9-16-22

For downloading and printing of this long document we will provide a PDF version.  Thank you.

 

THE PDF FILE IS:  http://www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/pdf/07C-10-30-03-ford-the-international-jew.pdf

---

The International Jew — The World’s Foremost Problem

By Henry Ford — founder of the Ford Motor Company,

 and the editors of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT.

From: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ijtoc_.htm

PDF Version of this document is at: http://www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/pdf/07C-10-30-03-ford-the-international-jew.pdf

Note: This article is a four-volume set of books combined into one very long webpage for your ease of reading but is over 500 pages long. 

Also, This article references the "Protocols of Zion".

NOTE: The International Jew by Henry Ford, Sr. is a series of articles printed in Ford’s newspaper The Dearborn Independent during the years 1920 to 1922. His series of articles reveals quite clearly the plan for world domination by Zionism, as set forth in their Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Zionists are not a race of people but a political group, that can be easily traced through history back to the Pharisees of Esu Immanuel’s day and beyond to Babylonia, where the Protocols of Zion were born. Today the Zionists are known as the Khazarian Zionist Bolsheviks or KZB, for their history extends back to the Khazars of Russia and forward to their initiation of communism a century ago. Henry Ford refers to the KZB as the “International Jew”.

Th6 word “Jew” does not appear in any of the earlier historical or biblical writings, as it was first coined in the 1870’s. Jew refers to those people of Hebrew descent or the Israelites of the Bible, who have Semitic ancestry. Zionists make up the political group which controls the government of the country of Israel today. Often the word Zionist is wrongly used interchangeably with the word “Jew”. Jews are considered to be Semites, therefore those who hate Jews are called anti-Semitic. Henry Ford was accused by the Zionists of being anti-Semitic. This is untrue because Ford did not hate Jews, but was only exposing the Truth of Zionism. PHB

Introduction by Gerald L. K. Smith [originally included with the abridged edition]

Elizabeth Dilling [extract from a text re. the provenance of the "Protocols"]

The Wisdom of Henry Ford [link to National Alliance overview]

Volume 1 — THE INTERNATIONAL JEW [ Preface ]

• 1 The Jew in Character and Business
• 2 Germany’s Reaction Against the Jew
• 3 Jewish History in the United States
• 4 The Jewish Question—Fact or Fancy?
• 5 Anti-Semitism—Will It Appear in the U.S.?
• 6 Jewish Question Breaks Into the Magazines
• 7 Arthur Brisbane Leaps to the Help of Jewry
• 8 Does a Definite Jewish World Program Exist?
• 9 The Historic Basis of Jewish Imperialism
• 10 An Introduction to the “Jewish Protocols”
• 11 “Jewish” Estimate of Gentile Human Nature
• 12 “Jewish Protocols” Claim Partial Fulfillment
• 13 “Jewish” Plan to Split Society by “Ideas”
• 14 Did the Jews Foresee the World War?
• 15 Is the Jewish “Kahal” the Modern “Soviet”?
• 16 How the “Jewish Question” Touches the Farm
• 17 Does Jewish Power Control the World Press?
• 18 Does This Explain Jewish Political Power?
• 19 The All-Jewish Mark on “Red Russia”
• 20 Jewish Testimony in Favor of Bolshevism

Volume 2 — JEWISH ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES [ Preface ]

• 21 How Jews in the U.S. Conceal Their Strength
• 22 Jewish Testimony on “Are Jews a Nation?”
• 23 Jew Versus Non-Jew in New York Finance
• 24 The High and Low of Jewish Money Power
• 25 “Disraeli of America”—A Jew of Super-Power
• 26 The Scope of Jewish Dictatorship in the U.S.
• 27 Jewish Copper Kings Reap Rich War-Profits
• 28 Jewish Control of the American Theater
• 29 The Rise of the First Jewish Theatrical Trust
• 30 How Jews Capitalized a Protest Against Jews
• 31 The Jewish Aspect of the “Movie” Problem
• 32 Jewish Supremacy in Motion Picture World
• 33 Rule of the Jewish Kehillah Grips New York
• 34 The Jewish Demand for “Rights” in America
• 35 “Jewish Rights” Clash With American Rights
• 36 “Jewish Rights” to Put Studies Out of Schools
• 37 Disraeli—British Premier, Portrays the Jews
• 38 Taft Once Tried to Resist Jews—and Failed
• 39 When Editors Were Independent of the Jews
• 40 Why the Jews Dislike the Morgenthau Report
• 41 Jews Use the Peace Conference to Bind Poland
• 42 The Present Status of the Jewish Question

Volume 3 — JEWISH INFLUENCES IN AMERICAN LIFE [ Preface ]

• 43 The Jews and the “Religious Persecution” Cry
• 44 Are the Jews Victims or Persecutors?
• 45 Jewish Gamblers Corrupt American Baseball
• 46 Jewish Degradation of American Baseball
• 47 Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music
• 48 How the Jewish Song Trust Makes You Sing
• 49 Jewish Hot-Beds of Bolshevism in the U.S.
• 50 Jew Trades Link With World Revolutionaries
• 51 Will Jewish Zionism Bring Armageddon?
• 52 How the Jews Use Power—By an Eyewitness
• 53 How Jews Ruled and Ruined Tammany Hall
• 54 Jew Wires Direct Tammany’s Gentile Puppets
• 55 B’nai B’rith Leader Discusses the Jews
• 56 Dr. Levy, a Jew, Admits His People’s Error
• 57 Jewish Idea in American Monetary Affairs
• 58 Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve Plan
• 59 Jewish Idea of Central Bank for America
• 60 How Jewish International Finance Functions
• 61 Jewish Power and America’s Money Famine

Volume 4 — ASPECTS OF JEWISH POWER IN THE UNITED STATES [ Preface ]

• 62 How Jews Gained American Liquor Control
• 63 Gigantic Jewish Liquor Trust and Its Career
• 64 The Jewish Element in Bootlegging Evil
• 65 Angles of Jewish Influence in American Life
• 66 The Jews’ Complaint Against “Americanism”
• 67 The Jewish Associates of Benedict Arnold
• 68 Benedict Arnold and Jewish Aid in Shady Deal
• 69 Arnold and His Jewish Aids at West Point
• 70 The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names
• 71 Jewish “Kol Nidre” and “Eli, Eli” Explained
• 72 Jews as New York Magistrates See Them
• 73 Jews Are Silent, the National Voice Is Heard
• 74 What Jews Attempted Where They Had Power
• 75 The Jewish Question in Current Testimony
• 76 America’s Jewish Enigma—Louis Marshall
• 77 The Economic Plans of International Jews
• 78 A Jew Sees His People As Others See Them
• 79 Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem
• 80 An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Problem

Introduction by Gerald L. K. Smith

The International Jew

At the apex of his business career Henry Ford, the industrial genius sensed that a terrific effort was being made to take his business from him and manipulate it into the hands of the money-changers. Mr. Ford had the impression that these manipulators were being engineered by powerful Jewish financiers.

He called to his office the most intelligent research men within his acquaintance. He commissioned them to make a thorough study of the International Jew and publish their findings in "The Dearborn Independent," which at that time was the official organ of the Ford Motor Company. No expense was spared, and it is estimated that literally millions of dollars were spent by Mr. Ford on this project. The original articles were carried first in "The Dearborn Independent," and then published in book form.

I have in my possession every copy of "The Dearborn Independent." This complete set is beautifully bound in Morocco leather and was given to me by an inner-circle member of Mr. Ford's personal staff.

When the report on "The International Jew" was originally published it opened each chapter with a text taken from "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," or from the published statements of world prominent Jews. The moment the manuscripts dealing with the Jewish problem reached the public, a terrific howl went up from official Jewry. If I were to summarize the campaign of reprisal and abuse which was carried on against Mr. Ford and his Company, this summary alone would require a book. Every instrument of torture and abuse which could be imagined was carried on against Mr. Ford — smear, character assassination, ridicule, physical threat, boycott. The pressure was constant, consistent and endless. The most powerful and enigmatic pressures imaginable were brought to bear on Mr. Ford to stop the publication of "The International Jew." Finally the order came through to cease publication and to destroy the copies which were available. Jews and others went into the bookstores and bought and destroyed all copies which could be found. Sneak thieves were commissioned to visit libraries and steal the report out of the libraries. This made the book so rare and unfindable that it became a collector's item.

The day finally came when the one ambition of the Jews was fulfilled. Mr. Ford apologized for publishing "The International Jew" and blamed subordinates for the deed.

In 1940 I interviewed Mr. Ford on numerous occasions. In fact, on the day before his first automobile was put under glass, he and Mrs. Ford invited Mrs. Smith and myself to be their guests at Dearborn. On this occasion he told me the whole story of his first car and how he happened to make it. Among the precious souvenirs which have come to Mrs. Smith and myself is a New Testament autographed by Mr. Ford, and handwritten letters from Mrs. Ford commenting favorably on some of my speeches and expressing in her own handwriting Mr. Ford's appreciation for my activities.

It was on the occasion of one of these personal visits with Mr. Ford that he gave me a sensational and shocking report. He said: "Mr. Smith, my apology for publishing 'The International Jew' was given great publicity, but I did not sign that apology. It was signed by Harry Bennett."

For the information of the reader Harry Bennett was a very officious and aggressive employee of the Ford Motor Company. He presumed his way into the confidence of Mr. Ford and later became known as an enigmatic and obnoxious personality. Space will not permit a thorough discussion of the activities of Harry Bennett. Mr. Ford's personal secretary for 34 years, Mr. Ernest Liebold, told me that one of the worst things that ever happened to the Ford Motor Company was the employment of Harry Bennett. For a certain period of time Bennett exerted virtually a dictatorial control over the affairs of the Company. His alleged deeds, if summarized might make rather a scandalous book.

When Mr. Ford told me that he had not signed the apology, it seemed almost unbelievable. In fact, I could scarcely believe my own ears. Furthermore, on the occasion of this same visit, Mr. Ford said: "Mr. Smith, I hope to republish 'The International Jew' again some time." He showed no signs of regret for having published it in the beginning.

I did not report this conversation even to my most faithful followers because the original "apology" had been so thoroughly publicized that I knew it would be difficult to make people believe what I had heard from Mr. Ford's own lips.

After Mr. Ford died, the man Harry Bennett evidently was very much disillusioned and embittered by the fact that he did not share generously in the inheritance. He collaborated with a Jew by the name of Paul Marcus in the writing of a book entitled '"We Never Called Him Henry."

Here is Mr. Bennett's own story concerning the much publicized "apology" Mr. Ford is supposed to have made for exposing the machinations of the International Jew. Here are Mr. Bennett's own words:

"I got in touch with Arthur Brisbane, and through him learned that the American Jewish Committee could settle the matter. I entered into negotiations with Samuel Untermeyer and Louis Marshall of that organization, and with Brisbane. They drew up the now-famous 'apology,' which was to be the basis for a settlement. In this formal statement, it was said that Mr. Ford would see to it that no more anti-Semitic material circulated in his name and that he would call in all undistributed copies of 'The International Jew,' which were booklet reprints of the (Dearborn) Independent's articles. For the rest, the 'apology' said that Mr. Ford had had no knowledge of what had been published in the Dearborn Independent, and was 'shocked' and 'mortified' to learn about it.

"Arthur Brisbane brought this statement to me at 1710 Broadway. I phoned Mr. Ford. I told him an 'apology' had been drawn up, and added 'It's pretty bad, Mr. Ford.' I tried to read it to him over the phone, but he stopped me.

"So I signed Mr. Ford's signature to the document. I had always been able to sign his name as realistically as he could himself. I sent the statement to Untermeyer and Marshall. The signature was verified, and the case was closed.

"All this was done without Mr. Ford's taking anyone else into his confidence. Edsel knew nothing about it, and Cameron and Senator Reed heard about it by reading the papers.

"Cameron's reaction was quoted by the newspaper: 'It's all news to me and I cannot believe it is true'."

Later, Mr. Bennett's story appeared in abbreviated form in True Magazine. The above quotation appeared on page 125 of that magazine for October, 1951.

I give the reader this information in order that he may read what follows without the risk of any deception concerning the Ford apology.

To summarize:

1. The press quoted Mr. Ford as apologizing for the publication of "The International Jew."

2. Mr. Ford told me in the presence of Mrs. Ford, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Ernest Liebold (his secretary for 34 years) that he hoped to republish it and that he did not sign the apology.

3. Mr. Bennett, who at one time was one of the three most powerful individuals connected with the Ford Motor Company, admits that Mr. Ford did not sign the apology but that he (Bennett) copied Mr. Ford's signature with accuracy and that this signature is the only one which appeared on the formal apology.

As far as I am concerned, I am willing to base my Conclusions relative to the report ("The International Jew") on the personal statement which Mr. Ford made to me.

Whatever the case may be, the report in its original form as well as the abridged edition herewith, speaks for itself and is supported by the logic of its contents.

Concerning "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" Mr. Ford said on February 17, 1921: "The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on . . . They have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now."

It must be observed that when Mr. Ford made this statement concerning the Protocols in relationship to his publication "The International Jew," this document, which is allegedly the secret minutes of the Elders of Zion, was only 16 years old. The Jews had advertised to the world that "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" were forgeries. Mr. Ford wasted no time arguing this question. He merely said to his friends: "No matter what they are, they fit what is going on."

Some students of the situation have pointed out that even the word "forgery" implies that the object referred to is an accurate reproduction of the original. For that reason every student of the Jewish problem should have a copy of "The Protocols of the Learned Eiders of Zion." Copies may be obtained by addressing orders to the Christian Nationalist Crusade, P. O. Box 27895, Los Angeles 27, California. Price 50c. [This address may no longer be active. -- ed.]

In his book entitled "My Life and Work," which was published in 1922, Mr. Ford comments on his "International Jew" series with the following words:

"Readers of our articles will see at once that we are not actuated by any kind of prejudice, except it may be a prejudice in favor of the principles which have made our civilization.

"There had been observed in this country certain streams of influence which were causing a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct; business was departing from its old-time substantial soundness; a general letting-down of standards were felt everywhere. It was not the robust coarseness of the white man, the rude indelicacy, say, of Shakespeare's characters, but a nasty Orientalism which has insidiously affected every channel of expression — and to such an extent that it was time to challenge it. The fact that these influences are all traceable to one racial source is a fact to be reckoned with . . . Our work does not pretend to say the last word on the Jew in America. It says only the word which describes his present impress on this country. When that impress is changed, the report can be changed . . . Our opposition is only to ideas, false ideas, which are sapping the moral stamina of the people. These ideas proceed from easily identified sources, they are promulgated by easily discoverable methods and they are controlled by mere exposure.

"When people learn to identify the source and nature of the influence swirling around them, it is sufficient. Let the American people once understand that it is not natural degeneracy but calculated subversion that afflicts us, and they are safe.

"The explanation is the cure. This work was taken up without personal motives. When it reached a stage where we believed the American people could grasp the key, we let it rest for the time. Our enemies say that we began it for revenge and that we laid it down in fear. Time will show that our critics (the Jews) are merely dealing in evasion because they dare not tackle the main question."

No mature-minded thinker — in fact, no honest reader, could question Mr. Ford's logic as summarized above. I agree completely with Mr. Ford in his expressed convictions that all America and the world needs is to know the truth "and the truth shall set us free."

When Henry Ford printed the articles known as the "International Jew", the Talmudists went into hysteria. If you are interested in the gloatings on how Ford was brought to his knees presumably, and made to publicly apologize, one interesting source is Volume I of "LOUIS MARSHALL — Champion of Liberty — Selected Papers and Addresses", put out by the Jewish Publication Society of America in 1957.

LOUIS MARSHALL was one of Jacob Schiff's cohorts in founding the AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE of world financial and industrial Jewish powers. A book could be written on the powers wielded by him and his sons and their communistic Marshall Foundation. In the "House Committee on Un-American Activities Dies Report: Communist Front Organizations", there are no less than 27 listings. Back in 1938 and 1939 when I did considerable speaking in Detroit, I used to be entertained at the executives' table at the Ford plant.

Harry Bennett, personnel director for Henry Ford (who afterwards was cowed and wrote a pro-Jewish screed) showed me the picture of the Jews in a huge picture he had in his office of the Ford Riot they stirred. A truck load of typewriters and used tables was sent me for my office by the Red Squad, at Ford direction. Bennett described how the Jews had driven Ford off the road in his car in an effort to kill him and how his wife had plead with him to cease his Jewish exposures and live for her sake. For this reason he retracted.

"THE CRAWL"?

Gloatingly, on p. 376 of Vol. I of the Marshall book, is the statement extracted from Henry Ford. It is preceded by Marshall's communication with Sam Untermyer, etc. Ford's apology includes his plea that he had been too busy to know what was being printed in his Dearborn Independent and had delegated such duties to men he trusted but that he had "no idea that the general nature" of the data on the Protocols had been so repulsive to Jewry. "Had I . . . I would have forbidden their circulation without a moment's notice, because I am fully aware of the virtues of the Jewish people as a whole " (and more praises).

Ford's statement goes on to state that: "I deem it my duty to make amends for the wrong done the Jews . . . by asking their forgiveness . . . by retracting the offensive charges laid at their door by these publications. . ." The publications are to be "withdrawn from circulation" and "that henceforth the Dearborn Independent will be conducted under such auspices that articles reflecting on the Jews will never again appear in its columns. Finally, let me add that this statement is made on my own initiative and wholly in the interest of right and justice."

This "retraction" was dated June 30, 1927.

How the Ford money and Foundation fell under the control of the Jews and their collectivist agencies is another story. FORD never changed his mind.

FORD GIVES ANTI-SEMITES FUNDS

In 1939, Harry Bennett told me he would like to have me meet Wm. Dudley Pelley whose occultism I had criticized. I had never met him. He said: "He will be coming in here any day to get money and GET IT. He is a swell guy. All that stuff is just a gag with him!" Rev. Gerald WINROD was doing an eye-opening job in his paper which had some 100,000 subscribers, I understand. He told me that Ford gave him $20,000 when he ran for office in Kansas at that time, on an anti-Pharisee platform. I was working on the "OCTOPUS", which my husband, who afterwards regretted it, had me put out under a pen name. Ford gave me $5,000 in April or May of 1939 so that I could add to my office staff which that year cost $12,000.

One of our lawyers, during the infamous "sedition trial" to prosecute anti-Communists as Nazi "fascists", stated that none of the defendants had ever been as anti-Pharisee as Henry Ford had been. A public blast was issued from the Ford staff stating that FORD had never had any dealings with the so-called "seditionists". So, a separate trial aimed to dislodge the offending lawyer, Mr. Laughlin, I was put on the witness stand and testified what is written above. This was at the suggestion of Dr. Winrod who said one or the other of us should spill the truth. THERE WAS SILENCE — NO DENIAL from the Ford organization or Henry himself.

BEFORE FORD'S APOLOGY

One may shrug off the Protocols as "forgeries" (of what?), but one cannot deny that the one supreme authority, the "LAW" of Talmudic Judaism is the Babylonian Talmud. Such top books put out by the Jewish Publication Society of America, adjunct of the World High Command, the American Jewish Committee, as "The Messiah Idea in Jewish History", etc. repeat the theme of the duty of WORLD power by the Talmudists whose religion is the Tradition of the Pharisees in written form.

"The New York World" of Feb. 17, 1921 published an interview with Mr. FORD, in the course of which he was asked: "Is your belief that the Jews are endeavoring to control the world based in any degree on the so-called PROTOCOLS... said to have been formulated by the Elders of Zion? You know, of course, that these have been denounced as forgeries or inventions. Do you believe they are genuine? He replied: "The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old and have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now."

PEACE SHIP OPENS HIS EYES

Mr. FORD had been convinced of the Jewish responsibility for World War I by two Jews on his Peace Ship (See Ford Peace Party in my "RED NETWORK", and the activities of Rosika Schwimmer and Louis Lochner). This was covered in an interview in the "Jewish World", Jan. 5, 1922. He determined to make the truth known to his fellow Americans when he returned to this country, he said.

DR. GRAY ON THE PROTOCOLS

I spoke over the Moody Bible Institute radio a number of times, at special meetings and in the Moody church. The Moody radio teacher of the Bible for many years was Mrs. Iris I. McCord who was a close and most beloved friend to her death. She told me of the incessant pressure being put on the head of the Moody Bible Institute, Dr. Gray, to disavow his belief that the Protocols are Jewry's plan in action. But in vain, although some of the incidents were most threatening. Dr. Gray steadfastly refused to change his position. The Moody Monthly for Sept. 1927 carried an article by him on the "apology", forced from Henry FORD by the then chief of the High Command American Jewish Committee, Louis MARSHALL. Dr. Gray wrote: "This confession in our opinion is another link in the chain of prophecy. As we read it we were impressed that the great millionaire went further than the circumstances of the case required him to go. To put it another way, we do not believe the editor of the 'Independent', Mr. Ford's paper, was either as foolish or as wicked as the confession of its proprietor would make him appear. We believe he had good grounds for publishing some of the things about the Jews which he did publish, and that whether Mr. Ford was aware of it or not he, Mr. Ford, might have found corroborative evidence thereof had he looked for it. Indeed, the pressure brought to bear upon Mr. Ford to make his confession was in itself such corroborative evidence. The pressure came from the Jews — all over the world, and in the face of it Mr. Ford was panic-stricken. He is one of the richest men in the world, and of course conscious of the power that money brings with it; but he was made to feel that the Jews have more money and hence more power than he, and that in such a cause their money and their power can be quickly mobilized against an opponent, and with crushing consequences."

ADV -- The Wisdom of Henry Ford || National Alliance Main Page

Program of 25th September, 1993

 

Thank you Richard Cotten. This week we're going to look at a part of 20th Century American history that has been censored from our history books by America's enemies. An outstanding figure in the story of modern America, and central to the struggle of American patriots to take our country back, was the great industrialist and humanitarian Henry Ford, Sr.

Ford was born in 1863, a farm boy from rural Michigan who loved to do mechanical work with his hands and experiment with new concepts in his shop. He was a deeply moral man, to whom honesty, work, and sobriety were sacred concepts. And he was a gentle man, in the true sense of the word, who, in the words of writer Albert Lee, "shared a love of all living things with naturalist John Burroughs and who shared campfires with his friend Thomas Edison. Ford was known to 'nail up a door for a whole season rather than disturb a robin's nest,' and he 'postponed [a] hay harvest because ground birds were brooding in the field.' He was a man of peace, saying ... that he would give his entire fortune if he could shorten [World War I] by a single day."

Marxists hate Henry Ford. But most of the workers in his factories loved and revered him. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that when Henry Ford began his seven-year long, 5 million dollar "lesson to the American people" in 1920, he was probably the best-loved living American.

He did not invent the automobile, but he was one of its pioneers. His inborn genius for innovation and efficiency enabled him to produce the first car for the common man, the Model T. Before Ford, cars were mostly playthings of the wealthy. The Model T began its production run in 1908 and was not replaced until 1927. As Ford increased the efficiency of his plants, instead of pocketing the profits, he constantly lowered the price, which ultimately fell from $590 to $260. And he astounded the world in 1914 when he ordered the minimum wage paid to even the lowliest Ford employee to be raised to $5 per day, at a time when the average wage to the skilled workers of his competitors was far less than half that amount. He began one of the first profit-sharing plans, distributing $12 million to his employees in the first year alone. He caused jaws to drop again when, believing that useful knowledge should be used for the benefit of the people, he gave up millions by making all Ford patents free to everyone. He led a successful one-man crusade against the "Selden patent," benefitting his competitors as much as he.

Much is known about Henry Ford. A recent series of Ford Motor Company TV advertisements even features his face and quotes some of his statements as "words to live by." So why am I speaking of him on this program which is usually devoted to the hidden aspects of politics and history? Because what is not so well known today is that Henry Ford devoted years of his life and a substantial part of his fortune to awakening the American people to the enemies of our nation. You see, the movement to free America from Internationalist domination did not begin with the Chuck Harders and Tom Valentines or other Johnny-come-latelies. It certainly didn't begin with me, either, though I think it is becoming clearer with every passing day that American Dissident Voices alone dares to tell our listeners the whole truth about our nation's plight.

In 1916 Ford led an ill-fated mission to stop the slaughter of World War I. He assembled a disparate coalition of clergymen, writers, politicians, pacifists, and businessmen, chartered the Norwegian ocean liner Oscar II and sailed for Europe in hopes of inspiring the neutral powers to mediate a peace treaty. His coalition squabbled among themselves, and the forces for war proved too strong. Ford returned to America a somewhat discouraged but wiser man. He never lost his distaste for foreign wars, however, and spoke out against them and the hidden forces that foment them in no uncertain terms.

Mme. Rosika Schwimmer, one of the leaders of the Peace Ship project, was a Jewish diplomat and pacifist who, according to Ford, was more intelligent than all of the others aboard the ship put together. She tells the story of her first meeting with Ford, where he said "I know who started this war - the German-Jewish bankers." As he slapped some papers hidden in pocket of his coat, he said, "I have the evidence here - facts! I can't give them out yet because I haven't got them all. I'll have them soon!"

In an interview with a New York Times reporter on Christmas, 1921, Ford gave some further insight into his education in the ways of the world while he was on the Peace Ship. "It was the Jews themselves who convinced me of the direct relationship between the international Jew and war. In fact, they went out of their way to convince me. On the peace ship were two very prominent Jews. We had not been at sea 200 miles before they began telling me of the power of the Jewish race, of how they controlled the world through their control of gold, and that the Jew and no one but the Jew could end the war. I was reluctant to believe it but they went into detail to convince me of the means by which the Jews controlled the war, how they had the money, how they had cornered all the basic materials needed to fight the war and all that, and they talked so long and so well that they convinced me. They said, and they believed, that the Jews started the war, that they would continue it as long as they wished, and that until the Jew stopped the war it could not be stopped. I was so disgusted I would have liked to turn the ship back."

A Book for All Americans

Ford had become convinced that there was an organized, dangerous, largely secret, and incredibly powerful menace to America, almost completely Jewish at its highest levels, and he was determined to do something about it. He earnestly believed that if this menace was exposed to the light of day, that responsible and moral Jews would cast out this cancerous group from their midst. He was honestly surprised by the abuse he received from most of his Jewish friends and business associates after his educational work had begun, and we may be amazed by the fact that a few remained cordial. Henry Ford believed that if the kept press would not tell the truth on what he termed the Jewish Question, they it was his duty to his God and his country to do it himself.

He purchased what was at the time a small weekly newspaper in his home town in Michigan, The Dearborn Independent, and turned into his national voice, with nationwide distribution. His espousal of traditional values combined with a practical populism struck a chord with many Americans, for soon the sleepy weekly had turned into an influential giant, with a circulation at one point of nearly half a million. Ford lost money on the paper, selling it for five cents per copy or one dollar a year. When Jewish censorship kept it off the newsstands in some cities, he made it available through the local Ford agencies. He neither solicited nor accepted advertising - he would not have the paper subject to Jewish or any outside influence. The masthead meant what it said - Independent.

He gathered around him some of the most talented writers and researchers in the business, virtually cleaning out the editorial staff of the largest newspaper in the state, the Detroit News. He hired the best private investigators. He employed the services of patriotic Congressmen and diplomats. He despatched his agents to foreign countries to dig up the facts.

1920 marked the beginning of the publication, in serial form, of Henry Ford's research series in the Dearborn Independent. Each week, the paper carried a major story exposing an aspect of Jewish power and influence. One of the men Ford had hired away from the Detroit News, who would eventually become the head of the Independent, was the brilliant editor and columnist William J. Cameron. Cameron at first protested bitterly at the subject matter of the articles on the Jewish Question and almost bolted with a few other staffers who didn't want to touch this "forbidden" subject, but as the evidence began piling up, he became convinced that Ford was right. He was the author of most of the Independent's articles in this series, and stayed with Ford for the next 20 years. These articles would eventually be collected in book form under the title The International Jew. The articles were a sensation and the book became a nationwide success, in fact one of the greatest best-sellers of all time.

While Ford's educational series on Jewish power was running, the Independent had a circulation of between a quarter million and a half million copies per week. When the articles were reprinted in book form, eventually to fill four volumes, it was not unusual for each press run, of which there were many for each volume, to total over 200,000 copies. It is estimated that more than 10 million copies of the book were sold in the United States alone. The International Jew was translated into sixteen languages, including Arabic, and was distributed by the millions in Europe, South America, and the Middle East. Each of the 4 volumes was a full-sized book of about 250 pages, and was sold for a mere 25 cents. Ford lost nearly five million dollars on this venture, and that doesn't count the losses to his business due to several Jewish boycotts and lawsuits.

To evaluate the tenor of Ford's lessons to the American people, let us look at a few passages from his preface to the first volume: "Why discuss the Jewish Question? Because it is here, and because its emergence into American thought should contribute to its solution, and not to a continuance of those bad conditions which surround the Question in other countries.

"The Jewish Question has existed in the United States for a long time. Jews themselves have known this, even if Gentiles have not. There have been periods in our own country when it has broken forth with a sullen sort of strength which presaged darker things to come. Many signs portend that it is approaching an acute stage.

"Not only does the Jewish Question touch those matters that are of common knowledge, such as financial and commercial control, usurpation of political power, monopoly of necessities, and autocratic direction of the very news that the American people read; but it reaches into cultural regions and so touches the very heart of American life.

"... It is interwoven with much of the menace of organized and calculated disorder which troubles the nations today. It is not of recent growth, but its roots go deep ....

"The motive of this work is simply a desire to make facts known to the people. Other motives have, of course, been ascribed to it. But the motive of prejudice or any form of antagonism is hardly strong enough to support such an investigation as this. Moreover, had an unworthy motive existed, some sign of it would inevitably appear in the work itself. We confidently call the reader to witness that the tone of these articles is all that it should be. The International Jew and his satellites, as the conscious enemies of all that Anglo-Saxons mean by civilization, are not spared, nor is that unthinking mas which defends anything that a Jew does, simply because it has been taught to believe that what Jewish leaders do is Jewish. Neither do these articles proceed upon a false emotion of brotherhood and apology, as if this stream of doubtful tendency in the world were only accidentally Jewish. We give the facts as we find them; that of itself is sufficient protection against prejudice or passion."

A few of the articles' titles should give you an idea of the information in the book:

Jewish History in the United States - Does a Definite Jewish Program Exist? - The Historic Basis of Jewish Imperialism - Does Jewish Power Control the World Press? - The All-Jewish Mark on "Red Russia" - Jewish Testimony in Favor of Bolshevism - How Jews in the US Conceal Their Strength - Jewish Control of the American Theater - Jewish Supremacy in the Motion Picture World - "Jewish Rights" Clash With American Rights - Jewish Degradation of American Baseball - Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music - Jewish Hot-Beds of Bolshevism in the US - Dr. Levy, a Jew, Admits His People's Error - The Gigantic Jewish Liquor Trust and Its Career - The Jews' Complaint Against "Americanism" - The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names -- and dozens of others, a total of eighty articles in all.

Neither The International Jew nor Henry Ford were perfect. Ford and Cameron reflected the prejudices of their times when they took irrelevant stabs at Darwin and Nietzsche. They were sometimes too eager to accept quotes and documents from dubious sources, when much stronger documentation on the same points was already available. And when tremendous financial pressure was brought to bear, and when a mysterious automobile accident sent Ford to the hospital, nearly missing killing him, he did cave in to the pressure and direct one of his subordinates to sign the phony apology written for the purpose by prominent Jewish attorney Louis Marshall. His post-apology actions indicate that Ford had not altered his opinions. Despite its few flaws, though, the book is a magnificent piece of work, a priceless distillation of many thousands of man-hours of expensive research and compilation, a magnifying glass applied to the hidden sources of immorality, vice, degeneracy, and subversion.

The International Jew was available in libraries and bookstores across America. As I've already pointed out, it was one of the biggest best-sellers of all time. Henry Ford felt that his book was so important that at one point a copy was presented to all purchasers of new Ford automobiles. Yet today this book is almost impossible to find. You will not be able to buy it in your local bookstore, nor check it out at your local library. If it were not for a few courageous Americans keeping it in print and available to you, you would not be able to find it at all.

The truth is that here in so-called "democratic, pluralist" America this book has been nakedly suppressed. Is it because this book is a hate-filled anti-Jewish polemic? No, not at all. The book's tone is not at all anti-Jewish, and again and again it appeals to the reason and moral sense of its Jewish readers to put a stop to the abuses of their leaders. It is scrupulously fair, even-handed, and factual. It is because of its extensive documentation and the unassailable facts which it presents that it has been suppressed. For The International Jew is a threat - it's a threat to those men of money and power who would put a sack over our heads and force us unknowingly and unwillingly into the "New World Order" they have been preparing for us for decades. This book is a threat to those who would take away our weapons of self-defense, and who would take away our freedom and our children's future. No other patriotic radio program dares to offer its listeners this book, because they know the incredible pressures that the guilty and the powerful will bring to bear upon them if they do. But American Dissident Voices is not an ordinary radio program. We hold our duty to bring the uncensored truth to our listeners as our highest obligation.

We are proud to offer Henry Ford, Sr.'s The International Jew as our Radio Offer Number 16. This is more than a simple book - The International Jew is a four volume set, containing nearly 1000 pages of insight and research. Volume 1 is The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem; Volume 2 is Jewish Activities in the United States; Volume 3 is Jewish Influences in American Life; and Volume 4 is Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States. All are photographically reproduced and are exactly as they were published by Henry Ford and his research staff at the Dearborn Independent. Henry Ford commissioned the best researchers available to get to the bottom of the mysteries of modern power politics. The result was this book in four volumes. Its insights into the roots of today's political situation are astounding and prophetic. To any who would hope to save our country and our people, the knowledge contained within its pages is invaluable. The International Jew is available to all who send a donation of $40 or more this week to keep this program on the air, as our Radio Offer Number 16. Remember, this is the complete 4-volume set, exactly as commissioned and published by industrialist and patriot Henry Ford. Just send as much as you can afford to support this program, a minimum of $40, to National Vanguard Books, Department R, PO Box 90, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA, and don't forget to ask for Radio Offer Number 16.

Consider this. Henry Ford did not have to do what he did. He was the living incarnation of success. He was by far the richest industrialist of his day. He was loved and admired by millions. Among the common people, he was ranked with the greatest men of all time. Political power could have been his had he wanted it. But he did go forward with his investigation and explication of the Jewish Question, at the cost of a large portion of his wealth, at the cost of much of the time and energy of an aging older man, and at the cost of the alienation of many friends, associates, and even family members. He well knew that he was potentially putting his life in peril by opposing these powerful moneyed interests. Henry Ford did this because he felt a higher duty, a duty that transcended all of those considerations. Henry Ford acted in obedience to a duty which we of our generation must rediscover if our children are to have a future. However discouraging the odds may seem at the moment, and no matter how easy it may be slip back into our easy chair or into our accustomed work, we must discharge this duty: Wherever we find it, and whatever disguise it wears - whether a clerical collar or a professor's tweeds or the stylish tailored suits of the networks' talking heads - we must oppose evil.

Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to do right, and fear no one.

National Alliance Main Page

The International Jew - Vol. 1

Preface

Why discuss the Jewish Question? Because it is here, and because its emergence into American thought should contribute to its solution, and not to a continuance of those bad conditions which surround the Question in other countries. The Jewish Question has existed in the United States for a long time. Jews themselves have known this, even if Gentiles have not. There have been periods in our own country when it has broken forth with a sullen sort of strength which presaged darker things to come. Many signs portend that it is approaching an acute stage.

Not only does the Jewish Question touch those matters that are of common knowledge, such as financial and commercial control, usurpation of political power, monopoly of necessities, and autocratic direction of the very news that the American people read; but it reaches into cultural regions and so touches the very heart of American life.

This question reaches down into South America and threatens to become an important factor in Pan-American relations. It is interwoven with much of the menace of organized and calculated disorder which troubles the nations today. It is not of recent growth, but its roots go deep, and the long Past of this Problem is counterbalanced by prophetic hopes and programs which involve a very deliberate and creative view of the Future.

This little book is the partial record of an investigation of the Jewish Question. It is printed to enable interested readers to inform themselves on the data published in The Dearborn Independent prior to Oct. 1, 1920. The demand for back copies of the paper was so great that the supply was exhausted early, as was also a large edition of a booklet containing the first nine articles of the series. The investigation still proceeds, and the articles will continue to appear as heretofore until the work is done.

The motive of this work is simply a desire to make facts known to the people. Other motives have, of course, been ascribed to it. But the motive of prejudice or any form of antagonism is hardly strong enough to support such an investigation as this. Moreover, had an unworthy motive existed, some sign of it would inevitably appear in the work itself. We confidently call the reader to witness that the tone of these articles is all that it should be. The International Jew and his satellites, as the conscious enemies of all that Anglo-Saxons mean by civilization, are not spared, nor is that unthinking mass which defends anything that a Jew does, simply because it has been taught to believe that what Jewish leaders do is Jewish. Neither do these articles proceed upon a false emotion of brotherhood and apology, as if this stream of doubtful tendency in the world were only accidentally Jewish. We give the facts as we find them; that of itself is sufficient protection against prejudice or passion.

This volume does not complete the case by any means. But it brings the reader along one step. In future compilations of these and subsequent articles the entire scope of the inquiry will more clearly appear.

October, 1920.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

“Among the distinguishing mental and moral traits of the Jews may be mentioned: distaste for hard or violent physical labor; a strong family sense and philoprogenitiveness; a marked religious instinct; the courage of the prophet and martyr rather than of the pioneer and soldier; remarkable power to survive in adverse environments, combined with great ability to retain racial solidarity; capacity for exploitation, both individual and social; shrewdness and astuteness in speculation and money matters generally; an Oriental love of display and a full appreciation of the power and pleasure of social position; a very high average of intellectual ability.”

—The New International Encyclopedia.

The Jew in Character and Business

The Jew is again being singled out for critical attention throughout the world. His emergence in the financial, political and social spheres has been so complete and spectacular since the war, that his place, power and purpose in the world are being given a new scrutiny, much of it unfriendly. Persecution is not a new experience to the Jew, but intensive scrutiny of his nature and super-nationality is. He has suffered for more than 2,000 years from what may be called the instinctive anti-Semitism of the other races, but this antagonism has never been intelligent nor has it been able to make itself intelligible. Nowadays, however, the Jew is being placed, as it were, under the microscope of economic observation that the reasons for his power, the reasons for his separateness, the reasons for his suffering may be defined and understood.

In Russia he is charged with being the source of Bolshevism, an accusation which is serious or not according to the circle in which it is made; we in America, hearing the fervid eloquence and perceiving the prophetic ardor of young Jewish apostles of social and industrial reform, can calmly estimate how it may be. In Germany he is charged with being the cause of the Empire’s collapse and a very considerable literature has sprung up, bearing with it a mass of circumstantial evidence that gives the thinker pause. In England he is charged with being the real world ruler, who rules as a supernation over the nations, rules by the power of gold, and who plays nation against nation for his own purposes, remaining himself discreetly in the background. In America it is pointed out to what extent the elder Jews of wealth and the younger Jews of ambition swarmed through the war organizations—principally those departments which dealt with the commercial and industrial business of war, and also the extent to which they have clung to the advantage which their experience as agents of the government gave them.

In simple words, the question of the Jews has come to the fore, but like other questions which lend themselves to prejudice, efforts will be made to hush it up as impolitic for open discussion. If, however, experience has taught us anything it is that questions thus suppressed will sooner or later break out in undesirable and unprofitable forms.

The Jew is the world’s enigma. Poor in his masses, he yet controls the world’s finances. Scattered abroad without country or government, he yet presents a unity of race continuity which no other people has achieved. Living under legal disabilities in almost every land, he has become the power behind many a throne. There are ancient prophecies to the effect that the Jew will return to his own land and from that center rule the world, though not until he has undergone an assault by the united nations of mankind.

The single description which will include a larger percentage of Jews than members of any other race is this: he is in business. It may be only gathering rags and selling them, but he is in business. From the sale of old clothes to the control of international trade and finance, the Jew is supremely gifted for business. More than any other race he exhibits a decided aversion to industrial employment, which he balances by an equally decided adaptability to trade. The Gentile boy works his way up, taking employment in the productive or technical departments; but the Jewish boy prefers to begin as messenger, salesman or clerk—anything—so long as it is connected with the commercial side of the business. An early Prussian census illustrates this characteristic: of a total population of 269,400, the Jews comprised six per cent or 16,164. Of these, 12,000 were traders and 4,164 were workmen. Of the Gentile population, the other 94 per cent, or 153,236 people, there were only 17,000 traders.

A modern census would show a large professional and literary class added to the traders, but no diminution of the percentage of traders and not much if any increase in the number of wage toilers. In America alone most of the big business, the trusts and the banks, the natural resources and the chief agricultural products, especially tobacco, cotton and sugar, are in the control of Jewish financiers or their agents. Jewish journalists are a large and powerful group here. “Large numbers of department stores are held by Jewish firms,” says the Jewish Encyclopedia, and many if not most of them are run under Gentile names. Jews are the largest and most numerous landlords of residence property in the country. They are supreme in the theatrical world. They absolutely control the circulation of publications throughout the country. Fewer than any race whose presence among us is noticeable, they receive daily an amount of favorable publicity which would be impossible did they not have the facilities for creating and distributing it themselves. Werner Sombart, in his “Jew and Modern Capitalism” says, “If the conditions in America continue to develop along the same lines as in the last generation, if the immigration statistics and the proportion of births among all the nationalities remain the same, our imagination may picture the United States of fifty or a hundred years hence as a land inhabited only by Slavs, Negroes and Jews, wherein the Jews will naturally occupy the position of economic leadership.” Sombart is a pro-Jewish writer.

The question is, If the Jew is in control, how did it happen? This is a free country. The Jew comprises only about three per cent of the population; to every Jew there are 97 Gentiles; to the 3,000,000 Jews in the United States there are 97,000,000 Gentiles. If the Jew is in control, is it because of his superior ability, or is it because of the inferiority and don’t-care attitude of the Gentiles?

It would be very simple to answer that the Jews came to America, took their chances like other people and proved more successful in the competitive struggle. But that would not include all the facts. And before a more adequate answer can be given, two points should be made clear. This first is this: all Jews are not rich controllers of wealth. There are poor Jews aplenty, though most of them even in their poverty are their own masters. While it may be true that the chief financial controllers of the country are Jews, it is not true that every Jew is one of the financial controllers of the country. The classes must be kept distinct for a reason which will appear when the methods of the rich Jews and the methods of the poor Jews to gain power are differentiated. Secondly, the fact of Jewish solidarity renders it difficult to measure Gentile and Jewish achievements by the same standard. When a great block of wealth in America was made possible by the lavish use of another block of wealth from across the seas; that is to say, when certain Jewish immigrants came to the United States with the financial backing of European Jewry behind them, it would be unfair to explain the rise of that class of immigration by the same rules which account for the rise of, say, the Germans or the Poles who came here with no resource but their ambition and strength. To be sure, many individual Jews come in that way, too, with no dependence but themselves, but it would not be true to say that the massive control of affairs which is exercised by Jewish wealth was won by individual initiative; it was rather the extension of financial control across the sea.

That, indeed, is where any explanation of Jewish control must begin. Here is a race whose entire period of national history saw them peasants on the land, whose ancient genius was spiritual rather than material, bucolic rather than commercial, yet today, when they have no country, no government, and are persecuted in one way or another everywhere they go, they are declared to be the principal though unofficial rulers of the earth. How does so strange a charge arise, and why do so many circumstances seem to justify it?

Begin at the beginning. During the formative period of their national character the Jews lived under a law which made plutocracy and pauperism equally impossible among them. Modern reformers who are constructing model social systems on paper would do well to look into the social system under which the early Jews were organized. The Law of Moses made a “money aristocracy,” such as Jewish financiers form today, impossible because it forbade the taking of interest. It made impossible also the continuous enjoyment of profit wrung out of another’s distress. Profiteering and sheer speculation were not favored under the Jewish system. There could be no land-hogging; the land was apportioned among the people, and though it might be lost by debt or sold under stress, it was returned every 50 years to its original family ownership, at which time, called “The Year of Jubilee,” there was practically a new social beginning. The rise of great landlords and a moneyed class was impossible under such a system, although the interim of 50 years gave ample scope for individual initiative to assert itself under fair competitive conditions.

If, therefore, the Jews had retained their status as a nation, and had remained in Palestine under the Law of Moses, they would hardly have achieved the financial distinction which they have since won. Jews never got rich out of one another. Even in modern times they have not become rich out of each other but out of the nations among whom they dwelt. Jewish law permitted the Jew to do business with a Gentile on a different basis than that on which he did business with a brother Jew. What is called “the Law of the Stranger” was defined thus: “unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.”

Being dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves with the nations and never losing a very distinctive identity, the Jew has had the opportunity to practice “the ethics of the stranger” for many centuries. Being strangers among strangers, and often among cruelly hostile strangers, they have found this law a compensating advantage. Still, this alone would not account for the Jew’s preeminence in finance. The explanation of that must be sought in the Jew himself, his vigor, resourcefulness and special proclivities.

Very early in the Jewish story we discover the tendency of Israel to be a master nation, with other nations as its vassals. Notwithstanding the fact that the whole prophetic purpose with reference to Israel seems to have been the moral enlightenment of the world through its agency, Israel’s “will to mastery” apparently hindered that purpose. At least such would seem to be the tone of the Old Testament. Divinely ordered to drive out the Canaanites that their corrupt ideas might not contaminate Israel, the Jews did not obey, according to the old record. They looked over the Canaanitish people and perceived what great amount of man-power would be wasted if they were expelled, and so Israel enslaved them—“And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.” It was this form of disobedience, this preference of material mastery over spiritual leadership, that marked the beginning of Israel’s age-long disciplinary distress.

The Jews’ dispersion among the nations temporarily (that is, for more than 25 centuries now) changed the program which their scriptures declare was divinely planned, and that dispersion continues until today. There are spiritual leaders in modern Judaism who still claim that Israel’s mission to the nations is spiritual, but their assertions that Israel is today fulfilling that mission are not as convincing as they might be if accompanied by more evidence. Israel throughout the modern centuries is still looking at the Gentile world and estimating what its man-power can be made to yield. But the discipline upon Israel still holds; he is an exile from his own land, condemned to be discriminated against wherever he goes, until the time when exile and homelessness shall end in a re-established Palestine, and Jerusalem again the moral center of the earth, even as the elder prophets have declared.

Had the Jew become an employe, a worker for other men, his dispersion would not probably have been so wide. But becoming a trader, his instincts drew him round the habitable earth. There were Jews in China at an early date. They appeared as traders in England at the time of the Saxons. Jewish traders were in South America 100 years before the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock. Jews established the sugar industry in the Island of St. Thomas in 1492. They were well established in Brazil when only a few villages dotted the eastern coast of what is now the United States. And how far they penetrated when once they came here is indicated by the fact that the first white child born in Georgia was a Jew—Isaac Minis. The Jew’s presence round the earth, his clannishness with his own people, made him a nation scattered among the nations, a corporation with agents everywhere.

Another talent, however, contributed greatly to his rise in financial power—his ability to invent new devices for doing business. Until the Jew was pitted against the world, business was very crudely done. And when we trace the origins of many of the business methods which simplify and facilitate trade today, more likely than not we find a Jewish name at the end of the clue. Many of the indispensable instruments of credit and exchange were thought out by Jewish merchants, not only for use between themselves, but to check and hold the Gentiles with whom they dealt. The oldest bill of exchange extant was drawn by a Jew—one Simon Rubens. The promissory note was a Jewish invention, as was also the check “payable to bearer.”

An interesting bit of history attaches to the “payable to bearer” instrument. The Jews’ enemies were always stripping them of their last ounce of wealth, yet strangely, the Jews recovered very quickly and were soon rich again. How this sudden recovery from looting and poverty? Their assets were concealed under “bearer” and so a goodly portion was always saved. In an age when it was lawful for any pirate to seize goods consigned to Jews, the Jews were able to protect themselves by consigning goods on policies that bore no names.

The influence of the Jew was to center business around goods instead of persons. Previously all claims had been against persons; the Jew knew that the goods were more reliable than the persons with whom he dealt, and so he contrived to have claims laid against goods. Besides, this device enabled him to keep himself out of sight as much as possible. This introduced an element of hardness into business, inasmuch as it was goods which were being dealt in rather than men being dealt with, and this hardness remains. Another tendency which survives and which is of advantage in veiling the very large control which Jews have attained, is of the same origin as “bearer” bills; it permits a business dominated by Jewish capital to appear under a name that gives no hint of Jewish control.

The Jew is the only and original international capitalist, but as a rule he prefers not to emblazon that fact upon the skies; he prefers to use Gentile banks and trust companies as his agents and instruments. The suggestive term “Gentile front” often appears in connection with this practice.

The invention of the stock exchange is also credited to Jewish financial talent. In Berlin, Paris, London, Frankfort and Hamburg, Jews were in control of the first stock exchanges, while Venice and Genoa were openly referred to in the talk of the day as “Jew cities” where great trading and banking facilities might be found. The Bank of England was established upon the counsel and assistance of Jewish emigrants from Holland. The Bank of Amsterdam and the Bank of Hamburg both arose through Jewish influence.

There is a curious fact to be noted in connection with the persecution and consequent wanderings of the Jews about Europe and that is: wherever they wandered, the center of business seemed to go with them. When the Jews were free in Spain, there was the world’s gold center. When Spain drove out the Jews, Spain lost financial leadership and has never regained it. Students of the economic history of Europe have always been puzzled to discover why the center of trade should have shifted from Spain, Portugal and Italy, up to the northern countries of Holland, Germany, and England. They have sought for the cause in many things, but none has proved completely explanatory. When, however, it is known that the change was coincident with the expulsion of the Jews from the South and their flight to the North, when it is known that upon the Jews’ arrival the northern countries began a commercial life which has flourished until our day, the explanation does not seem difficult. Time and again it has proved to be the fact that when the Jews were forced to move, the center of the world’s precious metals moved with them.

This distribution of the Jews over Europe and the world, each Jewish community linked in a fellowship of blood, faith and suffering with every other group, made it possible for the Jew to be international in the sense that no other race or group of merchants could be at that time. Not only were they everywhere (Americans and Russians are everywhere, too) but they were in touch. They were organized before the days of conscious international commercial organizations, they were bound together by the sinews of a common life. It was observed by many writers in the Middle Ages that the Jews knew more of what was transpiring in Europe than the governments did. They also had better knowledge of what was likely to occur. They knew more about conditions than the statesmen did. This information they imparted by letter from group to group, country to country. Indeed, they may be said thus to have originated unconsciously the financial news-letter. Certainly the information they were able to obtain and thus distribute was invaluable to them in their speculative enterprises. Advance knowledge was an immense advantage in the days when news was scarce, slow and unreliable.

This enabled Jewish financiers to become the agents of national loans, a form of business which they encouraged wherever possible. The Jew has always desired to have nations for his customers. National loans were facilitated by the presence of members of the same family of financiers in various countries, thus making an interlocking directorate by which king could be played against king, government against government, and the shrewdest use made of national prejudices and fears, all to the no small profit of the fiscal agent.

One of the charges most commonly made against Jewish financiers today is that they still favor this larger field of finance. Indeed, in all the criticism that is heard regarding the Jew as a business man, there is comparatively little said against him as an individual merchant serving individual customers. Thousands of small Jewish merchants are highly respected by their trade, just as tens of thousands of Jewish families are respected as our neighbors. The criticism, insofar as it respects the more important financiers, is not racial at all. Unfortunately the element of race, which so easily lends itself to misinterpretation as racial prejudice, is injected into the question by the mere fact that the chain of international finance as it is traced around the world discloses at every link a Jewish capitalist, financial family, or a Jewish-controlled banking system. Many have professed to see in this circumstance a conscious organization of Jewish power for Gentile control, while others have attributed the circumstance to Jewish racial sympathies, to the continuity of their family affairs down the line of descent, and to the increase of collateral branches. In the old Scriptural phrase, Israel grows as the vine grows, ever shooting out new branches and deepening old roots, but always part of the one vine.

The Jew’s aptitude for dealing with governments may also be traced to the years of his persecution. He early learned the power of gold in dealing with mercenary enemies. Wherever he went there followed him like a curse the aroused antipathy of other peoples. The Jew was never popular as a race; even the most fervid Jew will not deny that, howsoever he may explain it. Individuals have been popular, of course; many phases of Jewish nature are found to be very lovable when known; but nevertheless one of the burdens the Jews have had to bear as a race is this burden of racial unpopularity. Even in modern times, in civilized countries, in conditions which render persecution absolutely impossible, this unpopularity exists. And what is more, the Jew has not seemed to care to cultivate the friendship of the Gentile masses, due perhaps to the failures of experience, but due more likely to his inborn persuasion that he belongs to a superior race. Whatever the true reason, he has always placed his main dependence on cultivating friendship with kings and nobles. What cared the Jew if the people gnashed their teeth against him, so long as the king and the court were his friends? Thus there was always, even through most of the severely trying times, “a court Jew,” one who had bought by loans and held by the strangle-hold of debt an entrance to the king’s chamber. The policy of the Jews has always been to “go to headquarters.” They never tried to placate the Russian people, but they did endeavor to enlist the Russian court. They never tried to placate the German people, but they did succeed in permeating the German court. In England they shrug their shoulders at the outspoken anti-Jew reactions of the British populace—what care they? Have they not all of lorddom at their heels, do they not hold the strings of Britain’s purse?

Through this ability of theirs to “go to headquarters” it is possible to account for the stronghold they got upon various governments and nations. Added to this ability was, of course, the ability to produce what the governments wanted. If a government wanted a loan, the Jew at court could arrange it through Jews at other financial centers and political capitals. If one government wanted to pay another government a debt without risking the precious metal to a mule train through a robber-infested country, the Jew at court arranged that too. He transferred a piece of paper and the debt was paid by the banking house at the foreign capital. The first time an army was ever fed in the modern commissary way, it was done by a Jew—he had the capital and he had the system; moreover he had the delight of having a nation for his customer.

And this tendency, which served the race so well throughout the troublous centuries, shows no sign of abatement. Certainly, seeing to what an extent a race numerically so unimportant influences the various governments of the world today, the Jew who reflects upon the disparity between his people’s numbers and their power may be pardoned if he sees in that fact a proof of their racial superiority.

It may be said also that Jewish inventiveness in business devices continues to the present time, as well as Jewish adaptability to changing conditions. The Jew is credited with being the first to establish branch houses in foreign countries in order that responsible representatives of the home office might be on the ground taking instant advantage of every opening. During the war a great deal was said about the “peaceful penetration” which the “German Government” had effected in the United States by establishing here branch offices and factories of German firms. The fact that there were many German branch houses here is unquestionable. It should be known, however, that they were not the evidence of German enterprise but of Jewish enterprise. The old German business houses were too conservative to “run after customers” even in the hustling United States, but the Jewish firms were not, and they came straight to America and hustled. In due time the competition forced the more conservative German firms to follow suit. But the idea was Jewish in its origin, not German.

Another modern business method whose origin is credited to Jewish financiers is that by which related industries are brought together, as for example, if an electrical power company is acquired, then the street railway company using the electricity would be acquired too, one purpose being in this way to conserve all the profit accruing along the line, from the origination of the power down to the delivery of the street car ride; but perhaps the main purpose being that, by the control of the power house the price of current could be increased to the car company, and by the control of the car company the cost of a ride could be increased to the public, the controllers thus receiving an additional profit all down the line. There is much of this going on in the world today, and in the United States particularly. The portion of the business immediately next to the ultimate consumer explains that its costs have risen, but it does not explain that the costs were increased by the owners and not by outsiders who were forced to do so by economic pressure.

There is apparently in the world today a central financial force which is playing a vast and closely organized game, with the world for its table and universal control for its stakes. The people of civilized countries have lost all confidence in the explanation that “economic conditions” are responsible for all the changes that occur. Under the camouflage of “economic law” a great many phenomena have been accounted for which were not due to any law whatever except the law of the selfish human will as operated by a few men who have the purpose and the power to work on a wide scale with nations as their vassals.

Whatever else may be national, no one today believes that finance is national. Finance is international. Nobody today believes that international finance is in any way competitive. There are some independent banking houses, but few strong independent ones. The great masters, the few whose minds see clearly the entire play of the plan, control numerous banking houses and trust companies, and one is used for this while another is used for that, but there is no disharmony between them, no correction of each other’s methods, no competition in the interests of the business world. There is as much unity of policy between the principal banking houses of every country as there is between the various branches of the United States Post Office—and for the same reason, namely, they are all operated from the same source and for the same purpose.

Just before the war Germany bought very heavily in American cotton and had huge quantities of it tied up here for export. When war came, the ownership of that mountainous mass of cotton wealth changed in one night from Jewish names in Hamburg to Jewish names in London. At this writing cotton is selling in England for less than it is selling in the United States, and the effect of that is to lower the American price. When the price lowers sufficiently, the market is cleared of cotton by buyers previously prepared, and then the price soars to high figures again. In the meantime, the same powers that have engineered the apparently causeless strengthening and weakening of the cotton market, have seized upon stricken Germany to be the sweatshop of the world. Certain groups control the cotton, lend it to Germany to be manufactured, leave a pittance of it there in payment for the labor that was used, and then profiteer the length and breadth of the world on the lie that “cotton is scarce.” And when, tracing all these anti-social and colossally unfair methods to their source, it is found that the responsible parties all have a common characteristic, is it any wonder that the warning which comes across the sea—“Wait until America becomes awake to the Jew!”—has a new meaning?

Certainly, economic reasons no longer explain the condition in which the world finds itself today. Neither does the ordinary explanation of “the heartlessness of capital.” Capital has endeavored as never before to meet the demands of labor, and labor has gone to extremes in leading capital to new concessions—but what has it advantaged either of them? Labor has heretofore thought that capital was the sky over it, and it made the sky yield, but behold, there was yet an higher sky which neither capital nor labor had seen in their struggles one with another. That sky is so far unyielding.

That which we call capital here in America is usually money used in production, and we mistakenly refer to the manufacturer, the manager of work, the provider of tools and jobs—we refer to him as the “capitalist.” Oh, no. He is not the capitalist in the real sense. Why, he himself must go to capitalists for the money with which to finance his plans. There is a power yet above him—a power which treats him far more callously and holds him in a more ruthless hand than he would ever dare display to labor. That, indeed, is one of the tragedies of these times, that “labor” and “capital” are fighting each other, when the conditions against which each one of them protests, and from which each one of them suffers, is not within their power to remedy at all, unless they find a way to wrest world control from that group of international financiers who create and control both these conditions.

There is a super-capitalism which is supported wholly by the fiction that gold is wealth. There is a super-government which is allied to no government, which is free from them all, and yet which has its hand in them all. There is a race, a part of humanity, which has never yet been received as a welcome part, and which has succeeded in raising itself to a power that the proudest Gentile race has never claimed—not even Rome in the days of her proudest power. It is becoming more and more the conviction of men all over the world that the labor question, the wage question, the land question cannot be settled until first of all this matter of an international super-capitalistic government is settled.

“To the victor belongs the spoils” is an old saying. And in a sense it is true that if all this power of control has been gained and held by a few men of a long-despised race, then either they are super-men whom it is powerless to resist, or they are ordinary men whom the rest of the world has permitted to obtain an undue and unsafe degree of power. Unless the Jews are super-men, the Gentiles will have themselves to blame for what has transpired, and they can look for rectification in a new scrutiny of the situation and a candid examination of the experiences of other countries.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 22 May 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

Germany’s Reaction Against the Jew

Humanity has become wise enough to discuss those forms of physical sickness over which it formerly drew the veil of shame and secrecy, but political hygiene is not so far advanced. The main source of the sickness of the German national body is charged to be the influence of the Jews, and although this was apparent to acute minds years ago, it is now said to have gone so far as to be apparent to the least observing. The eruption has broken out on the surface of the body politic, and no further concealment of this fact is possible. It is the belief of all classes of the German people that the collapse which has come since the armistice, and the revolution from which they are being prevented a recovery, are the result of Jewish intrigue and purpose. They declare it with assurance; they offer a mass of facts to confirm it; they believe that history will provide the fullest proof.

The Jew in Germany is regarded as only a guest of the people; he has offended by trying to turn himself into the host. There are no stronger contrasts in the world than the pure Germanic and pure Semitic races; therefore, there has been no harmony between the two in Germany; the German has regarded the Jew strictly as a guest, while the Jew, indignant at not being given the privileges of the nation-family, has cherished animosity against his host. In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore, the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war. Jewish hands were in almost exclusive control of the engines of publicity by which public opinion concerning the German people was molded. The sole winners of the war were Jews.

But assertion is not enough; proof is wanted; therefore, consider the evidence. What occurred immediately upon the change from the old regime to the new? The cabinet composed of six men, which substituted the Minister of State, was dominated by the Jews Haase and Landsberg. Haase had control of foreign affairs; his assistant was the Jew Kautsky, a Czech, who in 1918 was not even a German citizen. Also associated with Haase were the Jews Cohn and Herzfeld. The Jew Schiffer was Financial Minister of State, assisted by the Jew Bernstein. The Secretary of the Interior was the Jew Preuss, with the Jew Dr. Freund for his assistant. The Jew Fritz Max Cohen, who was correspondent of the Frankfurter Zeitung in Copenhagen, was made government publicity agent. The kingdom of Prussia duplicated this condition of affairs. The Jews Hirsch and Rosenfeld dominated the cabinet, with Rosenfeld controlling the Department of Justice, and Hirsch in the Department of the Interior. The Jew Simon was in charge of the Treasury Department. The Prussian Department of Justice was wholly manned and operated by Jews. The Director of Education was the Jew Furtran with the assistance of the Jew Arndt. The Director of the Colonial Office was the Jew Meyer-Gerhard. The Jew Kastenberg was the director of the Department of Art. The War Food Supply Department was directed by the Jew Wurm, while in the State Food Department were the Jews Prof. Dr. Hirsch and the Geheimrat Dr. Stadthagen. The Soldiers’ and Workmen’s Committee was directed by the Jew Cohen, with the Jews Stern, Herz, Lowenberg, Frankel, Israelowicz, Laubenheim, Seligsohn, Katzenstein, Laufenberg, Heimann, Schlesinger, Merz and Weyl having control of various activities of that committee.

The Jew Ernst is chief of police at Berlin; in the same office at Frankfurt is the Jew Sinzheimer; in Munich the Jew Steiner; in Essen the Jew Levy. It will be remembered that the Jew Eisner was President of Bavaria, his financial minister being the Jew Jaffe. Bavaria’s trade, commerce and industry were in control of the half-Jew Brentano. The Jews Lipsinsky and Schwarz were active in the government of Saxony; the Jews Thalheimer and Heiman in Wurtemberg; the Jew Fulda in Hessen.

Two delegates sent to the Peace Conference were Jews and a third was notoriously the tool of Jewish purposes. In addition Jews swarmed through the German delegation as experts and advisors—Max Warburg, Dr. Von Strauss, Merton, Oskar Oppenheimer, Dr. Jaffe, Deutsch, Brentano, Bernstein, Struck, Rathenau, Wassermann, and Mendelsohn-Bartholdi.

As to the part which Jews from other countries had in the Peace Conference, German observers declare that any candid student may discover by reading the accounts of impartial non-Jewish recorders of that event. Only the non-Jewish historians seem to have been struck by the fact; the multitude of Jewish writers apparently judged it wise to conceal it.

Jewish influence in German affairs came strongly to the front during the war. It came with all the directness and attack of a flying wedge, as if previously prepared. The Jews of Germany were not German patriots during the war, and although this will not appear a crime in the eyes of the nations who were opposed to Germany, it may throw some light on the Jew’s assertion of patriotic loyalty to the land where he lives. Thoughtful Germans hold that it is impossible for the Jew to be a patriot, for reasons which will presently be given.

The point to be considered is the general claim that the persons already named would not have obtained the positions in which they were found had it not been for the Revolution, and the Revolution would not have come had not they brought it. It is true that there were unsatisfactory conditions in Germany, but they could and would have been adjusted by the people themselves; the conditions which destroyed the people’s morale and were made impossible of reform were in control of the Jews.

The principal Jewish influences which are charged with bringing about the downfall of German order may be named under three heads: (a) the spirit of Bolshevism which masqueraded under the name of German Socialism; (b) Jewish ownership and control of the Press; (c) Jewish control of the food supply and the industrial machinery of the country. There was a fourth, “higher up,” but these worked upon the German people directly.

As it is possible that German conclusions upon this matter may be received doubtfully by peoples whose public opinion has been shaped by Jewish influence, it may help to quote George Pitter-Wilson, of the London Globe, who wrote early in April, 1919, “Bolshevism is the dispossession of the Christian nations of the world to such an extent that no capital will remain in the hands of the Christians, that all Jews may jointly hold the world in their hands and reign wherever they choose.” As early as the second year of the war, German Jews were preaching that Germany’s defeat was necessary to the rise of the proletariat, at which time Strobel declared, “I openly admit that a full victory of the country would not be in the interest of the Social Democrats.” Everywhere it was preached that “the exaltation of the proletariat after a won victory is an impossibility.” These instances, out of many, are cited not to reopen the military question but to show how the so-called German Jew forgot loyalty to the country in which he lived and joined the outside Jews in accomplishing the collapse of Germany, and not merely, as we shall see, to rid Germany of militarism, which every thoughtful German desired, but to throw the country into such confusion as to permit them to seize control.

The press of Germany echoed this plan of the Jewish spokesmen, at first faintly, then boldly. The Berliner Tageblatt and the Munchner Neuester Nachrichten were during the whole war official and semi-official organs of the government. They were owned and controlled by Jews, as was also the Frankfurter Zeitung and a host of smaller papers that were their spiritual dependents. These papers, it is charged, were really German editions of the Jew-controlled press of the Allied countries, and their purpose was the same. One of the great pieces of research that ought to be undertaken for the purpose of showing the world how its thought is manufactured for it every day, and for what ulterior purposes, is this union of the Jewish press, which passes for the Public Press, throughout the world.

The food and supplies of the people quickly passed into Jewish hands as soon as the war emergency came, and then began a period of dishonesty which destroyed the confidence of the bravest. Like all other patriotic people, the German people knew that war meant sacrifice and suffering, and like other people they were willing to share the common lot. But they found themselves preyed upon by a class of Jews who had prepared everything to make profit out of the common distress. Immediately Jews appeared in banks, war companies, distribution societies, and the ministries of supplies—wherever the life of the people could be speculated in or taxed. Articles that were plentiful disappeared, only to reappear again at high prices. The war companies were exclusively Jewish, and although the government attempted to regulate the outgo of food in the interests of all the people, it became notorious that those with money could get all of anything they wanted, regardless of the food cards. The Jews simply trebled the price of the goods they let go without the cards, and so kept a stream of the nation’s gold flowing into their private treasuries. None of the government’s estimates of the food stocks could be depended on, because of the hidden hoards on which these speculators drew. This began to disturb the morale of the people, and complaints were made and prosecutions started; but as soon as the cases came up it was discovered that the prosecutor appointed to charge and the commissioner appointed to judge were also Jews, and so the cases usually wore themselves out without results. When, however, a German merchant was caught, great noise was made about it, and the penalty placed upon him was equal to what all the others should have had. Go the length and breadth of Germany today, say the reports, study the temper of the people, and you will discover that the abuse of power by the Jews has burned across Germany’s memory like a hot iron.

While these influences were undermining the mass of the people, higher influences of Jewish origin were operating upon the government. The advisors of the Bethmann-Hollweg government were the great ship magnate Ballin, a Jew; Theodor Wolff, of the Berliner Tageblatt and member of the Pan-Jewish press; Von Gwinner, director of the German Bank who is connected by marriage with the great Jew bankers, the Speyers; and Rathenau, the leader of Jewish industrial-financial activities. These men were at the source of things and were bending the government as the other influences were bending the people.

The rich German Jew could buy the recognition he desired by acquiring financial power over those interests which most directly affected the ruling class of Germany, but how was the poor Jew to gain the recognition he desired?—for all Jews are actuated by the same desire; it is in them; they feel the spur to mastery. Having explored the conquest of the higher circles by Jewish money-power, there is yet to explore the conquest of the body of the nation by Jews who had no money except what they could seize in the disorder which they caused. The analysis that is given, follows:

The Jew is not an anarchist. He is not a destructionist. All this is true, notwithstanding he is the world’s Bolshevist and preeminently Germany’s revolutionist. His anarchy is not ingrain, it is a device which he uses for a purpose. The rich Jew is not an anarchist, because he can achieve what he desires by more subtle methods. The poor Jew has no other recourse. But rich and poor go jointly for a long stretch; the bond of sympathy between them never breaks; for, if the anarchy is successful, then the poor Jew shall take his place with the rich Jew; and if the anarchy is not successful, it has nevertheless served to break up new fields in which the rich Jew may operate.

In Germany it was possible for the poor Jew to thrust himself up through the wall of Germanism above him only by breaking it up. In Russia the same was true. The social system had encrusted around the Jew, keeping him in a position where, as the nations knew by experience, he would be less harmful. As nature encysts the harmful foreign element in the flesh, building a wall around it, so nations have found it expedient to do with the Jew. In modern times, however, the Jew has found a means of knocking down the walls and throwing the whole national house into confusion, and in the darkness and riot that follows, seize the place he has long coveted. When Russia broke, who came first to light? Kerensky, who is a Jew. But his plans were not radical enough, and then came Trotsky, another Jew. Trotsky found the system too strong for him to break in America—he broke through the weak spot in Russia and would extend that weakness round the world. Every commissar in Russia today is a Jew. Publicists are accustomed to speak of Russia as if it were in disorder. It may be that Russia is, but the Jewish government of Russia is not. From a mass of underlings, the Jews of Russia came up a perfect phalanx, a flying wedge through the superinduced disorder, as if every man’s place had been previously prepared for him.

That also is the way it was in Germany. The German ceiling had to be broken, as it were, before the poor Jews could realize their ambition. When the break was made they swarmed through and settled in places of control above the nation. This may explain why Jews the world over supply the energy of disruptive movements. It is understood that the young Jews of the United States are propagandists of an ideal that would practically abolish the United States. The attack is aimed, of course, against “capitalism,” which means the present government of the world by the Gentile. The true capitalists of the world are Jews, who are capitalists for capital’s sake. It is hard to believe that they wish to destroy capital; they wish to obtain sole control of it, and their wish has long been in fair way to fulfillment.

In Germany, therefore, as in Russia, distinction is made between the methods of the rich and of the poor Jews, because one method affects the government and the other the morale of the people, but both converge on the same objective. It is not only desire to escape oppression that actuates the lower classes of Jews, but desire to gain control—for the spirit of mastery pulses strong within them. German convictions on this question have reached the place where they may be expressed thus: Revolution is the expression of the Jews’ will to power. Parties such as the socialists, democrats and freethinkers are but tools for the Jewish plan to power. The so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” is really and practically the dictatorship of Jews.

So suddenly have German eyes been opened, so stormfully wrathful has been the reaction, that the word has gone out through German Judaism to retire to the second trench. There has been a sudden and concerted abandonment of office wherever the office made direct contact with the public; there has, however, been no abandonment of power. What will happen in Germany is not now known. Some regrettable things have already happened. But the Germans will doubtless prove themselves equal to the situation by devising methods of control at once unobjectionable and effective. But as to Russia, it is hardly doubtful any longer what will happen there. When Russia turns, a shudder will run through the earth.

How Gentile Germany and Russia look at the entire question may be summarized as follows:

Judaism is the most closely organized power on earth, even more than the British Empire. It forms a State whose citizens are unconditionally loyal wherever they may be and whether rich or poor.

The name which is given in Germany to this State which circulates among all the states is “All-Judaan.”

The means of power of the State of All-Judaan are capital and journalism, or money and propaganda.

All-Judaan is the only State that exercises world government; all the other States can and may exercise national government only.

The principal culture of All-Judaan is journalistic; the technical, scientific, literary performances of the modern Jew are throughout journalistic performances. They are due to the marvelous talent of the Jews for receptivity of others’ ideas. Capital and Journalism are joined in the Press to create a political and spiritual medium of Jewish power.

The government of this state of All-Judaan is wonderfully organized. Paris was its first seat, but has now been moved to third place. Before the war London was its first, and New York its second capital. It remains to be seen whether New York will now supplant London—the drift is toward America.

As All-Judaan is not in a position to have a standing army and navy, other states supply these for it. Its fleet is the British fleet, which guards from hindrance the progress of all-Jewish world economy, or that part of it which depends on the sea. In return, All-Judaan assures Britain an undisturbed political and territorial world rule. All-Judaan has added Palestine to British control. Wherever there was an All-Judaan land force (whatever national uniform it might wear), it worked with the British navy.

All-Judaan is willing to entrust the government of various strips of the world to the nationalistic governments; it only asks to control the governments. Judaism is passionately in favor of perpetuating nationalistic divisions for the Gentile world. For themselves, Jews never become assimilated with any nation. They are a separate people, always were and always will be.

All-Judaan’s only quarrel with any nation occurs when that nation makes it impossible for All-Judaan to control that nation’s industrial and financial profits. It can make war, it can make peace; it can command anarchy in stubborn cases, it can restore order. It holds the sinews of world power in its hand and it apportions them among the nations in such ways as will best support All-Judaan’s plan.

Controlling the world’s sources of news, All-Judaan can always prepare the minds of the people for its next move. The greatest exposure yet to be made is the way that news is manufactured and the way in which the mind of whole nations is molded for a purpose. When the powerful Jew is at last traced and his hand revealed, then comes the ready cry of persecution and it echoes through the world press. The real causes of the persecution (which is the oppression of the people by the financial practices of the Jews) are never given publicity.

All-Judaan has its vice-governments in London and New York. Having wreaked its revenge on Germany it will now go forth to conquer other nations. Britain it already has. Russia it is struggling for, but the chances are against it. The United States, with its good-natured tolerance of all races, offers a promising field. The scene of operations changes, but the Jew is the same throughout the centuries.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 29 May 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

“At first sight it would seem as if the economic system of North America was the very one that developed independently of the Jews Nevertheless I uphold my assertion that the United States (perhaps more than any other land) are filled to the brim with the Jewish spirit. This is recognized in many quarters, above all in those best capable of forming a judgment on the subject

“In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if this be so, how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the United States just what they are—that is, American? For what we call Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled.”

—Werner Sombart, “The Jews and Modern Capital,” pp. 38, 43.

Jewish History in the United States

The story of the Jews in America begins with Christopher Columbus. On August 2, 1492, more than 300,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, with which event Spain’s prestige began its long decline, and on August 3, the next day, Columbus set sail for the West, taking a group of Jews with him. They were not, however, refugees, for the prophetic navigator’s plans had aroused the sympathy of influential Jews for a long period previously. Columbus himself tells us that he consorted much with Jews. The first letter he wrote detailing his discoveries was to a Jew. Indeed, the eventful voyage itself which added to men’s knowledge and wealth “the other half of the earth” was made possible by Jews.

The pleasant story that it was Queen Isabella’s jewels which financed the voyage has disappeared under cool research. There were three Maranos or “secret Jews” who wielded great influence at the Spanish court: Luis de Santagel, who was an important merchant of Valencia and who was “farmer” of the royal taxes; his relative, Gabriel Sanchez, who was the royal treasurer; and their friend, the royal chamberlain, Juan Cabrero. These worked unceasingly on Queen Isabella’s imagination, picturing to her the depletion of the royal treasury and the likelihood of Columbus discovering the fabulous gold of the Indies, until the Queen was ready to offer her jewels in pawn for the funds. But Santagel craved permission to advance the money himself, which he did, 17,000 ducats in all, about $20,000, perhaps equal to $160,000 today. It is probable that the loan exceeded the expedition’s cost.

Associated with Columbus in the voyage were at least five Jews: Luis de Torres, interpreter; Marco, the surgeon; Bernal, the physician; Alonzo de la Calle, and Gabriel Sanchez. The astronomical instruments and maps which the navigators used were of Jewish origin. Luis de Torres was the first man ashore, the first to discover the use of tobacco; he settled in Cuba and may be said to be the father of Jewish control of the tobacco business as it exists today.

Columbus’ old patrons, Luis de Santagel and Gabriel Sanchez, received many privileges for the part they played in the work, but Columbus himself became the victim of a conspiracy fostered by Bernal, the ship’s doctor, and suffered injustice and imprisonment as his reward.

From that beginning, Jews looked more and more to America as a fruitful field, and immigration set in strongly toward South America, principally Brazil. But because of military participation in a disagreement between the Brazilians and the Dutch, the Jews of Brazil found it necessary to emigrate, which they did in the direction of the Dutch colony of what is now New York. Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor, did not entirely approve of their settling among his people and ordered them to leave, but the Jews had evidently taken the precaution to assure their being received even if not welcomed, because upon revoking the order of Stuyvesant, the Directors gave as one of the reasons for the Jews being received, “the large amount of capital which they have invested in the shares of the Company.” Nevertheless they were forbidden to enter public service and to open retail shops, which had the effect of driving them into foreign trade in which they were soon exercising all but a monopoly because of their European connections.

This is only one of the thousand illustrations which can be given of the resourcefulness of the Jew. Forbid him in one direction, he will excel in another. When he was forbidden to deal in new clothes, he sold old clothes—that was the beginning of the organized traffic in secondhand clothing. When he was forbidden to deal in merchandise, he dealt in waste—the Jew is the originator of the waste product business of the world; he was the originator of the salvage system; he found wealth in the debris of civilization. He taught people how to use old rags, how to clean old feathers, how to use gall nuts and rabbit skins. He has always had a taste for the furrier trade, which he now controls, and to him is due the multitude of common skins which now pass under various alluring trade names as furs of high origin. The idea of renovation gained commercial value through the Jew. In the “rag men” who blow tin horns through our cities and save the old iron, old bottles, old paper and old fabrics, we have the commercial descendants of those earlier Jews who turned adversity into success by converting the rubbish of the earth into material of value.

Unwittingly, old Peter Stuyvesant compelled the Jew to make New York the principal port of America, and though a majority of New York Jews had fled to Philadelphia at the time of the American Revolution, most of them returned to New York at the earliest opportunity, instinct seeming to make them aware that in New York was to be their principal paradise of gain. And so it has proved. New York is the greatest center of Jewish population in the world. It is the gateway where the bulk of American imports and exports are taxed, and where practically all the business done in America pays tribute to the masters of money. The very land of the city is practically the holdings of the Jews. A list of the property owners of the metropolis reveals only at rare intervals a Gentile name. No wonder that Jewish writers, viewing this unprecedented prosperity, this unchecked growth in wealth and power, exclaim enthusiastically that the United States is the Promised Land foretold by the prophets, and New York the New Jerusalem. Some have gone even further and described the peaks of the Rockies as “the mountains of Zion,” and with reason, too, if the mining and coastal wealth of the Jews is considered.

The new waterways proposal, which will make an ocean port of practically every great city on the Great Lakes and take from New York the prestige she has maintained by being the gateway toward which the principal railways narrowed, is being strongly protested at this time. And the strongest motive in opposing this most obvious betterment is that so much wealth counted in New York is not wealth at all, but fictitious values depending solely on New York remaining New York. When anything comes which will make New York merely a city on the coast, and not the city where the great taxers sit to levy their tribute, much Jewish wealth will decrease. It was fabulous before the war. What it is now the statisticians will hardly undertake to say.

In fifty years the increase in the Jewish population of the United States has been from 50,000 to more than 3,300,000. In the British Isles there are only 300,000, in Palestine only 100,000. It is fortunate for the Jew himself that in Great Britain his numbers are not greater, for the large and evident control he exercises in great matters would sometimes make it inconvenient for the poorer Jew, if he were abroad in England in large numbers. An unusually well-informed Briton says that anti-Semitism is always ready to break out in England upon sufficient cause, but it cannot break out against the inaccessible rich Jews who control in politics and international finance. It us probably true that the commonest real cause of anti-Semitism is the action of the international Jew who is often unknown and always secure, but the innocent victim of it is the poor Jew. Anti-Semitism, however, will be considered in the next article.

The figures representing Jewish population in Great Britain and the United States indicate that the colossal power wielded by international Jewish financiers is neither consequent nor dependent upon their number. The arresting fact about the Jew is his world-wide unchallenged power, coupled with comparative numerical inferiority. There are only about 14,000,000 Jews in the world; they are about as numerous as the Koreans. This comparison of their numbers with the Koreans will illustrate still more vividly the phenomenon of their power.

In the time of George Washington there were about 4,000 Jews in the country, most of them well-to-do traders. For the most part they favored the American side. Haym Salomon helped the Colonies out with the loan of his entire fortune at a critical moment. But they never assimilated, they did not take up the usual employments nor farming, they never seemed to care for the worry of manufacturing things, but only for the selling of them after they were made.

It is only of recent years the Jew has shown any capacity for manufacturing, and most of what he now engages in has grown up as an adjunct to his merchandising plans. By manufacturing, he saves a profit. The result has not been a decrease in cost to the public, but an increase. It is characteristic of Jewish business methods that economies are for the sake of the business, not for the sake of the public. The commodities in which there have been the most inexcusable and exorbitant increases in prices to the public, and the lines of business which have been most quickly frightened into lower prices without any explanatory change in the general situation, have been those lines in which Jews exercise the widest control.

Business to the Jewish mind is money; what the successful Jew may do with the money after he gets it is another matter, but in the getting of it he never permits “idealistic slush” to interfere with the dollar. His dollar of profit is never “clipped” by any of the voluntary reforms by which a few men are trying to ameliorate the condition of the workers.

This is not by any means due to the hardness of the Jewish heart, but to the hardness of the Jewish view of business. Business is to it a matter of goods and money, not of people. If you are in distress and suffering, the Jewish heart would have sympathy for you; but if your house were involved in the matter, you and your house would be two separate entities; the Jew would naturally find it difficult, in his theory of business, to humanize the house; he would deal with it after a manner which other people would call “hard,” but he would not feel the charge to be just; he would say that it was only “business.”

