OCR Interpretation

Dearborn independent. [volume] (Dearborn, Mich.) 1901-1927, March 26, 1921, Image 8

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

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/2013218776/1921-03-26/ed-1/seq-8/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for 8

The Jews' "Defenders" Make a Poor Showing
They Fail in Frankness; Billy Sunday an Example; the Hearst
Bernstein Botch; the Gravity of a Jewish-Negro Alliance
THE Jews are most unfortunate in their "de
fenders." Perhaps the initial misfortune is that
the Jewish mind has reverted with automatic di
rectness to the idea of "defense," and not to frank
self-criticism and correction. The bankruptcy of Jewish
leadership has never been so apparent as in this situa
tion which only calls for an examination and a re
pudiation of that which brings shame upon the Jewish
name. But had such examination and repudiation been
made by the leaders, it would have involved confes
sion of the inadequacy and incompetency of their lead
ership, and in the present state of affairs, when their
power is already swaying perilously, they dare not make
this confession.
It is now nearly a year since The Dearborn Inde
pendent, desirous of bringing into wholesome and sani
tary public discussion a question which was festering
in silence and suspicion, began a series of studies of
the Jewish Question. The question of the motive which
inspired these studies has received various treatment.
It is a striking note in all the Jewish attempts at ex
planation, that these studies are in retaliation for some
wrong or injury committed by a Jew. It must be
rather humiliating to be compelled to postulate wrong
doing on the part of one's race to account for a study
of that race. However, The Dearborn Independent
is able to defend the Jewish name in this particular and
to say most plainly that the present series of studies
are not in retaliation for the misdeed of any Jew, and
to add, if need be, that they have not in view the in
jury of any Jew, great or small, but solely the pre
vention of further injury to the world through the
vast misuse by Jewish leaders of the power that rests
in their hands.
In all that year of discussion, Jewish leaders have
been making a "defense" which even the Jewish people
have felt was far beside the point. Rabbis, publicists,
political and racial leaders have all arisen and shouted
and called names, but have carefully avoided the ques
tions at ''ssue. There have been "challenges," all of
which have been strategic attempts to stop the discus
sion and bury it in the smoke of "investigations" which
could easily be controlled. Personal abusiveness has
been resorted to, not to mention lurid and ludicrous
falsehoods but never a focus on a fact, never the
choice of a concrete situation, and a candid examina
tion of that
Jews Disgusted With Sham Defense
ALL these activities have had two purposes in mind, as
those who understand Jewish modes of procedure
have long since seen; first, to befog the issue with ir
relevant matter ; second, to divert the studies from the
main line to some side line which runs off into a
morass. There will be plenty of time to explore the
ide lines, but the wiser element of the Jews will meet
the question on the main line. The refusal of the
atronomer to debate the proposition that the moon is
made of green cheese, would hardly be received as
proof of his fear to meet the facts of his science.
The first real Jewish "defense" was a counsel to
violence, for boycott is of the essence of violence a
commercial "pogrom," to BSC a word the safe and
comfortable Jews of America like to employ. This
counsel of violence came from the leaders, of course,
and was stimulated by secret meetings where every
effort was made to rouse the passions of the Jews to
unlawful activity. We stress the word unlawful, be
cause the Jewish leaders counseled a course which they
claim in the courts to be unlawful when used against
themselves. How, when and where this was done does
not matter in this connection. The point is that in
following this desperate line the Jewish leaders con
fessed their utter incompetency and un-Americanism.
Had they been plain men of common sense they would
not only have seen the lawlcssne of their course but its
impossibility as well. But why expect blind leaders to
be wise? Who can say that this frenzy of incompe
tence may not be one of the influences that shall open
the eyes of the Jewish masses to the folly of their
The extent to which this idea of violence "caught
