OCR Interpretation


Dearborn independent. [volume] (Dearborn, Mich.) 1901-1927, June 26, 1920, Image 8

Image and text provided by Central Michigan University, Clark Historical Library

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/2013218776/1920-06-26/ed-1/seq-8/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for 8

8
Question Breaks Into the Mag
A Discussion of the Metropolitan Magazine's
Article on "The Great Jewish Conspiracy."
ONCE upon a time an American faculty member of
an American university went to Russia on busi
ness. He was expert in a very important de
partment of applied science and a keen observer. He
entered Russia with the average American's feeling
about the treatment which the government of that
people accorded the Jew. He lived there three years,
came home for a year, and went back again for a
similar period, and upon his second return to America
he thought it was time to give the American public
accurate information about the Jewish Question in
Russia. He prepared a most careful article and sent
it to the editor of a magazine of the first class in the
Eastern United States. The editor sent for him, spent
most of two days with him, and was deeply impressed
with all he learned but he said he could not print the
article. The same interest and examination occurred
with several other magazine editors of the first rank.
It was not because the professor could not write
these editors gladly bought anything he would write
on other subjects. But it was impossible for him to
get his article on the Jews accepted or printed in
New York.
The Jewish Question, however, has at last broken
into a New York magazine. Rather it is a fragment of
a shell hurled from the Jewish camp at the Jewish
Question to demolish, if possible, the Question and
thus make good the assertion that there is no such
thing.
Incidentally it is the only kind of article on the
Jewish Question that the big magazine, whoe mazes
of financial controllers make most interesting rummag
ing, would Care to print.
Yet, the general public may learn much about the
Question even from the type of article whose purpose is
to prove that the Question doesn't exist
Mr. William Hard, in the Metropolitan for June,
has done as well as could be expected, considering the
use he was supposed to make oi such material as he had
at hand. And doubtless the telegraph and letter brigades,
which keep watch over all printed references to the
Jews, have dulf congratulated the good editors of the
Metropolitan for their assistance in soothing the pub
lic to further sleep.
It is to be hoped, for the sake of the Question, that
Mr. Hard's effort will have a wide reading, for there is
very, much to be learned from it much more than it
was anybody's intention should be learned from it.
It may be learned, first, that the Jewish Question
exists. Mr. Hard says it is dicussed in the drawing
rooms of London and Pari. Whether the mention of
drawing-rooms was a writer's device to intimate that the
matter was unimportant and frivolous, or merely rep
resented the extent of Mr. Hard's contact with the
Question is not clear. He adds, however, that a docu
ment relating to the Question has "traveled a good bit
in certain official circles in Washington." He alo men
tions a cable dispatch to the New York World, con
cerning the same Question, which that paper published.
His article was probably published too early to note
the review which the London Times made of the first
document referred to. But he has told the reader who
ii looking for the objective facts in the article that
there is a Jewish Question, and that it does not exist
among the riff-raff either but principally in those circles
where the evidence of Jewish power and control is
most abundant. Moreover, the Question is being dis
cussed. Mr. Hard tells us that much. If he does not
go further and tell us that it is being dicussed with
great seriousness in high places and among men of
national and inter nttiottftl importance, it is probably
because of one of two things, either he does not know,
or he does not consider it consonant with the purpose of
the article to tell.
However, Mr. Hard has already made it clear that
there is a Jewish Question, that it is being discussed,
that it is being discussed by people who are best situ
ated to observe the matter they are talking about.
The reading of Mr. Hard's article makes it clear also
that the Question always comes to the fore on the note
of conspiracy. Ofoursc, Mr. Hard says he does not
believe in conspiraes which involve a large number
of people, and it is with the utmost ease that his
avowal of unbelief is accepted, for there i nothing
more ridiculous to the Gentile mind than a MSI con
spiracy, because there is nothing more impossible to the
GentflC himself. Mr. Hard, we take it, is of non-Jew i h
extraction, and he knows how impossible it would b
to band Gentiles together in any considerable num
