Typos — title: One man's striving [= One man's striving 1 ]; p. 17: philosphy [= philosophy]

One man's striving

William Gayley Simpson

National Vanguard 101, 1984, pp. 11–17

- p. 11 -
        1 This is the sixth selection of excerpts from the unpublished autobiography of National Alliance member William Simpson to appear in NATIONAL VANGUARD. The earlier selections were in the issues of March, June, and August 1983; and January and March 1984.
        Mr. Simpson celebrated his 92nd birthday on the 23rd of last month, at the farm in New York which has been his home for the past 52 years.

[. . . .]

- p. 16 -
        Now we return to September 1937, when Simpson was in England:


        One of the most important events of my trip was my meeting with Anthony M. Ludovici, a distinguished scholar and prolific writer, then only beginning to be recognized for what he was. I had supper and an evening with him and his wife at their home near London, and several hours at my room in London itself, where he came with a close friend the next afternoon. . . .
        He was a very spare man, of erect carriage, dark earnest eyes, and very sensitive face. All the furnishings of his home showed him to be very artistic in his interests and taste. He was a brilliant conversationalist, very fertile in his imagination, quick in his thinking, almost encyclopedic in his knowledge, and ready in the expression of his ideas. . . .
        His view of the world situation was different from any other I came upon, and startled me by reviving my recollections of the almost forgotten conversation I had had with Dr. Bewer just four years before. One of the first things he said to me was: "What do you make of the Jewish Question?"
        "The Jewish Question!" I replied; "What is that?" For even after my talk with Dr. Bewer I had not come to lump Jews together as a whole, or to look upon them as particularly different from myself. I still had my very close Jewish friends. And certainly I had never thought of the Jews collectively as constituting any menace. But when I showed how little I was aware that there was such a thing as a Jewish Question, my host proceeded to lay before me a proposition that was as unpleasant as it was disturbing.
        He began by alleging in regard to Britain what Dr. Bewer had represented in regard to Germany: that the Jewish international money power controlled the Bank of England, and that to it the government had become hogtied by overwhelming debt. And since the first allegiance of Jewish international finance was not to Britain but to Jewry, its irresistible power would always be exerted to dragoon any British government into serving the interests of Jewry rather than those of Britain.
        The position of the British people was all the more perilous because this power operated so silently and invisibly as to escape notice and almost defy detection, and because every important means for reaching and shaping the public mind, whether press, cinema, or radio, was likewise in the hands of the Jews. Moreover, it was the same story in France, and he had reason to think it was the same in the United States. And world Jewry — or more exactly, a certain dominant hard core within world Jewry — (it had become terrifyingly apparent) was determined to have war.
        At the bottom of it all, according to my host, was the Jews' hatred of Hitler, not so much because of any alleged persecutions as because of certain financial measures he had initiated that struck at the very root of the Jewish control of the modern world. Rightly or wrongly Hitler felt that the Jews were ruining Germany, that they had taken the

