The Charlotte News

Friday, April 29, 1938


Site Ed. Note: "The Polish Sucker" presents a position, set forth at least once before, on March 20 in "Poland Plays Wolf", which would definitely change with the realization of that which Cash accurately predicts, a prediction accurate by the simple expedient of accepting that Mein Kampf set out exactly what Hitler intended to do. After all, as even Hitler knew, one could not say less than what was expressed and expect Nazis to understand it.

Here a couple of samples from the Struggler, the first being a reminiscence from his youth in Vienna under the rule of the Hapsburg throne and that most deadly menace to Germanism in Austria, as he saw it, Archduke Ferdinand, and his Czech wife of a "morganatic marriage":

This conglomerate spectacle of heterogeneous races which the capital of the Dual Monarchy presented, this motley of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats, etc., and always that bacillus which is the solvent of human society, the Jew, here and there and everywhere--the whole spectacle was repugnant to me. The gigantic city seemed to be the incarnation of mongrel depravity...

...It may be that we shall have many a heavy burden to bear. But this is by no means an excuse for refusing to listen to reason and raise nonsensical outcries against the rest of the world, instead of concentrating all our forces against the most deadly enemy.

Moreover, the German people will have no moral right to complain of the manner in which the rest of the world acts towards them, as long as they themselves have not called to account those criminals who sold and betrayed their own country. We cannot hope to be taken very seriously if we indulge in long-range abuse and protests against England and Italy and then allow those scoundrels to circulate undisturbed in our own country who were in the pay of the enemy war propaganda, took the weapons out of our hands, broke the backbone of our resistance and bartered away the Reich for thirty pieces of silver.

The enemy did only what was expected. And we ought to learn from the stand he took and the way he acted.

Anyone who cannot rise to the level of this outlook must reflect that otherwise there would remain nothing else than to renounce the idea of adopting any policy of alliances for the future. For if we cannot form an alliance with England because she has robbed us of our colonies, or with Italy because she has taken possession of South Tyrol, or with Poland or Czechoslovakia, then there remains no other possibility of an alliance in Europe except with France which, inter alia, has robbed us of Alsace and Lorraine.

There can scarcely be any doubt as to whether this last alternative would be advantageous to the interests of the German people. But if it be defended by somebody one is always doubtful whether that person be merely a simpleton or an astute rogue.

As far as concerns the leaders in these activities, I think the latter hypothesis is true.

A change in public feeling among those nations which have hitherto been enemies and whose true interests will correspond in the future with ours could be effected, as far as human calculation goes, if the internal strength of our State and our manifest determination to secure our own existence made it clear that we should be valuable allies. Moreover, it is necessary that our incompetent way of doing things and our criminal conduct in some matters should not furnish grounds which may be utilized for purposes of propaganda by those who would oppose our projects of establishing an alliance with one or other of our former enemies.

The answer to the third question is still more difficult: Is it conceivable that they who represent the true interests of those nations which may possibly form an alliance with us could put their views into practice against the will of the Jew, who is the mortal enemy of national and independent popular States?

For instance, could the motive-forces of Great Britain's traditional statesmanship smash the disastrous influence of the Jew, or could they not?

This question, as I have already said, is very difficult to answer. The answer depends on so many factors that it is impossible to form a conclusive judgment. Anyhow, one thing is certain: The power of the Government in a given State and at a definite period may be so firmly established in the public estimation and so absolutely at the service of the country's interests that the forces of international Jewry could not possibly organize a real and effective obstruction against measures considered to be politically necessary.

The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have been consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way. The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression of the supernational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.

The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which has "the freest democracy" the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion. And yet there is a perpetual struggle in England between those who are entrusted with the defence of State interests and the protagonists of Jewish world-dictatorship...

...The means of power at the disposal of the present German Reich are so miserable and so inadequate to the waging of a foreign war that it would be impossible to defend our frontiers against Western Europe, England included. And the industrial area of Germany would have to be abandoned undefended to the concentrated attack of our adversaries. It must be added that between Germany and Russia there is the Polish State, completely in the hands of the French. In case Germany and Russia together should wage war against Western Europe, Russia would have to overthrow Poland before the first Russian soldier could arrive on the German front. But it is not so much a question of soldiers as of technical equipment. In this regard we should have our situation in the world war repeated, but in a more terrible manner. At that time German industry had to be drained to help our glorious allies, and from the technical side Germany had to carry on the war almost alone. In this new hypothetical war Russia, as a technical factor, would count for nothing. We should have practically nothing to oppose to the general motorization of the world, which in the next war will make its appearance in an overwhelming and decisive form. In this important field Germany has not only shamefully lagged behind, but with the little it has it would have to reinforce Russia, which at the present moment does not possess a single factory capable of producing a motor gun-wagon. Under such conditions the presupposed coming struggle would assume the character of sheer slaughter. The German youth would have to shed more of its blood than it did even in the world war; for, as always, the honour of fighting will fall on us alone, and the result would be an inevitable catastrophe. But even admitting that a miracle were produced and that this war did not end in the total annihilation of Germany, the final result would be that the German nation would be bled white, and, surrounded by great military States, its real situation would be in no way ameliorated...