on" among the Jewish people can be gathered from a
study of several thousands of communities through
out the United States. There is no doubt that the
Jewish attitude of "Beware P toward the non-Jews is
still strong in a few quarters, but there is also no doubt
that it is rapidly disappearing. The Jewish individual
is not a fool, and he is not misled by the folly of his
so-called leaders nor by the antics of those "Gentile
fronts' who find the Jewish "defense" rather profitable
in one way or another. Indeed, some of the most
refreshing expressions that have come to The Dear
born Independent are from Jews who shrewdly esti
mate the qualities of the Jewish "defense." These
sound-headed Jews clearly see that the best defense is
to take the situation as it actually is, analyze it, act
frankly upon their findings, and seek to remove those
mistaken policies and qualities which are always turn
ing up to plague the Jewish people.
In their non-Jewish "defenders" the Jews have had
a precious handful. As friends of the Jews they may
be just as desirable as any other friends, but as "de
fenders" their main service is to divert attention for a
moment. Then the general situation of the Question
closes over them and they are forgotten. Jewish humor
must have had numerous occasions to observe how
well justified is the Protocols' estimate of non-Jewish
ability in the light of the intellectual character of non
Jews' "defense" of the Jews.
Billy Sunday and His "Jew Sermon"
BILLY SUNDAY, for example, is one of these Jew
ish "defenders." He is not at all clear what he is
defending them from, but he is defending them just the
same. In the sermon list which Mr. Sunday dispenses
during each evangelistic engagement there is what is
known as "the Jew Sermon." Men who have been
connected with the promotion of his campaigns say that
this "Jew Sermon" is depended on to enlist a portion
of the financial support which might not otherwise be
obtainable in defraying the necessarily heavy expenses
of a Billy Sunday campaign. Jewish contributors are
more easily approached through the introduction of
"the Jew Sermon." It is a familiar compilation of
complimentary statements, all of which have been made
in this series, such as the fact that Jews sailed with
Christopher Columbus to discover America, Jews are
never seen in the poorhouses, and so on.
It recites the statement of which Jewish writers de
light to remind Christians, namely, that Christ was
a Jew. The tense is emphasized because Mr. Sun
day's utterance is capable of interpretation in the pres
ent tense. "If ever you walk the streets of glory, and
are kept out of hell, it will be because of your repent
ance and faith in the shed blood of a Jew." This is
questioyable theology, to say the least, for it is the
faith of the Christian church that Christ was and is
the Son of God. Nevertheless, the statement as made
by Sunday is quite in harmony with the Jewish view
of the case. Few things are more nauseous and repre
hensible than this senile acceptance of the statement
that "your god is a Jew," "We gave you your god, now
we'll give you your government." It is very much as
if the American people after execrating the assassin of
McKinhy should journey to Africa and find that Czol
gosc had become the god of the Africans. It would
give the American a sense of superiority- to think that
an outcast of his people had become the god of an
other race.
Well, that does not matter either. Mr. Sunday
speaks about "my friend. Nathan Straus." He says,
"You pay tribute to the Jew for the suit you have on
and the dress you wear: for they control the tailoring
and the custom-made business of the United States.
There is not a cabinet in Europe that hasn't had Jews
in its membership. Some of the shrewdest financiers
in the world are Jews. It was really the banking house
of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of New York, that re
fused to loan Japan the money to prosecute the war,
that really hastened peace. Isabella had to hock her
jewels to pay for Columbus' voyage, and she hocked
them to a Jew. And the Jew is just as distinctively a
Jew today as he was 6,000 vears ago. All hail the
Jews 1"
Mr. Sunday Didn't KnowBut
THIS is great "defense." Everyone knows what it
I is, a rehash of Madison C. Peter's little book. But it
doesn't touch the case. Each statement Sunday makes
contains the vital essence of criticism, but he doesn't
know it.
Mr. Sunday has not read "The International Jew."
More than that, he ljas not even read his textbook, the