It is probably this way that the Jewish “sweatshops” of New York may be explained. When the susceptible people of the nation commiserated the poor Jews of the New York sweatshops, they for the most part did not know that the inventors and operators of the “sweatshop” method were themselves Jews. Indeed, while it is the boast of our country that no race or color or creed is persecuted here, but liberty is insured to all, still it is a fact which every special investigator has noted that the only heartless treatment ever accorded the Jew in the United States came from his own people, his overseers and masters. And yet there is no evidence that either the “sweater” or the “sweated” ever thought of it as inhumanity or as “heartless.” It was “business.” The “sweated” lived in the hope of having a roomful of people sewing for him or her some day. Their endlessly vital interest in “business” and their unflagging ambition to get further up the ladder and become masters in their own sweatshop, enabled them to work without the slightest sense of oppression or injustice which, after all, is the sorest thing about poverty. The Jews never regard work as a calamity, but neither do they regard subordinate positions as permanently theirs. Thus, they spend their energies in getting up and out rather than in lamenting the inconveniences of the place where they are and trying to improve it.

All this is individually excellent but socially harmful. The result is that, until recently, the lower ranges of employment were wholly unsupervised, and the higher circles never felt the necessity of devising industrial reforms and benefits. The record of the great Jews in charity is very noble; their record in industrial reforms is nil. With commendable sympathy toward their own people, they will donate a part of their profits to rectify some of the human need resulting from the method by which they made their profits, but as for reforming the method by which they get their profits in order that the resulting need might be diminished or prevented, apparently it has never occurred to them. At least, while there are many charitable names among the wealthier Jews, there are no names that stand for an actual, practical humanizing of industry, its methods and its returns.

This, of course, is unfortunate; but it is intelligible; more than that, it is explanatory of many things for which the Jew is blamed by those who do not understand his nature. The Jew will go part way in sharing the results of his prosperity; he has not gone any length, save upon outer compulsion, in sharing the processes, or sharing wealth in the making. And while the social effect is the same as if this were done out of cruel insensibility and inhumanity, still it must be said that mostly it is done not out of such feelings, but out of the Jew’s ingrain conception of the game of business. Some proposals of industrial reform appear as crazy to him as would a proposal to credit one baseball batter’s hit to his opponent’s score, just as a matter of humanity.

The American Jew does not assimilate. This is stated, not to blame him, but merely as a fact. The Jew could merge with the people of America if he desired, but he doesn’t. If there is any prejudice existing against him in America, aside from the sense of inquiry which his colossal success engenders, it is because of his aloofness. The Jew is not objectionable in his person, creed, or race. His spiritual ideals are shared by the world. But still he does not assimilate; he cultivates by his exclusiveness the feeling that he does not “belong.” This is his privilege, and from one point of view it may indicate excellent judgement, but he must not make it one of the grounds of his complaint against Gentiles in general, as he has a tendency to do. It is better that he should make it clear to Gentiles once and for all where true Jews stand in the matter, as when a young Jew said—“There is all the difference in the world between an American Jew and a Jewish American. A Jewish American is a mere amateur Gentile, doomed to be a parasite forever.”

The ghetto is not an American product but the Jews’ own importation. They have separated themselves into a distinct community. Speaking of this matter the Jewish Encyclopedia says: “The social organization of the Jews resident in America has differed little from that in other countries * * * in the main, and without any compulsion, Jews preferred to live in close proximity to one another, a peculiarity which still prevails.”

To make a list of the lines of business controlled by the Jews of the United States would be to touch most of the vital industries of the country—those which are really vital, and those which cultivated habit has made to seem vital. The theatrical business, of course, as everyone knows, is exclusively Jewish. Play-producing, booking, theater operation are all in the hands of Jews. This perhaps accounts for the fact that in almost every production today can be detected propaganda, sometimes glaringly commercial advertisement, which does not originate with playwrights, but with producers.

The motion picture industry.

The sugar industry.

The tobacco industry.

Fifty per cent or more of the meat packing industry. Upward of 60 per cent of the shoemaking industry. Men’s and women’s ready-made clothing.

Most of the musical purveying done in the country.

Jewelry.

Grain.

More recently, cotton.

The Colorado smelting industry.

Magazine authorship.

News distribution. The liquor business. The loan business.

These, only to name the industries with national and international sweep, are in control of the Jews of the United States, either alone or in association with Jews overseas.

The American people would be vastly surprised if they could see a line-up of some of the “American business men” who hold up our commercial prestige overseas. They are mostly Jews. They have a keen sense of the value of the American name, and when in a foreign port you stroll up to the office which bears the sign, “American Importing Company,” or “American Commercial Company,” or other similarly non-committal names, hoping to find a countryman, an American, you usually find a Jew whose sojourn in America appears to have been all too brief. This may throw a sidelight on the regard in which “American business methods” are held in some parts of the world. When 30 or 40 different races of people can carry on business under the name “American,” and do it legally, too, it is not surprising that Americans do not recognize some of the descriptions of American methods which appear in the foreign press. The Germans long ago complained that the rest of the world was judging them by the German-speaking Jewish commercial traveler.

Instances of Jewish prosperity in the United States are commonplace, but prosperity, the just reward of foresight and application, is not to be confounded with control. The prosperity of the Jews can be had by anyone who is willing to pay the price which the Jews pay for it—a very, very high price, as a rule, all things considered—but it would be impossible for any Gentile coalition under similar circumstances to attain the control which the Jews have won, for the reason that there is lacking in the Gentile a certain quality of working-togetherness, a certain conspiracy of objective, and the adhesiveness of intense raciality, which characterizes the Jew. It is nothing to a Gentile that another man is a Gentile; it is next to everything to a Jew that the man at his door is another Jew. So, if instances of Jewish prosperity were needed, the case of the Temple Emmanu-el, New York, might be cited, which in 1846 could scarcely raise $1,520 for its budget, but in 1868, following the Civil War, raised $708,755 from the rental of 231 pews. And the rise of the Jewish clothing monopoly as one of the results of the same Civil War might be cited as an instance of prosperity plus national and international control.

Indeed, it might be said that the Jew has succeeded in everything he has attempted in the United States, except farming. The explanation usually made in Jewish publications is that ordinary farming is far too simple to engage the Jew’s intellect and therefore he is not enough interested in it to succeed, but that in dairy and cattle farming where the “brain” is more necessary he has made a success. Numerous attempts have been made in various parts of the United States to start Jewish farming colonies, but their story is a series of failures. Some have blamed the failures on the Jew’s lack of knowledge of scientific farming, others on his distaste for manual labor, others on the lack of the speculative element in agriculture. In any case, he stands higher in the non-productive employments than in this basically productive one. Some students of the question state that the Jew never was a man of the land, but always a trader, for which assertion one of the proofs offered is the Jews’ selection of Palestine as their country, that strip of land which formed a gateway between East and West and over which the overland traffic of the world passed.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 5 June 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

“The Jewish Question still exists. It would be useless to deny it The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution The unfortunate Jews are now carrying anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.”

—Theodore Herzl, “A Jewish State,” p. 4.

The Jewish Question—Fact or Fancy?

The chief difficulty in writing about the Jewish Question is the supersensitiveness of Jews and non-Jews concerning the whole matter. There is a vague feeling that even to openly use the word “Jew,” or to expose it nakedly to print, is somehow improper. Polite evasions like “Hebrew” and “Semite,” both of which are subject to the criticism of inaccuracy, are timidly essayed, and people pick their way gingerly as if the whole subject were forbidden, until some courageous Jewish thinker comes straight out with the good old word “Jew,” and then the constraint is relieved and the air cleared. The word “Jew” is not an epithet; it is a name, ancient and honorable, with significance for every period of human history, past, present and to come.

There is extreme sensitiveness about the public discussion of the Jewish Question on the part of Gentiles. They would prefer to keep it in the hazy borderlands of their thought, shrouded in silence. Their heritage of tolerance has something to do with their attitude, but perhaps their instinctive sense of the difficulty involved has more to do with it. The principal public Gentile pronouncements upon the Jewish Question are in the manner of the truckling politician or the pleasant after-dinner speaker; the great Jewish names in philosophy, medicine, literature, music and finance are named over, the energy, ability and thrift of the race are dwelt upon, and everyone goes home feeling that a difficult place has been rather neatly negotiated. But nothing is changed thereby. The Jew is not changed. The Gentile is not changed. The Jew still remains the enigma of the world.

Gentile sensitiveness on this point is best expressed by the desire for silence—“Why discuss it at all?” is the attitude. Such an attitude is itself a proof that there is a problem which we would evade if we could. “Why discuss it at all?”—the keen thinker clearly sees in the implications of such a question, the existence of a problem whose discussion or suppression will not always be within the choice of easy-going minds.

Is there a Jewish Question in Russia? Unquestionably, in its most virulent form. Is it necessary to meet that Question in Russia? Undoubtedly, meet it from every angle along which light and healing may come.

Well, the percentage of the Jewish population of Russia is just one per cent more than it is in the United States. The majority of the Jews themselves are not less well-behaved in Russia than they are here; they lived under restrictions which do not exist here; yet in Russia their genius has enabled them to attain a degree of power which has completely baffled the Russian mind. Whether you go to Rumania, Russia, Austria or Germany, or anywhere else that the Jewish Question has come to the forefront as a vital issue, you will discover that the principal cause is the outworking of the Jewish genius to achieve the power of control.

Here in the United States it is the fact of this remarkable minority—a sparse Jewish ingredient of three per cent in a nation of 110,000,000—attaining in 50 years a degree of control that would be impossible to a ten times larger group of any other race, that creates the Jewish Question here. Three per cent of any other people would scarcely occasion comment, because we could not meet with a representative of them wherever we went in high places—in the innermost secrecy of the councils of the Big Four at Versailles; in the supreme court; in the councils of the White House; in the vast dispositions of world finance—wherever there is power to get or use. Yet we meet the Jew everywhere in the upper circles, literally everywhere there is power. He has the brains, the initiative, the penetrative vision which almost automatically project him to the top, and as a consequence he is more marked than any other race.

And that is where the Jewish Question begins. It begins in very simple terms—How does the Jew so habitually and so resistlessly gravitate to the highest places? What puts him there? Why is he put there? What does he do there? What does the fact of his being there mean to the world?

That is the Jewish Question in its origin. From these points it goes on to others, and whether the trend becomes pro-Jewish or anti-Semitic depends on the amount of prejudice brought to the inquiry, and whether it becomes pro-Humanity depends on the amount of insight and intelligence.

The use of the word Humanity in connection with the word Jew usually throws a side-meaning which may not be intended. In this connection it is usually understood that the humanity ought to be shown toward the Jew. There is just as great an obligation upon the Jew to show his humanity toward the whole race. The Jew has been too long accustomed to think of himself as exclusively the claimant on the humanitarianism of society; society has a large claim against him that he cease his exclusiveness, that he cease exploiting the world, that he cease making Jewish groups the end and all of his gains, and that he begin to fulfill, in a sense his exclusiveness has never yet enabled him to fulfill, the ancient prophecy that through him all the nations of the earth should be blessed.

The Jew cannot go on forever filling the role of suppliant for the world’s humanitarianism; he must himself show that quality to a society which seriously suspects his higher and more powerful groups of exploiting it with a pitiless rapacity which in its wide-flung and long drawn-out distress may be described as an economic pogrom against a rather helpless humanity. For it is true that society is as helpless before the well-organized extortions of certain financial groups, as huddled groups of Russian Jews were helpless against the anti-Semitic mob. And as in Russia, so in America, it is the poor Jew who suffers for the delinquencies of the rich exploiter of his race.

This series of articles is already being met by an organized barrage by mail and wire and voice, every single item of which carries the wail of persecution. One would think that a heartless and horrible attack were being made on a most pitiable and helpless people—until one looks at the letterheads of the magnates who write, and at the financial ratings of those who protest, and at the membership of the organizations whose responsible heads hysterically demand retraction. And always in the background there is the threat of boycott, a threat which has practically sealed up the columns of every publication in America against even the mildest discussion of the Jewish Question.

The Jewish Question in America cannot be concealed forever by threats against publications, nor by the propagandist publication of matter extremely and invariably favorable to everything Jewish. It is here and it cannot be twisted into something else by the adroit use of propaganda, nor can it be forever silenced by threats. The Jews of the United States can best serve themselves and their fellow-Jews all over the world by letting drop their far too ready cry of “anti-Semitism,” by adopting a franker tone than that which befits a helpless victim, and by seeing what the Jewish Question is and how it behooves every Jew who loves his people to help solve it.

There has been used in this series the term “International Jew.” It is susceptible of two interpretations: one, the Jew wherever he may be; the other, the Jew who exercises international control. The real contention of the world is with the latter and his satellites, whether Jew or Gentile.

Now, this international type of Jew, this grasper after world-control, this actual possessor and wielder of world-control is a very unfortunate connection for his race to have. The most unfortunate thing about the international Jew, from the standpoint of the ordinary Jew, is that the international type is also a Jew. And the significance of this is that the type does not grow anywhere else than on a Jewish stem. There is no other racial nor national type which puts forth this kind of person. It is not merely that there are a few Jews among international financial controllers; it is that these world controllers are exclusively Jews. That is the phenomenon which creates an unfortunate situation for those Jews who are not and never shall be world-controllers, who are the plain people of the Jewish race. If world-control were mixed, like the control, say, of the biscuit business, then the occasional Jews we might find in those higher financial altitudes would not constitute the problem at all; the problem would then be limited to the existence of world-control in the hands of a few men, of whatever race or lineage they might be. But since world-control is an ambition which has only been achieved by Jews, and not by any of the methods usually adopted by would-be world conquerors, it becomes inevitable that the question should center in that remarkable race.

This brings another difficulty: in discussing this group of world-controllers under the name of Jews (and they are Jews), it is not always possible to stop and distinguish the group of Jews that is meant. The candid reader can usually determine that, but the Jew who is in a state of mind to be injured is sometimes pained by reading as a charge against himself what was intended for the upper group. “Then why not discuss the upper group as financiers and not as Jews?” may be asked. Because they are Jews. It is not to the point to insist that in any list of rich men there are more Gentiles than Jews; we are not talking about merely rich men who have, many of them, gained their riches by serving a System, we are talking about those who Control—and it is perfectly apparent that merely to be rich is not to control. The world-controlling Jew has riches, but he also has something much more powerful than that.

The international Jew, as already defined, rules not because he is rich, but because in a most marked degree he possesses the commercial and masterful genius of his race, and avails himself of a racial loyalty and solidarity the like of which exists in no other human group. In other words, transfer today the world-control of the international Jew to the hands of the highest commercially talented group of Gentiles, and the whole fabric of world-control would eventually fall to pieces, because the Gentile lacks a certain quality, be it human or divine, be it natural or acquired, that the Jew possesses.

This, of course, the modern Jew denies. There is a new position taken by the modernists among the Jews which constitutes a denial that the Jew differs from any other man except in the matter of religion. “Jew” they say is not a racial designation, but a religious designation like “Episcopalian,” “Catholic,” “Presbyterian.” This is the argument used in newspaper offices in the Jews’ protests against giving the Jewish designation to those of their people who are implicated in crime—“You don’t give the religious classification of other people who are arrested,” the editor is told, “why should you do it with Jews?” The appeal to religious tolerance always wins, and is sometimes useful in diverting attention from other things.

Well, if the Jews are only religiously differentiated from the rest of the world, the phenomenon grows stranger still. For the rest of the world is interested less in the Jew’s religion than in anything else that concerns him. There is really nothing in his religion to differentiate the Jew from the rest of mankind, as far as the moral content of that religion is concerned, and if there were he would have overcome that by the fact that his Jewish religion supplies the moral structure for both of the other great religions. Moreover, it is stated that there are among English speaking nations 2,000,000 Jews who acknowledge their race and not their religion, while 1,000,000 are classed as agnostic—are these any less Jews than the others? The world does not think so. The authoritative students of human differences do not think so. An Irishman who grows indifferent to the Church is still an Irishman, and it would seem to be equally true that a Jew who grows indifferent to the Synagogue is still a Jew. He at least feels that he is, and so does the non-Jew.

A still more serious challenge would arise if this contention of the modernists were true, for it would necessitate the explanation of these world-controlling Jews by their religion. We should have to say, “They excel through their religion,” and then the problem would turn on the religion whose practice should bring such power and prosperity to its devotees. But another fact would intervene, namely, that these world-controlling Jews are not notably religious; and still another fact would hammer for recognition, namely, the most devout believers and most obedient followers of the Jewish religion are the poorest among the Jews. If you want Jewish orthodoxy, the bracing morality of the Old Testament, you will find it, not among the successful Jews, who have Unitarianized their religion to the same extent that the Unitarians have Judaized their Christianity, but among the poor in the side streets who still sacrifice the Saturday business for their Sabbath keeping. Certainly their religion has not given them world-control; instead, they have made their own sacrifices to keep it inviolate against modernism.

Of course, if the Jew differs from the rest of mankind only when he is in full accord with his religion, the question becomes very simple. Any criticism of the Jew becomes sheer religious bigotry and nothing else! And that would be intolerable. But it would be the consensus of thoughtful opinion that the Jew differs less in his religion than in anything else. There is more difference between the two great branches of Christianity, more conscious difference, than between any branch of Christianity and Judaism.

So that, the contention of certain modernists notwithstanding, the world will go on thinking of the Jew as a member of a race, a race whose persistence has defeated the utmost efforts made for its extermination, a race that has preserved itself in virility and power by the observance of those natural laws the violation of which has mongrelized so many nations, a race which has come up out of the past with the two great moral values which may be reckoned on monotheism and monogamy, a race which today is before us as the visible sign of an antiquity to which all our spiritual wealth harks back. Nay, the Jew will go on thinking of himself as the member of a people, a nation, a race. And all the mixture and intermixture of thought or faith or custom cannot make it otherwise. A Jew is a Jew and as long as he remains within his perfectly unassailable traditions, he will remain a Jew. And he will always have the right to feel that to be a Jew is to belong to a superior race.

These world-controlling Jews at the top of affairs, then, are there by virtue of, among other things, certain qualities which are inherent in their Jewish natures. Every Jew has these qualities even if not in the supreme sense, just as every Englishman has Shakespeare’s tongue but not in Shakespeare’s degree. And thus it is impracticable, if not impossible, to consider the international Jew without laying the foundations broadly upon Jewish character and psychology.

We may discount at once the too common libel that this greater form of Jewish success is built upon dishonesty. It is impossible to indict the Jewish people or any other people on a wholesale charge. No one knows better than the Jew how widespread is the notion that Jewish methods of business are all unscrupulous. There is no doubt a possibility of a great deal of unscrupulousness existing without actual legal dishonesty, but it is altogether possible that the reputation the Jewish people have long borne in this respect may have had other sources than actual and persistent dishonesty.

We may indicate one of these possible sources. The Jew at a trade is naturally quicker than most other men. They say there are other races which are as nimble at a trade as is the Jew, but the Jew does not live much among them. In this connection one may remember the famous joke about the Jew who went to Scotland.

Now, it is human nature for the slower man to believe that the quicker man is too deft by far, and to become suspicious of his deftness. Everybody suspects the “sharper” even though his sharpness be entirely honest. The slower mind is likely to conceive that the man who sees so many legitimate twists and turns to a trade, may also see and use a convenient number of illegitimate twists and turns. Moreover, there is always the ready suspicion that the one who gets “the best of the bargain” gets it by trickery which is not above board. Slow, honest, plain-spoken and straight-dealing people always have their doubts of the man who gets the better of it.

The Jews, as the records for centuries show, were a keen people in trade. They were so keen that many regarded them as crooked. And so the Jew became disliked for business reasons, not all of which were creditable to the intelligence or initiative of his enemies.

Take for example, the persecution which Jew merchants once suffered in England. In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to decorate one’s store window with lights or colors, or to display one’s stock of goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman’s customers away from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical and unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of business. The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant bustled into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all. In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated moral law and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as a great offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would stop at nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one article to a customer, he had another on hand to offer him. The Jews’ stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He was the originator of “a quick turnover and small profits.” He originated the installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do anything. He was the first advertiser—in a day when even to announce in the public prints the location of your store was to intimate to the public that you were in financial difficulties, were about to go to the wall and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child’s play to connect this energy with dishonesty. The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it all in his own hands—which he has practically done.

The Jew has shown that same ability ever since. His power of analyzing the money currents amounts to an instinct. His establishment in one country represented another base from which the members of his race could operate. Whether by the natural outworking of innate gifts, or the deliberate plan of race unity and loyalty, all Jewish trading communities had relations, and as those trading communities increased in wealth, prestige and power, as they formed relations with governments and great interests in the countries where they operated, they simply put more power into the central community wherever it might be located, now in Spain, now in Holland, now in England. Whether by intention or not, they became more closely allied than the branches of one business could be, because the cement of racial unity, the bond of racial brotherhood cannot in the very nature of things exist among the Gentiles as it exists among the Jews. Gentiles never think of themselves as Gentiles, and never feel that they owe anything to another Gentile as such. Thus they have been convenient agents of Jewish schemes at times and in places when it was not expedient that the Jewish controllers should be publicly known; but they have never been successful competitors of the Jew in the field of world-control.

From these separated Jewish communities went power to the central community where the master bankers and the master analysts of conditions lived. And back from the central community flowed information of an invaluable character and assistance wherever needed. It is not difficult to understand how, under such a condition, the nation that did not deal kindly with the Jews was made to suffer, and the nation that yielded to them their fullest desire was favored by them. And it is credibly stated that they have made certain nations feel the power of their displeasure.

This system, if it ever existed, exists in greater power today. It is today, however, threatened as it has never been. Fifty years ago, international banking, which was mostly in control of the Jews as the money brokers of the world, was on top of business. It exercised the supercontrol of governments and finance everywhere. Then came that new thing, Industry, which expanded to a degree unguessed by the shrewdest prophets and analysts. As Industry gathered strength and power it became a powerful money magnet, drawing the wealth of the world in its train, not, however, merely for the sake of possessing the money, but of making it work. Production and profit on production, instead of loans and interest on loans, became the master method for a time. The war came, in which the former broker-masters of the world had undoubtedly their large part. And now the two forces, Industry and Finance, are in a struggle to see whether Finance is again to become the master, or creative Industry. This is one of the elements which is bringing the Jewish Question to the bar of public opinion.

To state this and to prove it may be nothing more than to establish the superiority of Jewish ability. Certainly it is not a tenable position to say that the Jew is extraordinarily successful and therefore must be curbed. It would be equally aside from the truth to say that the co-ordination of Jewish activity has been, on the whole, a harmful thing for the world. It may be possible to show that up to this point it has been useful. Success cannot be attacked nor condemned. If any moral question arises at all, it must concern the use made of the success which has been attained. The whole matter centers there, after the previous fact is established. May the Jew go on as he has gone, or does his duty to the world require another use of his success?

This inquiry obviously leads to further discussion, as well as a gathering up of the remaining threads of the present discussion, which future articles will attempt to do.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 12 June 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

“To this end we must organize. Organize, in the first place, so that the world may have proof of the extent and the intensity of our desire for liberty. Organize, in the second place, so that our resources may become known and be made available

“Organize, organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted—counted with us, or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people.”

     —Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, “Zionism,” pp. 113, 114.

Anti-Semitism—Will It Appear in the U.S.?

Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish Question in the United States or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as an Anti-Semite, in high-brow language, or in low-brow language, a Jew-baiter. Nor need encouragement be looked for from people or from press. The people who are awake to the subject at all prefer to wait and see how it all turns out; while there is probably not a newspaper in America, and certainly none of the advertising mediums which are called magazines, which would have the temerity even to breathe seriously the fact that such a Question exists. The press in general is open at this time to fulsome editorials in favor of everything Jewish (specimens of the same being obtainable almost anywhere), while the Jewish press, which is fairly numerous in the United States, takes care of the vituperative end.

Of course, the only acceptable explanation of any public discussion at present of the Jewish Question is that some one—writer, or publisher, or a related interest—is a Jew-hater. That idea seems to be fixed; it is fixed in the Jew by inheritance; it is sought to be fixed in the Gentile by propaganda, that any writing which does not simply cloy and drip in syrupy sweetness toward things Jewish is born of prejudice and hatred. It is, therefore, full of lies, insult, insinuation, and constitutes an instigation to massacre. These terms are culled at random from Jewish editorial utterances at hand.

It would seem to be necessary for our Jewish citizens to enlarge their classification of Gentiles to include the class which recognizes the existence of a Jewish Question and still is not anti-Semitic.

There are four distinct parties traceable among the Jews themselves. First, those whose passionate purpose is to keep Jewish faith and life alive at the cost of any sacrifice of popularity or success; second, those who are willing to make whatever sacrifice may be needed to preserve Jewish religion, but are not so particular about the traditional customs of Jewish life; third, those who have no very strong convictions either way, but are opportunists, and will always swerve in the direction of success; and, fourth, those who believe and preach that the only solution of the differences between the Jew and other men is the complete absorption of the Jewish race by the other races. The fourth is the weakest, most unpopular and least to be considered of all the parties.

With the Gentiles there are only two classes, as far as this special question is concerned: those who dislike Jews, they cannot tell why; and those who are disposed to fairness, in spite of the accident of congeniality or uncongeniality, and who recognize the Jewish Question as, at least, a problem. Both these attitudes, whenever they become apparent, are subject to the charge of “anti-Semitism.”

Anti-Semitism is a term which is bandied about too loosely. It ought to be reserved to denote the real anti-Jewish temper of violent prejudice. If used indiscriminately about all who attempt to discuss Jewish characteristics and Jewish world-power, it may in time arrive at the estate of respectability and honor.

Anti-Semitism in almost every form is bound to come to the United States; indeed, it may be said that it is here now, and has been here for a long time. If it be mislabeled now, the United States will not be able to work within it the transformation which has been effected upon so many other ideas that have arrived here in their journey round the globe.

I.

It may be a serviceable clearing of the ground to define what anti-Semitism is not:

1. It is not recognition of the Jewish Question. If it were, then it could be set down that the bulk of the American people are destined to become anti-Semites, for they are beginning to recognize the existence of a Jewish Question and will steadily do so in increasing numbers as the Question is forced upon them from the various practical angles of their lives. The Question is here. We may be honestly blind to it. We may be timidly silent about it. We may even make dishonest denial of it. But it is here. In time all will have to recognize it. In time the polite “hush, hush” of over-sensitive or intimidated circles will not be powerful enough to suppress it. But to recognize it will not mean that we have gone over to a campaign of hatred and enmity against the Jews. It will only mean that a stream of tendency which has been flowing through our civilization has at last accumulated bulk and power enough to challenge attention, to call for some decision with regard to it, to call for the adoption of a policy which will not repeat the mistakes of the past and yet will forestall any possible social menace of the future.

2. Again, the public discussion of the Jewish Question is not anti-Semitism. Publicity is sanitary. The publicity given the Jewish Question, or certain aspects of it, in this country has been very misleading. It has been discussed more fully in the Jewish press than elsewhere, but not with candor or breadth of vision. The two dominant notes—they are sounded over and over again with monotonous regularity in the Jewish press—are Gentile unfairness and Christian prejudice. These apparently are the two chief aspects of life which impress Jewish publicists when they look over the line of their own race. It is said in all soberness that it is fortunate for Jews generally that the Jewish press does not circulate very widely among Gentiles, for it is probably the one established agency in the United States which, without altering its program in the least, could stir up anti-Jewish sentiment by the simple expedient of a general reading among non-Jews. Jewish writers writing for Jewish readers present unusual material for the study of race consciousness and its accompaniment of contempt for other races. It is true that in the publications referred to, America is constantly praised, but not America as the land of the American people; America, rather, as the land of the Jews’ opportunity.

On the side of the daily press, there has been no serious discussion at all. This is neither surprising nor reprehensible. The daily press deals with matters that have reached the overheated stage. When it mentions the Jews at all, it has stock phrases for the purpose; the effort includes a list of the famous Jews of history, and usually closes with complimentary references to certain local Jews of commendable qualities, whose advertisements are not infrequently found in another part of the paper. Summing up, it may be said that the publicity given the question in this country consists in misrepresentative criticism of the Gentiles by the Jewish press and misrepresentative praise of the Jews by the non-Jewish press. An independent effort to give a constructive publicity cannot, therefore, be laid to anti-Semitism, even when some of the statements which are made in the course of it arouse the resentment of Jewish readers.

3. Nor is it anti-Semitism to say that the suspicion is abroad in every capital of civilization and the certainty is held by a number of important men that there is active in the world a plan to control the world, not by territorial acquisition, not by military aggression, nor by governmental subjection, not even by economic control in the scientific sense, but by control of the machinery of commerce and exchange. It is not anti-Semitism to say that, nor to present the evidence which supports that, nor to bring the proof of that. Those who could best disprove it if it were not true are the international Jews themselves, but they have not disproved it. Those who could best prove it would be those Jews whose ideals include the good of the whole of humanity on an equality and not the good of one race only, but they have not proved it. Some day a prophetic Jew may arise who will see that the promises bestowed upon the Ancient People are not to be fulfilled by Rothschild methods, and that the promise that all the nations were to be blessed through Israel is not to be fulfilled by making the nations the economic vassals of Israel; and when that time comes we may hope for a redirection of Jewish energy into channels that will drain the present sources of the Jewish Question. In the meantime, it is not anti-Semitism, it may even be found to be a world service to the Jew, to throw light on what purpose motivates certain higher circles.

If the above propositions are true, then the term “anti-Semitic,” so freely bestowed on this series of articles, betrays a worse spirit in the critics than in the author. But enough of that. There is much yet to do, and what is done must stand on what merit remains after friend and foe alike are through with praise and blame.

II.

Anti-Semitism has unquestionably swayed large sections of humanity at various times, warping the vision, twisting the characters and staining the hands of its victims, but the most amazing statement that can be made of it is that it has never accomplished anything in behalf of those who used it, and it has never taught anything to the Jews against whom it was used.

The grades of anti-Semitism are fairly numerous, and a few of them may be cited here:

1. There is first that degree of anti-Semitism, if it may be so described, which consists in plain dislike of the Jew as a person, no matter whom he may be. This is often found in people of all grades. It is found mostly, however, in those whose contact with Jews has been very limited. It begins sometimes in childhood with an instinctive dislike for the word “Jew.” It is encouraged by the misuse of the word “Jew” as an epithet, or as an adjective generally descriptive of unpopular practices. The feeling is not different from that which exists toward Gentiles, concerning whom the same notions are held, but it differs in that it is extended to the race of unknown individual Jews instead of being restricted to known individuals who may justify such a feeling.

Congeniality is not within our choice, but control of the sentiment of uncongeniality is. Every fair-minded person is compelled at times to reflect that it is not impossible that the person for whom he feels a dislike may be as good and possibly a better person than he. Our dislike merely registers the result of attraction and repulsion as they operate between another person and oneself; it does not indicate that the disliked person is unworthy. Of course, wherever intelligence is joined with this instinctive withdrawal from social contact with members of the Jewish race, prejudice is forestalled, except, of course, in those persons who hold that there are no individuals among the Jews worthy of respect. This is an extreme attitude and is composed of other elements beside natural dislike. It is possible for people to dislike Jews and not be anti-Semitic. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon, it grows more and more common, that intelligent and refined Jews themselves do not relish the society of their own people except in cases of exceptional refinement.

This reality calls for some comment on the manners and characteristics of the ordinary member of the Jewish race, the accidents of behavior which stand out most obnoxiously and of which Jews themselves are often the most unsparing critics, but these comments must fall into place later.

2. A second stage of the spirit of anti-Semitism may be designated as hatred and enmity. It should be noted that the antipathy referred to immediately above was not hatred. Dislike is not hatred, nor is it necessarily enmity. One may dislike sugar in his tea without troubling to hate sugar. But undoubtedly there are people who because they have let their dislikes deepen into prejudice, and perhaps also because of unpleasant experiences with members of the Jewish race (probably a million Americans have been brought to the verge of becoming Jew-haters this winter because of contact with Jewish merchants and landlords) may be classified as, at least, incipient anti-Semites. This is most of all unfortunate for the persons who harbor these emotions. It is unfortunate in that it unfits the mind to consider intelligently the facts which constitute the Jewish Question, and also unfits it to deal with them in a fair and constructive way. For one’s own sake, whatever the provocation otherwise, it is better not to let passion deflect the needle of one’s mind. Hatred at the wheel means hazard on the course. Enmity lives in the vicinity of the Jews more than of any other race, and the reason for this is one of the puzzles of the ages. The Jewish nature itself, as shown in ancient and modern history, is not without its own share of enmity, and it either evokes or provokes enmity where it comes in contact with those Aryan races which follow their natural impulses unchecked by cultural and ethical influences. This age-long conflict of the Jew has puzzled the minds of students for generations. Some explain it Biblically as the curse of Jehovah upon His Chosen People for their disobedience to the discipline by which He would have made them the Prophet Nation of the world. If this offense must come, if it is part of the Jew’s heritage, an old saying—Christian and Scriptural, by the way—would still remain true: “It must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.”

3. In some parts of the world at various times this feeling of hatred has broken into murderous violence, which has roused, as wholesale physical outrage always does, the horror and resentment of humanity. This is the extreme form in which anti-Semitism has exhibited itself, and it is the charge of intending to stimulate it here and elsewhere which every public discussion of the Jewish Question has to bear. There is, of course, no excuse for these outbreaks, but there is sufficient explanation of them. The Jews usually explain them as expressions of religious prejudice, and the Gentiles as rebellion against an economic yoke which the Jews have woven for the people. It is an astonishing fact that, to take one country, the parts of Russia where anti-Semitic violence has been most marked are the most prosperous parts, so prosperous indeed and with a prosperity so unquestionably due to Jewish enterprise that the Jews have openly declared that they have the power to throw those parts of Russia back into commercial lethargy again by simply withdrawing. It is utterly idle to throw denials at this statement. It is confirmed time and time again by men who have gone to Russia full of resentment against the attitude of the Russians toward the Jews, as that attitude is represented in the Anglo-Saxon press, and who have come home with a new light on the cause of these outbreaks, though not excusing their character. Impartial observers have also found that some of the outbreaks have been precipitated by the Jews themselves. A correspondent, known the world over for his trenchant defense of the Jews under Russian persecution, was always bitterly attacked by the Jews themselves whenever he stated the truth about this, notwithstanding his protest to them that if he did not tell the truth when they were in the wrong the world would not be ready to believe him when he said they were blameless. To this day, in every country, the Jews are slow to admit blameworthiness for anything. They must be excused, whoever else may be accused. It is a trait which will have to be disciplined before they can be brought to assist, if ever they can, the removal of those characteristics which arouse the antagonism of other peoples. Elsewhere in the world, it may be said that out-and-out enmity to the Jews has an economic basis. This, of course, leads to the question whether the Jew shall have to become a deliberate failure, or deny his genius, and forego his just meed of prosperity before he can win the approval of the other races—a question which will arise for discussion later.

As to the religious prejudice which the Jews are, as a rule, readiest to affirm, it is safe to say that it does not exist in the United States. Yet it is charged up to Americans by Jewish writers just as freely as it is charged up to Russians. Each non-Jew reader is competent to settle this for himself. He can easily do so by asking himself whether in all his life he has ever felt a moment’s resentment against the Jew on account of his religion. In an address recently delivered in a Jewish lodge and reported in the Jewish press, the speaker, a Jew, stated that if 100 non-Jews on the street were approached at random and casually asked what a Jew is, the reply of the majority would be, “He is a Christ-killer.” One of the best known and most highly respected rabbis in the United States said recently in a sermon that children in Christian Sunday schools were taught to regard the Jew as a Christ-killer. He repeated it in a conversation several weeks later.

It would probably be the testimony of Christians generally that they never heard this term until they heard it in a Jewish complaint, and certainly themselves never used it. The charge is absurd. Let the 20,000,000 now in the Christian Sunday schools of Canada and the United States testify as to the instruction given. There is no hesitation in stating that there is no prejudice whatever in the Christian churches against the Jew on account of his religion. On the contrary, there is not only a deep sense of indebtedness, but a feeling of sharing with the Jew in his religion. The Sunday schools of the Christian churches of the world are spending six months of this year studying the International Lessons which are appointed for the Books of the Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel and the Books of the Kings, and every year is devoted in part to the Old Testament.

Here, however, is something for Jewish religious leaders to consider: there is more downright bitterness of religious prejudice on the part of the Jews against Christianity than could ever be possible in the Christian churches of America. Simply take the church press of America and compare it with the Jewish press in this regard, and there is no answer. No Christian editor would think it either Christian or intelligent to attack the Jewish religion, yet any six months’ survey of the Jewish press would yield a mass of attack and prejudice on the other side. Moreover, no religious bitterness in America attains within infinite distances to that bitterness visited upon the Jew who becomes a Christian in his faith. It amounts almost to a holy vendetta. A Christian may become a Jewish proselyte and his motives be respected; it is never so when a Jew becomes a Christian. These statements are true of both the orthodox and liberal wings of Judaism. It is not his religion that gives prominence to the Jew today; it is something else. And yet, with undeviating monotony, it is repeated wherever the Jew takes cognizance of the feeling toward him that it is on account of three things, first and most prominent of which is his religion. It may be comforting to him to think that he is suffering for his faith, but it is not true. Every intelligent Jew must know it.

Every Jew ought to know also that in every Christian church where the ancient prophecies are received and studied, there is a great revival of interest in the future of the Ancient People. It is not forgotten that certain Promises were made to them regarding their position in the world, and it is held that these prophecies will be fulfilled. The future of the Jew, as prophetically outlined, is intimately bound up with the future of this planet, and the Christian church in large part—at least by the evangelical wing, which the Jews most condemn—sees a Restoration of the Chosen People yet to come. If the mass of the Jews knew how understandingly and sympathetically all the prophecies concerning them are being studied in the Church, and the faith that exists that these prophecies will find fulfillment and that they will result in great Jewish service to society at large, they would probably regard the Church with another mind. They would at least know that the Church does not believe that it will be the instrument in the conversion of the Jews—a point on which Jewish leaders are tragically misled and which evokes more bitterness than anything else—but that it depends on quite other instruments and conditions, which it is not the function of this article to point out except to say that it will be the Jews’ very own Messiah which will accomplish it and not the “wild olive,” or the Gentile.

Curiously enough, there is a phase of anti-Semitism having to do with religion, but not in the way here discussed. There are those, very few in number and of atheistical tendencies, who assert that all religion is a sham, being the invention of Jews for the purpose of enslaving the minds of the people of the world to an enervating superstition. This position, however, has had no effect on the main issue. It is a far extreme.

III.

Now, which of these exhibitions of anti-Semitism will show itself in America? If certain tendencies continue, as they are certain to do, what form will the feeling toward the Jew take? Not that of mass violence, we may be sure. The only mass action visible now is that of the Jewish agencies themselves against any person or institution that dares bring the Jewish Question to public attention.

1. Anti-Semitism will come to America because of the habit which emotions and ideas apparently have of making their way westward around the world. North of Palestine, where the Jews have been longest settled and where they are now in great numbers, anti-Semitism is acute and well-defined. Westward, in Germany, it is clearly defined but, until the seizure of German revolutionary agencies, was devoid of violence. Still farther westward, in Great Britain, it is defined, but because of the comparatively small number of Jews in the British Isles and their coalition with the ruling class, it is more a feeling than a movement. In the United States it is not so definite, but shows itself in a restlessness, a questioning, a sensible friction between the traditional tendency of the American to fair-mindedness and his respect for the cold facts.

Because the Question will assume more and more pressure in America it behooves everyone of foresight to disregard the shortsighted protests of the Jews themselves and see to it that the Question shall not present itself among us as it has done among other people, in its most distressing and confusing forms. It is a public duty to seize this problem at its beginning and train it up, so to speak; that is, so prepare for it that it may be handled here in a manner which will form a model for all other countries, which will indeed supply all other countries with the essential materials for a permanent solution. And this can be done only by exposing and recognizing and treating with the serum of publicity the conditions before which, heretofore, the nations have helplessly floundered because they lacked either the desire or the means to get at the great root of the difficulty.

2. Another cause of the Question appearing here will be the great influx of Jews which is planned for America. There will probably be a million Jews enter the country this year, increasing our Jewish population to nearly 4,500,000. This does not mean merely an immigration of persons, but an immigration of ideas. No Jewish writer has ever told us, in systematic fashion, just what is the Jews’ idea of non-Jews, how they regard the Gentiles in their private minds. But there are indications of it, although one would not attempt to reconstruct the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles. A Jew ought to do this for us, but he would probably be cast out by his own people if he discharged his task with rigorous jealousy for the exact fact.

These people are coming here regarding the Gentile as an hereditary enemy, as perhaps they have good ground for doing, and so believing they are going to model their behavior in a manner that will show it. Nor will these Jews be so helpless as they appear. In stricken Poland, where the Jews are represented as having been stripped of everything during the war, there are hundreds daily appearing before the consulate to arrange their passage here. The fact is significant. In spite of their reputed suffering and poverty, they are able to travel a great distance and to insist on coming. No other people are financially able to travel in such numbers. But the Jews are. It will readily be seen that they are not objects of charity. They have been able to keep afloat in a storm that has wrecked the other people. They know it and they joy in it, as is natural. And they will bring here the same thoughts toward the majority which they have harbored in their present lands of domicile. They may hail America; they will have their own thoughts about the majority of the American people. They may be in the lists as Russians or Poles or what not, but they will be Jews with the full Jewish consciousness, and they will make themselves felt.

All this is bound to have its effect. And it is not race prejudice to prepare for it, and to invite American Jews themselves to consider the fact and contribute to the solution of the problem which it presents.

3. Every idea which has ruled Europe has met with transformation when it was transplanted in America. It was so with the idea of Liberty, the idea of Government, the idea of War. It will be so with the idea of anti-Semitism. The whole problem will center here and if we are wise and do not shirk it, it will find its solution here. A recent Jewish writer has said: “Jewry today largely means American Jewry all former Jewish centers were demolished during the war and were shifted to America.” The problem will be ours, whether we choose it or not.

And what course will it take? Much depends on what can be accomplished before it becomes very strong. It may be said, however, that the first element to appear will be a show of resentment against certain Jewish commercial successes, more particularly against the united action by which they are attained. Our people see the spectacle of a people in the midst of a people, in a sense which the Mormons never were, and they will not like it. The Mormons made an Exodus; Israel is going back into Egypt to subjugate it.

The second element which will undoubtedly appear is prejudice and its incitement. The majority may always be right, but they are not always initially reasonable. That prejudice which exists now, and which is freely admitted by both Jew and Gentile, may become more marked, to the distress of both parties, for neither the subject nor the object of prejudice can attain that freedom of mind which is happiness.

Then we may most confidently look for a reaction of Justice. It is here that the whole matter will begin to bend to the genius of Americanism. The innate justice of the American mind has come to the aid of every object that ever roused American resentment. The natural reaction with us is of very brief duration; the intellectual and ethical reaction swiftly follows. The American mind will never rest with merely resenting certain individuals. It will probe deeper. Already this deeper probe has been begun in Great Britain and America. We characteristically do not stop with persons when principles are in sight.

And upon this there will be an investigation of materials, part of which may yet be presented in this series and which may possibly be disregarded for a time, but which at a future date will be found to be the clue to the maze. Upon this, the root of all the trouble will be bared to the light, to die as all roots do when deprived of their concealment of darkness, and then the Jewish people themselves may be expected to begin an adjustment to the new order of things, not to lose their identity or to curtail their energy or to dim their brilliance, but to turn all into more worthy channels for the benefit of all races, which alone can justify their claim to superiority. A race that can achieve in the material realm what the Jews have achieved while asserting themselves to be spiritually superior, can achieve in a less sordid, a less society-defying realm also.

The Jews will not be destroyed; neither will they be permitted to maintain the yoke which they have been so skillful in fastening upon society. They are the beneficiaries of a system which itself will change and force them to other and higher devices to justify their proper place in the world.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 19 June 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

“We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will promote our broadly conceived plan already approaching its triumphal goal by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion which has in reality been organized by us with the help of the so-called ‘great power’ of the Press. With few exceptions, not worth considering, it has already fallen into our hands.”

—The Seventh Protocol.

Jewish Question Breaks Into the Magazines

Once upon a time an American faculty member of an American university went to Russia on business. He was expert in a very important department 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 magazines, whose mazes of financial controllers make most interesting rummaging, 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 of 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 duly congratulated the good editors of the Metropolitan for their assistance in soothing the public 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 discussed in the drawing-rooms of London and Paris. Whether the mention of drawing-rooms was a writer’s device to intimate that the matter was unimportant and frivolous, or merely represented the extent of Mr. Hard’s contact with the Question is not clear. He adds, however, that a document relating to the Question has “travelled a good bit in certain official circles in Washington.” He also mentions a cable dispatch to the New York World, concerning 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 is 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 discussed. Mr. Hard tells us that much. If he does not go further and tell us that it is being discussed with great seriousness in high places and among men of national and international 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 situated 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. Of course, Mr. Hard says he does not believe in conspiracies which involve a large number of people, and it is with the utmost ease that his avowal of unbelief is accepted, for there is nothing more ridiculous to the Gentile mind than a mass conspiracy, because there is nothing more impossible to the Gentile himself. Mr. Hard, we take it, is of non-Jewish extraction, and he knows how impossible it would be to band Gentiles together in any considerable number for any length of time in even the noblest conspiracy. Gentiles are not built for it. Their conspiracy, 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 Gentile does not naturally suspect conspiracy; he will indeed 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 is 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 heading—“Great Jewish Conspiracy.”

The search for basic facts in Mr. Hard’s article will disclose the additional information that there are certain 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 basis for an intelligent judgement. 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. Sometimes 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 purpose of the latter. However, what Mr. Hard offers as fact is very instructive, quite apart from the conclusion which he draws from it.

Now, 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 régime. No, 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 Jewish 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 is way up at the top, sharing the utmost summit of Bolshevism 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 during their opposition of the Bolsheviks were Leiber, Martov and Dan—“all Jews,” says Mr. Hard.

There is, however, a middle party between these extremes, 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 facts as stated by Mr. Hard. He says that Jews, whose names he gives, head the three great divisions 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 how the Jews control every phase of political opinion in Russia! Doesn’t there seem to be some ground for the feeling that they are desirous of ruling everywhere?

The facts are there. What significance does it bring 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 interesting statements.

“There is Otto Kahn,” he says. Well, sometimes Otto Kahn is there, and sometimes he is in Paris on important international matters, and sometimes he is in London advocating certain alliances between British and American capital which have to do in a large way with European political conditions. Mr. Kahn is rated as a conservative, and that may mean anything. A 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; they are radicals in their own field. The men who controlled the last Republican Convention—if not the last, the most recent—are styled conservatives by those whose vision is circumscribed by certain limited economic interests; but they are the most radical of radicals, they have passed the red stage and are white with it. If 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 Hillquit. They are, in Mr. Hard’s classification, radicals. And to offset these names he adds the names of two Gentiles, Eugene V. Debs and Bill Haywood and intimates 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. Neither 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 divisions 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—American 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 movements, and the movement which operate within the movement, are 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, Judge 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 Gunzberg—a Jew” who is “a faithful official” of the Russian Embassy of Ambassador Bakhmetev, a repesentative of the modified old regime, while the Russian Information Bureau, whose literary output appears in many of our newspapers is conducted 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 documents which Mr. Hard endeavors to minimize to a position of ridiculous unimportance. And it leads to the thought that perhaps the documents are scrutinized as carefully as they are because the readers of them have observed not only the facts which Mr. Hard admits but other and more astonishing ones, and have discovered that the documents confirm and explain the observations. Other readers who have not had the privilege of learning all that the documents contain are entitled to have satisfaction given to the interest thus aroused.

The documents did not create the Jewish Question. If there were nothing but the documents, Mr. Hard would not have written nor would the Metropolitan Magazine have printed the article here discussed.

What Mr. Hard has done is to bring confirmation in a most unexpected place that the Question exists and is pressing for discussion. Someone felt the pressure when “The Great Jewish Conspiracy” was ordered and written.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 26 June 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

 “What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the Press of the whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the people.”

—Baron Montefiore.

Arthur Brisbane Leaps to the Help of Jewry

Once more the current of this series on the Modern Jewish Question is interrupted to give notice of the appearance of the Question in another quarter, the appearance this time consisting of a more than two-column “Today” editorial in the Hearst papers of Sunday, June 20, from the pen of Arthur Brisbane. It would be too much to say that Mr. Brisbane is the most influential writer in the country, but perhaps he is among the dozen most widely read. It is, therefore, a confirmation of the statement that the Question is assuming importance in this country, that a writer of Mr. Brisbane’s prominence should openly discuss it.

Of course, Mr. Brisbane has not studied the Question. He would probably admit in private conversation—though such an admission would hardly be in harmony with the tone of certainty he publicly adopts—that he really knows nothing about it. He knows, however, as a good newspaper man, how to handle it when the exigencies of the newspaper day throw it up to him for offhand treatment. Every editorial writer knows how to do that. There is something good in every race, or there have been some notable individuals in it, or it has played a picturesque part in history—that is enough for a very readable editorial upon any class of people who may happen to be represented in the community. The Question, whatever it may be, need not be studied at all; a certain group of people may be salved for a few paragraphs, and the job need never be tackled again. Every newspaper man knows that.

And yet, having lived in New York for a long time, having had financial dealings of a large and obligating nature with certain interests in this country, having seen no doubt more or less of the inner workings of the great trust and banking groups, and being constantly surrounded by assistants and advisors who are members of the Jewish race, Mr. Brisbane must have had his thoughts. It is, however, no part of a newspaper man’s business to expose his thoughts about the racial groups of his community, any more than it is a showman’s business to express his opinion of the patrons of his show. The kinds of offense a newspaper will give, and the occasions on which it will feel justified in giving it, are very limited.

So, assuming that Mr. Brisbane had to write at all, it could have been told beforehand what he would write. The only wonder is that he felt he had to write. Did he really feel that the Jews are being “persecuted” when an attempt is made to uncover the extent and causes of their control in the United States and elsewhere? Did he feel, with good editorial shrewdness, that here was an opportunity to win the attention and regard of the most influential group in New York and the nation? Or—and this seems within the probabilities—was he inclined simply to pass it over, until secretarial suggestions reached him for a Sunday editorial, or until some of the bondholders made their wishes known? This is not at all to impugn Mr. Brisbane’s motives, but merely to indicate on what slender strings such an editorial may depend.

But what is more important—does Mr. Brisbane consider that, having disposed of the Sunday editorial, he is through with the Question, or that the Question itself is solved? That is the worst of daily editorializing; having come safely and inoffensively through with one editorial, the matter is at an end as far as that particular writer is concerned—that is, as a usual thing.

It is to be hoped that Mr. Brisbane is not through. He ought not to leave a big question without contributing something to it, and in his Sunday editorial he did not contribute anything. He even made mistakes which he ought to correct by further study. “What about the Phoenicians?” he asks. He should have looked that up while his mind was opened receptively toward the subject, and he would not have made so miserable a blunder as to connect them so closely with the Jews. He would never find a Jew doing that. It is permissible, however, in Jewish propaganda intended for Gentile consumption. The Phoenicians themselves certainly never thought they were connected in any way with the Jews, and the Jews were equally without light on the subject. If in nothing else, they differed in their attitude toward the sea. The Phoenicians not only built boats but manned them; the Jew would rather risk his investment in a boat than himself. In everything else the differences between the two peoples were deep and distinct. Mr. Brisbane should have turned up the Jewish Encyclopedia at that point in his dictation. It is to be hoped he will resume his study and when he has found something that is not printed in “simply written” Jewish books will give the world the benefit of it. It is hardly like the question of the rotundity of the earth; this Question is not settled and it will be discussed.

Mr. Brisbane is in a position to pursue some investigations of his own on this subject. He has a large staff, and it is presumed that some of its members are Gentiles of unbiased minds; he has a world-wide organization; since his own modification of speech and views following upon his adventure in the money-making world, he has a “look-in” upon certain groups of men and certain tendencies of power—why does he not take the Question as a world problem and go after the facts and the solution?

It is a task worthy of any newspaper organization. It will assist America to make the contribution which she must make if this Question is ever to be turned from the bugbear it has been through all the centuries. All the talk on earth about “loving our fellow men” will not serve in lieu of an investigation, because it is asking men to love those who are rapidly and insidiously gaining the mastery of them. “What’s wrong with the Jew?” is the first question, and then, “What’s wrong with the Gentile to make it possible?”

As in the case of every Gentile writer who appears as the Jew’s good-natured defender, Mr. Brisbane is compelled to state a number of facts which comprise a part of the very Question whose existence is denied.

“Every other successful name you see in a great city is a Jewish name,” says Mr. Brisbane. In his own city the ratio is even higher than that.

“Jews numbering less than one per cent of the earth’s population possess by conquest, enterprise, industry and intelligence 50 per cent of the world’s commercial success,” says Mr. Brisbane.

Does it mean anything to Mr. Brisbane? Has he ever thought how it will all turn out? Is he willing to absolve that “success” from every quality which humanity has a right to challenge? Is he entirely satisfied with the way that “success” is used where it is supreme? Would he be willing to undertake to prove that it is due to those commendable qualities he has named and nothing less commendable? Speaking of the Jew-financed Harriman railroad campaign, is Mr. Brisbane ready to write his endorsement upon that? Did he ever hear of Jewish money backing railroads that were built for railroad purposes and nothing else?

It would be very easy to suggest to Mr. Brisbane, as editor, a series of articles which would be most enlightening, both to himself and his readers, if he would only put unbiased men at work gathering the facts for them.

One of the articles might be entitled “The Jews at the Peace Conference.” His men should be instructed to learn who were the most prominent figures at the Peace Conference; who came and went most constantly and most busily; who were given freest access to the most important persons and chambers; which race provided the bulk of the private secretaries to the important personages there; which race provided most of the sentinels through whom engagements had to be made with men of note; which race went furthest in the endeavor to turn the whole proceeding into a festival rout by dances and lavish entertainment; which civilians of prominence oftenest dined the leading conferees in private session.

If Mr. Brisbane, with the genius for reporting which his organization deservedly has, will turn his men loose on that assignment, and then print what they bring him, he will have a story that will make a mark even in his remarkable career as an editor.

He might even run a second story on the Peace Conference, entitled, “Which Program Won at the Peace Conference?” He might instruct his men to inquire as to the business which brought the Jews in such quality and quantity to Paris, and how it was put through. Particularly should they inquire whether any jot or tittle of the Jews’ world program was refused or modified by the Peace Conference. It should also be carefully inquired whether, after getting what they went after, they did not ask for still more and get that, too, even though it constituted a discrimination against the rest of the world. Mr. Brisbane would doubtless be surprised to learn that of all the programs submitted to that Conference, not excepting the great program on which humanity hung so many pathetic hopes, the only program to go through was the Jews’ program. And yet he could learn just that if he inquired. The question is, having obtained that information, what would Mr. Brisbane do with it?

There are any number of lines of investigation Mr. Brisbane might enter, and in any one of them his knowledge of his country and of its relation to this particular Question would be greatly enlarged.

Does Mr. Brisbane know who owns Alaska? He may have been under the impression, in common with the rest of us until we learned better, that it was owned by the United States. No, it is owned by the same people who are coming rapidly to own the United States.

Is Mr. Brisbane, from the vantage point afforded by his position in national journalism, even dimly aware that there are elements in our industrial unrest which neither “capital” nor “labor” accurately define? Has he ever caught a glimpse of another power which is neither “labor” nor “capital” in the productive sense, whose purpose and interest it is to keep labor and capital as far apart as possible, now by provoking labor, now by provoking capital? In his study of the industrial situation and its perfectly baffling mystery, Mr. Brisbane must have caught a flash of something behind the backmost scene. It would be good journalistic enterprise to find out what it is.

Has Mr. Brisbane ever printed the name of the men who control the sugar supply of the United States—does he know them—would he like to know them?

Has he ever looked into the woolen situation in this country, from the change of ownership in cotton lands, and the deliberate sabotage of cotton production by banking threats, right on through to the change in the price of cloth and clothing? And has he ever noted the names of the men he found on that piece of investigation? Would he like to know how it is done, and who does it? Mr. Brisbane could find all these things and give them to the public by using his efficient staff of investigators and writers on this Question.

Whether Mr. Brisbane would feel free to do this, he himself best knows. There may be reasons why he would not, private reasons, prudential reasons.

However that may be, there are no reasons why he should not make a complete study of the Question—a real study, not a superficial glance at it with an eye to its “news value”—and arrive at his own considered conclusion. There would be no intolerance about that. As it is now, Mr. Brisbane is not qualified to take a stand on either side of the Question; he simply brushes it aside as troublesome, as the old planters used brush aside the anti-slavery moralists; and for that reason the recent defense of the Jew is not a defense at all. It is more like a bid for favor.

Mr. Brisbane’s chief aversion, apparently, is toward what he calls race prejudice and race hatred. Of course, if any man should fear that the study of an economic situation would plunge him into these serious aberrations of mind, he should be advised to avoid that line of study. There is something wrong either with the investigation or with the investigator when prejudice and hatred are the result. It is a mighty poor excuse, however, for an intelligent man to put forward either on his own behalf or on behalf of those whose minds he has had the privilege of molding over a course of years.

Prejudice and hatred are the very conditions which a scientific study of the Jewish Question will forestall and prevent. We prejudge what we do not know, and we hate what we do not understand; the study of the Jewish Question will bring knowledge and insight, and not to the Gentile only, but also to the Jew. The Jew needs this as much, even more than the Gentile. For if the Jew can be made to see, understand, and deal with certain matters, then a large part of the Question vanishes in the solution of ideal common sense. Awaking the Gentile to the facts about the Jew is only part of the work; awaking the Jew to the facts about the Question is an indispensable part. The big initial victory to be achieved is to transform Gentiles from being mere attackers and to transform Jews from being mere defenders, both of them special pleaders for partisan views, and to turn them both into investigators. The investigation will show both Gentile and Jew at fault, and the road will then be clear for wisdom to work out a result, if there should perchance be that much wisdom left in the race.

There is a serious snare in all this plea for tolerance. Tolerance is first a tolerance of the truth. Tolerance is urged today for the sake of suppression. There can be no tolerance until there is first a full understanding of what is tolerated. Ignorance, suppression, silence, collusion—these are not tolerance. The Jew never has been really tolerated in the higher sense because he has never been understood. Mr. Brisbane does not assist the understanding of this people by reading a “simply written” book and flinging a few Jewish names about in a sea of type. He owes it to his own mind to get into the Question, whether he makes newspaper use of his discoveries or not.

As to the newspaper angle, it is impossible to report the world even superficially without coming everywhere against the fact of the Jews, and the Press gets around that fact by referring to them as Russians, Letts, Germans, and Englishmen. This mask of names is one of the most confusing elements in the whole problem. Names that actually name, statements that actually define are needed for the clarification of the world’s mind.

Mr. Brisbane should study this question for the light such a study would throw on other matters with which he is concerned. It would be a help to that study if from time to time he would publish some of his findings, because such publication would put him in touch with a phase of Judaism which mere complimentary editorials could not. No doubt Mr. Brisbane has been deluged by communications which praise him for what he has written; the real eye-opener would come if he could get several bushels of the other kind. Nothing that has ever come to him could compare with what would come to him if he should publish even one of the facts he could discover by an independent investigation.

Having written about the Jews, Mr. Brisbane will probably have a readier eye henceforth for other men’s pronouncements on the same subject. In his casual reading he will find more references to the Jew than he has ever noticed before. Some of them will probably appear in isolated sentences and paragraphs of his own papers. Sooner or later, every competent investigator and every honest writer strikes a trail that leads toward Jewish power in the world. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is only doing with system and detail what other publications have done or are doing piecemeal.

There is a real fear of the Jew upon the publicity sources of the United States—a fear which is felt and which ought to be analyzed. Unless it is a very great mistake, Mr. Brisbane himself has felt this fear, though it is quite possible he has not scrutinized it. It is not the fear of doing injustice to a race of people—all of us ought to have that honorable fear—it is the fear of doing anything at all with reference to them except unstintedly praising them. An independent investigation would convince Mr. Brisbane that a considerable modification of praise in favor of discriminate criticism is a course that is pressing upon American journalism.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 3 July 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

Does a Definite Jewish World Program Exist?

In all the explanations of anti-Jewish feeling which modern Jewish spokesmen make, these three alleged causes are commonly given—these three and no more: religious prejudice, economic jealousy, social antipathy. Whether the Jew knows it or not, every Gentile knows that on his side of the Jewish Question no religious prejudice exists. Economic jealousy may exist, at least to this extent, that his uniform success has exposed the Jew to much scrutiny. A few Jewish spokesmen seek to turn this scrutiny by denying that the Jew is pre-eminent in finance, but this is loyalty in extremity. The finances of the world are in control of Jews; their decisions and their devices are themselves our economic law. But because a people excels us in finance is no sufficient reason for calling them to the bar of public judgement. If they are more intellectually able, more persistently industrious than we are, if they are endowed with faculties which have been denied us as an inferior or slower race, that is no reason for our requiring them to give an account of themselves. Economic jealousy may explain some of the anti-Jewish feeling; it cannot account for the presence of the Jewish Question except as the hidden causes of Jewish financial success may become a minor element of the larger problem. And as for social antipathy—there are many more undesirable Gentiles in the world than there are undesirable Jews, for the simple reason that there are more Gentiles.

None of the Jewish spokesmen today mention the political cause, or if they come within suggestive distance of it, they limit and localize it. It is not a question of the patriotism of the Jew, though this too is very widely questioned in all the countries. You hear it in England, in France, in Germany, in Poland, in Russia, in Rumania—and, with a shock, you hear it in the United States. Books have been written, reports published and scattered abroad, statistics skillfully set forth for the purpose of showing that the Jew does his part for the country in which he resides; and yet the fact remains that in spite of these most zealous and highly sponsored campaigns, the opposite assertion is stronger and lives longer. The Jews who did their duty in the armies of Liberty, and did it doubtless from true-hearted love and allegiance, have not been able to overcome the impression made upon officers and men and civilians by those who did not.

But that is not what is here meant as the political element in the Jewish Question. To understand why the Jew should think less of the nationalities of the world than do those who comprise them is not difficult. The Jew’s history is one of wandering among them all. Considering living individuals only, there is no race of people now upon the planet who have lived in so many places, among so many peoples as have the Jewish masses. They have a clearer world-sense than any other people, because the world has been their path. And they think in world terms more than any nationally cloistered people could. The Jew can be absolved if he does not enter into national loyalties and prejudices with the same intensity as the natives; the Jew has been for centuries a cosmopolitan. While under a flag he may be correct in the conduct required of him as a citizen or resident, inevitably he has a view of flags which can hardly be shared by the man who has known but one flag.

The political element inheres in the fact that the Jews form a nation in the midst of the nations. Some of their spokesmen, particularly in America, deny that, but the genius of the Jew himself has always put these spokesmen’s zeal to shame. And why this fact of nationhood should be so strenuously denied is not always clear. It may be that when Israel is brought to see that her mission in the world is not to be achieved by means of the Golden Calf, her very cosmopolitanism with regard to the world and her inescapable nationalistic integrity with regard to herself will together prove a great and serviceable factor in bringing about human unity, which the total Jewish tendency at the present time is doing much to prevent. It is not the fact that the Jews remain a nation in the midst of the nations; it is the use made of that inescapable status, which the world has found reprehensible. The nations have tried to reduce the Jew to unity with themselves; attempts toward the same end have been made by the Jews themselves; but destiny seems to have marked them out to continuous nationhood. Both the Jews and the World will have to accept that fact, find the good prophecy in it, and seek the channels for its fulfillment.

Theodor Herzl, one of the greatest of the Jews, was perhaps the farthest-seeing public exponent of the philosophy of Jewish existence that modern generations have known. And he was never in doubt of the existence of the Jewish nation. Indeed, he proclaimed its existence on every occasion. He said, “We are a people—One people.”

He clearly saw that what he called the Jewish Question was political. In his introduction to “The Jewish State” he says, “I believe that I understand anti-Semitism, which is really a highly complex movement. I consider it from a Jewish standpoint, yet without fear or hatred. I believe that I can see what elements there are in it of vulgar sport, of common trade jealousy, of inherited prejudice, of religious intolerance and also of pretended self-defense. I think the Jewish Question is no more a social than a religious one, notwithstanding that it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question, which can only be solved by making it a political world-question to be discussed and controlled by the civilized nations of the world in council.”

Not only did Herzl declare that the Jews formed a nation, but when questioned by Major Evans Gordon before the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in August, 1902, Dr. Herzl said: “I will give you my definition of a nation, and you can add the adjective ‘Jewish.’ A nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. That is in my view a nation.

Then if you add to that the word ‘Jewish’ you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation.”

Also, in relating the action of this Jewish nation to the world, Dr. Herzl wrote—“When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”

This view, which appears to be the true view in that it is the view which has been longest sustained in Jewish thought, is brought out also by Lord Eustace Percy, and republished, apparently with approval, by the Canadian Jewish Chronicle. It will repay a careful reading:

“Liberalism and Nationalism, with a flourish of trumpets, threw open the doors of the ghetto and offered equal citizenship to the Jew. The Jew passed out into the Western World, saw the power and the glory of it, used it and enjoyed it, laid his hand indeed upon the nerve centers of its civilization, guided, directed and exploited it, and then—refused the offer * * * Moreover—and this is a remarkable thing—the Europe of nationalism and liberalism, of scientific government and democratic equality is more intolerable to him than the old oppressions and persecutions of despotism * * * In the increasing consolidation of the western nations, it is no longer possible to reckon on complete toleration * * *

“In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties he (the Jew) has only two possible cities of refuge: he must either pull down the pillars of the whole national state system or he must create a territorial sovereignty of his own. In this perhaps lies the explanation both of Jewish Bolshevism and of Zionism, for at this moment Eastern Jewry seems to hover uncertainly between the two.

“In Eastern Europe Bolshevism and Zionism often seem to grow side by side, just as Jewish influence molded Republican and Socialist thought throughout the nineteenth century, down to the Young Turk revolution in Constantinople hardly more than a decade ago—not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him.”

All that is true, and Jewish thinkers of the more fearless type always recognize it as true. The Jew is against the Gentile scheme of things. He is, when he gives his tendencies full sway, a Republican as against the monarchy, a Socialist as against the republic, and a Bolshevist as against Socialism.

What are the causes of this disruptive activity? First, his essential lack of democracy. Jewish nature is autocratic. Democracy is all right for the rest of the world, but the Jew wherever he is found forms an aristocracy of one sort or another. Democracy is merely a tool of a word which Jewish agitators use to raise themselves to the ordinary level in places where they are oppressed below it; but having reached the common level they immediately make efforts for special privileges, as being entitled to them—a process of which the late Peace Conference will remain the most startling example. The Jews today are the only people whose special and extraordinary privileges are written into the world’s Treaty of Peace. But more of that at another time.

No one now pretends to deny, except a few spokesmen who really do not rule the thought of the Jews but are set forth for the sole benefit of influencing Gentile thought, that the socially and economically disruptive elements abroad in the world today are not only manned but also moneyed by Jewish interests. For a long time this fact was held in suspense owing to the vigorous denial of the Jews and the lack of information on the part of those agencies of publicity to which the public had looked for its information. But now the facts are coming forth. Herzl’s words are being proved to be true—“when we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party”—and these words were first published in English in 1896, or 24 years ago.

Just now these tendencies are working in two directions, one for the tearing down of the Gentile states all over the world, and the other for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The latter project has the best wishes of the whole world, but it is far from having the best wishes of the whole, or even the larger part, of Jewry. The Zionist party makes a great deal of noise, but it is really an unrepresentative minority. It can scarcely be designated as more than an unusually ambitious colonization scheme.

[NOTE 1] It is doubtless serving, however, as a very useful public screen for the carrying on of secret activities. International Jews, the controllers of the world’s governmental and financial power, may meet anywhere, at any time, in war time or peace time, and by giving out that they are only considering the ways and means of opening up Palestine to the Jews, they easily escape the suspicion of being together on any other business. The Allies and enemies of the Gentile nations at war thus met and were not molested. It was at a Zionist conference—the sixth, held in 1903—that the recent war was exactly predicted, its progress and outcome indicated, and the relation of the Jews to the Peace Treaty outlined.

That is to say, though Jewish nationalism exists, its enshrinement in a state to be set up in Palestine is not the project that is engaging the whole Jewish nation now. The Jews will not move to Palestine just yet; it may be said that they will not move at all merely because of the Zionist movement. Quite another motive will be the cause of the exodus out of the Gentile nations, when the time for that exodus fully comes.

As Donald A. Cameron, late British Consul-General at Alexandria, a man fully in sympathy with Zionism and much quoted in the Jewish press, says: “The Jewish immigrants (into Palestine) will tire of taking in one another’s washing at three per cent, of winning one another’s money in the family, and their sons will hasten by train and steamer to win 10 per cent in Egypt * * * The Jew by himself in Palestine will eat his head off; he will kick his stable to pieces.” Undoubtedly the time for the exodus—at least the motive for the exodus—is not yet here.

The political aspect of the Jewish Question which is now engaging at least three of the great nations—France, Great Britain and the United States—has to do with matters of the present organization of the Jewish nation. Must it wait until it reaches Palestine to have a State, or is it an organized State now? Does Jewry know what it is doing? Has it a “foreign policy” with regard to the Gentiles? Has it a department which is executing that foreign policy? Has this Jewish State, visible or invisible, if it exists, a head? Has it a Council of State? And if any of these things is so, who is aware of it?

The first impulsive answer of the Gentile mind would be “No” to all these questions—it is a Gentile habit to answer impulsively. Never having been trained in secrets or invisible unity, the Gentile immediately concludes that such things cannot be, if for no other reason than that they have not crossed his path and advertised themselves.

The questions, however, answered thus, require some explanation of the circumstances which are visible to all men. If there is no deliberate combination of Jews in the world, then the control which they have achieved and the uniformity of the policies which they follow must be the simple result, not of deliberate decisions, but of a similar nature in all of them working out the same way. Thus, we might say that as a love for adventure on the water drove the Britisher forth, so it made him the world’s greatest colonist. Not that he deliberately sat down with himself and in formal manner resolved that he would become a colonizer, but the natural outworking of his genius resulted that way. But would this be a sufficient account of the British Empire?

Doubtless the Jews have the genius to do, wherever they go, the things in which we see them excel. But does this account for the relations which exist between the Jews of every country, for their world councils, for their amazing foreknowledge of stupendous events which break with shattering surprise on the rest of the world, for the smoothness and preparedness with which they appear, at a given time in Paris, with a world program on which they all agree?

The world has long suspected—at first only a few, then the secret departments of the governments, next the intellectuals among the people, now more and more the common people themselves—that not only are the Jews a nation distinct from all the other nations and mysteriously unable to sink their nationality by any means they or the world may adopt to this end, but that they also constitute a state; that they are nationally conscious, not only, but consciously united for a common defense and for a common purpose. Revert to Theodor Herzl’s definition of the Jewish nation, as held together by a common enemy, and then reflect that this common enemy is the Gentile world. Does this people which knows itself to be a nation remain loosely unorganized in the face of that fact? It would hardly be like Jewish astuteness in other fields. When you see how closely the Jews are united by various organizations in the United States, and when you see how with practiced hand they bring those organizations to bear as if with tried confidence in their pressure, it is at least not inconceivable that what can be done within a country can be done, or has been done, between all the countries where the Jews live.

At any rate, in the American Hebrew of June 25, 1920, Herman Bernstein writes thus: “About a year ago a representative of the Department of Justice submitted to me a copy of the manuscript of ‘The Jewish Peril’ by Professor Nilus, and asked for my opinion of the work. He said that the manuscript was a translation of a Russian book published in 1905 which was later suppressed. The manuscript was supposed to contain ‘protocols’ of the Wise Men of Zion and was supposed to have been read by Dr. Herzl at a secret conference of the Zionist Congress at Basle. He expressed the opinion that the work was probably that of Dr. Theodor Herzl He said that some American Senators who had seen the manuscript were amazed to find that so many years ago a scheme had been elaborated by the Jews which is now being carried out, and that Bolshevism had been planned years ago by Jews who sought to destroy the world.”

This quotation is made merely to put on record the fact that it was a representative of the Department of Justice of the United States Government, who introduced this document to Mr. Bernstein, and expressed a certain opinion upon it, namely, “that the work was probably that of Theodor Herzl.“ Also that “some American Senators“ were amazed to note the comparison between what a publication of the year 1905 proposed and what the year 1920 revealed.

The incident is all the more preoccupying because it occurred by action of the representative of a government who today is very largely in the hands of, or under the influence of, Jewish interests. It is more than probable that as soon as the activity became known, the investigator was stopped. But it is equally probable that whatever orders may have been given and apparently obeyed, the investigation may not have stopped.

The United States Government was a little late in the matter, however. At least four other world powers had preceded it, some by many years. A copy of the Protocols was deposited in the British Museum and bears on it the stamp of that institution, “August 10, 1906.” The notes themselves probably date from 1896, or the year of the utterances previously quoted from Dr. Herzl. The first Zionist Congress convened in 1897.

The document was published in England recently under auspices that challenged attention for it, in spite of the unfortunate title under which it appeared. Eyre and Spottiswoode are the appointed printers to the British Government, and it was they who brought out the pamphlet. It was as if the Government Printing Office at Washington should issue them in this country. While there was the usual outcry by the Jewish press, the London Times in a review pronounced all the Jewish counter-attacks as “unsatisfactory.“

The Times noticed what will probably be the case in this country also that the Jewish defenders leave the text of the protocols alone, while they lay heavy emphasis on the fact of their anonymity. When they refer to the substance of the document at all there is one form of words which recurs very often—“it is the work of a criminal or a madman.“

The protocols, without name attached, appearing for the most part in manuscripts here and there, laboriously copied out from hand to hand, being sponsored by no authority that was willing to stand behind it, assiduously studied in the secret departments of the governments and passed from one to another among higher officials, have lived on and on, increasing in power and prestige by the sheer force of their contents. A marvelous achievement for either a criminal or a madman! The only evidence it has is that which it carries within it, and that internal evidence is, as the London Times points out, the point on which attention is to be focused. and the very point from which Jewish effort has been expended to draw us away.

The interest of the Protocols at this time is their bearing on the questions: Have the Jews an organized world system? What is its policy? How is it being worked?

These questions all receive full attention in the Protocols. Whosoever was the mind that conceived them possessed a knowledge of human nature, of history and of statecraft which is dazzling in its brilliant completeness, and terrible in the objects to which it turns its powers. Neither a madman nor an intentional criminal, but more likely a super-mind mastered by devotion to a people and a faith could be the author, if indeed one mind alone conceived them. It is too terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery.

Jewish attacks upon it thus far make much of the fact that it came out of Russia. That is hardly true. It came by way of Russia. It was incorporated in a Russian book published about 1905 by a Professor Nilus, who attempted to interpret the Protocols by events then going forward in Russia. This publication and interpretation gave it a Russian tinge which has been useful to Jewish propagandists in this country and England, because these same propagandists have been very successful in establishing in Anglo-Saxon mentalities a certain atmosphere of thought surrounding the idea of Russia and Russians. One of the biggest humbugs ever foisted on the world has been that foisted by Jewish propagandists, principally on the American public, with regard to the temper and genius of the truly Russian people. So, to intimate that the Protocols are Russian, is partially to discredit them.

The internal evidence makes it clear that the Protocols were not written by a Russian, nor originally in the Russian language, nor under the influence of Russian conditions. But they found their way to Russia and were first published there. They have been found by diplomatic officers in manuscript in all parts of the world. Wherever Jewish power is able to do so, it has suppressed them, sometimes under the supreme penalty.

Their persistence is a fact which challenges the mind. Jewish apologists may explain that persistence on the ground that the Protocols feed the anti-Semitic temper, and therefore are preserved for that service. Certainly there was no wide nor deep antiSemitic temper in the United States to be fed or that felt the greed for agreeable lies to keep itself alive. The progress of the Protocols in the United States can only be explained on the ground that they supply light and give meaning to certain previously observed facts, and that this light and meaning is so startling as to give a certain standing and importance to these otherwise unaccredited documents. Sheer lies do not live long, their power soon dies. These Protocols are more alive than ever. They have penetrated higher places than ever before. They have compelled a more serious attitude to them than ever before.

The Protocols would not be more worthy of study if they bore, say, the name of Theodor Herzl. Their anonymity does not decrease their power any more than the omission of a painter’s signature detracts from the art value of a painting. Indeed, the Protocols are better without a known source. For if it were definitely known that in France or Switzerland in the year 1896, or thereabouts, a group of International Jews, assembled in conference, drew up a program of world conquest it would still have to be shown that such a program was more than a mere vagary, that it was confirmed at large by efforts to fulfill it. The Protocols are a World Program—there is no doubt anywhere of that. Whose program, is stated within the articles themselves. But as for outer confirmation, which would be the more valuable—a signature, or six signatures, or twenty signatures, or a 25-year unbroken line of effort fulfilling that program?

The point of interest for this and other countries is not that a “criminal or a madman” conceived such a program, but that, when conceived, this program found means of getting itself fulfilled in its most important particulars. The document is comparatively unimportant; the conditions to which it calls attention are of a very high degree of importance.

NOTE 1: The statements indicated are those of non-Zionist Jews. The real Jewish program is that program which is executed. It was the Zionist program that was followed by the Peace Conference. It must therefore be regarded as the official program.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 10 July 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

 “We are a people—One people When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of a revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”

—Theodore Herzl, “A Jewish State,” pp. 5, 23.

The Historic Basis of Jewish Imperialism

A great unloosening of speech with reference to the Jewish Question and the Jewish program for world power has occurred in this country since the beginning of this series of articles. It is now possible to pronounce the word “Jew” in a perfectly serious discussion, without timidity, or without intimidation. Heretofore that has been regarded as the special prerogative of the Jewish publicists themselves and they have used the name exclusively in well-organized and favorable propaganda. They can oust portions of Shakespeare from the public schools on the ground that the Jews are offended; they can demand the removal of one of Sargent’s paintings from the Boston Library because it represents the Synagogue in a decline. But when anything emanates from the Gentile side which indicates that the Gentile is also conscious of the Jew, then the charge of prejudice is instantly and strongly made. The effect of that in this country has been a ban on speech which has had few parallels in our history. Recently at a banquet a speaker used the term “Jews” in reference to the actions of a group of Jewish bankers. A Jewish guest leaped to his feet demanding to know if the speaker considered it “American” to single out a race that way. The speaker replied, “I do, sir,” and received the approval of the audience. In that particular part of the country, business men’s tongues had been tied for years by the unwritten law that Jews must never by singled out as Jews.

No one would have predicted a year ago that a newspaper like the Chicago Tribune could have convinced itself that it was good newspaper policy to print in the first column of its first page a copyrighted article on the Jewish program for world rule, printing the word “Jew” in large letters in its headline, and abstaining from editorial retouching of the word “Jew” in the body of the article. The usual plan is to do what an eastern newspaper did when dealing with the same subject: wherever the term “international Jew” occurred in the article which it printed, it was retouched to “financiers.”

The Chicago Tribune, however, on Saturday, June 19, 1920, printed in the first column of the first page a cable dispatch from John Clayton, its special correspondent, under the heading: “Trotsky Leads Jew-Radicals to World Rule. Bolshevism Only a Tool for His Scheme.”

The first paragraph reads as follows:

“For the last two years army intelligence officers, members of the various secret service organizations of the Entente, have been bringing in reports of a world revolutionary movement other than Bolshevism. At first these reports confused the two, but latterly the lines they have taken have begun to be more and more clear.”

As previously stated in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, our own secret service is one of these, though there is reason to believe that because of the influence of Jews upon the government these investigations were not pursued with the persistency that might otherwise have been given them. However, we know from Jewish sources, not to mention any other, that the Department of Justice of the United States was at one time interested enough to make inquiries.

What the Tribune writer does in the above paragraph is to show that this interest has been sustained for two years by officials of the Entente, a fact which ought to be borne in mind by those who declare that the whole matter is of German instigation. The emergence of the Jewish Question into American thought was immediately met by a statement from Jewish sources that it was a German importation, and that the antiSemitism which flowed over Germany and resulted in cleaning out the overwhelming Jewish revolutionary influences from the new German Government, was only a trick to throw the blame for the defeat of Germany on the Jews. American rabbis are even now unitedly preaching that history shows that every great war is followed by a new “attack” on the Jews. It is undoubtedly a fact that every war newly opens the people’s eyes to the power which international Jewish financiers exert with reference to war—and it would seem that such a fact is worthy of a better explanation than that of “prejudice.” However, as the Tribune article shows, and as all the facts confirm, the interest is not confined to the German side; indeed, it is not even strongest there. It is “the various secret service organizations of the Entente” that have been most active in the matter.

The second paragraph further distinguishes between Bolshevism and Jewish imperialism:

“Bolshevism aims at the overthrow of existing society and the establishment of an international brotherhood of men who work with their hands as rulers of the world. The second movement aims for the establishment of a new racial domination of the world. So far as the British, French and our own department’s inquiry have been able to trace, the moving spirits in the second scheme are Jewish radicals.”

Other statements in the article are:

“Within the ranks of communism is a group of this party, but it does not stop there. To its leaders, communism is only an incident.”

(This will recall the statement of Lord Eustace Percy, quoted last week from the Canadian Jewish Chronicle—“Not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system of government is anything but distasteful to him.”)

“They are ready to use the Islamic revolt, hatred by the central empires for England, Japan’s designs on India, and commercial rivalry between America and Japan.”