ber for any length of time in even the noblest con
spiracy. Gentiles are not built for it. Their con
spiracy, whatever it might be, would fall like a rope
of sand. Gentiles have not the basis either in blood or
interest that the Jews have to stand together. The Gen
tile does not naturally suspect conspiracy; he will in
deed hardly bring himself to the verge of believing it
without the fullest proof.
It is therefore quite easy to understand Mr. Hard's
difficulty with conspiracy; the point is that to write his
article at all, he is forced to recognize at almost every
step that whenever the Jewish Question i- discussed, the
idea of conspiracy occupies a large part in it. As a
matter of fact, it is the central idea in Mr. Hard's
article, and it completely monopolizes the headiug
"Great Jewish Conspiracy."
The search for basic facts in Mr. Hard's article will
disclose the additional information that there are cer
tain documents in existence which purport to contain
the details of the conspiracy, or to drop a word that is
unpleasant and may be misleading and which has not
been used in this series the tendency of Jewish power
to achieve complete control. That is about all that the
reader learns from Mr. Hard about the documents,
except that he describes one as "strange and horrible."
Here is indeed a regrettable gap in the story, for it is
to discredit a certain document that Mr. Hard writes,
and yet he tells next to nothing about it. Discreditable
documents usually discredit themselves. But this
document is not permitted to do that. The reader of
the article is left to take Mr. Hard's word for it. The
serious student or critic will feel, of course, that the
documents themselves would have formed a better bisis
for an intelligent judgment. But, laying that matter
aside, Mr. Hard has made public the fact that there are
documents.
And then Mr. Hard does another thing, as well as
he can with the materials at hand, the purpose of the
article being what it was, and that is to show how
little the Jews have to do with the control of affairs
by showing who are the Jews that do control certain
selected groups of affairs. The names are all brought
forward by Mr. Hard and he alone is responsible for
them, our purpose in referring to them being merely to
show what can be learned from him.
Mr. Hard leans heavily on Russian affairs. Some
times it would almost seem as if the Jewish Question
were conceived as the Soviet Question, which it is not.
as Mr. Hard very well knows, and although the two
have their plain connections, it is nothing less than
well-defined propaganda to set up Bolshevist fiction and
knock it down by Jewish fact for the purposes of the
latter. However, what Mr. Hard offers as fact is very
instructive, quite apart from the conclusion which he
draws from it.
Xow, take his Russian line-up first. He says that in
the cabinet of Soviet Russia there is only one Jew
But he is Trotsky. There are others in the government,
of course, but Mr. Hard is speaking about the cabinet
now. He is not speaking about the commissars, who are
the real rulers of Russia, nor about the executive troops,
who are the real strength of the Trotsky-Lenin regime.
Xo, just the cabinet. Of course, there was only one
Jew prominent in Hungary, too. but he was Bela Kun.
Mr. Hard does not ask us to believe, however, that it is
simply because of Trotsky and Kun that all Europe
believes that Bolshevism has a strong Jewish element.
Else the stupid credibility of the Gentiles would be
more impossible of conception than the idea of a Jew ish
conspiracy is to Mr. Hard's mind. Why should it be
easier to believe that Gentiles are dunces than that Jews
are clever?
However, it is not too much to say that Trotsky i
way up at the top, sharing the utmost summit of Bol
shevism with Lenin, and Trotsky is a Jew nobody
ever denied that, not even Mr. Braunstein himself (the
latter being Trotsky's St. Louis, U. S. A., name).
But then, says Mr. Hard, the Mensheviks are led by
Jews, too! That is a fact worth putting down beside
the others. Trotsky at the head of the Bolsheviks ; at
the head of the Mensheviks dur'uuj their opposition of
the Bolsheviks were Lieber, Martov and Dan "all
Jews," says Mr. Hard.
There is, however, a middle party between these ex
tremes, the Cadets, which. Mr. Hard says, are or were
the strongest bourgeois political party in Russia. "They
now have their headquarters in Paris. Their chairman
is Vinaver a Jew."
There are the fact- U tat. d by Mr. Hard. He savs
that Jews, whose names he gives, head the three great
fliv isions of political opinion in Russia.
And then he cries, look how the Jews are divided!
How can there be conspiracy among people who thus
fight themselves?
But another, looking at the same situation may say
look bow the Jews control every phase of political
opinion in Russia! Doesn't there .eem to b- iomi
ground for the feeling that they are desirous of ruling