The menace to which Russia once succumbed is hanging steadily over Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton could imagine that Bolshevism can be tamed. In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here we are dealing with a phenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood: namely, the aspiration of the Jewish people to become the despots of the world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats of rulership all over the earth. And as the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of reaching those ends and fights for them with his characteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated adversary. In Russian Bolshevism we ought to recognize the kind of attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentieth century to secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the same goal but with different, though at bottom similar, means. The kind of effort which the Jew puts forth springs from the deepest roots in the nature of his being. A people does not of itself renounce the impulse to increase its stock and power. Only external circumstances or senile impotence can force them to renounce this urge. In the same way the Jew will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens.

One must always watch out, you see, for those worldwide Jew dictates from Lucifer--such as, Thou shalt not kill.

If it sounds from these excerpts as if Hitler chose his friends only so long as they were good to eliminate his enemies, thus to become then his new enemy to enable him to attract to himself new friends with whom to eliminate the old ones, and thus..., well, you pretty well have read his book quite thoroughly.

A Vague Indictment

Unless the public liability of dime taxicabs be guaranteed in a satisfactory manner, the City Council is undeniably within its rights in revoking permission for them to operate. Even the taxi-men themselves, we take it, will admit as much, and admit further that in the past their injured passengers have not always been able to collect damages awarded, especially if those damages amounted to anything.

Lacking such responsibility, the case against the dime taxis is open and shut. There persists within us, however, a suspicion that the oft-repeated, but never proved, charge that the taxi drivers are procurers of trade for prostitutes and speakeasies, may have something to do with the Council's attitude, which by the way is unanimously opposed to letting them stay in business.

If that is the way of it, the Council should go slowly. It is not yet the fashion in this country to condemn whole sources of livelihood because somebody says that they have unsavory connections. There are laws against procuring, just as there are traffic laws, and if they are violated, there are punishments prescribed. But men accused of crimes have the right to insist on trial and to defend themselves against specific indictments. Rumor and "they say" have no standing in court, and ought not to have in the Council chamber.

Our New Politics

Governor Philip La Follette of Wisconsin describes the philosophy of his new National Progressive Party as being, "the right of a free people to work, and by their work to add to the wealth of the country." It sounds a little like Henry Ford or even Dr. Hoover, but, by the record, we shall have to assume, of course, that it means something very different from what they would mean. If the La Follette leopard has not turned into a kangaroo, the new party is going to be far out to the left in its program.

What is most interesting about this is its effect in more clearly shaping up the political picture in our time. With La Follette on the left Mr. Roosevelt will stand for the center, though he is in reality a great deal left of the center as we used to think of it. And on the right? Well, to name a man at random, let's say it will be represented by such a man as Lewis Douglas. Mr. Douglas does not at all represent the right as we have known it in the past, certainly. For a business man, he is a liberal. In Herbert Hoover's time, indeed, he would almost have been labeled a radical. Nevertheless, it is our guess that he is as far right as anybody can be and still have any chance of surviving in the new American politics. The whole center of gravity has shifted tremendously towards the left, and such rightists as Herbert Hoover are now almost as anachronistic as archaeopteryx.

Soaking the Poor

Taxation according to ability to pay is one of the dogmas of the American system, yet in this year's tax bill, the tax on liquor has been raised from $2.00 a gallon to $2.25 a gallon. The price or quality of liquor has nothing to do with it. Eighteen-year-old Bourbon retailing at $5.50 a quart and raw sugarhead selling at $1.00 a quart pay the same tax to the Government. That tax works out to a little more than 55 a quart.

As a result, the overalled fellow who goes by the liquor store Saturday night and plunks down his buck for a quart of Crippled Creek is paying a 55 per cent Federal tax, whereas the man in the big house on the hill who sends his chauffeur by to pick up a case of Old Smoothie is paying a Federal tax of only 10 per cent. One is getting eleven parts tax and only nine parts whisky; the other, two parts tax and eighteen parts whisky.

Somehow, it doesn't seem fair, any more than it seems intelligent, since the dollar-a-quart birds are likely to know where they can get moonshine at $2.00 a gallon, tax-free.