Bible. Dollars to doughnuts he cannot tell offhand
the difference between Judah and Israel, or he would
stop confusing them. And it is doubtful if he can
tell where the Jewish Christ found his first disciples
among the Jews of Judca, or the non-Jewish Israelites
of the north country. Mr. Sunday, excellent and use
ful as he is in certain fields, is simply not master of
his subject, and what is worse, he has not tried to be.
That he speaks without knowledge when he attempts
to characterize the studies which have appeared in
The Dearborn Indf.pendent is shown by the follow
telegrams :
"William A. Sunday, Jan. 11, l
"Fairmount, West Virginia.
"We have read your comment as carried bv
the International News Service, of January j
on Jewish series now appearing in The I Ak.
born Independent.
"Will you be so good as to inform us whether
you have read any one of the forty or more
articles which have appeared, and if so, which
one, and if more than one, how many? Thanking
you for telegraphic reply at our expense.
"The Dearborn Publishing Company."
Here is Mr. Sunday's reply :
"Dearborn Publishing Co.,
"Dearborn, Mich.
Jan. 11. 1521,
"Have read frequent excerpts from Jewish
series printed in other papers and comments by
Metropolitan Press. I had no reason to ques
tion the correctness of these reports. The part
with which I especially disagreed was the state
ment that the Jews were aiming at control of
the important activities of the country. I have
not found the slightest evidence of the existence
of such a condition.
"W. A. Sunday."
Mr. Sunday did not read any "excerpts" from these
articles in any "other papers" up to Januarv 11. None
was printed. Up to that time the newspapers printed
Jewish propaganda only, and Jewish propaganda is the I
only knowledge Mr. Sunday has of the Jewish Ques
tion. The part with which Mr. Sunday especially dis
agreed was, he says, the statement that the Jews are
aiming at control of the important activities of the
country. It would be difficult if not impossible to ar
rive at an understanding of how Mr. Sunday could es
pecially disagree with what was not said. It he had
known, he would have seen that it was not "aiming at
control" which was stated, but actual control which
was shown. And as for Mr. Sunday's failure to find
evidence of such a condition, there is plenty of evidence
in his own sermon on the Jews. He pos-ibly does not
consider it as evidence because he read it in a news
paper and did not gather it by direct observation, but
he considers it good enough for his icrmon.
Mr. Bernstein Plus Hearst Type
AS A "defender," Mr. Sunday occupies the position oi
k one who has not studied his case. Whether he would
study it or not, we have not asked him. From his own
standpoint, his sermon to the Jews is an unfaithful and
halting piece of evangelism. Obvioiily he feared to
go sled-length in his effort to convert the Jews that
would be to "insult" them; he therefore remains in the
region of half-truths and stereotyped praise a id veers
from his stated purpose as soon as he has disposed of
his bouquets.
Mr. Sunday, by the way, is not the only minister
who confessed by telegraph that he spoke without
knowing whereof he spoke. However, the great ma
jority of them proceeded at once to look into the
Question for themselves, and the result has been con
firmatory of most of the statements made in this series
As a matter of fact, the Bible is the best textbook
from which to begin the study of the Jewish (Juestion.
The "defense" of the Jews has been exceedingly
stupid not only because a part of it has been made m
utter ignorance of what the charge was (as if onj
should defend a man for murder who is only charge
with speeding), but also because of the assumption on
the part of some of the defenders that the question
could be settled by personalities. Thus far tins re
sort to personalities has been taken exclusively by t c
Jewish side, though not for lack of material on trie
other. On that line too there would be no hesitancy
try conclusions, but there are a few Jews at least mw
appreciate the forbearance in that respect which
been shown.
The chief weakness of the "defense" which resorts
to personalities is that it settles nothing. If all
were mere say-so, dependent for acceptance upon i
credibility of certain witnesses, an attack on IrsonBut
ties might serve to break down the basis of behet.
if the case consists merely in bringing to light cc
facts which anybody can see for himself W
mere act of looking, then the matter of personality

xml | txt