday evening. It was an enjoyable affair.

There were fourteen ladies and gentlemen sitting around the table and
everyone was in a festive mood. Sitting on my right was an attractive
lady whose husband was a prominent lawyer in San Antonio; both were
friends. The cocktail hour had been concluded, and soup was being
served. It could be fairly stated that I was in the midst of my soup
when, suddenly, the lady on my right opened a most startling line of
conversation: “I suppose you know Warm Springs?”

I replied casually that I did not, having been there only once, and it
was before FDR had bought “The Springs”. I added, “He was a guest then,
taking daily exercise in the swimming pool.”

A second “salvo” in my direction soon followed, “I suppose you know what
finally happened to FDR there?”

I replied, this time rather firmly, “No, I do not. I’ve read several
different accounts of it.” Then I turned my attention to breaking a
dinner roll for the addition of some butter, as a diversionary

“Well”, she said, “how very extraordinary!” Whereupon she began to tell
me some alleged details concerning the distressing incident, as I looked
in vain for some relief from my left side. Unfortunately, that lady was
deep in conversation with the gentleman on her left.

That recital from her about Warm Springs hit me like a thunderbolt. I
began to feel ill, and bluntly said, “How do you know and where did you
hear all these things you are telling me?”

She replied equally firm, “My cousin, Frank Allcorn, was Mayor of Warm
Springs at the time; he told me!”

I put down my spoon for good and almost left the table, but decided it
would be best for me to sit it out. Dinner was then completely finished
for me. Apparently, from what I heard, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., was there
in Warm Springs at the time. What a strange coincidence! I wondered who
left Warm Springs in the car
with him.

The body of FDR, I heard, was taken to Macon, Georgia, where he was
cremated. The almost empty casket containing his ashes then travelled

Small wonder that Joe Stalin, that unfriendly, rugged realist, pointedly
commented in the press, “The body did not lie in State!”

I subsequently read some of Doc O’Connors comments, along with those of
other writers, on the subject. Much of it sounded like “canned”
material, well polished for a specific political effect. It left me
feeling quite empty and disturbed. Of the three trustees who acted on
behalf of Sara Delano Roosevelt, I am the sole survivor. Most all of
FDR’s inner White House group, “his entourage”, so to speak, have been
well taken care of, in one way or another, have gone their respective
ways or have departed from this life. As for me, I never entertained a
thought of “being taken care of!” There was never a price tag hanging on
my lapel, for my loyalty and affection extended. That was normal. Those
seeking the profits and sinecures associated with high office were
others . . . not me! My family has been in this country since 1700 … a
long time.

1932, however, “power” stepped in, applied by the ruthless emissaries of
money-power. Then, the chemistry gradually changed in FDR, it seemed,
from formula A to formula B.

At that time, FDR’s personality had not changed perceptibly, but it soon
seemed to me as though new traits were appearing, in lieu of the old
familiar ones. My aforesaid feelings for him gradually tapered off after
Granny died. In beholding the new personality of FDR, including some
also manifested by his wife, I began to acquire a feeling of aloofness
and reserve, even sorrow. It was not unmixed with deep concern also, and
a growing feeling that all was not sound and healthy in the White House
— hence, the country was faced with danger.

Quoting again: “It would seem that man, panoplied with power, is
incorrigible. He mouths his pretension of virtue and compassion, and a
credulous world listens and even believes; but with a change of time and
company and mood, his natural recidivism cuts loose” (italics mine).

This feeling of mine did not develop over night, but was a gradual one,
largely caused by the following: A forced accent on internationalism in
our foreign policy, kow-towing to Uncle Joe Stalin, while covertly
building him up, largely at the expense of Christianity and U. S.
tax-paying citizens—the duly organized extensive political machine
assembled in Washington by Felix Frankfurter, acting as the Prime
Minister in the Court of Baruchistan — gold juggling and the U. S. money
plates deal of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and Harry Dexter White, acting
“under orders”—the build up of the revolutionary-tinged N.A.A.C.P.,
cleverly designed to distort racial issues to create civil discord,
resulting in occasional violence among segments of our citizens—the
deception employed in the health of FDR, finally, Pearl Harbour.

Those occurrences stemming from above and about the White House were
most difficult for me to comprehend.

But after awhile, confusion faded and the program being foisted upon the
unsuspecting, almost childish American people slowly emerged.

Our leaders are clearly responsible for the welfare of those who have
bestowed upon them the mandate to lead, not a mandate to mislead,
thereby violating their public trust! Regrettably, that trust was
lightly regarded and violated by FDR in the pursuit of personal
political ambition.