“As any movement of world revolution must be, this is primarily anti-Anglo-Saxon.”

“The organization of the world Jewish-radical movement has been perfected in almost every land.”

“The aims of the Jewish-radical party have nothing of altruism behind them beyond liberation of their own race.”

It will be conceded that these are rather startling statements. If they were found in a propagandist publication of no responsibility, the average reader might pass them by as preposterous, so little does the average reader know of the secret influences which shape his life and frame his problems. But appearing in a great newspaper, they must receive a different evaluation.

Nor did the Tribune stop at the news article. On June 21, 1920, an editorial appeared entitled “World Mischief.” The editorial is evidently an effort to prevent possible misunderstanding of what the news article was driving at.

“The Jewish phase of the movement, he asserts, aims at a new racial domination of the world . . .”

The Tribune also says that while it is perhaps natural for the Jews of other countries to be engaged in this “world mischief,” the Jews of England and the United States “are loyal nationalists and conservative upholders of the national traditions.” It were well if this were true. Perhaps it is true of tens of thousands of Jews as individuals; it certainly is not true of those internationalists who pull the strings of all the governments and who during the last six tragic years have been meddling with world affairs in a way which must soon be plainly told. The unfortunate circumstance is that all the American and English Jews must for a time feel a distress which no one desires them to feel, which everyone would do much to save them from, but which seems inevitable until the whole story is told and until the mass of the Jews themselves cut off from their name and support some who now receive their deepest homage.

It is worth while observing the contrasts and similarities between the Gentile and Jewish reaction to this alleged movement to establish a Jewish imperialism over the world. Jewish publicists first deny it without qualification. It is all false, all a lie, all hatched up by enemies of the Jews in order to stir up hatred and murder. As the evidence accumulates, the Jewish tone changes: “Well, suppose it is true,” the publicists say; “is it any wonder that the poor oppressed Jews, driven to madness through their sufferings, should dream dreams of overthrowing their enemies and placing themselves in the seat of authority?”

The Gentile mind, confronted with the statement, says: “Yes, but they are Russian Jews. Don’t mind them. American Jews are all right. They would never be taken in by anything like that.” Going a little deeper into the subject, the Gentile mind is forced to admit the existence of some kind of a subversive world movement, the power of which has shaken even this country, and that the moving spirits in it are revolutionary Jews. And then the tendency from that point forward is either to fall in with the theory that the movement is really Jewish in its origin, agitation, execution and purpose, or to set up the theory that it is a “world movement” undoubtedly, but only incidentally Jewish. The end of both Jewish and Gentile reaction is an admission that something answering to the movement charged actually exists.

For example, the Christian Science Monitor, whose standard as a newspaper no one will question, has this to say in a lengthy editorial on the subject:

“In spite of this, it would be a tremendous mistake to conclude that the Jewish peril, given another name and atmosphere, does not exist. It might, indeed, be renamed, out of one of the grandest of the books of the Old Testament, ‘the terror by night,’ for it is, essentially, the Psalmist’s concept of the forces of mental evil at which, consciously or unconsciously, Professor Nilus is aiming. In other words, that a secret international political organization exists, working unremittingly by means of its Bureau of Psychology, though the world which should be awake to it is entirely asleep to it, is, to the man who can read the signs of the times, a thing unquestionable.”

The Monitor gives warning against prejudice and disregard of the laws of evidence which is exceedingly timely and is, indeed, the desire of anyone who has ever undertaken to deal with this subject, but too often it is a disregard of facts and not of evidence that makes the difficulty. It is safe to say that most of the prejudice today is against the facts, it has not been caused by them.

There are two preconceptions to be guarded against in making an approach to this question. One is that the Jewish imperialistic program, if such a thing exists, is of recent origin. Upon the mere mention of such a program, Gentiles are likely to think that it was formulated last week, or last year, or within recent time. That need not be the case at all, and in Jewish matters it is very likely not to be the case. It is very easy to see how, if the program were to be formulated today, it would be wholly different from the one which is to be considered. The kind of program that would be made today indeed exists too, but it is not to be compared in extent and profundity with that which has existed for a very long time. Perfect constitutions of invisible governments are not the creations of secret conventions; they are the accumulated thought and experience of centuries. Moreover, no matter how prone a modern generation may be to disregard such things, the mere fact that they may have existed as a secret racial ideal for centuries is a powerful argument for their respectable acceptance, if not active execution, by the generation that now is. There is no idea deeper in Judaism than that Jews constitute a Chosen People and that their future is to be more glorious than their past. A large part of the Christian world accepts that, too, and it may well be true, but in a moral universe it cannot come to pass by the methods which have been and are being used.

But to mention the ancient lineage of the idea of the Chosen People is merely to suggest that of all the programs that may have gathered round it to assist its full historical realization, it is not strange that there should be one very old one to which the wisest minds of Israel have contributed their best of mind and heart to insure its success. That there is such a plan has been the belief of many deep delvers in the hidden things of the world, and that such a plan has at times had its dress rehearsals, so to speak, on a limited stage, as if in preparation for its grand finale on the universal stage, is another belief held by men at whose knowledge it is impossible to cavil.

So, then, it may be that we are dealing with something for which present-day Jews, even the more important internationalists, are not originally responsible. It may have come to them as part of their ancient Jewish inheritance. Certainly, if it were a mere modern thing, hastily conceived and thrown together after the modern fashion, it could be expected to disappear in the same era which saw it born.

Another preconception to be guarded against is that every Jew one meets has secret knowledge of this program. That is not the case. With the general idea of the ultimate triumph of Israel every Jew who has retained contact with his people is familiar, but with the special plans which for centuries have existed in formulated form for the attainment of that triumph, the average Jew is no more familiar than anyone else—no more so than was the average German with the secret plans of the Pan-Germanic party whose ideas started and guided the recent war. The average Jew enters into the plans of the secret group just to this extent, except in specially selected cases: It is perfectly understood that the consummation of the Jewish triumph will not be distasteful to any Jew, and if the methods to be used toward the end are a bit violent, every Jew can be depended upon to see in that violence a very insufficient retribution visited upon the Gentile world for the sufferings which it has caused the sons of Judah throughout the centuries.

Still, with even these preconceptions guarded against, there is no escape from the conclusion that if such a program of Jewish world imperialism exists today, it must exist with the cognizance and active support of certain individuals, and that these groups of individuals must have somewhere an official head.

This is, perhaps, the one point at which more investigators stop than at any other. The idea of a Jewish autocrat is too strange for the mind which has not been much in contact with the main question. And yet there is no race which more instinctively supports autocracy than does the Jewish race, no race which more craves and respects position. It is their sense of the value of position that explains the main course their activities take. The Jew is primarily a money-maker for the reason that up to this time money is the only means he knows by which to gain position. The Jews who have gained position for any other reason are comparatively few. This is not a Gentile gibe; it is the position of a famous Anglo-Jewish physician, Dr. Barnard Von Oven, who wrote: “All other means of distinction are denied him; he must rise by wealth, or not at all. And if, as he well knows, to insure wealth will be to insure rank, respect and attention in society, does the blame rest with him who endeavors to acquire wealth for the distinction which it will purchase, or with that society which so readily bows down to the shrine of Mammon?”

The Jew is not averse to kings, only to the state of things which prevents a Jewish king. The future autocrat of the world is to be a Jewish king, sitting upon the throne of David, so ancient prophecies and the documents of the imperialistic program agree.

Is such a king in the world now? If not, the men who could choose a king are in the world. There has been no king of the Jews since before the Christian Era, but until about the eleventh century there were Princes of the Exile, those who represented the headship of the Jews who were dispersed through the nations. They were and still are called “exilarchs,” or Princes of the Exile. They were attended by the wise men of Israel, they held court, they gave the law to their people. They lived abroad wherever their circumstances or convenience dictated, in Christian or Mohammedan countries. Whether the office was discontinued with the last publicly known exilarch or merely disappeared from the surface of history, whether today it is entirely abandoned or exists in another form, are questions which must wait. That there are offices of world jurisdiction held by Jews is well known. That there are world organizations of Jews—organizations, that is, within the very strong solidarity of the Jewish nation itself—is well known. That there is world unity on certain Jewish activities, defensive and offensive, is well known. There is nothing in the condition or thought of the Jews which would render the existence today of an exilarch distasteful to them; indeed, the thought would be very comfortable.

The Jewish Encyclopedia remarks: “Curiously enough, the exilarchs are still mentioned in the Sabbath services of the Ashkenazim ritual * * * The Jews of the Sephardic ritual have not preserved this anachronism, nor was it retained in most of the Reform synagogues of the nineteenth century.”

Is there, then, a Jewish Sanhedrin?—a governing or counseling body of Jews who take oversight of the affairs of their people throughout the world?

The Jewish Sanhedrin was a most interesting institution. Its origin and method of constitution are obscure. It consisted of 71 members, with the president, and performed the functions of a political senate. There is nothing to show whence the Sanhedrin derived its authority. It was not an elective body. It was not democratic. It was not representative. It was not responsible to the people. In these qualities, it was typically Jewish. The Sanhedrin was chosen by the prince or priest, not with the purpose of safeguarding the people’s interest, but to assist the ruler in the work of administration. It was thus assembled by call, or it was self-perpetuating, calling its own members. The arrangement seems to have been that well-known device by which an aristocracy can maintain itself in power whatever the political construction of the nation may be. The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “The Sanhedrin, which was entirely aristocratic in character, probably assumed its own authority, since it was composed of members of the most influential families of the nobility and priesthood.”

This body was flanked by a similar body, which governed the religious interests of the nation, the members being drawn apparently from classes nearer the common people.

The Sanhedrin exercised authority not only over the Jews of Palestine, but wherever they were scattered throughout the world. As a senate exercising direct political authority, it ceased with the downfall of the Jewish State in the year 70, but there are indications of its continuance as an advisory body down to the fourth century.

In 1806, in order to satisfy the mind of Napoleon upon some questions which had arisen concerning the Jews, an Assembly of Notables was called, whose membership consisted of prominent Jews of France. They, in turn, to bring the sanction of all Jewry to the answers which they should give Napoleon, convoked the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin assembled in Paris on February 9, 1807. It followed the prescribed ancient forms; it was comprised of Jews from all parts of Europe; it was assembled to put the whole authority of Jewry behind any compact the French Jews may have been able to make with Napoleon.

In putting forth its decisions, this Sanhedrin of 1807 declared that it was in all respects like the ancient Sanhedrin, “a legal assembly vested with power of passing ordinances in order to promote the welfare of Israel.”

The significance of these facts is this: Whatever the leaders of the Jews may do today in the way of maintaining the policy and constitution of Israel, would not constitute a new departure. It would not signify a new attitude. It would not be evidence of a new plan.

It would be entirely natural, Jewish solidarity being what it is, that the Sanhedrin should still be continued. The ancient Sanhedrin appears to have had a group of ten who were somewhat exalted in importance above the rest; it would be perfectly natural if the leaders of the Jews were today divided into committees, by countries or by objects.

There are always being held, year by year, world meetings of the principal Jews of all lands. They come together whenever called, to the disregard of everything else. Great judges from the high courts of the various countries, international financiers, Jewish orators of the “liberal type” who have the ear of the Gentiles, political maneuverers from all the parties represented in the world, they assemble wherever they will, and the subjects of their deliberations are made known only to the extent they will. It is not to be supposed that all of the attendants on these conventions are members of the inner circle. The list of delegates will show scores of persons with whom no one would associate Lord Reading and Judge Brandeis. If the modern Sanhedrin meets, and it would be the most natural thing in the world if it should, we may be sure it meets within the closed circle of those persons which the Jewish aristocracy of money, intellect and power approves.

The machinery of a Jewish world government exists ready-made. The Jew is convinced that he has the best religion, the best morality, the best method of education, the best social standards, the best ideal of government. He would not have to go outside the circle of that which he considers best to get anything which he may need to advance the welfare of his people, or to execute any program which may have to do with the outside world.

It is the ancient machinery that the international Jew uses in all those activities which he permits the world to see in part. There are gatherings of the financial, political and intellectual chief rulers of the Jews. These gatherings are announced for one or another thing—sometimes. Sometimes there is a gathering of Jews in a world capital, with no announced purpose. They all appear in one city, confer and depart.

Whether there is a recognized head to all of this is yet to be disclosed. There can be little doubt, however, as to the existence of what may be called a “foreign policy,” that is, a definite point of view and plan of action with reference to the Gentile world. The Jew feels that he is in the midst of enemies, but he also feels that he is a member of a people—“one people.” He must have some policy with regard to the outer world. He cannot help but consider present conditions, he cannot consider them without being stirred to speculate upon what the outcome must be, and he cannot speculate on the outcome without in some manner endeavoring to make it as he would like it to be.

The invisible government of the Jews, its attitude toward the Gentile world, its policy with regard to the future, are not, then, the abnormal things that some would make them appear. Given the Jewish position, they are of all things most natural. Jewish existence in this world is not such as woos the Jew into sleepy contentment; it is such as stirs him into organization against future contingencies and into programs which may shape those contingencies to the benefit of his race. That there should be a Sanhedrin of the Jews, a world body of the leading men of all countries; that there should even be an exilarch, a visible and recognized head of the Sanhedrin, mystically foreshadowing the autocrat to come; that there should even be a world program, just as every government has its foreign policy, are not strange, uncanny suppositions. They grow normally out of the situation itself.

And it is also natural that not every Jew should know this. The Sanhedrin always was the aristocracy, and would be today. When rabbis cry from their pulpits that they know nothing about this thing, they are doubtless telling the truth. What the international Jew depends upon is the likelihood of every Jew approving that which brings power and prestige to his people. At any rate, it is well enough known that however little the ordinary Jewish leader may have been told about world programs, he regards with the greatest respect and confidence the very men who must put these programs through, if these exist at all.

The twenty-fourth Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion has this to say:

“Now I will discuss the manner in which the roots of the house of King David will penetrate to the deepest strataof the earth. This dynasty, even to this day, has given the power of controlling world affairs to our wise men, the educational directors of all human thought.”

This would indicate, if reliable, that, as the Protocol goes on to recite, the Autocrat himself has not appeared, but the dynasty, or the Davidic line in which he must appear, have entrusted the work of preparing for him to the Wise Men of Zion. These wise men are represented not only as preparing those who exercise rulership over Judaism’s affairs, but also as framing and influencing the world’s thought toward ends which shall be propitious to these plans. Whatever may be hidden in the program, it is certain that its execution or the effects of its execution cannot be hidden. Therefore, it may be possible to find in the outer world the clues which, traced back to their source, reveal the existence of a program, whose promise for the world, good or bad, ought to be widely known.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 17 July 1920]

An Introduction to the “Jewish Protocols”

The documents most frequently mentioned by those who are interested in the theory of Jewish World Power rather than in the actual operation of that power in the world today, are those 24 documents known as “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

The Protocols have attracted much attention in Europe, having become the center of an important storm of opinion in England only recently, but discussion of them in the United States has been limited. These are the documents concerning which the Department of Justice was making inquiries more than a year ago, and which were given publication in London by Eyre and Spottiswoode, the official printers to the British Government.

Who it was that first entitled these documents with the name of the “Elders of Zion” is not known. It would be possible without serious mutilation of the documents to remove all hint of Jewish authorship, and yet retain all the main points of the most comprehensive program for world subjugation that has ever come to public knowledge.

Yet it must be said that thus to eliminate all hint of Jewish authorship would be to bring out a number of contradictions which do not exist in the Protocols in their present form. The purpose of the plan revealed in the Protocols is to undermine all authority in order that a new authority in the form of autocracy may be set up. Such a plan could not emanate from a ruling class which already possessed authority, although it might emanate from anarchists. But anarchists do not avow autocracy as the ultimate condition they seek. The authors might be conceived as a company of French Subversives such as existed at the time of the French Revolution and had the infamous Duc d’Orleans as their leader, but this would involve a contradiction between the fact that those Subversives have passed away, and the fact that the program announced in these Protocols is being steadily carried out, not only in France, but throughout Europe and very noticeably in the United States.

In their present form which bears evidence of being their original form, there is no contradiction. The allegation of Jewish authorship seems essential to the consistency of the plan.

If these documents were the forgeries which Jewish apologists claim them to be, the forgers would probably have taken pains to make Jewish authorship so clear that their anti-Semitic purpose could easily have been detected. But only twice is the term “Jew” used in them. After one has read much further than the average reader usually cares to go into such matters, one comes upon the plans for the establishment of the World Autocrat, and only then it is made clear of what lineage he is to be.

But all through the documents there is left no doubt as to the people against whom the plan is aimed. It is not aimed against aristocracy as such. It is not aimed against capital as such. It is not aimed against government as such. Very definite provisions are made for the enlistment of aristocracy, capital and government for the execution of the plan. It is aimed against the people of the world who are called “Gentiles.” It is the frequent mention of “Gentiles” that really decides the purpose of the documents. Most of the destructive type of “liberal” plans aim at the enlistment of the people as helpers; this plan aims at the degeneration of the people in order that they may be reduced to confusion of mind and thus manipulated. Popular movements of a “liberal” kind are to be encouraged, all the disruptive philosophies in religion, economics, politics and domestic life are to be sown and watered, for the purpose of so disintegrating social solidarity that a definite plan, herein set forth, may be put through without notice, and the people then molded to it when the fallacy of these philosophies is shown.

The formula of speech is not, “We Jews will do this,” but “The Gentiles will be made to think and do these things.” With the exception of a few instances in the closing Protocols, the only distinctive racial term used is “Gentiles.”

To illustrate: the first indication of this kind comes in the first Protocol in this way:

“The great qualities of the people—honesty and frankness—are essentially vices in politics, because they dethrone more surely and more certainly than does the strongest enemy. These qualities are attributes of Gentile rule; we certainly must not be guided by them.”

And again:

“On the ruins of the hereditary aristocracy of the Gentiles we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class, and over all the aristocracy of money. We have established the basis of this new aristocracy on the basis of riches, which we control, and on the science guided by our wise men.”

Again:

“We will force up wages, which however will be of no benefit to workers, for we at the same time will cause a rise in the prices of prime necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and of cattle raising. We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy and encourage them in the use of alcohol, at the same time taking measures to drive all the intellectual forces of the Gentiles from the land.”

(A forger with anti-Semitic malice might have written this any time within the last five years, but these words were in print at least 14 years ago according to British evidence, a copy having been in the British Museum since 1906, and they were circulated in Russia a number of years prior.)

The above point continues: “That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories.”

These quotations will illustrate the style of the Protocols in making reference to the parties involved. It is “we” for the writers, and “Gentiles” for those who are being written about. This is brought out very clearly in the Fourteenth Protocol:

“In this divergence between Gentiles and ourselves in ability to think and reason is to be seen clearly the seal of our election as the chosen people, as higher human beings, in contrast with the Gentiles who have merely instinctive and animal minds. They observe, but they do not foresee, and they invent nothing (except perhaps material things). It is clear from this that nature herself predestined us to rule and guide the world.”

This, of course, has been the Jewish method of dividing humanity from the earliest times. The world was only Jew and Gentile; all that was not Jew was Gentile.

The use of the word Jew in the Protocol may be illustrated by this passage in the eighth section:

“For the time being, until it will be safe to give responsible government positions to our brother Jews, we shall entrust them to people whose past and whose characters are such that there is an abyss between them and the people.”

This is the practice known as using “Gentile fronts” which is extensively practiced in the financial world today in order to cover up the evidences of Jewish control. How much progress has been made since these words were written is indicated by the occurrence at the San Francisco convention when the name of Judge Brandeis was proposed for President. It is reasonably to be expected that the public mind will be made more and more familiar with the idea of Jewish occupancy—which will be really a short step from the present degree of influence which the Jews exercise—of the highest office in the government. There is no function of the American Presidency in which the Jews have not already secretly assisted in a very important degree. Actual occupancy of the office is not necessary to enhance their power, but to promote certain things which parallel very closely the plans outlined in the Protocols now before us.

Another point which the reader of the Protocols will notice is that the tone of exhortation is entirely absent from these documents. They are not propaganda. They are not efforts to stimulate the ambitions or activity of those to whom they are addressed. They are as cool as a legal paper and as matter-of-fact as a table of statistics. There is none of the “Let us rise, my brothers” stuff about them. There is no “Down with the Gentiles” hysteria. These Protocols, if indeed they were made by Jews and confided to Jews, or if they do contain certain principles of a Jewish World Program, were certainly not intended for the firebrands but for the carefully prepared and tested initiates of the higher groups.

Jewish apologists have asked, “Is it conceivable that if there were such a world program on the part of the Jews, they would reduce it to writing and publish it?” But there is no evidence that these Protocols were ever uttered otherwise than in spoken words by those who put them forth. The Protocols as we have them are apparently the notes of lectures which were made by someone who heard them. Some of them are lengthy; some of them are brief. The assertion which has always been made in connection with the Protocols since they have become known is that they are the notes of lectures delivered to Jewish students presumably somewhere in France or Switzerland. The attempt to make them appear to be of Russian origin is absolutely forestalled by the point of view, the reference to the times and certain grammatical indications.

The tone certainly fits the supposition that they were originally lectures given to students, for their purpose is clearly not to get a program accepted but to give information concerning a program which is represented as being already in process of fulfillment. There is no invitation to join forces or to offer opinions. Indeed it is specifically announced that neither discussion nor opinions are desired. (“While preaching liberalism to the Gentiles, we shall hold our own people and our own agents in unquestioning obedience.” “The scheme of administration must emanate from a single brain * * * Therefore, we may know the plan of action, but we must not discuss it, lest we destroy its unique character * * * The inspired work of our leader therefore must not be thrown before a crowd to be torn to pieces, or even before a limited group.”)

Moreover, taking the Protocols at their face value, it is evident that the program outlined in these lecture notes was not a new one at the time the lectures were given. There is no evidence of its being of recent arrangement. There is almost the tone of a tradition, or a religion, in it all, as if it had been handed down from generation to generation through the medium of specially trusted and initiated men. There is no note of new discovery or fresh enthusiasm in it, but the certitude and calmness of facts long known and policies long confirmed by experiment.

This point of the age of the program is touched upon at least twice in the Protocols themselves. In the First Protocol this paragraph occurs:

“Already in ancient times we were the first to shout the words, ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ among the people. These words have been repeated many times by unconscious poll-parrots, flocking from all sides to this bait, with which they have ruined the prosperity of the world and true personal freedom * * * The presumably clever and intellectual Gentiles did not understand the symbolism of the uttered words; did not observe their contradiction in meaning; did not notice that in nature there is no equality * * *”

The other reference to the program’s finality is found in the Thirteenth Protocol:

“Questions of policy, however, are permitted to no one except those who have originated the policy and have directed it for many centuries.”

Can this be a reference to a secret Jewish Sanhedrin, self-perpetuating within a certain Jewish caste from generation to generation?

Again, it must be said that the originators and directors here referred to cannot be at present any ruling caste, for all that the program contemplates is directly opposed to the interests of such a caste. It cannot refer to any national aristocratic group, like the Junkers of Germany, for the methods which are proposed are the very ones which would render powerless such a group. It cannot refer to any but a people who have no government, who have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and who can keep themselves intact amid a crumbling world. There is only one group that answers that description.

Again, a reading of the Protocols makes it clear that the speaker himself was not seeking for honor. There is a complete absence of personal ambition throughout the document. All plans and purposes and expectations are merged in the future of Israel, which future, it would seem, can only be secured by the subtle breaking down of certain world ideas held by the Gentiles. The Protocols speak of what has been done, what was being done at the time these words were given, and what remained to be done. Nothing like them in completeness of detail, in breadth of plan and in deep grasp of the hidden springs of human action has ever been known. They are verily terrible in their mastery of the secrets of life, equally terrible in their consciousness of that mastery. Truly they would merit the opinion which Jews have recently cast upon them, that they were the work of an inspired madman, were it not that what is written in the Protocols in words is also written upon the life of today in deeds and tendencies.

The criticisms which these Protocols pass upon the Gentiles for their stupidity are just. It is impossible to disagree with a single item in the Protocols’ description of Gentile mentality and veniality. Even the most astute of the Gentile thinkers have been fooled into receiving as the motions of progress what has only been insinuated into the common human mind by the most insidious systems of propaganda.

It is true that here and there a thinker has arisen to say that science so-called was not science at all. It is true that here and there a thinker has arisen to say that the so-called economic laws both of conservatives and radicals were not laws at all, but artificial inventions. It is true that occasionally a keen observer has asserted that the recent debauch of luxury and extravagance was not due to the natural impulses of the people at all, but was systematically stimulated, foisted upon them by design. It is true that a few have discerned that more than half of what passes for “public opinion” is mere hired applause and booing and has never impressed the public mind.

But even with these clues here and there, for the most part disregarded, there has never been enough continuity and collaboration between those who were awake, to follow all the clues to their source. The chief explanation of the hold which the Protocols have had on many of the leading statesmen of the world for several decades is that they explain whence all these false influences come and what their purpose is. They give a clue to the modern maze. It is now time for the people to know. And whether the Protocols are judged as proving anything concerning the Jews or not, they constitute an education in the way the masses are turned about like sheep by influences which they do not understand. It is almost certain that once the principles of the Protocols are known widely and understood by the people, the criticism which they now rightly make of the Gentile mind will no longer hold good.

It is the purpose of future articles in this series to study these documents and to answer out of their contents all the questions that may arise concerning them.

Before that work is begun, one question should be answered—“Is there likelihood of the program of the Protocols being carried through to success?” The program is successful already. In many of its most important phases it is already a reality. But this need not cause alarm, for the chief weapon to be used against such a program, both in its completed and uncompleted parts, is clear publicity. Let the people know. Arousing the people, alarming the people, appealing to the passions of the people is the method of the plan outlined in the Protocols. The antidote is merely enlightening the people.

That is the only purpose of these articles. Enlightenment dispels prejudice. It is as desirable to dispel the prejudice of the Jew as of the Gentile. Jewish writers too frequently assume that the prejudice is all on one side. The Protocols themselves ought to have the widest circulation among the Jewish people, in order that they may check those things which are bringing suspicion upon their name.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 24 July 1920]

 “Jewish” Estimate of Gentile Human Nature

“Upon completing this program of our present and future actions, I will read to you the principles of these theories.”—Protocol 16.

“In all that I have discussed with you hitherto, I have endeavored to indicate carefully the secrets of past and future events and of those momentous occurrences of the near future toward which we are rushing in a stream of great crises, anticipating the hidden principles of future relationships with the Gentiles and of our financial operations.”—Protocol 22.

The Protocols, which profess themselves to be an outline of the Jewish World Program, are found upon analysis to contain four main divisions. These, however, are not marked in the structure of the documents, but in the thought. There is a fifth, if the object of it all is included, but this object is assumed throughout the Protocols, being only here and there defined in terms. And the four main divisions are great trunks from which there are numerous branches.

There is first what is alleged to be the Jewish conception of human nature, by which is meant Gentile nature. It is inconceivable that such a plan as that which the Protocols set forth could have been evolved by a mind that had not previously based the probability of success on a certain estimate of the ignobility and corruptibility of human nature—which all through the Protocols is referred to as Gentile nature.

Then, secondly, there is the account of what has already been accomplished in the realization of the program—things actually done.

Thirdly, there is a complete instruction in the methods to be used to get the program still further fulfilled—methods which would themselves supply the estimate of human nature upon which the whole fabric is based, if there were nothing else to indicate it.

Fourth, the Protocols contain in detail some of the achievements which, at the time these words were uttered, were yet to be made. Some of these desired things have been achieved in the meantime, for it should be borne in mind that between the year 1905 and the year 1920 there has been time to set many influences in motion and attain many ends. As the second quotation at the head of this article would indicate, the speaker knew that events were “rushing in a stream of great crises,” a knowledge which is amply attested by Jewish sources outside the Protocols.

If this series of articles represented a special pleading upon the Jewish Question, the present article would seek to win the reader’s confidence by presenting first the set of facts which are described under “secondly” in the above list of main divisions. To begin with the estimate of human nature here disclosed is to court alienation of the reader’s interest, especially if the reader be a Gentile. We know from abundant sources what the Jewish estimate of human nature is, and it tallies in all respects with what is disclosed in the Protocols, but it has always been one of the fallacies of Gentile thought that human nature is, now, full of dignity and nobility. There is little question, when the subject is considered in all its lights, that the Jewish conception is right. And so far as these Protocols are concerned, their low estimate of mankind, though harsh to human pride and conceit, are very largely true.

Just to run through the Protocols and select the salient passages in which this view is expressed is to find a pretty complete philosophy of the motives and qualities of human beings.

Take these words from the First Protocol:

“It should be noted that people with evil instincts are more numerous than those with good ones; therefore, the best results in governing them are attained by intimidation and violence, and not by academic argument. Every man aims for power; everyone desires to be a dictator, if possible; moreover, few would not sacrifice the good of others to attain their own ends.”

“People in masses and people of the masses are guided by exceptionally shallow passions, beliefs, customs, traditions and sentimental theories and are inclined toward party divisions, a fact which prevents any form of agreement, even when this is founded on a thoroughly logical basis. Every decision of the mob depends upon an accidental or prearranged majority, which, owing to its ignorance of the mysteries of political secrets, gives expression to absurd decisions that introduce anarchy into government.”

“In working out an expedient plan of action, it is necessary to take into consideration the meanness, the vacillation, the changeability of the crowd * * * It is necessary to realize that the force of the masses is blind, unreasoning and unintelligent, prone to listen now to the right, and now to the left * * *”

“Our triumph has also been made easier because, in our relations with the people necessary to us, we have always played upon the most sensitive strings of the human mind—on calculation, greed, and the insatiable material desires of men. Each of these human weaknesses, taken separately, is capable of paralyzing initiative and placing the will of the people at the disposal of the purchaser of their activities.”

In the Fifth Protocol, this shrewd observation on human nature is to be found:

“In all times, nations as well as individuals, accepted words for acts. They have been satisfied by what is shown them, rarely noticing whether the promise has been followed by fulfillment. For this reason we will organize ‘show’ institutions which will conspicuously display their devotion to progress.”

And this from the Eleventh Protocol:

“The Gentiles are like a flock of sheep * * * They will close their eyes to everything because we will promise them to return all the liberties taken away, after the enemies of peace have been subjugated and all the parties pacified. Is it worth while to speak of how long they will have to wait? For what have we conceived all this program and instilled its measures into the minds of the Gentiles without giving them the possibility of examining its underside, if it is not for the purpose of attaining by circuitous methods that which is unattainable to our scattered race by a direct route?”

Notice also this very shrewd observation upon the “joiners” of secret societies—this estimate being made by the Protocols to indicate how easily these societies may be used to further the plan:

“Usually it is the climbers, careerists and people, generally speaking, who are not serious, who most readily join secret societies, and we shall find them easy to handle and through them operate the mechanism of our projected machine.”

The remarks under this head are curtailed by the present writer, because the Protocols make reference to a very important secret order, the mention of whose name in this connection might lead to misunderstanding, and which is therefore reserved for future and fuller attention. It will, however, be of interest to the members of that order to see what the Protocols have to say of it, and then check up the facts and see how far they correspond with the words.

To continue: “The Gentiles join lodges out of curiosity or in the hope that through them they may worm their way into social distinction * * * We therefore give them this success so that we can take advantage of the self-conceit to which it gives birth and because of which people unconsciously accept our suggestions without examination * * * You cannot imagine to what an extent the most intelligent Gentiles may be brought to a state of unconscious naivete under conditions of self-deceit, and how easy it is to discourage them by the least failure, even the stopping of applause, or to bring them into a state of servile subjection for the sake of regaining it. The Gentiles are as ready to sacrifice their plans for the sake of popular success as our people are to ignore success for the sake of carrying out our plans. This psychology of theirs facilitates the task of directing them.”

These are a few of the passages in which this estimate of human or Gentile nature is made out in words. But even if it were not so baldly stated, it could be easily inferred from various items in the program which was depended upon to break up Gentile solidarity and strength.

The method is one of disintegration. Break up the people into parties and sects. Sow abroad the most promising and utopian of ideas and you will do two things: you will always find a group to cling to each idea you throw out; and you will find this partisanship dividing and estranging the various groups. The authors of the Protocols show in detail how this is to be done. Not one idea, but a mass of ideas are to be thrown out, and there is to be no unity among them. The purpose is not to get the people thinking one thing, but to think so diversely about so many different things that there will be no unity among them. The result of this will be vast disunity, vast unrest—and that is the result aimed for.

When once the solidarity of the Gentile society is broken up—and the name, “Gentile society” is perfectly correct, for human society is overwhelmingly Gentile—then this solid wedge of another idea which is not at all affected by the prevailing confusion can make its way unsuspectedly to the place of control. It is well enough known that a body of 20 trained police or soldiers can accomplish more than a disordered mob of a thousand persons. So the minority initiated into the plan can do more with a nation or a world broken into a thousand antagonistic parties, than any of the parties could do. “Divide and rule” is the motto of the Protocols.

The division of society is perfectly easy, according to the estimate of human nature made in these documents. It is human nature to take promises for acts. No one who considered the list of dreams and vagaries and theories that have swayed the people through the centuries can doubt this. The more utopian, the more butterfly-like the theory, the more it commands public adherence. Just as the Protocols say, Gentile society does not scrutinize the origin or the consequences of the theories it adopts. When a theory makes its appeal to the mind, the tendency is to believe that the mind which receives it always had it in essence, and therefore the experience has all the glow of original discovery.

In this manner, theory after theory has been exploited among the masses, theory after theory has been found to be impracticable and has been discarded, but the result is precisely that which the program of the Protocols aims for—with the discarding of each theory, society is a little more broken than it was before. It is a little more helpless before its exploiters. It is a little more confused as to where to look for leadership. As a consequence society falls an easy victim again to a theory which promises it the good it seeks, and the failure of this theory leaves it still more broken. There is no longer any such thing as public opinion. Distrust and division are everywhere. And in the midst of the confusion everyone is dimly aware that there is a higher group that is not divided at all, but is getting exactly what it wants by means of the confusion that obtains all around. It will be shown, as claimed by the Protocols, that most of the disruptive theories abroad in the world today are of Jewish origin; it will also be shown that the one solid unbroken group in the world today, the group that knows where it wants to go and is going there regardless of the condition of society, is the Jewish group.

The most dangerous theory of all is that which explains the rise of theories and the social break-up which follows them. These are all “symptoms of progress” we are told. If so, then “progress” is toward dissolution. No one can predicate the fact of “progress” on the ground that, whereas our fathers made wheels to go round with the blowing wind or the running water, we make them go round by successive small explosions of gasoline. The question of “progress” is, Where are the wheels taking us? Was windmill and water wheel society better or worse than the present society? Was it more unified in its morality? Did it more highly respect law, did it produce a higher and sturdier type of character?

The modern theory of “ferment,” that out of all the unrest and change and transvaluation of values a new and better mankind is to be evolved is not borne out by any fact on the horizon. It is palpably a theory whose purpose is to make a seeming good out of that which is undeniable evil. The theories which cause the disruption and the theory which explains the disruption as good, come from the same source. The whole science of economics, conservative and radical, capitalistic and anarchistic, is of Jewish origin. This is another of the announcements of the Protocols which the facts confirm.

Now, all this is accomplished, not by acts, but by words. The word-brokers of the world, those who wish words to do duty for things, in their dealings with the world outside their class, are undoubtedly the Jewish group—the international Jews with which these articles deal—and their philosophy and practice are precisely set forth in the Protocols.

Take for illustration these passages: The first is from the First Protocol:

“Political freedom is an idea, not a fact. It is necessary to know how to apply this idea when there is need of a clever bait to gain the support of the people for one’s party, if such a party has undertaken to defeat another party already in power. This task is made easier if the opponent has himself been infected by principles of freedom or so-called liberalism, and for the sake of the idea will yield some of his own power.”

Or consider this from the Fifth Protocol:

“To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions that the Gentiles will lose themselves in the labyrinth and come to understand that it is best to have no opinion on political questions, which it is not given to society at large to understand but only to the ruler who directs society. This is the first secret.

“The second secret consists in so increasing and intensifying the shortcomings of the people in their habits, passions and mode of living that no one will be able to collect himself in the chaos, and, consequently, people will lose all their mutual understanding. This measure will serve us also in breeding disagreement in all parties, in disintegrating all those collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us and in discouraging all personal initiative which can in any way interfere with our undertaking.”

And this from the Thirteenth Protocol:

“* * * and you may also notice that we seek approval, not for our acts, but for our words uttered in regard to one or another question. We always announce publicly that we are guided in all our measures by the hope and the conviction that we are serving the general good.

“To divert over-restless people from discussing political questions, we shall now bring forward new problems apparently connected with the people—problems of industry. In these, let them lose themselves as much as they like. Under such conditions we shall make them think that the new questions have also a political bearing.”

(It is to be hoped that the reader, as his eye passes over these details of the Program, is also permitting his mind to pass over the trend of events, to see if he may detect for himself these very developments in the life and thought of the past few years.)

“To prevent them from really thinking out anything themselves, we shall deflect their attention to amusements, games, pastimes, excitements and people’s palaces. Such interests will distract their minds completely from questions on which we might be obliged to struggle with them. Becoming less and less accustomed to independent thinking, people will express themselves in unison with us because we alone offer new lines of thought—of course, through persons whom they do not consider as in any way connected with us.”

In this same Protocol it is plainly stated what is the purpose of the output of “liberal” theories, of which Jewish writers, poets, rabbis, societies and influences are the most prolific sources:

“The role of the liberal Utopians will be completely played out when our government is recognized. Until that time they will perform good service. For that reason we will continue to direct thought into all the intricacies of fantastic theories, new and supposedly progressive. Surely we have been completely successful in turning the witless heads of the Gentiles by the word ‘progress.’”

Here is the whole program of confusing, enervating, and trivializing the mind of the world. And it would be the most outlandish thought to put into words, were it not possible to show that this is just what has been done, and is still being done, by agencies which are highly lauded and easy to be identified among us.

A recent writer in a prominent magazine has pointed out what he calls the impossibility of the Jewish ruling group being allied in one common World Program because, as he showed, there were Jews acting as leading minds in all the divisions of present-day opinion. There were Jews at the head of the capitalists, Jews at the head of the labor unions, and Jews at the head of those more radical organizations which find even the labor unions too tame. There is a Jew at the head of the judiciary of England and a Jew at the head of Sovietism in Russia. How can you say, he asked, that they are united, when they represent so many points of view?

The common unity, the possible common purpose of it all, is thus expressed in the Ninth Protocol:

“People of all opinions and of all doctrines are at our service, restorers of monarchy, demagogues, Socialists, communists and other Utopians. We have put them all to work. Every one of them from his point of view is undermining the last remnant of authority, is trying to overthrow all existing order. All the governments have been tormented by these actions. But we will not give them peace until they recognize our super-government.”

The function of the idea is referred to in the Tenth Protocol also:

“When we introduced the poison of liberalism into the government organism, its entire political complexion changed.”

The whole outlook of these Protocols upon the world is that the idea may be made a most potent poison. The authors of these documents do not believe in liberalism, they do not believe in democracy, but they lay plans for the constant preaching of these ideas because of their power to break up society, to divide it into groups, to destroy the power of collective opinion through a variety of convictions. The poison of an idea is their most relied-on weapon.

The plan of thus using ideas extends to education:

“We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by means of education in principles and theories, patently false to us, but which we have inspired.”—Protocol 9.

It extends also to family life:

“Having in this way inspired everybody with the thought of his own importance, we will break down the influence of family life among the Gentiles, and its educational importance.”—Protocol 10.

And in a passage which might well provide the material for long examination and contemplation by the thoughtful reader, this is said:

“Until the time is ripe, let them amuse themselves * * * Let those theories of life which we have induced them to regard as the dictates of science play the most important role for them. To this end we shall endeavor to inspire blind confidence in these theories by means of our Press * * *

“Note the successes we have arranged in Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism. The demoralizing effect of these doctrines upon the minds of the Gentiles should be evident at least to us.”—Protocol 2.

That this disintegration and division of Gentile society was proceeding at a favorable rate when the Protocols were uttered is evident from every line of them. For it must be remembered that the Protocols are not bidding for support for a proposed program, but are announcing progress on a program which has been in process of fulfillment for “centuries” and “from ancient times.” They contain a series of statements regarding things accomplished, as well as a forelook at things yet to be accomplished. The split of Gentile society was very satisfactorily proceeding in 1896, or thereabouts, when these oracles were uttered.

It is to be noticed that the purpose is nowhere stated to be the extermination of the Gentiles, but their subjugation, at first under the invisible rule which is proposed in these documents, at length under the rule of one whom the invisible forces would be able to put in control of the world through political changes which would create an office of World President or Autocrat. The Gentiles are to be subdued, first intellectually, as here shown, and then economically. Nowhere is it hinted that they are to be deprived of the earth, but only of their independence of those whom the Protocols represent to be Jews.

How far the division of society had proceeded when these Protocols were given may be gathered from the Fifth Protocol:

“A world coalition of Gentiles could cope with us temporarily, but we are assured against this by roots of dissension among them so deep that they cannot be torn out. We have created antagonism between the personal and national interests of the Gentiles by arousing religious and race hatreds which we have nourished in their hearts for twenty centuries.”

As far as that concerns the dissensions of the Gentiles or Christian world, it is absolutely true. And we have seen in our own nation how “the antagonism between personal and national interests” have rested on “religious and race hatreds.” But whoever suspected a common source for these? More amazing still, who would expect any man or group to avow themselves the source? Yet it is thus written in the Protocols—“we have created the antagonism—we thus assure ourselves against the possibility of a Gentile coalition against us.” And whether these Protocols are of Jewish origin or not, whether they represent Jewish interests or not, this is exactly the state of the world, of the Gentile world, today.

But a still deeper division is aimed for, and there are signs of even this coming to pass. Indeed, in Russia it has already come to pass, the spectacle of a Gentile lower class led by Jewish leaders against a Gentile upper class! In the First Protocol, describing the effects of a speculative industrial system upon the people, it is said that this sort of economic folly—

“* * * has already created and will continue to create a society which is disillusioned, cold and heartless. Such a society is completely estranged from politics and religion. Lust of gold will be the only guide of the people * * * THEN, not for the sake of good, nor even for the sake of riches, but solely on account of their hatred of the privileged classes, the lower classes of the Gentiles will follow us in the struggle against our rivals for power, the Gentiles of the intellectual classes.”

“The lower classes of the Gentiles will follow us * * * against * * * the Gentiles of the intellectual classes.”

If that struggle were to occur today, the leaders of the Gentile insurgents against Gentile society would be Jewish leaders. They are in the leader’s place now—not only in Russia, but also in the United States.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 31 July 1920]

“There is all the difference in the world,” said a young Jewish philosopher, “between an American Jew and a Jewish American. A Jewish American is a mere amateur Gentile, doomed to be a parasite forever.”

—“The Conquering Jew,” p. 91.

“Jewish Protocols” Claim Partial Fulfillment

“With the present instability of all authority, our power will be more unassailable than any other, because it will be invisible until it has gained such strength that no cunning can undermine it.”—Protocol 1.

“It is indispensable for our purposes that, as far as possible, wars should bring no territorial advantages. This will shift war to an economic footing Such a condition of affairs will place both sides under the control of our international agents with their million eyes, whose vision is unhampered by any frontiers. Then, our international rights will eliminate national rights in the narrow sense, and will govern the governments as they govern their subjects.”—Protocol 2.

As a mere literary curiosity, these documents which are called “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” would exercise a fascination by reason of the terrible completeness of the World Plan which they disclose. But they discourage at every turn the view that they are literature; they purport to be statesmanship, and they provide within their own lines the clue by which their status may be determined. Besides the things they look forward to doing, they announce the things they have done and are doing. If, in looking about the world, it is possible to see both the established conditions and the strong tendencies to which these Protocols allude, it will not be strange if interest in a mere literary curiosity gives way to something like alertness, and it may be alarm.

A few general quotations will serve to illustrate the element of present achievement in the assertions of these documents, and in order that the point may be made clear to the reader the key words will be emphasized.

Take this from Protocol Nine:

“In reality there are no obstacles before us. Our super-government has such an extra-legal status that it may be called by the energetic and strong word—dictatorship. I can conscientiously say that, at the present time, we are the lawmakers. We create courts and jurisprudence. We rule with a strong will because we hold in our hands the remains of a once strong party, now subjugated by us.”

And this from the Eighth Protocol:

“We will surround our government with a whole world of economists. It is for this reason that the science of economics is the chief subject of instruction taught by the Jews. We shall be surrounded by a whole galaxy of bankers, industrialists, capitalists, and especially by millionaires because, actually, everything will be decided by an appeal to figures.”

These are strong claims, but not too strong for the facts that can be marshaled to illustrate them. They are, however, but an introduction to further claims that are made and equally paralleled by the facts. All through the Protocols, as in this quotation from the Eighth, the pre-eminence of the Jews in the teaching of political economy is insisted upon, and the facts bear that out. They are the chief authors of those vagaries which lead the mob after economic impossibilities, and they are also the chief teachers of political economy in our universities, the chief authors of those popular textbooks in the subject, which hold the conservative classes to the fiction that economic theories are economic laws. The idea, the theory, as instruments of social disintegration are common to both the university Jew and the Bolshevik Jew. When all this is shown in detail, public opinion upon the importance of academic and radical economics may undergo a change.

And, as claimed in the quotation just given from the Ninth Protocol, the Jewish world power does today constitute a super-government. It is the Protocol’s own word, and none is more fitting. No nation can get all that it wants, but the Jewish World Power can get all that it wants, even though its demands exceed Gentile equality. “We are the lawmakers,” say the Protocols, and Jewish influences have been lawmakers in a greater degree than any but the specialists realize. In the past ten years Jewish international rule, or the power of the group of International Jews has quite dominated the world. More than that, it has been powerful enough to prevent the passage of salutary laws, and where one law may have slipped through to a place on the statute books, it has been powerful enough to get it interpreted in a sense that rendered it useless for its purpose. This, too, can be illustrated by a large collection of facts.

Moreover, the method by which this is done was outlined long ago in the program of which the Protocols purport to be an outline. “We create courts,” continues the quotation, and it is followed in other Protocols by numerous references to “our judges.” There is a Jewish court sitting in a public building in the city of New York every week, and other courts, for the sole advantage and use of this people whose spokesmen deny that they are a “separate people,” are in formation everywhere. The Zionist plan has already been used in some of the smaller European countries to confer an extra-citizenship upon Jews who already enjoy citizenship in the lands of their residence, and in addition to that a degree of self-rule under the very governments which they demand to protect them. Wherever Jewish tendencies are permitted to work unhindered, the result is not “Americanization,” or “Anglicization” nor any other distinctive nationalism, but a strong and ruling reversion back to essential “Judaization.”

The “agents” referred to in the first quotation will receive attention in another article. To resume the claims of the Protocols: This from the Seventeenth Protocol:

“We have taken good care long ago to discredit the Gentile clergy and thereby to destroy their mission, which at present might hamper us considerably. Their influence over the people diminishes daily.

“Freedom of conscience has been proclaimed everywhere. Consequently it is only a question of time when the complete crash of the Christian religion will occur. It will be easier to handle the other religions, but it is too early to discuss this phase of the subject.”

This will be of considerable interest, perhaps, to those clergymen who are laboring with Jewish rabbis to bring about some kind of religious union. Such a union would of necessity dispose of Christ as a well-meaning but wholly mistaken Jewish prophet, and thus distinctive Christianity would cease to exist insofar as the “union” was effective. The principal religious aversion of the Protocols, however, so far as it is expressed, is against the Catholic church in general and the pontifical office in particular.

A curious paragraph in this Protocol claims for the Jewish race a particular skill in the art of insult:

 “Our contemporary press will expose governmental and religious affairs and the incapacity of the Gentiles, always using expressions so derogatory as to approach insult, the faculty of employing which is so well known to our race.”

This from the Fifth Protocol:

“Under our influence the execution of the laws of the Gentiles is reduced to a minimum. Respect for the law is undermined by the liberal interpretation we have introduced in this sphere. The courts decide as we dictate, even in the most important cases in which are involved fundamental principles or political issues, viewing them in the light in which we present them to the Gentile administration through agents with whom we have apparently nothing in common, through newspaper opinion and other avenues.

“In Gentile society where we have planted discord and protestantism * * * *”

The word “protestantism” is evidently not used in the religious or sectarian sense, but to denote a temper of querulous fault-finding destructive of harmonious collective opinion.

This from the Fourteenth Protocol:

“In countries called advanced, we have created a senseless, filthy and disgusting literature. For a short time after our entrance into power we shall encourage its existence so that it may show in greater relief the contrast between it and the written and spoken announcements which will emanate from us.”

Discussing in the Twelfth Protocol the control of the Press—a subject which must be treated more extensively in another article—the claim is made:

“We have attained this at the present time to the extent that all news is received through several agencies in which it is centralized from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be to all intents and purposes our own institutions and will publish only that which we permit.”

This from the Seventh Protocol bears on the same subject:

“We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will promote our broadly conceived plan, already approaching its triumphant goal, by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion, which has been organized by us with the help of the so-called ‘great power’ of the press. With a few exceptions not worth considering, it is already in our hands.”

To resume the Twelfth Protocol:

“If we have already managed to dominate the mind of Gentile society to such a point that almost all see world affairs through the colored lenses of the spectacles which we place before their eyes, and if now there is not one government with barriers erected against our access to that which by Gentile stupidity is called state secrets, what then will it be when we are the recognized masters of the world in the person of our universal ruler?”

The Jewish nation is the only nation that possesses the secrets of all the rest. No nation long protects a secret which directly concerns another nation, but even so, no nation has all the secrets of all the other nations. Yet it is not too much to say that the International Jews have this knowledge. Much of it, of course, amounts to nothing and their possession of it does not materially add to their power, but the fact that they have the access, that they can get whatever they want when they want it is the important point—as many a secret paper could testify if it could talk, and many a custodian of secret papers could tell if he would. The real secret diplomacy of the world is that which hands over the world’s so-called secrets to a few men who are members of one race. The surface of diplomacy, those activities which get written down in the memoirs of comfortably aging statesmen, those coups and treaties which are given high-sounding fame as if they really were important—that is incomparable with the diplomacy of Judah, and its matchless enginery for worming out the hidden knowledge of every ruling group. The United States is included in all these statements. Perhaps there is no government in the world so completely at their service as our own at present, their control having been gained during the past five or six years.

The Protocols do not regard the dispersal of the Jews abroad upon the face of the earth as a calamity, but as a providential arrangement by which the World Plan can be more certainly executed, as see these words of the Eleventh Protocol:

 “God gave to us, His Chosen People, as a blessing, the dispersal, and this which has appeared to all to be our weakness has been our whole strength. It has now brought us to the threshold of universal rule.”

The claims to accomplishment which are put forth in the Ninth Protocol would be too massive for words were they too massive for concrete realization, but there is a point where the word and the actuality meet and tally.

“In order not to destroy prematurely the Gentile institutions, we have laid our efficient hands on them, and rasped the springs of their mechanism. They were formerly in strict and just order, but we have replaced them with a liberal disorganized and arbitrary administration. We have tampered with jurisprudence, the franchise, the press, freedom of the person, and, most important of all, education and culture, the corner stone of free existence.

“We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by means of education in principles and theories patently false to us, but which we have inspired.

“Above existing laws, without actual change but by distorting them through contradictory interpretations, we have created something stupendous in the way of results.”

Everyone knows that, in spite of the fact that the air was never so full of theories of liberty and wild declarations of “rights,” there has been a steady curtailment of “personal freedom.” Instead of being socialized, the people, under a cover of socialistic phrases, are being brought under an unaccustomed bondage to the state. The Public Health is one plea. Various forms of Public Safety are other pleas. Children are hardly free to play nowadays except under play-masters appointed by the State, among whom, curiously enough, an astonishing proportion of Jews manage to find a place. The streets are no longer as free as they were; laws of every kind are hedging upon the harmless liberties of the people. A steady tendency toward systemization, every phase of the tendency based upon some very learnedly stated “principle,” has set in, and curiously enough, when the investigator pursues his way to the authoritative center of these movements for the regulation of people’s life, he finds Jews in power. Children are being lured away from the “social center” of the home for other “centers”; they are being led away (and we are speaking of Gentile children—no Gentiles are ever allowed to regulate the lives of Jewish children) from their natural leaders in home, church and school, to institutionalized “centers” and scientific “play spots,” under  “trained leaders” whose whole effect, consciously or unconsciously, is to lead the modern child to look to the State, instead of its natural environment, for leadership. All this focuses up to the World Plan for the subjugation of the Gentiles, and if it is not the Jewish World Plan it would be interesting to know why the material for it is so largely Gentile children and the leaders of it so often of the Jewish race.

Jewish liberties are the best safeguarded in the United States. Gentiles take their chance with public matters, but every Jewish community is surrounded by special protectors who gain special recognition by various devices—political and business threats not the least of them. No public spirited Gentiles are welcomed to the task of regulating the lives of Jewish children. The Jewish community in every city is all-sufficient in itself as far as such activities go. The most secret of all parochial schools are the Jewish schools, whose very locations are not all known to the officials of large cities. The Jew is almost anxious in his efforts to mold the Gentile mind; he insists on being permitted to tell the Gentile what to think, especially about the Jew; he is not averse to influencing general Gentile thought in a manner which, though it come about by wide circles, works ultimately into the Jewish scheme of things. The anxiety and the insistence, so well known to all who have observed them, are only reflections of the Jew’s conviction that his is the superior race and is capable of directing the inferior race—of which there is but one, including the whole non-Jewish world.

Every influence that leads to lightness and looseness in Gentile youth today heads up in a Jewish source. Did the young people of the world devise the “sport clothes” which have had so deleterious an effect on the youth of the times that every publicist has thought it worthy of mention? Those styles come out of Jewish clothing concerns, where certainly art is not the rule nor moral influence the main consideration. The moving picture is an interesting development of photography allied with the show business, but whose is the responsibility for its development along such lines as make it a menace to the minds of millions—so serious a menace that it has not escaped observation and condemnation everywhere? Who are the masters of musical jazz in the world? Who direct all the cheap jewelry houses, the bridge-head show parks, the “coney islands,” the centers of nervous thrills and looseness? It is possible to take the showy young man and woman of trivial outlook and loose sense of responsibility, and tag them outwardly and inwardly from their clothing and ornaments to their hectic ideas and hopes, with the same tag, “Made, introduced and exploited by a Jew.”

There is, therefore, something most sinister in the light which events cast upon that paragraph:

“We have misled, stupefied, and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by means of education in principles and theories, patently false to us but which we have inspired.”

“Principles and theories” do not necessarily imply lofty or even modest intellectual qualities. The youngster who spends his noon hours and evenings at the movies is getting his “principles and theories” just as the more intellectual youngster from a higher grade of society who listens to a Jewish “liberal” expound “sex liberty” and the “control of population” is getting his. The looseness which inheres in these “principles and theories” does not emanate from the Gentile home, or the Gentile church, or from any line of money-making which is filled principally with Gentiles, but from theories, movements and lines of money-making mostly fancied by Jews. This line of accusation could be run much deeper, but it is preferred to restrict it to what is observable by decent eyes everywhere.

And that “the youth of the Gentiles” are the principal victims, and not the youth of the Jews, is also observable. While a certain percentage of Jewish youth itself is overcome by this social poison, the percentage is almost nothing compared with the results among the youth of the Gentiles. It is a significant fact that Jews who link this process of enervation of Gentiles with large profits are not themselves, nor are their sons and daughters, the victims of this enervation. Jewish youth comes through more proudly and more cleanly than the mass of Gentile youth.

Many a father and mother, many a sound-minded, uncorrupted young person, and thousands of teachers and publicists have cried out against luxury. Many a financier, observing the manner in which the people earned and flung away their money, has warned against luxury. Many an economist, knowing that the nonessential industries were consuming men and materials that were necessary to the stabilizing of essential industries; knowing that men are making knick-knacks who should be making steel; knowing that men are engaged in making gew-gaws who should be working on the farm; that materials are going into articles that are made only to sell and never to use, and that materials are thus diverted from the industries that support the people’s life—every observer knowing this crazy insistence on luxurious nonessentials has lifted up a strong voice against it.

But, according to these Protocols, we have been starting at the wrong end. The people, it is true, buy these senseless nonessentials which are called luxuries. But the people do not devise them. And the people grow tired of them one by one. But the stream of varieties continues—always something else being thrust at the people, dangled before their eyes, set bobbing down the avenue on enough mannikins to give the impression that it is “style”; newspaper print and newspaper pictures; movie pictures; stage costumes enough to force the new thing into “fashion” with a kind of force and compulsion which no really worthy essential thing can command.

Where does it come from? What power exists whose long experience and deliberate intent enable it to frivolize the people’s minds and tastes and compel them to pay most of their money for it too? Why this spasm of luxury and extravagance through which we have just passed? How did it occur that before luxury and extravagance were apparent, all the material to provoke and inflame them had been prepared beforehand and shipped beforehand, ready for the stampede which also had been prepared?

If the people of the United States would stop to consider, when the useless and expensive thing is offered them—if they would trace its origin, trace the course of the enormous profits made out of it, trace the whole movement to flood the market with uselessness and extravagance and thus demoralize the Gentile public financially, intellectually, and socially—if, in short, it could be made clear to them that Jewish financial interests are not only pandering to the loosest elements in human nature, but actually engaged in a calculated effort to render them loose in the first place and keep them loose—it would do more than anything else to stop this sixfold waste—the waste of material, the waste of labor, the waste of Gentile money, the waste of Gentile mind, the waste of Jewish talent, and the worse than waste of Israel’s real usefulness to the world.

We say the Gentile public is the victim of this stimulated trade in useless luxuries. Did you ever see Jewish people so victimized? They might wear very noticeable clothing, but its price and its quality agree. They might wear rather large diamonds, but they are diamonds. The Jew is not the victim of the Jew, the craze for luxuries is just like the “coney island” crowd to him; he knows what attracts them and the worthlessness of it.

And it is not so much the financial loss that is to be mourned, nor yet the atrocities committed upon good taste, but the fact that the silly Gentile crowds walk into the net willingly, even gaily, supposing the change of the fashion to be as inevitable as the coming of spring, supposing the new demand on their earnings to be as necessary and as natural as taxes. The crowds think that somehow they have part in it, when their only part is to pay, and then pay again for the new extravagance when the present one palls. There are men in this country who know two years ahead what the frivolities and extravagances of the people will be, because they decree what they shall be. These things are strictly business, demoralizing to the Gentile majority, enriching to the Jewish minority.

Look at the Sixth Protocol for a sidelight on all this:

This is an excerpt from a longer passage dealing with the plans by which the people’s interest could be swung from political to industrial questions, how industry could be made insecure and unfair by the introduction of speculation into its management, and finally how against this condition the people could be rendered restless and helpless. Luxury was to be the instrument:

“To destroy Gentile industry, we shall, as an incentive to this speculation, encourage among the Gentiles a strong demand for luxuries—all enticing luxuries.”

And in the First Protocol:

“Surely we cannot allow our own people to come to this. The people of the Gentiles are stupefied with spirituous liquors * * *”

—incidentally, the profits of spirituous liquors flow in large amounts to Jewish pockets. The history of the whiskey ring in this country will show this. Historically, the whole prohibition movement may be described as a contest between Gentile and Jewish capital, and in this instance, thanks to the Gentile majority, the Gentiles won.

The amusement, gambling, jazz song, scarlet fiction, side show, cheap-dear fashions, flashy jewelry, and every other activity that lived by reason of an invisible pressure upon the people, and that exchanged the most useless of commodities for the prices that would just exhaust the people’s money surplus and no more—every such activity has been under the mastery of the Jews.

They may not be conscious of their participation in any wholesale demoralization of the people. They may only be conscious of “easy money.” They may sometimes yield to surprise as they contrast the silly Gentiles with their own money-wise and fabric-wise and metal-wise Jews. But however this may be, there is the conception of a program by which a people may be deliberately devastated materially and spiritually, and yet kept pleasant all the time—and there also is the same program translated into terms of daily transactions and for the most part, perhaps altogether under control of the members of one race.

 [THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 7 August 1920]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo TOP

“Jewish” Plan to Split Society by “Ideas”

The method by which the Protocols work for the breakdown of society should now be fairly evident to readers of these articles. An understanding of the method is necessary if one is to find the meaning of the currents and cross-currents which make so hopeless a hodge-podge of the present times. People who are confused and discouraged by the various voices and discordant theories of today, each seeming to be plausible and promising, may find a clear clue to the value of the voices and the meaning of the theories if they understand that their confusion and discouragement comprise the very objective which is sought. The uncertainty, hesitation, hopelessness, fear; the eagerness with which every promising plan and offered solution is grasped—these are the very reactions which the program outlined in the Protocols aims to produce. The condition is proof of the efficacy of the program.

It is a method that takes time, and the Protocols declare that it has taken time, indeed, centuries. Students of the matter find the identical program of the Protocols, announced and operated by the Jewish race, from the first century onward.

It has taken 1900 years to bring Europe to its present degree of subjugation—violent subjugation in some countries, political subjugation in some, economic subjugation in all—but in America the same program, with almost the same degree of success, has required about 50 years. Certain mistaken ideas of liberalism, certain flabby ideas of tolerance, all of them originating at European sources which the Protocolists had completely polluted, were transported to America, and here under cover of the blindness and innocence of a false liberalism and tolerance, together with modern appliances for the swift acceleration of opinion, there has been worked a subjugation of our institutions and public thought which is the amazement of European observers. It is a fact that some of the important students of the Jewish Question, whom Jewish publicists are pleased to damn with the term “Anti-Semites,” have been awakened to the existence of the Question not by what they have observed in Europe, but by what they have seen in the swift and distinct “close-up” which has been afforded in American affairs.

The center of Jewish power, the principal sponsors of the Jewish program, are resident in America, and the leverage which was used at the Peace Conference to fasten Jewish power more securely upon Europe, was American leverage exercised at the behest of the strong Jewish pressure which was brought from the United States for that purpose.

And these activities did not end with the Peace Conference.

The whole method of the Protocols may be described in one word, Disintegration. The undoing of what has been done, the creation of a long and hopeless interim in which attempts at reconstruction shall be baffled, and the gradual wearing down of public opinion and public confidence, until those who stand outside the created chaos shall insert their strong calm hand to seize control—that is the whole method of procedure.

Putting together the estimate of human nature which obtains in these Protocols, and their claims to a rather definite though as yet incomplete fulfillment of the World Program (these two comprising the themes of the previous two articles), some of the aspects of this propaganda of disintegration have become clear. But not all of them. There are yet other aspects of these methods, which will be dealt with in the present article, and there are yet future reaches of the program which will be considered later.

The first point of attack is Collective Opinion, that body of ideas which through men’s agreement with them, holds large groups together in political, racial, religious, or social unity. Sometimes we call them “standards,” sometimes we call them “ideals”; whatever they may be called, they are the invisible bonds of unity, they are the common faith, they are the great overarching reason for group unity and loyalty.

The Protocols assert that here the first attack has been made. The history of Jewish propaganda in the world shows that also.

The first wave of attack is to corrupt Collective Opinion. Now, to “corrupt” in the real sense does not mean anything unsavory or unclean. The whole power of every heresy is its attractiveness to the good mind. The whole explanation of the strong hold which untruth has gained upon the world of our day, is that the untruth is reasonable, inspiring and apparently good. It is only after a long discipline in false ideals—which are reasonable, inspiring and good—that the evil fruits appear in acts and conditions which are unreasonable, destructive and wholly evil. If you will trace the idea of Liberty as it has appeared in Russian history, from its philosophic beginning (a Jewish beginning, by the way) to its present ending (a Jewish ending also), you will see the process.

The Protocols claim that the Gentiles are not thinkers, that attractive ideas have been thrown at them so strategically and persistently that the power of thought is almost destroyed out of them. Fortunately this is a matter on which any Gentile may apply his own test. If he will segregate his ruling ideas, especially those that center round the thought of “democracy,” he will discover that he is being ruled in his mind by a whole company of ideas into whose authority over him he has not inquired at all. He is ruled by “say so” whose origin he has not traced. And when, pursuing those ideas, he finds that they are not practicable, he is received by the explanation that “we are not yet sufficiently advanced.” Yet when he does see men who are sufficiently “advanced” to put these very ideas into operation, he recoils from what he sees them do, because he knows that “advancement” such as that is deterioration—a form of disintegration. Yet every one of the ideas were “good,” “reasonable,” “inspiring,” “humane,” to begin with. And, if this Gentile will observe a little further, he will see that they are the most persistently preached ideas in the world; he will also see who the preachers are.

The Protocols distinctly declare that it is by means of the set of ideals which cluster around “democracy,” that their first victory over public opinion was obtained. The idea is the weapon. And to be a weapon it must be an idea at variance with the natural trend of life. It must indeed be a theory opposed to the facts of life. And no theory so opposed can be expected to take root and become the ruling factor, unless it appeals to the mind as reasonable, inspiring and good. The Truth frequently seems unreasonable; the Truth frequently is depressing; the Truth sometimes seems to be evil; but it has this eternal advantage, it is the Truth, and what is built thereon neither brings nor yields to confusion.

This first step does not give the control of public opinion, but leads up to it. It is worthy of note that it is the sowing of “the poison of liberalism,” as the Protocols name it, which comes first in order in those documents. Then, following upon that, the Protocols say:

“To obtain control over public opinion it is first necessary to confuse it.”

Truth is one and cannot be confused, but this false, appealing liberalism which has been sown broadcast, and which is ripening faster under Jewish nurture in America than ever it did in Europe, is easily confused because it is not truth. It is error, and error has a thousand forms. Take a nation, a party, a city, an association in which “the poison of liberalism” has been sown, and you can split that up into as many factions as there are individuals simply by throwing among them certain modifications of the original idea. This is a piece of strategy well known to the forces that invisibly control mass-thought. Theodor Herzl, the arch-Jew, a man whose vision was wider than any statesman’s and whose program paralleled the Protocols, knew this many years ago when he said that the Zionist (cryptic for “Jewish”) state would come before the Socialist state could come; he knew with what endless divisions the “liberalism” which he and his predecessors had planted would be shackled and crippled.

The process of which all Gentiles have been the victims, but never the Jews—never the Jews!—is just this—

First, to create an ideal of “broad-mindedness.” That is the phrase which appears in every Jewish remonstrance against public mention of the Jew and his alleged World Program: “We thought you were too broad-minded a man to express such thoughts;” “we thought Mr. So-and-So was too broad-minded a man to suspect the Jews of this;” “we thought the daily or weekly or monthly such-and-such a paper was too broad-minded editorially to consider such material.” It is a sort of keyword, indicative of the state of mind in which it is desired that the Gentles be kept. It is a state of flabby tolerance. A state of mind which mouths meaningless phrases about Liberty, phrases which act as an opiate on the mind and conscience and which allow all sorts of things to be done under cover. The phrase, the slogan, is a very dependable Jewish weapon. (“In all times people have accepted words for acts.”—Protocol 5.) The reality behind the phrase the Protocols frankly admit to be non-existent.

Nothing has served to create “broad-mindedness,” a state of mind whose breadth indicates its lack of depth, so much as the ideas of liberalism which the Jews are constantly teaching to Gentiles and on which they never themselves act. We need a new sort of allegiance to the reality of life, to the facts as they are, which will enable us to stand up under all cajoling to “broad-mindness” and assert a new intolerance of everything but truth. The terms “narrow” and “broad” as they are used today represent lies. The liberal man ought to believe more, he ought to be deep and wide in his beliefs in order to merit that name; but as a usual thing he believes nothing. He is not liberal at all. When you seek belief, belief with a foundation, belief with vitality, you must seek it among men who are sneered at, under this false Jewish-propagated notion of liberality, as “narrow men.” Jewish propaganda, in common with the Protocols, is against men who have dug down to the rock; they want “broad-minded men” who can easily be shifted about the surface and thus serve the invisible scheme in any manner desired. This type of men, on their part, never imagine but that their “broad-mindedness” is a mark of their superiority and independence.

Now, see what follows. Men are born believers. For a time they may believe in “broad-mindedness” and under the terrific social pressure that has been set up in its favor they will openly espouse it. But it is too shallow to satisfy any growing roots of life. They must believe, deeply, something. For proof of this, notice the undeniable strength of the negative beliefs which are held by men who fancy that they believe nothing.

Therefore, some who are highly endowed with independence of spirit, root down into those prohibited matters which at some point touch Jewish concerns—these are the “narrow” men. But others find it more convenient to cultivate those departments which promise a highway whereon there shall be no clashes of vital opinion, no chance of the charge of “intolerance”; in short they transfer all their contemplative powers to the active life, even as it is written in the Protocols—

“To divert Gentile thought and observation, interest must be deflected to industry and commerce.”

It is amazing to look around and see the number of men who have been actually browbeaten into committing their whole lives to these secondary or even tertiary things, while they look with great timidity and aversion at the vital things which really rule the world and upon the issue of which the world really depends.

But it is just this deflection to the materialistic base that offers the Protocolists, and similarly Jewish propagandists, their best hold. “Broad-mindedness” today consists in leaving vital matters severely alone. It descends quickly to material-mindedness. Within this lower sphere all the discord which distresses the world today is to be found.

First, there is the ruin of the upper circles of industry and commerce:

“To make it possible for liberty definitely to disintegrate and ruin Gentile society, industry must be placed on a speculative basis.”

No one needs to be told what this means. It means, as everything about us shouts, the prostitution of service to profits and the eventual disappearance of the profits. It means that the high art of management degenerates into exploitation. It means reckless confusion among the managers and dangerous unrest among the workmen.

But it means something worse; it means the splitting up of Gentile society. Not a division between “Capital” and “Labor,” but the division between the Gentiles at both ends of the working scheme. Gentile managers and manufacturers are not the “capitalists” of the United States. Most of them have to go to the “capitalists” for the funds with which they work—and the “capitalists” are Jewish, International Jews.

But with Jewish capital at one end of the Gentile working scheme putting the screws on the manufacturers, and with Jewish agitators and disruptionists and subversives at the other end of the Gentile working scheme putting the screws on the workmen, we have a condition at which the world-managers of the Protocol program must be immensely satisfied.

“We might fear the combined strength of the Gentiles of vision with the blind strength of the masses, but we have taken all measures against such a possible contingency by raising a wall of mutual antagonism between these two forces. Thus, the blind force of the masses remains our support. We, and we alone, shall serve as their leaders. Naturally, we will direct their energy to achieve our end.”—Protocol 9.

The indication that they are highly satisfied is that they are not only not doing anything to relieve the situation, but are apparently willing to have it made worse, and if it be at all possible for them to do so they would like to see this coming winter, and the privations which are scheduled for it (unless Gentile flabbiness before the Jewish power, high and low, receives a new backbone), bring the United States to the verge of, if not across the very line of Bolshevism. They know the whole method of artificial scarcity and high prices. It was practiced in the French Revolution and in Russia. All the signs of it are in this country too.

Industrial problems for their mental food and light amusement for their leisure hours, these are the Protocols’ method with regard to the Gentile mind, and under cover of these the work is to be done—the work which is best expressed by the motto, “Divide and Rule.”

Read this:

“To divert over-restless people from discussing political questions, we shall now bring forward new problems apparently connected with them—problems of industry.”—Protocol 13.

Has not everyone been struck by the divorcement which exists in this country between the mass-thought which is almost exclusively devoted to industrial questions, and the party-thought which is endeavoring to keep the field of pure politics? And is it not a fact that our friends, the Jews, are strongly entrenched in both fields—in politics to keep it reactionary, and in industrial circles to keep it radical—and so widen the split? And what is this split but a split of the Gentiles?—for society is Gentile, and the disruptive influences are Jewish.

Read this:

“We have included in the constitution rights for the people that are fictitious and not actual rights. All those so-called ‘rights of the people’ can only exist in the abstract and can never be realized in practice * * * The proletarian gains no more from the constitution than the miserable crumbs thrown from our table in return for his votes to elect our agents and pass our measures. Republican rights are a bitter irony to the poor man, for the pressure of daily labor prevents him from using them, and at the same time, deprives him of the guaranty of a permanent and certain livelihood by making him dependent upon strikes, organized either by his employers or his comrades.”—Protocol 3.

This remark about strikes is not at all puzzling to anyone who has studied the different types of strikes in this country. The number fomented from above the working class is astoundingly large.

Read this also:

“We will force up wages, which, however, will be of no benefit to the workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and of cattle raising. We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy.”—Protocol 6.

And this:

“We will represent ourselves as the saviours of the working class who have come to liberate them from this oppression by suggesting that they join our army of socialists, anarchists, communists, to whom we always extend our help under the guise of the fraternal principles of universal human solidarity.”—Protocol 3.

“Broad-mindedness” again! In this connection it is always well to remember the words of Sir Eustace Percy, heretofore quoted, words which are sponsored by Jews themselves—“Not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him.”

Or, as the author of “The Conquering Jew” says: “He is democratic in his sentiments, but not in his nature. When he proclaims the common brotherhood of man, he is asking that the social gate now closed against him in so many quarters shall be open to him; not because he wants equality, but because he desires to be master in the social world, as he is showing himself in so may other spheres. Many an honorable Jew will, I doubt not, dispute the accuracy of this distinction; but if he does it will be because he has lived so long in the atmosphere of the West that he is unconscious of what is bred in the bone of his Eastern race.”

It is not difficult, therefore, to see the genealogy of the Jewish ideas of liberalism from their origin to their latest effects upon Gentile life. The confusion aimed for is here. There is not a reader of these lines who has not felt in his own life the burden of it. Bewilderment characterizes the whole mental climate of the people today. They do not know what to believe. First one set of facts is given to them, then another. First one explanation of conditions is given to them, and then another. The fact-shortage is acute. There is a whole market-full of explanations that explain nothing, but only deepen the confusion. The government itself seems to be hampered, and whenever it starts on a line of investigation finds itself mysteriously tangled up so that procedure is difficult. This governmental aspect is also set forth in the Protocols.

Add to this the onslaught on the human tendency toward religion, which is usually the last barrier to fall before violence and robbery unashamed stalk forth. In order to bring the condition about at which this World Program aims, the Fourth Protocol says:

“It is for this reason that we must undermine faith, eradicate from the minds of the Gentiles the very principles of God and Soul, and replace these conceptions by mathematical calculations and material desires.”

“When we deprived the masses of their belief in God, ruling authority was thrown into the gutter, where it became public property, and we seized it.”—Protocol 5.

“We have taken good care long ago to discredit the Gentile clergy.”—Protocol 17.

“When we become rulers we shall regard as undesirable the existence of any religion except our own, proclaiming One God with Whom our fate is tied as The Chosen People, and by Whom our fate has been made one with the fate of the world. For this reason we must destroy all other religions. If thereby should emerge contemporary atheists, then, as a transition step, this will not interfere with our aims.”—Protocol 14.

This will probably offer matter for reflection by the “broad-minded.”

It is curious to note how this religious program has worked out in Russia where Trotsky (as loudly heralded in the American Jewish Press) is said to have no religion, and where Jewish commissars tell dying Russians who ask for priests, “We have abolished the Almighty.” Miss Katherine Dokoochief is reported, under a Philadelphia date, to have told the Near East Relief that Russian Christian churches have been subjected to the vilest indignities by the Bolsheviki, details of which she gives; but “the synagogues remain untouched, meeting with no damage.”

All these lines of attack, whose object is the destruction of the natural rallying points of Gentile thought, and the substitution of other rallying points of an unwholesome and destructive nature, are assisted, as we saw in the last article, by the propaganda for luxury. Luxury is recognizedly one of the most enervating influences. Its course runs from ease, through softness, to flabbiness, to degeneracy, mental, physical and moral. Its beginnings are attractive, its end is lasciviousness in some form, testifying to the complete breakdown of all the strong fiber of the life. It may make a theme for a more complete study some day, this lure to lasciviousness through luxury, and the identity of the forces that set the lure.

But now, to conclude this general view of the method, rather this part of the method, the confusion itself, which all these influences converge to produce, is expected to produce another more deeply helpless state. And that state is, Exhaustion.

It needs no imagination to see what this means. Exhaustion is today one of the conditions that menace the people. The recent political conventions and their effect upon the public fully illustrate it. Nobody seemed to care. Parties might make their declarations and candidates their promises—nobody cared. The war and its strain began the exhaustion; the “peace” and its confusion have about completed it. The people believe little and expect less. Confidence is gone. Initiative is nearly gone. The failure of movements falsely heralded as “people’s movements” has gone far to make the people think that no people’s movement is possible.

So say the Protocols:

“To wear everyone out by dissensions, animosities, feuds, famine, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles see no other way of escape except an appeal to our money and power.”—Protocol 10.

“We will so wear out and exhaust the Gentiles by all this that they will be compelled to offer us an international authority, which by its position will enable us to absorb without disturbance all the governmental forces of the world and thus form a super-government.

“We must so direct the education of Gentile society that its hands will drop in the weakness of discouragement in the face of any undertaking where initiative is needed.”—Protocol 5.

The Jews have never been worn out or exhausted. They have never been nonplused. This is the true psychic characteristic of those who have a clue to the maze. It is the unknown that exhausts the mind, the constant wandering around among tendencies and influences whose source is not known and whose purpose is not understood. Walking in the dark is wearing work. The Gentiles have been doing it for centuries. The others, having a pretty accurate idea what it was all about, have not succumbed. Even persecution is endurable if it is understandable, and the Jews of the world have always known just where it fitted in the scheme of things. Gentiles have suffered from Jewish persecutions than have the Jews, for after the persecutions were over, the Gentile was as much in the dark as ever; whereas Judaism simply took up again its century-long march toward a goal in which it implicitly believes, and which, some say who have deep knowledge of Jewish roots in the world and who too may be touched with exhaustion, they will achieve. However this may be, the revolution which would be necessary to unfasten the International Jewish system from its grip on the world, would probably have to be just as radical as any attempts the Jews have made to attain that grip. There are those who express serious doubts that the Gentiles are competent to do it at all. Maybe not. Let them at least know who their conquerors are.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 14 August 1920]

Did the Jews Foresee the World War?

Before proceeding to a more detailed study of the connection between the written program of the documents which are called “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” and the actual program as it can be traced in real life, we shall now view those plans which were future when the Protocols were uttered. It must be borne in mind, however, that what was future in 1896 and 1905, may be past today, that what was plan then may be fulfillment now. To bear this in mind will be in exact accord with the expression of Protocol 22—“I have endeavored to indicate carefully the secrets of past and future events, and of those momentous occurrences of the near future toward which we are rushing in a stream of great crises.” Some of those “momentous occurrences” have come to pass, and with them a brighter light on the Question which we are studying.

An illustration of this which is fresh in the minds of all was furnished by the Great War. Jewish comment on this series of articles has made much of the fact that one of the articles was devoted to the then prominence of the Jewish Question in Germany, and it was sought to mislead the people to think that this series was really a part of subtle German after-the-war propaganda. The fact is that articles on the Question in a number of countries were set aside in order to bring the Question itself prominently before the minds of Americans with the least delay. The postponed articles will appear in due season, though out of their order. Germany is today, with perhaps the possible exception of the United States, the most Jew-controlled country in the world—controlled within and from without—and a much stronger set of facts could be presented now than was presented in the original article (the facts of which were at first denied and later admitted by the Jewish spokesmen in the United States). For, since that article was written, public sentiment in Germany has swept the Jews largely out of public office. German public opinion exerted itself to the utmost to put German political administration back into German hands. But did that liberate Germany from the Jews? Not at all. For their entrenchments stretched further and deeper than mere display of official power. Their hold on the basic industries, the finances, the future of Germany has not been loosened in the least. It is there, unmovable. In what that hold consists, the reader will be told at some convenient time.

Germany is mentioned now, in connection with the Jews, for this purpose: It will be remembered that it was from Germany that the first cry of “annexations” came, and it came at a time when all German war activities and war sentiment were admittedly in Jewish control. “Annexations” was the cry that flashed across the world one day. And back across the world, from the United States, a nation that was not even a party to the war at that time, the word flashed back, “No Annexations.” Thus by a dramatic play the whole question was thrust before the world.

Soon the people of all countries had forgotten the blood of battle, the war profiteers and every other vital point, and were discussing a matter which belonged to the end of the war and not the beginning, the question of “annexations.” Now, when it is known who were controlling the formulation of war-aims in Germany and who were the chief counselors of the foreign policy of the United States at the same time, the projection of this question of “annexations” into the world’s mind becomes interesting; interesting but not wholly intelligible.

Not until you read the Protocols do you get a full light on this—and this report of the Protocols which is now given the world probably dates from 1896; there is absolutely ironclad proof of the date 1905.

The Second Protocol begins on the note of war, and its opening words are these:

“It is indispensable for our purpose that as far as possible, wars should bring no territorial advantages. This will shift war to an economic footing, and nations will perceive the strength of our superiority in the aid we render.”

Who was thinking, between 1896 and 1905, of the new “no annexations” rule to be applied to war? Were you? Do you know of any statesman who was? We know that military men were concerned about the appliances and operations of any future war that might occur. We know that statesmen, of the more responsible sort, were working to consolidate a balance of interests that would make war extremely improbable. Who had outdistanced them all in foresight and planning sufficiently to lay down a definite program of “no annexations?”

Fortunately the clue to the answer is supplied to us by unquestionable Jewish sources. The American Jewish News of September 19, 1919, had an advertisement on its front page which read thus:

“WHEN PROPHETS SPEAK

By Litman Rosenthal

Many years ago Nordau prophesied the Balfour Declaration. Litman Rosenthal, his intimate friend, relates this incident in a fascinating memoir.”

The article, on page 464, begins: “It was on Saturday, the day after the closing of the Sixth Congress, when I received a telephone message from Dr. Herzl asking me to call on him.”