- p. 17 -
direction of German life out of German hands.
        The crux of the matter lay in the power of Jewish international finance, which aimed, in regard to Germany as with every other nation on earth, to get it into debt, and into ever deeper debt, that the Jews might extort ever larger amounts of interest money out of taxpayers' pockets, and above all, that they might exercise the creditor's power to force his debtor to do his will. The hand that lends must always be stronger than the hand that receives.
        And Hitler, therefore, who had set the German people to dreaming of a Germany thoroughly rejuvenated and regenerated, saw clearly that such dreams must be frustrated unless Germany could get on her feet without going into debt to the international bankers. It was his success in accomplishing this, and the very example he set to other nations to do likewise, which was making the Jewish bankers' hair stand on end and driving them to fury. For if Hitler's system succeeded, it would destroy the Jews' system of getting the nations into debt and keeping them in debt, and thus destroy their power to coerce the nations into doing what would serve their purpose.
        There was a lot more to it than that, but my host talked fast, and I could not afterwards recall everything he had said. But this was the heart of it. And as the upshot of it all, the decree had gone forth, not only to all Jewry but to the entire world, that Hitler and all his works must be destroyed. In fact, a "fighting fund" of no less than $2 1/2 billion had been raised, and even announced in the London papers, for this express purpose. In every country every possible means was being used to influence the world to bring Germany down. . . .
        Unfortunately, there was all too little time for discussion: I had to leave for an appointment. But, as I took my departure, he put in my hands some papers and pamphlets which he quickly gathered together, and with them a small book by "Cobbett" which bore the title Jews and the Jews in England. He thought it might help to move me toward investigating the vastly disturbing proposition he had set before me. This too, as I eventually discovered, was by Ludovici himself. He had had resort to a pseudonym because of his conviction that if he allowed it to come out under his own name, even though he had written it without rancor and as a scholar, he would never afterward have been able to get another book published. . . .
        Stretched out on my deck chair on the return trip across the Atlantic I pondered many things. I thought of the various forms of social organization which human history reveals, and of the varying evils that had clouded every one of them. Man is a very old animal, and every social philosphy has long ago been conceived and every possible social form applied. And any good to be attained by any one of them will always be shadowed, more or less, by some evil. There is no such thing as a perfect society. The idea of it is a sheer abstraction and can have no existence outside the heads of romantic idealists.
        Inevitably, the achievement of one end will mean the sacrifice of some other; and the highest good of one man, or of one type or caliber of man, will be to some extent at another's expense. The great question to be answered in evaluating any society or any attempt at social amelioration is: Good for whom? Good for what? Good for the elevation and dominance and duration of a people and the achievement of culture — or good for the day, the majority, "the happiness of the greatest number"? Good for the most gifted and noblest — or good for the weakest, most botched, and most miserable?
        Always somebody and something must be sacrificed. The critical question, therefore, will always remain: Who is to be sacrificed to whom? What good do you want, and are you willing to pay the price of it?
        My mind roamed over the darkening international situation. I remembered the remark of my Jewish friend Richard Mayer, to the effect that Judaism and Christianity belonged together. Certainly Christianity, and especially Puritanism, was only a revived and revamped Judaism. Indeed, there were those who perceived in Christianity only the history of Jewish heresy. But I was far less concerned about the bearing of these two religions on each other and their relationship to the future than I was about what had been the historic effect on the European world of having the White people who created it pass under the direction of a religion that had not come out of their own life experience, out of their own unspoiled and unperverted instinct, traditions, and values.
        Nietzsche had declared, quite correctly, that Christianity was "the revenge of the Jews on the Gentiles": the Gentiles had taken from them their homeland, and the Jews had got even by foisting upon the former their religion. And Blake had perceived, no less correctly, that "all nations believe the jews' code and worship the jews' god," and had pronounced in conclusion that "no greater subjection can be." Inevitably the question arose: Can the Western White man, especially Nordic Western man, ever fully repossess his own soul until he has thrown off this alien religion?
        But perhaps there was nothing in my entire trip to which my thoughts returned so much as the question about the part that some power within world Jewry might be taking to drive the world into war. As I dipped into the book that Ludovici had placed in my hands just before I left England, I discovered at once that he was quite right in claiming that it was written without rancor, not at all as a diatribe or as propaganda, but as a factual presentation of a situation. It was directed less against the Jews themselves than against certain Jewish values with which he felt their presence in our midst had infected us, and which he believed to be to our great injury and danger.
        Though I was yet a long way from any readiness to form a judgment, I did find myself strongly inclined to agree with him, that no really strong and great people will ever surrender the direction of its destiny to a people of alien blood and tradition, be they Jews or others, if they can by any means prevent it. Whether or not one could endorse the particular policy Hitler was following (he did; Dr. Bewer did not), I was impressed with the fact that both were agreed that something must be done to break the Jewish hold on Germany's life.