Bad judgment may be attributed to a single incident, but not to a
program ! That is something else. Therefore, I developed a personal
feeling about FDR and his wife, two people whom I once held in very high
esteem and affection, that they had both passed away; died long before
the news of their demise appeared in the public press.

I feel confident that Franklin Roosevelt’s mother, Sara Delano
Roosevelt, in her later years, was not pleased with much of the trend of
political events occurring in Washington before she passed on. I know
definitely that Cousin Henry Parish, in New York, was not! He felt,
“Franklin is being used.”

However, for FDR there appeared to be no turning back, as it were. He
seemed more and more to become a “captive”. His wife, however, openly
played the internationalists’ game, right on through to the end. She was
active in developing the Council on Foreign Relations program for the
United Nations set up, and in developing the N.A.A.C.P. primarily aimed
not to advance the loyal, responsible U. S. coloured citizens, but to
aid the one-world-internationalists in exploiting Negro citizens often
using them as ground breakers for a planned one-world program.
Money-control, in underprivileged nations and other purposes are not
overlooked by that group.

At the end, FDR apparently evidenced some pangs of remorse and concern
at Warm Springs, Georgia, about how Joseph Stalin had “trimmed” him.
These were understandable feelings, to be sure, but expressed by him a
bit too late. By that time, Stalin and his supporters here in the U.S.A.
had squeezed all the “juice” out of FDR’s exploited Presidential
“Orange!” The “pulp” remained for us to digest and duly profit thereby.

Woodrow Wilson, strangely enough, likewise evidenced similar remorse as
be approached his end. He finally said, “I am a most unhappy man …
unwittingly I have ruined my country.” He broke with Colonel House, who
then retired from public life, although he continued to work behind the
scenes for the Money Barons.

It certainly must have been devastating for both Woodrow Wilson and FDR,
as life ebbed, to finally have to face up to stark reality-to realize
that because of enlarged personal ambitions and some self-serving
resultant political decisions, their own country has been greatly
damaged. What a price to pay for political preferment!


Chapter 4


Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End


IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man’s morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled “Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes.” Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889). It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:


If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally “good” and what is bad for that purpose is finally “evil.”


If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on “that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution.” If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature’s method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes “that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so.” Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.


The late Dr. Edward Westermarck, a profound student of morality and of evolutionary method, regarded man’s search for a final purpose as an outstanding example of human weakness and vanity. In Memories of My Life (1929), he relates how



three of his women students at the London School of Economics came to him and put this question: “Why are we here?” He replied: “Such a question should not be asked; here we are, and cannot alter it; questions which cannot be answered should not be asked.” Wherein Dr. Westermarck revealed that, although he had mastered human morality, he remained ignorant of human nature. Since ever man became a conscious being he has asked this question, and will continue to demand an answer to the end of time. The Westminster divines who were assembled at Westminster by Charles I were not afraid to ask the question, and also to answer it. They made it the first question of the Shorter Catechism, “What is man’s chief end?” and replied: “To glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” As far back as I can remember, I was word perfect in that question and its answer. Even today, after brooding for a long lifetime over the explanation given by the divines of why I am here, I have failed to master the full meaning of its words. If such is a true answer to the question, then why has man been given a nature which is so incapable of fulfilling such a mode of life? No human community could observe this injunction with any degree of strictness, not even one day in seven, and survive on this earth as we know it. No; the “chief end” cannot be as the Westminster divines formulated it.


Then there is the explanation given by St. Augustine. According to this father of the Church we have been sent into the world to make it into a “City of God,” to bring all mankind under the beneficent law of Christ, to establish a perpetual reign of peace, and ultimately to provide the Creator with an abundant harvest of human souls. The Church has been seeking to establish such a City for well nigh two thousand years. Why has St. Augustine’s science made so little headway up to this present time? Is it not because human mentality is so aptly fitted to carry out the law of evolution, and so ill framed to carry out the law of Christ? If St. Augustine’s scheme had been also that of Nature, then she would have fashioned the instinctive basis of human mentality in conformity with the Augustinian scheme; it is axiomatic in the making of human laws that they must be framed in conformity with human nature if their observance is to be secured. We can scarcely suppose that this elementary consideration was overlooked when Nature’s evolutionary scheme of things was established.