This fixes the time. The Sixth Zionist Congress was held at Basle in August, 1903.

The memoir continues: “On entering the lobby of the hotel I met Herzl’s mother who welcomed me with her usual gracious friendliness and asked me whether the feelings of the Russian Zionists were now calmer.

“‘Why just the Russian Zionists, Frau Herzl?’ I asked. ‘Why do you only inquire about these?’

“‘Because my son,’ she explained, ‘is mostly interested in the Russian Zionists. He considers them the quintessence, the most vital part of the Jewish people.’”

At this Sixth Congress the British Government (“Herzl and his agents had kept in contact with the English Government”—Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, page 678) had offered the Jews a colony in Uganda, East Africa. Herzl was in favor of taking it, not as a substitute for Palestine, but as a step toward it. It was this which formed the chief topic of conversation between Herzl and Litman Rosenthal in that Basle hotel. Herzl said to Rosenthal, as reported in this article: “There is a difference between the final aim and the ways we have to go to achieve this aim.”

Suddenly Max Nordau, who seems at the conference held last month in London to have become Herzl’s successor, entered the room, and the Rosenthal interview was ended.

Let the reader now follow attentively the important part of this Rosenthal story:—(the italics are ours)

“About a month later I went on a business trip to France. On my way to Lyons I stopped in Paris, and there I visited, as usual, our Zionist friends. One of them told me that this very same evening Dr. Nordau was scheduled to speak about the Sixth Congress, and I, naturally, interrupted my journey to be present at this meeting and to hear Dr. Nordau’s report. When we reached the hall in the evening we found it filled to overflowing and all were waiting impatiently for the great master, Nordau, who, on entering, received a tremendous ovation. But Nordau, without paying heed to the applause showered upon him, began his speech immediately, and said:

“‘You all came here with a question burning in your hearts and trembling on your lips, and the question is, indeed, a great one, and of vital importance. I am willing to answer it. What you want to ask is: How could I—I who was one of those who formulated the Basle program—how could I dare to speak in favor of the English proposition concerning Uganda, how could Herzl as well as I betray our ideal of Palestine, because you surely think that we have betrayed it and forgotten it. Yet listen to what I have to say to you. I spoke in favor of Uganda after long and careful consideration; deliberately I advised the Congress to consider and to accept the proposal of the English Government, a proposal made to the Jewish nation through the Zionist Congress, and my reasons—but instead of my reasons let me tell you a political story as a kind of allegory.

“‘I want to speak of a time which is now almost forgotten, a time when the European powers had decided to send a fleet against the fortress of Sebastopol. At this time Italy, the United Kingdom of Italy, did not exist. Italy was in reality only a little principality of Sardinia, and the great, free and united Italy was but a dream, a fervent wish, a far ideal of all Italian patriots. The leaders of Sardinia, who were fighting for and planning this free and united Italy, were the three great popular heroes: Garibaldi, Mazzini, and Cavour.

“‘The European powers invited Sardinia to join in the demonstration at Sebastopol and to send also a fleet to help in the siege of this fortress, and this proposal gave rise to a dissension among the leaders of Sardinia. Garibaldi and Mazzini did not want to send a fleet to the help of England and France and they said: “Our program, the work to which we are pledged, is a free and united Italy. What have we to do with Sebastopol? Sebastopol is nothing to us, and we should concentrate all our energies on our original program so that we may realize our ideal as soon as possible.”

“‘But Cavour, who even at this time was the most prominent, the most able, and the most far-sighted statesman of Sardinia, insisted that his country should send a fleet and beleaguer with the other powers Sebastopol, and, at last, he carried his point. Perhaps it will interest you to know that the right hand of Cavour, his friend and adviser, was his secretary, Hartum, a Jew, and in those circles, which were in opposition to the government, one spoke fulminantly of Jewish treason. And once at an assembly of Italian patriots one called wildly for Cavour’s secretary, Hartum, and demanded of him to defend his dangerous and treasonable political actions. And this is what he said: “Our dream, our fight, our ideal, an ideal for which we have paid already in blood and tears, in sorrow and despair, with the life of our sons and the anguish of our mothers, our one wish and one aim is a free and united Italy. All means are sacred if they lead to this great and glorious goal. Cavour knows full well that after the fight before Sebastopol sooner or later a peace conference will have to be held, and at this peace conference those powers will participate who have joined in the fight. True, Sardinia has no immediate concern, no direct interest in Sebastopol, but if we will help now with our fleet, we will sit at the future peace conference, enjoying equal rights with the other powers, and at this peace conference Cavour, as the representative of Sardinia, will proclaim the free and independent, united Italy. Thus our dream for which we have suffered and died, will become, at last, a wonderful and happy reality. And if you now ask me again, what has Sardinia to do at Sebastopol, then let me tell you the following words, like the steps of a ladder: Cavour, Sardinia, the siege of Sebastopol, the future European peace conference, the proclamation of a free and united Italy.’”

“The whole assembly was under the spell of Nordau’s beautiful, truly poetic and exalted diction, and his exquisite, musical French delighted the hearers with an almost sensual pleasure. For a few seconds the speaker paused, and the public, absolutely intoxicated by his splendid oratory, applauded frantically. But soon Nordau asked for silence and continued:

“‘Now this great progressive world power, England, has after the pogroms of Kishineff, in token of her sympathy with our poor people, offered through the Zionist Congress the autonomous colony of Uganda to the Jewish nation. Of course, Uganda is in Africa, and Africa is not Zion and never will be Zion, to quote Herzl’s own words. But Herzl knows full well that nothing is so valuable to the cause of Zionism as amicable political relations with such a power as England is, and so much more valuable as England’s main interest is concentrated in the Orient. Nowhere else is precedent as powerful as in England, and so it is most important to accept a colony out of the hands of England and create thus a precedent in our favor. Sooner or later the Oriental question will have to be solved, and the Oriental question means, naturally, also the question of Palestine. England, who had addressed a formal, political note to the Zionist Congress—the Zionist Congress which is pledged to the Basle program, England will have the deciding voice in the final solution of the Oriental question, and Herzl has considered it his duty to maintain valuable relations with this great and progressive power. Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a world-congress will have to be called, and England, the great, free and powerful England, will then continue the work it has begun with its generous offer to the Sixth Congress. And if you ask me now what has Israel to do in Uganda, then let me tell you as the answer the words of the statesmen of Sardinia, only applied to our case and given in our version; let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.’

“Like a mighty thunder these last words came to us, and we all were trembling and awestruck as if we had seen a vision of old. And in my ears were sounding the words of our great brother Achad Haam, who said of Nordau’s address at the First Congress:

“‘I felt that one of the great old prophets was speaking to us, that his voice came down from the free hills of Judea, and our hearts were burning in us when we heard his words, filled with wonder, wisdom and vision.’”

The amazing thing is that this article by Litman Rosenthal should ever have been permitted to see print. But it did not see print until the Balfour Declaration about Palestine, and it never would have seen print had not the Jews believed that one part of their program had been accomplished.

The Jew never betrays himself until he believes that what he seeks has been won, then he lets himself go. It was only to Jews that the 1903 “program of the Ladder”—the future world war—the peace conference—the Jewish program—was communicated. When the ascent of that ladder seemed to be complete, then came the public talk. A similar illustration of this is to be found in the fall of the Czar. When that event transpired it was an occasion of great rejoicing in New York, and a Gentile of worldwide fame made a speech in which he lauded an American Jew of national reputation for having begun the downfall of the Czar by providing the money with which propaganda had been made among Russian prisoners in Japan during the Russo-Japanese war. The story came out only after the success of the plot. It is not at all out of keeping that the last men to see the last act of the plot carried out, the actual murder of Nicholas Romanovitch, his wife, his young daughters and his invalid boy, were “five Soviet deputies, the latter five all Jews.” What began with the assistance of an American financier, finished with Soviet deputies.

Did International Jews in 1903 foresee the war? This Rosenthal confession is but one bit of evidence that they did. And did they do nothing but foresee it? It were well if the facts stopped at foresight and did not run on to provocation.

For the present the reader is invited to retain in his mind two points in this Rosenthal article: “Perhaps it will interest you to know that the right hand of Cavour, his friend and adviser, was his secretary, Hartum, a Jew.” This is the way the Jewish press speaks of its own. If this paper, or a Chicago paper, or a New York paper should go through the list of the secretaries of the men of power in the world today and make the note after the names—“His secretary, a Jew,” the Anti-Defamation Society would send letters of protest. There is one rule for the Gentile and one for the Jew, in the Jewish mind. Writing in the public prints about Hartum, he would be described as an “Italian.”

Were the Jewish secretaries who abounded before the war, during the war and throughout the Peace Conference of less brilliance than Hartum? Were there not Hartums in England, France, Germany, yes and in Russia too (in the United States there were many) who saw the “program of the Ladder”? Did Max Nordau who saw it so clearly in 1903 forget it in 1914 and 1918?

We know this: the Jews in their Congress at Basle in 1903 foresaw “the future world war.” How did they know it was to be a “world war”?

We know this also: the Protocols, perhaps as early as 1896, certainly not later than 1905, foresaw the policy of “no annexations.”

The World War came to pass.

 “No annexations” came to pass. What was then future in the Jewish world program, is now past.

In the Protocols there are two forms of declaration. One is, “we have.” The other is, “we shall.” If somewhere in the world this summer the high secret spokesman of the World Program is addressing his class of International Initiates, he will have to say “we have” in many places where this spokesman of 1896 said “we shall.” Things have been accomplished.

“We will represent ourselves as the saviors of the laboring classes.” That has been and is being done. “We will deflect the thoughts of the Gentiles to industry and commerce.” That has been done. “We will create a strongly centralized administration so as to grasp all the social forces strongly in our hands.” That has been done. “We will adopt for ourselves the liberal side of all parties and all movements and provide orators.” That has been done. “We will force up wages.” That has been done. “We will at the same time cause a rise in the price of prime necessities.” That has been done. “We will also undermine the sources of production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy.” That has been done.

“To demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile governments of Europe, we shall show our power to one by crimes of violence, that is, by a reign of terror.”—Protocol 7.

Who that sees Russia and beholds the attitude of the premiers of England, France, and Italy toward the Soviets, the “enslavement” of statesmanship by a condition that tangles more gnarledly the more it is dealt with—who that sees the prostration of Europe before a wound that is deliberately kept from healing, can forbear to say: That too has been done!

“Our plans will not upset contemporary institutions immediately. Their management will only be altered and consequently the whole procedure of their activity will thus be directed according to plans laid down by us.” That has been done.

“We shall saddle the press and keep a tight reign upon it.” That has been done. The rein is being strongly pulled in the United States at this moment, as many an editor can testify.

“Even if there should be those who desire to write against us, no one will print their writings.” In large part, that has been done. It has been done completely with the profit-making press.

“We shall, as an incentive to speculation, encourage among the Gentiles a strong demand for luxuries—all-enticing luxuries.” That has been done.

“To each act of opposition we must be in a position to respond by bringing on war through the neighbors of any country that dares to oppose us, and if these neighbors should plan to stand collectively against us, we must let loose a world war.” (Protocol 7). The term “world war” is the same as that used by Rosenthal and Nordau. “Herzl knows,” said Nordau in 1903, “that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world.”

“We must create unrest, dissension and mutual animosities throughout Europe and, with the help of her relationships, on other continents.” This has been done. This passage continues: “There is a double advantage in this. First, we shall command the respect of all countries by this method, for they will realize that we have the power to create disorder or establish order at will.” This too has been done.

Truly did the spokesman of 1896 speak of “those momentous occurrences of the near future toward which we are rushing in a stream of great crises.”

Not only was “no annexations” achieved “as far as possible,” just as the Protocols outlined it, but a host of other plans have matured in achievement along with it. “No annexations” as a matter of political morality is one thing; and “no annexations” for the reason that “this will shift war to an economic footing and nations will perceive the strength of our superiority in the aid we render” is quite another thing. The world was with the “no annexations” program as a matter of political morality; the other program, which used this morality as its vehicle, was hidden.

There are still other matters in this group which must receive attention, but another article will be necessary to do it. In the meantime, it is natural to wonder whether, with the program as outlined in this report of the Protocols having received fulfillment in so many particulars, a new Protocol, or a further unfolding of the Ladder has been made by the Wise Men to their Initiates; and whether any additional unveiling will ever come to the knowledge of the world. It would seem that a proper estimate of the knowledge now available would lead to such an awakening as to nullify the present program and make all future ones impossible. But Gentiles like their ease, and Judah is beckoned on by a bright star.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 21 August 1920]

Is the Jewish “Kahal” the Modern “Soviet”?

The Soviet is not a Russian but a Jewish institution. Nor is it the invention of Russian Jews of the present time, a new political device which has been set up as a vehicle of the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky; it is of ancient Jewish origin, a device which the Jews themselves invented to maintain their distinctive racial and national life after the conquest of Palestine by the Romans.

Modern Bolshevism, which is now known to be merely the outer cloak of a long-planned coup to establish the domination of a race, immediately set up the Soviet form of government because the Jews of all countries who contributed to Russian Bolshevism had long been schooled in the nature and structure of the Soviet.

The Soviet appears in the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” under the ancient name of KAHAL. In the Seventeenth Protocol this passage occurs:

“Even now our brothers are under obligation to denounce apostates of their own family or any person known to be opposed to the Kahal. When our kingdom comes, it will be necessary for all subjects to serve the state in a similar manner.”

Anyone who is acquainted with contemporary Jewish life knows what this denunciation of apostates means. The bitterness of the persecution which falls upon a convert to Christianity or upon the Jewish son or daughter of an orthodox family who chooses to marry a Gentile, is without parallel among men. Very recently in a western state a fine Jewish girl chose to marry a Gentile, who was a newspaperman. From the time of her announcement of intention, the girl was treated as an apostate. Had she died a most wretched death, had she descended to a status of most ignominious shame, the feelings which her fate would have aroused could not have been more terrible. A darkly solemn funeral service was held for her, and on her bridal day she was declared to be dead to her people.

The case is very far from being unusual. Perhaps one of the most moving descriptions of it is to be found in the life of Spinoza, the great philosopher whom modern Jews are fond of holding up for exhibition as a great ornament of their people. Spinoza’s studies led him to question many of the dogmas the rabbis taught, those “commandments of men” of which the New Testament speaks, and as Spinoza was already a person of influence the very common Jewish tactic of bribery was tried upon him.

There would be some hesitation in using the words just set down—“the very common Jewish tactic of bribery”—if they were not known to be true. There is no desire to cast aspersions which grow out of malice. But Jewish history as written by Jews provides mountains of proof that bribery was, while present knowledge amply testifies that it still is, the favorite and most dependable weapon of the Jews. A Jewish writer, Jacob Israel De Haan, a Dutch lawyer resident in Jerusalem, has recently stated that one hope of a settlement of the Arab agitation in Palestine is the ease with which the Arab press can be bribed. His words are: “There is a strong agitation here among the Arabs against what they call the Zionist peril. But the Arabs, especially the Arabian papers, are open to bribe. This weakness will cause them, in the long run, to lose out against us.”

So, young Spinoza was offered an annual stipend of 1,000 florins if he would be silent upon his convictions and from time to time show himself at the synagogue. This he refused with high-minded scorn. He made ready to earn his bread by polishing lenses for optical instruments. Upon this, he was excommunicated, a proceeding which is thus described:

“The day of excommunication at length arrived, and a vast concourse assembled to witness the awful ceremony. It began by the silent and solemn lighting of a quantity of black wax candles and by opening the tabernacle wherein were deposited the books of the Law of Moses. Thus were the imaginations of the faithful prepared for all the horror of the scene. The chief rabbi, the ancient friend and master, now the fiercest enemy, of the condemned, was to order the execution. He stood there pained, but implacable; the people fixed their eager eyes upon him. High above, the chanter rose and chanted forth in loud lugubrious tones the words of execration; while from the opposite side another mingled with these curses the thrilling sounds of the trumpet. And now the black candles were reversed and were made to melt drop by drop into a huge tub filled with blood.” (Lewes: Biographical History of Philosophy.)

Then came the final anathema. “‘With the judgment of the angels and of the saints, we excommunicate, cut off, curse and anathematize Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of the elders and all this holy congregation, in the presence of the holy books: by the 613 precepts which are written therein, with the anathema wherewith Joshua cursed Jericho, with the curse which Elisha laid upon the children, and with all the curses which are written in the law. Cursed be he by day, and cursed be he by night. Cursed be he in sleeping, and cursed be he in waking, cursed in going out, and cursed in coming in. The Lord shall not pardon him, the wrath and the fury of the Lord shall henceforth be kindled against this man, and shall lay upon him all the curses written in the Book of the Law. The Lord shall destroy his name under the sun, and cut him off for his undoing from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Law * * * And we warn you that none may speak with him by word of mouth nor by writing, nor show any favor unto him, nor be under one roof with him, nor come within four cubits of him, nor read any paper composed by him.’” (Pollock: Life of Spinoza.)

“As the blasting words were uttered, the lights were all suddenly immersed in the blood, a cry of religious horror and execration burst from all; and in that solemn darkness, and to those solemn curses, they shouted Amen, Amen!” (Professor J. K. Hosmer: The Jews.)

That is a commentary on the decree of denunciation. It also throws a very strong light on the pressure which is brought against many Jews who would cry out against the antisocial ideas of their people, but who dare not because of the penalties it would bring.

This denunciation, as Protocol Seventeen orders, is to be made against anyone who is “known to be opposed to the Kahal” or ancient Soviet system of the Jews.

After the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans, the Jews maintained a center in the Patriarch; and after the dispersion of the Jews out of Palestine this center of nationality was preserved in the Prince of the Exile, or Exilarch, an office which is believed to persist to the present time, and which some believe to be held now by an American Jew. In spite of all assertions to the contrary, the Jews have never ceased to be “a people”; that is, a consciously united racial group, different from all others, and with purposes and ideals which are strictly of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the Jews in distinction from the rest of the world. That they constitute a nation within the nations, the most responsible Jewish thinkers not only declare but insist upon. And this is wholly in accord with the facts as observed. The Jew not only desires to live apart from other people, but he works with his own people as against others, and he desires as much as possible to live under his own laws. In the city of New York today, the Jews have succeeded in establishing their own court for the settlement of their own questions according to their own laws. And that is precisely the principle of the Soviet-Kahal.

From the first century forward, as any reader can see by consulting the Jewish Encyclopedia, the “community,” “assembly” or “Kahal” has been the center of Jewish life. It was so earlier, in the time of the Babylonian captivity. And the last official appearance of it was at the Peace Conference, where the Jews, in accordance with their World Program, the only program that passed successfully and unchanged through the Peace Conference, secured for themselves the right to the Kahal for administrative and cultural purposes in addition to many other privileges in countries where their activities had been a matter of protest. The Polish question is purely a Jewish question, and Paderewski’s failure as a statesmen was entirely due to his domination by Jewish influences. The Rumanian question is likewise a Jewish question, and all Rumanians speak of the United States as “The Jews’ Country” because they know through their statesmen the terrific pressure which was exerted by American Jews against their country, a pressure extending to the very necessities of life, and which compelled Rumania to sign agreements which are as humiliating as those that Austria asked of Serbia, out of which the World War grew. The Jewish Question is written all over the forces that provoked the war, and over all the hindrances to peace which the world has since seen.

Under the Kahal or ancient Soviet, the Jews lived by themselves and governed themselves, doing business with the government solely through their representatives. It was communism in a more drastic form than has been seen anywhere in the world outside Russia. Education, health, taxes, domestic affairs, all were under the absolute control of a few men who constituted the ruling board. This board, as the present-day Jewish hierarchy is supposed to be, was self- perpetuating, the office often passing in an unbroken line of hereditary succession through many generations. All property was in common, which however did not prevent the leaders becoming rich. These Kahals or Soviets existed in Rome, France, Holland, Germany, Austria, Russia, Denmark, Italy, Rumania, Turkey and England. In the United States the idea has developed around the synagogue and around national and international secret societies of Jews, of which more will be said in succeeding articles.

The Kahal is the traditional Jewish political institution during the dispersal of the race among the nations. Its international aspect is to be seen in the higher councils. These councils enlarged as the Jews spread over the world. The Jewish Encyclopedia cites the Council of Three Lands, the Council of Four Lands, and the Council of Five Lands, showing an international relationship in earlier years. But like all such records, public view of them is not easily accessible so far as they relate to modern times. The recent Zionist Congress in London, where doubtless much business was done that pertained to the Jewish people throughout the world, though not in public halls by any means, may be called the Council of Thirty-Seven Lands, for the delegates to that congress came from all parts of the world, from points remote as Lapland and South Africa, Persia and New Zealand. The purpose of these World Councils was the unification of the Jews, and the records of their assemblages run back through the centuries.

It is therefore no new thing that has arisen in Russia. It is the imposition by the Jewish revolutionists upon Gentile Russia of a form of control in which Judaism has been schooled from the earliest times of its contact with the world. Soviet Russia could not have been possible had not 90 per cent of the commissars been Jewish. Soviet Hungary could not have been possible had not Bela Kun, the chief Red, been a Jew, and had not 18 of his 24 commissars been Jews. The Jews are the only group schooled in the erection and administration of the Kahal.

An Associated Press dispatch under date of August 12 throws a light on the congeniality of the Soviet system and the Jewish mind. Speaking of the Polish towns and villages occupied by Bolshevik forces in their recent drive, the dispatch says:

“The local Jewish parish populations already are said to be setting up Soviet and Communist governments.”

Of course. Yet this is in strange contrast with what we are constantly told through the press of the sufferings of the Jews under the Soviet form and of their abhorrence of the Reds. However, most of what we read concerning this in the public press is Jewish propaganda, pure and simple, and the reports of men on the spot contradict it all. One relief worker testifies that relief work in Poland is frequently “hung up because some Jew landlord asks an exorbitant rent for his premises,” while another testifies that though railroad fares in the supposedly famine-stricken districts have gone up 1,000 per cent, the best and highest-fare trains are “exclusively occupied by Jews.” He adds, of his trip through Hungary, “The Hungarians have no money any more, but the Jews have.”

“But American Jews abhor Trotsky and Sovietism” is the plea sometimes made.

Do they?

On page 9 of the American Jewish World, of July 30, a letter signed “Mrs. Samuel Rush” appears. It is headed: “Are We Really Ashamed of Trotsky?” Read a few excerpts from it:

“I have read of late several laments from editors of Jewish publications that the Jew is now libeled as a radical.

“It is true that many Jews are radicals. It is also true that some of the radical leaders are Jews.

“But before weeping over the downfall of the race, let’s think a bit.

“Trotsky himself has never been represented as anything but a cultured man, a student of world economics, a powerful and efficient leader and thinker who will surely go down in history as one of the great men our race has given the world.

“* * * Very few of us doubt any longer that behind the absurdities written about Russia is the great truth that Russia is in that unsettled state which attends reconstruction. There is a plan behind this seeming disorder, and out of the upheaval will come order. It will not be utopia, but as good a government as the undoubtedly high-minded practical idealists who are building for Russia can build with the necessarily imperfect materials—human beings—with which they must work.

“And one of the leaders is Leon Trotsky!

“Are we really ashamed of Trotsky?”

The lady is evidently not ashamed of Trotsky, or Mr. Braunstein, as his real name is.

Or take Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago. While drawing a salary for work in the court, Judge Fisher went abroad on Jewish relief work. His plans were changed somewhat after his departure and he landed in Russia. He asserts in several interviews that he was permitted to arrive in Russia on condition that he leave political matters alone. There has been no such restriction placed upon him since his return to the United States, for he appears as an open advocate of full trade relations with the Soviet Government of Russia.

The Chicago Tribune thus quotes him:

“‘We must leave Russia alone’ he said in summarizing his views. ‘We should resume trade with the Soviet. The Bolshevist Government is permanent. * * * While there are only 700,000 members of the Communist party, the peasants, who represent almost 100,000,000 people, are solidly back of the Lenin regime.’”

Among the Soviet devices which the 100,000,000 peasants of Russia are said to be “solidly back of,” is the following (it is particularly interesting in view of the fact that Judge Fisher is judge of the Morals Court of Chicago):

“‘Some time ago, it was published that the women of Russia had become national property,’ he said. ‘That is untrue, but the ease with which marriage and divorce may be effected makes for rapid changes. Everyone wanting to marry goes to what we would call the city hall and registers.

“‘Inducements to marry are great. When people are hard pressed for clothes and food they sometimes make a pact to wed for a day.

“‘The next day they go down to the city hall and register again. This time their names are put side by side in the divorce book. That is all that is necessary to be divorced, and they have had a good feed in the bargain.’”

Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago, who has returned from Jewish relief work abroad, evidently is one with the others in not being ashamed of Trotsky.

Also Max Pine, for many years secretary of the United Hebrew Trades of New York, had been abroad in Soviet Russia as “a labor delegate.” He too had many good things to say of the Soviets, among other things the strange contradiction that the Jews are doing very well in Russia but are not pro-Bolshevik!

Here are three persons from widely different spheres of life, yet each one of them indicates a natural liking for the Kahal or Soviet, an admiration of its methods, and a distinct good feeling towards its rulers. For Sovietism is the rankest form of autocracy, and the marriage laws of Soviet Russia are in full harmony with the program stated in the Protocols—

“We will break down the influence of family life among the Gentiles.”

Whether the Soviet-Kahals of Russia will succeed in completely undermining Russian family life is extremely doubtful. The weakness of Soviet rule is the same as that of the Protocols—a moral weakness that must eat like a cancer until it destroys the institutions which it infests.

Russia today, viewed in the light of the Protocols, does not represent the Judaic state, but it represents the Gentile state seized by Jewish forces. There are three degrees of action set forth in the Protocols. There is first the secret process of breaking up the integrity of society by the admixture of alluring but disruptive ideas. This is a work in which Gentile agitators are used. When the ideas have worked sufficiently to break up society and explode in a crisis, then as in Germany, the forces that have worked in secret swiftly come to the front to take the reins and guide the riot. In Germany this immediately occurred upon the collapse which followed the armistice, but the Germans were wise enough to know the meaning of the influx of Jews into all the official positions of the former empire, and it was not long before they were politically ousted. In Russia, however, the Jews sprang immediately into official positions and have succeeded in remaining there. It began with Kerensky compelling the Czar to lay aside his crown; it continues with Trotsky and his armies at the throat of Europe.

But this seizure of a country, as was attempted in Germany, and as was not only attempted but succeeded in Russia, is not the end of the Program. It is only the beginning of its open or public phase. The Soviet-Kahal makes for the complete breaking up of society, the entire cutting off of co-operation and communication, the ruling of each little section in the way desired, until the whole country lies helpless in isolated bits. The process includes, of course, the disintegration of industry also, the massing of Gentiles into an army, and a general destruction of morality and order. It is the Protocol program in its last stage before the reconstruction begins which shall make the conquered country a Jewish state.

The world has not seen that last stage yet. It has not come, even in Russia. If the Russian people waken from the daze into which they have been thrust, it will not come. Jewish voices loudly proclaim that Soviet Russia has come to stay. The only authoritative voice on that subject is the voice of Russia, and Russia has not yet spoken. Today the world is trembling on the very verge of Real Russia’s awakening, and with it a retribution most terrible upon the Sovietists.

The program of the Protocols once came near succeeding in the French Revolution, but its essential immorality overreached itself. It has come a step nearer success in Russia, but there too its defiance of the moral law will be its undoing. The Jewish Question of today is being fought out in Russia and Poland, and the strength of the Jewish forces is largely and mostly supplied from the United States of America. No wonder those small East European independencies which are fighting for their lives refer to our country as “The Land of the Jews.”

“We will show our power to one,” say the Protocols. “In order to demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile governments of Europe, we shall show our power to one of them by crimes of violence, that is, by a reign of terror.” (Protocol Seven.)

One by one the Gentile nations of Europe have been compelled to withdraw their troops from Russia. One by one the premiers of Europe have submitted to heavy shackling of their official hands with regard to the Russian question. And today the world looks on while little Poland, apparently the second country on the list of Soviet victims, is made to feel heavy vengeance for her daring to be independent of Jewish power. Russia has been made to pay for her attempted independence of the Jew; Poland is now being made to pay. It is a flame, the Jews of Eastern Europe hope, and many Jews of America also, which will sweep round the world.

If the ruling Jews of the world wished the Russian people freed, if they wished the flames of Bolshevism to be quenched, if they wished Jewish participation in revolutionary movements to be withdrawn, they could accomplish it in a week. What is going on today is going on by permission of the Jewish world powers.

There is apparently no desire to curtail a movement which largely originated in American Jewry. This is the program of “showing our power to one,” and the program will be followed out. The “showing,” however, is twofold; it is a showing of power, but it is also a showing of the people who wield the power, and in the end it might have been just as well had the power never been coveted, attained, or used.

Anyone who desires to test the exactitude of the Protocols’ estimate of human nature may do so by observing his own reactions to the Russian Bolshevist situation. It is undeniable that there exists among all classes of Gentiles in America a kind of admiration for the coup which Lenin and Trotsky have managed on such a massive scale. The audacity of it, the ability to stay afloat thus long in defiance of so many laws, have conspired to draw out unwilling applause.

Consider then this passage from the Tenth Protocol:

“The people feel an especial love and respect toward the genius who wields political power, and they say of all his high-handed actions: ‘It is base, but clever! It is a trick, but how he played it! So majestic! So impudent!’

“We count on attracting all nations to the constructive work of laying the foundations for the structure planned by us. It is necessary for us first of all to acquire the services of bold and fearless agents, who will overcome all obstacles in our pathway.

“When we accomplish our governmental coup d’etat, we will say to the people: ‘Everything has gone badly, all have suffered. We will eliminate the cause of your sufferings—nationality, frontiers and diversity of coinage. Of course you are free to pronounce sentence upon us, but that can scarcely be just if you do so before giving a trial to that which we offer you.’”

This is very well conceived, and this is the way in which, up to this time, it has worked out. But there will be a strong reaction set in. False promises like chickens come home to roost. The real originators, the real purpose of the movement hidden behind Bolshevism will become evident. And then the world will crush out again the World Program which at times has seemed so near success.

There will probably be more light upon this World Program as a result of the Russian Kahal-Soviet system than from any other attempt to realize it. For five generations the world has lived in a false light supposed to be shed by the French Revolution. It is now known that that revolution was not the Revolution of the French People, but the disorders of a minority who sought to impose upon the French People the very Plan which is now being considered. It was the French People who ultimately put down the so-called French Revolution. And France, as a result of that upheaval of a well-organized minority, has been bound by Jewish control ever since.

The Russian Revolution will go down in history with no such false halo of romance around it. The world now knows it for what it is. The world will soon know whose was the money and whose were the brains that fostered it, and from what part of the world the principal impetus came. The Russian upheaval is racial, not political nor economic. It conceals beneath all its false socialism and its empty mouthings of “human brotherhood” a clear-cut plan of racial imperialism, which is not Russian, and which the common sense and interest of the world will speedily stamp out.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 28 August 1920]

How the “Jewish Question” Touches the Farm

The real estate speculations of the Jews are familiar to all, but unfortunately do not constitute their entire land program. Many American cities have changed their characters entirely during the past 15 years by reason of Jewish speculation in residence property, and it is a fact established in the larger eastern cities that the recent exorbitant and extortionate rise in rents was largely a matter of the Jewish landlord. The governor of one of the most important of our commonwealths was loath to sign a bill regulating rents. His hesitancy was encouraged by very heavy pressure brought to bear upon him by the weightiest Jewish financial interests in his own and neighboring states. He finally decided that he would sign the bill and give the law effect, and the fact that decided him was his personal investigation and the investigation of his personal agents into hundreds of cases of abuse where he discovered that it was a common practice among Jewish landlords to transfer the same piece of property round and round to every member of the family in turn, each “transfer” being the excuse for a new increase in the rent. Men have their eyes opened to the Jewish Question in various ways: this was the way a governor had his eyes opened.

That, however, is not the peculiarity of Jewish landlords alone; Gentile landlords have played the same trick. But landlordism is peculiarly a Jewish ambition and distinction; the Jew is the Landlord of America. Any group of tenants almost anywhere in America, except the West, could testify to this.

Nor is landlordism itself reprehensible, things being what they are, unless it is antisocial and anti-American. And just here is where it gets point. Some of the oldest and most sacred shrines of Americanism in the East have entirely lost their character as such by the invasion—not of “foreigners”—but of Jews.

The more one sees of the invasion, the more one utterly distrusts the statistics given out by Jews as to the Jewish population of the United States.

Do you know that the one nationality on which the Government of the United States is estopped from asking questions, either for immigration or census statistics, is the Jewish?

Do you know that when the Government of the United States wants to know anything about the Jews it must go to statisticians which the Jews themselves support?

If a nation claims that it is no nation with respect to the United States Government, as the Jews claim, and has no national statistics which it will permit to government to collect in the official way, why should it treat itself as a nation and keep its own records?

The Jews of the United States, like the Jews of every European country, are a nation among themselves, with their own government, their own policy, their own records; and the United States Government does business with the Jewish Government in America through chosen Jews—no doubt of that.

It is, however, a digression. The matter of Jewish statistics will come up again. In the meantime a glance at the rapid changing of so many American cities in all parts of the land leads to the belief that the Jewish statistics furnished by the Jews for Gentile consumption entirely misstate the facts, and this belief is strengthened by the knowledge that the statistics given by the Jews for Jewish consumption are very different from those supplied for the outside world.

Landlordism may be explained by the inclination of the Jew toward speculation, and we know that real estate has been made one of the most speculative of occupations, disgracefully, almost disastrously so. The Jew cannot be condemned for becoming a landlord, for becoming the most conspicuous landlord in America; he cannot be condemned apart from his Gentile co-offenders for the abuse he has made of his advantage as landlord. But it is a matter for American concern that the cities to which, in the schoolbooks, our children are taught to look as the birthplaces of liberty and as still the spokesmen of Americanism, should become Semite cities, financially and politically, and the recruiting grounds of the world’s Bolshevism.

Until recently, however, the Jew in America has not cared for the land. It is a characteristic. The Jew is not an agriculturist. Lavish fortunes have been expended to make him so, but the productive work of farming has not had, and does not now have, any appeal to him. His choice in land is this: land that produces gold from the mine, and land that produces rents. Land that produces mere potatoes and wheat has not directly interested him.

It is true, of course, that the land question has been distinctly Jewish in countries like Poland and Rumania. No law against Jews owning land in those countries has ever been effective in preventing their control of whole provinces. Not that the Jews demanded the right to farm the land, their choice was to farm the farmers. By devious methods and the use of “Gentile fronts” they could always secure control of the land, and thus dominating the peasants they could create almost any condition they wished. That is what they actually did. That is the Jewish Question in those parts of the world. Not for farming purposes, it must be understood, but for the purpose of controlling the main source of wealth in agricultural countries and for taking the control of people away from their natural Gentile leaders.

These two things always go together in countries where there is intellectual or landed aristocracy to which the people look for leadership: the Jewish program is to destroy that leadership by gaining control of the land. It is profitable, of course, but when you survey the outworking of the plan you always see something other than profits involved. The consummate perfection of the Jewish plan for World Control is that it does not involve sacrifice as have other plans, it is immensely profitable at every stage, and the greater the profitableness the more surely the purpose is being achieved.

In America there was no aristocracy to be cut under by the gaining of land control. Jewish activity in the United States until recently has confined itself to the control of land products after they have been produced: that is, so to say, Jewish interests do not engage in trapping, but they control the fur trade.

Speaking of furs, it is very funny to see how some affairs turn out. During the war there was a great to-do made about the German control of the American fur trade. It was true that the fur trade was controlled from Germany, but not by Germans—by Jews! And then a great to-do was made about seizing, confiscating and absolutely selling out that “German” fur business to Americans, and the “Americans” who bought it were—Jews! The actual control has never changed; the profits still find their way to the “International” purse.

But furs is just an example. Jewish interests do not engage in raising grain, but control the grain that others produce. The need of the United States is a “Who’s Who of Jewish Financiers” that the people may identify the men about whom they read as having made this “corner” or sprung that “coup.” These interests, which have simply grabbed American-produced wealth and made American consumers pay and pay and pay, have been able to operate almost openly because of the sheer blindness of the American people as they read their newspapers. And, of course, while the American newspaper will gladly inform you that this man is an Italian and that man a Pole and the other man a Briton, it will never tell you that the fourth man is a Jew. There is a Jewish organization in every city, large and small, to prevent it—and they prevent it by methods that are violent and wholly subversive of the American ideal of liberty.

So, until recently, the plan in the United States has been to seize the commodity at just that point in its passage from the producer to the consumer where the heaviest weight of profit can be extracted from it—at the neck of the bottle, so to speak—and control it there. It is not service that the people pay for; they pay for seizure.

But a new movement has begun in the United States. Jewish millions are now being used to secure immense tracts of American lands. Formerly it was enough to control the cotton, as the bread was controlled, but now the movement is toward controlling the cotton lands. The operations are carefully guarded; “Gentile fronts” are used almost exclusively; but follow the trail through all the “blinds” and “false scents,” and you come at last to the International Jew, whose throne is set up in London.

Many Jews have written THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT saying that they do not know about these racial plans for world control. It may well be believed that they do not. One purpose of these articles is to tell them about it. But this every Jew rejoices in—the movement of his people toward power. And it is this sentiment that the International Jew implicitly trusts, and because this sentiment exists the International Program secures a maximum of success at a minimum risk of exposure. Jewry is not a democracy but an autocracy. Of course the ordinary Jew does not know! The question is, Why should he revile the Gentile who tries to tell him? If a Jew will not seal his mind against the statements made in these articles, he will find in his own knowledge sufficient corroboration of their principal features, and he will be in a better position to assist in the solution of the Jewish Question.

It is with amazement at certain men’s conception of editorial honesty that THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has read some of the reports made of these articles. Under cover, principally of the Yiddish, alleged translations of these articles have been flung broadcast among non-English speaking Jews, translations which not only bear no resemblance to the original, but actually insert whole paragraphs of matter which never appeared in the original at all. Is there a fear of permitting the average Jew to read this series? Nothing is more desired by those whose purpose is to lay foundations for the solution of the Jewish Question in America than that every Jew in the United States should know exactly what is being printed here week by week. The Jew has been deceived by his leaders long enough.

The fact is, then, that there is a definite and already well forwarded movement toward the control of the cotton lands of the United States. The first step was to depreciate the market value of these lands as much as possible. Pressure was brought through certain banks to limit the cotton farmers’ efforts. They were told that if they planted more acreage to cotton than they were told to, they would not be financed. Cotton production was to go down while cotton prices were to go up, and the profits were not the farmers’ but those who controlled the course of cotton from the first market to the wearer. Cotton farming was to be made less profitable, while cotton speculation was to become more profitable. The public was being compelled to supply the money by which the Jewish controllers were to buy the land. In brief, it was to be made more profitable to sell cotton lands than to sell cotton.

These statements are being deliberately restricted to the traffic in cotton lands. Jewish financiers in New York and London know these things, even if Jewish editors and rabbis do not.

This movement has been within the knowledge of certain classes of business men for a long time, indeed some have been forced by what used to be called “the pressure of circumstances,” to serve the movement. But they were not able to interpret its meaning. It is only recently that the more important Gentile business men of the United States have been able to interpret certain things. The war was a potent eye-opener.

Those wonderful documents known as the “Protocols,” with their strong grasp of every element of life, have not overlooked Land. The Land Program found in the Sixth Protocol, which is one of the briefest of these documents and may be quoted in full to show now the relation it bears to certain excerpts made in previous articles:

Protocol VI.

“We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, colossal reservoirs of wealth, upon which even the big Gentile properties will be dependent to such an extent that they will all fall together with the government credit on the day following the political catastrophe. The economists here present must carefully weigh the significance of this combination. We must develop by every means the importance of our super-government, representing it as the protector and benefactor of all who voluntarily submit to us.

“The aristocracy of the Gentiles as a political force has passed away. We need not take them into consideration. But, as owners of the land, they are harmful to us in that they are independent in their sources of livelihood.

Therefore, at all costs, we must deprive them of their land.

“The best means to attain this is to increase the taxes and mortgage indebtedness. These measures will keep land ownership in a state of unconditional subordination. Unable to satisfy their needs by small inheritances, the aristocrats among the Gentiles will burn themselves out rapidly.

“At the same time it is necessary to encourage trade and industry vigorously and especially speculation, the function of which is to act as a counterpoise to industry. Without speculation, industry will cause private capital to increase and tend to improve the condition of Agriculture BY FREEING THE LAND FROM INDEBTEDNESS FOR LOANS by the land banks. It is necessary for industry to deplete the land both of laborers and capital, and, through speculations, transfer all the money of the world into our hands, thereby throwing the Gentiles into the ranks of the proletariat. The Gentiles will then bow before us to obtain the right to existence.

“To destroy Gentile industry, we shall, as an incentive to this speculation, encourage among the Gentiles a strong demand for luxuries, all-enticing luxuries.

“We will force up wages, which however, will be of no benefit to workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of prime necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and of cattle raising. We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy, and encourage them in the use of alcohol, at the same time taking measures to drive all the intellectual forces of the Gentiles from the land.

“That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely, we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories.”

The local and passing element in this is “the aristocracy of the Gentiles.” That is to say, the program is not entirely fulfilled by the passing of aristocrats. Jewry goes on just the same. Its program stretches far. Jewry will retain such kings as it desires as long as it desires them. Probably the last throne to be vacated will be the British throne because what to the British mind is the honor of being Jewry’s protector and therefore the inheritor of the blessing which that attitude brings, is to the Jewish mind the good fortune of being able to use a world-wide empire for the furtherance of Jewry’s purpose. Each has served the other and the partnership will probably last until Jewry gets ready to throw Britain over, which Jewry can do at almost any time. There are indications that it has already started in this last task.

But the permanent elements in the Protocol are the Land, the Jews, and the Gentiles. A word of explanation may be necessary on this inclusion of the Gentiles as permanent: the Protocols do not contemplate the extermination of the Gentiles, nor the making of this world a completely Jewish populated world. The Protocols contemplate a Gentile world ruled by the Jews—the Jews as masters, the Gentiles as hewers of wood and drawers of water, a policy which every Old Testament reader knows to be typically Jewish and the source of divine judgement upon Israel time and again.

Now, look at this whole Program as it concerns the Land.

“Owners of the land * * * are harmful to us in that they are independent in their sources of livelihood.”

That is a foundation principle of the Protocols. It matters not whether the owners are the “Gentile aristocracy,” the peasants of Poland, or the farmers of the United States—land ownership makes the owners, “independent in their sources of livelihood.” And any form of independence is fatal to the success of the World Program which is written so comprehensively in the Protocols and which is advancing so comprehensively under Jewish guidance in the world of actual affairs today.

Not “tillers” of the land, not “dwellers” on the land, not “tenants,” not an “agricultural peasantry,” but “owners of the land”—this is the class singled out for attention in this Sixth Protocol, BECAUSE they are “independent in their sources of livelihood.”

Now, there has been no time in the history of the United States when apparently it was more easy for the farmer to own his land than now. Mortgages should be a thing of the past. Everywhere the propaganda of the question tells us that the farmers are growing “rich.” And yet there were never so many abandoned farms!

“Therefore, at all costs we must deprive them of their land.”

How? “The best means to attain this is to increase land taxes and mortgage indebtedness.” High taxes to keep the land at all, borrowed money to finance the tilling of it.

“These measures will keep land ownership in a state of unconditional subordination.“

We will leave it to the farmers of the United States to say whether this is working out or not.

And in a future reference to this subject we will show that whenever an attempt is made to enable farmers to borrow money at decent rates, whenever it is proposed to lighten the burden of “mortgage indebtedness” on the farm, Jewish financial influence in the United States steps in to prevent it, or failing to prevent it, mess it all up in the operation.

By increasing the farmer’s financial disability on the one hand, and by increasing industrial allurements on the other, a very great deal is accomplished. The Protocol says: “It is necessary for industry to deplete the Land both of laborers and capital.”

Has that been done? Have the farms of the United States been depleted both of laborers and capital? Certainly. Money is harder for the farmer to get than it is for any other man; and as for labor, he cannot get it on any terms.

What is the result of these two influences, the one working on the farm, and the other in the cities? It is precisely what the Protocol says it will be: Increased wages that buy less of the materials of life—“We will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of prime necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and cattle raising.”

The Jew who set these Protocols in order was a financier, economist and philosopher of the first order. He knew what he was talking about. His operations in the ordinary world of business always indicated that he knew exactly what he was doing. How well this Sixth Protocol has worked and is still working out in human affairs is before the eyes of everyone to see.

Here in the United States one of the most important movements toward real independence of the financial powers has been begun by the farmers. The farmer’s strong advantage is that, owning the land, he is independent in his sources of livelihood. The land will feed him whether he pleases International Jewish Financiers or not. His position is impregnable as long as the sun shines and the seasons roll. It was therefore necessary to do something to hinder this budding independence. He was placed under a greater disadvantage than any other business man in borrowing capital. He was placed more ruthlessly than any other producer between the upper and nether stones of a thievish distribution system. Labor was drawn away from the farm. The Jew-controlled melodrama made the farmer a “rube,” and Jew-made fiction presented him as a “hick,” causing his sons to be ashamed of farm life. The grain syndicates which operate against the farmer are Jew-controlled. There is no longer any possibility of doubting, when the facts of actual affairs are put alongside the written Program, that the farmer of the United States has an interest in this Question.

What would this World Program gain if the wage-workers were enslaved and the farmers were allowed to go scot-free? Therefore the program of agricultural interference which has been only partially outlined here.

But this is not all.

Any writer who attempts fully to inform the Gentile mind on the Jewish Question must often feel that the extent of the Protocols’ Conspiracy is so great as to stagger the Gentile mind. Gentiles are not conspirators. They cannot follow a clue through long and devious and darkened channels. The elaborate completeness of the Jewish Program, the perfect co-ordination of its mass of details wearies the Gentile mind. This, really more than the daring of the Program itself, constitutes the principal danger of Program being fulfilled. Gentile mental laziness is the most powerful ally the World Program has.

For example: after citing the perfectly obvious coincidence and most probable connection between the Protocols and the observable facts with reference to the farm situation, the writer is compelled to say, as above, “But this is not all.” And it is a peculiarity of Gentile psychology that the Gentile reader will feel that it ought to be all because it is so complete. This is where the Jewish mind out-maneuvers the Gentile mind.

Gentiles may do a thing for one reason: the Jew often does the same thing for three or four reasons. The Gentile can understand thus far why Jewish financiers should seek control of the land in order to prevent widespread Agricultural Independence which, as Protocol Six says, would be “harmful to us.” That reason is perfectly clear. But there is another. It is found in the Twelfth Protocol. It contemplates nothing less than the playing of City against Country in the great game now being exposed. Complete control over the City by the industrial leverage, and over the Country by the debt leverage, will enable the Hidden Players to move first the Country by saying that the City demands certain things, and then move the City by saying that the Country demands certain things, thus splitting Citizens and Farmers apart and using them against one another.

Look at the plainness and the boldness, yet the calm assurance, with which this plan is broached:

“Our calculations reach out, especially into the country districts. There we must necessarily arouse those interests and ambitions which we can always turn against the city, representing them to the cities as dreams and ambitions for independence on the part of the provinces. It is clear that the source of all this will be precisely the same, and that it will come from us. It will be necessary for us before we have attained full power to so arrange matters that, from time to time, the cities shall come under the influence of opinion in the country districts, that is, of the majority prearranged by our agents * * *”

The preliminaries of the game are here set forth—to jockey City and Farm against each other, that in the end the Conspirators may use whichever proves the stronger in putting the Plan over. In Russia, both schemes have been worked. The old regime, established in the Cities, was persuaded to lay down power because it was made to believe that the peasants of Russia requested it. Then, when the Bolshevists seized power, they ruled the peasantry on the ground that the Cities wanted it. The Cities listened to the Country, now the Country is listening to the Cities.

If you see any attempt made to divide City and Farm into antagonistic camps, remember this paragraph from the Twelfth Protocol. Already the poison is working. Have you never heard that Prohibition was something which the backwoods districts forced upon the cities? Have you never heard that the High Cost of Living was due to extravagant profits of the farmer?—profits which he doesn’t get.

One big dent in this Program of World Control could be made if the Citizen and the Farmer could learn each other’s mind, not through self-appointed spokesmen, but directly from each other. City and Farm are drifting apart because of misrepresentation of outsiders, and in the widening rift the sinister shadow of the World Program appears.

Let the Farmers look past the “Gentile fronts” in their villages or principal trading points, past them to the real controllers who are hidden.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 4 September 1920]

Does Jewish Power Control the World Press?

The purpose of this article is twofold: to set forth what the Protocols have to say about the relation of the Press to the World Program, and to make an introduction to a study of Jewish influence on the Press.

The Jewish race has always been aware of the advantages to be derived from news. This was one of the factors in its control of European commerce from the earliest Christian times. To be informed beforehand, to know what was coming before the Gentiles among whom they lived knew it, was a special privilege of the Jews, made possible by the close communication in which widely separated Jewish groups kept themselves. From the first they were inveterate correspondents. They were the inventors of the news-letter.

This does not imply, however, that the Jews were the forerunners or even the sponsors of the modern Press. It was no part of their purpose to distribute news among the people, but to keep it for themselves as a secret advantage. The political, economic and commercial news which sped with really remarkable facility throughout Europe, from Jewish community to Jewish community, was in reality the official budget by which each community informed all the others of what was transpiring, as to war, trade currents, rising emergencies, or whatever the matter may have been. For centuries the Jews were the best informed people on the continent; from their secret sources in courts and chancellories, from privileged Jews who were placed in every position of vantage, the whole race was informed of the state of the world.

Scouts were kept in motion everywhere. Far down in South America, before the British or Dutch colonies in North America had hardly secured a foothold, there were Jews who served as outposts for European trade interests. The world was spied out in the interests of their race, just as today the entire planet is under the watchful eyes of Jewish agents—mostly Gentiles, it must be said—for any hint of new gold discoveries.

An interesting and historic illustration of the Jews’ appreciation of news is to be found in the career of Nathan Rothschild. Rothschild had laid all his plans on the assumption that the Emperor Napoleon, then banished to Elba, was finally eliminated from European affairs. Napoleon unexpectedly returned, and in the “Hundred Days” it seemed as if the Rothschild financial edifice might collapse. Feverishly the financier aided both Prussia and England, and as the Battle of Waterloo approached, no one was more interested in the outcome than he.

Rothschild was a man who shrank from the sight of blood; he was physically a coward, and any sign of violence unnerved him; but so intense was his interest in the battle on which his whole fortune seemed to depend, that he hastened to France, followed the British Army, and when the battle began he hid himself in “some shot-proof nook near Hougomont” where he watched all day the ebb and flow of battle. Just before Napoleon ordered the last desperate charge Rothschild had made up his mind. He said afterward that his exclamation at this point was, “The House of Rothschild has won the battle.”

He hurried from the field, galloped wildly to Brussels, communicating not a word of what he knew to the anxious people he met by the way. Hiring a carriage at an exorbitant price, he galloped away to Ostend. Here a fierce storm was raging on the ocean and no sailor was willing to set out for England, about 20 miles away. Rothschild himself, always afraid of danger, forgot his fear in his visions of the stock market. He offered 500, 800, and at length 1,000 francs to the man who would take him across. But no one dared. Finally one sailor proposed that if Rothschild would pay 2,000 francs into his wife’s hands, he would attempt it.

Half dead the two men reached the English coast, but without rest Rothschild ordered express post and hurried away to London. Whip and spur were not spared on that journey.

There were no telegrams in those days, no swift communication. England was anxious. The rumors were bad. And on the morning of June 20, 1815, when Nathan Rothschild appeared in his usual place at the Stock Exchange and leaned against the column, England knew nothing of what he knew. He was pale and broken. The sight of his face led the other financiers to believe that he had received bad news from the front. Then it was seen that he was quietly selling his securities. What? Rothschild unloading? The market dropped disastrously, a very panic seized the financiers, the market was flooded with consols offered for sale—and all that was offered, Rothschild’s agents bought!

So it went on, all day the 20th, and all day the 21st. At the close of business the second day, Rothschild’s heavy chests were crammed with securities. Then in the evening a courier galloped into London with the news that Wellington had won and Napoleon was a fugitive. But Nathan Rothschild had made $10,000,000 and the men he did business with had lost that much—all as an affair of news!

There was a little incident in Washington during the war—a “leak” of news, it was called. The wise men of Wall Street sometimes whisper that even between 1914-1918 there were men of Rothschild’s race who showed his same appreciation of “news,” with the same profitable results. And not only the men of “Rothschild’s race,” but some of their “Gentile fronts,” also.

There were times during the war when no Gentile knew what was going on in certain countries. The Jewish leaders always knew. Some very interesting testimony can be presented on that point.

Aside from its own interest, this Rothschild narrative fully illustrates the statement that while the Jews were very early news-gatherers, they were not publicists. They used the news for their own benefit; they did not disseminate it. If it had depended on their influence, there would have been no public Press at all. It was in France, which had no newspapers outside the capital, that the French Revolution was possible. There being no reliable exchange of news and opinion, the people were kept in ignorance. Paris itself did not know that the Bastille had fallen until next day. Where there is no Press, minorities easily gain control—as the Jewish-Bolshevist revolution in Russia illustrates.

One of the most dangerous developments of the time is public distrust of the Press. If the day ever comes when swift, reliable and authoritative communication with the entire people shall be necessary for public action in the interests of public safety, the nation may find itself sadly crippled unless a new confidence in the daily Press can be built up. If for no other reason than that the free press is a safeguard against minority seizure of control, such laws as the zone laws, or any restrictions on the freest and fullest communication between various parts of the country, should be absolutely abolished.

But, the Press being in existence, and being largely an Anglo-Saxon creation, it is a force not to be treated lightly, and that is the point where the World Program and Jewish Control come in contact with it.

The Protocols, which overlook nothing, propose a very definite plan with regard to the Press. As in the multitude of other matters with which these remarkable documents deal, there are the two phases—“what we have done,” and “what we will do.”

As early as the Second Protocol, the Press comes in for attention. It is significant that it makes its appearance in the same Protocol in which the “No Annexations” program was announced 20 years before the World War, in the same Protocol in which it is announced that Gentile rulers will be allowed to appear before the people for a short period, while Jewish influences were organizing themselves behind the seats of power, and in the same Protocol where Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism are claimed among the most “demoralizing” doctrines which Jewish influence has disseminated. These are very curious statements, but not stranger than the actuality that has come to pass.

Says the Second Protocol:

“There is one great force in the hands of modern governments which creates thought movements among the people, that is, the Press. The presumed role of the Press is to indicate supposedly indispensable needs, to register popular complaints, and to create discontent. The triumph of ‘free speech’ (babbling) rests in the Press. But governments are unable to profit by this power, and it has fallen into our hands. Through it we have attained influence while remaining in the shadow. Thanks to it, we have amassed gold, though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears.”

In the same Protocol, “our Press” is spoken of as the agency through which are disseminated “those theories of life which we have induced them (the Gentiles) to regard as the dictates of science.”

“To this end we shall certainly endeavor to inspire blind confidence in these theories by means of our Press.”

Then follows the claim made concerning the three most revolutionary theories in the physical, economic and moral realms, namely Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism.

In the Third Protocol the claim is made that this control of the Press is being used to break down respect for authority:

“Daring journalists and audacious pamphleteers make daily attack upon the personnel of the administration. This abuse of authority is definitely preparing the downfall of all institutions, and everything will be overturned by blows coming from the infuriated populace.”

Again, in the Seventh Protocol, discussing the progress which the World Program has already made, the part played by the Press is indicated:

“We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will promote our broadly conceived plan already approaching its triumphal goal, by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion, which has in reality been organized by us with the help of the so-called ‘great power’ of the Press. With few exceptions not worth considering, it is already in our hands.”

Thus twice is the claim made to control of the Press. “It has fallen into our hands,” says the Second Protocol. “It is already in our hands,” says the Seventh. In the Second Protocol the Press is represented as furthering revolutionary physical, economic and moral philosophies; while in the Seventh it is used to create the “pressure of stimulated public opinion” for the purpose of “forcing Gentile governments to adopt measures which will promote our broadly conceived plan, already approaching its triumphal goal.”

A word of comment may be made here upon the claim of the Second Protocol that “thanks to it (the Press), we have amassed gold, though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears.”

This is a statement which can be illustrated in many ways. “Though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears” is an admission upon which the Protocols throw light, a light which also shines upon the Jewish argument regarding responsibility for the recent war, namely, that Jewish World Financial Power could not have willed the war seeing that Jews suffered so heavily in Eastern Europe. The Protocols frankly recognize the possibility of Jews suffering during the establishment of the World Program, but it consoles them with the thought that they fall as soldiers for the good of Israel. The death of a Jew, we are told in the Protocols, is more precious in the sight of God than the death of a thousand “seed of cattle,” which is one of the delicate names applied to the Gentiles.

The reference to the amassment of gold is very clear. It does not apply to ownership of publications and a share in their profits only, but also the use that may be made of them through silence or outcry to promote International Jewish Financiers’ schemes. The Rothschilds bought editors as they bought legislators. It was a preliminary of nearly every scheme they floated to first “fix” the newspapers, either for silence or claque boosting. In matters of war and peace; in the removal of administrations inimical to Jewish financial or political plans; in the elimination by public exposure of “Gentile fronts” whom their Jewish masters wished to be rid of; in the gradual building up of reputation and influence for “rising men” who had been chosen for work in the future—in these and like matters the Press very greatly aided the International Cabal in attaining its end.

All the details of the foregoing paragraph can be illustrated at length by instances which have occurred in the United States within the past 15 years.

There was once a Senator of the United States who—but that story illustrates another point also, and will be reserved until that point is reached in this series of discussions.

The Twelfth Protocol, however, contains the entire plan of Control of the Press, reaching from the present time into the future when the Jewish World Government shall be established. The reader is invited to read carefully and thoughtfully the deep and wide outreaching of this plan.

Keep also in mind the boast that has been made for generations that no publication that has handled the Jewish Question in a manner distasteful to the Jewish powers has been allowed to live.

“What role is played at present by the Press? It serves to inflame the passions of selfish partisanship which our interests require. It is shallow, lying and unfair, the most people do not understand what end it serves.”

In that quotation we have the same low estimate which was noted when we studied “the estimate of human nature” which the Protocols contain.

Now, for the Plan of Press Control: We separate the points for convenience:

“We shall handle the Press in the following manner:

1. “We shall saddle it and keep tight rein upon it. We shall do the same also with other printed matter, for of what use is it to rid ourselves of attacks in the Press, if we remain exposed to criticism through pamphlets and books?”

2. “Not one announcement will reach the people save under our supervision. We have attained this at the present time to the extent that all news is received through several agencies in which it is centralized from all parts of the world.”

A sidelight on the first sentence above may be had from the Jewish statement regarding the British Declaration relating to Palestine: “This Declaration was sent from the Foreign Office to Lord Walter Rothschild. * * * It came perhaps as a surprise to large sections of the Jewish people * * * But to those who were active in Zionist circles, the declaration was no surprise. * * * The wording of it came from the British Foreign Office, but the text had been revised in the Zionist offices in America as well as in England. The British Declaration was made in the form in which the Zionists desired it. * * *” pp. 85-86, “Guide to Zionism,” by Jessie E. Sampter, published by the Zionist Organization of America.

3. “Literature and journalism are two most important educational forces, and consequently our government will become the owner of most of the journals. * * * If we permit ten private journals, we shall organize thirty of our own, and so on. This must not be suspected by the public, for which reason all the journals published by us will be EXTERNALLY of the most contrary opinions and tendencies thus evoking confidence in them and attracting our unsuspecting opponents, who thus will be caught in our trap and rendered harmless.”

This is most interesting in view of the defense now being made for so many Jewish journals. “Look at the newspapers owned and controlled by Jews,” they say; “see how they differ in policy! See how they disagree with each other!” Certainly, “externally,” as Protocol 12 says, but the underlying unity is never hard to find.

Besides, one way of discovering who are the people that have knowledge of the Jewish World problem, of who can be convinced of it, or who will write about it is just to start a paper which “externally” seems to be independent of the Jewish Question. So deeply is this thought shared by even uneducated Jews that a rumor is today widespread in the United States that the reason for the present series of articles in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is the desire of its owner to forward the Jewish World Program! Unfortunately, this scheme of starting a fake opposition in order to discover where the real opposing force is, is not confined to the Jewish Internationalists, although there is every indication that it was learned from them.

This idea of a misrepresentative front for certain secret purposes is expressed at length not only with reference to the Press, but throughout the Protocols in other relations.

But in Protocol 12 it is fully developed with regard to the Press, as the following quotations show.

(a) In order to force writers into such long productions that no one will read them, a tax on writing is proposed—“on books of less than 30 pages a double tax.” Small articles are most feared. Therefore doubly tax the pamphlets of less than 30 pages. The longer articles fewer will read, so the Protocols argue, and the double tax will thus “force writers into such long productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be expensive.”

BUT—

“That which we ourselves shall publish for directing the public mind will be cheap and widely read. The tax will discourage mere literary ambition, whereas the fear of punishment will make the writers subservient to us.

Even if there should be those who may desire to write against us, no one will publish their writings.” (How many American writers know this!)

“Before accepting any work for printing, the publisher or printer must obtain permission from the authorities. Thus we will know in advance what attacks are being prepared against us and shall be able to counteract them by coming out beforehand with explanations on the subject.”

That is largely the situation today. They do know in advance what is being done, and they do seek to disarm it beforehand.

(b) Here are the Three Degrees of Jewish Journalism, which are not only stated in the Protocols but are observable in the everyday world of the present.

“The leading place will be held by organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests and consequently their influence will be comparatively small.

“The second place will be held by semi-official organs whose aim it will be to attract the indifferent and lukewarm.

“In the third category we shall place organs of apparent opposition. At least one will be extremely antagonistic. Our true opponents will mistake this seeming opposition as belonging to their own group and will thus show us their cards.

“I beg you to notice that among those who attack us there will be organs founded by us, and they will attack exclusively those points which we plan to change or eliminate.

“All our papers will support most diverse opinions: aristocratic, republican, even anarchist, so long of course as the Constitution lives. * * These fools who believe they are repeating the opinions expressed by their party newspapers will be repeating our opinions or those things which we wish them to think.

“By always discussing and contradicting our writings superficially, and without touching upon their essence, our press will keep up a blank fire against the official newspapers, only to give us opportunity to express ourselves in greater detail than we could in our first declaration. This will be done when useful to us.

“These attacks will also convince the people of the full freedom of the press, and it will give our agents the opportunity of declaring that the papers opposing us are mere wind-bags, since they cannot find any real arguments to oppose our orders.”

Undoubtedly that would be the case were all the papers controlled. In the case of the present series of articles, however, the tables appear to be turned. It is the Jewish Press which has so signally failed to bring forward disproof either by fact or argument.

“When necessary, we shall promulgate ideas in the third section of our Press as feelers, and then refute them vigorously in the semi-official press.

“We shall overcome our opponents without fail because they will not have organs of the Press at their disposal.

“The pretext for suppressing a publication will be that it stirs up the public mind without basis of reason”—a pretext which has already been urged time and again, but without the legal power to effect suppression, although without legal power the Jewish interests in the United States have effected a pretty complete suppression of everything they do not desire.

How far does Jewish influence control the Newspapers of the United States?

In so far as the use of the word “Jew” is concerned, the Press is almost completely dominated. The editor who uses it is certain to hear from it. He will be visited and told—contrary to everything the Jew is told—that the word “Jew” denotes a member of a religious denomination and not a member of a race, and that its use with reference to any person spoken of in the public prints is as reprehensible as if “Baptist,” “Catholic,” or “Episcopalian” were used.

The Jew is always told by his leaders that regardless of religion or country of birth, he is a Jew, the member of a race by virtue of blood. Pages of this paper could be filled with the most authoritative Jewish statements on this point. But what the Jew is told by his leaders, and what the Gentile editor is told by the Jewish committee are two different and antagonistic things. A Jewish paper may shriek to the skies that Professor So-and-So, or Judge So-and-So, or Senator So-and-So is a Jew, but the secular newspaper that should do that would be visited by an indignant committee bearing threats.

A certain newspaper, as a mere matter of news, published an excerpt from one of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT articles. Next day a number of advertising accounts dropped for lack of copy. Inquiry developed the fact that the reticent advertisers were all Jewish firms and the cause of their action was the really unimportant excerpt which the paper published. It developed also that the advertising agent who handled all the advertising for those Jewish firms was himself a Jew who also held an office in a Jewish secret society, which office was concerned exclusively with the control of newspapers in the matter of Jewish publicity. It was this man who dealt with the editor. A lame editorial retraction followed which faintly praised the Jews. The advertising was returned to the paper, and it is just a question whether that editor was rightly handled or not. Certainly he has been made to feel the power. But the diplomacy of it was bad. The editor, along with hundreds of others, has only been given the proper background for estimating the Jewish power in its wider reaches.

This is not to say that every editor should enter upon a campaign to expose the secret power. That is a matter for personal decision. Every editor, however, is so situated that he can see certain things, and he ought to see them, note them, and inwardly digest them.

Jewish publicity in response to these articles is very easy to get in almost any newspaper. Some have fallen most lamentably for lying statements. Others have opened their columns to propaganda sent out from Jewish sources. That is all very well. But the Gentile interest in the question has been largely ignored, even in cases where the editors are awake to the whole Question. This too affords a vantage from which the average editor can view what is transpiring in this country.

If a list of the Jewish owners, bondholders and other interests in our newspapers should be published the list would be impressive. But it would not account for the widespread control of the Press as observed in this country. Indeed, it would be unfair in such a connection as this to list some of the Jewish-owned newspapers of the United States, because their owners are fair and public-spirited servants of the people.

Actual ownership does not often account for much in a newspaper. Ownership in the newspaper business in not always synonymous with control.

If you wish to know the control of the newspaper, look to its attorney and the interests he serves; look to the social connections of its chief editors; look to the advertising agents who handle the bulk of Jewish advertising; and then look to the matter of the paper’s partisanship or independence in politics.

Newspaper control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain things into it.

One absolute condition insisted upon with the daily Press is that it shall not identify the Jew, mention him, or in any but the most favorable way call the public’s attention to his existence.

The first plea for this is based on “fairness,” on the false statement that a Jew is not a Jew but a church member. This is the same statement which Jewish agents in the United States Government have used for years to prevent the United States Government from listing the Jews in any racial statistics. It is in direct contradiction to what the Jews themselves are told. A flabby “fairness,” a sloppy “broad-mindedness,” a cry of “religious prejudice,” is the first plea. The second is a sudden cessation of Jewish patronage. The third is withdrawal of patronage by every Gentile concern that is under the grip of Jewish financiers. It is a mere matter of brutal bludgeoning. And the fourth act, in a community thoroughly blinded to the Jewish Question, is the collapse of the offending publication.

Read the Jewish Encyclopedia for a list of some of the papers which dared open up the Question, and ceased!

When old Baron Moses Montefiore said at Krakau:

“What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the press of the whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the people.”

—he knew what he was saying. By “blinding” the people he only meant that they should not see the Jew, and by “deceiving” them he only meant that the people should think certain world movements meant one thing when they really meant another. The people may be told what happens: they may not be told what was behind it. The people do not yet know why certain occurrences which have affected their whole lives, should have occurred at all. But the “why” of it is very definitely known in certain circles whose news service never sees print, and sometimes not even writing.

Statistics as to the space given the Jews by newspapers concerning things they want to get into print would also be an eye-opener. A minority nation, they get more publicity than any ten of the important minor nations of Europe—of the kind of publicity they want!

The number of Jewish contributors to the Press of the United States makes another interesting statistical bit. It would be sheer prejudice to make objectionable mention of many Jewish journalists and writers, and they come within the scope of this study only as they have shown themselves to be the watchful agents and active servants of the System. This is what many of them are. Not the ambitious young Jewish reporter who runs around the streets gathering news, perhaps, but the journalist at the seat of the news and at the necks of those two or three important international runways through which the news of the world flows.

The whole matter, as far as extent of control is concerned, could be visualized on a map of the United States, by means of colored pins showing the number of Jewish-owned, provably Jewish-controlled papers, and the number of Jewish writers who are directing the majority thought of the various sections of the country.

The Jewish journalist who panders to unrest, whose literary ambition is to maintain a ferment in his readers, whose humor is sordid and whose philosophy is one of negation; as well as the Jewish novelist who extols his or her own people even while the story sows subtle seeds of disruption in Gentile social or economic life must be listed as the agents of that World Program which would break down society through the agency of “ideas.” And it is very striking how many there are, and how skillfully they conceal their propaganda in their work.

Here and there in the United States it is now becoming possible to print the word “Jew” in the headlines of an article, and tell the Jewish committee which calls the next day that this is yet a free country. Quietly a number of newspapers have tested the strength of this assumed control in their communities, and have discounted it.

There is no reason for fear on the part of the editor who has his facts. But the editor who backs down will more and more feel the pressure upon him. The man who courageously and fairly holds his ground will soon learn another thing that is not so generally known, namely, that with all the brilliance there is a lot of bluff, and that the chain of control once broken is felt throughout the whole system as a blow.

There is nothing that the International Jew fears so much as the truth, or any hint of the truth about himself or his plans. And, after all, the rock of refuge and defense, the foundation of endurance for Jew or Gentile must be the Truth.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 11 September 1920]

Does This Explain Jewish Political Power?

Little has yet been said in this commentary on the Protocols about the political program contained in them. It is desirable that the points be taken separately in order that when our study turns to actual conditions in this country, the reader may be in a position to judge whether the written program agrees with the acted program as it may be seen all about us. The World Program as outlined in these strange documents turns upon many points, some of which have already been discussed. Its success is sought (a) by securing financial control of the world, this having already been secured by the overwhelming indebtedness of every nation through wars, and by the capitalistic (not the manufacturing or managerial) control of industry; (b) by securing political control, which is easily illustrated by the condition of every civilized country today; (c) by securing control of education, a control which has been steadily won under the blinded eyes of the people; (d) by trivializing the public mind through a most complete system of allurement which has just brought us into a period which requires the new word “jazz” to describe it; and (e) by the sowing of seeds of disruption everywhere—not the seeds of progress, but of economic fallacies and revolutionary temper. All of these main objectives entail various avenues of action, none of which has been overlooked by the Protocols.

In leading up to what the Protocols have to say about the selection and control of Presidents, it will be enlightening to take the views which these documents express about other phases of politics.

It may be very interesting to those Jewish apologists, who in all their pronouncements never discuss the contents of the Protocols, to know that so far from their being a plea for monarchy, they are a plea for the most drastic and irresponsible liberalism in government. The powers behind the Protocols appear to have absolute confidence in what they can do with the people once the people are made to believe that popular government has really arrived.

The Protocols believe in frequent change. They like elections; they approve frequent revisions of constitutions; they counsel the people to change their representatives often.

Take this from the First Protocol:  “The abstract conception of Liberty made it possible for us to convince the crowd that government is only the management for the owner of the country, the people, and that the steward can be changed like a pair of worn-out gloves. The possibility of changing the representatives of the people has placed them at our disposal and, as it were, has placed them in our power as creatures of our purposes.”

Note also how this Use of Change is buried in this paragraph from the Fourth Protocol, which describes the evolution of a Republic:

“Every republic passes through several stages. The first is that of senseless ravings, resembling those of a blind man throwing himself from right to left. The second is that of demagogy, which breeds anarchy and inevitably leads to despotism, not of a legal, open and consequently responsible character, but an unseen and unknown despotism, felt none the less because exercised by a secret organization. Such a despotism acts with even less scruple because it is hidden under cover and works behind the backs of various agents, the shifting and changing of which will not harm its secret power, but serve it, since such changes will relieve the organization from the necessity of expending its resources on rewards for long service.”

This “changing” of servants is not unknown in the United States. A former Senator of the United States could easily testify to this if he only knew who did the “changing.” Time was when he was the tool of every Jewish lobbyist in the Senate. His glib tongue lent charm and plausibility to every argument they wished to advance against the government’s intentions. Secretly, however, the Senator was receiving “favors” from a very high source, “favors” of a financial character. The time came when it was desirable to “detach” the Senator. The written record of his “favors” was abstracted from its place of supposed secrecy, a newspaper system that has always been the ready organ of American Jewry made the exposure, and an indignant public did the rest. It could not have been done had not the man been compromised first; it could not have been done without certain newspaper connivance; it would never have been done had not the Senator’s masters wished it. However, it was done.

In the Fourteenth Protocol, which begins “When we become rulers,” it is pictured how hopeless the Gentile peoples will have become of any betterment of conditions through changes of government, and therefore will accept the promise of stability which the Protocolists of that time will be prepared to offer:

 “The masses will become so satiated with the endless changes of administration which we instigated among the Gentiles when we were undermining their governmental institutions, that they will tolerate anything from us * * *”

The official who is changed most quickly in this country is the man who questions certain matters which come from Jewish sources. There must be a small army of such men in the United States today. Some of them do not know even now how it happened. Some are still wondering why perfectly legitimate and patriotic information should have been lost in an icy silence when they sent it in, and why they should have lost favor for sending it.

Protocol Nine is full of the most amazing claims, of which these may serve as illustration:

“At the present time, if any government raises a protest against us, it is only for the sake of form, it is under our control, and it is done by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is necessary for keeping in order our lesser brothers. I will not explain this further as already it has been the subject of numerous discussions between us.”

This doctrine of the usefulness of anti-Semitism and the desirability of creating it where it does not exist are found in the words of Jewish leaders, ancient and modern.

“In reality there are no obstacles before us. Our super-government has such an extra-legal status that it may be called by the energetic and strong word—dictatorship. I can conscientiously say that at the present time we are the lawmakers.”

In that Protocol this claim is made:

“De facto, we have already eliminated every government except our own, although de jure there are still many others left.”

That is simple: the governments still exist, under their own names, having authority over their own people; but the super-government has unchallenged influence over all of them in matters pertaining to the Jewish Nation and particularly in matters pertaining to the purpose of The International Jew.

The Eighth Protocol shows how this can be:

“For the time being, until it will be safe to give responsible government positions to our brother Jews, we shall entrust them to people whose past and whose character are such that there is an abyss between them and the people; to people, for whom, in case of disobedience to our orders, there will remain only trial or exile (from public life), thus forcing them to protect our interest to their last breath.”

In the Ninth Protocol again is this reference to party funds:

“The division into parties has placed them all at our disposal, inasmuch as in order to carry on a party struggle it is necessary to have money, and we have it all.”

There have been many investigations of campaign funds. None has ever yet gone deep enough to inquire into the “international” sources of these funds.

Now, in the United States during the last five years we have seen an almost complete Judaized administration in control of all the war activities of the American people. The function of the regularly organized United States Government during that time was practically confined to the voting of money. But the administration of the business end of the war was in charge of a government within a government, and this inner, extra government was Jewish.

It is, of course, often asked why this was so. The first answer given is that the Jews who were immediately placed in charge of the business administration of the war were competent men, the most competent men who could be found. This was actually the answer given to an inquiry as to the reason for so large a part of the foreign policy of the United States depending on the counsel of a certain group of Jews—they were the men who knew, no one else knew so much, the officials chosen by the people had a right to select the most efficient and able counsel they could find.

Very well, let that stand. Let the explanation be that in all the United States, Jews were the only persons to be found who could handle the emergency with masterly ease. We shall see more of this phase of the matter at another time. The war is not under discussion in this article, merely the fact that in an emergency the government became distinctly Jewish.

But the Second Protocol would appear to throw a little light on the matter.

“The administrators chosen by us from the masses for their servility will not be persons trained for government, and consequently they will easily become pawns in our game, played by our learned and talented counsellors, specialists educated from early childhood to administer world affairs. As we know, our specialists have been acquiring the necessary knowledge for governing * * *”

The language is a trifle raw, as it usually is when Gentiles are under discussion. But the same fact, namely, that Jewish specialists have come to the aid of Gentile administrators in an emergency, when uttered for the consideration of the general public, may be very beautifully phrased.

The untrained Gentile administrator must have help; his unpreparedness makes it necessary. And who knows it better than those who have the help to offer? The Gentile public has been taught to suspect the man who has had experience in politics or government. This, of course, makes the whole situation doubly easy for those whose speciality it is to give “aid.” Just what interests they aid most will give, when discovered, a strong light upon their zeal.

But in all that the Protocols have to say about the political angle of the World Program, nothing is of so great interest as that which concerns the selection and control of Presidents. The whole plan is outlined in the Tenth Protocol. The fact that the President of France seems to have been in mind is a localism; the plan is applicable elsewhere; indeed has elsewhere its most perfect illustration.

This Tenth Protocol, then, leads gradually up to the subject, tracing the evolution of rulers from Autocrat to President, and of nations from Monarchies to Republics.

The language of this passage is particularly objectionable, but no more so than can be found in current Jewish literature where boasting of power is indulged in. Unpleasant as the whole attitude is, it is valuable as showing in just what light the supporters of the Protocol Program view the Gentiles and their dignities. It must be born in mind that the Jewish ideal is not a President, but a Prince and a King. The Jewish students of Russia marched the streets in 1918 singing this hymn—

“We have given you a God;

Now we will give you a King.”

The new flag of Palestine, now permitted to fly without hindrance, bears insignia, as does every synagogue, of a Jewish King. The Jewish hope is that the Throne of David shall be set up again, as doubtless it will be. None of these things is to be decried in the least, nor to be regarded with anything but a decent respect, but they should be borne in mind as a side light on the expressed contempt for Gentile Presidents and Legislatures.

The Tenth Protocol reaches the theme of President thus:

“Then the rise of the republican era became possible, and then in the place of a sovereign we substituted a caricature of him, a President picked from the crowd * * * Such was the foundation of the mine we laid underneath the Gentile people, or more accurately, the Gentile peoples.”

It is with something of a shock that one reads that men with a “past” are specially favored for the presidential office. Men with a “past” have become President in various countries, including the United States, there is no doubt of that. In some instances, the particular scandal that constituted the “past” has been publicly known; in other cases it has been hushed up and lost in a maze of rumor. In at least one case it was made the special property of a syndicate of men who, while protecting the official from public knowledge, compelled him to pay rather stiffly for their service. Men with a “past” are not uncommon, and it is not always the “past” but the concealment of it that concerns them most, and in this lack of frankness, this distrust of the understanding and mercy of the people, they usually fall into another slavery, namely, the slavery of political or financial blackmail.

“We will manipulate the election of Presidents whose past contains some undisclosed dark affair, some ‘Panama,’ then they will be faithful executors of our orders from fear of exposure and from the natural desire of every man who has attained a position of authority to retain the privileges, emoluments and the dignity associated with the position of President.”

The use of the word “Panama” here refers to the various scandals which arose in French political circles over the original efforts to construct the Panama Canal. If the present form of the Protocols had been written at a later date they might have referred to the “Marconi wireless” scandals in England—though on second thought, they would not have done so because certain men were involved who were not Gentiles. Herzl, the great Jewish Zionist leader, uses the expression in “The Jewish State.” Speaking of the management of the business of Palestine he says that the Society of the Jews “will see to it that the enterprise does not become a Panama but a Suez.” That the same expression should occur in Herzl and in the Protocols is significant; it has also another significance, which will be described at another time. It must be clear to the reader, however, that no one writing for the general public at this day would refer to a “Panama” in a man’s past. The reference would not be understood.

It is this practice of holding a man under obligation which makes it needful on the part of the true publicist to tell the truth and the whole truth about aspirants for public office. It is not enough to say of a candidate that he “began as a poor boy” and then became “successful.” How did he become successful? How explain the “rise” of his fortunes? Sometimes the clue leads deep into the domestic life of the candidate. It may be told of a man, for example, that he helped another out of a scrape by marrying the woman involved, and received a sum of money for doing so. It may be told of another that he was implicated by his too friendly relations with another’s wife, but was relieved of his predicament by the astute diplomacy of powerful friends, to whom thereafter he felt himself in debt of honor. It is strange that, in American affairs at least, the woman-note is predominant. In our higher offices that has more frequently occurred than any other, oftener than the money-note.

In European countries, however, where the fact of a man’s being entangled illegitimately with a woman does not carry so heavy a stamp of shame with it, the controlled men have been found to have “pasts” of another character.

The whole subject is extremely distasteful, but truth has its surgical duties to perform, and this is one of them. When, for example, a pivotal assemblage like that of the Peace Conference is studied, and the men who are most subject to the Jewish influence are isolated, and their past history is carefully traced, there is almost no difficulty whatever in determining the precise moment when they passed over into that fateful condition which, while it did not hinder them of public honors for one hour, made them unchangeably the servants of a power the public did not see. The puzzling spectacle which the observer sees of the great leaders of Anglo-Saxon races closely surrounded and continuously counseled by the princes of the Semitic race, is explained only by knowledge of those leaders’ “past” and those words of the Protocols—“We will manipulate the election of Presidents whose past contains some undisclosed dark affair.”

And where this Jewish domination of officials is glaringly apparent, it may be safely assumed that the custody of the secret is almost entirely with that race. When necessity arises, it may be a public service for those in possession of the facts to make them public—not for the purpose of destroying reputations, but for the purpose of damning for all time a most cowardly practice.

Politically, so the Jewish publicists tell us, Jews do not vote as a group. Because of this so we are told, they have no political influence. Moreover, we are told, they are so divided among themselves that they cannot be led in one direction.

It may be true that when it is a question of being for anything, the Jewish community may show a majority and minority opinion—a small minority, it is likely to be. But when it becomes a question of being against anything, the Jewish community is always a unit.