Site Ec. Note: For an example of one of FDR's popular radio fireside chats, read the text of the April 14, 1938 installment, "On Economic Conditions".

It Mustn't Happen Here

At first glance, the report of the American Newspaper Publishers Association's radio committee might look like a far-fetched bunch of sour grapes. Citing the President's use of radio for his fireside chats as a precedent which, in future years, might encourage dictatorship, the report declares:

"Seeing that in other countries radio has been used as a weapon to destroy liberty, we must solemnly undertake to see that it shall not happen here."

We would blush with shame for our brothers of the fourth estate, whose mortal lock on Presidential utterances radio has tampered with, were it not for one fact that many people are likely to overlook. That is, that radio stations and broadcasting companies are licensed by the Federal Government, and that these licenses are revocable at will. Obviously, the President of the United States has every right to use the radio if he chooses, and for a President like Mr. Roosevelt, with his superb voice and diction, it is a natural affinity. But just as obviously, the Federal Government possesses the ultimate authority to refuse the same medium to the wrong crowd. It is well known that the Federal Communications Commission has not hesitated to play politics in the granting of station licenses. It follows that there is some danger, however remote, of the commission's exerting indirect political censorship over what shall go on the air.

A free radio is almost as essential to democracy as a free press and free speech. In fact, without a free radio, freedom of speech would be abridged.

The Polish Sucker

"If shots should be fired in connection with the Czechoslovak problem, the first will not come from Germany but Poland."

Thus one of Hitler's chief stooges in the Government of Germany.

The fellow did not elaborate, but what he meant is all too plain. Probably the most contemptible and at the same time the most idiotic role in Europe is being played by the Polish Government. For it is unquestionably playing hand in glove with Hitler in the hope of grabbing some measly portion of Czechoslovakia for itself.

That is contemptible because for a hundred and fifty years Poland held its head up as the world's chief example of a nationality unjustly oppressed and destroyed by its more powerful and hoggish neighbors. Half the poetry of Europe in the Nineteenth Century is devoted to tears for poor, bleeding, mistreated Poland. But, now having had its independence handed back to it on a platter, it yearns and pants to play the hog on its own account.

And the policy is idiotic for the very good reason that it amounts to Poland's sticking her head into the mouth of the lion which once bit it off before and which quite clearly has promised to bite it off again. It was Germany, precisely, which organized the various partitions in Poland, and Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, leaves no doubt that, once he has absorbed Czechoslovakia, he means to absorb Poland next.

When it happens, the world will know better than to shed any more tears for Poland.

Site Ed. Note: Cash often cited Professor Charles A. Beard, even though a noted isolationist, for his views on foreign affairs and the military. Cash respected Beard even as he disagreed with most of his position. (See on the book-page, replete with a few of our mistranscriptions, (pardon us, Mr. Cash), which we shall leave uncorrected for reasons of our own, "Beard Urges Isolation for U.S.", October 15, 1939)

Ships and Suspicions

It is fair to judge a man's motives by the rule he applies to others. And since Senator La Follette boldly charges that the big naval program is a scheme of President Roosevelt's to divert attention from internal troubles, we may very well remember that the Senator hails from Wisconsin, a state heavily populated with Germans (or rather, with German-Americans, with the power to vote for or against a Senator), many thousands of whom are strong partisans of Hitlerism and active opponents of American naval expansion as a potential threat to the dream of Hitlerism.

That is not to say, however, that there may not be a good deal in the doctrine which the Senator takes from Dr. Charles A. Beard, that there is "a tendency for armament to increase as business activity declines, increasing the possibility of war, but diverting attention from distressing economic conditions at home." Most authorities on war agree that this is so. And there is Germany--and Italy--and, to a considerable extent, England to lend the theory support. But this is a very different thing from saying that the President is cynically drumming up the naval program for the primary purpose of diverting attention from the recession.

The plain fact is that when business conditions are bad in the world, the possibility of war is inevitably increased. Probably the Germans themselves have turned to arming for wars of conquest, not so much because Hitler schemes to divert attention from internal ruin, but because of the very drive of that ruin itself. But their arming for such conquest, like the arming of the Japs and the Italians, increases the danger of war for everybody, including ourselves. And that being the case, it seems the merest common sense that we should make sure that our navy is in condition to deal with whatever foe or foes it may have to face. And naval officers have unanimously testified that it is not in such condition now.

Mr. Roosevelt is probably glad enough to have foreign affairs absorb as much attention as they do at present. But his naval program is satisfactorily explained on the basis of his concern for the national safety, without any resort to hypotheses of sinister calculation.


Framed Edition
[Return to Links-Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News--Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.