the specifically Socialist Free Press pointed it
out as no more than an example of what happens under Capitalist
Government.

A Mahommedan paper would no doubt have called it a result of the
Nazarene religion, and a Thug paper an awful example of what happens
when your politicians are not Thugs.

My point is, then, that the Free Press thus starting from so many
different particular standpoints has not yet produced a general organ;
by which I mean that it has not produced an organ such as would
command the agreement of a very great body of men, should that very
great body of men be instructed on the real way in which we are
governed.

Drumont was very useful for telling one innumerable particular
fragments of truth, which the Official Press refuse to mention--such
as the way in which the Rothschilds cheated the French Government over
the death duties in Paris some years ago. Indeed, he alone ultimately
compelled those wealthy men to disgorge, and it was a fine piece of
work. But when he went on to argue that cheating the revenue was a
purely Jewish vice he could never get the mass of people to agree with
him, for it was nonsense.

Charles Maurras is one of the most powerful writers living, and when
he points out in the "Action Francaise" that the French Supreme Court
committed an illegal action at the close of the Dreyfus case, he is
doing useful work, for he is telling the truth on a matter of vital
public importance. But when he goes on to say that such a thing would
not have occurred under a nominal Monarchy, he is talking nonsense.
Any one with the slightest experience of what the Courts of Law can be
under a nominal Monarchy shrugs his shoulders and says that Maurras's
action may have excellent results, but that his proposed remedy of
setting up one of these modern Kingships in. France in the place of
the very corrupt Parliament is not convincing.

The "New Republic" in New York vigorously defends Brandeis because
Brandeis is a Jew, and the "New Republic" (which I read regularly, and
which is invaluable to-day as an independent instructor on a small
rich minority of American opinion) is Jewish in tone. The defence of
Brandeis interests me and instructs me. But when the "New Republic"
prints pacifist propaganda by Brailsford, or applauds Lane under the
alias of "Norman Angell," it is--in my view--eccentric and even
contemptible. "New Ireland" helps me to understand the quarrel of the
younger men in Ireland wit