These are facts to which any ward politician can testify. Any man in political life can test it for himself by announcing that he will not permit himself to be dominated by Jews or anybody else. Just let him mention Jews in that manner; he will no longer have to read about Jewish solidarity; he will have felt it. Not that, in a vote, the Jewish solidarity can accomplish anything it wishes; the Jew’s political strength is not in his vote, but in the “pull” of, say, seven men at the seat of government. The Jews, a political minority so far as votes are concerned, were a political majority so far as influence was concerned, during the last five years. They ruled. They boast that they ruled. The mark of their rule is everywhere.

The note which everyone observes in politics, as in the Press, is the fear of the Jews. This fear is such that nowhere are the Jews discussed as are, say, the Armenians, the Germans, the Russians, or the Hindoos. What is this fear but reflection of the knowledge of the Jews’ power and their ruthlessness in the use of it? It is possibly true, as many Jewish publicists say, that what is called anti-Semitism is just a panic-fear. It is a dread of the unknown. The uncanny spectacle of an apparently poor people who are richer than all, of a very small minority which is more powerful than all, creates phantoms before the mind.

It is very significant that those who most assume to represent the Jews are quite content that the fear should exist. They wish it to exist. To keep it delicately poised and always there, though not too obtrusively, is an art they practice. But once the balance is threatened, their crudeness instantly appears. Then comes the threat, by which it is hoped to re-establish the fear again. When the threat fails, there comes the wail of anti-Semitism.

How strange this is, that the Jews should not see that the most abject form of antiSemitism is just this fear which they are willing to have felt toward them by their neighbors. This fear is “Semitophobia” in its worst form. To inspire fear—what is more dreaded by the normal man, and yet what more delights an inferior race?

Now, a great service is done when the people are emancipated from this fear. It is the process of emancipation that Jewish publicists attack. It is this they call anti-Semitism. It is not anti-Semitism at all; it is the only course that can prevent anti-Semitism.

The process involves several steps. The extent of the Jewish power must be shown. To this, of course, strong Jewish objection is made, though no strong disproof can be made.

Then the existence of this power must be explained. It can be explained only by the Jewish Will to Power, as it may be called, or by the deliberate program which is followed in the attainment of the power. When the method is explained, half the damage is undone. The Jew is not a superman. He is bright, he is intense, his philosophy of material things leaves him free to do many things from which his neighbor draws back; but, given equal advantages, he is not a superman. The Yankee is more than his equal any time, but the Yankee has an inborn inclination to observe the rules of the game. When the people know by what means this power is gained—when they are informed how, for example, political control is seized, as it has been in the United States, the very method takes all the glamour from the power, and shows it to be a rather sordid thing after all.

This series of articles is attempting to take these orderly steps, and it is believed the complete effort will justify itself to reasonable minds, both Jewish and Gentile.

In the present article one important means of power has been described on the authority of the Protocols. Whether the method laid down by the Protocols is worth considering or not depends entirely on whether it can be found in actual affairs today. It can be found. The two tally. The parallel is complete. It were well for the Jew, of course, if no trace of him could be found in either the written or the actual program. But he is there, and it is illogical for him to blame anyone but himself for being there. Certainly, it is small defense against the fact to heap abuse upon the one who discloses the fact. We have agreed that the Jews are clever, but they are not so clever as to be able to cover their work. There is a certain element of weakness in them which reveals the whole matter in the end. And even the revelation would not mean much if the thing revealed were not wrong. But that is the weakness of the Jewish program—it is wrong. The Jews have never gained any measure of success so great that the world cannot check it. The world is engaged in a great checking tactic now, and if there are still prophets among the Jews they should lead their people in another path.

The proof and the fruit of any exposure of the World Program is the removal of the element of fear from the peoples among whom the Jews live.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 18 September 1920]

“In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties he (the Jew) has only two possible cities of refuge; he must either pull down the pillars of the whole national state system, or he must create a territorial sovereignty of his own In Eastern Europe, Bolshevism and Zionism seem to grow side by side not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system is ever anything but distasteful to him.”

The All-Jewish Mark on “Red Russia”

We shall now briefly interrupt the commentary which we have been making on the Protocols to set at rest once and for all certain misstatements which are made for Gentile consumption.

To learn what the Jewish leaders of the United States or any other country think, do not read their addresses to the Gentiles; read their addresses to their own people. On such matters as these—Whether the Jew regards himself as destined to rule the world; whether he regards himself as belonging to a nation and race distinct from every other nation and race; whether he regards the Gentile world as the legitimate field of his exploitation by a lower moral method than is permissible among his own people; whether he knows and shares the principles of the Protocols—on such matters as these, the only safe guide is to be found in the words which Jewish leaders speak to Jews, not in the words they speak to Gentiles.

The notable Jewish names which appear oftenest in the Press do not represent the spokesmen of Judaism at all, but only a selected few who represent the Department of Propaganda Among the Gentiles. Sometimes that propaganda is in the form of donations for Christian charitable organizations; sometimes it is in the form of “liberal” opinion on religious, social and political questions. In whatever form it comes, you may depend upon it that the real activities of the Jewish hierarchy proceed under cover of that which the Gentile is invited to observe and approve.

The statements offered in this series are never made without the strictest and fullest proof, confirmation and corroboration in the utterances of Jewish leaders. This is one of the strange features of the multitude of Jewish attacks on this series: they are attacking what they themselves stand for, and their only reason for the attack must be their belief that this investigation has not been able to penetrate through to that which has been kept hidden from the world.

The most persistent denials have been offered to the statement that Bolshevism everywhere, in Russia or the United States, is Jewish. In these denials we have perhaps one of the most brazen examples of the double intent referred to above. The denial of the Jewish character of Bolshevism is made to the Gentile; but in the confidence and secrecy of Jewish communication, or buried in the Yiddish dialect, or obscurely hidden in the Jewish national press, we find the proud assertion made—to their own people!—that Bolshevism is Jewish.

Jewish propaganda has only two straws to grasp in the terrible tale of murder, immorality, robbery, enforced starvation and hideous humanism which make the present Russian situation impossible to describe and all but impossible to comprehend.

One of these straws is that Kerensky, the man who eased in the opening wedge of Bolshevism, is not a Jew. Indeed, one of the strongest indications that Bolshevism is Jewish is that the Jewish press emphasizes so fiercely the alleged Gentilism of a least two of the revolutionary notables. It may be cruel to deny them two among hundreds, but merely saying so cannot change Kerensky’s nationality. His name is Adler. His father was a Jew and his mother a Jewess. Adler, the father, died, and the mother married a Russian named Kerensky, whose name the young child took. Among the radicals who employed him as a lawyer, among the forces that put him forward to drive the first nail into Russia’s cross, among the soldiers who fought with him, his Jewish descent and character have never been doubted.

“Well, but there is Lenin,” our Jewish publicists say—“Lenin the head of it all, the brains of it all, and Lenin is a Gentile! We’ve got you there—Lenin is a Gentile!”

Perhaps he is, but why do his children speak Yiddish? Why are his proclamations put forth in Yiddish? Why did he abolish the Christian Sunday and establish by law the Jewish Saturday Sabbath?

The explanation of all this may be that he married a Jewess. The fact is that he did. But another explanation may be that he himself is a Jew. Certainly he is not the Russian nobleman he has always claimed to be. The statements he has made about his identity thus far have been lies. The claim that he is a Gentile may be unfounded too.

No one has ever doubted Trotsky’s nationality—he is a Jew. His name is Braunstein. Recently the Gentiles were told that Trotsky had said he wasn’t much of anything—in religion. That may be. But still he must be something—else why are the Russian Christian churches turned into stables, slaughter houses and dancing halls, while the Jewish synagogues remain untouched? And why are Christian priests and ministers made to work on roads, while Jewish rabbis are left their clerical privileges? Trotsky may not be much of anything in religion, but he is a Jew nevertheless. This is not mere Gentile insistence that he shall be considered a Jew whether or no; it is straight Jewish teaching that he is. In a future discussion on “religion or race?” we shall show that even without religion, Trotsky is, and is considered by all Jewish authorities to be, a Jew.

An apology must be made here for repeating well-known facts. Yet, so many people are not even now aware of the true meaning of Bolshevism, that at the risk of monotony, we shall cite a few of the salient facts. The purpose, however, is not alone to explain Russia, but to throw a warning light on conditions in the United States.

The Bolshevik Government, as it stood late this summer when the latest report was smuggled through to certain authorities, shows up the Jewish domination of the whole affair. It has changed very slightly since the beginning. We give only a few items to indicate the proportion. It must not be supposed that the non-Jewish members of the government are Russian.

Very few Russians have anything to say about their own country these days. The so-called “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” in which the proletariat has nothing whatever to say, is Russian only in the sense that it is set up in Russia; it is not Russian in that it springs from or includes the Russian people. It is the international program of the Protocols, which might be “put over” by a minority in any country, and which is being given a dress-rehearsal in Russia.

Table Showing Jewish Control of Russia

	Number of Members	Number of Jewish Members	Jewish Percentage
The Council of the Commissaries of the People	22	17	77.2%
The Commissariat of War	43	33	76.7%
The Commissariat of Foreign Affairs	16	13	81.2%
The Commissariat of Finance	30	24	80.0%
The Commissariat of Justice	21	20	95.2%
The Commissariat of Public Instruction	53	42	79.2%
The Commissariat of Social Assistance	6	6	100.0%
The Commissariat of Work	8	7	87.5%
Delegates of the Bolshevik Red Cross to Berlin
Vienna, Varsovie, Bucharest, Copenhagen	8	8	100.0%
Commissaries of the Provinces	23	21	91.3%
Journalists	41	41	100.0%

These are enlightening figures. The reader will note that the Jewish percentage is high at all times, never lower than 76 per cent in any case. (Curiously enough, the lowest percentage of Jews is found in the Commissariat of War.) But in those committees which deal most closely with the mass of the people, as well as in the committees of defense and propaganda, Jews fill literally all the places.

Remember what the Protocols say about Press control: remember what Baron

Montefiore said about it, and then look at the Government Journalists. That committee comprises 41 men, and the 41 are Jews. Only Jewish pens are trusted with Bolshevist propaganda.

And then the so-called “Red Cross delegates,” which are merely Red Revolutionary delegates to the cities named—of the 8, there are 8 Jews.

The Commissariat of Social Assistance, upon whose word the life and privilege of tens of thousands hang—there are 6 members, and the 6 are Jews. And so on through the list.

Out of the 53 members of the Commissariat of Public Instruction, 11 are noted as non-Jews. But what kind of non-Jews is not stated. They may be “non-Jews like Lenin” whose children speak the Yiddish as their native tongue. Whatever they are, there is a sidelight upon their attitude in the fact that the Bolsheviki immediately took over all the Hebrew schools and continued them as they were and laid down a rule that the ancient Hebrew language should be taught in them. The ancient Hebrew language is the vehicle of the deeper secrets of the World Program.

And for the Gentile Russian children—? “Why,” said these gentle Jewish educators, “we will teach them sex knowledge. We will brush out of their minds the cobwebs. They must learn the truth about things!”—with consequences that are too pitiable to narrate. But this can be said: unquestionably there were deaths among innocent Jews when Hungary wrested itself free from the Red Bolshevism of Bela Kun (or Cohen). The Jews may well call it the “White Terror” that followed their failure to re-enact the tragedy of Russia in Hungary. But there are mountains of evidence to show that nothing had so potent an effect in producing the bloodshed of the “White Terror” as the outraged minds of parents whose children had been compulsorily drawn through sloughs of filth during the short time the Jewish Bolsheviki had charge of the schools.

American Jews do not like to hear this. Their shrinking from it would be greatly to their honor did they not immediately return to the defense of the people who do these things. It is well enough known that the chastity of Christians is not so highly regarded by the orthodox male Jew as is the chastity of his own people, but it would be pleasant to be certain that all of them condemn what went on in Russia and Hungary in the matter of education. However, as most of the influences which destroy Gentile youth today—in America—are in the hands of the Jews, and as it is plainly stated in the Protocols that one of the lines of campaign is “to corrupt the youth of the Gentiles,” the situation is one that calls for something more than mere hard feelings and angry denials whenever these facts are referred to.

It is not the economic experiment, so-called, that one objects to in Russia; it is not the fallacies, the sad delusion of the people. No. It is the downright dirty immorality, the brutish nastiness of it all; and the line which the immorality and nastiness draws between Jew and Gentile. The horrible cruelty involved we will not deal with, leaving it merely with the explanation which has found utterance in the Jewish press that “it may be that the Jew in Russia is taking an unconscious revenge for his centuries of suffering.”

“But,” asks some reader, “how may we know that all this is true?”

Bearing in mind that we are speaking of Russia, not for the interest of the Russian situation at all, but to indicate the international character of those who are responsible for conditions there, and to identify them for the protection of the United States, we shall look at the evidence.

There is, of course, the evidence brought to light by our own United States Senate and printed in a Report of the Committee on the Judiciary. We do not wish to spend much time on this, because we prefer in these articles to use Jewish testimony instead of Gentile. But we shall pause long enough to show the nature of the testimony brought out by our own government.

Dr. George A. Simons, a clergyman in charge of an American congregation in Petrograd at the time the Bolshevik terror broke out, was a witness. Parts of his testimony are given here:

“‘There were hundreds of agitators who followed in the trail of Trotsky-Bronstein, these men having come over from the lower East Side of New York * * * A number of us were impressed by the strange Yiddish element in this thing right from the start, and it soon became evident that more than half the agitators in the so-called Bolshevik movement were Yiddish.’

“Senator Nelson—‘Hebrews?’

“Dr. Simons—‘They were Hebrews, apostate Jews. I do not want to say anything against the Jews, as such. I am not in sympathy with the antiSemitic movement, never have been, and do not ever expect to be * * * But I have a firm conviction that this thing is Yiddish, and that one of its bases is found in the East Side of New York.’

“Senator Nelson—‘Trotsky came over from New York during that summer, did he not?’

“Dr. Simons—‘He did.’

“Later Dr. Simons said: ‘In December, 1918 * * * under the presidency of a man known as Apfelbaum * * * out of 388 members, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest Jews, with the exception possibly of one man, who is a Negro from America, who calls himself Professor Gordon * * * and 265 of this northern commune government that is sitting in the Old Smolny Institute came from the lower East Side of New York—265 of them. * * *

“‘I might mention this, that when the Bolsheviki came into power, all over

Petrograd we at once had a predominance of Yiddish proclamations, big posters, and everything in Yiddish. It became very evident that now that was to be one of the great languages of Russia; and the real Russians, of course, did not take very kindly to it.’”

William Chapin Huntington, who was commercial attache of the United States Embassy at Petrograd, testified:

“The leaders of the movement, I should say, are about two-thirds Russian Jews * * * The Bolsheviks are internationalists, and they were not interested in the particular national ideals of Russia.”

William W. Welch, an employee of the National City Bank, New York, testified:

“In Russia it is well known that three-fourths of the Bolshevik leaders are Jewish * * * There were some—not many, but there were some—real Russians; and what I mean by real Russians is Russian-born, and not Russian Jews.”

Roger E. Simmons, Trade Commissioner connected with the United States Department of Commerce, also testified. An important anonymous witness, whom the committee permitted to withhold his name, told the same things.

The British White Book, Russia, No. 1—“A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, April, 1919,” contains masses of the same testimony from many sources, all of them eyewitnesses.

In that very highly respected magazine Asia for February-March, 1920, is an article which contains, among other important ones, these statements: (the italics are ours)

“In all the Bolshevist institutions the heads are Jews. The Assistant

Commissar for Elementary Education, Grunberg, can hardly speak Russian. The Jews are successful in everything and obtain their ends. They know how to command and get complete submission. But they are proud and contemptuous toward everyone, which strongly excites the people against them * * * At the present time there is a great national religious fervor among the Jews. They believe that the promised time of the rule of God’s elect on earth is coming. They have connected Judaism with a universal revolution. They see in the spread of revolution the fulfilling of the Scriptures: ‘Though I make an end of all the nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make an end of thee.’”

Now if Gentile proof were wanted, the files of the THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT for a whole year would not begin to contain it. But Jewish proof is better.

There has been a strange vacillation in Jewish opinion concerning Bolshevism. At first it was hailed with delight. There was no concealment whatever in the early days of the new regime as to the part which Jewry had in it. Public meetings, interviews, special articles poured forth in which very valuable elements of truth were mingled. There was no attempt at concealment of names.

Then the horror of the thing began to take hold upon the world, and for just a breathing space Jewish opinion fell silent. There was a spasmodic denial or two. Then a new burst of glorification. The glorification continues within Judaism itself, but it now carries on the Gentile side of its face a very sad expression labeled “persecution.”

We have lived to see the day when to denounce Bolshevism is to “persecute the Jews.”

In the American Hebrew, for September 10, 1920, an article appears which not only acknowledges and explains the part which the Jew plays in the present unrest and upheaval, but justifies it—and justifies it, curiously enough, by The Sermon on the Mount.

The writer says that “the Jew evolved organized capitalism with its working instrumentality, the banking system.”

This is very refreshing, in view of the numerous Jewish denials of this economic fact.

“One of the impressive phenomena of the impressive time is the revolt of the Jew against the Frankenstein which his own mind conceived and his own hand fashioned * * *” If this is true, why is Jewish “organized capital with its working instrumentality, the banking system” supporting the revolt?

“That achievement (referring to the Russian overthrow), destined to figure in history as the overshadowing result of the World War, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct.”

“This rapid emergence of the Russian revolution from the destructive phase and its entrance into the constructive phase is a conspicuous expression of the constructive genius of Jewish discontent.”

(This, of course, requires proof that the constructive phase has appeared. The implication here is sheer propaganda. The Protocols, however, have a reconstructive program. We have not reached it as yet in this series of articles, but it is clearly outlined in the Protocols—destroy the Gentile society, and then reconstruct it according to “our” plans.)

Now read carefully:

“What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart ARE TENDING TO PROMOTE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.”

Read that again. “What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia!” Just what was that? And just how did it “powerfully contribute?” And why are “Jewish idealism” and “Jewish discontent” always linked together? If you read the Protocols it is all very clear. Jewish idealism is the destruction of Gentile society and the erection of Jewish society. Was it not so in Russia?—Yiddish proclamations on the walls, the ancient Hebrew in the schools, Saturday substituted for Sunday, and the rabbis respected while the priests were put to work on the roads! All “powerfully contributed” to by murder, rapine, theft and starvation.

Our author is more candid than he realizes. He calls this linked idealism and discontent

“the historic qualities of the Jewish mind.” THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is indebted to him for this clear confirmation of what it has been saying for some time.

But even that is not all. “These same historic qualities of the Jewish mind” which “contributed so powerfully to accomplish in Russia” the Red Terror still existing there, are declared by this author to be tending to promote the same sort of thing in other countries. He says so in so many words—“tending to promote in other countries.” But we knew that. The only difference is that when Gentiles said it, they were overwhelmed with the wildest abuse; but now a pro-Jewish writer says it in a leading Jewish publication. And he says it apologetically—listen to him:

“It was natural that * * * discontent in other parts of the world should find expression in overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims.”

What discontent? Jewish discontent, of course. Discontent with what? With any form of Gentile rule. And how did it find expression? “In overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims.” What were these issues and aims? To bring the Bolshevik revolution to the United States.

No, they did not overstate their aims; they exactly stated them—they simply selected the wrong country, that’s all.

There are Russian Bolshevists in this country now, hawking about the streets of New York the gold cigaret cases which they stole from Russian families, and the family jewels, the wedding and birthday rings, which they filched from Russian women. Bolshevism never got further than the pawnshop and burglar’s “fence” idea. The proof of this traffic in stolen property is going to drive some people into hiding before long. It will be a long, long time before America will be taking orders in Yiddish, or American women will be giving up their jewels to “the chosen race.”

However, that happens to be only the most recent acknowledgement that has come to hand. It is significant for its confession that “Jewish discontent” was “tending to promote” in “other countries” what it has “so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia.”

And with such a link between the American Hebrew, Russian Bolshevism and the Protocols, there are still Jewish publicists with the crust to say that only crazy people could see the connection. Only blind people will not see it. But that is only a minor connection. This series of articles does not rest on anything so accidental as the Jewish New Year’s apology for Bolshevism in the great Hebrew weekly of the United States.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 25 September 1920]

“Out of the economic chaos, the discontent of the Jew evolved organized capital with its working instrumentality, the banking system

“One of the impressive phenomena of the impressive time is the revolt of the Jew against the Frankenstein which his own mind conceived and his own hand fashioned

“That achievement (Russian Bolshevik revolution—Ed.), destined to figure in history as the over-shadowing result of the World War, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct

“What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart are tending to promote in other countries

“Shall America, like the Russia of the Czars, overwhelm the Jew with the bitter and baseless reproach of being a destroyer, and thus put him in the position of an irreconcilable enemy?

“Or shall America avail itself of Jewish genius as it avails itself of the peculiar genius of every other race?

“That is the question for the American people to answer.”

—From an article in The American Hebrew, Sept. 10, 1920.

Jewish Testimony in Favor of Bolshevism

The American people will answer that question, and their answer will be against the disruptive genius of dissatisfied Jews.

It is very well known that “what Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia” is also being attempted in the United States. Why did not the writer in the American Hebrew say the United States, instead of saying “the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart are tending to promote in other countries.”

“Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent” are not directed against capital. Capital is enlisted in their service. The only governmental order the Jewish effort is directed against is Gentile governmental order; and the only “capital” it attacks is Gentile capital.

Lord Eustace Percy who, if one may judge by the full and appreciative quotations of his words in the Jewish press, has the sanction of thinkers among the Jews, settles the first point. Discussing the Jewish tendency to revolutionary movements he says:

“In Eastern Europe Bolshevism and Zionism often seem to grow side by side, just as Jewish influence molded Republican and Socialist thought throughout the nineteenth century down to the Young Turk revolution in Constantinople hardly more than a decade ago—not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him.”

And that analysis is absolutely true. In Russia, the excuse was the czar; in Germany, the kaiser; in England it is the Irish question; in the numerous South American revolutions, where the Jews always had a ruling hand, no particular reason was thought necessary to be given; in the United States it is “the capitalistic class;” but always and everywhere it is, by the confession of their own spokesman, a distaste for any form whatsoever of Gentile government. The Jew believes that the world is his by right; he wants to collect his own, and the speediest way of doing so is the destruction of order by revolution—a destruction which is made possible by a long and clever campaign of loose and destructive ideas.

As to the second point, every reader can verify the fact from his own experience. Let him recall to his mind the capitalists who have been held up to public scorn in the Jew-controlled press of the United States—and whom does he find them to be? Whose forms have you seen caricatured with the dollar-mark in Hearst’s papers? Are they Seligman, Kahn, Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, or any of the others? No. These are Jewish bankers. The attack is never made on them. The names made most familiar to you by newspaper denunciation are the names of Gentile industrial and banking leaders—and Gentile leaders only—the principal ones being Morgan and Rockefeller.

It is a well-known fact that during the French Commune when men of wealth suffered severe losses in property, the Jewish Rothschilds were not injured to the extent of one pennyworth. It is also a well-known fact, capable of proof satisfactory to any ordinary mind, that the connections between Jewish financiers and the more dangerous revolutionary elements here in the United States are such that it is most unlikely that the former stand to lose anything in any event. Under cover of the disorder in Russia at the present time, Jewish financiers are taking advantage of the stress of the people to gain control of all the strategic natural resources and municipal property, by methods which they fully expect to be legalized by Jewish courts when the present “Bolshevik regime” announces that it will give way to a “modified communism.” The world hasn’t seen the end of Bolshevism yet. Like the World War, Bolshevism cannot be interpreted until it is seen who profits most by it, and the profiteering is in full sway now. The enemy is Gentile capital. Not any other. And “all the wealth of the world is in our hands” is the unspoken slogan of every Jewish outbreak in the world today.

The quotation at the head if this article represents the position which the Jews are now ready to take with reference to the Russian Revolution. They have always been charged with responsibility for what has occurred in that unhappy country, but at first their spokesmen denied it. The denials were most indignant, and were usually accompanied by the typical plaint that the charge was “persecution.” But the facts have been so overwhelming, and the government investigations have been so revealing, that denials have been abandoned.

For a while an attempt was made to distract attention from Russia by a tremendously powerful propaganda concerning the Jews in Poland. There are many indications that the Polish propaganda was undertaken as a “cover” for the immense immigration of Jews into the United States. It may be that some of our readers do not know it, but an endless stream of the most undesirable immigrants pours daily into the United States, tens of thousands of the same people whose presence has been the problem and menace of the governments of Europe.

Well, the Polish propaganda and the immigration movement are sailing along smoothly, and the United States Government is assured by the Jewish ring at Washington that everything is quiet along the Potomac (it is quiet there, quiet as the Jewish ring could wish), but still the Russian fact persists in calling for explanation.

And here is the explanation: The Jews created capitalism, we are told. But capitalism has proved itself ill-behaved. So now, the Jewish creators are going to destroy their creation. They have done so in Russia. And now, will the American people be good and let their Jewish benefactors do the same in America?

That is the new explanation, and typically Jewish again, it is coupled with a proposal for the United States—and a threat! If America refuses this particular service of the Jew, we “put him in a position of an irreconcilable enemy.” See quotation at the head of this article.

But the Jews have not destroyed capitalism in Russia. When Lenin and Trotsky make their farewell bow and retire under the protective influence of the Jewish capitalists of the world, it will be seen that only Gentile or Russian capital has been destroyed, and that Jewish capital has been enthroned.

What is the record? Documents printed by the United States Government contain this letter: Please note the date, the Jewish banker and the Jewish names:

“Stockholm, Sept. 21, 1917.

“To Mr. Raphael Scholan:

“Dear Comrade:—The banking house, M. Warburg, opened an account for the enterprise of Comrade Trotsky upon receipt of a telegram from the Chairman of the ‘Rhein-Westphalian Syndicate.’ A lawyer, probably Mr. Kestroff, obtained ammunition and organized the transportation of same, together with that of the money * * * to whom the sum demanded by Comrade Trotsky is to be handed.

“Fraternal Greetings!

“Furstenberg.”

Long before that, an American Jewish financier was supplying the funds which carried revolutionary propaganda to thousands of Russian prisoners of war in Japanese camps.

It is sometimes said, by way of explaining the Bolshevik movement, that it was financed from Germany, a fact which was seized upon to supply war propaganda. It is true that part of the money came from Germany. It is true that part of the money came from the United States. It is the whole truth that Jewish finance in all the countries was interested in Bolshevism as an All-Jewish investment. For the whole period of the war, the Jewish World Program was cloaked under this or that national name—the blame being laid on the Germans by the Allies, and on the Allies by the Germans, and the people kept in ignorance of who the real personages were.

It was stated by a French official that two millions of money was contributed by one Jewish banker alone.

When Trotsky left the United States to fulfill his appointed task, he was released from arrest at Halifax upon request of the United States, and everyone knows who constituted the War Government of the United States.

The conclusion, when all the facts are considered, is irresistible, that the Bolshevik revolution was a carefully groomed investment on the part of International Jewish Finance.

It is easy to understand, then, why the same forces would like to introduce it to the United States. The real struggle in this country is not between labor and capital; the real struggle is between Jewish capital and Gentile capital, with the I.W.W. leaders, the Socialist leaders, the Red leaders and the labor leaders almost a unit on the side of the Jewish capitalists.

Again recall which financiers these men most attack. You cannot recall a single Jewish name.

The main purpose in these two articles, however, is to introduce the Jewish testimony which exists as to the Jewish nature of Bolshevism.

The Jewish Chronicle, of London, said in 1919:

“There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”

In the same paper, of 1920, is a report of an address made by Israel Zangwill, a noted Jewish writer, in which he pronounced glowing praise on “the race which has

produced a Beaconsfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Klotz, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotsky.” Mr. Zangwill, in his swelling Semitic enthusiasm, embraced the Jews in the British Government in the same category with the Jews of the Hungarian and Russian Bolshevik governments. What is the difference? They are all Jewish, and all of equal honor and usefulness to “the race.”

Rabbi J. L. Magnes, in an address at New York in 1919, is reported to have said:

“When the Jew gives his thought, his devotion, to the cause of the workers and of the dispossessed, of the disinherited of the world, the radical quality within him goes to the roots of things, and in Germany he becomes a Marx and a Lassalle, a Haas and an Edward Bernstein; in Austria he becomes a Victor Adler and a Friedrich Adler; in Russia, a Trotsky. Just take for a moment the present situation in Russia and in Germany. The revolution set creative forces free, and see what a large company of Jews was available for immediate service. Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviki, and Bolsheviki, Majority and Minority Socialists—whatever they be called—Jews are to be found among the trusted leaders and the routine workers of all these revolutionary parties.”

“See,” says the rabbi, “what a large company of Jews are available for immediate service.” One ought to see where he points. There are as many Jewish members of revolutionary societies in the United States, as there were in Russia; and here, as there, they are “available for immediate service.”

Bernard Lazare, a Jewish writer who has published a work on anti-Semitism, says:

“The Jew, therefore, does take a part in revolutions, and he participates in them in so far as he is a Jew, or more correctly, in so far as he remains a Jew.”

He says also—“The Jewish spirit is essentially a revolutionary spirit, and consciously or otherwise, the Jew is a revolutionist.”

There is hardly any country in the world, except the United States, where denials of this could be made in such a way as to require proof. In every other country the fact is known. Here we have been under such a fear of mentioning the word “Jew” or anything pertaining to it, that the commonest facts have been kept from us—facts which even a superficial knowledge of Jewish writing would have given us. It was almost a pathetic spectacle to see American audiences go to lectures about the Russian situation, and come away from the hall confused and perplexed because the Russian situation is so un-Russian, all because no lecturer thought it politic to mention “Jew” in the United States, for, as some day we shall see, the Jew has contrived to gain control of the platform too.

Not only do the literary lights of Jewry acknowledge the Jew’s propensity to revolution generally, and his responsibility for the Russian situation particularly, but the lower lights also have a very clear idea about it. The Jew in the midst of the revolution is conscious that somehow he is advancing the cause of Israel. He may be a “bad Jew” in the synagogue sense, but he is enough of a Jew to be willing to do any thing that would advance the prestige of Israel. Race is stronger than religion in Jewry.

The Russian paper, On to Moscow, in September, 1919, said:

“It should not be forgotten that the Jewish people, who for centuries were oppressed by kings and czars, are the real proletariat, the real Internationale, which has no country.”

Mr. Cohan, in the newspaper, Communist, in April, 1919, said:

“Without exaggeration, it may be said that the great Russian social revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of the Jews. Would the dark, oppressed masses of the Russian workmen and peasants have been able to throw off the yoke of the bourgeoisie by themselves? No, it was precisely the Jews who led the Russian proletariat to the dawn of the Internationale and not only have led, but are also now leading the Soviet cause which remains in their safe hands. We may be quiet as long as the chief command of the Red Army is in the hands of Comrade Leon Trotsky. It is true that there are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the committees and Soviet organizations, as commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory. It is not without reason that during the elections to all Soviet institutions the Jews are winning by an overwhelming majority * * * The symbol of Jewry, which for centuries has struggled against capitalism, has become also the symbol of the Russian proletariat, which can be seen even in the adoption of the Red five-pointed star, which in former times, as it is well known, was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry. With this sign comes victory, with this sign comes the death of the parasites of the bourgeoisie * * * Jewish tears will come out of them in sweat of drops of blood.”

This confession, or rather boast, is remarkable for its completeness.

The Jews, says Mr. Cohan, are in control of the Russian masses—the Russian masses who have never risen at all, who only know that a minority, like the czar’s minority, is in control at the seat of government.

The Jews are not in the Red Army, Mr. Cohan informs us, that is, in the ranks where the actual fighting is done; and this is strictly in line with the Protocols. The strategy of the World Program is to set Gentiles to kill Gentiles. This was the Jewish boast during the various French social disasters, that so many Frenchmen had been set killing each other.

In the World War just passed, there were as many Gentiles killed by Gentiles as there are Jews in the world. It was a great victory for Israel. “Jewish tears will come out of them in sweat of drops of blood.”

But the Jews are in the places of control and safety, says Mr. Cohan, and he is absolutely right about it. The wonder is that he was so honest as to say it.

As to the elections, so-called, at which the Jews are so unanimously chosen, the literature of Bolshevism is very explicit. Those who voted against the Jewish candidates were adjudged “enemies of the revolution” and executed. It did not require many executions at a voting place to make all the elections unanimous.

Mr. Cohan is especially instructive on the significance of the Red Star, the five-pointed emblem of Bolshevism. “The symbol of Jewry,” he says, “has become also the symbol of the Russian proletariat.”

The Star of David, the Jewish national emblem, is a six-pointed Star, formed by two triangles, one standing on its base, the other on its apex. Deprived of their base lines, these triangles approximate the familiar Masonic emblem of the Square and Compass. It is this Star of David of which a Jewish observer in Palestine remarks that there are so few among the graves of the British solders who won Palestine in the recent war; most of the signs are the familiar wooden Cross. These Crosses are now reported to be objectionable to the new rulers of Palestine, because they are so plainly in view of the visitor who approaches the new Jewish university. As in Soviet Russia, so in Palestine, not many Jews laid down their lives for the cause: there were plenty of Gentiles for that purpose.

As the Jew is a past master in the art of symbolism, it may not be without significance that the Bolshevik Star has one point less than the Star of David. For there is still one point to be fulfilled in the World Program as outlined in the Protocols—and that is the enthronement of “our leader.” When he comes, the World Autocrat for whom the whole program is framed, the sixth point may be added.

The Five Points of the Star now apparently assured are the Purse, the Press, the Peerage, Palestine and Proletarianism. The sixth point will be the Prince of Israel.

It is very hard to say, it is hard to believe, but Mr. Cohan has said it, and revolutions especially since the French Revolution confirm it, that “with this sign comes the death of the parasites of the bourgeoisie * * * Jewish tears will come out of them in sweat of drops of blood.” The “bourgeoisie,” as the Protocols say, are always Gentile.

The common counterargument to the invincible fact of the Jewish character of the Russian revolution—an argument which is destined to disappear now that Jewish acknowledgement is coming thick and fast—is that the Jews in Russia suffer too. “How can we favor a movement which makes our own people suffer?” is the argument put up to the Gentile.

Well, the fact is this: they are favoring that movement. Today, this very moment, the Bolshevik Government is receiving money from Jewish financiers in Europe, and if in Europe, then of course from the International Jewish bankers in America also. That is one fact.

Another fact is this: the Jews of Russia are not suffering to anywhere near the extent we are told by the propagandists. It is now a fact admitted by Jews themselves that upon the first sweep of the Bolshevists across Poland, the Polish Jews were friendly with the invaders and helped them. The fact was explained by American Jews in this manner: since Bolshevism came to Russia, the condition of the Jews there has greatly improved—therefore the Polish Jews were friendly. And it is true—the condition of Russian Jews is good.

One reason is: they have Russia. Everything there belongs to them.

The other reason is: The Jews of Russia are the only ones receiving help there today.

Did that second statement ever strike you as significant? Only the Jews of Russia have food and money sent to them. It is one form, of course, of the support which the Jewish world is giving Bolshevism. But if the suffering among the Jews is what the propagandists say it is, what must it be among the Russians? Yet no one is sending food or money to them. The probable truth of the whole situation is that Jewish Bolshevism is laying a tax on the world. Any time it may be required, there is plenty of evidence as to the good condition of the Jews in Russia. They have all there is.

Another source of confusion is revealed in the question: “How can Jewish capitalists support Bolshevism when Bolshevism is against capitalism?”

Bolshevism, as before stated, is only against Gentile capitalism. Jewish financiers who remained in Russia are very useful to the Bolsheviki. Read this description by an eyewitness: “A Jew is this Commissary of the Bank, very elegant, with a cravat of the latest style, and a fancy waistcoat. A Jew is this District Commissary, former stockbroker, with a double bourgeois chin. Again a Jew, this inspector of taxes: he understands perfectly how to squeeze the bourgeoisie.”

These agents of Jewry are still there. Other agents are among the Russians who fled, getting their lands away from them on mortgage loans. When the curtain lifts, most of the choice real estate will be found to have passed into Jewish control by perfectly “legal” means.

That is one answer to the question, Why the Jewish capitalists support Bolshevism. The Red Revolution is the greatest speculative event of human history. Besides, it is for the exaltation of Israel; it is a colossal revenge, which the Jews always take where they can, for wrongs real or imaginary.

Jewish capitalism knows exactly what it is doing. What are its gains?

1.  It has taken a whole rich country, without the cost of war.

2.  It has demonstrated the necessity of gold. Jewish power rests on the fiction that gold is wealth. By the premeditated clumsiness of the Bolshevik monetary system, the unthinking world has been made to believe still more strongly that gold is necessary, and this belief gives Jewish capitalism another hold on the Gentile world. If the Bolshevists had been honest, they could have dealt Jewish capitalism its death blow. No! Gold is still on its throne. Destroy the fiction that gold has value, and you leave the Jewish International Financiers sitting forlorn on heaps of useless metal.

3. It has demonstrated its power to the world. Protocol Seven says: “To demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile governments of Europe, we will show our power to one of them by crimes of violence, that is, a reign of terror.” Has Europe been sufficiently “shown”? Europe has, and is afraid! That is a great gain for Jewish capitalists.

4. Not the least of the gains is the field practice in the art of revolution which Russia has offered. Students of that Red school are coming back to the United States. The technique of revolution has been reduced to a science according to the details laid down in the Protocols. To use Rabbi Magnes’s words again: “See what a large company of Jews was available for immediate service.” The available company is now much larger.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 2 October 1920]

Preface

A former volume, containing the first twenty articles in the series of Jewish studies which began their appearance in The Dearborn Independent of May 22, 1920, dealt largely with the theory of the Jewish World Program. The present volume gives a general view of some of the evidence which illustrates and substantiates that Program. As the first volume brought the subject forward a step, the present volume brings it forward another step. The Question is a very big one, the material is of mountainous proportions, so that it is very desirable that there be simplicity of method. The method therefore has been to lay the observable everyday facts alongside the Program, to see if they agree. It will be time enough to take up the authenticity of the Protocols when the parallel between them and the activities of the Jewish leaders is shown.

The articles thus far printed remain unanswered. They have been denounced and misrepresented, but not answered. A favorite evasion of Jewish editors is to say that the statements made about the Jews could be made about any other race, and that no race could refute the statements with facts. But these statements have not been made about any other race and could they be? If they were made about, say the Hungarians, Poles, Rumanians, Italians, English, Scotch, Irish, Russian or Syrian in our midst, could they not be met?

Not the mere fact that certain statements are made about the purposes of Jewish leaders, but the fact that people can see wherein the statements agree with actual conditions, is what gives strength to the statements. The same statements made about any other group would fall because the people could find nothing to sustain them. Say-so and hearsay have no weight at all. Neither has abuse or prejudice. If the statements made in these articles are false, they are of a nature which can be refuted with facts. If there is no parallel between the written Program of the Protocols and the actual program as followed under Jewish leadership, surely that can be shown. If it has not been shown, it is because the parallel exists, and Jewish leaders know it exists. The following chapters take up numerous matters, chiefly the interference of the Jew with educational and religious interests of the majority of the people; the moral menace in the Jew-controlled theater and movie; the fight of the New York Stock Exchange against Jewish domination; a discussion of the question whether the Jews are a “religious denomination” or a race, only Jewish authorities being quoted; and a very slight beginning on the endless subject of Jewish influence during the Great War. Bernard M. Baruch, although secondary in the real Jewish counsels, proclaimed himself to a Congressional committee as “the most powerful man in the war,” and the records show that he was.

This volume does not complete the case. It is issued to meet the demand of new readers who call for the articles from the beginning. The editions of The Dearborn Independent being long ago exhausted, the publication of these two volumes was undertaken to enable readers to begin with the first article. The omission of several single articles from this compilation is in the interest of compactness, and may be restored in another volume. The omitted articles are “The Jews’ Complaint Against ‘Americanism,’” Oct. 23; “Gentile Fall Involved in Hope of Jewish Rule,” Dec. 25.

April, 1921.

“The distinctive character of the Jew does not arise solely from his religion. It is true that his race and religion are indissolubly connected, but whatever be the cause of this junction of the race idea with the religion, it is very certain that the religion alone does not constitute the people. A believer in the Jewish faith does not by reason of that fact become a Jew. On the other hand, however, a Jew by birth remains a Jew, even though he abjures his religion.”

—Leo N. Levi, President of B’nai B’rith 1900-1904.

How Jews in the U.S. Conceal Their Strength

How many Jews are there in the United States? No Gentile knows. The figures are the exclusive property of the Jewish authorities. The government of the United States can provide statistics on almost every matter pertaining to the population of the country, but whenever it has attempted in a systematic way to get information about the Jews who are constantly entering the country and the number now resident here, the Jewish lobby at Washington steps in and stops it.

For more than 20 years the fight for the right of the United States Government to make a complete census of the people has been going on, and for the same period the Jewish lobby at the Capitol has been strong enough to win.

The alarming increase in Jewish immigration at the present time has brought the question to public attention again. For the first time in the history of the United States a national conviction is forming upon this subject. From Europe came the first news which startled this country. The reports told of vast mobilizations of Jewish people at stated rendezvous in Europe. Great barracks were built for them. Large bodies of trained men went from the United States, under orders of Jewish secret societies here, to expedite “passport work,” as it is termed among those bodies. Immigration into the United States became a business—a strictly Jewish business.

Why is that statement made?—“a strictly Jewish business.” For this reason: there are countries in Europe from which today no Gentile can be admitted to the United States. From Germany, from Russia, from Poland, it is with the utmost difficulty that even one person can be won permission to enter this country. But Jews from Poland, Germany, and Russia by the thousands come in most freely, in utter disregard of the laws, in open contempt of the health regulations—a strictly Jewish business of getting another million Jews into the United States. It is like moving an army, which having done duty in Europe for the subjugation of that continent, is now being transferred to America.

When the conditions overseas were made known in this country and it became apparent that Jewish societies in the United States were the principal aids in this stampede to America, the newspapers for the first time in American history began to comment on a Jewish Question in tones of alarm. This in itself is an indication that the facts are becoming too challenging to be longer ignored.

Even the ordinary immigration officials, who for years have watched the human stream as it flowed over Ellis Island, have this year been startled into attention and action by the sharp change that has come in the character of the stream. And what has startled them?

First, it is composed almost entirely of Jews. Real Ukranians, real Russians, real Germans cannot come in. But Jews can come from anywhere, and are coming from almost everywhere. Why this special privilege?—is being asked.

Second, they do not come as refugees, as people fleeing from hunger and persecution: they come as if they own the country. They arrive as special guests. As on the other side the passport business is “arranged,” so on this side the entrance business is “arranged.” The laws are set aside. Health regulations are ignored. Why should they not behave as if they own the United States? They see officials of Jewish secret societies override officials of the United States Immigration Bureau. Their first glimpse of life here shows a Jewish control as potent and complete as it is in Russia. No wonder then that they literally beat down the walls and gates with all the éclat of a victorious invasion. Is not this America—“The Jews’ Country,” as it is called in the smaller nations of Europe?

Third, there is a perfect organization which overcomes the numerous objections which arise against admission of known revolutionary Jews. European Jews are potential revolutionists. They are the revolutionists of Italy, Germany, Russia and Poland today. They are the Red and I.W.W. leaders of the United States today. When one man whose record is known presents himself at Ellis Island—and of course he is one in a thousand whose records are not known—he is held up. Immediately there start across the country telegrams to Congressmen, editors, state and municipal officials telling them in peremptory tones to “get busy” in behalf of Mr. So-and-So who is detained at Ellis Island. And the same day there start back to Washington telegrams from Congressmen, editors and others of influence, insisting on the spotless character of Mr. So-and-So and demanding his immediate admittance into the United States. Sometimes also the Russian embassy—so-called—is used in this work.

It is an invasion—nothing but an invasion; and it is helped by influences within the United States. It is thinly cloaked with sentiment—“these people are fleeing from persecution.” It is cleverly assisted by photographs showing groups of forlorn looking women and children—never by photographs showing the groups of husky young revolutionists who are just as ready to despoil the United States as they were to despoil Russia.

That, however, is the present situation. What this and a subsequent article propose to do for the reader is to put him in possession of some of the facts concerning the government’s fight on this question during the last quarter century.

The question is not peculiar to America, and it may throw a sidelight on the American phase to note some of the facts developed at the hearings of the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration which sat in London in 1902, a feature of whose proceedings was the testimony of Theodor Herzl, the great propagandist of Zionism.

In his initial statement to the Commission, Herzl made these statements, among others:

“The fact that there is now for the first time since Cromwell a perceptible number of our people in England is the true cause of this Commission being called together. * * * That a serious pressure exists in England, the fact of your Commission sitting is full proof.”

Then the examination proceeded until the following was brought out: (the answers are Herzl’s)

Q. Looking at the question of alien immigration from the standpoint of the United States for a moment, you have referred to the fact that America excludes?

A. Yes.

Q. The exclusion is a partial exclusion?

A.  Exclusion, as I know, is worked in this way: the immigrant must show a certain amount of money at the moment of his landing.

Q. You are aware that the stream of immigration into the United States is twice as much as the immigration into the United Kingdom?

A. I know that. New York has now the greatest Jewish population of all the towns in the world.

Q.  And the actual exclusion is the actual exclusion of a small proportion?

A.  Yes; but they go, however, to America. I think it is so easy to evade such a prohibition. For instance, if they joined a small company, it would lend the necessary amount to each immigrant, and the immigrant shows it and comes in, and sends back by post the amount he has borrowed. There are no efficacious measures to prevent that.

Q. I took it that your reference to the United States was an approval of the action of that country as an act of self-preservation.

A. No.

A little later on in the examination, the question of immigration to the United States was again brought in. The answers are still Dr. Herzl’s—remember that the date is still 1902:

Q. Are you aware whether it is the fact or not that the leading Jews in America have informed their correspondents here that they cannot receive and distribute any more Jewish immigrants?

A. I have heard of difficulties of emigration, and that they are overcrowded with Jews. As to that information I cannot say.

Q. In your opinion would not the stream of emigration to America have been much greater if no such law had existed?

A. I think this law did not alter it much. The prohibition could not change it.

Q.  On what grounds do you believe that?

A.  It is a question of coasts and harbors. They come in. How will you prevent a man from coming in?

Q.  Do you mean they are smuggled in?

A.  No, I do not believe that. But they always find means to come in.

Now, discussion of immigration in the United States has never been free. We have talked a great deal about it in general terms, but not in terms of specific races except the Chinese and Japanese. However, Herzl seems to have known that wherever the Jews congregate in noticeable numbers they become a trouble (his words are: “* * * America, where so soon as they form a perceptible number they become a trouble and a burden to the land”) and he also knew that efforts would be made to meet that condition. But more than that, he dropped what must be construed as a warning, that such efforts would be resisted. He said:

“There exists a French proverb, ‘cet animal est tres impatient; il se defend quand on l’attaque.’ If the Jews are attacked, they will defend themselves, and you will get something like internal troubles.”

The time apparently did come in the United States when some far-seeing official began to wonder what the Jewish invasion portended. Already it was too strong to be openly attacked. The Jewish lobby at Washington was powerful even at that time. So, apparently, this official concluded that the best way to set about so momentous a task was to collect the information.

But in order to get the information, Congress had to give its permission; and to get the permission of Congress, hearings had to be ordered. Hearings were ordered, and the records of them, though very scarce, still exist. The reader will be given important extracts from them presently, and he will see for himself how certain American statesmen reacted to the whole matter.

A remark is in order just here, namely, that the Jewish lobby eventually became more skillful in such matters. It now takes very good care that no officials shall be appointed who shall make suggestions which shall precipitate congressional hearings on the Jewish matter. The time is coming, of course, when the whole Jewish Question may be threshed out by the government of the United States, but it will not be because an official precipitated it; it will be because the people will demand it.

Officials are now much too wary to meddle with this Question. They know too well the consequences. During the war many a secret trail of danger led into Jewish quarters, and the secret service man who loyally made his reports was often surprised to find himself lifted completely off that trail. Why? All Jewish trails in this country were powerfully protected by hidden influences during the war.

Well, the time came in the United States, when it was obviously desirable to know what elements were comprising our population; whether we were an Anglo-Saxon nation, Semitic, Latin, or what. The situation was this, and was so stated by government officials at the time:—In the ’80’s, and previously, it could be safely assumed that an immigrant from Ireland was Irish, an immigrant from Norway or Sweden was Scandinavian, an immigrant from Russia was Russian, an immigrant from Germany was German, and so on.

But times changed. Previous to 1880, the entry on a man’s record—“born in

Russia”—indicated that he was a Russian. But, says a statement made by a government official with reference to the 10 years following 1880—“So many Hebrews have come from that country to the United States, that ‘born in Russia’ has come in popular opinion to mean a ‘Russian Jew.’” And then the same official goes on to show that during a 10-year period when 666,561 Jews came from Russia, there came also from Russia large numbers of Poles, Finns, Germans and Lithuanians.

Now, to make a census enumeration of these peoples under the heading “Russian” was plainly misleading, and not only misleading but valueless for census purposes. The racial identity would be lost, and our knowledge of the racial make-up of the nation very incomplete. Therefore, the census authorities asked Congress for permission to classify people by “race” as well as by “country of birth.” It seemed perfectly reasonable. Of what possible use is it to classify 3,000,000 Jews as “Russians” when there are very few real Russians in the country, and when the Russian and Jew are so deeply different one from another?

Senator Simon Guggenheim arose in the committee to object. He used the common formula in such cases. He said:

 “Personally I object to it, not because I am a Hebrew, but because it is not in place.”

That is the common Jewish formula of objection. The B’nai B’rith says the same thing when it forces Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” out of the public schools. That society’s “anti-defamation circular” always includes the thought:—“We do not base our request on the embarrassment which may be caused to the Jewish students in class, nor is our attitude in this regard based on thin-skinned sensitiveness. Our objection is made because of the effect upon the non-Jewish children who subconsciously will associate in their minds the Jew as Shakespeare portrayed him with the Jew of today.” So Senator Guggenheim, therefore, was playing the game according to the rules made and established in such cases.

At this hearing, Senator LaFollette was chairman. Senator Guggenheim’s contention was that “Jew” was the name of a member of a religious denomination, and not of a race.

Chairman LaFollette—“I can see broad ethnological reasons why some time it would be important to know from what blood and race the man came.”

Senator Guggenheim—“Why not ask his religion?”

Senators McCumber and Bailey came to the support of Senator Guggenheim’s contention, that “Jew” is a religious and not a racial term.

Chairman LaFollette—“I do not just get your objection to this, Senator Guggenheim. What objection can one have to having the race to which he belongs correctly entered?”

Senator Guggenheim—“Because it is not correct when stated that way. The Jews are not a race. * * *”

Later on in the hearing, Senator Cummins entered the discussion in response to a pro-Jewish remark made by Senator Bailey:

Senator Bailey—“If I were a Hebrew and I had been born here and they wanted me to say I was anything but an American, I would have a difference with the enumerator. I perhaps would refuse to answer their questions.”

Senator Cummins—“I would not have any hesitancy in stating from what blood I was.”

Senator Bailey—“No; but in the case that I refer to, it would be a matter of religion.”

Senator Guggenheim—“That is the point; it is a question of religion.”

That was in April, 1909. In December, 1909, Simon Wolf was the chief witness for the pro-Jewish contention. Simon Wolf is a very interesting character. From before the days of President Lincoln, he has been lobbyist for the Jews at the National Capitol, and has been in contact with every President from Lincoln to Wilson. At the hearing where Mr. Wolf testified, Senator Dillingham acted as chairman, and the whole proceeding was enlivened and clarified by the vigorous part which Senator Lodge took in it. Certain extracts, which entirely reproduce the spirit and argument of the hearing, follow:

Mr. Wolf—“The point we make is this: A Jew coming from Russia is a Russian; from Rumania, a Rumanian; from France, a Frenchman; from England, an Englishman; and from Germany, a German; that Hebrew or Jewish is simply a religion.”

Senator Lodge—“Do I understand you to deny that the Jews are a race?”

Mr. Wolf—“How?”

Senator Lodge—“Do you deny that the word ‘Jew’ is used to express a race?”

Mr. Wolf—“As the representative of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations—which I have been for nearly 30 years—I took up the matter and propounded a series of interrogations to some of the leading Jews of the United States, among others * * * Dr. Cyrus Adler, who was librarian of the Smithsonian * * * and every one of them states that the Jews are not a race.”

Senator Lodge—“That, I think, is an important point. I have always supposed they were. I find in the preface of The Jewish Encyclopedia, which is signed by Cyrus Adler, among others this statement:

‘An even more delicate problem that presented itself at the very outset was the attitude to be observed by the encyclopedia in regard to those Jews who, while born within the Jewish community, have, for one reason or another, abandoned it. As the present work deals with the Jews as a race, it was found impossible to exclude those who were of that race, whatever their religious affiliations might have been.’

“In the same encyclopedia is a statement by Joseph Jacobs, B.A., formerly president of the Jewish Historical Society of England:

‘Anthropologically considered, the Jews are a race of markedly uniform type, due either to unity of race or to similarity of environment.’

“Do you mean to deny—I want to understand your position—that the word ‘Jew’ is a racial term?”

Mr. Wolf—“I have made my statement, and my opinions are in this pamphlet.”

Senator Lodge—“Let me get at it. How would you classify Benjamin Disraeli? Was he a Jew?”

Mr. Wolf—“He was born a Jew.”

Senator Lodge—“He was baptized as a Christian. He then ceased to be a Jew?”

Mr. Wolf—“Yes; religiously he ceased to be a Jew.”

Senator Lodge—“Ah! Religiously. He was very proud of the fact that he was a Jew, and always spoke of himself in that way. Did the fact that he changed his religion alter his race?”

Mr. Wolf—“It did not change the fact that he was born a Jew; not at all; and I know the Jewish people throughout the world have claimed him, Heine, and Borne, and others who were born of their blood, as being Jews, when they speak of persons who have accomplished something wonderful in the world. But they ceased to be Jews from the standpoint of religion—”

Senator Lodge—“Undoubtedly. What I want to get at is whether the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Hebrew’ is not a correct racial term?”

Mr. Wolf—“If you will pardon me, you will find a letter from Dr. Cyrus Adler right at the close of the pamphlet, which perhaps you might read for the benefit of the committee.”

Senator Lodge—(after reading the letter referred to) “I do not think that answers anything.”

* * *

Senator Lodge—“It never occurred to me until I heard you were coming here that the classification as made by the immigration authorities had anything to do with religion. I supposed it was a race classification. It is important, very important, to get the race classification as nearly as we can.”

* * *

Mr. Wolf—“You are aware that the Census Bureau some time ago attempted to classify in the same manner and it was prohibited from doing so.”

Senator Lodge—“The word ‘race’ was stricken out of the census bill. I think it was a great mistake. It makes the returns almost valueless.”

Mr. Wolf—“I can simply repeat what I have said—that I am voicing the opinions of those whom I represent—the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the Order of B’nai B’rith. They are opposed to the classification as made in the last few years and as contemplated, so far as I am informed, in the report of the commission.”

The hearings continued, Julian W. Mack later appearing for the Jewish contention.

From the extracts given in this article, four matters become very clear:

First, the Jew is opposed to any restrictive legislation against his entrance into a country.

Second, the Jew is opposed to any racial classification of himself after he has entered a country.

Third, the Jewish argument to the Gentile authorities is that the Jew represents religion and not race.

Fourth, that at least one indication has appeared in which the Jew has one view to present to the Gentiles, and another which he cherishes among his own people, on this question of Race.

Another point might be made, as this: when the authorities disregard as untenable the argument of “religion, not race,” the Jewish spokesmen fall back on the fact that their organizations don’t want certain things and won’t have certain things—argument or no argument, commission or no commission.

The Jewish lobbyists had their way. There is no enumeration of Jews in the United States. There are 46 other classifications, but none for the Jew. The Northern Italians are distinguished in the records from the Southern Italians; the Moravians are distinguished from the Bohemians; the Scotch from the English; the Spanish-American from the Spanish-European; the West Indians from the Mexicans—but the Jew is not distinguished at all.

None of the other races made objection. On this point the report of the commission reads:

“As far as ascertained by the commission, the practice of classifying the foreign-born by race or people, rather than by country of birth, is acceptable to the people of the United States with one exception.

The officials, who were endeavoring to have the Census Report show with scientific accuracy the actual racial components of the population of the United States, were compelled to see their recommendation eliminated.

What is the result? If you ask the government of the United States how many Frenchmen there are in the country, it can give you the figures. If you ask for the number of Poles, it is there. If you ask for the number of Africans, it is known. On down a long list you may make your inquiries, and you will find that the government knows.

But ask the government of the United States how many Jews are in the country—and it cannot tell; there are no records. If you want information upon that point, you will have to go to the officials or representatives of the Jewish Government in the United States.

Of course, if “Jew” is a religious term, like Baptist, Catholic, Christian Scientist or Quaker, then there is merit in the argument that religious questions are not proper for the government to ask unless the religion comes in conflict with, or is a menace to, the ideals of the Republic. But if “Jew” is a racial term, or a national term, then the government is properly interested in making record of all the inhabitants of this land who bear it.

Like all questions pertaining to the Jews, this can be settled by their own words. What the Jews teach the Jews on this matter should be the determining point. In the next article we shall see what Jews themselves have to say about “race or religion?”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 9 October 1920]

Jewish Testimony on “Are Jews a Nation?”

“I will give you my definition of a nation, and you can add the adjective ‘Jewish.’ A Nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. Then, if you add to that the word ‘Jewish’ you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation.”

—THEODOR HERZL.

“Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.”

—LOUIS D. BRANDEIS

Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

This article is designed to put the reader in possession of information regarding the Jew’s own thought of himself, as regards race, religion and citizenship. In the last article we saw the thought which Jewish representatives wish to plant in Gentile minds concerning this matter. The Senate committee which was to be convinced was made up of Gentiles. The witnesses who were to do the convincing were Jews.

Senator Simon Guggenheim said: “There is no such thing as a Jewish race, because it is the Jewish religion.”

Simon Wolf said: “The point we make is this * * * that Hebrew or Jewish is simply a religion.”

Julian W. Mack said: “Of what possible value is it to anybody to classify them as Jews simply because they adhere to the Jewish religion?”

The object of this testimony was to have the Jews classified under various national names, such as Polish, English, German, Russian, or whatever it might be.

Now, when the inquirer turns to the authoritative Jewish spokesmen who speak not to Gentiles but to Jews about this matter, he finds an entirely different kind of testimony. Some of this testimony will now be presented.

The reader will bear in mind that, as the series is not written for entertainment, but for instruction in the facts of a very vital Question, the present article will be of value only to those who desire to know for themselves what are the basic elements of the matter.

It should also be observed during the reading of the following testimony that sometimes the term “race” is used, sometimes the term “nation.” In every case, it is recognized that the Jew is a member of a separate people, quite aside from the consideration of his religion.

First, let us consider the testimony which forbids us to consider the term “Jew” as merely the name of a member of a religious body only.

Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and world leader of the Zionist movement, says:

“Councils of Rabbis and others have undertaken at times to prescribe by definition that only those shall be deemed Jews who professedly adhere to the orthodox or reformed faith. But in the connection in which we are considering the term, it is not in the power of any single body of Jews—or indeed of all Jews collectively—to establish the effective definition. The meaning of the word ‘Jewish’ in the term ‘Jewish Problem’ must be accepted as co-extensive with the disabilities which it is our problem to remove * * * Those disabilities extend substantially to all of Jewish blood. The disabilities do not end with a renunciation of faith, however sincere * * * Despite the meditations of pundits or decrees of councils, our own instincts and acts, and those of others, have defined for us the term ‘Jew.’” (“Zionism and the American Jews.”)

The Rev. Mr. Morris Joseph, West London Synagogue of British Jews: “Israel is assuredly a great nation * * * The very word ‘Israel’ proves it. No mere sect or religious community could appropriately bear such a name. Israel is recognized as a nation by those who see it; no one can possibly mistake it for a mere sect. To deny Jewish nationality you must deny the existence of the Jew.” (“Israel a Nation.”)

Arthur D. Lewis, West London Zionist Association: “When some Jews say they consider the Jews a religious sect, like the Roman Catholics or Protestants, they are usually not correctly analyzing and describing their own feelings and attitude. * * * If a Jew is baptized, or, what is not necessarily the same thing, sincerely converted to Christianity, few people think of him as no longer being a Jew. His blood, temperament and spiritual peculiarities are unaltered.” (“The Jews a Nation.”)

Bertram B. Benas, barrister-at-law: “The Jewish entity is essentially the entity of a People. ‘Israelites,’ ‘Jews,’ ‘Hebrews’—all the terms used to denote the Jewish people bear a specifically historical meaning, and none of these terms has been convincingly superseded by one of purely sectarian nature. The external world has never completely subscribed to the view that the Jewish people constitute merely an ecclesiastical denomination. * * *” (“Zionism—The National Jewish Movement.”)

Leon Simon, a brilliant and impressive Jewish scholar and writer, makes an important study of the question of “Religion and Nationality” in his volume, “Studies in Jewish Nationalism.” He makes out a case for the proposition that the Religion of the Jews is Nationalism, and that Nationalism is an integral part of their Religion.

“It is often said, indeed, that Judaism has no dogmas. That statement is not true as it stands.” He then states some of the dogmas, and continues—“And the Messianic Age means for the Jew not merely the establishment of peace on earth and good will to men, but the universal recognition of the Jew and his God. It is another assertion of the eternity of the nation. Dogmas such as these are not simply the articles of faith of a church, to which anybody may gain admittance by accepting them; they are the beliefs of a nation about its own past and its own future.” (p. 14.)

“For Judaism has no message of salvation for the individual soul, as Christianity has; all its ideas are bound up with the existence of the Jewish nation.” (p. 20.)

“The idea that Jews are a religious sect, precisely parallel to Catholics and Protestants, is nonsense.” (p. 34.)

Graetz, the great historian of the Jews, whose monumental work is one of the standard authorities, says that the history of the Jews, even since they lost the Jewish State, “still possesses a national character; it is by no means merely a creed or church history. * * * Our history is far from being a mere chronicle of literary events or church history.”

Moses Hess, one of the historic figures through whom the whole Jewish Program has flowed down from its ancient sources to its modern agents, wrote a book entitled “Rome and Jerusalem” in which he stated the whole matter with clearness and force.

 “Jewish religion,” he says, “is, above all, Jewish patriotism.” (p. 61.)

“Were the Jews only followers of a certain religious denomination, like the others, then it were really inconceivable that Europe, and especially Germany, where the Jews have participated in every cultural activity, ‘should spare the followers of the Israelitish confession neither pains, nor tears, nor bitterness.’ The solution of the problem, however, consists in the fact that the Jews are something more than mere ‘followers of a religion,’ namely, they are a race brotherhood, a nation * * *” (p. 71.)

Hess, like other authoritative Jewish spokesmen, denies that forsaking the faith constitutes a Jew a non-Jew. “* * * Judaism has never excluded anyone. The apostates severed themselves from the bond of Jewry. ‘And not even them has Judaism forsaken,’ added a learned rabbi in whose presence I expressed the above-quoted opinion.”

“In reality, Judaism as a nationality has a natural basis which cannot be set aside by mere conversion to another faith, as is the case with other religions. A Jew belongs to his race and consequently also to Judaism, in spite of the fact that he or his ancestors have become apostates.” (pp. 97-98.)

Every Jew is, whether he wishes it or not, solidly united with the entire nation.“ (p. 163.)

Simply to indicate that we have not been quoting outworn opinions, but the actual beliefs of the most active and influential part of Jewry, we close this section of the testimony with excerpts from a work published in 1920 by the Zionist Organization of America, from the pen of Jessie E. Sampter:

“The name of their national religion, Judaism, is derived from their national designation. An unreligious Jew is still a Jew, and he can with difficulty escape his allegiance only by repudiating the name of Jew.” (“Guide to Zionism,” p. 5.)

It will be seen that none of these writers—and their number might be multiplied among both ancients and moderns—can deny that the Jew is exclusively a member of a religion without at the same time asserting that he is, whether he will or not, the member of a nation. Some go so far as to insist that his allegiance is racial in addition to being national. The term “race” is used by important Jewish scholars without reserve, while some, who hold the German-originated view that the Jews are an offshoot of the Semitic race and do not comprise that race, are satisfied with the term “nation.” Biblically, in both the Old Testament and the New, the term “nation” or “people” is employed. But the consensus of Jewish opinion is this: the Jews are a separate people, marked off from other races by very distinctive characteristics, both physical and spiritual, and they have both a national history and a national aspiration.

It will be noticed how the testimony on the point of “race” combines the thought of race and nationality, just as the previous section combined the thought of nationality with religion.

Supreme Justice Brandeis, previously quoted, appears to give a racial basis to the fact of nationality.

He says: “It is no answer to this evidence of nationality to declare that the Jews are not an absolutely pure race. There has, of course, been some intermixture of foreign blood in the three thousand years which constitute our historic period. But, owing to persecution and prejudice, the intermarriages with non-Jews which have occurred have resulted merely in taking away many from the Jewish community. Intermarriage has brought few additions. Therefore the percentage of foreign blood in the Jews of today is very low. Probably no important European race is as pure. But common race is only one of the elements which determine nationality.”

Arthur D. Lewis, a Jewish writer, in his “The Jews a Nation,” also bases nationality on the racial element:

“The Jews were originally a nation, and have retained more than most nations one of the elements of nationality—namely, the race element; this may be proved, of course, by the common sense test of their distinguishability. You can more easily see that a Jew is a Jew than that an Englishman is English.”

Moses Hess is also quite clear on this point. He writes of the impossibility of Jews denying “their racial descent,” and says: “Jewish noses cannot be reformed, and the black, wavy hair of the Jews will not turn through conversion into blond, nor can its curves be straightened out by constant combing. The Jewish race is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of the continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries.”

Jessie E. Sampter, in the “Guide to Zionism,” recounting the history of the work done for Zionism in the United States, says: “And this burden was nobly borne, due partly to the commanding leadership of such men as Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Judge Julian W. Mack, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, partly to the devoted and huge labors of the old-time faithful Zionists on the Committee, such as Jacob de Haas, Louis Lipsky, and Henrietta Szold, and partly to the aroused race consciousness of the mass of American Jews.”

Four times in the brief preface to the fifth edition of “Coningsby,” Disraeli uses the term “race” in referring to the Jews, and Disraeli was proud of being racially a Jew, though religiously he was a Christian.

In The Jewish Encyclopedia, “the Jewish race” is spoken of. In the preface, which is signed by Dr. Cyrus Adler as chief editor, these words occur: “An even more delicate problem that presented itself at the very outset was the attitude to be observed by the Encyclopedia in regard to those Jews who, while born within the Jewish community, have, for one reason or another, abandoned it. As the present work deals with the Jews as a race, it was found impossible to exclude those who were of that race, whatever their religious affiliations might have been.”

But as we are not interested in ethnology, the inquiry need not be contained further along this line. The point toward which all this trends is that the Jew is conscious of himself as being more than the member of a religious body. That is, Jewry nowhere subscribes in the persons of its greatest teachers and its most authoritative representatives, to the theory that a Jew is only “a brother of the faith.” Often he is not of the faith at all, but he is still a Jew. The fact is insisted upon here, not to discredit him, but to expose the double minds of those political leaders who, instead of straightforwardly meeting the Jewish Question, endeavor to turn all inquiry aside by an impressive confusion of the Gentile mind.

It may be argued by the small body of so-called “Reformed Jews” that the authorities quoted here are mostly Zionists. The reply is: there may be, and quite possible are, two Jewish programs in the world—one which it is intended the Gentiles should see, and one which is exclusively for the Jews. In determining which is the real Program, it is a safe course to adopt the one that is made to succeed. It is the Program sponsored by the so-called Zionists which is succeeding. It was made to succeed through the Allied Governments, through the Peace Conference, and now through the League of Nations. That, then, must be the true Jewish program, because it is hardly possible that the Gentile governments could have been led as they are being led, were they not convinced that they are obeying the behests of the real Princes of the Jews. It is all well enough to engage the plain Gentile people with one set of interesting things; the real thing is the one that has been put over. And that is the program whose sponsors also stand for the racial and national separateness of the Jews.

The idea that the Jews comprise a nation is the most common idea of all—among the Jews. Not only a nation with a past, but a nation with a future. More than that—not only a nation, but a Super-Nation.

We can go still further on the authority of Jewish statements: we can say that the future form of the Jewish Nation will be a kingdom.

And as to the present problems of the Jewish Nation, there is plenty of Jewish testimony to the fact that the influence of American life is harmful to Jewish life; that is, they are in antagonism, like two opposite ideas. This point, however, must await development in the succeeding article.

Israel Friedlaender traces the racial and national exclusiveness of the Jews from the earliest times, giving as illustrations two Biblical incidents—the Samaritans, “who were half-Jews by race and who were eager to become full Jews by religion,” and their repulse by the Jews, “who were eager to safeguard the racial integrity of the Jews”; also, the demand for genealogical records and for the dissolution of mixed marriages, as recorded in the Book of Ezra. Dr. Friedlaender says that in post-Biblical times “this racial exclusiveness of the Jews became even more accentuated.” Entry into Judaism “never was, as in other religious communities, purely a question of faith. Proselytes were seldom solicited, and even when ultimately admitted into the Jewish fold they were so on the express condition that they surrender their racial individuality.”

“For the purposes of the present inquiry,” says Dr. Friedlaender, “it is enough for us to know that the Jews have always felt themselves as a separate race, sharply marked off from the rest of mankind. Anyone who denies the racial conception of Judaism on the part of the Jews in the past is either ignorant of the facts of Jewish history, or intentionally misrepresents them.”

Elkan N. Adler says: “No serious politician today doubts that our people have a political future.”

This future of political definiteness and power was in the mind of Moses Hess when he wrote in 1862—mark the date!—in the preface of his “Rome and Jerusalem,” these words:

“No nation can be indifferent to the fact that in the coming European struggle for liberty, it may have another people as its friend or foe.”

Hess had just been complaining of the inequalities visited upon the Jews. He was saying that what the individual Jew could not get because he was a Jew, the Jewish Nation would be able to get because it would be a Nation. Evidently he expected that nationhood might arrive before the “coming European struggle,” and he was warning the Gentile nations to be careful, because in that coming struggle there might be another nation in the list, namely, the Jewish Nation, which could be either friend or foe to any nation it chose.

Dr. J. Abelson, of Portsea College, in discussing the status of “small nations” as a result of the Great War, says: “The Jew is one of these ‘smaller nations,’” and claims for the Jew what is claimed for the Pole, the Rumanian, and the Serbian, and on the same ground—that of nationality.

Justice Brandeis voices the same thought. He says:

“While every other people is striving for development by asserting its nationality, and a great war is making clear the value of small nations * * * Let us make clear to the world that we too are a nationality clamoring for equal rights * * *”

Again says Justice Brandeis: “Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality, of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.”

And he concludes his article, from which these quotations are made, with these words:

“Organize, organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted—counted with us, or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people.”

Sir Samuel Montagu, the British Jew who has been appointed governor of Palestine under the British mandate, habitually speaks of the Jewish Kingdom, usually employing the expression “the restoration of the Jewish Kingdom.” It may be of significance that the native population already refer to Sir Samuel as “The King of the Jews.”

Achad ha-Am, who must be regarded as the one who has most conclusively stated the Jewish Idea as it has always existed, and whose influence is not as obscure as his lack of fame among the Gentiles might indicate, is strong for the separate identity of the Jews as a super-nation. Leon Simon succinctly states the great teacher’s views when he says:

“While Hebraic thought is familiar with the conception of a Superman (distinguished, of course, from Nietzsche’s conception by having a very different standard of excellence), yet its most familiar and characteristic application of that conception is not to the individual but to the nation—to Israel as the Super-Nation or ‘chosen people.’ In fact, the Jewish nation is presupposed in all characteristically Jewish thinking, just as it is presupposed in the teaching of the Prophets.”

“In those countries,” says Moses Hess, “which form a dividing line between the Occident and the Orient, namely, Russia, Poland, Prussia and Austria, there live millions of our brethren who earnestly believe in the restoration of the Jewish Kingdom and pray for it fervently in their daily services.”

This article, therefore, at the risk of appearing tedious, has sought to summon from many sides and from many periods the testimony which should be taken whenever the subject of Jewish nationalism comes under discussion. Regardless of what may be said to Gentile authorities for the purpose of hindering or modifying their action, there can be no question as to what the Jew thinks of himself: He thinks of himself as belonging to a People, united to that People by ties of blood which no amount of creedal change can weaken, heir of that People’s past, agent of that People’s political future. He belongs to a race; he belongs to a nation; he seeks a kingdom to come on this earth, a kingdom which shall be over all kingdoms, with Jerusalem the ruling city of the world. That desire of the Jewish Nation may be fulfilled; it is the contention of these articles that it will not come by way of the Program of the Protocols nor by any of the other devious ways through which powerful Jews have chosen to work.

The charge of religious prejudice has always touched the people of civilized countries in a tender spot. Sensing this, the Jewish spokesmen chosen to deal with non-Jews have emphasized the point of religious prejudice. It is therefore a relief to tender and uninstructed minds to learn that Jewish spokesmen themselves have said that the troubles of the Jew have never arisen out of his religion, the Jew is not questioned on account of his religion, but on account of other things which his religion ought to modify. Gentiles know the truth that the Jew is not persecuted on account of his religion. All honest investigators know it. The attempt to shield the Jews under cover of their religion is, therefore, in face of the facts and of their own statements, an unworthy one.

If there were no other evidence, the very evidence which many Jewish writers cite, namely, the instant siding of the Jews one with another upon any and every occasion, would constitute evidence of racial and national solidarity. Whenever these articles have touched the International Jew Financier, hundreds of Jews in the lower walks of life have protested. Touch a Rothschild, and the revolutionary Jew from the ghetto utters his protest, and accepts the remark as a personal affront to himself. Touch a regular old-line Jewish politician who is using a government office exclusively for the benefit of his fellow Jews as against the best interests of the nation, and the Socialist and anti-government Jew comes out in his defense. Most of these Jews, it may be said, have lost a vital touch with the teachings and ceremonials of their religion, but they indicate what their real religion is by their national solidarity.

This in itself would be interesting, but it becomes important in view of another fact, with which the next article will deal, namely, the relation between this Jewish nationalism and the nationalism of the peoples among whom the Jews dwell.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 16 October 1920]

     (Special Dispatch to the Evening Telegram.) A CHANGE IN THE THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION.

HARRISBURG, Nov. 10th—An important change has been made in the Thanksgiving proclamation. In the last paragraph the words “Christian Commonwealth” have been altered to read: “A Commonwealth of freemen.” This change has been made because of animadversions made by prominent Israelites. Gov. Hoyt says he used the word “Christian” in the sense of “civilized” and not particularly in a religious sense.

—Vol. 20, American Jewish Historical Society “Documents regarding the Thanksgiving Proclamation of Gov. Hoyt, of Pennsylvania (1880)”

Jew Versus Non-Jew in New York Finance

The Jewish problem in the United States is essentially a city problem. It is characteristic of the Jew to gather in numbers, not where land is open nor where raw materials are found, but where the greatest number of people abide. This is a noteworthy fact when considered alongside the Jews’ claim that the Gentiles have ostracized them; the Jews congregate in their greatest numbers in those places and among those people where they complain they are least wanted. The explanation most frequently given is this; the genius of the Jew is to live off people; not off land, nor off the production of commodities from raw material, but off people. Let other people till the soil; the Jew, if he can, will live off the tiller. Let other people toil at trades and manufacture; the Jew will exploit the fruits of their work. That is his peculiar genius. If this genius be described as parasitic, the term would seem to be justified by a certain fitness.

In no other city of the United States can the Jewish Problem be studied with greater profit than in the city of New York. There are more Jews in New York than in all Palestine. The communal register of the Jewish Kehillah (or Kahal) of New York sets the population at about 1,527,778. “The next largest Jewish community in the world, that of the city of Warsaw, is estimated to have been between 300,000 and 330,000 Jews, about one-fifth as many as we estimate for New York.” (Communal Register, 1917-1918.) “If we accept the estimate of the number of Jews in the world as about 14,000,000, one Jew out of every ten resides in New York.”

As a population, the Jews exert more power in New York than they have ever exerted during the Christian Era in any place, with the exception of the present Russia. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was manned from New York. The present government of Russia was transported almost as a unit from the lower East Side of New York. The New York Ghetto has long since overflowed the lower East Side. Brownsville, Brooklyn, is a Jewish town, with its own language, theaters and press. The upper East Side of New York is practically in large sections a Jewish Ghetto. The prosperous West Side and the middle class section of the city north of Central Park are practically Jewish.

With the exception of one great department store and a few lesser ones, all the large department stores in New York are Jewish. Men and women’s ready-to-wear apparel, laundries, furriers, the general run of shopkeeping is practically monopolized by Jews. The legal profession is predominantly Jewish. It is estimated that of the 27,000 news stands that control the distribution of New York’s reading matter, 25,000 are in the hands of Jews. There are 360 synagogues on the East Side of New York alone.

The New York Kehillah is a very powerful organization, whose membership strength is not accurately known. It may be described as the Jewish government of that city. It was organized in 1908 as the result of a statement by General Bingham, then police commissioner of New York, that the Jewish population, which then amounted to 600,000, contributed 50 per cent of the criminals of the city. The Kehillah is the bar before which the authorities must answer for statements or acts touching the Jewish community. Its power is very great and its methods far reaching.

Politically, while the rest of the country is entertained with the fiction that Tammany Hall rules the politics of New York, the fact is rarely published that the Jews rule Tammany.

But it is not the possession of power that constitutes an indictment of any people, it is their use or misuse of it. And if the fact of power is established, no misuse of it being found, the fact has a commendatory side. If the Jews who flock to New York become American, and if they do not work ceaselessly to twist Americanism into something else; if they strengthen the principles and traditions of America, and do not cease to vitiate the one and abolish the other, the judgement upon them must be one of friendship.

However, to establish the fact of Jewish power, one need not remain in the ghetto, nor in the mercantile districts. There are higher fields awaiting survey.

In Wall Street, the Jewish element is both numerous and powerful, as might be expected of a race which from early days has played an important part in the financial operations of the world.

This is not to say, however, that Jewish influence in American financial affairs is paramount. At one time it threatened to be, but American financiers have always been silently aware of the International Jewish Financier, and have endeavored quietly to block his game. Time and again the contest seemed to turn in favor of the Jew, but when the widespread secret wrestlings of the two powers have been suspended for a moment, it has been found that American finance has maintained its superiority, if only in a slight degree. The Rothschilds were the first to be beaten on American soil; the story of their hidden hand in American finance, politics and diplomacy is a voluminous one; but even their finesse did not avail against the sterling worth of American Business—not “American business” as it has come to be known, now that thousands of Jews are scattered about the world, representing themselves to be “American business men” although they can scarcely speak English!—but American Business as represented by the combination of American ability and American conscience. If the reputation of American business has suffered, it is because something other than American methods have been used under the American name.

In the New York financial district, Jewish finance makes itself felt through its private banking institutions. As distinct from the great trust companies and banks of deposit, the private banker utilizes his own capital and that of his partners and associates.

Jewish finance differs radically from non-Jewish finance in the fact that Jewish bankers are essentially money-lenders. They may underwrite great flotations of bond and stock issues for railroad and industrial companies, governments and municipalities, but these securities are immediately sold to the public. There is a quick money turnover. The public carries the bonds; the Jewish financier gets his money. The Jewish banker himself rarely has a permanent interest in the corporations he finances. Non-Jewish bankers usually feel obligated to retain a connection with the enterprises they have financed, in order to assure the investors a proper administration of funds; they feel obligated to contribute to the success of the investments which they handle for other people.

The Jewish banker keeps his capital liquid. The cash is always in his coffers. This is essential to his position as one who deals in money. And when the inevitable day of financial stress arrives, he profits greatly by the higher value then placed on liquid capital.

Far and away the leading Jewish banking house in Wall Street is that of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. The head of this great firm was the late Jacob Schiff, whose associates were his son Mortimer, Otto H. Kahn, Paul M. Warburg, and others, who have taken prominent parts both in public life and giant financial operations. Other private Jewish banking houses may be named as follows: Speyer & Company; J. and W. Seligman & Company; Lazard Freres; Ladenburg, Thalmann & Company; Hallgarten & Company; Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne; Goldman, Sachs & Company, as well as others of relatively less prominence. These firms enjoy a high reputation for financial integrity. They are cautious bankers, skillful in their operations, and sometimes brilliant in their financial strategy.

There is much control of industry, from the financial side, represented by Jewish power in Wall Street, and they have gained a monopoly of many metal markets. Large, prosperous Jewish brokerage houses are on every hand. The further one goes down the line of speculative operations, the more of the Jewish race one finds to be active in the work of company promotions and the marketing of oil and mining stocks.

Yet one amazing fact stands out from the mass: there is not, at this writing, a Jewish bank president on Wall Street; that is, a president of a bank of public deposit. Of all the great banks of public deposit and corporation finance, the enormous trust companies whose individual resources often run up to $400,000,000 and whose combined resources approximate many billions, not one of them has Jewish management or Jewish officers.

Why is this so? Why have the powerful banking families of Wall Street surrounded themselves so carefully with non-Jewish associates? Why has this great dividing line been drawn between members of the Jewish and non-Jewish races in the financial district that manages the financial resources of the nation?

Why? The answer to the question is in the custody of the stronger and sounder financial heads of Wall Street.

Only here and there will one discover a Jewish director in the boards of some of the lesser banking institutions.