everywhere r R
The facts are there. What significance does it brine
to the average mind that the three great parties of
Russia are led by Jews?
But that does not exhaust the information which
the matter-of-fact reader may find in Mr. Hard's article.
He turns to the United States and makes several inte
tsting statements.
"There ii Otto Kahn," he says. Well, sometimes
Otto Kahn is fktft, and sometimes he is in Paris
important international matters, and sometimes he is '
London advocating certain alliances between British
and American capital which have to do in a large wav
w ith European political conditions. Mr. Kahn i rated
as a conservative, and that may mean anything
man is conservative or not according to the angle from
which he is viewed. The most conservative men in
America are really the most radical ; their motives and
methods go to the very roots of certain matters; thev
are radicals in their own field. The men who con
trolled the last Republican Convention if not the last
the most recent are styled conservatives by those whose
vision is circumscribed by certain limited economic in
terests ; but they are the most radical of radicals, thev
have passed the red stage and are white with it. U
it were known what is in the back of Mr. Kahn's
mind, if he should display a chart of what he is doing
and aiming to do, the term which would then most aptly
describe him might be quite different. Anyway, we
have it from Mr. Hard, "There is Mr. Kahn."
"On the other hand," says Mr. Hard, "there is Rose
Pastor Stokes." He adds the name of Morris Hill
quit. They are, in Mr. Hard's classification, radicals.
And to offset these names he adds the names of two
Gentiles, Eugene V, Dcb and Bill Haywood, and in
timates that they are much more powerful leaders than
the first two. Students of modern influences, of which
Mr. Hard has long appeared as one, do not think so.
Wither Debs nor Haywood ever generated in all their
lives a fraction of the intellectual power which Mrs.
Stokes and Mr. Hillquit have generated. Both Debs
and Haywood live by the others. To every informed
person, as to Mr. Hard in this article, come the Jewish
names to mind when the social tendencies of the United
States are passed under reflection.
This is most instructive indeed, that in naming the
leaders of so-called conservatism and radicalism. Mr.
Hard is driven to use Jewish names. On his showing
the reader is entitled to say that Jews lead both di
visions here in the United States.
But Mr. Hard is not through. "The man who does
more than any other man the man who does more
than any regiment of other men to keep American
labor anti-radical is a Jew Samuel Gompers." That
is a fact which the reader will place in his list Amer
ican labor is led by a Jew.
Well, then, "the strongest anti-Gompers trade union
in the country The Amalgamated Clothing Workers
and very strong indeed, and very large is led by a
Jew Sidney Hillman."
It is the Russian situation over again. Both ends
of the movement, and the movements which operate
within the movement, arc under the leadership of Jews.
This, whatever the construction put upon it, is a fact
which Mr. Hard is compelled by the very nature of his
task to acknowledge.
And the middle movement, "the Liberal Middle " as
Mr. Hard calls it, which catches all between, produces
in this article the names of Mr. Justice Brandeis, Ju4rc
Mack and Felix Frankfurter, gentlemen whose activities
since Armistice Day would make a very interesting
story.
For good measure, Mr. Hard produces two other
names, "Baron Gunberg a Jew"' who is "a faithful
Official" of the Russian Kmbassy of Ambassador
Bakhnietev. a representative of the modified old regime,
while the Russian Information Bureau, whose literary
output appears in many of our newspapers is con
ducted by another Jew, so Mr. Hard calls him, whose
name is familiar to newspaper readers, Mr. A J Sack.
It is not a complete list by any means, but it is quite
impressive. It seems to reflect importance on the docu
ments which Mr. Hard endeavors to minimize to a posi
tion of ridiculous unimportance. And it leads to tn e
thought that perhaps the documents are scrutinized
SI carefully as they are because the readers ot tnein
have observed not only the facts which Mr. Har d ad
mits but other and more astonishing ones, and nau
discovered that the documents confirm and exPjam ?J
observations. Other readers who have not hart
privilege of learning all that the documents contain a
entitled to have satisfaction given to the interest
aroused.
The documents Hid not create the Jewish 0gj
If there were nothing but the documents. Mr.
would not have written nor would the Metrop
Magazine have printed the article here discusse .
What Mr. Hard has done is to bring conhrmat oi
a most unexpected place that the Question cx,s"
is pressing for discussion. Someone felt the p
when "The Great Jewish Conspiracy" was ordered
written.

xml | txt