Let us look for a moment at what Dr. Julian Huxley has to say about “Divine Purpose.” In his latest work, Evolution (Harper, 1942, p. 576), we find the following passage:


The purpose manifested in evolution, whether in adaptation, specialization, or biological progress, is only an apparent purpose. lt is just as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. It is we who have read purpose into evolution, as earlier men projected will and emotion into inorganic phenomena like storm or earthquake. If we wish to work towards a purpose for the future of man, we must formulate that purpose ourselves. Purposes in life are made, not found.


In brief, man’s appearance on earth is accidental, not purposive.1 Now, I admit at once that there is a certain amount of truth in Julian Huxley’s contention, but it is not the whole truth. Let us take a concrete illustration. Early in the eighth century B.C. certain local tribal communities on the banks of the Tiber became consolidated, built a city, and began to bring neighboring rival tribes and communities into subjection. Every move produced unforeseen opportunities, which may be regarded as the result of accident or chance; such opportunities the Romans seized and utilized. The purpose of securing a safe frontier was continued for eight centuries, and the Roman Empire came into existence. Was the growth of the Empire accidental or purposive? It was both; as events happened they were utilized by the Roman intellect for a purpose. To take another example: yesterday I was stung by a wasp; my enemy no doubt acted reflexly and unconsciously, nevertheless purposively, for I was driven from its nest; and the sting and poison bag seemed to me cleverly adapted for their purpose, whether the sharp thrusting sting came into existence in a planless scheme of evolution or not. Evolution cannot be planless for this reason. Living protoplasm, even in its simplest form, is purposive; unless it can absorb food, assimilate it, turn it into energy, rid itself of by-products, and reproduce itself, it cannot live. I feel certain that sooner or later it will be found that the “genes” themselves, which determine us body and soul, are really physiological and therefore purposive in their action. Nature, in short, is fundamentally purposive in all its doings.

The End Of Neo Liberal (read Jewish) Hegemony: Benjamin Opratko

Benjamin Opratko describes today’s power structure quite accurately, so this is worthwhile.  He is however a product of a post WWII European educational system which means he has been indoctrinated with the Neo Liberal morality that manifests itself in the belief of being an anti-racist, antifascist and in gender neutrality.  Morality has become a weapon of the power structure.  It is their weapon against reality. To be a racist is to acknowledge racial differences, this is a healthy natural observation.  As far as being antifascist well a fascist is like a terrorist, it depends on whose side he’s on.  Certainly the Neo Liberals Opratko is describing are fascist from my point of view.  And quite frankly anyone who can not see or refuses to see that the vast majority of women are natural child rearers is simply out of touch with reality.

Pay attention to how the NL took public discontent and molded it into a movement which supported their power.  Here in the U.S. it took form as NeoCons.

You want to fight the power structure?…form a strong traditional family.  Raise children to respect and trust their parents.


I’ll Make It Easier to View

this is a very revealing clip.  It’s the one I link to below but since I found it on youtube I will put it up.  Youtube won’t take this one off because the jewish narrative reigns.

There needs to be an honest open discussion about the holocaust and about the genocide of American Indians.  These are two very politically correct versions of history.


Let the Jews pay reparations for their slandering of the Germans

I see youtube is censoring, no surprise.  You can see the video here:

The truth is the Germans wanted the Jew out of Germany.  There were no gassings or any plans to murder Jews.  The camps were transit camps and labor camps.  Gentiles sent to the camps were there for punishment or re-education which is how our prisons operate.  The vast majority of Jews that died under the Germans (something around 300,000) died as a consequence of Allied bombing.  The Holocaust is really the Big Lie.  Once people understand the truth then the Jews lose their means of guilting Westerners into doing “what’s good for the Jew”.  You will notice that so many of the “good” Jews that wring their hands over the Palestinians and worry about illegal immigration in the West, hold fast to the Holocaust.  The Holocaust is the Jew’s leverage.   Have a look at the video I link to below.  Note Phil Weiss and Jeff Blankfort’s guilt tripping Westerners, that is Whites.  Phil goes so far as saying that the West owes the Jews.  I think he’s got it ass backwards.  I’m all for Truth, but I want the Whole Truth.  Note how those open minded Jews refuse the woman’s response at the very end.

Are the French People Rising Up Against Jewish Power?


Many thanks to Richard Edmondson for his excellent blog.

Originally posted on Fig Trees and Vineyards:

 photo dieudonne_zps46dd84b1.jpg

French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala

Are the French finally fed up with being threatened with arrest and jail should they question the holocaust? Are they finally fed up with French government officials bowing and kissing the hands of Israeli leaders while issuing harsh penalties against French citizens they deem guilty of “anti-Semitism”?

View original 968 more words