The situation may be due merely to a shrewd analysis of the public mind. Rightly or wrongly the public prefers not to confide its money to an institution under Jewish control. It is true that in certain uptown sections of New York there are a few banks of a local character which are completely under Jewish management. But even the Jews prefer to deposit their money in banks which are free of Jewish control.

The situation may also be the effect of the unfortunate experience which the public has had with Jewish management of banks in the past. Several large failures have served to impress upon the public mind a certain peculiarity which attached to the Jewish element in those failures. The public has not forgotten, among others, the failure of Joseph G. Robin, whose real name was Robonovitch. He was an Odessa Jew. In an incredibly short space of time he built up four large banking institutions in which public money was deposited. He wrecked them all. His failure was most sensational and caused untold suffering. Robonovitch’s career illustrated very vividly the extent of the gifts and energies of the Jew from Russia, his wonderful faculty for building up large concerns through chicanery, and his cowardice and duplicity in the hour of defeat. This banking career ended in a felon’s cell.

However, one fact of importance, a fact that should be reassuring to the general public, is that the men to whom is entrusted the crucial task of putting to work and keeping at work the financial resources of the United States have hedged themselves about with a non-Jewish wall of great and long standing.

The effort of Jewish interests to gain control of the Stock Exchange is also an interesting story, and although the record shows a steady Jewish gain toward the end they desire, it is slow; but there are indications that the relentless persistence for which the Jew is noted, will prevail in the end—that is, if stock gambling continues to prove an alluring source of wealth.

When the Jews gain control of the Stock Exchange they will, for the first time, possess the power to wrest public banking control from the non-Jewish group.

There is a silent resistance to Jews on the Stock Exchange also, in virtue of an unwritten law, just as there is in the banking world of Wall Street, and the story of the counter-resistance calls for an historian.

It is related by Sereno S. Pratt that in 1792 there was a little office at No. 22 Wall Street for the public sale of stocks. A number of men, engaged in the business of buying and selling, were accustomed to meet near a large buttonwood tree which stood near 68 Wall Street. In 1817, the New York Stock Exchange, about as present constituted, was organized.

The Stock Exchange is private institution. It is practically a commission club in private hands. It is not incorporated.

Its membership is strictly limited to 1,100 men.

There are only two ways by which an outsider can become owner of seat on the Exchange—by obtaining it from the executor of a deceased member, or by purchasing from a retiring or bankrupt member.

These memberships or seats cost at present more than $100,000. About ten years ago a seat could be bought for $77,000.

The Stock Exchange is ruled by a Governing Committee of 40 members. For many years no Jew was elected to this Committee. Of recent years, an occasional Jewish broker has succeeded in being admitted to this upper group, but not often. This position, however, has not been the main objective of Jewish traders. When they secure a sufficient number of seats on the Exchange, they will take care of the matter of control in their own well-known way.

The two barriers which at present operate to prevent a large inroad of Jews are these: first, a silent resistance on the part of the other members against the admission of Jews, a resistance which is said to date from the earliest formation of this famous trading institution. And, second, the restrictions which are placed by the constitution of the Stock Exchange itself on all applications for membership.

The Governing Committee of 40 has a Committee on Admissions which comprises 15 members and which considers all applications for membership. As the membership is fixed at 1,100 and as no new seats are ever sold, a new member can gain entrance only through the transfer of an existing seat. But even such a transfer is under the strict control of the Committee of Admissions, to whose scrutiny the name of the applicant must be submitted, and whose two-thirds approval is necessary to his being seated.

But one outstanding characteristic of the Jewish race is its persistence. What it cannot attain this generation, it will attain next. Defeat it today, it does not remain defeated; its conquerors die, but Jewry goes on, never forgiving, never forgetting, never deviating from its ancient aim of world control in one form or another. So, though it would seem impossible that Jewish membership in the Stock Exchange could increase under these conditions, the plain fact is that it has increased. Slowly but surely the Jews are gaining numerical power on the floor of the Exchange. And they are doing it with a subtlety that is amazing.

How do they do it? In the first place, no Jewish member ever transfers his seat to a non-Jew. In times of market dullness, when the prices of seats drop and the demand is not so keen as usual, Jewish bidders offer, invariably, the highest sums to the seller. Then, in the case of the bankruptcy of a non-Jewish member, the receiver is almost compelled by the demand of creditors to accept the highest bid for the transfer of his membership; and, of course, a Jew is always at hand to make the bid as high as necessary. These are the two principal methods by which Jewish membership in the Exchange is being increased.

Another method, however, is more insidious than all the others combined. It is based on the rather common practice of adopting non-Jewish names or professing some phase of the Christian faith. The “changed name,” or, as Jews know it, “the cover name,” is a very potent part of the policy of concealment. In an advertisement, on business stationery, at the head of a magazine or newspaper article, such names as Smith, Adams, Robin, serve as a “blind.” The stage is flooded with Jewish actors and actresses, but their names are very distinguished Anglo-Saxon. Jewish papers often print jokes based on this habit of changing names. For long-distance dealing, or any business that is carried on “unsight and unseen,” the name-veil is very useful. On this account, many Gentiles would be surprised to learn the extent to which they are involved with Jews, whose names give no indication of Jewishness. And this very system, an old American name, coupled with membership in some Christian sect (preferably one of the newer sects), has accounted for some memberships in the Stock Exchange which probably would not otherwise exist.

It is interesting to tabulate the growth of Jewish membership as shown by the old directories of the Exchange.

In the year 1872, with a total of 1,009 members there were 60 Jews.

In 1873, with a total of 1,006 members, the Jewish membership decreased to 49.

In 1890, with membership limited to 1,100 there were 87 Jews.

In 1893, with the same limit of membership, there were 106 Jews.

At the present time, still with the same rigid limitation of membership, there are 276 Jewish members.

It is said that the Jewish membership is really somewhat larger than the last figures indicate, owing to the fact that some of the Jewish members bear non-Jewish names and have adopted some phase of the Christian faith and have cut themselves off, outwardly at least, from the Jewish community.

The figures show, therefore, that Jewish membership increased from 5 7/8 per cent of the total in 1872 to 25 per cent in 1919.

In its reference to the Stock Exchange under the head of “Finance,” the Jewish Encyclopedia states that Jewish membership is “only 128,” “a little more than 10 per cent.” The date of these Jewish statistics is not given. The article quoted has, however, an argumentative as well as informative purpose. The statement concerning the 10 per cent membership on the Exchange is made to call attention to the fact that “Jews form at least 20 per cent of the whole population of New York, and much more than that percentage of the business section.” The Jewish population of New York City has since increased to 25 per cent of the whole, and the membership on the Stock Exchange has increased to the same point.

But it has taken 47 years for the Jews to gain that 25 per cent membership. Their control of the Exchange, at the given rate of progress, is only a question of time.

In spite of these details, it is probably a fact that the Jewish speculators in the New York financial district greatly outnumber the non-Jewish speculators. Speculation and gambling are known historically as special propensities of the Jewish race. While many Jews patronize non-Jewish firms, the great mass of them follow in the speculative path of the leaders of their race. In Europe, where their financial control is more firmly fixed and of longer standing than here, it is rarely that the Jews are caught in speculative failure. They are sometimes found in speculative scandals, but seldom in any scandal involving losses to themselves. As a rule they dabble in “Jewish” securities, and in Wall Street one hears many stories concerning the victories or defeats of “the Jewish following.”

Some of the biggest Jewish sensations which ever occurred in the United States, sensations which disclosed by their lurid light the interlocking of Jewish finance, politics and racial objectives, have been brought to light by occurrences in Wall Street.

It is probably the nature of these disclosures which accounts for the strong and silent anti-Jewish resistance which characterizes straight American finance.

Meanwhile, to leave the exalted sphere of Wall Street, banking and brokerage activities, let us descend to the street level of the Curb Market in Broad Street. Here the Jewish brokers flourish in their oil, mining and stock promotion offices. They are so numerous as to give a Semitic cast to the vicinity, as if it were a quarter in a foreign city. It is true that these concerns are frequently operated under non-Jewish names, but that is merely part of the Jew’s consciousness that, in financial matters, whether rightly or wrongly, he is under suspicion. Gentile names carry with them no such handicap.

Going still further down the line, in shadier lanes, in semi-hidden offices, may be seen numerous members of the Jewish race who are identified with no established market which deals with securities. These are the true parasites of the Wall Street environment, they are the camp followers without status. Their work is that of fraudulent stock promotion, and they enter upon it with a zeal and an energy which nothing can dismay. Their purpose is to make money without labor, to get money without giving value, and in this they are immensely successful. It is amazing the number of these men who make immense fortunes; it is equally amazing the continuous crop of unwary, poorly informed, and unsuspecting Gentiles who send their money from all parts of the United States for the worthless bits of paper in which these Jewish parasites deal. It is a most heartless business; it has not even brilliance in its deviltry. It is the old-time shell game in other terms. The operations of these men are mostly conducted by mail or telephone. They deal in “sucker lists,” and they circulate “market letters” by which, under the pretense of giving disinterested advice to investors, they seek to boom their own shady game. These “market letters” are, of course, innocuous to those who are informed and who can read their fraudulent import between the lines, but they are dangerous to the honest but uninformed minds of tens of thousands of thrifty people.

Pursued by detective agencies, watched constantly by the government secret service, exposed by the newspapers, placed on trial in the courts, convicted and sentenced to terms in prison, this type of Jewish swindler is undeterred. Where other men would regard exposure as a lifelong shame, this type regards it simply as a trifling interruption, as a sailor would regard an accidental tumble overboard.

There are lower depths still, where bald theft and violence prevail. The persons most found there are the henchmen of the lower type of speculators. The stories of criminality in Wall Street, a numerous and startling list, involving sometimes the high, but mostly the low, and all marked with a peculiar racial and groupal cast, have at times challenged the attention of the whole world, but as is usually the case with the general publication of such stories, the fundamental explanatory facts are omitted.

But it will be seen, as the story of actual conditions in Wall Street and its financial environs is unrolled, that there are always the two elements—Jewish and non-Jewish. It is perhaps the only non-Jewish coalition in America, this silent resistance which American finance is making to Semitic control. It is, in a sense, unnatural to the American mind, but has been forced as a defensive against the strong offensive operations of the Semitic coalition. If there is ever in the United States a strong non-Jewish combination, it will be the direct result of the ancient Jewish coalition against non-Jews. The condition in the United States at this moment, with regard to the financial question, is this: The Jewish coalition goes lower, but it does not yet go higher than non-Jewish control. It is struggling to go higher, but has thus far been estopped. It is believed that when the people are made aware of what is transpiring, it will be forever estopped.

As readers of former articles will remember, the attack upon Capital represented by the disorderly forces who operate under the forged banner of “Progress,” is an attack against Gentile capital only. The only financial managers attacked in the United States are Gentile managers. In England also, the same attack is made. Readers of the newspapers know what strenuous efforts are being made in that country to wreck railroad and coal mine administration by a constant series of strikes. But what readers of newspapers are not told is that the railroad and coal mines are still in Gentile hands, and that the Bolshevist-led strike is a Jewish financial weapon to wreck these forms of Gentile business, that they may easily fall into Jewish hands.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 13 November 1920]

“Economic crises were created by us for the Gentiles only by the withdrawal of money from circulation The present issue of money does not coincide with the need per capita, and consequently it cannot satisfy all the needs of the working classes You know that gold currency was detrimental to the governments that accepted it, for it could not satisfy the requirements for money, since we took as much gold as possible out of circulation.”

—Protocol 20.

The High and Low of Jewish Money Power

Jewish high finance first touched the United States through the Rothschilds. Indeed it may be said that the United States founded the Rothschild fortune. And, as so often occurs in the tale of Jewish riches, the fortune was founded in war. The first twenty million dollars the Rothschilds ever had to speculate with was money paid for Hessian troops to fight against the American colonies.

Since that first indirect connection with American affairs, the Rothschilds have often invaded the money affairs of the country, though always by agents. None of the Rothschild sons thought it necessary to establish himself in the United States. Anselm remained in Frankfort, Solomon chose Vienna, Nathan Mayer went to London, Charles established himself in Naples, and James represented the family in Paris. These were the five war-lords of Europe for more than a generation, and their dynasty was continued by their successors.

The first Jewish agent of the Rothschilds in the United States was August Belmont, who came to the United States in 1837, and was made chairman of the Democratic National Committee at the outbreak of the Civil War. The Belmonts professed Christianity and there is today a Belmont memorial, called the Oriental Chapel, in the new Cathedral of St. John the Divine on Morningside Heights.

Rothschild power, as it was once known, has been so broadened by the entry of other banking families into governmental finance, that it must now be known not by the name of one family of Jews, but by the name of the race. Thus it is spoken of as International Jewish Finance, and its principal figures are described as International Jewish Financiers. Much of the veil of secrecy which contributed so greatly to the Rothschild power has been stripped away; war finance has been labeled for all time as “blood money”; and the mysterious magic surrounding large transactions between governments and individuals, by which individual controllers of large wealth were made the real rulers of the people, has been largely stripped away and the plain facts disclosed.

The Rothschild method still holds good, however, in that Jewish institutions are affiliated with their racial institutions in all foreign countries. There are Jewish banking firms in New York whose connections with firms in Frankfort, Hamburg and Dresden, as well as in London and Paris, can be traced by the mere matter of the signs over the doors. They are one.

As a leading student of financial affairs puts it, the world of high finance is largely a Jewish world because of the Jewish financier’s “absence from national or patriotic illusions.”

To the International Jewish Financier the ups and downs of war and peace between nations are but the changes of the world’s financial market; and, as frequently the movement of stocks is manipulated for purposes of market strategy, so sometimes international relations are effected for mere financial gain.

It is known that the recent Great War was postponed several times at the behest of international financiers. If it broke out too soon, it would not involve the states which the international financiers wished to involve. Therefore, the masters of gold, that is, the international masters, were compelled several times to check the martial enthusiasm which their own propaganda had aroused. It is probably quite true, as the Jewish press alleges, that there has been discovered a Rothschild letter dated 1911 and urging the kaiser against war. The year 1911 was too early. There was no such insistence in 1914.

Not only do these foreign financial affiliations cast a different light on purely national matters affecting the peace and prestige of the peoples, but they tend toward an extra- or super-nationality. When these foreign affiliations enable Jewish bankers to excel in the more highly specialized forms of finance, such as foreign exchange, they also enable them to exercise almost complete control over international money movements.

There is no question whatever of International Jewish Finance being deeply concerned in the matters of war and revolution. This is never denied as to the past; but it is just as true of the present. The league against Napoleon, for example, was Jewish. Its headquarters were in Holland. When Napoleon invaded Holland, the headquarters were moved to Frankfort-on-the-Main. It is remarkable how many of the International Jewish Financiers have come out of Frankfort—the Rothschilds, the Schiffs, the Speyers, to name but a few. The racial affiliations running all through the world of international finance are readily recognized.

These associations produce in Jewish banking circles a constant tendency toward control or monopoly of certain lines of industry which are identified with the fields of finance. The rule is, once control is gained, all non-Jewish interests must be driven out. “Jewish financial interests have rarely been connected with industrials,” says the Jewish Encyclopedia, “except as regards some of the precious stones and metals, the Rothschilds, controlling mercury, Barnato Brothers and Werner, Beit & Company diamonds, and the firms of Lewisohn Brothers and Guggenheim Sons controlling copper, and to some extent silver.” To this, of course, may be added whiskey, wireless, theaters, the European press and part of the American, and a number of other fields. The list will be made complete in this series of articles before they are finished.

The Jewish Encyclopedia continues:

“It is, however, mainly in the direction of foreign loans that there has been any definite predominance of Jewish financiers, this being due, as before stated, to the international relations of the larger Jewish firms.”

In order that the senseless denials of certain portions of the Jewish press may be checked, it may be said that Jewish authorities do not deny such statements as are made about Jewish international financial control, although they declare it is not as strong as it once was. “Of more recent years,” says The Jewish Encyclopedia, “non-Jewish financiers have learned the same cosmopolitan method, and, on the whole, the control is now rather less than more in Jewish hands than formerly.”

This is true, at least so far as the United States is concerned. Previous to the war, the status of many of the Jewish financial concerns in Wall Street was stronger than it is now. The war brought about a condition which threw a new light on the internationalism of Jewish finance. During the years of American neutrality there was opportunity to observe the extent of the foreign affiliations of certain men, and also the extent to which ordinary national loyalty was subordinated to the business of international finance. The war really forced a coalition of Gentile capital on one side of the struggle, as against certain blocks of Jewish capital which were willing to play both sides. The old Rothschild maxim, “Do not put all your eggs in one basket,” becomes perfectly plain when transposed into national and international terms. Jewish finance treats political parties the same—bets on them both, and so never loses. In the same way, Jewish finance never loses a war. Being on both sides, it cannot miss the winning side, and its terms of peace are sufficient to cover all advances to the side that lost. This was the significance of the great swarming of Jews at the Peace Conference.

Many of the Jewish houses on Wall Street were originally the American branches of long established houses in Germany and Austria. These international firms were accustomed to support one another with capital, and maintained other intimate associations. Some of them are linked by intermarriage. But the bond above all is the Jewish racial bond. Most of these houses received a severe setback during the war, because their over-sea associations were not of the right kind. But this setback is expected to be only temporary, and the Jewish financiers will again be ready to give battle for the entire financial control of the United States.

Whether they will be successful, the future will decide. But a strange fatality seems to follow all forms of Jewish supremacy. Just as the capstone is ready to be placed upon the edifice of Jewish triumphs, something occurs and the structure shrinks. It occurs so often in Jewish history that the Jews themselves have been exercised to find an explanation. In many cases “anti-Semitism” offers the readiest excuse, but not always. Just at the present time, when the light which was shed by the fires of war has revealed so many matters formerly hidden in shadow, the awakening of world attention is called “anti-Semitism,” and the explanation is given that “after every war the Jew becomes the scapegoat”—a curious admission which would lead a less self-centered people to inquire, Why?

But so handy and so untrustworthy an explanation as “anti-Semitism” does not account for the failure of Jewish financial interests to become absolutely dominant in a country like the United States. Anti-Semitism among the people does not surge high enough to injure those securely entrenched behind great financial influence. The silent resistance of the Wall Street financial group or of the New York Stock Exchange, for example, is not anti-Semitism. It is not a hindrance to the Jews in doing business; it is opposition to an apparent program for total control which is sought not for the general good, but for a racial benefit.

It was only a few years ago that the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company was commonly regarded as being destined in the near future to win complete financial supremacy in Wall Street as an underwriting and money-lending institution. There were many reasons for this belief, among them the fact that Kuhn, Loeb & Company were the financial backers of Harriman in his terrific railroad duel with James J. Hill. But the prophecy regarding this financial institution was never realized. Untoward events intervened, in no way affecting the financial integrity of the firm, but bringing it into the light of undesirable publicity not of a financial character.

In the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, Jewish finance in the United States reached its high-water mark. The head of this firm was the late Jacob Schiff, who was born in Frankfort-on-the-Main and whose father was one of the Rothschilds’ brokers. One of Jacob Schiff’s associates, Otto Kahn, was born in Mannheim, and was early associated with the Speyers, who also originated in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Another associate, Felix Warburg, married into Jacob Schiff’s family. Jewish finance has spread, but it has not risen higher than in this firm.

A flank movement, however, has been attempted which may bring Jewish ambitions nearer the goal of their desire. Checked in Wall Street, Jewish financiers have sought out other American centers, and even foreign centers whose future influence on American affairs promises to be considerable. The first flank movement is toward Central and South America. It may be said that the financial assistance, practical and advisory, offered to Mexico during the most unsatisfactory period of her relations with the United States, was given by Jewish financial groups. The attempt to gain influence with Japan seems to have come off rather badly. It is known, of course, that Jacob Schiff gave material assistance to Japan in the war with Russia. This was explainable on the ground of good business and also of a desire to revenge Russia’s treatment of the Jews. Mr. Schiff used the opportunity also to instill the principles, which have since grown up into Bolshevism, into the minds of Russian prisoners in Japanese war camps. But more than that, the idea appears to have been to add the newly rising Japanese power to the string of Jewish financial conquests. Jewish finance already has a foothold in Japan, but it appears that Mr. Schiff’s hopes in this respect were not fully realized. The Japanese are credited with knowing much more about “the Jewish peril” than even the United States does, and they were exceedingly wary. They kept the business deal strictly a business deal, and Mr. Schiff was said to have been displeased with Japan generally. This is well worth knowing at this time, especially in view of the propaganda which seeks constantly to cause misunderstandings to arise between the United States and the Empire of Japan.

But South America appears to be the latest objective. It must be remembered that the Jews exercise world control in two departments: in movements of men, and in movements of money. No government, no church, no school of thought could order the movement of 250,000, half a million, or even a million people, from one part of the world to another, shifting them as a general shifts his army, but the Jews can do that. They are doing it now. It is only a matter of ships. From Poland, where Jewish special privileges have been written into the law of the land by the all-powerful Peace Conference, and where it would seem that the Jews have every reason to remain, there is a great movement westward. It is not a stampede, as the American Commissioner of Immigration says, although it may look so from this side. It is an orderly movement, as can be seen when the American Jewish directors on the other side are observed. And part of it is being directed to South America. It is said that after a period of training in the United States, some of the immigrants who are now landing here will be shipped south again.

The other mastery which the Jews exert in a world degree is that over the movement of gold. Without giving expression to what the purpose may be, there is this to be said: a large movement of Jewish men and Jewish gold proceeds toward South America these days. And there is said to be a large movement of other materials, which when interpreted by the Protocols can mean but one thing.

The next attempt for control of the Americas may come from the South, where the Jews are already stronger than their numbers would indicate, and where their revolutionary proclivities have already come into play as between the various states.

These rebuffs and these strategic flank movements do not, however, complete the record. We are now speaking of American finance only. The Jews have not been restrained elsewhere as they have been in Wall Street. They exercise a very ominous control in a number of other fields, each of which will be taken up in detail in due time. For the present, our attention is being directed to New York and its financial district.

We have just shown the high-water mark of Jewish control as it has been reached up to date in the Street. There is another aspect of Jewish influence on the financial affairs of America which is not so flattering to that race. If Jewish financial activity does not go higher, it goes lower and finds its way into darker channels than does any other form of financial activity in the country.

It would make a sordid tale, the operations of the Robins, the Lamars, the Arnsteins and the others who have contributed to the long roll of criminality produced within the shadow of Wall Street and the only point that could be served by its retelling is that such criminality is predominantly Jewish. This is not to say that it has the approval of the Jewish community, but it is very significant that while whole volumes of abuse have been heaped upon THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s very modest effort to state the status of the Jewish Question in America, the leaders of Jewry have been silent about the criminal financial operations of those who could be made to feel the displeasure of their race. The Jewish passion for the defense of the race, regardless of the degree of guilt, is well known to every prosecuting attorney, although it must be said that during the investigation made some years ago which revealed the business of commercialized vice to be under Jewish control, certain public-spirited Jews commendably aided the work. This aid, however, did not prevent the severest opposition to certain publications which gave notice of the facts that the investigators were finding.

This country was lately astounded by the revelation that stocks and Liberty bonds to the value of $12,000,000 had been lost through a systematic series of thefts in Wall Street.

Beginning with the spring of 1918, messengers sent out by New York Stock Exchange firms to make deliveries of stocks and bonds to other houses, in the course of ordinary business, began to disappear as if the earth had swallowed them up. For a time these disappearances were without explanation.

Wall Street is really a small district. Most of its business is done within the space of a city block. Messengers on their trips sometimes went only to another floor in the same building, or to an office across the street. Yet in those short trips they would disappear with all their securities, seldom to be heard of again.

Up to the summer of 1918 the absconding messenger boy was a rarity. The type was regarded with good-humored indulgence on the Street. They were generally happy-go-lucky youngsters, and the steadier heads among them graduated into clerks in the commission houses.

The labor shortage struck Wall Street, along with other sections of the country, and messenger boys were difficult to find. During this period there was also a great expansion in business. Nearly everyone in the country possessed bonds of some kind, and these changed hands in unparalelled quantities. On the floor of the Stock Exchange, daily transactions in bonds up to $20,000,000, and in stocks up to one or two million shares, were common. Following the sales, the stocks and bonds were transferred from seller to buyer by messenger boy. It was not unusual for irresponsible lads to be running from office to office in Wall Street with $250,000 each under the arms.

Then, with the shortage of boys, another type of messenger began to appear, and with this type trouble began. Disappearances and losses became more frequent and costly. The indemnities paid by the insurance companies reached such staggering figures that the custom of issuing blanket insurance was withdrawn. Various expedients were adopted to solve the mystery; boys were required to travel in pairs, guards were posted throughout Wall Street, the best detectives in the land were assigned to the matter, but without avail.

There was a strong disinclination in Wall Street toward publishing the figures of the losses, for fear the publication might be destructive of public confidence in the Street’s financial condition. But the news was known in the underworld and drew to New York criminals from all parts of the country. For a time all efforts were fruitless; the losses continued and the mystery deepened.

Then, suddenly, in the early part of 1920, certain arrests were made and confessions obtained, which disclosed one of the most amazing criminal conspiracies in the history of the United States.

There was proved the existence of a vast Jewish conspiracy to loot Wall Street. It was found that a band of astute Jewish criminals, many of them wealthy men, some of them ex-convicts, had created an organization by which Wall Street financial houses were to be plundered.

Bands of young Jews, mostly of Russian origin and living on the East Side, had been shaped into being. These lads, instructed by clever Jewish principals, applied to Wall Street messenger agencies for employment in brokerage houses. It was part of the plan for them to assume good, honest-sounding Anglo-Saxon names. The “cover name”—how often we meet it!

These lads turned over their stolen stocks and bonds to the heads of their organizations, who in turn passed the securities on to the Jewish principals, who were for the most part members of the criminal band of “confidence men” in the White Light district—the “bank-roll men,” whose immunity from punishment has always been one of the standing puzzles of Gentiles residing in New York.

These Jewish criminals were aided by Jewish lawyers in their transactions. The stolen stocks and bonds were taken to Cleveland, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia and parts of Canada, where they were pledged as collateral for loans in an apparently legitimate course of business.

One of the messenger boys refused to deliver his stolen securities for the small sum he was offered for them, and ran away to enjoy alone his ill-gotten wealth. His hiding place was discovered and members of a band of Harlem assassins were sent for him, with instructions to find where the securities were. If they were on the boy’s person, he was to be killed at once. This band entertained the boy with drinks and women for several days until they learned that the securities were sewed inside the lining of his coat. They took him for a “joy-ride” into the country, and his dead body was afterward found, typically slain, with about two dozen dagger wounds in his body.

In one instance a non-Jew was inveigled into the nefarious scheme, and the method was also typical. The Jewish principals wished for another clearing-house through which to dispose of their securities, and were “tipped off” that a young non-Jewish broker was on the verge of bankruptcy. He was “helped out” and given what appeared to him to be a very profitable piece of business. Once in the power of his “friends,” and deeply entangled in their game, he tried to get out of it. He was threatened with death. The Jewish principal said to him: “I don’t want any double-crossing here, or I’ll kill you in a minute. If I can’t do it—if I am locked up—there are plenty of my gang who will do it.”

Upon the arrest and confession of this non-Jew, many of the Jewish principals fled New York, traveling, as usual, under their assumed Christian names. But their identity had at last become known, and although many of their messenger-boy dupes have been made to suffer the penalty for their crimes, the leaders are at this writing yet free, and the most powerful influences seem to be invoked to protect them from the ordinary operations of the law. A few have been captured, but although their accusers are the most powerful banking, brokerage and surety companies on Wall Street, a power greater still seems to defend them from the treatment usually accorded known criminals.

One of the ringleaders has defied the courts with impunity and still walks the streets. Jewish theatrical managers in New York have headlined his actress wife, a Jewess, presumably because of the added prestige it gave her to be the wife of the world-defying bond thief.

That is the element which strikes something like consternation to the heart of the ordinary lover of law and order—the insolence with which these wealthy Jewish criminals regard all the agencies of the law. They are defended by clever lawyers, and the attitude of the Jewish press and Jewish population toward them is compact of sympathy and admiration. Why not?—since most of the individual victims of the thievery are Gentiles, and the general victim is Gentile capitalism itself!

There is complete silence on the Jewish side regarding this reign of crime. And yet inevitably the Jews themselves must suffer most from it. The New York Kehillah has completely ignored this outbreak and its exposure. The spokesmen of Jewry, so voluble against non-Jews, have no word to say to those whom they would probably call their “co-religionists.” Yet it is well enough understood that so closely combined are all the influences in New York Jewry that a determined effort on the part of the leaders could clean up many untoward conditions now existing. But there seems to be a distinct aversion to anything that will indicate a division of one class of Jews against another. It is a racial instinct, evidently, to protect the threatened one no matter how richly he may deserve punishment.

It is this fact which puts the finishing Jewish touch on the whole matter. It may, of course, be an accident that all the criminals and their tools, with an occasional exception, are Jews. That of itself might not be a reason, in the extreme sense, for labeling the condition with a racial name. But the silence, the approbation in some quarters, the very active sympathy in others, all combining as a racial protectorate around the wrongdoers, is the more regrettable manifestation of the two.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 20 November 1920]

“Disraeli of America”—A Jew of Super-Power

Although the war had the effect of decreasing Jewish power in Wall Street by temporarily hindering, but perhaps not altogether breaking off, the communication between Jewish financial houses in the United States and their associates overseas, it also had the effect of greatly increasing Jewish wealth in this country. It is stated upon the authority of a well-informed Jewish source that in New York City alone fully 73 per cent of the “war millionaires” are Jews.

The mistake should not be made of assuming that because of the temporary setback in Wall Street, the war meant a total setback for the Jewish program. It did not. Jewry emerged from the war more strongly entrenched in power, even in the United States, than it was before. And in the world at large the ascendency of the Jew, even where he was in control before, is very marked.

A Jew is now President of the League of Nations.

A Zionist is President of the Council of the League of Nations.

A Jew is President of France.

A Jew was President of the committee to investigate the responsibility for the war, and one incident of his service was the disappearance of vital documents.

In France, Germany and England, the financial power of the Jews, as well as the filtration of their dangerous ideas of social disorder, have greatly increased.

It is a most remarkable fact that in those countries which can justly be called antiSemitic, the rule of the Jew is stronger than anywhere else. The more they are opposed, the more they show their power. Germany is today an anti-Semitic nation. Yet, in spite of all the German people have done to rid themselves of the visible show of Jewish power, it has entrenched itself more firmly than before, above and beyond the reach of the German popular will. France becomes increasingly anti-Semitic, and as the anti-Jewish wave rises, a Jewish President appears. Russia itself is anti-Semitic to the core, and the Jew is Russia’s new tyrant. And at a moment when, as all Jewish spokesmen inform us, there is a world wave of anti-Semitism—which is their name for a new awakening of the nations to what has been going on—what should occur but that at the head of the League of Nations, in a position which but for the absence of the United States would constitute the Chief Magistracy of the World, a Jew appears. Nobody seems to know why. Nobody can explain it. Neither previous fitness nor public demand pointed him out—yet there he is!

In our own country we have just had a four-year term of Jewish rule, almost as absolute as that which exists in Russia. This appears to be a very strong statement, but it is somewhat milder than the facts warrant. And the facts themselves are not of hearsay origin, nor the product of a biased point of view; they are the fruits of an inquiry by the lawful officials of the United States who were set aside in favor of a ready-made Jewish Government, and they are forever spread upon the official records of the United States.

The Jews have proved for all time that the control of Wall Street is not necessary to the control of the American people, and the person by whom they proved this was a Wall Street Jew.

This man has been called “the pro-consul of Judah in America.”

It is said that once, referring to himself, he exclaimed: “Behold the Disraeli of the United States!”

To a select committee of the Congress of the United States he said:

“I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.”

And in saying so he did not overstate the case. He did have more power. It was not all legal power, this much he admitted. It reached into every home and store and factory and bank and railway and mine. It touched armies and governments. It touched the recruiting boards. It made and unmade men without a word. It was power without responsibility and without limit. It was such a power as compelled the Gentile population to lay bare every secret before this man and his Jewish associates, giving them a knowledge and an advantage that billions of gold could not buy.

Doubtless not one in every 50,000 of the readers of this paper ever heard of this man before 1917, and doubtless the same number have clear knowledge of him now. He glided out of a certain obscurity unlighted by public service of fame, into the high rulership of the nation at war. The constituted government had little to do with him save vote the money and do his bidding. He said that men could have appealed over his head to the President of the United States, but, knowing the situation, men never did.

Who is this figure, colossal in his way, and most instructive of the readiness of Judah to take the rule whenever he desires?

His name is Bernard M. Baruch. He was born in South Carolina 50 years ago, the son of Dr. Simon Baruch, who was a medical man of some consequence. “I went to college with the idea of becoming a doctor, but I did not become a doctor,” he told the Congressional Committee. He was graduated at the College of the City of New York when he was just under 19 years of age. This college is one of the favorite educational institutions with the Jews, its president being Dr. S. E. Mezes, a brother-in-law of Colonel E. M. House, the colonel whose influence and disfavor at the White House has for a long time been a favorite subject of wondering speculation on the part of the American people, though it scarcely need be so any longer.

Apparently young Baruch knew exactly what he wanted to do, and set out to do it. He says he spent “many years” after his graduation in certain studies, “particularly economics” as related to railroads and industrial propositions. “I tried to make Poor’s Manual and the financial supplement of the Financial Chronicle my bible for a number of years.”

He could not have spent very “many years” in these pursuits, for after going down to Wall Street as a clerk and a runner, and when he was “about 26 or 27” he became a member of the firm of A. A. Housman & Company. “In about 1900 or 1902” he left the firm, but he had meanwhile gained a seat on the Stock Exchange.

He then went into business for himself, a statement which must be taken literally in view of his testimony that he “did not do any business for anybody but himself. I made a study of the corporations engaged in the production and manufacture of different things, and a study of the men engaged in them.”

In answer to questions intended to disclose the exact nature of his operations before he suddenly appeared as the man who “had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war,” he stood off from any intimations that he perhaps engaged in mere buying and selling of stock. “My business then became the organization of various enterprises,” he said, “and in connection with that, I, of course, did buy and sell stocks

* * * If I organized any concern, I naturally took a large interest in it, or I would not organize it if I did not believe in it, and I stayed with the development of that concern; and then if I cared later on to sell it, I would sell it.”

Pressed by the examiners for a still more detailed account of his activities in business, he said:

“Well, I was instrumental in the purchase of the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company; in the purchase of Selby Smelter, Tacoma Smelter, and various copper, tungsten, rubber—I was instrumental in building up one of the great industries in rubber in Mexico, which was the establishment of the source of supply of rubber, and developed a large concern there for the production of raw material, which is still going on * * *

“I became interested in the new process of concentration of low-grade ores in the Mesaba Range, but the interest I had particularly in steel was in the study of the present-day organization, in order to get myself posted so that I could intelligently buy or sell their securities * * *”

It is an important point, one not made very clear in the testimony, what interests Mr. Baruch held at the beginning of the war. His previous activities in various fields, principally perhaps in the field of metals, had been important and numerous. In any case, as a young man, he is found to be master of large sums of money, and there is no indication that he inherited it. He is very wealthy. What change the war made in his wealth, if it made any change at all, is a matter on which nothing may be said now. Certainly many of his friends and closest associates reaped great quantities of money from their activities during the war.

Now, as to the point of his business connections just prior to the war, this testimony appears:

Mr. Graham—“You continued in the operation of these various businesses, in the formation of companies and the flotation of their stocks, and in your business in the Stock Exchange and elsewhere up until the time of the beginning of the war?”

Mr. Baruch—“I was gradually getting myself away from business, because I had made up my mind to retire, and I had been getting less active with that end in view, and I was not very much in sympathy with the organization of companies. I am not criticizing other men who engage in business that resulted in profits even before we had gotten into war. I had made up my mind to leave and do some other things that I hope to be able to do now; but that process was interrupted by my appointment as member of the advisory commission without any suggestion or without any knowledge or idea it was coming.”

Does he mean that the process of getting out of business was interrupted by his appointment on the advisory commission, which appointment led straight to his complete rulership of the United States at war?

Mr. Jefferis—“Had any of the members of the advisory commission been engaged in the production of raw materials or in manufactured products, or not?”

Mr. Baruch—“I had.”

Mr. Jefferis—“In what way?”

Mr. Baruch—“I had made a rather deep study of the production and the distribution and manufacture of many of these raw materials. I had to make an intensive study of these things in order to do the things I was engaged in.”

Mr. Jefferis—“You were not running any raw material production?”

Mr. Baruch—“I was interested in concerns—I was interested in the study and production of a great many of these things, because I developed and organized concerns which did it.”

Does he mean that he was interested in concerns at the time of his appointment? This would be an interesting point to clear up.

Another matter which would be not only of interest, but of great usefulness in explaining the gathering of a Jewish government around the President during the war, is the question of Bernard M. Baruch’s acquaintance with Woodrow Wilson. When did it begin? What circumstances or what persons brought them together? There are stories, of course, and one of them may be true, but the story ought not to be told unless accompanied by the fullest confirmation. Why should it occur that a Jew should be the one man ready and selected for a position of greatest power during the war?

Mr. Baruch, in his testimony, sheds no light on this question. He had opportunity to do so, had he wished.

Mr. Graham—“I assume that you were personally acquainted with the President prior to the outbreak of the war?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Graham—“Up to the time that you were appointed as a member of the advisory commission, had you ever had any personal conferences with the President about these matters?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Graham—“Had he called you in consultation or had he talked to you about these matters and about the matter of your appointment before you were appointed?”

Mr. Baruch—“Never suggested anything about the appointment, because I would have told him that I would prefer not to be appointed.”

Mr. Graham—“Do you now recall, Mr. Baruch, how long before you were actually appointed as a member of that advisory commission you had your last conference with the President?”

Mr. Baruch—“No * * *”

That is not all of Mr. Baruch’s answer, but it is his reply to the question. Having said “No,” Mr. Baruch became very communicative on another matter. His complete reply is—

“No; but I can tell you something that may be of interest, and that is probably what you want to know. I had been very much disturbed by the unprepared condition of this country, so much so that I was one of the first men to support General Wood in the Plattsburg encampment, and I think he will admit I gave him the first money and told him whatever he did I would guarantee to stand behind that movement, which happily only took a few thousand dollars so far as I was concerned, having caught the public approval and it went ahead, and in that relation naturally one had to think about the mobilization of the industries of the country, because people do not fight alone with their hands; they have got to fight with things.”

It is thus shown that Mr. Baruch was a forehanded gentleman. It was only the year 1915. The European war had then not become more than an amazing spectacle to the mass of the American people. But still Mr. Baruch was convinced we were going to have war, and he spent money on his guess. The government which was then “keeping us out of war” was also consulting with Mr. Baruch who was already ahead of the government in creating the atmosphere of war in this country. If the reader, by a mental effort, can reconstruct the year of 1915, and then put into his picture of that year the element of which he was not then possessed, namely, the activity of Mr. Bernard M. Baruch and other Jews, he will see that he did not know much about what was going on, even if he did read the newspapers with attention!

To proceed with the examination, following the place where Mr. Baruch made his interesting disclosure of his part in the Plattsburg experiment:

Mr. Graham—“That was about 1915, was it not?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, 1915; and I had been thinking about it very seriously, and I thought we would be drawn into the war. I went off on a long trip, and it was while on this trip that I felt there ought to be some mobilization of the industries, and I was thinking about the scheme that practically was put into effect and was working when I was chairman of the board. When I came back from that trip I asked for an interview with the President. It was the first time I had seen the President since his election, so far as I can remember now.”

Mr. Graham—“You mean his first election?”

Mr. Baruch—“His first election, yes.”

So it is probable that Mr. Baruch, if any stress may be placed on the manner of his words, had known the President before. Ordinary men, who meet the President seldom, usually have a very clear recollection of those meetings. The fact probably is that Mr. Baruch saw the President so frequently that he found it difficult to distinguish the meetings in his memory. He describes the visit referred to:

“I explained to him as earnestly as I could that I was very deeply concerned about the necessity of the mobilization of the industries of the country. The President listened very attentively and graciously, as he always does * * * and the next thing I heard—some months afterward * * * my attention was brought to this Council of National Defense. Secretary Baker brought it to my attention. This was the first time I had met the Secretary of War. He asked me what I thought of it.”

Mr. Graham—“That was before the bill was passed; before it became a law?”

Mr. Baruch—“I think it was. I am not certain about that. I said I would like to have something different.”

This is rather important. A council is a council. Mr. Baruch wanted something different. Eventually he did get something different. He got the President so to change matters as to make Mr. Baruch the most powerful man in the war. The Council of National Defense eventually became the merest side show. It was not a council of Americans that ran the war, it was an autocracy headed by a Jew, with Jews at every strategic point down the line. What Mr. Baruch did was very masterly, but it was not in the American manner. He did what he set out to do, but it is seriously to be questioned whether any man ought to have done what he did, and probably no one but a member of his race would have wanted to do it.

Mr. Graham—“Did the President express any opinion about the advisability of adopting the scheme you proposed?”

Mr. Baruch—“I think I did most of the talking. I do not remember what the President said on that subject, but I think it can be best seen as expressed in the bill.”

Mr. Graham—“Did you impress him with your belief that we were going to get into the war?”

Mr. Baruch—“I probably did. I would like to tell you exactly, but I do not want to guess at it.”

Mr. Graham—“That was your opinion at the time?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes; I thought we were going to get into the war. I thought a war was coming long before it did.”

The examination then reverted to Mr. Baruch’s conference with the Secretary of War, in which the former had said he “would like to have something different.”

Mr. Graham—“Mr. Baker said he thought that was the best that could be gotten at that time?”

Mr. Baruch—“I got that impression. Whether he said so or not, I do not know, but I got that impression that that was the best that could be gotten at that time.”

If the event had not turned out exactly as Mr. Baruch planned it, a great deal of his testimony might be discounted on the principle of the natural boastfulness of the Jew after a scheme has succeeded; but there is no discounting anything that he says. The President did exactly what Baruch wanted in a thousand matters, and what Baruch apparently wanted most of all was a ruling hand upon productive America. And that he got. He got it in a larger measure than even Lenin ever got in Russia; for here in the United States the people saw nothing but the patriotic element; they did not see the Jewish Government looming above them. Yet it was there.

The Council of National Defense, as originally constituted—“the best that could be gotten at that time,” though Mr. Baruch “would like something different”—was headed by six secretaries of the Cabinet, the secretaries of War, Navy, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Labor. Beneath this official group was an advisory commission, of seven men, three of whom were Jews; one of these Jews was Mr. Baruch. Beneath this advisory commission were scores and hundreds of men, and many committees. One of the groups subordinate to the two groups just mentioned was the War Industries Board, of which Mr. Baruch was originally merely a member, Daniel Willard being the chairman.

Now, it was this War Industries Board which become the “whole thing” later on, and it was Mr. Baruch who became the “whole thing” in that board. The place where he was put became the corner stone; he became the chief pillar of the war administration. The records show it; he himself admits it. What influence reached into this Council of hundreds of Americans and chose a single Jew to be their undoubted lord and master for the duration of the war? Was it Baruch’s brains that elevated him? Or was it the suggestion of Jewish finance already well forward in its work of mobilization?

There is no desire to minimize the Baruch brain. Brains and money are the Jews’ two greatest weapons. No Jew is picked for a key place who has not brains. Baruch has brains. He is a ceaseless wonder among men who know him. He can do six things at once and control the most colossal operations without fuss or fever. He has both brains and money.

But there is something for Jewry to learn: brains and money are not enough. There is another element which even brains cannot cope with, and which renders money cheap. The chess-playing expert may mystify and compel admiration; but the chess-player does not rule the world.

So, Baruch did things. But Trotsky also has done things. The point is this: Are people to be carried away by an appeal deliberately made to their imagination, or are they to scrutinize what has been done, and weigh its consequences?

The Jews could do greater things in the United States than even Barauch has done, if the opportunity offered, acts of superb ease and mastery—but what would it signify? The ideal of a dictator of the United States has never been absent from the group in which Baruch is found—witness the work, “Philip Dru, Administrator,” commonly attributed to Colonel E. M. House, and never denied by him.

As a matter of fact, Baruch could probably do a better job than Trotsky did. Certainly, the recent experience which he had in governing the country during the war was a very valuable education in the art of autocracy. Not that it is by any means Mr. Baruch’s possession alone; it is also the possession of scores of Jewish leaders who flitted about from department to department, from field to field, receiving a post-graduate course in the art of autocracy, not to mention other things.

Before Mr. Bernard M. Baruch got through, he was the head and center of a system of control such as the United States Government itself never possessed and never will possess until it changes its character as a free government.

Mr. Jefferis—“In other words, you determined what everybody could have?”

Mr. Baruch—“Exactly; there is no question about that. I assumed that responsibility, sir, and that final determination rested within me.”

Mr. Jefferis—“What?”

Mr. Baruch—“That final determination, as the President said, rested within me; the determination of whether the Army or Navy should have it rested with me; the determination of whether the Railroad Administration could have it, or the Allies, or whether General Allenby should have locomotives, or whether they should be used in Russia, or used in France.”

Mr. Jefferis—“You had considerable power?”

Mr. Baruch—“Indeed I did, sir. * * *”

Mr. Jefferis—“And all those different lines, really, ultimately, centered in you, so far as power was concerned?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir, it did. I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.”

What preceded Mr. Baruch’s attainment of this power, how far his power reached and how it was used will be our next inquiry.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 27 November 1920]

“The King of Israel must not be influenced by his passions, especially by sensuality. No particular element of his nature must have the upper hand and rule over his mind. Sensuality, more than anything else, upsets mental ability and clearness of vision by deflecting thought to the worst and most bestial side of human nature.

“The Pillar of the Universe in the Person of the World Ruler, sprung from the seed of David, must sacrifice all personal desires for the benefit of his people.”

—Protocol 24.

The Scope of Jewish Dictatorship in the U.S.

The common criticism made against President Wilson that “he played a lone hand” and would not avail himself of advice, can be made only by those are in ignorance of the Jewish government which continually advised the President on all matters.

While the President is supposed to have been extremely jealous of his authority, this view of him can be maintained only by remaining blind to the immense authority he conferred on the members of the Jewish War Government. It is true he did not take Congress into his confidence; it is true that he made little of the members of his Cabinet; it also true that he ignored the constitutional place of the United States Senate in the advisory work of making treaties; but it is not true that he acted without advice; it is not true that he depended on his own mind in the conduct of the war and the negotiations at Versailles.

Just when Bernard M. Baruch, the Jewish high governor of the United States in war affairs, came to know Mr. Wilson is yet to be told; but just when he got into and out of the war are matters about which he himself has told us. He got into the war at Plattsburg, two years before there was a war; and he got out of the war when the business at Paris was ended.

“I came back on the George Washington,” he testified, which means that he remained in Paris until the last detail was arranged.

It is said that Mr. Baruch was normally a Republican until Woodrow Wilson began to loom up as a Presidential possibility. The Jews made much of Woodrow Wilson, far too much for his own good. They formed a solid ring around him. There was a time when he communicated to the country through no one but a Jew. The best political writers in the country were sidetracked for two years because the President chose the Jewish journalist, David Lawrence, as his unofficial mouthpiece. Lawrence had the run of the White House offices, with frequent access to the President, and for a time he was the high cockalorum of national newspaperdom, but neither that privilege nor the assiduous boosting of the Jewish ring availed to make him a favorite with the American public.

American Jewry was Democratic until it had secured the last favor that Woodrow Wilson could give, and then it left the Democratic party as with the indecent haste of rats leaving a sinking ship. Baruch stayed, rather ostentatiously spending his money for motion picture appeals in favor of the League of Nations, but it is entirely probable that he has a genuine interest in the new administration.

For one thing, there may be investigations. It remains to be seen whether the investigations which the Republican majority in the House began to make with regard to war expenditures will be continued. There are those who profess to believe that they will not be continued, the explanation being that such investigation as was made before election was solely for the purpose of securing campaign data, or creating a political atmosphere unfavorable to the Democrats.

It is sincerely to be hoped that the Republicans will not rest under that imputation, but that they will rigorously pursue the investigations that have been begun. There are two reasons why this should be done; first, that the country may know, with a view to future contingencies, what was “put over” on the government during the war; second, that the full sweep of Jewish influence in this country may be exposed. The second reason is not expected to appear very weighty to practical politicians, and that is no matter, for if the first reason is deemed sufficient, and if the investigations are honestly made, then inevitably the Jewish power will be further exposed. It is linked up at every stage of the business.

This may have had something to do with the sudden desertion of the Democratic party by the Jews. They may have swung over in order to have something to say about the pursuit of further investigations. Already the counsel is being heard, “Let bygones be bygones,” “The people are tired of investigations, and don’t want any more”; already attempts are being made to introduce fresher issues to deflect the public mind from war affairs, and the attempts are doubtless Jewish in their origin.

That portion of the public who are awake to the Jewish Question will do well to observe with care the attitude of the new administration toward completing the investigations. The Jews did not flock to the Republicans for nothing. The country is entitled to know what was done with the fabulous amounts of money spent during the war. The people are entitled to know who were their masters, and who were responsible for certain strange situations which were created.

Members of the House, Senators, and other officials should, at the very least, pay particular attention to the directions from which influences against further inquiry come.

Now, as to Mr. Bernard M. Baruch, who for some as yet undefined reason was made head and front of the United States at war, we have his own word on several occasions that he was the most important man in the war.

“I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true,” he told Representative Jefferis.

And again: “We had the power of priority, which was the greatest power in the war * * * Exactly; there is no question about that. I assumed that responsibility, sir, and that final determination rested within me.”

And when Representative Jefferis said “What?” to that startling statement, Mr. Baruch repeated it:

“That final determination, as the President said, rested within me.”

Representative Graham said to him: “In other words, I am right about this, Mr. Baruch, that yours was the guiding mind * * *”

And Mr. Baruch replied: “That is partly correct—I think you are entirely correct * * *”

Now, in what did Baruch’s power consist? Briefly, in this—in the dictatorship of the United States. He once expressed the opinion that the United States could have been managed that way in time of peace, but he explained that it was easier in war time, was made easy because of the patriotic mood of the people.

It is not sufficient, however, to say that Mr. Baruch’s rule constituted a dictatorship of the United States; it remains to be shown just how rigid and far-reaching that dictatorship was. The reader may recognize at what point the Jewish rule touched his affairs also.

Mr. Baruch, who had the “final determination” of everything, says that his power extended to the needs of the Army and Navy, the Shipping Board, the Railroad Administration, touched also the Food and Fuel Administrations, and besides all that had a vital control of the Allies’ purchases not only in the United States, but also in other countries with reference to certain materials.

There were $30,000,000,000 (Thirty Billions of dollars) spent by the United States Government during the war, all of it raised by taxation and bonds. Of this sum, $10,000,000,000 (Ten Billions) was loaned to the Allies and spent here—all of the purchases being viséed under Mr. Baruch’s authority.

As told by himself, his power consisted in the following authorities:

1. Authority over the use of capital in the private business of Americans.

This authority was nominally under the Capital Issues Committee, the controlling factor of which was another Jew, Eugene Meyer, Jr. Here is another inexplicable circumstance. Was he the only banker in the United States capable of exercising a dominant influence? Why did it happen that a Jew should be found in this important position, too? Is it only accident? Was there no design involved?

Well, it was necessary during the war for anyone wishing to use capital in business enterprise, to lay all his cards on the table. He was required to reveal his plans, his ground for expecting success—in brief, tell the Jewish rulers and their Jewish representatives all that he would tell in confidence to his banker in negotiating a loan. The organization which a few Jews perfected was the most complete business inquisition ever set up in any country. And that the knowledge thus gained should always be sacredly guarded, or always honestly used, would be expecting too much of human nature.

Mr. Baruch gave some instances of this, though they were not the instances that are calculated to throw the most light on the inner workings of the organization. He said:

“The Capital Issues Committee (where Mr. Meyer reigned), in the Treasury Department, had a man who sat with the War Industries Board (where Mr. Baruch reigned), and who always came to the War Industries Board to find out whether the individual or the corporation who wanted this money was going to use it for the purpose to win the war. To cite a case that happened at Philadelphia, that city wanted to make extensive public improvements; New York City wanted to spend $8,000,000 for schools, which would take an enormous amount of steel, labor, materials and transportation. We said, ‘No, that won’t help win the war. You can postpone that until later on. We cannot spare the steel on all these various things.’”

Very well. Does Mr. Baruch know of an enormous theater which a Jewish theatrical owner was permitted to build in an eastern city during the war?

Did he ever hear of non-Jews being refused permission to go ahead in a legitimate business which would have helped produce war materials, and that afterward—afterward—on almost identically the same plans, and in the same locality, a Jewish concern was given permission to do that very thing?

This was a terrible power, and far too great to be vested in one man; certainly it was such a power as should never have been vested in a coterie of Jews. The puzzle of it becomes greater the deeper it is probed. How did it occur? How could it occur—that always, at the most critical and delicate points in these matters, there sat a Jew enthroned with autocratic power?

Well could Mr. Baruch say—“I had more power than any man in the war.” He could even have said, “We Jews had more power than you Americans did in the war”—and it would have been true.

2. Authority over all materials.

This, of course, included everything. Mr. Baruch was an expert in many of these lines of material involved, and had held interests in many of them. What the investigators endeavored to learn was in how many lines he was interested during the war.

In lines where Mr. Baruch was not expert he, of course, had experts in charge. There was Mr. Julius Rosenwald, another Jew, who was in charge of “supplies (including clothing)” and who had a Mr. Eisenman to represent him. Mr. Eisenman was on the stand for a considerable period with regard to uniforms, the change made in their quality, the price paid to the manufacturers (mostly Jewish) and other interesting questions.

The great Guggenheim copper interests, who sold most of the copper used during the war, were represented by a former employe; but undoubtedly Mr. Baruch himself, who was much interested in copper during his business career, was the principal expert in that line.

It is impossible to escape the names of Jews all down the line in these most important departments. But, for the present, attention is called to the scope of Mr. Baruch’s control in the country at large. It is best stated in his own words:

“No building costing more than $2,500 could be erected in the United States without approval of the War Industries Board. Nobody could get a barrel of cement without its approval. You could not get a piece of zinc for your kitchen table without the approval of the War Industries Board.”

3. Authority over industries.

He determined where coal might be shipped, where steel might be sold, where industries might be operated and where not. With control over capital needed in business, went also control of the materials needed in industry. This control over industry was exercised through the device called priorities, which Mr. Baruch rightly described as “the greatest power in the war.” He was the most powerful man in the war, because he exercised this power.

Mr. Baruch said there were 351 or 357 lines of industry under his control in the United States, including “practically every raw material in the world.”

“I had the final authority,” he said. Whether it was sugars or silk, coal or cannon, Mr. Baruch ruled its movements.

Mr. Jefferis—“For instance, this priority that you had would decide whether civilians should have any commodities for building?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes; if we had not had that priority committee the civilians would have had nothing.”

Mr. Jefferis—“Did they get anything?”

Mr. Baruch—“They got all there was.”

Mr. Jefferis—“Did you sit with these priority boards at any time, or not?”

Mr. Baruch—“Sometimes; not very frequently. I was ex-officio of every one of the committees, and made it my business to go around as far as I could and keep in touch with everything.”

Mr. Jefferis—“And all these different lines, really, ultimately, centered in you, so far as power was concerned?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir, it did. I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.”

That, however, was not the full extent of Mr. Baruch’s control over industry. The heart of industry is Power. Mr. Baruch controlled the Power of the United States. The dream of the Power Trust, an evil dream for this country, was realized for the first time under the organization which this single individual formed. He says:

“Not only did we endeavor to control the raw materials, but as well the manufacturing facilities of the country. We established priority uses also for power * * *”

4. Authority over the classes of men to be called to military service.

Baruch pointed out, virtually pointed out to the Provost Marshal of the United States, the classes of men to be taken into the army. “We had to decide virtually the necessity of such things,” he said. “We decided that the less-essential industries would have to be curbed, and it was from them that man power would have to be taken for the army.” In this way he ruled chauffeurs, traveling salesmen, and similar classes into military service. It was, of course, necessary that some such ruling be made, but why one man, why always this one man?

5. Authority over the personnel of labor in this country.

“We decided upon a dilution of men with women labor, which was a thing that had always been fought by the labor unions.”

6.And now behold as complete an illustration of one part of the Protocols as ever could be found in any Gentile government. Readers of previous articles will remember the passage:

“We will force up wages which, however, will be of no benefit to the workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of necessities.”

Mr. Baruch at one time was inclined to sidestep the matter of fixing wages; he did not like the expression. But that the reader himself may decide, we quote the testimony in full:

Mr. Jefferis—“Did the War Industries Board fix the price of labor?” Mr. Baruch—“If you can call it that way, but I would not say so; no, sir.” Mr. Jefferis—“I am trying to get at what you did.” Mr. Baruch—“No, sir; we did not fix the price of wages.” Mr. Jefferis—“What did you do?” Mr. Baruch—“Just what I told you.”

Mr. Jefferis—“Probably I am a little dense, but I did not catch it if you told me.”

Mr. Baruch—“When the price-fixing committee fixed the price of steel, we will say, they said ‘This price is agreed upon, and you shall keep wages where they are’—and those were the wages that were prevailing at the price we fixed. At the time prices were fixed at first they were very much higher than the prices that we fixed.”

Mr. Jefferis—“When you got the price of any of these low materials you would fix the price of labor that was to be employed in producing them?”

Mr. Baruch—“To the extent that it should remain at the maximum of what it was when we fixed the price.”

Considering the weight of Mr. Baruch’s authority, and the stipulations he made, this was to all intents and purposes a fixing of the rate of wages.

Now, as to the fixing of prices, Mr. Baruch is much more positive. In answer to a question by Mr. Garrett, Mr. Baruch said:

“We fixed the prices in co-operation with the industries, but when we fixed a price we fixed it for the total production, not alone for the army and the navy, but for the Allies and the civilian population.”

The minutes of one of the meetings of Mr. Baruch’s board show this:

“Commissioner Baruch directed that the minutes show that the commission had consumed the entire afternoon in a discussion of price-fixing, particularly with reference to the control of the food supply, grain, cotton, wool, and raw materials generally.”

Mr. Graham—“Tell me something else: How much personal attention did you give to the matter of price-fixing?”

Mr. Baruch—“In the beginning, considerable * * *”

At another time, Mr. Baruch said—“There was no law at all in the land to fix prices.”

Mr. Jefferis—“We grant that, but you did it.”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, we did it, and we did a great many things in the stress of the times.”

Here was one man, having supreme dictatorial power, at both ends of the common people’s affairs.

He admits that of the 351 or 357 lines of essential industry which he controlled, he fixed the prices at which the commodities should be sold to the government and to civilians. In fixing the prices, however, he made wage stipulations. The matter of wages came first—it entered into Mr. Baruch’s computation of the cost, on which, to a certain extent, he based the price. Then, having decided what the producer was to receive in wages, he decided next what the producer should pay for living. The producer himself may answer the question as to how it all turned out! Wages were “high,” but not quite so high as “living”; and the answer to both is in the testimony of Barney Baruch.

That is not the whole story by any means. It is inserted here merely to find its place in the list of authorities conferred on Mr. Baruch.

How completely Baruch felt himself to be the “power” is shown by a passage which occurred when he was trying to explain the very large profits made by some concerns with which he did business.

Mr. Jefferis—“Then the system which you did adopt did not give the Lukens Steel & Iron Company the amount of profit that the low-producing companies had?”

Mr. Baruch—“No, but we took 80 per cent away from the others.” Mr. Jefferis—“The law did that, didn’t it?” Mr. Baruch—“Yes; the law did that.” Mr. Jefferis—“What did you mean by the use of the word ‘we’?”

Mr. Baruch—“The government did that. Excuse me, but I meant we, the Congress.”

Mr. Jefferis—“You meant that the Congress passed a law covering that?” Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir.” Mr. Jefferis—“Did you have anything to do with that?”

Mr. Baruch—“Not a thing.”

Mr. Jefferis—“Then I would not use the word ‘we’ if I were you.”

Whether Mr. Baruch slipped up there, he best knows. Just as he had power to give the workers wages, and take it away again by price-fixing, so he had power to allow the raw material corporations to make fabulous profits—and it would not be at all unthinkable that he also had something to do with taking part of it away again. He said once, “We took away 80 per cent”; then he confessed it was a slip. Of the tongue, or of his prudence?

Certainly, the profits he allowed were so large that even where the 80 per cent was paid back—where it was paid back (there were all kinds of evasions and frauds)—the profits were still enormous.

And 73 per cent of the “war millionaires” of New York, in spite of the 80 per cent, are Jews.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 4 December 1920]

Jewish Copper Kings Reap Rich War-Profits

With this article we shall dismiss Mr. Bernard M. Baruch for the present. His activities are not by any means to be construed as the main effort of Judah in the United States, nor is he himself to be regarded as an important factor in the Jewish World Program. Indeed, it is to be doubted that he has been entrusted with many of the secrets of the Elders. But he has been found to be a useful man, willing to play the Jewish game with Jews, and consciously bound as all Jews are by an obligation to see that Jewish interests get the better of the balance wherever possible.

Mr. Baruch, of course, is much pleased with the role he was permitted to play in the government of the United States during the war; but he probably has sense enough to know that he was chosen for other than mere personal reasons.

Indeed, one of the keys to the controlling part which a few Jews were permitted to play in American affairs during the war is to be found just here in the question, Why was Mr. Baruch chosen? What had he been, what had he done, that he should have been chosen as head and front of governmental power in the war? His antecedents do not account for it. Neither his personal nor commercial attainments account for it. What does?

There was no elected member of the United States Government who was closer, or even as close, to the President during the war as was this Jew out of Wall Street. No one whom the people sent to represent them at Washington ever came within leagues of the privileges accorded to Mr. Baruch. Plainly this is an unusual situation, not explainable by the emergency at all, certainly not explainable by anything that is as yet a matter of public knowledge.

As one man out of many, all together serving the country, Mr. Baruch, of course, would be perfectly explainable. But as the man, the man whose single committee was run up through the fabric of the Council of National Defense until it formed the focus of the war government, he is not explainable.

It was not only during the war, but also after the armistice, that these tokens of signal choice were showered upon Mr. Baruch. He went to the Peace Conference. Resigning as chairman of the War Industries Board on December 31, 1918—

 “I went down to my place in South Carolina, and there received a wireless message from the President to come to Paris. I then went to Paris. I think I sailed about the first or second of January. I know one vessel broke down and I had to transfer from one to the other. But I had no further activities in connection with the government; that is, the War Industries Board.

Mr. Graham—“How long were you in Paris?”

Mr. Baruch—“I sailed, returning June 28 or 29. I came back on the George Washington.” (This means that he was a part of the President’s entourage.)

Mr. Graham—“What were you doing there, Mr. Baruch?”

Mr. Baruch—“I was economic advisor connected with the peace mission.” Mr. Graham—“You stayed until the Peace Treaty was concluded?” Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir.” Mr. Graham—“Did you frequently advise with the President while there?”

Mr. Baruch—“Whenever he asked my advice I gave it. I had something to do with the reparation clauses. I was the American Commissioner in charge of what they called the ‘Economic Section.’ I was a member of the Supreme Economic Council in charge of raw materials.”

Mr. Graham—“Did you sit in the council with the gentlemen who were negotiating the treaty?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes, sir; sometimes.”

Mr. Graham—“All except the meetings that were participated in by the Five?” (Meaning the Big Five premiers.)

Mr. Baruch—“And frequently those also.”

This, then, is a sidelight on what has been called the “Kosher Conference,” a name given to the Peace Conference by Frenchmen who were astounded to see thousands of Jews from all parts of the world appear in Paris as the chosen counsellors of the rulers of the nations. Jews were so conspicuous in the American mission as to excite comment everywhere. A Persian representative left on record this protest: “When the United States delegation * * * accepted a brief for the Jews and imposed a Jewish semi-state on Rumania and Poland, they were firm as the granite rock, and no amount of opposition, no future deterrents, made any impression on their will. Accordingly, they had their own way. But in the case of Persia they lost the fight, although logic, humanity, justice, and the Ordinances solemnly accepted by the Great Powers were all on their side.”

The comment is rather humiliating. But it is true. The Jewish World Program was the only program that passed through the Peace Conference without hindrance or revision.

So numerous and ubiquitous were the International Jews in Paris, so firmly established in the inner councils, that the keen observer, Dr. E. J. Dillon, whose book, “The Inside Story of the Peace Conference” (Harper’s), is the best that has appeared, was constrained to say this:

“It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is none the less a fact, that a considerable number of delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic.” (p. 496.)

And again:

“They confronted the President’s proposal on the subject of religious inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser states, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in Eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out program, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. However right or wrong these delegates may have been, it would be a dangerous mistake to ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to the peace of Eastern Europe, was this:

‘Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.’” (p. 497. The italics are ours.)

There are other matters pertaining to Mr. Baruch which must await the development of this study, but it is worth while just now to possess ourselves of the information at hand regarding his peculiar handling of the copper situation during the war.

Mr. Baruch is known as a copper man. Copper is Jewish. That metal, throughout the world, is under Jewish domination. The Guggenheims and the Lewisohns, two Jewish families, are the copper kings of the planet—not that they confine themselves to copper; for example, their output of silver throughout the world is one-fourth more than is produced in the entire United States.

By his own testimony, Mr. Baruch was interested in copper concerns. What his holdings were during the war he did not disclose. But what his actions were has been very clearly set forth bit by bit in various inquiries.

Before the United States entered the war, Mr. Baruch rounded up the copper kings.

“I went to New York and saw there Mr. John D. Ryan and Mr. Daniel Guggenheim,” he said in his testimony. This was in February or March, 1917, he wasn’t sure which, but he said it was “before we went into the war.”

Now, who were these gentlemen? Mr. Ryan was apparently in charge of the reorganized Lewisohn properties, while Mr. Guggenheim was chief of the seven Guggenheims who form “a business family and a family business.” They divided business during the war. The United Metals Selling Company, which sold the United States Government its copper during the war, was the Lewisohn business reorganized, of which Tobias Wolfson was vice president; and the American Smelting and Refining Company was, apparently, the Guggenheim interests.

There was no competition between these two during the war!

How did it come about that these two worked together? Their case is clear on paper: their answer is that Mr. Baruch asked them to! And Mr. Baruch is clear, too; was he not a government official? And did they not show patriotism in doing as the government official bade them?

It came to this: the “Government” made a rule that it would do business only through the American Metals Selling Company as the representative of the copper producers of the United States. This meant, of course, that if the few competitors of this Jewish copper combine were to do business with the government, they too had to make arrangements with the American Metals Selling Company.

Mr. Graham—“But how did it happen that you were representing the other companies who were your competitors?”

Mr. Wolfson—“Well, at the request of the War Industries Board, we offered a copper producers’ committee.”

Mr. Graham—“Who requested that?”

Mr. Wolfson—“Mr. Eugene Meyer, Jr., representing Mr. B. M. Baruch.”

Mr. Graham—“Now let us find out who Mr. Eugene Meyer, Jr. was. Do you know him?”

It develops that Mr. Eugene Meyer, Jr., is another Wall Street man who “had large investments in copper,” though whether he retained them during the war, Mr. Wolfson did not know.

Mr. Graham—“Then Eugene Meyer, Jr., went into the War Industries Board and took up with the copper producers the question of furnishing copper, did he?”

Mr. Wolfson—“Yes, sir.”

As a result of that request a meeting was held at 120 Broadway, at which were present, among a few others, S. S. Rosenstamm, L. Vogelstein, Julius Loeb, T. Wolfson, G. W. Drucker and Eugene Meyer, Jr.

Mr. Graham—“Any army officers there?”

Mr. Wolfson—“No.”

The witness here quoted, Tobias Wolfson, was one of the most active instruments in the actual passage of business, but the Washington representative was a Mr.

Mosehauer. The interesting thing about Mr. Mosehauer is that he represented both the American Metals Selling Company and the American Smelting and Refining Company—the Lewisohns and the Guggenheims—and by order of Baruch, with the approval of the government, the business was done with these two corporations.

How did they divide? It was very simple. Mr. Wolfson euphoniously describes it as a division of labor: the Lewisohn group took the trade with the United States; the Guggenheim group took over the foreign business with the Allies.

Now, the next interesting point is the special committee through which Baruch’s board dealt with the copper producers. This committee, representing the government, consisted of three persons: Pope Yeatman, chief; E. C. Thurston, assistant; Andrew Walz, assistant.

Pope Yeatman was a mining engineer employed by the Guggenheims at $100,000 a year.

E. C. Thurston was Pope Yeatman’s assistant in that private employment.

Andrew Walz was consulting mining engineer for the Guggenheims.

Everything was all set. The Jewish metal monopoly was assured of control on both sides of the Atlantic.

It was perhaps thought desirable, in view of the bad political odor which had accompanied the copper power in several states, mostly in connection with the “copper Senators,” like Clarke, of Nevada (readers of this series will remember, in connection with the name of Guggenheim, that it was Senator Simon Guggenheim who fought against the census enumeration of Jews as once proposed by the census officials), that something be done to gild the arrangement.

It was apparently necessary to do something to disarm the protest that might arise against this thorough Judaizing of the war metals, therefore a very fine show of patriotism was made. This is worthy of notice in view of the “show institutions” mentioned in the Protocols. The American public is becoming accustomed to these “show institutions”—proposals which promise everything and then fade away into nothingness. It is one of the most effective methods of destroying the morale of a people.

When Mr. Baruch saw the heads of the two copper families, he says he found them willing to think of nothing but giving copper to the government—money was of no consideration whatever.

Mr. Baruch—“They said that so far as the United States Government itself was concerned they would give Uncle Sam all the copper he wanted for his preparedness campaign * * * at any price that was decided upon. In order to arrive at some price we took the average price for 10 years which was about 16 2-3 cents; and that is how the price happened to be arrived at. At the time that they said this, copper was selling somewhere around 32 and 35 cents a pound.”

There, then, was a magnanimous thing! The government was to be given copper at half the market price. But did the government get it at this price? Wait—the story is a good one.

This unheard-of sacrifice of profits for pariotism was extensively advertised. The secretary of the Council of National Defense wrote a stirring story for one of the best magazines, in which he said:

“Mr. Baruch first announced his presence in the tremendous task of mobilizing American industry by procuring 45,000,000 pounds of copper for the army and navy at about half the current market price, saving the government in the neighborhood of $10,000,000.”

Mr. Baruch himself, in his testimony, expanded with the generosity of it all. In an apparent mood of “help yourself to all you want” he said:

“On inquiry we found that * * * the army and navy * * * wanted only 45,000,000 pounds, which used to be a lot of copper before we got to dealing in astronomical figures; and they were given all the opportunity to consider what they wanted. They could just as well have had 450,000,000 pounds as 45,000,000 pounds, because there was an open offer.”

Now for the effect which this produced on the country at large:

 “The effect of that offer of the copper producers was electrical,” said Mr. Baruch. “It showed that there was in this country a desire to set aside selfishness, so far as our government was concerned in its need * * * ‘Make us any price you want.’ So that was practically the attitude that the producers took.”

But the government did not get copper at that much-advertised patriotic price.

Mr. Graham—“They did not pay 16 2-3 cents for the 45,000,000 pounds?”

Mr. Baruch—“Oh, no; not these other large quantities of materials.”

He said that the copper was furnished to the government without receiving money for it; price-fixing was yet in the future. “Then we came to the point, ‘Well, what about the civilian population?’ So we made a rule that became a policy, that whatever price was fixed it should be for everybody; that what was fair for the army and navy was fair for the civilian population.”

There seems to have been a rapid cooling of generosity under the prospect of colossal sales. And the upshot of it was that, after all the hurrah, the government really paid about 27 cents.

What these figures mean, can be deduced from the fact that during the war the government bought 592,258,674 pounds of copper.

If the reader is not already staggered by the import of these facts, there remains one more for him to consider—

After the armistice the surplus copper was sold back to the copper producers. In April and May, 1919, the American Metals Selling Company received from the United States Government over 16,500,000 pounds of copper at a fraction over 15 cents. This was less than the boasted patriotic price of 16 2-3 cents at the beginning. Not counting what they had received from the government for the copper in the first place, their profits on the difference between the price they paid for the surplus copper and the price for which they sold it again, were beyond counting.

This is what occurred under the triple copper monarchy of the Baruchs, the Lewisohns and the Guggenheims, and their Jewish assistants and Gentile fronts. However, “Gentile fronts” were boldly dispensed with to a very large degree during the war. The real powers behind the throne themselves stood out, and did not hesitate to set their own people at every crossroads along the line of war business.

It is not to be supposed that the Baruch influence began or ceased with copper, nor with any of the multitudinous industrial powers which he possessed. A man like Baruch makes the most of such opportunities as were then his. In matters political, personal and even military, there were many openings for the use of his influence, and well-informed people about Washington did not doubt his facility in these things.

Once, however, Mr. Baruch felt he was skating on thin ice with regard to the law. He had gone ahead on his own plan, but in such a way that he would exercise the power without taking the responsibility. That seems to have been a very clear ideal with him—power without responsibility. Everything was fixed, all the conditions within which every contract would have to be made were carefully determined, but Mr. Baruch never permitted himself or his board to make a contract. After having consulted with numbers of his associates in business, an agreement was reached, and only then were the responsible officers of the government told, “Go ahead and make contracts.” The officials took the responsibility, but the Baruch coterie made the conditions and then remained aloof.

Even this plan, however, had a questionable aspect which came to trouble Mr. Baruch, and the manner in which he manipulated the matter shows either a very shrewd mind or else very shrewd advice. The latter undoubtedly went with the former: there were plenty of Jewish advisors about.

To begin with, Mr. Baruch says: “The members of that committee were picked out by myself; the industries did not pick them out.” Which means, in fact, that Mr. Baruch picked out a group from a group that had previously been chosen by the producers, although plainly Mr. Baruch was desirous of modifying this impression. And again: “It is true that these great copper producers were on the committee, and I selected them because they were great men * * *”

Now, these men, as members of a government committee, were to all appearances selling to themselves as members of the government committee, and, apparently, buying from themselves as owners and controllers of the great producing combinations. Not necessarily in any discreditable way, but in a very unusual way.

In the face of this condition, Mr. Baruch had the coolness to say, “So you can see that the government was as much in the saddle as it was possible to be.“ The producer- members of the committee, headed by Baruch, were the government, so far as this statement is concerned. Time and again it was shown that the responsible officials of the government were not even visible until this extra-government had determined all the conditions.

Mr. Garrett—“Did any troubles arise with the committees growing out of the legal situation, that you remember of?”

Mr. Baruch—“The committees of the trade, especially some of those that I had asked to serve, were very much disturbed about their standing in reference to the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. Is that what you refer to?”

Mr. Garrett—“Yes.”

Mr. Baruch—“And also in regard to the Lever Act, on the point that ‘no man could serve two masters.’ * * * There was no basis for it * * * because these men were not serving two masters. They did not make trades with themselves, but, with the instrumentality provided, carried out the government’s wishes or orders or suggestions with reference to the particular industry which they represented.”

The “instrumentality” with which the copper men dealt, for example, was the American Metals Selling Company, which, together with the American Smelting and Refining Company, was represented at Washington by Mr. Mosehauer. The special copper committee, composed of Guggenheim employes, did business pertaining to the “instrumentality“ which carried on the business of the combined copper companies.

It was dangerous. Some of the members seem to have felt it before Mr. Baruch did. Mr. Baruch never seems to have questioned anything that he did. Why should he? He “had more power than any other man in the war” and he had the most powerful and autocratic backing that a man ever had. But the others, the non-Jewish members, were thinking of the law.

So Mr. Baruch solved it very nicely. He took the committees, comprising the same men, and had them named as committees of the United States Chamber of Commerce for their various industries, and although the process was not changed in the least, the legal aspect of it was changed. It was rather clever. It was more, it was typical.

And after that, Mr. Baruch who had previously insisted that he himself had picked those men and that the industries had not, thus clearly encouraging the inference that these men did not represent the industries’ side, but the government side of the matter, he now insists that they represented the industry.

Mr. Graham—“* * * you changed and took these advisory committes and had the National Chamber of Commerce reappoint them, so that they then were direct representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and not of the officials of the United States or connected with any governmental machinery?”

Mr. Baruch—“I never considered them officials of the government, Mr. Graham.”

Mr. Graham—“They were as much officials of the government as the rest of you, were they not?”

Mr. Baruch—“I do not think so * * * (after several questions) * * * I asked them to serve so that when the government wanted anything they could go to one small, compact body, rather than to send out to I do not know how many people. You see?”

Mr. Graham—“Let us see about that. They were serving under you, were they not? You were the head?”

Mr. Baruch—“I appointed them and asked them to do this so that I could have a compact body to deal with.”

Mr. Graham—“You did not think for a minute that they were representing the government, but did you not think you were?”

Mr. Baruch—“I was doing the best I knew how.”

Mr. Graham—“But you had authority to bring these men in, Mr. Baruch, and appoint them as committeemen under you, and you did so. Surely, if they were representing anybody it was the government, was it not?”

Mr. Baruch—“I do not think so.”

Mr. Graham—“Am I right in assuming that you thought they represented the industries?”

Mr. Baruch—“Yes.”

A great deal, of course, can be overlooked in men who were working under stress and endeavoring to do things the best way. It does not follow that because a business man serves the government in matters pertaining to his own business, he is necessarily dishonest. But so frequent is dishonesty under such conditions, or, if not dishonesty, then a loss to the government because of a divided interest, that laws have been framed to regulate such matters. These laws were on the books at the time.

This is a fact, whatever else may be true, that “copper” made tens and hundreds of millions out of the war and it is not at all inconceivable that if “copper” had not been so completely in control of the government operations of purchase, the profits might not have been so great, and the burdens which the people bore through taxation, high prices and Liberty bonds might not have been so heavy.

Mr. Baruch is but one illustration of the clustering of Jewry about the war machinery of the United States. If the Jews were the only people left in the United States who were able enough to be put in the important places of power, well and good; but if they were not, why were they there in such uniform and systematized control? It is a definite situation that is discussed. The thing is there and is unchangeably a matter of history. How can it be explained?

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 11 December 1920]

Jewish Control of the American Theater

The Theater has long been a part of the Jewish program for guidance of public taste and the influencing of the public mind. Not only is the Theater given a special place in the program of the Protocols, but it is the instant ally night by night and week by week of any idea which the “power behind the scenes” wishes to put forth. It is not by accident that in Russia, where they now have scarcely anything else, they still have the Theater, specially revived, stimulated and supported by Jewish-Bolshevists because they believe in the Theater just as they believe in the Press; it is one of the two great means of molding popular opinion.

Everybody has assumed offhand that the Theater is Jew-controlled. Few, if put to the test, could prove it, but all believe it. The reason they believe it is not so much what they see as what they feel; the American feel has gone out of the Theater; a dark, Oriental atmosphere has come instead.

Not only the “legitimate” stage, so-called, but the motion picture industry—the fifth greatest of all the great industries—is also Jew-controlled, not in spots only, not 50 per cent merely, but entirely; with the natural consequence that now the world is in arms against the trivializing and demoralizing influences of that form of entertainment as at present managed. As soon as the Jew gained control of American liquor, we had a liquor problem with drastic consequences. As soon as the Jew gained control of the “movies,” we had a movie problem, the consequences of which are not yet visible. It is the genius of that race to create problems of a moral character in whatever business they achieve a majority.

Every night hundreds of thousands of people give from two to three hours to the Theater, every day literal millions of people give up from 30 minutes to two hours to the Movies; and this simply means that millions of Americans every day place themselves voluntarily within range of Jewish ideas of life, love and labor; within range of Jewish propaganda, sometimes cleverly, sometimes clumsily concealed. This gives the Jewish masseur of the public mind all the opportunity he desires; and his only protest now is that exposure may make his game a trifle difficult.

The Theater is Jewish not only on its managerial side, but also on its literary and professional side. More and more plays are appearing whose author, producer, star and cast are entirely Jewish. They are not great plays, they do not remain long. This is natural enough, since the Jewish theatrical interests are not seeking artistic triumphs, they are not seeking the glory of the American stage, nor are they striving to develop great actors to take the place of the old line of worthies. Not at all. Their interest is financial and racial—getting the Gentiles’ money and Judaizing the Theater. There is a tremendous Judaizing movement on; the work is almost complete. Boastful articles are beginning to appear in the Jewish press, which is always a sign.

Gentile attendants on the Theater are frequently insulted to their faces, and never know it. Recently one of the best known Jewish entertainers on the stage indulged in vulgar and sacrilegious references to Jesus Christ, whereat the Semitic portions of his audience went into loud laughter, while the Gentiles sat blank-faced—because the remarks were in Yiddish asides!

Time after time the Jewish entertainer did that thing, and it was very plain to one who knew that the Jewish portion of the audience was enjoying the insult to the Gentiles much more than they were enjoying the well-worn humor of the entertainer’s remarks. It was a great thing for them that in several important American cities they could see and hear being done under cover, and to American Gentiles, what is being done openly to Russian Gentiles.

In the audience referred to there was probably $4,500 to $5,000 in gate money represented. Of this the Jews present, at the very highest estimate, could not have contributed more than $500. Yet the Jewish star several times slapped the religious sensibilities of the major portion of his audience under cover of Yiddish. The Theater is felt by him and his ilk to be a Jewish institution.

Down to 1885 the American Theater was still in the hands of the Gentiles. From 1885 dates the first invasion of Jewish influence. It meant the parting of the ways, and the future historian of the American Stage will describe that year with the word “Ichabod.” That year marks not only the beginning of the Jewish wedge of control, but something far more important.

It is not important that managers are now Jews whereas managers were formerly Gentiles. That is not important. The importance begins with the fact that with the change of managers there came also a decline in the art and morals of the stage, and that this decline has become accelerated as the Jewish control became widened. What Jewish control means is this: that everything has been deliberately and systematically squeezed out of the American Theater except its most undesirable elements, and these undesirable elements have been exalted to the highest place of all.

The Great Age of the American Theater is past. About the time that Jewish control appeared, Sheridan, Sothern, McCullough, Madame Janauschek, Mary Anderson, Frank Mayo, John T. Raymond, began to pass off the stage. It was natural that, life being brief, they should pass at last, but the appalling fact began to be apparent that they had left no successors! Why? Because a Hebrew hand was on the stage, and the natural genius of the stage was no longer welcomed. A new form of worship was to be established.

“Shakespeare spells ruin,” was the utterance of a Jewish manager. “High-brow stuff” is also a Jewish expression. These two sayings, one appealing to the managerial end, the other to the public end of the Theater, have formed the epitaph of the classic era. All that remained after the Hebrew hand fell across the stage were a few artists who had received their training under the Gentile school—Julia Marlowe, Tyrone Power, R. D. McLean, and, a little later, Richard Mansfield, Robert Mantell, E. H. Sothern. Two of this group remain, and with Maude Adams they constitute the last flashings of an era that has gone—an era that apparently leaves no great exemplars to perpetuate it.

The present-day average of intelligence appealed to in the American Theater does not rise above 13 to 18 years. “The tired business man” stuff (another Jewish expression) has treated the theatergoing public as if it were composed of morons. The appeal is frankly to a juvenile type of mind which can be easily molded to the ideals of the Hebraic theatrical monopoly. Clean, wholesome plays—the few that remain—are supported mainly by the rapidly vanishing race of theatergoers who survive from an earlier day; the present generation has been educated by the narrowed compass of modern dramatic themes to support plays of an entirely different type. Tragedy is taboo; the play of character, with a deeper significance than would delight the mind of a child, is out of favor; the comic opera has degenerated into a flash of color and movement—a combination of salacious farce and jazz music, usually supplied by a Jewish song-writer (the great purveyors of jazz!) and the rage is for extravaganza and burlesque.

The bedroom farce has been exalted into the first place. With the exception of “Ben Hur,” which is favored by Jewish producers apparently because it holds before the public a romantic picture of a Jew (a very un-Jewish Jew, by the way), the historical drama has given way to fleshly spectacles set off with overpowering scenic effects, the principal component of which is an army of girls (mostly Gentiles!) whose investment of drapery does not exceed five ounces in weight.

Frivolity, sensuality, indecency, appalling illiteracy and endless platitude are the marks of the American Stage as it approaches its degeneracy under Jewish control.

That, of course, is the real meaning of all the “Little Theater” movements which have begun in so many cities and towns in the United States. The art of the drama, having been driven out of the Theater by the Jews, is finding a home in thousands of study circles throughout the United States. The people cannot see the real plays; therefore they read them. The plays that are acted could not be read at all, for the most part, any more than the words of jazz songs can be read; they don’t mean anything. The people who want to see the real plays and cannot, because Jewish producers won’t produce them, are forming little dramatic clubs of their own, in barns and churches, in schools and neighborhood halls. The drama fled from its exploiters and has found a home with its friends.

The changes which the Jews have made in the theater, and which any half-observant theatergoer can verify with his own eyes, are four in number.

First, they have elaborated the mechanical side, making human talent and genius less necessary. They have made the stage “realistic” instead of interpretative. The great actors needed very little machinery; the men and women on the pay rolls of the Jewish managers are helpless without the machinery. The outstanding fact about the vast majority of present-day performances of any pretension is that the mechanical part dwarfs and obscures the acting, however good. And this is the reason: knowing that good actors are growing scarce, knowing that the Jewish policy is death to talent, knowing perhaps most keenly of all that good actors constitute a running charge on his revenue, the Jewish producer prefers to put his faith and his money in wood, canvas, paint, cloth and tinsel of which scenery and costumes are made. Wood and paint never show contempt for his sordid ideals and his betrayal of his trust.

And thus we have, when we go to the theater today, bursts of color, ruffles of lace and linen, waving lines and dazzling effects of light and motion—but no ideas, a great many stage employees, but very few actors. There are drills and dances without end, but no drama.

That is one influence on the American Theater which the Jew claims, and the credit for which can be given him in full. He has put in the iridescence, but he has taken out the profounder ideas. He has placed the American public in the position of being able to remember the names of plays without being able to recall what composed them. Like the “Floradora Girls,” a Jewish creation, we remember the name of the group, but not of any individual in it. The Jew has done this to perfection, but no one will contend that it represents a forward step; taken by and large, it is part of a very serious and harmful retrogression.

Second, the Jews may be credited with having introduced Oriental sensuality to the American stage. Not even the most ardent Jewish defender will deny this, for the thing is there, before the eyes of all who will see. Little by little the mark of the filthy tide has risen against the walls of the American Theater until now it is all but engulfed. It is a truism that there is more unrefined indecency in the higher class theaters today than was ever permitted by the police in the burlesque houses. The lower classes must be restrained in the vicarious exercise of their lower natures, apparently, but the wealthier classes may go the limit. The price of the ticket and the “class” of the playhouse seems to make all the difference in the world between prohibited and permissible evil.

In New York, where Jewish managers are thicker than they ever will be in Jerusalem, the limit of theatrical adventuresomeness into the realm of the forbidden is being pushed further and further. Last season’s spectacle of “Aphrodite” seemed to be deliberately designed as a frontal attack on the last entrenched scruple of moral conservatism. The scenes are most Oriental in their voluptuous abandonment. Men in breech-clouts, leopard skins and buckskins, women in flimsy gowns of gossamer texture, slashed to the hips, with very little besides, made a bewildering pageant whose capstone was the unveiling of a perfectly nude girl whose body had been painted to resemble marble. Save that it was all designed, and all put through on schedule, it was almost the “limit” to which such exhibitions could go in real life. Its promoter, of course, was a Jew. As an entertainment it was infantile; the splendor of its insinuations, the daring of its situations, were the fruitage of long study of the art of seducing the popular mind.

It was said when “Aphrodite” first appeared that the police had moved against it, but some held that this was a clever press-agent stunt to excite public interest in the promised pruriency. It was also said that even had the police interference been the genuine result of outraged official minds, the fact that the Jews of New York are represented in the judiciary out of all proportions to their numbers, would have rendered the Jewish producer free from interference. In any event, the piece was not molested. The sale of narcotics is illegal, but the instilling of insidious moral poison is not.

The whole loose atmosphere of “cabaret” and “midnight frolic” entertainment is of Jewish origin and importation. Mention the best known and the worst known, they are all Jewish. The runway down which less than half-dressed girls cavort, fluttering their loose finery in the faces of the spectators, is an importation from Vienna, but a Jewish creation. The abuses of the runway will not bear description here. The Paris boulevards and Montmartre have nothing at all in the nature of lascivious entertainment that New York cannot duplicate. BUT neither New York nor any other American city has that Comedie Francaise that strives to counterbalance the evil of Paris.

Where have the writers for the Stage a single chance in this welter of sensuousness? Where have the actors of tragic or comic talent a chance in such productions? It is the age of the chorus girl, a creature whose mental caliber has nothing to do with the matter, and whose stage life cannot in the very nature of things be a career.

It is only occasionally that a great writer for the stage, a Shaw, a Masefield, a Barrie, an Ibsen, or any Gentile writer of merit, is permitted to get as far as actual production, and then only for a short period; the stream of colored electric lighting effects, of women and tinsel closes in behind them and they are washed away, to survive in printed books among those who still know what the Theater ought to be.

A third consequence of Jewish domination of the American stage has been the appearance of “the New York star” system, with its advertising appliances. The last few years of the Theater have been marked by numerous “stars” that really never rose and certainly never shone, but which were hoisted high on the advertising walls of the Jewish theatrical syndicates in order to give the public the impression that these feeble lantern-lights were in the highest heaven of dramatic achievement.

The trick is a department store trick. It is sheer advertising strategy. The “stars” of yesterday, who did not even survive yesterday were either the personal favorites of managers, or goods taken off the shelf and heaped into the window for the sake of giving the appearance of a new stock. In brief, whereas in normal times the public made the “star” by their acclaim, nowadays the Jewish managers determine by their advertisements who the star shall be. The “New York stamp,” which frequently means nothing at all, is the one imperial sign of favor, according to the Jewish theatrical hierarchy. It is just this “New York stamp” that the rest of the country protests against; and the “little theater” movement throughout the West and Central West is a significant protest.

A Mary Anderson or a Julia Marlowe would be impossible under the Jewish system. They were disciples of art, who later became artists, and then were rightfully acclaimed as stars. But their development was a tedious process. Their fame was based on the rising approval of the people, year after year. These actresses put in season after season traveling the same circuit, learning little by little, rounding out their work. They did not have nor did they seek the “New York stamp”; they worked first for the approval of the people of “the provinces,” which is the contemptuous Jewish term for the rest of the United States. There was, however, no Jewish dictatorship of the Theater when Mary Anderson and Julia Marlowe were building their art and careers; which throws a light on the reason for there being no Mary Andersons or Julia Marlowes coming up to the succession.

The Jew seeks immediate success in all but racial affairs. In this breakdown of the Gentile theater, the process cannot be too swift for him. The training of artists takes time. It is far simpler to have the advertising bills serve as a substitute and, as the itinerant faker-dentist had a brass band blare loud enough to drown the anguished cries of his victims, so the Jewish manager seeks to divert attention from the dramatic poverty of the Theater by throwing confetti, limbs, lingerie and spangles dazzlingly into the eyes of his audience.

These three results of Jewish control in the Theater are all explainable by a fourth; the secret of the serious change which has occurred since 1885 is found in the Jewish tendency to commercialize everything it touches. The focus of attention has been shifted from the Stage to the box office. The banal policy of “give the public what they want” is the policy of the panderer, and it entered the American Theater with the first Jewish invasion.

About 1885 two alert Jews established in New York a so-called booking agency and offered to take over the somewhat cumbersome system by which managers of theaters in St. Louis, Detroit or Omaha arranged engagements of attractions for their houses for the ensuing season. The old process involved extensive correspondence with producing managers in the East and many local managers were obliged to spend several months in New York to make up a season’s bookings. The advantages were that the booking agency, supplied with a list of the “open dates” of the houses they represented, were able to lay out a complete season’s itinerary, or “route,” for a traveling company and enabled the producer of a play to spend his vacation at the seashore instead of passing the sultry mid-season in New York, while the local manager was saved the trouble of much writing or even a trip East, and was content to let the booking concern attend to all details and send him his next season’s bookings when completed.

In this manner was laid the foundation of the later-day Theatrical Trust. The booking firm was that of Klaw & Erlanger, the former a young Jew from Kentucky who had studied law, but drifted into theatrical life as an agent; the latter a young Jew from Cleveland with little education but with experience as an advance agent.

The booking system was not of their devising. They borrowed the idea from Harry C. Taylor who established a sort of theatrical exchange where producers and local managers could meet, desks being provided them at a small rental, and who took over the booking in the smaller cities, without foreseeing—but probably scorning—the opportunity thus placed in his hands to club the whole theatrical world into submission to his dictates.

With characteristic shrewdness Klaw & Erlanger elaborated the idea they had borrowed from Taylor, opened competition against the latter and enlisted the support of a number of young Jewish advance agents who were beginning to recognize the lucrative opportunities which the theatrical profession afforded. Prominent among their earliest supporters was Charles Frohman, employed by J. H. Haverley. His brother, Daniel, had been business manager for the Mallorys at the Madison Square Theater since 1881, and though the Frohmans stand out in relief from the background of the Polish Jewish influence on the theater, they found it to their advantage to co-operate with the booking firm and subsequently became prominent members of the Trust.

The establishment of the Jewish booking agency system is the key to the whole problem of the decline of the American stage. The old booking system had the enormous advantage of the personal touch in the relationship between manager and company, and made possible the development of genius in accordance with the organic laws which determine nurture, growth and fruition. Except in its highest form, acting is not an art; but heaven-born genius is no more vocal in an Edwin Booth without long training than a Bonaparte is necessarily a world conqueror without the technique of the artillery school. These two thoughts have the utmost bearing on giving the Jews the control of the theater.

There being no “syndicate,” no pooling, among the Gentile managers of the 80’s, they presented their stars or other attractions at rival theaters in competition as individual offerings, and at the end of a reasonable New York run, not forced for “road consumption,” took their companies on a tour of the country. The manager’s whole investment was probably tied up in his enterprise. He thus became a part of his group of artists, sharing their hardships of travel, their joys and sorrows. If business was good they shared the satisfaction; if otherwise, it was sink or swim for one as well as the other. In those days much was heard about troupes traveling “on their trunks.” The stories were not exaggerated, but life had its better side, too. The manager and the actor were daily companions; there was a mutual absorption of ideas; the manager learned to know and appraise the “artistic temperament”—which is a tangible asset when not a form of artificial grouch or congenital ill-nature—and to respect the actor’s point of view, while, reciprocally, the actor was able to place himself in the manager’s position and to get his point of view from close personal affiliation.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 1 January 1921]

The Rise of the First Jewish Theatrical Trust

It has long been known among dramatic critics that the reason for the maintenance of “Ben Hur” in the theater for nineteen years is this: it is the most successful of all the vehicles for pro-Semitism now on the stage. That will appear to be a prejudicial statement in the minds of the thousands who have seen and enjoyed “Ben Hur,” but there is truth in it. The point which should not be overlooked, however, is that if “Ben Hur” is useful in framing the public mind favorably toward the Jews, it is not because of a pro-Semitic intention in the story. That may be the intention of the producers, Messrs. Klaw and Erlanger, but it was not the intention of General Lew Wallace.

It would seem that art and fate conspire against the propagandist play, for in no other way can the failure of avowedly pro-Semitic drama be explained. Perhaps there was never such a serious and even strenuous attempt made to force the Jewish controlled theater into the service of pro-Semitism as has been made in recent months. And the attempts, with one possible exception, have been failures. Lavishly produced, heralded by an unbroken clacque of press announcement, swathed in an initial chorus of praise, sponsored by officialdom which had been dragged out to stand godfather to the productions, they nevertheless have failed.

Be it said to the credit of the American Jew that he has been one of the causes of the failure. A most significant and hopeful sign was the reaction of the intelligent Jewish community against the attempt to utilize the stage as a hustings to boost the Jew into an unreal eminence and desirability. Certain competent Jews wrote their opinions about this with much freedom and wisdom. And they evinced a spirit, which, if it could be made to permeate all Jewish activities, would quickly dispose of the Jewish Question under whatever phase it may be considered. It is this spirit of judging Jewish interests in the light of the whole which promises a helpful and lasting solution of all the differences which unfortunately have been permitted to arise between the people of Judah and the others.

The fact of Jewish control of the theater is not of itself a ground for complaint. If certain Jews, working separately or in groups, have succeeded in wrenching this rich business from its former Gentile control, that is purely a matter of commercial interest. It is precisely on the same footing as if one group of Gentiles won the control from another group of Gentiles. It may be regarded as a business matter. In this, as in other business matters, however, there is the ethical test of how the control was gained and how it is used. Society is usually willing to receive the fact of control with equanimity, providing the control is not used for anti-social purposes.

The fact that old-time Gentile producing managers usually died poor—Augustin Daly being about the only exception—while Jewish producing managers wax immensely wealthy (there being on this side the exception of the late Charles Frohman), would indicate that the Gentile managers were better artists and poorer business men than the Jewish managers. At least poorer business men, perhaps; and in any case working on a system whose chief object was to produce plays and not profits.

The advent of Jewish control put the theater on a more commercialized basis than it had previously known. It really represented applying the Trust Idea to the theater before it had been largely applied to industry. As early as the year 1896 the Theatrical Trust controlled 37 theaters in strategic cities. The men composing this alliance were Klaw and Erlanger, Nixon and Zimmerman, and Hayman and Frohman. All but Zimmerman were Jews, and his racial origin was a subject of dispute. This group was later joined by Rich and Harris, of Boston, and Joseph Brookes, all known as Jews.

Controlling these theaters, the Trust was able to assure a long season to both managers and playing companies. Outside the Trust, the managers and companies were left to make arrangements between each other, which resembled a species of barnstorming.

The effect on the independent theaters and managers was disastrous. The Trust boosted royalties on plays from $50 to $450 and eventually to $1,000 a week. This of itself cut off the material of the stock companies with which the independent managers endeavored to keep open their houses.

The running out of the stock companies by excessive charges for the use of plays that had already been used in the regular theaters of the Trust, really served Jewish interests in another way. The motion picture industry was coming to the front. It was a Jewish enterprise from the first. There never was any need to drive Gentiles out of that, because the Gentiles never had a chance to get in. Thus, the driving out of the stock companies threw the empty theaters over to the “movies,” and the benefit was again confined to a particular racial group.

This will answer the question so frequently asked by people who wonder why the theaters they formerly saw offering plays at all seasons, are now devoting the larger part of the year to “movies.”

It was not to be expected that this sort of thing could be put through without a struggle. There was a struggle and a severe one, but it is ended with what the public can see today.

The opposition offered by the artists was prolonged and dignified. Francis Wilson, Nat C. Goodwin, James A. Herne, James O’Neil, Richard Mansfield, Mrs. Fiske and James K. Hackett stood out for a time, all of them with the exception of Goodwin bound by a forfeit of $1,000 if they deserted the cause of a free theater.

Joseph Jefferson was always with the actors in this opposition and continued of the same mind to the end, playing in both Trust and anti-Trust houses.

It is a matter of record that Nat Goodwin was the first to give in. He was the head and front of the opposition, but he had his weaknesses which were well known to the Trust, and upon these they played. One of his weaknesses was for New York engagements, and he was offered a long engagement at the Knickerbocker Theater. He was also given the promise of dates wherever and whenever he wanted them. Goodwin thereupon deserted the alliance of stars and became the henchman of the Trust. (The “Trust” was the name by which the new control was known in these days. The racial name was not given although the racial nature was plainly discerned.)

Nat Goodwin’s star began to decline from that day. He made a final essay as Shylock, and with that he was practically ushered out as a headliner of the serious stage.

Richard Mansfield and Francis Wilson were delivering nightly curtain speeches against the Trust wherever they appeared, and although the public was sympathetic it was very much like the present state of affairs—what could the public do? What can an unorganized public ever do against a small organized, determined minority? The public hardly ever appears as a party in any of the movements that concern itself; the public is the prize for which the parties strive.

The Trust dealt strongly with Wilson. His dates were canceled. Neither his status nor his ability was of any avail to him. One of the Trust made an open statement: “Mr. Wilson is a shining mark, and we determined to make an example of him for the benefit of the lesser offenders.”

Wilson’s strong spirit was finally subdued to see “reason.” In 1898 the Philadelphia members of the Trust offered him $50,000 for his business, and he took it. In due time Richard Mansfield also surrendered, and Mrs. Fiske was left alone to carry on the fight.

The Theatrical Trust, which must be described as Jewish, because it was that, was at the beginning of the new century in full control of the field. It had reduced what was essentially an art to a time-clock, cash-register system, working with the mechanical precision of a well-managed factory. It suppressed individuality and initiative, killed off competition, drove out the independent manager and star, excluded all but foreign playwrights of established reputation, fostered the popularity of inferior talent which was predominantly Jewish, sought to debase the service of the dramatic critics of the public press, foisted countless “stars” of mushroom growth upon a helpless public while driving real stars into obscurity; it handled plays, theaters and actors like factory products, and not began a process of vulgarizing and commercializing everything connected with the theater.

If space permitted, a number of opinions could be presented here from men like William Dean Howells, Norman Hapgood and Thomas Bailey Aldrich, whose concern was for the theater, but who voiced no other observation as to the racial influences at work.

Their concern was justified. It is quite possible that many who read this article are not interested in the theater, and are, in fact, convinced that the theater is a menace. Very well. What principally makes it a menace? This—that the stage today represents the principal cultural element of 50 per cent of the people. What the average young person absorbs as to good form, proper deportment, refinement as contrasted with coarseness, correctness of speech or choice of words, customs and feelings of other nations, even fashions of clothes, as well as ideas of religion and law, are derived from what he sees and hears at the theater. The masses’ sole idea of the homes and the life of the rich is derived from the stage and the movies. More wrong notions are given, more prejudices created by the Jewish controlled theater in one week, than can be charged against a serious study of the Jewish Question in a century. People sometimes wonder where the ideas of the younger generation come from. This is the answer.

As was just said, all the original opposers of this new control of the theater surrendered and left Mrs. Fiske to fight alone. She had, however, an ally in her husband, Harrison Grey Fiske, who was editor of the New York Dramatic Mirror.

Mrs. Fiske herself had said: “The incompetent men who have seized upon the affairs of the stage in this country have all but killed art, ambition and decency.”

Her husband wrote in his paper: “What then should be expected of a band of adventurers of infamous origin, of no breeding and utterly without artistic taste? * * * Let it be kept in mind that the ruling number of these men who compose the Theatrical Trust are absolutely unfit to serve in any but the most subordinate places in the economy of the stage and that they ought not to be tolerated even in these places except under a discipline, active, vigorous and uncompromising. Their records are disreputable and in some cases criminal, and their methods are in keeping with their records.” (First printed in the Dramatic Mirror, December 25, 1897; reprinted March 19, 1898.)

This attack was regarded, foolishly and wrongfully of course, as an attack on the whole House of Israel and, as is always the case when one Jew is censured for wrongdoing, all the Jews in the United States came to the rescue. Pressure was brought to bear on a famous news company which handled the circulation of the most important magazines in the United States. Leading hotels were induced to withdraw the Dramatic Mirror from their news stands. Mirror correspondents were refused admittance to theaters controlled by the Trust. Any number of underground influences were set in operation to “get” Fiske and his business.

Suit was brought against Fiske for $10,000 damages for the strictures he had printed upon the personal character of certain members of the Trust. Fiske replied in his answer, setting up various facts against specific members of the Trust, their records, actions, and so on. One he accused of carrying on business under a fictitious name (“cover name,” as it is known in Jewish circles). Another he accused of charging managers for advertising expenses that were never incurred. Another he accused of issuing “complimentary” tickets in which he did a private speculative business of his own, selling them and pocketing the proceeds. Another he accused of specific crime for which he had been arrested and convicted.

He charged that the Trust as a whole advertised in various cities that “the original New York company” would play, charging exorbitant admission fees on the strength of this advertisement, when in truth these were secondary companies and not the one advertised.

A strange court hearing was held in which the magistrate did not wish to hear any of Fiske’s testimony, even forbidding him to enter official records of the criminal proceedings had against a certain member of the Trust. The magistrate did not seem to want to hear what Fiske based his statements upon. There was a serious shooting scrape involving a woman, but the magistrate did not want to hear about it. There was even considerable difficulty on the part of Fiske’s lawyer in procuring the attendance of Abraham L. Erlanger at court, although he was one of the complainants.

All the important questions asked of Klaw were overruled.

As to Al Hayman, the court overruled all questions relating to his real name and the circumstances under which he left Australia. The facts were not brought out in this hearing, but the whole character of the hearing was made known to the public. Fiske was bound over to the Grand Jury, with $300 bail in every allegation of libel.

The Grand Jury lost no time in dismissing all the complaints against Fiske. The Trust members had come off badly because of their evident unwillingness to meet the case. They were revealed to be a much lower type of men than the American public had supposed was in charge of the American theater. They were shown to be a type that would not even stop at demanding the discharge of a local newspaper reporter whose critique of their plays did not please them.

The fight of the dramatic critics first against the bribery and then against the bludgeoning of the Theatrical Trust makes a story of which echoes have frequently come to the American public through the press. Conciliatory at first, with managers, actors, playwrights and critics, the Trust, as soon as it gained power, showed the claws beneath the velvet. It had the millions of dollars of the public coming its way, why should it care?

Whenever a critic opposed its methods or pointed out the inferior, coarse and degrading character of the Trust productions, he was ordered barred from the Trust’s theaters, and local managers were instructed to demand his discharge from his newspaper. It is with mingled feelings that an American is compelled to relate that in many, many cases the demand was complied with, the papers being threatened with the loss of Sunday advertising! But here and there courageous writers on the Stage held to the honor of their profession and refused to be bribed or intimidated.

Writers like James S. Metcalfe, of Life; Hillery Bell, of the New York Press; Frederick F. Schrader, of the Washington Post; Norman Hapgood, on the New York Evening Globe; James O’Donnell Bennett, of the Chicago Record-Herald, stood out against the Trust and made their fight. Metcalfe went so far as to bring suit against the Trust for unlawful exclusion from a place of public amusement. The courts were kind to the Trust. They decided that a theater may pick its patrons. Even in very recent years the Trust has followed blacklisted dramatic critics in an effort to prevent their employment by newspapers.

The Theatrical Trust does not exist in the form it did ten years ago. It grew arrogant and bred secret enemies among its own people. A new force arose, but it also was Jewish, as it originated in the Shubert brothers with David Belasco. Instead of one, the American have now a dual dictatorship of the stage. The rage of the day is not plays, but playhouses. With not three plays of any character to distinguish them from the dregs of the stage, there are now building in New York alone a dozen new playhouses. The theatrical business has entered upon its real estate phase. There is money in renting chairs at the rate of $1 to $3 an hour. The renting of the chairs is a reality. The Stage is rapidly becoming an illusion.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 8 January 1921]

How Jews Capitalized a Protest Against Jews

The American stage is under the influence and control of a group of former bootblacks, newsboys, ticket speculators, prize ring habitués, and Bowery characters. At the present writing the most advertised man in the world of theatrical production is Morris Gest, a Russian Jew, who has produced the most salacious spectacles ever shown in America—“Aphrodite” and “Mecca.” It is reported that the scent of nastiness has been so strongly circulated among theatergoers that tickets are sold a year ahead for the Chicago exhibition of one of these shows, the patrons being, of course, mostly Gentiles.

Now, it is a fair question, who is this Morris Gest who stalks before his fellow Jews as the most successful producer of the year? It is nothing against him to say that he came from Russia. It is nothing against him to say that he is a Jew. It is nothing against him to say that although success has favored him, his father and mother are still in Odessa, or were until recently. Yet, in a recent interview, in which the professional note of pathos was obtrusively present, he lamented that he was not able to bring his parents to America.

The story of Morris Gest is the last one in the world to use as a “success story” of the type of “the poor immigrant boy who became a great theatrical producer.” He is not a great producer, of course, although he is a great panderer to the least creditable tastes of the public whose taste he has been no mean factor in debasing. Gest sold newspapers in Boston and became property boy in a Boston theater. In 1906 he was a member of a notorious gang of ticket speculators who were the bane of the public until ticket peddling on the sidewalks in front of theaters was suppressed by the police. There are still other stories told about him that link his name with another sort of traffic, but whether these stories are true or not, there is nothing in Gest’s career to indicate that he would ever contribute anything to the theater’s best interest. He is the son-in-law of David Belasco.

Then there is Sam Harris, long the junior partner of the firm of Cohan & Harris, who began his career in the arts by managing Dixon, the colored champion featherweight pugilist, and the redoubtable Terry McGovern, champion lightweight prize fighter. With tastes formed at the ringside, he launched into theatrical ventures, allying himself with Al Woods. He catered to the lower classes and made a fortune by producing atrocious melodramas in second and third class houses.

And yet this is the Sam Harris who commands the patronage of hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of theatergoers, some of whom go on innocently believing that when they invade the theater they also enter, by some mystical process, “the realms of art.”

Al H. Woods has but one good eye. It is not this personal loss that matters, but the history of the misfortune which goes back to the time when Al was a member of an East side gang. The common report was that he used to play the piano in a downtown place, east of Fifth Avenue. Mr. Woods is also a distinguished patron of dramatic art—he presented “The Girl from Rector’s” and “The Girl in the Taxi,” two of the most immoral and pointless shows of recent years. Several times he has secured the rights to certain Viennese operas, which were bad enough in themselves from a moral point of view, but which were at least constructed with true artistry; but even these he marred by an inept infusion of vulgarity and blague.

The public, of course, does not see and does not know these gods before whom they pour their millions yearly, nor does the public know from what source theatric vileness comes. It is amusing to listen to the fledgling philosophers discuss the “tendencies of the stage,” or expatiate learnedly on the “divine right of Art” to be as flippant and as filthy as it pleases, when all the time the “tendency” is started and the “art” is determined by men whose antecedents would make Art scream!

The American Theater is a small group of Jewish promoters and a large group of Gentile gullibles, and it is only the latter, who “kid themselves” that there is anything real about the matter.

It is perfectly natural, therefore, that the complete Judaization of the theater should result in its being transformed into “the show business,” a mere matter of trade and barter. The real producers are often not culturally equipped for anything more than the baldest business. They can hire what they want, mechanicians, costumers, painters, writers, musicians. With their gauge of public taste and their models of action formed upon the race track and the prize ring; with their whole ideal modeled upon the ambition to pander to depravity, instead of serving legitimate needs, it is not surprising that the standards of the Theater should now be at their lowest mark.

As theatergoers are noticing more and more, the Jewish manager whenever possible employs Jewish actors and actresses. Gentile playwrights and actors are steadily diminishing in number for want of a market. At times the employment of Jewish actors has been so obtrusive as to endanger the success of the play. This was notably the case when the part of a young Christian girl of the early Christian Era was given to a Jewess of pronounced racial features. The selection was so glaringly inept, ethnically and historically, that it militated strongly against the impression the play was intended to produce.

The “cover-name” conceals from the theartergoing public the fact that the actors and actresses who purvey entertainment are, in large and growing proportion, Jewish.

Some of the more prominent Jewish actors, many of them prime favorites, are Al Jolson, Charlie Chaplin, Louis Mann, Sam Bernard, David Warfield, Joe Weber, Barney Bernard, “Ed Wynne, or to mention his real name, Israel Leopold,” Lou Fields, Eddie Cantor, Robert Warwick.

Among the prominent Jewish actresses are: Theda Bara, Nora Bayes, Olga Nethersole, Irene Franklin, Gertrude Hoffman, Mizi Hajos, Fanny Brice (wife of Nicky Arnstein), Bertha Kalisch, Jose Collins, Ethel Levy, Belle Baker, Constance Collier. The late Anna Held was a Jewess.

In addition to these there are others whose racial identity is not revealed by their names or any public knowledge about them.

The Jewish press claims for the Jews, aside from the commercial control of the stage, the control of the fun-making business. “The greatest entertainers, vaudevillians and fun-makers are Jews,” says an article in the Chicago Jewish Sentinel, commenting on the extent to which Jewish actors monopolized the Chicago stage that week.

Among the composers we once beheld Victor Herbert and Gustav Kerker in honorable places; but now the Irving Berlins have forced themselves into places hewn out and established by Gentiles who had a regard for art.

There are no great Jewish playwrights. Charles Klein wrote “The Lion and the Mouse,” but never repeated. There is, of course, much commonplace work turned out for the stage; a commercialized stage needs a certain amount of “product.” Among those engaged in such work are Jack Lait, Montague Glass, Samuel Shipman, Jules Eckert Goodman, Aaron Hoffman, and others.

The Jewish claim to exceptional genius is not borne out by the theater, although the Jewish will to power is therein amply illustrated.

Belasco’s name comes to mind, perhaps, oftener than any; and Belasco is the most consummate actor off any stage. To understand Mr. Belasco is to understand the method by which the “Independents” fought the Jewish Theater Trust, and still retained the monopoly of the Theater for the Jews.

The old Trust was bowling along merrily, smashing everything in its way, thrusting honored “stars” into obscurity, blocking the path of promising playwrights, putting out of business all actors who would not prostitute art to commercialism, and there occurred what always occurs—for even the Jews are not superior to natural law—a bad case of “big head” was developed.

Klaw, Erlanger and their immediate associates felt themselves to be kings and began to exhibit a few supposedly royal idiosyncrasies.

There were some protests, of course, against the arrogance of the Czars of the Theater. The Vanderbilts and other New York millionaires embodied their protest in a movement toward a national theater which was erected at Grand Central Park, and for which $1,000,000 was spent. One of the members of the Trust proved his birth and breeding by saying that this attempt to cleanse the theater was really only a plan to provide a place of vice for the benefit of the millionaire backers. The remark inspired deep rancor, but was more revelatory of the Jewish Trust’s essential conception of the theater, than anything else. Belasco came from San Francisco, where he had done various stunts, including those of an itinerant recitationist, illusionist and actor. James E. Herne took an interest in him as a youth and discovered him to be adept at helping himself to dialogues out of printed plays. Under Herne, Belasco learned much about stage effects, and soon became very successful in touching up defective plays. Coming to New York, Belasco fell in with DeMille, a Jewish writer for the stage, who only needed Belasco’s “sense of the theater” to make his qualities effective.

Belasco became a factor in enlarging the Jewish control of the stage, in this way: he was connected with the Frohmans, but was unable to persuade them that Mrs. Leslie Carter, who had been the center of a sensational divorce suit and who had placed herself under Mr. Belasco’s professional direction, was a great actress. The making of a star out of Mrs. Carter, and the gaining of public recognition for her, proved a long task. The Frohmans were unsympathetic.

Then, among the managers there was dissension too. The Shuberts had been compelled to take the leavings of the other Jewish magnates, especially the leavings of Charles Frohman, and the Shuberts revolted. The Shuberts were natives of Syracuse, and their preparation for the theater was not promising of their devotion to art. They were program boys and ushers. Then the haberdashery business claimed them as possibly a speedier course to wealth. Samuel Shubert eventually became a ticket seller in the box office. In due time, having learned a few marketable secrets of the theater, he launched a frivolous burlesque and comedy show. With this he floated into New York, and continued with his musical shows of a shallow kind, until the name Shubert has come to be descriptive of the productions. The Shuberts, of course, booked in Trust theaters.

About the year 1900, the Shuberts quarreled with the Trust and Belasco quarreled with the Frohmans, and the two hailed each other as fellow belligerents and proceeded to see what could be made of their belligerency. The public was showing signs of disgust with the Trust. That was the cue!—the Shuberts and Belasco would appeal to the public to help in the fight against the Trust. Belasco and the Shuberts would play the part of injured independents; public sympathy would be aroused, and public patronage would boost the “Independents” into the strength of a new Trust. That is exactly what occurred

Belasco’s theatricalism helped to this end. He is an actor off, as well as on the stage. He affects the pose of a benevolent priest, and dresses the part, wearing a priestly collar, with clerical vest and coat. Although of Portuguese-Hebraic origin, Belasco dresses after this manner to honor, as he says, a tutor of his early days. Anyway, the costume is very effective, especially with the ladies. He has a tremulous, shy way about him, and he sits in his sanctum with the lights so arranged that his priestly face and splendid shock of silver hair seem to rise out of an encompassing and shadowy mystery. It is very effective—very effective. One woman declared, after being admitted to the presence and gazing on the face that rose out of the shadows into the light—“I have a better understanding of the divine humility of Jesus Christ since I have been privileged to meet Mr. Belasco.”

Thus, “the master,” as he is called, was well equipped to appeal to public sympathy. And he did appeal. There was no end to his appeal. He told stories of personal attacks made on him. He wrung his hands in desperate grief against the Trust’s menace to the stage. His own productions, however, were not all immaculate. There was one, “Naughty Anthony,” which brought the police censor down upon him. But there was a very clear conception in the public mind as to what the Trust had done to the stage; Belasco said he was against the Trust, and the rest was snap judgement.

The Shuberts and Belasco thus found themselves in a very favorable combination of circumstances. Their first financial aid came, strangely enough, through ex- Congressman Reinach, a Jew, “Boss” Cox, of Ohio, and others who were interested. These supplied the first money; the Shuberts supplied the management; Belasco supplied the wonderful impersonation of a Daniel come to call the Jewish Theater Trust to judgement. The campaign succeeded and the wealth rolled in. For a time Belasco did prove to the public that he could produce better plays than the old Trust had given to the public, and to that extent he justified public confidence in him.

The end of the old Trust came in a natural way. The Shuberts became rich and powerful, and the Trust was then willing to do business with them. Some of the Trust members died, and about 1910 the old Trust ceased to exist as the dominant factor in American theatrical affairs. But the rise of the “Independents” did not bring relief; it only captured for Jewish enterprise that part of the theater which might have become the prize of a legitimate body of protesters against the old cheapness and vulgarity. The pretended protest won. The theater was saved to Jewish control.

Jewish managers had created the public disgust in the first place. They knew what the public reaction would be, so they prepared to capitalize the reaction, and thus control the theatergoing public both going and coming. This they did with admirable strategy.

During the outbreak there was some genuine feeling of independence on the part of a few non-Jewish managers. John Cort organized a western theater circuit. Colonel Henry W. Savage swung loose from Klaw and Erlanger, as did also William A. Brady. But independence of the Jewish control has never flourished. Wherever it did keep up an independent front, it stood for the theater in its best sense, and served as the only channel of expression for the remaining few stage artists. The coming of the motion picture, however, gave true independence its quietus. The motion picture “industry”—and it is rightly named an “industry”—is entirely Jewish controlled, and as it is pushing its way into the legitimate theaters and crowding out human players for long periods every year, theater managers have to bow to it more and more.

It remained for the Shuberts, however, to give the theatrical business a most original twist. They made it a real estate speculation. Readers of this article may recall that recently they have read that in their own or a neighboring city the Shuberts are going to build one or two theaters. In one city, the announcement was made that two theaters were to be built. That particular city happens to need almost everything else but theaters. However it cannot get anything else it needs, and there is no doubt it will get the theaters.

The Shuberts learned this trick when they were supposed to be “bucking the Trust.”

They went after any building they could get, and because of the public enmity to the Trust, they got better terms than otherwise could have been possible. An old riding school in New York became the Winter Garden. The great Hippodrome, the materialized dream of a non-Jew, Frederick Thompson, was taken over by the Shuberts. It soon dawned on the Shuberts that there was more money in theatrical real estate than in theatrical art.

Today, the Shuberts, while nominally theatrical managers, are really dealers in theatrical leases and buildings where theatrical productions are made. A theater, as a real estate proposition, pays amazingly well. Figure up the amount of space you occupy as a show, the length of time you occupy it, and the price you pay for it. It is rent raised to the nth degree; then the offices which make the bulk of the structure, and the stores in front. Really, “the show business” is the minor consideration.

What does it cost the Shuberts? Very little but the use of their name. When it is the matter of a new theater, outside capital supplies three-fourths of the money, but the lease and the control are vested in the Shuberts. That is a rather handsome arrangement.

In the matter of producing plays, the same arrangement is often followed—the author, the star, or their backers supplying the larger part, sometimes all of the capital, while the Shuberts lend their name to the management and take their share of the booking fees and the rental of the theaters where the show is produced.

In October of last year (1920) a serious slump hit the theatrical business. Even in New York the theaters were experiencing the worst depression of years. More than 3,000 actors were idle and managers were compelled to resort to the cut-rate ticket agents to sell their seats. And yet, in the midst of it, Shubert announced six new theaters for New York alone. At the same time they announced the production of forty plays.

Forty plays! If a man announced that he was going to build six new art museums in one city and fit them up with the requisite number of oil paintings produced under his own direction, he would be considered crazy, especially if it were a matter of common repute that he knew nothing of art and was having the pictures painted merely to give value to his real estate!

It indicates how thoroughly accustomed the public has become to “the show business” and the “motion picture industry,” that the announcement of these former haberdashers is taken so complacently. Forty plays!—when anyone can count on the fingers of both hands all the present-day American and English playwrights even remotely deserving of notice!

It is said that the Shuberts do not expect more than three out of forty plays to succeed. The success of a play, in the artistic sense, is not their business. To maintain enough plays on the road to keep alive their real estate investments is really the thing.

Thus it is now not strange where theatrical slang comes from. An actor who wins success is said to have “delivered the goods.” An approved actress is “all wool and a yard wide.” An author “puts it over” his audience. A girl of no particular class is a “skirt.” A young chorus girl is a “broiler” or a “chicken.” An actress who plays the part of an adventuress is a “vamp.” A very successful play is a “knockout.” Taken all together, it is “the show business.” This is the effect of Jewish control of any profession—as any American lawyer will tell you.

The only protest now being offered is by the small dramatic clubs which, whether or not they know it, are the strongest “anti-Semitic” influence on the theatrical horizon.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 22 January 1921]

The Jewish Aspect of the “Movie” Problem

There was once a man named Anthony Comstock who was the enemy of public lewdness. Of course he was never popular. No newspaper ever spoke of him without a jeer. He became the stock joke of his time—and it was not very long ago. He died in 1915. It is very noticeable that the men who mocked his life with banal jesting were non-Jews. It is also worth recording that the men who profited from the commercializing of much of the vice which he fought, were Jews. It was a very familiar triangle—the morally indignant non-Jew fighting against public lechery, and the Jewish instigators of it hiding behind ribald Gentiles and Gentile newspapers.

Well, the fight is still going on. If you will subscribe to a clipping bureau, or if you will look over the press of the country, you will see that the problem of the immoral show has been neither settled nor silenced. In every part of the country it is intensely alive just now. In almost every state there are movie censorship bills pending, with the old “wet” and gambling elements against them, and the awakened part of the decent population in favor of them; always, the Jewish producing firms constituting the silent pressure behind the opposition.

This is a grave fact. Standing alone it would seem to charge a certain Jewish element with intentional gross immorality. But that hardly states the condition. There are two standards in the United States, one ruling very largely in the production of plays, the other reigning, when it does reign, in the general public. One is an Oriental ideal—“If you can’t go as far as you like, go as far as you can.” It gravitates naturally to the flesh and its exposure, its natural psychic habitat is among the more sensual emotions.

This Oriental view is essentially different from the Anglo-Saxon, the American view. And it knows this. Thus is the opposition to censorship accounted for. It is not that producers of Semitic origin have deliberately set out to be bad according to their own standards, but they know that their whole taste and temper are different from the prevailing standards of the American people; and if censorship were established, there would be danger of American standards being officially recognized, and that is what they would prevent. Many of these producers don’t know how filthy their stuff is—it is so natural to them.

Scarcely an American home has not voiced its complaint against the movies. Perhaps no single method of entertainment has ever received such widespread and unanimous criticism as the movies, for the reason that everywhere their lure and their lasciviousness have been felt. There are good pictures, of course; it were a pity if that much could not be said; we cling to that statement as if it might prove a ladder to lift us above the cesspool which the most popular form of public entertainment has become.

The case has been stated so often that repetition is needless. Responsible men and organizations have made their protests, without results. The moral appeal meets no response in those to whom it is made, because they are able to understand only appeals that touch their material interests. As the matter now stands, the American Public is as helpless against the films as it is against any other exaggerated expression of Jewish power. And the American Public will continue helpless until it receives such an impression of its helplessness as to shock it into protective action.

In a powerful indictment of the movie tendency and the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Frederick Boyd Stevenson writes in the Brooklyn Eagle:

“On the other hand the reels are reeking with filth. They are slimy with sex plays. They are overlapping one another with crime.

“From bad to worse these conditions have been growing. The plea is set up that the motion picture industry is the fourth or fifth in the United States, and we must be careful not to disrupt it. A decent photoplay, it is argued, brings gross returns of, say, $100,000, while a successful sex play brings from $250,000 to $2,500,000.”

Dr. James Empringham was recently quoted in the New York World as saying: “I attended a meeting of motion picture owners in New York, and I was the only Christian present. The remainder of the company consisted of 500 un-Christian Jews.”

Now, there is little wisdom in discoursing against evil in the movies and deliberately closing our eyes to the forces behind the evil.

The method of reform must change. In earlier years, when the United States presented a more general Aryan complexion of mind and conscience, it was only necessary to expose the evil to cure it. The evils we suffered from were lapses, they were the fruits of moral inertia or drifting; the sharp word of recall stiffened the moral fiber of the guilty parties and cleared up the untoward condition. That is, evil doers of our own general racial type could be shamed into decency, or at least respectability.

That method is no longer possible. The basic conscience is no longer present to touch. The men now mostly concerned with the production of scenic and dramatic filth are not to be reached that way. They do not believe, in the first place, that it is filth. They cannot understand, in the second place, that they are really pandering to and increasing human depravity. When there does reach their mentalities the force of protest, it strikes them as being very funny; they cannot understand it; they explain it as due to morbidity, jealousy or—as we hear now—anti-Semitism.

Reader, beware! if you so much as resent the filth of the mass of the movies, you will fall under the judgement of anti-Semitism. The movies are of Jewish production. If you fight filth, the fight carries you straight into the Jewish camp because the majority of the producers are there. And then you are “attacking the Jews.”

If the Jews would throw out of their camp the men and methods that so continuously bring shame upon the Jewish name, this fight for decency could be conducted without so much racial reference.

An analysis of the motion picture industry in the United States will show:

That 90 per cent of the production of pictures is in the hands of 10 large concerns located in New York City and Los Angeles.

That each of these has under it a number of complete units, making up the large aggregate of companies seen in photoplays all over the world.

That these parent concerns control the market.

That 85 per cent of these parent concerns are in the hands of Jews.

That they constitute an invincible centralized organization which distributes its produces to tens of thousands of exhibitors, the majority of whom are Jews of an inferior type.

That the independent motion pictures have no distributing center but sell in the open market.

It may come as a surprise to many people that there is no dearth of good pictures. The trouble is that there is no means by which good pictures can reach the public. One of the notable libraries of beautiful pictures, containing the cream of dramatic and educational films, has been rendered absolutely useless because of the impossibility of getting them before the public. The owners of these pictures achieved a little advance by engaging Jewish salesmen to push the pictures, but against them has always been the huge and silent force of that concentrated opposition which is apparently against the introduction of decency and delight into the screen world.

Once in a while an independent producer like David Wark Griffith or Charles Ray gives the world a screen production that is not only without offense or propaganda, but is a veritable delight and joy. These pictures, with their attendant success, are the strongest answers that can be made to the cry of some producers that the only profitable plays are the nasty ones.

That cry, of course, is based on fact. Without doubt, as things now go, the nasty pictures are the more profitable, because they are the most elaborately made and the most gorgeously advertised. The very lewdest of them have secured their patronage by advertising that they deal with “moral problems.”

But all public taste is cultivated. Every city which can boast of public spirit has citizens who spend tens of thousands of dollars annually in an attempt to create a community taste for good music. They succeed to a certain extent, but very rarely do they make it pay. It appears that the work of demoralizing the public taste is far more profitable. And as our whole range of public entertainment, outside of the higher musical field, has fallen into the hands of groups who do not know what the term “art” means, it is evident how overwhelming the appeal of the dollar must be.

If the public taste is now so fixedly demoralized that the moving picture producers can confidently claim that “the public demands what we are giving it,” the case is more damning than otherwise. For it is recognized by all detached observers that such a public taste is a most urgent reason why immediate and heroic remedies should be adopted.

Cocaine peddlers can easily establish a “public demand” for their drugs, and they do. But that demand is never considered to be an extenuation for the peddling of “coke.” So with the psychic poison and visual filth of the ordinary movie—the demand it has created is morally lawless, and the further satisfaction of the demand is morally lawless too.

Carl Laemmle, one of the leading producers in America and head of the Universal Film Company, testified before a congressional committee that he had sent a circular entitled “What Do You Want?” to the exhibitors who bought his pictures. At that time his company was in communication with about 22,000 exhibitors. Mr. Laemmle says that he expected 95 per cent of the answers to favor clean, wholesome pictures, but “instead of finding 95 per cent favoring clean pictures, I discovered that at least one-half, or possibly 60 per cent, want pictures to be risque, the French for smutty.”

Laemmle himself is a German-born Jew, and did not state what percentage of the replies were from people of what is euphemistically termed his “faith.”

It is a very noticeable fact that whenever any attempt is made to control the tumultuous indecency and triviality which the movies ceaselessly pour out day and night upon the American public, the opposition thereto is Jewish. Take, for example, the attempt to arouse the sober spirit of America to a proper appreciation of what is happening to Sunday, the Day of Rest. The opponents for the whole movement—a movement for the awakening of conscience, not for the passage of laws—are Jews, and they justify their opposition on Jewish grounds.

Whenever the movies are before the bar of public opinion, their defenders as they are, are Jews. In the Congressional hearing before referred to, the lawyers who appeared for the companies were all Jews, distinguished by the names Meyers, Ludvigh, Kolm, Friend and Rosenthal.

There was even a Jewish Rabbi involved, who gave a most ingenuous explanation both of Jewish control of the movies and also of Jewish opposition to control of the character of the movies.

“I am a Jew,” he said. “You know as well as I do that we have been the unfortunate victims of the nasty, biting tongue, and you know as well as I do that the movie first held us up to ridicule, and we have not only been disgraced in these movies, but we have had our religion traduced, and disgracefully traduced.”

If this is true, it is chargeable to the Jews themselves, for Jews have always controlled the business. That it is true is probable, for the most zealous lampooners of the Jews have been Jewish comedians. Non-Jews fail abjectly in endeavoring to portray the character.

“We felt very much hurt,” he continued, “and we felt there was a remedy, and that remedy was public opinion; and what did we do? We did not come to Congress. We organized a society—the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, which is the largest Jewish fraternal order in the world. It organized what is called the Anti-Defamation League with headquarters in Chicago; and the league for the defense of the Jewish name united with other people—in the Catholic Church, the Truth Society and Holy Name Society—and it wrote to all the movie manufacturers of the country asking them that they do not traduce the Jewish character and the Jewish religion, and that they do not hold us up to ridicule; that we did not object to the depiction of Jewish character, but we did object to the caricature of Jewish character and the caricature of our name and religion; and after thus having explained to the manufacturers our position, we appointed a committee of men in every city in the country, asking them that they appeal to the municipal authorities that they permit not the presentation of pictures that were calculated to offend the Jewish character and the Jewish sensitiveness.

“What has been the result? There has been necessary not a protest, because movies in this country are not producing that class of movies any longer.”

Of course! there are excellent reasons why the Jewish protests, if any really were necessary, should be instantly obeyed.

But why has not the continued and clamorous protest of decent America been equally heeded? Why not? Because the protest has come largely from non-Jews.

If the Jews can control the movies to the extent the rabbi claimed, why cannot they control them for decency—why do not they control them for decency?

The one weakness of the rabbi’s statement is the charge that the Jewish religion was traduced. It would be most interesting to learn how this was done, and by whom. It is a religion which does not easily lend itself to that sort of treatment, picturesque as some of its forms may appear to alien eyes.

There is, however, a meaning hidden in this statement of the rabbi. The Jew considers any public expression of Christian character as being derogatory to his religion. For example: if the President of the United States or the governor of your state should make a specifically Christian allusion in his Thanksgiving Proclamation, or mention the name of Christ, that act would be protested as offensive to Jewish sensitiveness. Not only would be done, but has been done.

In the same hearing referred to, quotation was made from a letter written by Carl H. Pierce, special representative of the Oliver Morosco Photoplay Company, to the executive secretary of the Motion Picture Board of Trade, in which the following statement appeared:

“You and I have seen boards turn down such plays as the ‘Life of the Savior’ because they thought it might offend the Hebrews.”

It is apparent that “Jewish sensitiveness” is a spoiled child which has been unduly coddled and that it has interfered to such an extent that the real question becomes one of non-Jewish rights.

The Jewish defenders have been asking, Why should a nation of 110,000,000 people be considered in danger from 3,000,000 Jews? And “Gentile fronts,” with all the zest of a new idea, have shouted the same challenging question.

It might be advantageous to answer thus: Why should a country of 110,000,000 people, mostly of Christian faith and practice, be prevented from seeing the “Life of the Savior” portrayed on the screen because it is feared to offend the Jews?

The answer in both cases is not a comparison of numbers, but a recognition of the fact that, as in the motion picture world the Jews are at the neck of the bottle where they can absolutely control what goes to the public, so they are in other fields at corresponding places of control.

But whether the Jewish producer is qualified to do better than he is doing is a question. When you consider the conditions from which many of them sprang, you will be rendered rather hopeless of voluntary reform.

Why were not “Way Down East” and “The Shepherd of the Hills” put on the screen by Jews? Because the Jews in control of the movies have no knowledge of American rural life, and therefore no feeling for it. The Jew is a product of city life, and that peculiar phase of city life which is found in the ghetto. He sees in a farmer only a “hick” and a “rube.” You may rest entirely assured that it was not the Yankee, himself a product of the farms, who turned the agriculturist into a joke, until today the joke has emptied our farms of men. The theatrical “hick” and “rube” of the gold-brick story and the hayseed play, were of Jewish origin. The Jew is a product of city life, and of that phase of city life where the “wits” play a large part. The America of the average Jew who caters to the entertainment of Americans is comprehended in a beaten path from the box-office, to back-stage, and thence to an eating place. He doesn’t know America as yet, except as a huge aphis which he may milk.

It follows, therefore, that in all probability he is equally ignorant of American home life. He has not yet been able to understand what American domesticity means. The American home is an almost unknown quantity to foreigners of the Eastern races. An Armenian woman who has lived in America for five years says that she knows nothing of an American home save what she can see through the windows as she passes. This, of course, is a lack not easily to be bridged over. It may not be strictly true that the majority of movie producers do not know the interiors of American homes, but there is certainly every indication that they have not caught its spirit, and that their misrepresentation of it is more than a false picture, it is also a most dangerous influence.

It is dangerous to foreigners who gain their most impressive ideas of American life from the stage. It is dangerous to Americans who fancy that the life of the screen is the life that is lived by “the better classes.” If we could map the community mind of whole sections of our cities and trace the impressions of American people, American habits and American standards which those mind-groups hold, we should then see the dangerous misrepresentation which movie producers have given to things American. Falsity, artificiality, criminality and jazz are the keynotes of the mass of screen productions.

American life is bare and meager to the Eastern mind. It is not sensuous enough. It is devoid of intrigue. Its women of the homes do not play continuously and hysterically on the sex motif. It is a life made good and durable by interior qualities of faith and quietness—and these, of course, are ennui and death to the Orientally minded.

There lies the whole secret of the movies’ moral failure: they are not American and their producers are racially unqualified to reproduce the American atmosphere. An influence which is racially, morally and idealistically foreign to America, has been given the powerful projecting force of the motion picture business, and the consequences are what we see.

The purpose of this and succeeding articles is not to lift hands in horror and point out how rotten the movies are. Everybody is doing that. The case against the movies is not contested at all. It is unanimous. Women’s clubs, teachers, newspaper editors, police officers, judges of the courts, ministers or religion, physicians, mothers and fathers—everybody knows just what the movies are.

What all these disgusted groups evidently do not know is this: their protests will be entirely useless until they realize that behind the movies there is another group of definite moral and racial complexion to whom the protest of non-Jews amounts to next to nothing at all, if they can possibly circumvent it.

As the rabbi previously quoted showed, the Jews got what they wanted from the producers as soon as they made their request.

What have the non-Jewish teachers, women’s clubs, newspaper editors, police officers and judges, ministers of religion, physicians, and just plain parents of the rising generation—what have they obtained for all their complaints and protests?

Nothing!

And they can go on beating the air for a lifetime and still obtain no improvement, unless they face the unpleasant racial fact that the movies are Jewish. It is not a question of morals—that question has been settled; it is a question of management.

When the people know who and what is this intangible influence we call the “movies,” the problem may not appear so baffling.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 12 February 1921]

Jewish Supremacy in Motion Picture World

A little “Who’s Who in the Motion Picture Industry” would make a valuable department in the movie theaters’ printed programs, but it is not pleasant to think of what would happen to the manager who should print one. There is a strange confusion in the Jewish mind, a struggle between a desire to remain unidentified and a desire to be known. Sometimes they measure friendship by the depth of the silence about their being Jews; sometimes by the amount of open laudation. To say a man is a Jew is sometimes to be vilified as an “anti-Semite,” and sometimes to be honored as “a friend of our nation.”

In what is said now, the only purpose is to inform “movie fans” of the source of the entertainment which they crave and the destination of the millions of dollars which they spend. When you see millions of people crowding through the doors of the movie houses at all hours of the day and night, literally an unending line of human beings in every habitable corner of the land, it is worth knowing who draws them there, who acts upon their minds while they quiescently wait in the darkened theater, and who really controls this massive bulk of human force and ideas generated and directed by the suggestions of the screen.

Who stands at the apex of this mountain of control? It is stated in the sentence: The motion picture influence of the United States—and Canada—is exclusively under the control, moral and financial, of the Jewish manipulators of the public mind.

Jews did not invent the art of motion photography; they have contributed next to nothing to its mechanical or technical improvement; they have not produced any of the great artists, either writers or actors, which have furnished the screen with its material. Motion photography, like most other useful things in the world, is of non-Jewish origin. But by the singular destiny which has made the Jews the great cream-skimmers of the world, the benefit of it has gone not to the originators, but to the usurpers, the exploiters.

Who is who in the motion picture world? The names of the leading producing companies are widely known: The Famous Players; Selznick; Selwyn; Goldwyn; Fox Film Company; The Jesse L. Lasky Feature Play Company; United Artists’ Corporation; The Universal Film Company; The Metro; Vitagraph; Seligs; Thomas H. Ince Studios; Artcraft; Paramount, and so on.

The Famous Players is headed by Adolph Zukor. Mr. Zukor is a Hungarian Jew. He was a fur dealer in Hester street, and is said to have gone from house to house selling his goods. With his first savings he went into the “nickel” theater business with Marcus Loew. He is still in his forties and immensely wealthy. He is conceded to be the leader of the fifth largest industry in the world—an industry which is really the greatest educational and propagandist device ever discovered.

The reader will not be deceived by the use of the word “educational” in this connection. Movies are educational, but so are schools of crime. It is just because the movies are educational in a menacing way that they come in for scrutiny.

Zukor’s control extends over such well-known names as Famous Players-Lasky Corporation, The Oliver Morosco Photoplay Company, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Artcraft Pictures, all of which have been absorbed within the past five years.

It is commonly supposed that the United Artists’ Corporation is a non-Jewish concern, but according to an article in the American Hebrew, the head of this photoplay aggregation is Hiram Abrams. The United Artists’ Corporation was formed several years ago by the Big Four among the actors—Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin and David Wark Griffith, and notwithstanding the fact that Charlie Chaplin is a Jew, the company was regarded by the public as being non-Jewish. Hiram Abrams is a former Portland, Oregon, newsboy and graduated from that wholesome occupation into the position of manager of a “penny arcade.” He was one of the founders of the Paramount Pictures Corporation, and became its president.

The Fox Film Corporation and the Fox circuit of theaters are under control of another Hungarian Jew who is known to the American public as William Fox. His original name is said to have been Fuchs. He also began his artistic and managerial career by running a “penny arcade.” The penny arcade of 15 and 20 years ago, as most city-bred men will remember, was a “peep show” whose lure was lithographed lewdness but which never yielded quite as much pornography as it promised.

Fifteen years ago William Fox was in the clothes sponging business. He also is still in his early forties, is immensely wealthy, and one of the men who can pretty nearly determine what millions of movie fans shall think about certain fundamental things, what ideas and visions they shall entertain.

Marcus Loew also reached fame via the penny arcade and cheap variety vaudeville routes. He went into pictures and is now said to be the active head of 68 companies in various parts of the world. He is in the neighborhood of 50 years old. Loew controls the Metro Pictures Corporation.

The names of Marcus Loew and Adolph Zukor are closely linked in the history of the movies. Both were in the fur business, and both were partners in the first penny arcade venture. Zukor went the way of pictures exclusively, although he later made investments in Loew’s enterprises, but Loew went into variety and vaudeville of the type which is now to be found in the less desirable burlesque houses. From this he developed great entertainment enterprises which have made him a name and a fortune. The theaters he personally controls now number 105.

At the head of the Goldwyn Film Corporation is Samuel Goldwyn who is described as having been engaged “along mercantile lines” until motion pictures won his attention. In company with Jesse Lasky and Cecil DeMille he organized a $20,000 corporation in 1912. In 1916 he had prospered so greatly that he organized a $20,000,000 corporation with the Shuberts, A. H. Woods and the Selwyns, the purpose of this latter company being to screen the works of prominent non-Jewish writers—a matter of which more will be said presently.

The Universal Film Company, known everywhere through the name of Universal City, its studio headquarters, is under the control of Carl Laemmle. It would seem, from a reading of Who’s Who, that Laemmle was his mother’s name. His father’s name is given as Julius Baruch. He is a Jew of German birth. He was manager of the Continental Clothing Company of Oshkosh until 1906, in which year he branched out into pictures, taking his first stand in a small Chicago motion picture theater. Laemmle conceived the idea of fighting the “trust.” He bought an enormous tract of land near Los Angeles and built Universal City as the headquarters of his production work.

The Select Pictures Corporation is headed by Lewis J. Selznick, who is also head of Selznick Pictures, Incorporated. He was at one time vice-president of the World Film Corporation. With him are associated a number of members of his race.

This is but to name a few. These are the official heads. Penetrate down through the entire organizations, until you come to the last exhibition of the cracked and faded film in some cut-price theater in an obscure part of a great city, and you will find that the picture business, on its commercial side, is Jewish through and through.

In the above notes, reference has been made to the occupations out of which the present arbiters of photo-dramatic art have come to their present eminence. They are former newsboys, peddlers, clerks, variety hall managers and ghetto products. It is not urged against any successful business man that he formerly sold newspapers on the streets, or peddled goods from door to door, or stood in front of a clothing store hailing passers-by to inspect his stock. That is not the point at all. The point is here: men who come from such employments, with no gradations between, with nothing but a commercial vision of “the show business,” can hardly be expected to understand, or, if they understand, to be sympathetic with a view of the picture drama which includes both art and morality.

Mr. Laemmle, it will be remembered from a former article, said of his company, “The Universal does not pose as a guardian of public morals or of public taste.” This is probably the attitude of other producers, too. But though they avoid any responsibility for taste or morals, they consistently fight all attempts of the state to set up a public guardianship in those regions. A business that frankly brutalizes taste and demoralizes morals should not be permitted to be a law unto itself.

It is very difficult to see how the Jewish leaders of the United States can evade the point that Motion Pictures are Jewish. And with this being true, there is the question of responsibility upon which they cannot very well be either impersonal or silent.

The moral side of the movies’ influence need not be discussed here because it is being discussed everywhere else. Everybody who has an active moral sense is convinced as to what is being done and as to what ought to be done.

But the propaganda side of the movies does not so directly declare itself to the public. That the movies are recognized as a tremendous propagandist institution is proved by the eagerness of all sorts of causes to enlist them. It is also proved by the recent threat of a New York “Gentile front,” that the movies themselves could prevent any progress being made in the attempt to save Sunday to the American people.

But who is the propagandist? Not the individual motion picture exhibitor on your street. He doesn’t make the films. He buys his stuff as your grocer buys his canned goods—and has a far narrower margin of choice. He has hardly any choice in the kind of pictures he shall show. In order to get any good pictures that may be distributed, he must take all of the other kind that may be distributed. He is the “market” of the film producers and he must take the good with the bad, or be cut off from getting any.

As a matter of fact, with the “movie bug” so rampant in the country, it is next to impossible to supply enough good pictures for the stimulated and artificial demand. Some people’s appetite calls for two or more pictures a day. If working people, they see a show at noon, and several at night. If shallow-pated wives, they see several in the afternoon and several at night. With all the brains and the skill of the country engaged on the task it would be impossible to supply a fresh drama of quality, hot out of the studios every hour, like bread.

Where the Jewish controllers have overstepped themselves is here: they have overstimulated a demand which they are not able to supply, except with such material as is bound to destroy the demand. Nothing is more dangerous to the motion picture business than the exaggerated appetite for them, and this appetite is whetted and encouraged until it becomes a mania.

Like the saloon business, the movie business is killing itself by killing that quality in its customers on which it was built.

Now, as to propaganda, there is evidence that the Jewish promoters have not overlooked that end of it. This propaganda as at present observed may be described under the following heads:

It consists in silence about the Jew as an ordinary human being. Jews are not shown upon the stage except in unusually favorable situations. Among the scenes offered the public you never see Hester Street or lower Fifth Avenue at noontime. Recall if you have ever seen a large Jewish group scene on general exhibition. After a terrible fire in a clothing factory, the mayor of New York asked a certain motion picture company to prepare a film to be entitled, “The Locked Door,” to show how buildings are turned into firetraps by ignorance and greed. The scenario was written by a fire official who knew the circumstances of many holocausts. As most of the fire victims had been sweatshop girls, the scenario included a sweatshop. The picture was made as true to life as possible, so the head of the sweatshop was depicted as a Hebrew. The gentleman who told this incident to a committee of Congress said: “It was no discredit to the Hebrew race. We all know they have been the fathers of the clothing industry; in fact, they made the first clothes.” But all the same, the picture was declared taboo by Jewish leaders. It broke the cardinal rule of silence about the Jew except when he can be depicted under exceptionally favorable circumstances.

This ill-concealed propaganda of the Jewish movie picture control is also directed against non-Jewish religions. You never saw a Jewish rabbi depicted on the screen in any but a most honorable attitude. He is clothed with all the dignity of his office and he is made as impressive as can be. Christian clergymen, as any movie fan will readily recall, were subjected to all sorts of misrepresentation, from the comic to the criminal. Now, this attitude is distinctly Jewish. Like many unlabeled influences in our life, whose sources lead back to Jewish groups, the object is to break down as far as possible all respectful or considerate thought about the clergy.

The Catholic clergy very soon made themselves felt in opposition to this abuse of their priestly dignity. You never see a priest made light of on the screen. But the Protestant clergyman is still the elongated, sniveling, bilious hypocrite of anti-Christian caricature. More and more the “free love” clergyman is appearing on the screen. He is made to justify his deeds by appeals to “broad” principles—which really kills two birds with one stone: it degrades the representative of religion in the eyes of the audience, and at the same time it insidiously inoculates the audience with the same dangerous ideas.

In the February Pictorial Review, Benjamin B. Hampton, a successful picture producer, throws a sidelight on this. He quotes a poster outside a movie show. The text says:

“‘I refuse to live with you any longer. I denounce you as my wife—I will go the HER—my free-lover.’ Thus speaks the Rev. Frank Gordon in the greatest of all Free-Love dramas.”

You may not depict a Hebrew as owner of a sweatshop—though all sweatshop owners are Hebrews; but you may make a Christian clergyman everything from a seducer to a safe-cracker and get away with it.

There may be no connection whatever, but beholding what is done, and remembering what is written in the Protocols, a question arises. It is written:

“We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by means of education in principles and theories, patently false to us, but which we have inspired.”—Protocol 9.

“We have taken good care long ago to discredit the Gentile clergy.”—Protocol 17.

 “It is for this reason that we must undermine faith, eradicate from the minds of the Gentiles the very principles of God and Soul, and replace these conceptions by mathematical calculations and material desires.”—Protocol 4.

Two possible views are open to choice: one, that this constant caricature of representatives of religion is simply the natural expression of a worldly state of mind; the other, that it is part of a traditional campaign of subversion. The former is the natural view among uninformed people. It would be the preferable view, if peace of mind were the object sought. But there are far too many indications that the second view is justified, to permit of its being cast aside.

The screen, whether consciously or just carelessly, is serving as a rehearsal stage for scenes of anti-social menace. There are no uprisings of revolutions except those that are planned and rehearsed. That is the most modern fruit of the study of history: that revolutions are not spontaneous uprisings, but carefully planned minority actions. Revolution is not natural to the people, and is always a failure. There have been no popular revolutions. Civilization and liberty have been set back by those revolutions which subversive elements have succeeded in starting.

But if you are to have your revolution, you must have a rehearsal. In England, the whole process of sovietizing the country has been set forth on the stage, as in vivid object lessons. In this country they have rehearsals by parades, by starting marches through factories and up to the offices, by importing lecturers who tell just how it was done in Russia, Hungary and elsewhere. But it can be done better in the motion pictures than anywhere else: this is “visual education” such as even the lowest brow can understand, and the lower the better.

Indeed, there is a distinct disadvantage in being “high-brow” in such matters. Normal people shake their heads and pucker their brows and wring their hands and say “we cannot understand it; we simply cannot understand it!” Of course they cannot. But if they understood the low-brow, they would understand it, and very clearly. There are two families in this world, and on one the darkness dwells.

Reformers, of course, heartily agree with this as far as criminal portrayals are concerned. Police protest against the technique of killing a policeman being shown with careful detail on the screen. Business men object to daily object lessons in safe-cracking being given in the pictures. Moralists object to the art of seduction being made the stock motif no matter what the subject. They object because they recognize it as evil schooling which bears bitter fruits in society.

Well, this other kind of education is going on too. There is now nothing connected with violent outbreaks which has not been put into the minds of millions by the agency of the motion picture. It may, of course, be a mere coincidence. But coincidences also are realities.

There are several developments proceeding in screendom which are worthy of notice. One is the increasing use of non-Jewish authors to produce Jewish propaganda. Without using names, it will be easy for each reader to recall for himself the more popular non-Jewish authors whose books have been screened by Jewish producers, and who are soon after announced to have a new photoplay in preparation. In several cases these new photoplays have been sheer Jewish propaganda. They are the more effective because they are backed by non-Jewish names famous in the literary world. Just how this state of affairs comes about it is not possible now to say. How much of it is due to the authors’ desire to enter the field of pro-Semitic propaganda, and how much of it is due to their reluctance to refuse amiable suggestions from movie magnates who have already paid them liberal sums and are likely to pay them more is a question. It is not difficult to bring oneself to believe that “anti-Semitism” is wrong. Everybody knows it is. It is not difficult to bring oneself to an admiration of Israel. Every writer is happy in idealizing an individual or a nation; it is a pleasure to write about an altogether admirable Jewish hero or heroine. And so the non-Jews are writing Jewish propaganda ere they are aware.

The flaw, of course, is here: in avoiding anti-Semitism, they fall into the snare of pro-Semitism. And one is as inconclusive as the other.

Another development is one which movie fans have doubtless noticed: it is the abolition of the “star” system. Readers of this series will recall that it was this same sort of thing which marked Jewish ascendancy in the control of the legitimate stage. Not long ago the full glare of movie publicity was thrown upon names and personalities—the Marys and Charlies and Lulus and Fatties of screen fame. The name was headlined; the star was featured; it did not matter what the theme of the play was—suffice it that it was “a Chaplin film,” or a “Pickford film,” or whatever it might be.

The motion picture “industry” has reached its present importance because of the exaltation of the “star.” But it has its inconveniences, too. Educate the public to demand a star, and that demand will eventually rule the business. Jewish control will not permit that. The way to break the control which the public may exercise through such a demand, is to eliminate the stars. Then all pictures will be on the same plane.

This is occurring now in filmdom. Some of the stars have taken the hint and set up their own studios. But steadily the doctrine is preached throughout fandom that “the play’s the thing,” not the star. You don’t see so many star names before the theaters; you see more and more lurid names of plays. The star is being sidetracked.

There is a triple advantage in this. The bloated salaries of the stars can be eliminated. The public can be deprived of a point on which to focus a demand. Exhibitors can no longer say, “I want this or that,” even within the narrow margin they recently had; they will have no choice because there will be no choice; the business will be a standardized “industry.”

These, then, are some of the facts of the American motion picture world. They are not all the facts, but each of them is important. Not one can be overlooked by students of the influence of the theater. Many a perplexed observer of everyday affairs will find in these facts a key which explains many things.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 19 February 1921]

Rule of the Jewish Kehillah Grips New York

Are the Jews organized? Do they consciously pursue a program which on one side is pro-Semitic and on the other anti-Gentile? How can a group so numerically inferior wield so large an influence upon the majority of the world?

These are questions which have been asked and which can be answered. The clan solidarity of the Jew, the ramifications of his organizations, the specific purpose which he has in view, are themes upon which there is any amount of “say so,” but very little authoritative statement. It may therefore be useful and informing to study one or two of the more important Jewish organizations in the United States.

There are Jewish lodges, unions and societies whose names are well known to the public, and which seem to be the counterpart of similar groups among the non-Jewish population, but those are not the groups upon which to focus attention. Within and behind them is the central group, the inner government, whose ruling is law, and whose act is the official expression of Jewish purpose.

Two organizations, both of which are as notable for their concealment as for their power, are the New York Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee. By concealment is meant the fact that they exist in such important numbers and touch vitally so many points of American life, without their presence being suspected.

If a vote of New York could be taken today it is doubtful if one per cent of the non-Jewish population could say that it had ever heard of the New York Kehillah, yet the Kehillah is the most potent factor in the political life of New York today. It has managed to exist and mold and remold the life of New York, and very few people are the wiser. If the Kehillah is mentioned in the press, it is most vaguely, and the impression is, when there is any impression at all, that it is a Jewish social organization like all the rest.

The Kehillah of New York is of importance to Americans everywhere because of two facts: it not only offers a real and complete instance of a government within a government in the midst of America’s largest city, but it also constitutes through its executive committee District XII of the American Jewish Committee, through which pro-Jewish and anti-Gentile propaganda is operated and Jewish pressure brought to bear against certain American ideas. That is to say, the Jewish government of New York constitutes the essential part of the Jewish government of the United States.

Both of these societies began at about the same time. The records of the Kehillah state that the immediate occasion of its organization was to make a protest against the statement by General Bingham, then police commissioner of the City of New York, that 50 per cent of the crime of the metropolis was committed by Jews. There had been a government investigation into the “White Slave Traffic,” the result of which was a direct set of public opinion into channels uncomplimentary to the Jewish name, and a defensive movement was begun. There is no intention to rake up past scandals, unless it shall become necessary; it is enough to say here that, very soon afterward, General Bingham disappeared from public life, and a national magazine of power and influence which had embarked on a series of articles setting forth the government’s findings in the White Slave investigation was forced to discontinue after the printing of the first article. This was in the year 1908. The American Jewish Committee, to whose influence the Kehillah really owes its existence, came into being in 1906.

The word “Kehillah” has the same meaning as “Kahal,” which signifies “community,” “assembly” or government. It represents the Jewish form of government in the dispersion. That is to say, since destiny has made the Jews wanderers of the earth, they have organized their own government so that it might function regardless of the governments which the so-called “Gentiles” have set up. In the Babylonian captivity, in Eastern Europe today, the Kahal is the power and protectorate to which the faithful Jew looks for government and justice. The Peace Conference established the Kahal in Poland and Rumania. The Kahal itself is establishing its courts in the city of New York. The Kahal issues laws, judges legal cases, issues divorces—the Jews who appeal thereto preferring Jewish justice to the justice of the courts of the land. It is, of course, an agreement among themselves to be so governed; just as citizenship in the United States assumes an agreement to be governed by institutions provided for that purpose.

The New York Kehillah is the largest and most powerful union of Jews in the world. The center of Jewish world power has been transferred to that city. That is the meaning of the heavy migration of Jews all over the world toward New York. It is to them what Rome is to the devout Catholic and what Mecca is to the Mohammedan. And by that same token, immigrant Jews are more freely admitted to the United States than they are to Palestine.

The Kehillah is a perfect answer to the statement that the Jews are so divided among themselves as to render a concert of action impossible. That is one of the statements made for Gentile consumption, that the Jews are hopelessly divided among themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have had opportunity during recent weeks to see and hear for themselves that when an anti-Gentile purpose is in view, Jews of all classes make the same threats and the same boasts. They are either going to “get” somebody, or they have “got” somebody.

A recent Jewish writer attempted to raise a laugh about the very idea of the members of the Jewish needle-workers’ unions of New York having anything in common with the needle-work bosses. He made his attempt in confidence that the public knew little or nothing about the Kehillah. But the public can find all groups and all interests in that body, for there they meet as Jews. The capitalist and the Bolshevik, the rabbi and the union leader, the strikers and the employers struck against, are all united under the flag of Judah. Touch the conservative capitalist who is a Jew, and the red anarchist who is also a Jew will spring to his defense. It may be that sometimes they love each other less, but altogether they hate the non-Jew more, and that is their common bond.

The Kehillah is an alliance, more offensive than defensive, against the “Gentiles.” The majority of the membership of the New York Kehillah is of an extremely radical character, those seething hundreds of thousands who carefully organized on the East Side the government which was to take over the Russian Empire, even choosing in the Jewish Quarter of New York the Jew who was to succeed the Czar—and yet, in spite of this character of membership, it is officered by Jews whose names stand high in government, judiciary, the law and banking.

It is a strange and really magnificent spectacle which the Kehillah presents, of a people of one racial origin, with a vivid belief in itself and its future, disregarding its open differences, to combine privately in a powerful organization for the racial, material and religious advancement of its own race to the exclusion of all others.

The Kehillah has mapped New York just as the American Jewish Committee has mapped the United States. The city of New York is divided into 18 Kehillah districts which comprise a total of 100 Kehillah neighborhoods, in accordance with the population. The Kehillah District Boards administer Kehillah affairs in their respective districts in accordance with the policy and rules laid down by the central governing body.

Practically every Jew in New York belongs to one or more lodges, secret societies, unions, orders, committees or federations. The list is a prodigious one. The purposes interlace and the methods dovetail in such a manner as to bring every phase of New York life not only under the watchful eye, but under the swift and powerful action of experienced compulsion upon public affairs.

At the meeting which organized the Kehillah a number of sentiments were expressed which are worthy of consideration today. Judah L. Magnes, then rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, chairman of the meeting, set forth the plan.

“A central organization like that of the Jewish Community of New York City is necessary to create a Jewish public opinion,” he said.

Rabbi Asher was loudly applauded when he said:

“American interests are one, Jewish interests are another thing.”

The delegates at this meeting represented 222 Jewish societies, as follows: 74 synagogues, 18 charitable societies, 42 mutual benefit societies, 40 lodges, 12 educational societies, 9 communal federations, 9 literary and musical societies, 9 Zionist societies and 9 religious societies.

At a meeting somewhat more than a year later the number of organizations under the jurisdiction of the Kehillah aggregated 688. These included 238 constituent organizations, 133 congregations, 58 lodges, 44 educational and benevolent societies, and 3 federations. These three federations were made up of 450 societies.

The affiliation now numbers more than 1,000 organizations.

The Kehillah has produced a map of New York City on which the varying densities of the Jewish population are represented by varying densities of shade. In order to comprehend the power of the Kehillah, the Jewish population of New York must be considered. Three years ago, according to Jewish figures (there are no others) there were 1,500,000 Jews in the city alone. Since that time the number has considerably increased—even the Government of the United States cannot say how much.

In 1917-18 the Jews resident in the five boroughs of New York City were estimated—again by Jewish officials—as follows:

Manhattan, 696,000; Brooklyn, 568,000; Bronx, 211,000; Queens, 23,000; Richmond, 5,000; making a total of 1,503,000.

The Kehillah districts form distinct and segregated parts of the City’s population, and are 18 in number. These 18 in turn comprise 100 neighborhoods, or little ghettos. The districts, with the number of neighborhoods in each, are represented in the following table:

Neighborhoods

No. 1.	North Bronx District	7
No. 2.	South Bronx District	7
No. 3.	West Side and Harlem District	7
No. 4.	East Harlem District	7
No. 5.	Yorkville District	5
No. 6.	Central Manhattan District	4
No. 7.	Tompkins Square District	6
No. 8.	Delancey District	8
No. 9.	East Broadway District	8
No. 10.	Williamsburg District	7
No. 11.	Bushwick District	6
No. 12.	Central Brooklyn District	6
No. 13.	Brownsville District	6
No. 14.	East New York District	7
No. 15.	Borough Park District	6
No. 16.	West Queens District	1
No. 17.	East Queens District	1
No. 18.	Richmond District	1

Districts such as the Delancey Street and East Broadway sections cover the Great Ghetto of the East Side, while the West Side and Harlem Districts represent the neighborhoods which are the residential goals of the prosperous Jews of New York.

It has been stated that there are districts in which the density of Jewish population is more than 300,000 per square mile, which is more than 2,150 to the usual square city block. There are 19 neighborhoods in which the density is more than 200,000 to the square mile (1,430 to the square block); and 36 neighborhoods in which the density is more than 100,000 to the square mile (715 to the square block).

The average density of the general population for New York City both Jewish and non- Jewish, in 1915, was about 16,000 to the square mile, or 107 to the square block. More than one-third of the Jews, about 38 per cent, that is, 570,000 Jews, live on one per cent of the area of New York. If all New York’s population were as dense as is the Jewish population of the congested districts, the City would have almost as many inhabitants as the whole United States, or about 95,000,000.

These figures dimly portray the overcrowding which has resulted from the terrific influx of Russian-Polish Jews of the ghetto type, who have settled in the Metropolis and steadfastly refused to go any farther, resulting in problems which are probably unparalleled in the history of civilization.

Yet it is out of such conditions that the far-reaching power of the Kehillah is derived.

When the aggressive program of the Kehillah to make New York a Jewish city, and through New York the United States a Jewish country, was announced, some of the more conservative Jews of New York were timorous. They did not expect that the American people would stand for it. They thought the American people would immediately understand what was afoot and oppose it. There were others who doubted whether the same Kehillah authority could here be wielded over the Jews as was wielded in the old country ghettos. As an official of the Kehillah wrote:

“There were those who doubted the ultimate success of this new venture in Jewish organization. They based their lack of belief on the fact that no governmental authority could possibly be secured; in other words, that the Kehillah of New York could not hope to wield the same power, based on governmental coercion, as the Kehillahs of the Old World.”

There is much in that paragraph to indicate the status of the Kehillah in Jewish life. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of adult Jews in New York lived under the Kehillahs of the Old World, whose power was based on coercion, and you have an interesting situation.

What the doubt consisted in, however, is not as stated there. No doubt existed as to what it would be possible to do with the Jews. The entire doubt consisted in how far the Americans would let the thing go on. The program of the Kehillah was ostensibly “to assert Jewish rights.” No Jewish rights have ever been interfered with in America. The expression is a euphemism for a campaign to interfere with non-Jewish rights.

Just how the free exercise of American rights by an American may be construed and is construed by the Jew to be an interference with his rights, will be shown in a separate article.

The doubters felt that when the Jews began to make such demands as that Christmas carols should be suppressed in the schools, as “offensive to the Jews”; and that Christmas trees should be banished from police stations in poor neighborhoods as “offensive to the Jews”; and that the Easter holidays should be abolished as “offensive to the Jews”; and that the phrase, “a Christian gentleman” should be protested everywhere, as “offensive to the Jews”;—the business class of Jews felt that the American would not stand for it.

The American has never interfered with any man’s religious observances; would he stand to have his own prohibited in his own institutions and in his own country?

However, the Jews’ misgivings were not justified. The Americans made no protest. The Kehillah went ahead with its campaign and the native population submitted. New York is Jewish. From the City Hall to the Bowery, from Fifth Avenue to Hester street, in board of education, newspaper row, and courts of justice, New York is Jewish. It is actually an offense, an offense speedily though unofficially punished, to intimate in any public way that New York may possibly be other than Jewish. New York is the answer to those who ask, “How can a numerically inferior group dictate the terms of life for all the rest?” Go into a New York school, and see. Go into a New York court, and see. Go into a New York newspaper office, and see. Stand anywhere in New York, and see.

But with it all one gets a sense of the insecurity of this usurpation of power. It doesn’t belong to those who have seized it; it doesn’t belong either by right of numbers, or by right of superior ability, or yet by right of a better use made of the power thus taken. They have taken it by audacity; they have taken it in such a way as to make resentment of it seem like an anti-racial movement—and that is why they have held it as long as they have.

That is the only way to explain the meekness of the American in this matter, and it also accounts for the sense of insecurity which even the Jews feel in the position they hold. The American is the slowest person in the world to act on any line that savors of racial or religious prejudice. Even when his justifiable act is taken without the slightest prejudice, he is extremely sensitive even to the charge that he is prejudiced. This makes for a seeming aloofness from matters like the Jewish Question. This also leads men to sign protests against “anti-Semitism” which are really designed to be protests against the publication of Jewish facts.

But it would be a serious mistake to believe that the Americans have accepted within their minds the fact of Jewish supremacy in any field, for they have not. And the Jews know that they have not. Present Jewish importance in American affairs threatens to become as precarious as Bolshevik rule in Russia; it may fall at any time. The Jews have overplayed their hand. They have threatened too wildly and boasted too loudly. The very weight of the importance of the Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee is to be one of the factors in the fall. The Jews may live among us, but they may not live upon us.

These things are better known to the Jew than to the non-Jew, for the Jew knows the Jewish Question better than anyone else, and he knows better than any Gentile when a statement hits the bull’s-eye of the truth. The American Jews are not now protesting against lies; they would welcome lies against themselves; they are roused to protest by the power of the truth, and they are the best judges of the truth with reference to themselves.

The situation is not one that calls for expulsion, or resistance, but simply exposure to the light—for to vanquish darkness, what is better than light?

The Jews had a great opportunity in the New York Kehillah. They had an opportunity to say to the world, “This is what the Jew can do for a city when he is given freedom to work.” They have the city government, the police department, the health department, the school board, the newspapers, the judiciary, financiers—every element of power.

And what have they to show for all this? The answer is,—New York.

New York is an object lesson set in the sight of the whole world, as to what the Jew can do and will do when he exalts himself to the seat of rule. It is inconceivable that even the Jewish spokesmen will defend Jewish New York.

Lest the New York Kehillah—in view of statements yet to be made concerning it—should be disregarded, or its importance minimized, by the feeling that, after all, it only represents the more radical elements, “the apostate Jews” which seems to be a recent favorite designation for them, a partial view is here given of its leaders.

Present at the 1918 convention were Jacob H. Schiff, banker; Louis Marshall, lawyer, president of the American Jewish Committee and frequent visitor to Washington; Otto A. Rosalsky, judge of the General Sessions Court, who has taken part in several affairs of interest both to Jews and Gentiles; Adolph S. Ochs, proprietor of the New York Times; Otto H. Kahn, of the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company—AND—Benjamin Schlesinger, who is lately returned from Moscow where he had a conference with Lenin; Joseph Schlossberg, general secretary of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, with 177,000 members; Max Pine, also recently a consultant with the Bolshevik rulers of Russia; David Pinski; Joseph Barondess, labor leader.

The high and the low are here; Judge Mack, who headed the War Risk Insurance Bureau of the United States Government, and the little leader of the reddest group in the East End—they all meet in the Kehillah, as Jews.

As to the Kehillah being officially representative, it may be added that the Kehillah has in it representatives of the Central Conference of American rabbis, Eastern Council of Reform rabbis, Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, Independent Order of B’rith Sholom, Independent Order Free Sons of Israel, Independent Order B’rith Abraham, Federation of American Zionists—othodox Jews, reform Jews, “apostate Jews,” Zionist Jews, Americanized Jews, rich Jews, poor Jews, law-abiding Jews and red revolutionary Jews—Adolph Ochs of the great New York Times, together with the most feverish scribbler on a Yiddish weekly that calls for blood and violence—Jacob Schiff who was a devoutly religious Jew of strong faith and obedience, and Otto H. Kahn, of the same banking house, who professes another religion—all of them, of all classes, bound together in that solidarity which has been achieved by no other people so perfectly as by Judah.

And these are banded together for the purpose of “protecting Jewish rights.” From what? If Americans were not large in their liberal-mindedness the very statement of purpose would be an offense. Who in this country is interfering with anyone’s rights? The American wants to know, for that is the kind of thing he wants to put down, and always has put down, and will put down again wherever or from whatever quarter it arises. Therefore it will occur to him sooner or later to demand particulars of these rights that need protection, and from what they need to be protected.

What rights have Americans that Jews in America do not possess? Against whom are the Jews organized, and against what?

What basis is there for the cry of “persecution”? None whatever, except the Jews’ own consciousness that the course they are pursuing is due for a check. The Jews always know that. They are not in the stream of the world, and every little while the world finds out what Judah always knows.

Rabbi Elias L. Solomon has been quoted as saying:

“There is no thinking Jew outside of America whose eyes are not turned toward this country. The freedom enjoyed by the Jews in America is not the outcome of emancipation purchased at the cost of national suicide, but the natural product of American civilization.”

Of course. Then where is the “protection” needed? What are the “rights” which the Kehillahs of this country are organized to “defend”? What are the meanings of these committees in every city and town of the land, spying upon American activities and bringing protests to bear to keep those activities within well-defined channels acceptable to the Jews?

These questions have never been answered by the Jewish spokesmen. Let them prepare a Bill of Rights, as they conceive their rights to be. Let them name every right they desire and claim. They have never done so. Why? Because the rights they dare name in public are such as they already possess in abundance, and further, because the rights that in their hearts they most desire are such that they cannot state to the American public.

A Jewish Bill of Rights, such as could be published, would be met by the American people thus: “Why, you have all these things already. What more do you want?” And that is the question which lies at the core of the entire Jewish Problem—What more do they want?

A further penetration of Kehillah activities may help to answer that question.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 26 February 1921]

The Jewish Demand for “Rights” in America

During the twelve years of its existence the New York Kehillah has grown in power and influence until today it includes practically the entire Jewish population in its operations. Among its direct or affiliated leaders and supporters are the owners of powerful newspapers, officials in the state, Federal and city administration; influential officeholders on public boards, such as the department of health, the board of education and the police department; members of the judiciary; financiers and heads of banking houses, mercantile and manufacturing establishments, many of which exert a controlling influence in certain industries and financial combinations.

But the New York Kehillah is more than a local organization. It is the pattern and parent Jewish community in the United States, the visible entourage of the Jewish government, the dynamo which motivates those “protests” and “mass meetings” which are frequently heralded throughout the country, and the arsenal of that kind of dark power which the Jewish leaders know so well how to use. Incidentally, it is also the “whispering gallery,” where the famous whispering drives are originated and set in motion and made to break in lying publicity over the country.

The people of the United States have a deeper interest than they realize in the New York Kehillah.

The liaison between this center of Jewish power and the affairs of the people of the United States is made by the American Jewish Committee. The Committee and the Kehillah are practically identical as far as the national Jewish program is concerned. It may be added that through their foreign associations they are also identical as far as the world program is concerned.

The United States is divided into 12 parts by the American Jewish Committee. The remark that this division is after the Twelve Tribes of Israel may be disregarded. Suffice it to say that every state belongs to a district, and that District No. XII includes New York, and that the District Committee of District No. XII is chosen by the New York Kehillah, and is by weight of wealth, authority and continuous effort in behalf of Judah justly recognized as the center of Jewish power in America, and it may be in the world also. This committee, some of the names of whose members are impressive, represents the focusing point of the religious, racial, financial and political will of Jewry. This committee, it should be remembered, is also the executive committee of the New York Kehillah. New York Jewry is the dynamo of the national Jewish machinery. Its national instrument is the American Jewish Committee.

There are certain announced purposes of these associations, and there are certain purposes which are not announced. The announced purposes may be read in printed pages; the purposes not announced may be read in the records of attempted acts and achieved results. To keep the record straight let us look first at the announced purposes of the American Jewish Committee, then of the Kehillah; next at the line which binds the two together; and then at the real purposes as they are construed from a long list of attempts and achievements.

The American Jewish Committee, organized in 1906, announced itself as incorporated for the following purposes:

1. To prevent the infraction of the civil and religious rights of the Jews in any part of the world.

2. To render all lawful assistance and to take appropriate remedial action in event of threatened or actual invasion or restriction of such rights, or of unfavorable discrimination with respect thereto.

3. To secure for the Jews equality of economic, social and educational opportunities.

4. To alleviate the consequences of persecution wherever they may occur, and to afford relief from calamities affecting Jews.

It will thus be seen to be an exclusively Jewish program. There is nothing reprehensible about it. If it meant only what it said, and was observed only as to its ostensible purpose, it would be not only unobjectionable but commendable.

The charter of the Kehillah empowers it, among other things, to establish an educational bureau, to adjust differences between Jewish residents or organizations by arbitration or by means of boards of mediation or conciliation; while the Constitution announces the purpose to be:

“to further the cause of Judaism in New York City and to represent the Jews in this city with respect to all local matters of Jewish interest.”

Where the American Committee and the Kehillah join forces is shown as follows:

“Furthermore, inasmuch as the American Jewish Committee was a national organization, the Jewish Community (Kehillah) of New York City, if combined with it, would have a voice in shaping the policy of Jewry throughout the land.

1. It is expressly understood that the American Jewish Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all questions of a national or international character affecting the Jews generally.

2. The membership of the American Jewish Committee is to be increased, so that the Twelfth District shall have allotted to it 25 members.

3. These 25 members are to be elected by the Jewish Committee (Kehillah) of New York City.

4. These 25 men shall at the same time constitute the Executive Committee of the Community (Kehillah).

It will be seen, therefore, that the Kehillah and the principal body of the American Jewish Committee are one. The capital of the United States, in Jewish affairs, is New York. Perhaps that may throw a sidelight on the desperate efforts which are being continually made to exalt New York as the spring and source of all the thoughts worth while today. New York, the Jewish capital of the United States, has also been sought to be made the financial center, the art center, the political center of the country. But its art is Aphrodite, Mecca and Afgar; its politics are those of a Judaized Tammany. Tell it not to the American Jewish Committee, nor yet to the Kehillah, but let all Americans know that most of the United States lies west of New York. The country has come to view that strip of Eastern coast as a miasmatic place whence rises the fetid drivel of all that is subversive in public thought. It is the home of anti-American propaganda, of pro-Jewish hysteria, a mad confusion of mind that passes in some quarters as a picture of America. But America is west of the “metropolis”; New York is an unassimilated province on the outskirts of the nation.

As nine-tenths of all the Jews in the United States live in allegiance to organizations which look to the American Jewish Committee as their overlord, the influence of the New York Kehillah on the nation is not hard to measure. In every town, large and small, even where the Jewish community consists of a few, 30 or 75 souls, there is a leading Jew, be he rabbi, merchant or public officeholder, who is in constant touch with headquarters. What is done in New Orleans or Los Angeles or Kansas City is known in New York with surprising dispatch.

Incidentally, it would interest some clergymen to know that their names are listed among those who can be depended on to play the Jewish hand whenever required.

Now, the public statement of purpose on the part of these Jewish bodies has just been shown. It is seen that the protection of Jewish rights is the ostensible program—against which no one can say a word. Perhaps the term “Jewish rights” is unfortunately chosen. If Jewish rights coincide with American rights, then more than the Jews are protecting them—the whole American nation is engaged in that work.

But it is not true that “Jewish rights” are the same as “American rights.” Unfortunately the Jews have adopted an attitude which could only have sprung from the belief that it is a “Jewish right” to Judaize the United States.

This is one of the dangerous doctrines being preached today, and most assiduously by Jews and those who have been influenced by Jewish thought, namely, that the United States is not any definite thing as yet, but that it is yet to be made, and it is still the prey of whatever power can seize it and mold it to its liking. It is a favorite Jewish view that the United States is a great unshapen mass of potentiality, of no particular character which is yet to be given its definite form. It is in the light of this view that Jewish activity must be interpreted.

That doctrine with which so large a mass of Americans are inoculated is making havoc with the whole Americanization program today. It is “broadening” America out of all semblance to its distinctive self and blurring those determining ideals and ideas on which American institutions are based. The attempt, first to give the people to understand that the United States is “nothing particular” as yet, and second to make it something different spiritually from what it has always been, is peculiarly agreeable to the philosophy which sways the internationally-minded Hebrew. We are not making Americans; we are permitting foreigners to be educated in the theory that America is a free-for-all, the prize of whatever fantastic foreign political theory may seize it.

There you have the secret of the great refusal of the foreign population to change themselves into conformity with America; why should they, when they are taught that America may be changed into conformity with them?

It is time to limit our “broad-mindedness” until it will fit within the limits of the Constitution and the traditions which made America what it is—the desired haven, even in preference to Palestine, of all the Jews and every other race.

So, then, what is the conception of “Jewish rights” which the Kehillah and the

American Jewish Committee are organized to defend? It is only by deductions from the acts of these bodies that the answer can be formulated.

In the Jewish records for the year 5668 (1907-1908) we read:

“Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the year in America has been the demand in certain quarters for the complete secularization of the public institutions of the country, what may be deemed the demand of the Jews for their full constitutional rights.”

Let the reader notice that the only time he finds the religious note struck in this series of studies of International Jewish activity, it is struck by the Jews. Honest non-Jews have been nonplussed by the Jewish charge that any scrutiny of Jewish action is “religious persecution,” even when religion has never been thought of or mentioned. The explanation is not far to seek. In the above quotation the religious note is struck at once: the “full constitutional rights” of Jews demands that we effect “the complete secularization of the public institutions of the country.”

That is worth thinking of. But to continue the quotation:

“Justice Brewer’s article asserting that this is a Christian country has been challenged more than once, and the idea was formally combated in papers by Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, of New York, Isaac Hassler, of Philadelphia, and Rabbi Ephraim Frisch, of Little Rock, Arkansas.

“The legal and theoretical argument was supplemented in a practical way by widespread opposition to Bible readings and Christmas carols in public schools, an opposition specifically decided upon by the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

“In New York the agitation against the carols produced a counter-demonstration in their favor, and the matter seems to have been left to the discretion of the individual teacher.

 “In Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Paul and maybe elsewhere, there were similar movements and counter-movements, and the question may yet return to plague us.”

There you have, in officially authorized Jewish statement, what the Jews conceive to be a part of their Jewish rights.

A careful examination of the intensive propaganda conducted by the Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee will not only reveal that the whole United States is considered to be the legitimate field for Jewish interference, but also that a very wide diversity of “rights” is insisted upon by them.

In dozens of states and hundreds of towns and cities this program has been plied, but always with too little publicity to appraise the people what is going on. In any number of cases the Jews win their contentions because of the local pressure they are able to produce, usually by their very forehanded way of selecting and obligating public officials. In other instances they have lost, but every loss they credit to a beginning of their “educational” campaign. A loss enables them to “teach a lesson” to somebody by means of a boycott or a changed attitude on the part of the local bank, or in some other way equally effective in creating “the fear of the Jews.”

The Jews have evidently convinced themselves that the Constitution of the United States entitles them to change the character of many of the time-honored practices obtaining here, and if this is true, American citizens should take cognizance of these things and prepare to adjust themselves to further changes. If they do not take kindly to further changes at the behest of Jewry, they owe it to themselves to know what the Jewish program is, that they may meet it with a higher type of weapon than that to which the Jew naturally resorts.

It is intended in this and the following article to indicate, by the actual program, what the real objective of Jewry is in the United States. When you collect and summarize all the demands that have been made by the New York Kehillah alone, you gain an idea of what is afoot. A few of these demands are referred to now, subject to further illustration in another article.

1. The unrestricted admission of Jewish immigration to this country from any part of the world.

Heads of Kehillah labor unions in New York demand that the Jews in Europe be exempted from the operation of whatever American immigration law may be passed. The Kehillah is many times on record to this effect. No matter where the Jews may come from—Russia, Poland, Syria, Arabia or Morocco—they are to be let in no matter who may be kept out.

Note: As one pursues the study of “Jewish rights,” the quality of “exemption” seems to appear in most of them. Nowhere do the Jews proclaim their separateness as a people more than in their unceasing demands that they be treated differently than any other people and given privileges that no other people would dream of asking.

2. The official recognition by City, State and Federal governments of the Jewish

Religion.

The Kehillah in its reports describes its efforts to obtain special recognition of Jewish holidays, in some cases going so far as to demand the continuance of pay to public employees who absent themselves at Yom Kippur, at the same time, opposing the continuance of pay to Catholic public employees who desired to observe the chief Lenten days. This is a peculiarly inconsistent form of the demand for “exemption” which has led to some interesting situations, to be dealt with later.

3. The suppression of all references to Christ by City, State and Federal authorities, in public documents or at public gatherings.

Kehillah records show that the Jews of Oklahoma addressed a petition to the convention which formulated the first state constitution, protesting that the acknowledgement of Christ in the instrument would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. The record also shows that a Jewish rabbi protested against a governor of Arkansas using “a Christological expression” in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

4. Official recognition of the Jewish Sabbath.

The educational, cultural, business and industrial life of the United States is regulated with reference to Sunday as the legal day of rest. For over ten years the Kehillah has sought legislative recognition for Saturday. In the absence of official recognition, however, much public business is held up on account of jurors and others refusing to serve on Saturday. Jewish lawyers in the trial of cases are frequently “ill” on Saturdays. There is, of course, no objections to Jews recognizing their own Sabbath. This is their American privilege. But to make their Sabbath the Sabbath of all the people is another question. The Jews’ chief objection to the observance of Sunday is that it is “a Christological manifestation.”

5. The right of the Jews in this country to keep open their stores, factories and theatres, and to trade and work on the Christian Sunday.

The Kehillah, through the Jewish Sabbath Alliance (Rabbi Bernard Drachman, president), is “promoting the observance of the Holy Sabbath in every possible way,” through propaganda made to promote Sabbath sentiment, and the distribution of circulars and pamphlets to the Yiddish populations of New York City. Sabbath sentiment is unobjectionable, but it becomes anti-Sunday sentiment. The Sunday laws of the city are, therefore, often broken. Much agitation and ill feeling result. Kehillah records are full of the disagreeable conditions which this demand promotes.

6. Elimination of Christmas celebrations in public schools and public places, police stations, and so on, public displays of Christmas trees, singing of Christmas carols and Christian hymns.

Kehillah compelled the Council of University Settlement in New York City to adopt a resolution that in holiday celebrations held annually by the Kindergarten Association, Christmas trees, a Christmas program for celebration and the singing of Christmas songs be eliminated.

Kehillah records show that Jews petitioned the Chicago School Board, demanding that sectarian teachings in public schools and the singing of Christian hymns be discontinued.

Also that at the demand of a Jewish rabbi, three public school principals were compelled to omit all Christmas celebrations and the use of the Christmas tree in public schools.

7. The removal from office or prosecution of all public persons who criticize the Jewish race, even where such action is in the public interest.

Judge Otto A. Rosalsky, member of the Kehillah, announces that he will try to put through a bill for the prosecution of all persons who criticize the Jewish race.

Kehillah leaders at public meeting condemn City Magistrate Cornell for criticizing the East Side Yiddish Community because of the increase in criminality of Jewish youth, and demand his impeachment.

Leaders of New York Jewry succeed in having Police Commissioner Bingham removed from office by the Mayor because of his criticism of criminality among Russian-Polish Jews of New York City.

8. The establishment of Bet Dins, or Jewish courts, in public courthouses.

The Kehillah has succeeded in the establishment of a Bet Din in the Criminal Courts Building, New York, at which there presides the Rev. Dr. Aaron A. Yudelovitch, Chief Rabbi of the United States.

Kehillah records show that prominent Jews of Jersey City, Paterson, Newark, Bayonne and Hoboken have organized to establish Bet Dins in New Jersey.

9. The right to eliminate from all schools and colleges all literature that is objected to by Jews.

Kehillah records show that Jews have prohibited the reading of the “Merchant of Venice” and Lamb’s “Tales from Shakespeare” from schools throughout the country, including those in Galveston and El Paso, Texas; Cleveland, Ohio, and Youngstown, Ohio.

At the present time a cleaning of public library shelves is proceeding in a number of cities to prevent the public securing books which public money has bought—the objection to the books being that they discuss Jews as they are. All books in praise of Jews are spared.

10. Prohibition of the term “Christian” or the use of the phrase “state, religion and nationality” in any public advertisement, as being an invasion of Jewish rights and a discrimination against Jews.

Louis Marshall, as president of the American Jewish Committee, obtained apologies from Charles M. Schwab, as director of the United States Shipping Board; Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank and head of the Liberty Loan Committee; Secretary McAdoo and Secretary of War Baker, because of the use of the term “Christian” in help wanted advertisements inserted in newspapers by their subordinates.

The Jews succeeded in obtaining the withdrawal of the Junior Plattsburg Manual, used by students in officers’ training camps, because it contained the phrase “the ideal officer is a Christian gentleman,” which the Jews construed to be an infringement of their rights.

The Kehillah in its report for 1920 stated that several important New York newspapers, having been informed by it that the term “Christian” had appeared in the help wanted advertisements of mercantile firms, the owners of the newspapers sent in their apologies, and promised stricter censorship in the future.

The Jews do not consider the use of the term “Jews” in help wanted advertisements as discrimination against non-Jews, and Jewish mercantile houses continue its use in their advertisements in the New York Times and other Jewish-owned dailies.

These are “Jewish rights” as they are indicated by Jewish demands. But they are by no means all; they are merely typical of all the so-called “rights” and all the insistent demands.

To go still further: the Kehillah condemned the use of the term “Americanization,” because of the implication that there is no distinction between “Americanization” and “Christianization.” “Americanization” is claimed by Jews to be a mere cloak for proselytizing.

The Kehillah is behind demands on public funds for the support of Jewish educational, charitable, correctional and other institutions. One important point about the great influx of Jewish immigration is that tens of thousands of these people come from lands where Jewish government has been established by order of the Peace Conference, and where public funds supported Jewish activities. Their attitude toward America in this respect may therefore be accurately gauged.

It is a common practice in New York for the Jews to force themselves into juries which try Jewish cases. Jewish law students, with which the city swarms, “work their way through college” partly or wholly by jury duty.

Another “Jewish right” is that the Associated Press shall print what the Jews want printed and in exactly the tone the Jews desire. This is perhaps one of the factors in the loss of luster on the part of the Associated Press of late years, the feeling that it is too much under the influence of certain groups, which are not non-Jewish groups.

Newspapermen all sense this; A.P. men throughout the country sense it; but they express it in newspaper terms; they say “The A.P. gives a New York coloring to everything.” But the ingredients of the New York coloring are 85 per cent Jewish.

From a survey of the demands, these appear to be some of the “Jewish rights” which the Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee are organized to secure. And how far they say they have succeeded, we shall next see.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 5 March 1921]

“Jewish Rights” Clash With American Rights

It is well that the public should understand that the present study of the Jewish Question in the United States is not based upon religious differences. The religious element does not enter except when it is injected by the Jews themselves. And it is injected in three ways: First, in their allegation that any study of the Jews is “religious persecution”; second, by their own records of what their activities in the United States consist of; third, by the impression which is very misleading if not corrected, that the Jews are the Old Testament people of the Old Testament religion which is so highly regarded in the Christian world. The Jews are not the Old Testament people, and the Old Testament, their Bible, can be found among them only with difficulty. They are a Talmudical people who have preferred the volumes of rabbinical speculation to the words of their ancient Prophets.

The note of religion does not enter this discussion until the Jews place it there. In this series of articles we have set aside every non-Jewish statement on this question, and have accepted only that which proceeds from recognized Jewish sources. It has been more than a surprise, in studying the proceedings of the New York Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee and their affiliated organizations, as represented by their activities throughout the country, to learn how large a part of these activities have a religious bearing, as being directly and combatively anti-Christian.

That is to say, when the Jews set forth in the public charters and constitutions of their organizations that their only purpose is to “protect Jewish rights,” and when the public asks what are these “Jewish rights” which need protection in this free country, the answer can be found only in the actions which the Jews take to secure that “protection.” The actions interpret the words. And thus interpreted, “Jewish rights” seem to be summed up in the “right” to banish everything from their sight and hearing that even suggests Christianity or its Founder. It is just there, from the Jewish side, that religious intolerance makes its appearance.

What follows in the course of this article is nothing less nor more than a group of citations from Jewish records covering a number of years. It is given here partly as an answer to the charge that this series of articles is “religious persecution,” and partly to help interpret by official actions the official Jewish program in the United States.

An important factor is that previous to the formation of the Kehillah and the Jewish Committee, this sort of attack on the rights of Americans was sporadic, but since 1906 it has increased in number and insistence. Heretofore it has gone unheeded by the public as a whole because of our general tolerance in this country, but from this time forth the country will possess information that what it has been tolerating is intolerance itself. Under cover of the ideal of Liberty we have given certain people liberty to attack liberty. We ought at least to know when that is being done.

Look rapidly down the years and see one phase of that attack. It is the attack on Christianity.

That is rather a hard thing to set down in writing in this country, and it would not be set down did not the facts compel it. Jewish writers nowadays show a great deal of anxiety that non-Jews should follow certain Christian doctrines. “We gave you your Savior, and he told you to love your enemies; why don’t you love us?” is the implication with which their statements usually come.

However, here are a few items from the record: They are recorded according to the Jewish calendar (our modern calendar is “Christian,” and therefore taboo) but here both calendar dates shall be supplied.

5661 (A.D. 1899-1900) The Jews attempt to have the word “Christian” removed from the Bill of Rights of the State of Virginia.

5667 (A.D. 1906-1907) The Jews of Oklahoma petition the Constitutional Convention protesting that the acknowledgement of Christ in the new state constitution then being formulated would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

5668 (A.D. 1907-1908) Widespread demand by the Jews during this year for the complete secularization of the public institutions of this country, as a part of the demand of the Jews for their constitutional rights.—Supreme Court Justice Brewer’s statement that this is a Christian country widely controverted by Jewish rabbis and publications.

5669 (A.D. 1908-1909) Protests made to governor of Arkansas against “Christological expressions” employed by him in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation, 1908.—Professor Gotthard Deutsch protests against “Christological prayers” at the high school graduating exercises in Cincinnati.

5673 (A.D. 1912-1913) The alarming growth of the Jewish population in New York makes it necessary for business men advertising for clerks or secretaries, or housewives advertising for help, to specify where Jewish help was not desired, otherwise the flood of Jewish applicants was overwhelming. The expressions “Christian preferred,” or “Jews please do not apply” are used. This year the New York Kehillah takes the matter in hand stating that “these advertisements indicate an alarming growth of discrimination against Jews and it is remarkable that many firms which cater to the trade of Jews display this form of prejudice.”

5679 (A.D. 1918-1919) The American Jewish Committee took up the alleged discrimination against Jews by army contractors. Louis Marshall, president of the Committee, notified Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War, that advertisements had appeared calling for carpenters to work in government camps, and that the advertisements required the applicants to be Christians. Secretary Baker replied that he had made an order prohibiting contractors from making this discrimination. (On the whole, this special form of advertisement may appear rather stupid: how many Jewish carpenters are there? Not enough to discriminate against. But there were doubtless other reasons.)

Provost Marshall Crowder, in charge of the Selective Draft, had issued an order to all medical examiners, under direction of the Surgeon General, stating “The foreign-born, especially Jews, are more apt to malinger than the native born,” and Louis Marshall again telegraphed both the Provost Marshall and the Surgeon General demanding that

“the further use of this form shall be at once discontinued; that every copy of it that has been issued should be recalled by telegram; and that proper explanations be made, so as to expunge from the archives of the United States the unwarranted stigma upon three millions of people.”

It was President Wilson, however, who eventually ordered the excision of this paragraph.

The United States Shipping Board sent an advertisement to the New York Times calling for a file clerk and stating that a “Christian” (by which is always meant a non-Jew) was preferred. The ad was not published as written; it was changed so that it requested applicants to state their religion and nationality. This last form would seem to be far more objectionable than the other. In the first instance the employer states fairly what he wants. In the second instance the applicant is compelled to divulge certain facts about himself in utter ignorance of the employer’s preference. In the first instance, only the two classes that can do business get together; in the second instance there is no clearness about the situation until much useless effort is undertaken. Why?

Because the Kehillah demands it. And why does the Kehillah demand it? Because, while it is all right for a Jew to remember that he is a Jew, it is not all right for you to remember it.

So, Louis Marshall got into action again with the Shipping Board, this time with certain drastic demands. Strangely enough, the protest was lodged through Bainbridge Colby, who was Woodrow Wilson’s last Secretary of State. Mr. Marshall demanded: “Not because of any desire for inflicting punishment, but for the sake of example and the establishment of a necessary precedent, this offense should be followed by a dismissal from the public service of the offender, and the public should be informed of the reason.”

Attention is particularly called to the tone which Mr. Marshall adopts when addressing high American officials in the name of the Jewish Committee. It is not to be duplicated in the addresses of any other representatives of other nationalities or faiths.

Unfortunately for Mr. Marshall’s plan of punishment, the object of his wrath was found to be a woman, and she was not discharged, although the Jewish Committee got an apology from Charles M. Schwab.

The Federal Reserve Bank and Liberty Loan Committee also got in wrong when an advertisement was printed calling for a “Stenographer for the Liberty Loan Committee (Christian).” Protest was made to Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank and chairman of the Liberty Loan Committee, and the advertisement was withdrawn. But this was not enough. Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo was also drawn in to express his “reprobation for an unpatriotic act.”

An officer in the Quartermaster’s Department replied to a young woman who applied for the position of secretary to him that he preferred not to have Jews on his office staff. He was reprimanded upon the request of Mr. Marshall.

The Plattsburg Manual, published for officers in the United States officers’ training camps, contained the statement that “the ideal officer is a Christian gentleman.” Mr. Marshall at once made the standard protest against all “Christological manifestations,” and the Manual was changed to read, “the ideal officer is a courteous gentleman.”

5680 (A.D. 1919-1920) In this year the Kehillah was so successful in its New York campaign that it was possible for a Jewish advertiser in New York to say that he wanted Jewish help, but it was not possible for a non-Jewish advertiser to state his non-Jewish preference. This is a sidelight both on Jewish reasonableness and Jewish power.

One gathers that a few people are still hugging the delusion that there is no Jewish Question in the United States. But another glance down the records will show the most prejudiced person that there is such a Question. If space permitted, the few details added below could be matched by a sufficient number to overflow all the pages of this paper.

5668 (A.D. 1907-1908) Jews agitate in many cities against Bible reading, Christmas celebrations or carols. In Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Paul and New York the Jewish opposition to the carols is met with strong counter-movements.

5669 (A.D. 1908-1909) Jewish Community at Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, defeats resolution providing daily Bible Reading in the schools.—Jews attempting same compulsion in New Jersey are met with decision that pupils may absent themselves from devotional exercises.—Jewish agitation in Louisiana stirs ministerial association to defend the right of the school to the Bible.—Local council of Jewish Women of Baltimore petitions school board to prohibit Christmas exercises.—On demand of Edwin Wolf, Jewish member, Philadelphia school board prohibits Christmas exercises.—Jews present bills asking that New York Hebrews be permitted to ply trades and businesses on Sunday. Interdenominational Ministers’ Conference takes official action and Rev. Dr. David J. Burrell, of the Marble Collegiate Church, states that the attempts of the Jews to undermine the sanctity of Sunday are ethically unjustified.

5670 (A.D. 1909-1910) On demand of Jews the school board of Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, votes to discontinue the recitation of The Lord’s Prayer in the schools.—In Kentucky State Senate, Jews defeat the Tichenor Bill making the Bible a book eligible for the schools.

5671 (A.D. 1910-1911) Jews oppose Bible reading and singing of hymns in Detroit schools.—New York State Federation of Labor opposes Jewish Bill to exempt Jews from prosecution for violating Sunday laws. (The workingman knows that it means a 7-day week for the Goy!)—New York Kehillah does two contradictory things; favors bill to permit Jews to do all kinds of business on Sunday, and pledges itself to cooperate in the strict enforcement of the Sunday laws.

5672 (A.D. 1911-1912) Upon the urgence of two Jews the Hartford, Connecticut, school board votes on the question of abolishing all religious exercises in the schools.

The motion is lost by 5 to 4.—Jewish pupils in a Passaic, New Jersey, school petition the board of education to eliminate the Bible and all Christian songs from the school.—At the request of a rabbi, three principals of Roxbury, Massachusetts, public schools agree to banish the Christmas tree and omit all references to the season in their schools.—Jewish pupils of Plainfield, New Jersey, petition the abolition of the Bible and Christian songs from the schools.—The Council of the University Settlement, at the request of the New York Kehillah and the Federation of Rumanian Jews, adopts this resolution: “That in holiday celebrations held annually by the Kindergarten Association at the University Settlement every feature of any sectarian character, including Christmas trees, Christmas programs and Christmas songs, and so on, shall be eliminated.”—Philadelphia Kehillah demands that Jews be exempted from operation of the Sunday laws.—In the Outlook, Dr. Lyman Abbott advises an inquiring schoolmaster that he is under no moral obligation to admit Jews to his private school.—A Jewish delegate to the Ohio Constitutional Convention suggests that the constitution be made to forbid religious references in the schools.—Jewish merchants of Paterson, New Jersey, petition for exemption from the Sunday laws.—Board of education of Yonkers, New York, denies Jewish request to forbid singing of Christian songs in the schools.

5673 (A.D. 1912-1913) Annual Convention Independent Order of B’nai B’rith at Nashville, Tennessee, adopts resolution against reading the Bible and singing Christian songs in public schools.—Jews at Jackson, Tennessee, seek an injunction to prevent the reading of the Bible in city schools.—Jews of Nashville, Tennessee, petition board of education against Bible and Christian songs.—Richmond, Virginia, school board restores Bible reading in the schools.—Bill introduced into Pennsylvania legislature providing for Bible reading in schools and the discharge of teachers omitting to do so. Jewish rabbis protest against bill. Jewish Kehillah of Philadelphia sends telegram to governor urging him to veto bill. Governor approves bill.—Chicago board of education, scene of much Jewish agitation, approves recommendation of subcommittee to remove Christmas from the list of official holidays in public schools.—In response to demands of Jews the Revere, Massachusetts, school board consents to remove references to Jesus from Christmas exercises in public schools. This action, however, was rescinded at a special meeting.—California Jews appeal before Senate Committee on Public Morals to protest against a proposed Sunday law.—At Passaic, New Jersey, 29 Jewish members of the senior high school class walk out of class election, alleging “racial discrimination.”—At Atlantic City, New Jersey, during the national convention of the United States War Veterans, the proposal to restore the Cross as part of the insignia of chaplain, was defeated by Jews.

5674 (A.D. 1913-1914) This year the energies of the Jewish powers were concentrated on the task of preventing the United States from changing the immigration laws in a manner to protect the country from undesirable aliens.

5675 (A.D. 1914-1915) Jewish rabbi demands of California state superintendent of public instruction that some verses appearing in school readers be eliminated.—New York Kehillah concerns itself with attempts to secure modification of the Sunday laws.

5676 (A.D. 1915-1916) This year occupied by opposition to various movements toward making the schools free to use the Bible, and in opposition to the Gary system. The Gary system receives a great deal of attention from the Jews this year.

5677 (A.D. 1916-1917) Jews are busy carrying out an immense campaign against the “literacy clause” of the immigration bill.

And so it goes on. The incidents quoted are typical, not occasional. They represent what is transpiring all the time in the United States as the Jews pursue their “rights.” There is no interference whatever with Jewish ways and manners. The Jew may use his own calendar, keep his own days, observe his own form of worship, live in his own ghetto, exist on a dietary principle all his own, slaughter his cattle in a manner of which no one who knows about it can approve—he can do all these things without molestation, without the slightest question of his right in them. But the non-Jew is now the “persecuted one.” He must do everything the way the Jew wants it done; if not, he is “infringing on Jewish rights.”

Americans are very sensitive about infringing on other people’s rights. The Jews might have gone on for a long time had they not overplayed their hand. What the people are now coming to see is that it is American rights that have been interfered with, and the interference has been made with the assistance of their own broad-mindedness. The Jews’ interference with the religion of the others, and the Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the United States, is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today.

But there is still another phase of the matter. Not content with the fullest liberty to follow their own faith in peace and quietness, in a country where none dares make them afraid, the Jews declare—we read it in their activities—that every sight and sound of anything Christian is an invasion of their peace and quietness, and so they stamp it out wherever they can reach it through political means. To what lengths this spirit may run is shown in the prophecies of the Talmud, and in the “reforms” undertaken by the Bolsheviki of Russia and Austria.

But even that is not all; not content with their own liberty, not content with the “secularization,” which means the de-Christianization of all public institutions, the third step observable in Jewish activities is the actual exaltation of Judaism as a recognized and specially privileged system. The program is the now familiar one wherever the Jewish Program is found: first, establishment; second, destruction of all that is non-Jewish or anti-Jewish; third, exaltation of Judaism in all its phases.

Put the Lord’s Prayer and certain Shakespeare plays out of the public schools; but put Jewish courts in the public buildings—that is the way it works. Secularization is preparatory to Judaization.

The New York Kehillah is an illustration of how it is all done, and the American Jewish Committee is an illustration of the type of men who do it.

Now for illustrations of the third phase of the program of “defending Jewish rights.”

The year 5669 (A.D. 1908-1909) was marked by an effort to introduce the idea of the Jewish Sabbath into public business. Jews refused to sit as jurors in court, thus postponing cases. Boycotts were instituted in New York against merchants who opened on Saturday. That this campaign has borne fruit is known by all travelers in eastern cities who notice that even large department stores are closed on Saturday.

The year 5670 (A.D. 1909-1910) was dedicated apparently to the work of introducing the idea of Jewish national holidays into public life. This question lately rose in New York in a threatening way, but was withdrawn just before the breaking point. Only temporarily withdrawn, however, The feint revealed the identity and number of those who are still on guard against the complete Judaization of their city.—Jewish members of stock exchanges endeavored to have these institutions recognize Yom Kippur by closing; In Cleveland this was done.—The Council of Jewish Women appealed to the Civil Service Commission at Washington for recognition of Jewish holidays.—In Newark, New Jersey, the rabbis asked the night schools to discontinue Friday evening sessions, because the Jewish Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday.

In 1911 an attempt to have Hebrew officially recognized was frustrated by Supreme Court Judge Goff who refused incorporation of “Agudath Achim Kahal Adath Jeshurun” on the ground that the title should be in English.—Chicago Jews have election date changed because the official date fell on the last day of the Passover.

In 1912-1913 a number of special recognitions of the Saturday Sabbath were obtained, including Jersey City, Bayonne, Hoboken, Union Hill. In the Ohio legislature the Jews defeated a bill fixing a certain Saturday as the date of a primary election.

In 1913-1914 the United States Bureau of Immigration granted the request of Simon Wolf, long-time Jewish lobbyist at Washington, that instructions be given the Immigration Commissioners that no Jews be deported on Jewish holidays.—The Women’s Party of Cook County, Illinois, passes resolutions against allowing Jewish teachers to draw full pay for absence during Jewish holidays.—In this year also the question of the Jews’ method of slaughtering animals—the Shehitah—was brought forward. The American Jewish Committee thought this question of sufficient importance to engage its full interest.

This series of facts could also be pursued at length. Kosher food for the children of public schools because there were Jewish children in the schools; protest against the Daylight Saving Ordinances because they were prejudicial to Jewish merchants who close their businesses on Saturday and open them after nightfall on that day. This is an illustration of the large number of small points at which Jewish life conflicts with community life. And, of course, each of these divergences is ground for an imperious “demand.”—Harvard University was severely criticized in 1917-1918 for refusing to set aside an entrance examination date that conflicted with a Jewish holiday. Since that time, however, eastern universities have become more pliable. But the whole course of the Christian year would have to be changed and all the traditional seasonal customs of the country broken up if the Jews are to be given the full measure of “liberty” which they demand.

Of course, the work of the Kehillah is claimed to be “educational.” It certainly is that. The best educated members are those who come from the ghettos of Galatia where the Kehillah idea is fully understood and the Jewish community government exercises unrestricted sway.

Whatever other phase of education the Kehillah may be interested in, it certainly stresses most the education to separateness. The New York Times especially likes to emphasize this matter of “education.” It is a convenient description and somewhat aids the effort to minimize Kehillah’s importance when it is under scrutiny. Nevertheless in the New York Times an article appeared about the Kehillah in which Dr. S. Benderly, director of the Bureau of Education, is quoted as describing the objects of the education:

 “The problem before us was to form a body of young Jews who should be on the one hand true Americans, a part of this Republic, with an intense interest in upbuilding American ideals; and yet, on the other hand, be also Jews in love with the best of their own ideals, and not anxious merely to merge with the rest and disappear among them.

“That problem confronts Orthodox and Reform Jews alike. It is not merely a religious but a civic problem.”

That is separatism and exclusivism as an educational program, and its results cannot help being a cloud of difference such as this article has in part disclosed. The New York Kehillah, through its Bureau of Education, is giving “a purely religious training to 200,000 Jewish children,” the religious training being, of course, not what is generally understood by that term, but a training in ideas of racial superiority and separateness.

This difference is strikingly illustrated in Jewish fiction recently. To love a Christian maiden is sinful; this is the theme of all sorts of stories, sketches and editorials appearing these days. But James Gibbons Huneker, in a sketch extravagantly praised by Jewish critics, shows how deep this idea of separateness is when he makes Yaankely Ostrowicz say: “As a child I trembled at the sound of music and was taught to put my finger in my ears when profane music, Goy music, was played.” This is the root idea: All Gentile life and institutions are “profane.” It is the Jews’ unceasing consciousness of the Goy that constitutes the disease of Judaism, this century-long tradition of separateness.

There is no such thing as anti-Semitism. There is, however, much anti-Goyism. In England, Germany, France, America, Russia, there is no anti-Arab sentiment of which anyone knows. None of the Semite peoples have been distinguished by the special dislike of any other people. There is no reason why anyone should dislike the Semites.

It is very strange, however, that the Semitic people should be a unit in disliking the Jews. Palestine, which still has only a handful of Jews, is peopled by Semites who so thoroughly dislike the Jews that serious complications are threatening the Zionistic advances being made there. This surely is not anti-Semitism. Semites are not against Semites. But they are at odds with Jews.

When Aryan and Semite are kept conscious through many centuries that the Jew is another race, and when it is known that neither Aryan nor Semite are touchy on the race question, what is the answer? Only this, that the whole substance of such a situation must be supplied by the Jews.

There is no such thing as anti-Semitism. There is only a very little and a very mild anti-Jewism. But a study of Jewish publications, books, pamphlets, declarations, constitutions and charters, as well as a study of organized Jewish action in this and other countries, indicates that there is a tremendous amount of anti-Goyism, or anti-Gentilism.

Not that it is anything to fear. It is, however, something to know. Knowledge is a good defense. The New York Kehillah, having as its executive committee the same committee which is also the ruling group of Jews known as District XII of the American Jewish Committee, is worth consideration, not only as an illustration of the interlaced organization which combines all classes of Jews in one group, but also as an illustration of what is meant by “Jewish rights.”

It is worth remembering that every “demand” voiced in Washington before officials and committees, that every high personage that appears there on Jewish matters—the Louis Marshalls and the Wises, the Goldfogles, the Rosalskis, besides many others, like the Kahns and the Schiffs, who keep out of the committee limelight and away from the protesting parties—are all linked up, through this Jewish interest or that, with the main interest which is based on the Kehillah and expresses itself through District XII of the American Jewish Committee.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 12 March 1921]

“Jewish Rights” to Put Studies Out of Schools

The organizations of Jewry are numerous and widespread, all of them being international in tone whether so chartered or not. The Alliance Israelite Universelle is, perhaps, the world clearing house of Jewish policy, with which every national aggregation of Jewish societies has affiliation.

The Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, which is now hopeful of reaching the 1,000,000 membership mark, is frankly international. It has divided the world into 11 districts, seven of which are in the United States. Its lodges at last report numbered 426. The four members of its executive committee who do not reside in the United States, reside in Berlin, Vienna, Bucharest and Constantinople, respectively. Its lodges have been set up in the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa. Henry Morgenthau’s name appears in the 1919-1920 Jewish year book as a member of this executive committee. Mr. Morgenthau will be remembered as the American Minister to Turkey, later talked of as Ambassador to Mexico, then chosen by President Wilson to mediate between the Turks and the Armenians. Mr. Morgenthau also investigated for the President the reports of Polish pogroms.

In studying the executive committees of Jewish societies it is strikingly evident that the same minds guide all the important ones. A few names recur again and again. They are the names one meets at all Senate hearings, at various strategic places in the War Government of the United States, and at every stage of Jewish interference with American foreign policy. Everything centers at last, apparently, in the American Jewish Committee and the executive committee of the New York Kehillah. Judge Mack, Judge Brandeis, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, Morgenthau, Wolf, Kraus, Elkus, Straus, Louis Marshall—these names appear over and over again, in offensive and defensive action, in all big affairs.

There are now in the United States 6,100 reported Jewish organizations. Of these, 3,637 are in New York City. This figure is offered from the 1919-1920 year book, although the statement was recently made that the New York Kehillah is the clearing house of 4,000 organizations.

Enough is shown to indicate how fully organized the Jews are, how they are linked together by every conceivable bond; the material of every bond being their racial likeness.

The organization about which the public has heard most is the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith. Its headquarters are not in New York, strange to say, but in Chicago. Its origin, however, as might be expected, was in New York.

This interesting order, without a reference to which no survey of Jewry is complete, came into existence in the back room of an Essex street saloon in 1843. Strangely enough, its most moving spirit at the beginning was a Henry Jones, although his colleagues retained their Hebraic names.

Because most of the founders were from Germany the name was given in German, Bundes Bruder, which is in Hebrew, B’nai B’rith (Brothers of the Covenant). The executive committee was known as The Elders. The order spread first to Cincinnati, apparently taking the course of German immigration through the country, and it is recorded that the second lodge in that city is the first where the English language was used in discussing lodge affairs. The first leap of the order abroad, was to Berlin where in 1885 Grand Lodge No. 8 was installed, followed soon after by Grand Lodges in Rumania and Austria. The order’s literature lays stress on the work of inculcating patriotism, which is said to be one of B’nai B’rith’s special interests. It is perhaps not meant, however, that the head office at Chicago could undertake, especially during recent years, to guide the patriotism of all the districts throughout the world. It would have been rather awkward for District No. 6, which includes Illinois, to encourage District No. 8 to loyalty, seeing that District No. 8 embraced Germany.

The Order has not avoided the political field. The diplomatic history of the United States in the last 70 years is dotted all over with indications of B’nai B’rith activities. Oscar Straus, writing from the Legation of the United States at Constantinople in 1889, tells Secretary of State Blaine that the Jerushalaim Lodge of B’nai B’rith at Jerusalem was quite satisfied with the way in which the State Department had attended to a certain matter at the lodge’s request. Mr. Morgenthau in the midst of his investigation of the false pogrom rumors on Poland, goes to a B’nai B’rith lodge. In 1870 Brother Benjamin F. Piexotto was appointed “as United States consul at Bucharest for the express purpose of securing an amelioration of the condition of the shockingly persecuted Jews in Rumania.” The “persecution” in Rumania was the protest of the Rumanian peasantry against the two greatest menaces to the peasant farmers—the Jew-controlled liquor and mortgage traffics.

But this special appointment was made “in pursuance of suggestions made by the Order, and the negotiations were carried on chiefly by Brother Simon Wolf.”

Simon Wolf has been the official Jewish lobbyist at Washington, on fixed post, for fifty years. He could write an informative story of the relation of B’nai B’rith to diplomatic appointments, if he would. It was he who suggested to William Jennings Bryan, when the latter was Secretary of State, that a Jew be appointed Minister to Spain to show Spain that the United States did not approve Spain’s act of expulsion back in the fifteenth century. Jews are also suggesting to President Harding that a Jew be appointed Ambassador to Germany to rebuke the Germans’ resentment against Jewish control of finance, industry and politics. This conception of the United States Diplomatic Service as a convenient agency for the transaction of Jewish world affairs has been in existence a long time, and has accounted for some of the strange appointments which have puzzled the people.

It is worth noting that while American Jews are crowding the eastern diplomatic posts with as many Jews as possible, British Jews are doing the same thing in the Judaization of the Persia, India and Palestine governments, so that the whole mid-Orient is now under Jewish control, and the Mohammedan World is given to understand that the Jews are merely coming back from their conquest of the white races. To those who have observed the Jewish attempt to seek a rapprochement between the followers of Moses and Mohammed, the situation is one of the keenest interest.

The B’nai B’rith is made up mostly of the more liberal Jews, religiously speaking, and doubtless includes a large number who are also liberal, racially speaking. The time when it stood as spokesman of Jewish ideals is now long past; it stands today the center of certain Jewish activities. It does not supersede the American Jewish Committee by any means, but it is the encircling arm, with fingers everywhere, through which the committee can get its will carried out. When there is anything to be done, the B’nai B’rith is the organization which takes the lead in putting it over. It may be described as a freemasonry exclusively for Jews. This brings up another characteristic that people have noticed and discussed: the Jew demands as his right entrance into other Orders; into his own he admits none but Jews. This one-sided policy is found everywhere.

Chief among the B’nai B’rith’s activities in so far as they directly relate to the rest of the people, is the work of the Anti-Defamation League. This inside committee in every lodge attends to the espionage work necessary to keep the Grand Lodges informed as to what is going on with reference to Jewry in the United States. In its work, the Anti-Defamation League always takes the offensive and works along pretty well defined lines.

Ordinarily the head of the Anti-Defamation League in each city is a man competent to bring pressure to bear on the public press. Sometimes he is the head of an advertising agency which, as a rule, pools the Jewish department store advertising of that city, so that the newspapers may be controlled from that angle. Sometimes he is himself a heavy advertiser, pledged the cooperation of other advertisers in whatever he undertakes to do. The Anti-Defamation League is the instrument through which all boycotting tactics make their appearance. This league not only makes its protest from without, but directs reprisals from within. It is an exceedingly militant body and does not always depend upon “the rule of reason” in its activities.

Many quaint tales could be told of the operations of the Anti-Defamation League in various American cities, but as the present articles attempt to give no more than a bird’s-eye view of widespread Jewish activities, mere story-telling will have to wait.

But perhaps the most notable accomplishment of the league has been the suppression of the word “Jew” in the public prints in any but the most laudatory connections. For a long time in the United States the people did not know how to refer to the Jews, whether as Hebrews or Israelites or what, because the fear of giving offense had been so diligently cultivated in all quarters.

The result was that other nationalities were laden with all the undesirable publicity which the Jews had evaded through the efforts of the Anti-Defamation League. Recently a Jew was on trial for the murder of his wife. The newspapers referred to him as “a pert little Englishman.” The Russians in the United States, and the Poles also, have been filled with indignation by the extent to which their national names have been used in police and newspaper reports to conceal the identity of Jews. The Russians resident in this country have several times been compelled to remonstrate with the press for its misrepresentative practice in this matter.

For this state of affairs, the Anti-Defamation League receives the credit. Whenever a newspaper printed the word “Jew” as an identifying noun after the name of anyone who had been discredited, the Anti-Defamation League was instantly on the job in protest. The stock argument is, “If he had been a Baptist or an Episcopalian you would not have told it, and why should you say that he is a Jew—‘Jew’ being a mere religious denomination.” City editors are obliging and the rule became established. In principle it is right, although it is urged on wrong grounds; but in practice it has turned out to be a great injustice to other nationalities and, more than all, it has curtailed the freedom of American speech. It has concealed the Jew where he wishes to be concealed, and it cannot be said that he has made the best use of this privilege.

It is this fixed policy of the B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League which imperils the hope that the B’nai B’rith might have come to the front as one of the most useful influences in the solution of the Jewish Question. It includes a body of men sufficiently acquainted with the general point of view to be able to see where corrections and concessions are necessary as a ground, not to mere polite tolerance, but to reconciliation. There is no country more propitious for the settlement of the world’s Jewish Problem than is the United States, but it cannot be settled along the old line of the Judaization of the United States, nor by its de-Christianization either. The work of the Anti-Defamation League is positive to Judaization and negative to settlement.

There is nothing that Jewry, acting through the B’nai B’rith, does so well as to hold Mass Meetings and attack “The Merchant of Venice.”

Mass Meetings may be described as the Jews’ great American pastime. The New York Kehillah, that is, The American Jewish Committee, can on one day’s notice organize Mass Meetings in every city in the United States. They are mechanical devices, of course; they are not so much expressions of the Jewish mind as they are attempts to impress the non-Jewish mind. There is a great deal of theatrical calculation in them. This column could be filled with the dates and places of Mass Meetings held within any seven days on any question in which the Jews had decided to coerce or accelerate public or, as it usually is, official opinion. The Mass Meeting, it appears, can still be made to seem real to the political official whose vote is sought.

It was by Mass Meetings that Congress was coerced into breaking off our commercial treaty with Russia.

It was by Mass Meetings that the literacy test was defeated.

It was by Mass Meetings that every attempt to restrict immigration has been defeated.

In 100 important cities a Mass Meeting could be held tomorrow night if President Harding should attempt to remove a Jewish official, or if the census bureau should attempt to record Jews under their proper racial name.

It is a very perfect system, even if a little antiquated. Doubtless its main purpose is to let the Jewish masses believe that they too have something to say in Jewish affairs.

Jewish leadership of the Jews is never quite what the Jews think it is, and its weakness was never more apparent than today. There has not been any “persecution” of the Jews in the United States and never will be any, but all that the Jews have had to carry in the way of misunderstanding has been the result of the leadership which has misled them into paths of bloated ambition, instead of substantial human achievement. At this moment there is trembling, not among the Jewish masses, but among their leaders. The Jewish people will presently take their own affairs in their own hands, and then their affairs will go better. There are too many “committees,” too many “prophets,” too many “wise men,” who think that two minutes with a President constitutes greatness, and that a busy bustling overseas and back constitutes statesmanship. The Jews have suffered from the personal ambitions and pathetic incapacity of some of their most advertised men.

The B’nai B’rith has this much in its favor: its leadership has always been progressive. Only when it has lent itself as local agent for the “leaders” of the New York Kehillah has it set up in its neighborhoods those influences which tend toward division instead of a better understanding.

Under whose inspiration it was that the B’nai B’rith undertook to bring its great power to bear against one of Shakespeare’s plays, cannot now be said; but it has been most unfortunate for Jewish influence in all directions. Successful—oh yes; but such a success as serious people could well do without.

Merely to glance over the record is interesting:

1907—Jews force “The Merchant of Venice” to be dropped from public schools in Galveston, Texas; Cleveland, Ohio; El Paso, Texas; Youngstown, Ohio.

1908—Jews have “The Merchant of Venice” eliminated from the English course in the high school at El Paso, Texas.

1910—Apparently the “Merchant” slipped back into Cleveland schools, for in April the superintendent of public schools issued an order that it was not to be used again.

1911—Rabbi Harry W. Ettleson and Solomon Elsner request the Hartford, Connecticut, school board to have “The Merchant of Venice” dropped from the reading list of schools. The board complies.

1912—Jewish residents of Minneapolis, Minnesota, inaugurate a movement to have “The Merchant of Venice” dropped from the public schools.—In Boston, Massachusetts, the superintendent of schools refuses to withdraw “The Merchant of Venice” as a textbook, on the demand of Rabbi Phineas Israeli.

1916—On demand of Jews the New Haven, Connecticut, board of education votes to prevent the reading of “The Merchant of Venice,” and extends the prohibition to “Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare” until an edition is published which omits the play.

And so on down the list of cities. A diversion was created by the Jewish attack on Sargent’s painting entitled “The Synagogue” in the art scheme of the Boston Public Library. Many denunciatory resolutions were adopted throughout the country with regard to that, but the painting is still there.

It is all part of one mistaken program, to prohibit free speech, with reference to the Jew. It is utterly at one side of all that American principles mean. Shut him up! Boycott him! Tear down his painting! Bar his words from the mails and public library!—what a waste of energy and what a self-judgement such an attitude is!

And it has become pretty general. Last Christmas most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated Someone’s Birth. Easter they will have the same difficulty in finding Easter cards that contain any suggestion that Easter commemorates a certain event. There will be rabbits and eggs and spring flowers, but a hint of the Resurrection will be hard to find. Now, all this begins with the designers of the cards. And even in this business one comes upon that same policy of declaring Anti-Semitic everything that is Christian. If Rabbi Coffey says the New Testament is the most Anti-Semitic book ever written, what must be the judgement on an Easter card that is truly an Easter card?

In November, 1919, the Anti-Defamation Committee claimed that 150 American cities had excluded “The Merchant of Venice” from the public schools. The newspapers at this writing are announcing that David Warfield, the great Jewish actor, is going to play “Shylock” in the manner which, as he believes, represents the true Shakespeare conception. The Anti-Defamation League may yet find itself to have expended much energy beating the wind, especially as the best Shakespearean critics declare that “The Merchant of Venice” is not about a Jew at all, but about Usury as a vicious practice which gripped both Jew and non-Jew and brought division.

There was, however, a certain finesse in the manner of the Anti-Defamation League in approaching the matter of the exclusion of the “Merchant.” It was not an incapacity to appreciate the fine work of Shakespeare. Oh, no, anything but that. Nor was it a confession of thin-skinned sensibility on the part of Jews. Not at all. No, it was really for the benefit of the Gentile children that the Anti-Defamation League wanted them kept from that play in their reading lessons.

Here are excerpts from one of the letters sent out from the Anti-Defamation League in Chicago to the superintendent of public schools in an important city. The italics are ours:

“We have just been advised that the * * * * high schools still retain “The Merchant of Venice” in the list of required readings * * * *

“We do not base our request because of the embarrassment which may be caused to the Jewish students in class, nor is our attitude in this regard based on thin-skinned sensitiveness. It is the result of mature consideration and investigation. Our objection is made because of its effect upon the non-Jewish children who subconsciously will associate in their own minds the Jew as Shakespeare portrayed him with the Jew of today. Children are not analysts. A character in the past vividly portrayed exists for them in the present. The Jew of Shakespeare lives in the mind of the child as the Jew of New York, or the Jew of Chicago, or the Jew of Newark. Your teachers of literature might say much in favor of Shylock’s good qualities, but our experience has been that only very seldom are Shylock’s good qualities brought out strongly before children. Those traits of his character which are brought out most vividly in the study of the play are Shylock’s greed, hatred, revenge and cruelty.

“The fact that the College Entrance Requirements Board realized the justice of our stand and struck the play off from the list as required reading for entrance to our universities and colleges indicates clearly that it is a most serious problem * * * *

“* * * * We believe that when you realize the great harm which might be caused to hundreds and thousands of law-abiding Jewish citizens of this country, you will grant our request that the reading of ‘The Merchant of Venice’ be discontinued from your schools.”

And in this case it was. Notwithstanding the fact that the play was used in the high school, and the argument of the letter was addressed to the effect of the play on children, it was discontinued. A study of the schedule of just what occurred showed that everything had been made ready even before the letter was written.

Does this frittering away of Jewish influence strike the Jewish leaders as a wise policy?

Is there any hope whatever of doing away with “The Merchant of Venice”?

Do they not know that it is the observation of teachers of literature that even if non-Jewish children are forbidden to read the play, Jewish children are going to read it anyway, since it is the Jewish children who most heartily enjoy it because they more clearly understand it?

Do not the Jewish leaders know that non-Jews do not read the “Merchant” for Shylock, except perhaps his noble defense of the Jew as a human being? Whoever hears Shylock quoted in anything but this, which numerous Jewish writers delight to quote?—

“I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?”

To effect its purpose the Anti-Defamation League will have to perform an excision on our common English tongue. The wise and witty sayings of this Shakespearean play have passed into the permanent coinage of daily speech.

“I hold the world a stage where every man must play his part; and mine a sad one.”

“* * * * I am Sir Oracle,

And when I ope my lips let no dog bark!”

“If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men’s cottages princes’ palaces.”

“The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

“A goodly apple rotten at the heart:

O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

“Truth will come to sight; murder cannot be hid long.” “All that glitters is not gold.” “A harmless necessary cat.”

“The quality of mercy is not strained, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * It is an attribute of God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God’s, When mercy seasons justice.”

This is beyond the power of the Anti-Defamation League to destroy. Shylock may be forgotten, but not these living lines. It is true, however, that in 150 American cities, according to the league’s claim, school children are prevented reading and hearing these words in school.

But is it worth it? Is it a part of “Jewish Rights” that an admittedly great play, taught in all the English courses of all the universities, should be prohibited to the children of the people in the public schools?

From the prohibition of the Bible to the prohibition of Shakespeare, the whole Jewish course has been a colossal mistake, the reaction from which will be to belittle Jewish public judgement in the future.

It was all very well said by a correspondent to the Newark Evening News, January 13, 1920:

“To the Editor of the News:

“Sir—Protests have been made by the representatives of the Jewish, Scotch and colored races against Shakespeare’s being used in the public schools, the former because of the portrayal of Shylock in ‘The Merchant of Venice.’ Some Scotch folk have protested, as I understand it, to the Newark Board of Education, on account of the character given Macbeth. The colored folks, judging from the letter printed in the News from Washington, do not like the character Othello, owing to his despicable treatment of Desdemona. As a descendant of the Welsh race, I enter my protest in behalf of that ancient people in regard to Shakespeare’s ridicule of Henry V, of the Welshman, Captain Fluellen, who is made to look as if he did not know anything about war.

“I have no doubt that others could find fault with Shakespeare’s penchant for holding up the weak side of some of his characters, so I think that Shakespeare and the Bible might well be kept out of the public schools because both books are rough on certain people whose identity is clearly shown. The board of education is to be congratulated for taking action in the matter, which promises at this late date to place the Newark educational system in a class all by itself.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 19 March 1921]

Disraeli—British Premier, Portrays the Jews

The Jews have complained that they are being misrepresented. It is their usual complaint. They are always being “misrepresented” and “persecuted” except when they are being praised for what they are not. If the Jews were fully understood by the Gentiles, if the Christian churches, for example, were freed from their delusion that the Jews are Old Testament people, and if the churches really knew what Talmudic religion is, it is likely the “misrepresentation” would be still stronger.

The downfall of Russia was prepared by a long and deliberate program of misrepresentation of the Russian people, through the Jewish world press and Jewish diplomatic service. The name of Poland has been drawn in filth through the press of the United States under Jewish instigation, most of the signers of the latest Jewish protest against THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s articles being leaders in the vilification of Poland, whose sole crime is that she wishes to save herself from the Jews. All this real misrepresentation is regarded as the Jews’ privilege.

But wherever a hand has been raised to prevent the Jews overrunning the people and secretly securing control of the major instruments of life, the Jews have raised the cry of “misrepresentation.” They never meet the question outright. They are not meeting it now. They cannot meet it without confession. False denials, pleas for sympathy, and an unworthy attempt to link others with them in their fall, constitute their whole method of defense.

Freemasons may wonder how they come into this affair, as they see the name of their ancient order coupled with that of the Jews in the latest Jewish defense. It is all very easily understood by those who are acquainted with Jewish strategy during the two centuries which comprise modern Masonic history.

Twice in the history of the United States, the people have been aroused by a sense of strange influences operating in their affairs, and each time the real power behind the influences was able to divert suspicion to the Freemasons. Once in George Washington’s time, once in President Adams’ time this occurred. Books were written, sermons preached, newspapers took up the search, but none of the observers saw the Jewish influence there. George Washington knew that the disloyal influence was not Masonic, but he saw signs of the concealed power trying to operate under the guise of Masonry. President Adams had not so clear a view of the matter.

Masonry emerged unstained because it was guiltless of subversive purposes. A pseudo-Masonry, of French origin, given to atheistic and revolutionary purposes, strongly patronized by Jews, was the disturbing element, but all that the public was able to see was the Masonic similitude and not the Jewish hand. A recrudescence of this misrepresentation of the Masons occurred also in 1826, and from then until the other day, when the Leaders of American Jewry linked the name of Freemasonry with their own, the name of the Order has been unscathed.

This is to serve notice on the leaders of American Jewry that this time they will not be permitted to hide behind the name of Masonry, nor will they be permitted to hold up the name of Masonry as a shield to blunt the darts or as an ally to share the shafts aimed at their subversive purposes. That game has succeeded twice in the United States; it will never succeed again. Freemasonry is not and never was implicated in what the Jewish cabal has had in mind. And Freemasons everywhere are aware of the facts.

It is a curious fact that just as the Jews have sought to operate through the Masons and then leave that Order to take the brunt of the ensuing assault, so also have they at times sought to operate through the Jesuits, playing the same trick with that name and Order. If the Jesuits and the Masons would compare notes, they could both report the same thing. Jews have sought to use both, and have been frustrated, although in consequence the names of both Orders have suffered for a time.

This is one of the coincidences between the Protocols and the facts: the Protocols express themselves as against both the Masons and the Jesuits, but willing to use both to attain Jewish purposes.

Both these orders are well able to take care of themselves, once they know the key to the Jewish plan. But there is much information on these matters of which the public is not aware, and at a future date a study may be made of the historical efforts of the Jews to use and destroy Freemasonry. Such a study will be useful in showing how Jewish influence operated in a day when the people had no means of identifying it as Jewish. The people attacked the thing they saw, but what they saw was not the source of the element they opposed. Progress has been made at least to this extent, that nowadays, more than at any previous time, the world plan of the Jews is known and recognizable.

The main purpose of the present article, however, is to show the reader that the Jews have not been misrepresented, the means of showing this being a presentation of the Jews by a notable Jew whom the Jews are delighted to honor.

Benjamin Disraeli, who was Earl of Beaconsfield and prime minister of Great Britain, was a Jew and gloried in it. He wrote many books, in a number of which he discussed his people in an effort to set them in a proper light. The British Government was not then so Jewish as it has since become, and Disraeli was easily one of the greatest figures in it.

In his book, “Coningsby,” there appears a Jewish character named Sidonia, in whose personality and through whose utterances, Disraeli sought to present the Jew as he would like the world to see him.

Sidonia first announces his race to young Coningsby by saying, “I am of that faith that the Apostles professed before they followed their Master,” the only place in the whole book where the “faith” is mentioned. Four times, however, in the brief preface to the fifth edition, written in 1849, the term “race” is used in reference to the Jews.

In the first conversation between these two, Sidonia reveals himself as a great lover of power, and discourses charmingly of the powerful men of history, ending in this way:

“Aquaviva was General of the Jesuits, ruled every cabinet in Europe and colonized America before he was thirty-seven. What a career!” exclaimed the stranger (Sidonia), rising from his chair and walking up and down the room; “the secret sway of Europe!” (p. 120. The references are to Longman’s edition published in 1919. The italics are ours.)

Taking up a study of the character of Sidonia the Jew, Disraeli the Jew begins to refer to the Jews as “Mosaic Arabs.” If a modern writer were to describe the Jews thus, virtually as Arabs of the Mosaic persuasion, it would be denounced as another attempt at “persecution,” but Disraeli did this a number of times, his purpose evidently being to give the Jew his proper setting as to his original position among the nations. Again he refers to them as “Jewish Arabs.” Both of these terms may be found on page 209.

Disraeli also gives voice to the feeling, which every Jew has, that whoever opposes the Jew is doomed. This is a feeling which is strongly entrenched in Christians also, that somehow the Jews are the “chosen people” and that it is dangerous to oppose them in anything. “The fear of the Jews” is a very real element in life. It is just as real among the Jews as among non-Jews. The Jew himself is bound in fear to his people, and he exercises the fear of the curse throughout the sphere of religion—“I will curse them that curse thee.” It remains to be proved, however, that opposition to the destructive tendencies of Jewish influences along all the principal avenues of life is a “cursing” of the Jews. If the Jews were really Old Testament people, if they were really conscious of a “mission” for the blessing of all nations, the very things in which they offend would automatically disappear. If the Jew is being “attacked,” it is not because he is a Jew, but because he is the source and life of certain tendencies and influences, which, if they are not checked, mean the destruction of a moral society.

The persecution of the Jew to which Disraeli refers is that of the Spanish Inquisition, which rested on religious grounds. Tracing the Sidonia family through a troubled period of European history, our Jewish author notes:

“During the disorders of the Peninsular War * * * a cadet of the younger branch of this family made a large fortune by military contracts, and supplying the commissariat of the different armies.” (p. 212.) Certainly. It is a truth unassailable, applicable to any period of the Christian Era, that “persecuted” or not, “wars have been the Jews’ harvests.” They were the first military commissaries. If this young Sidonia in supplying “the different armies” went so far as to supply the opposing armies, he would be following quite perfectly the Jewish method as history records it.

“And at the peace, prescient of the great financial future of Europe, confident in the fertility of his own genius, in his original views of fiscal subjects, and his knowledge of natural resources, this Sidonia * * * resolved to emigrate to England, with which he had, in the course of years, formed considerable commercial connections. He arrived here after the peace of Paris, with his large capital. He stakes all that he was worth on the Waterloo loan; and the event made him one of the greatest capitalists in Europe.”

“No sooner was Sidonia established in England than he professed Judaism * * *”

“Sidonia had foreseen in Spain that, after the exhaustion of a war of twenty-five years, Europe must require capital to carry on peace. He reaped the due reward of his sagacity. Europe did require money and Sidonia was ready to lend it to Europe. France wanted some; Austria more: Prussia a little; Russia a few millions. Sidonia could furnish them all. The only country which he avoided was Spain * * *” (p. 213.)

Here the prime minister of Great Britain, from the wealth of his traditions as a Jew and the height of his observation as prime minister, describes the method of the Jew in peace and war, exactly as others have tried to describe it. He puts forward the same set of facts as others put forth, but he does it apparently for the Jews’ glorification, while others do it to enable the people to see what goes on behind the scenes in war and peace. Sidonia was ready to lend money to the nations. But where did he get it, in order to lend it? He got it from the nations when they were at war! It was the same money; the financiers of war and the financiers of peace are the same, and they are The International Jews, as Benjamin Disraeli’s book for the glorification of Jewry amply testifies. Indeed, he testifies on the same page just quoted:

“It is not difficult to conceive that, after having pursued the career we have intimated for about ten years, Sidonia had become one of the most considerable personages in Europe. He had established a brother, or a near relative, in whom he could confide, in most of the principal capitals. He was lord and master of the money market of the world, and of course virtually lord and master of everything else.”

This comes as near being The International Jew as anything can be, but the Jews glory in the picture. It is only when a non-Jewish writer suggests that perhaps it is not good for society that a Jewish coterie should be “lord and master of the money market of the world,” and as a consequence “lord and master of everything else,” that the cry of “persecution” arises.

Strangely enough, it is in this book of the British premier that we come upon his recognition of the fact that Jews had infiltrated into the Jesuits’ order.

“Young Sidonia was fortunate in the tutor whom his father had procured for him, and who devoted to his charge all the resources of his trained intellect and vast and various erudition. A Jesuit before the revolution; since then an exiled Liberal leader; now a member of the Spanish Cortes; Rebello was always a Jew. He found in his pupil that precocity of intellectual development which is characteristic of the Arabian organization.” (p. 214.)

Then followed in young Sidonia’s career an intellectual mastery of the world. He traveled everywhere, sounded the secrets of everything, and returned with the world in his vest pocket, so to speak—a man without illusions of any sort.

“There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar. No minister of state had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalog of his acquaintances in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari, would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, but which exercise so great an influence on public events * * * The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with the public pretext, of transactions.” (pp. 218-219.)

Here is The International Jew, full dress; he is the Protocolist too, wrapped in mystery, a man whose fingers sweep all the strings of human motive, and who controls the chief of the brutal forces—Money. If a non-Jew had limned a Sidonia, so truthfully showing the racial history and characteristics of the Jews, he would have been subjected to that pressure which the Jews apply to every truth-teller about themselves. But Disraeli could do it, and one sometimes wonders if Disraeli was not, after all, writing more than a romance, writing indeed a warning for all who can read.

The quotation just given is not the description of Sidonia only; it is also a description—save for the high culture of it—of certain American Jews who, while they walk in the upper circles, have commerce with the “adventurers” and with “the secret agents and political spies,” and with the “secret Jews,” and with those “subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little.”

This is the strength of Jewry, this commerce between the high and the low, for the Jew knows nothing disreputable within the circle of Jewishness. No Jew becomes an outcast, whatever he may do; a place and a work await him, whatever his character.

There are highly placed persons in New York who would rather not have it known what they contributed to the “adventurer” who left New York to overturn Russia; there are other Jews who would rather not have it printed how much they know of “secret agents and political spies.” Disraeli did more than draw Sidonia; he portrayed The International Jew as he is found also in America.

Thus far Sidonia is described from the outside. But now he begins to speak for himself, and it is in behalf and praise of the Jews. He is discussing the discrimination practiced against his people in England. It is the old story. Everywhere, even in the United States, the same story. Crying for pity while usurping power! “We poor Jews” wails a New York multi-millionaire at whose finger legislators quail and even Presidents of the United States grow respectful.

The following quotation was written in 1844: Britons must be impressed with its uncanny parallel to their affairs today: it is Sidonia speaking—

“* * * yet, since your society has become agitated in England, and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the once loyal Hebrew invariably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveller and latitudinarian, and prepared to support the policy which may even endanger his life and property, rather than tamely continue under a system which seeks to degrade him.”

Consider that. “Latitudinarianism” is the doctrine of the Protocols in a word. It is a break-up by means of a welter of so-called “liberal” ideas which construct nothing themselves, but have power to destroy the established order.

Note also Disraeli’s answer to the question sometimes asked, “If the Jews suffer under Bolshevism, why do they support it?” or the Jewish spokesmen’s form of it—“If we are so powerful, why do we suffer in the disorder of the world?” The disorder is always a step to a new degree of Jewish power. Jews suffer willingly for that. But even so, they do not suffer as the non-Jews do. The Soviets permit relief to enter Russia for the Jews. In Poland, the “starving war-sufferers” are able to glut all available ships in taking high-priced passage to America. They are not suffering as other people are, but, as Disraeli sees, they are willing to suffer because they see in every breakdown of Gentile society a new opportunity for the Jewish power to dig nearer the central seat of power.

Just how the Jew works to break down the established order of things, by means of ideas, as the Protocols claim, is shown in this same conversation of Sidonia:

“The Tories lose an important election at a critical moment; ’tis the Jews come forward to vote against them. The Church is alarmed at the scheme of a latitudinarian university, and learns with relief that funds are not forthcoming for its establishment; a Jew immediately advances and endows it.”

If these words had been written by a non-Jew, the cry of anti-Semitism would ring through the land. They are true, neither more nor less true, because written by a Jew. And Sidonia adds:

“And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society that is hostile to them.” (These quotations from page 249.)

Well, several generations have passed since these words were written. The Jew still regards every form of non-Jewish society as hostile to him. He organizes strongly against society. And, if Disraeli is to be taken as a prophet, his words remain—“they must become more powerful and more dangerous.” They have become more powerful.

Whoso would measure the danger, look around.

Let the charming Sidonia proceed with his revelations:

“I told you just now that I was going up to town tomorrow, because I always made it a rule to interpose when affairs of state were on the carpet. Otherwise I never interfere. I hear of peace and war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the Sovereigns want treasure; then I know that monarchs are serious.”

It will be remembered that Sidonia held no governmental position. The time had not come for that. Power was exercised behind the scenes long before the craving for the spotlight was gratified. But whether there be Jews in office or not, the power they exercise behind the scenes is always greater than the power they show in the open. It can be seen, therefore, that the more numerous they are in office, the greater their secret power. Sidonia continues:

“A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favor of the Polish Hebrew, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar. However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias. I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had, on my arrival, an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew.

“The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I traveled without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish Minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon.

“In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal * * *”

If Sidonia were traveling today he would find whole groups of Jews, where, in his day, he found one, and he would find them in exalted places. Suppose Disraeli were alive today and should revise “Coningsby,” including the United States in the tour of this money master of the world! What a host of Jewish names he could gather from official circles in Washington and New York—such a host, indeed, as makes the occasional

Gentile look like a foreigner who had been graciously permitted to come in by the Jews!

“The consequence of our consultations was, that some northern power should be applied to in a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia; and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian Minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew.”

Sidonia’s comment upon all this is offered as an address to every reader of this article:

“So, you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” (pp. 251-252.)

It is indeed! Why not let the world see behind the scenes for a little?

And now for the most illuminating lines Disraeli ever wrote—lines which half compel the thought that maybe, after all, he was writing to warn the world of Jewish ambition for power:

“You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews. That mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews. That mighty revolution which is at the moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” (p. 250.)

American Jews say that the Protocols are inventions. Is Benjamin Disraeli an invention? Was this Jewish Prime Minister of Great Britain misrepresenting his people? Are not his portrayals taken as true history? And what does he say?

He shows that in Russia, the very country where the Jews complained they were least free, the Jews were in control.

He shows that the Jews know the technique of revolution, foretelling in his book the revolution that later broke out in Germany. How did he foreknow it? Because that revolution was developing under the auspices of Jews, and, though it was then true that  “so little is yet known in England,” Disraeli the Jew knew it, and knew it to be Jewish in origin and development and purpose.

One point is sure: Disraeli told the truth. He presented his people before the world with correctness. He limns Jewish power, Jewish purpose and Jewish method with a certainty of touch that betokens more than knowledge—he shows racial sympathy and understanding. He sets forth the facts which this series is setting forth. Why did he do it? Was it boastfulness, that dangerous spirit in which the Jew gives up most of his secrets? Or was it conscience, impelling him to tell the world of Judah’s designs?

No matter; he told the truth. He is one man who told the truth without being accused of “misrepresenting” the Jews.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 18 December 1920]

Taft Once Tried to Resist Jews—and Failed

William Howard Taft is an amiable gentleman. There is so much to agree with in the world that he seldom finds it possible to disagree with anything. It is a very comfortable attitude for one to assume, but it doesn’t push the world along. Real harmony is wrung out of discord by laboring against disagreeable facts; it is not achieved by mere pit-pats on the back of untoward conditions.

There is no doubt that had one approached William Howard Taft a year ago and said: “Mr. Taft you know there are evil forces in the world which ought to be resisted,” he would have replied, “Certainly, by all means.”

If one had said, “Mr. Taft, some of this evil is just ignorant inclination, which can be dealt with by various means of enlightenment, but some of it represents a deliberate philosophy which has gathered about itself a definite organization for action,” he would have responded: “I am afraid it is true.”

And then had one said: “Mr. Taft, the people should be made aware of this, given a key to it, that they may keep their eyes open and learn the meaning of certain tendencies that have puzzled them,” he would in all likelihood have replied, “I believe in enlightening the public mind that it may take care of itself.”

Suppose you had added: “Mr. Taft, if you found a written program setting forth the steps to be taken to fasten a certain control on society, and if on looking about you observed a definite set of tendencies which seemed to parallel the program at every point, would it appear to you significant?”

Mr. Taft would, of course, answer, Yes. There is no other answer to make. No other answer has been made by anyone who has compared the two things.

If Mr. Taft had been approached first on that side of the question, he would have uttered words very valuable to those who would attach value to his words.

But what has Mr. Taft’s “testimonial” to do with either side of the case? Does his support strengthen it, or does his opposition weaken it? If it came to a battle of names, THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT could present a very imposing list of men who acknowledge the importance of the studies being made, and who agree with most of the observations presented. But such a list would add nothing to the facts in the case, and facts must stand on their own foundation regardless of the attitude of Mr. Taft, or even Mr. Arthur Brisbane.

But there is a very interesting story about Mr. Taft and the Jews. Mr. Taft knows it and can verify it. A number of American Jews also know it. And it may perhaps be useful to tell it now.

However, that we may not seem too desirous of evading Mr. Taft’s latest defense of the Jews, we shall begin with that.

Unduly stirred by this series of studies, the leading Jews of the United States indicated by their perturbation that the truth in these articles made it impossible to ignore them. Perhaps as many people have been inclined toward agreement with the articles by the attitude of the Jews themselves as by the statements made in the articles. Jewish defense has been made with great formality and show of authority, but without the hoped-for effect. The Jews of the United States, evidently finding that their own statements have failed to carry, are making a wholesale conscription of Gentiles for the purposes of defense. As in Russia, the Gentiles are being pushed into the firing lines.

Mr. Taft was therefore approached with a proposition. That was some time ago, probably about November first.

Now, according to Mr. Taft’s own signed statement made on November 1, he had not even read THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s articles but was taking the Jews’ word for their character and contents. And yet, on December 23, we find Mr. Taft in Chicago at the La Salle Hotel, delivering an oration before the B’nai B’rith, uttering his statements with all the finality of a man who has made a deep study of the Jewish Question and had at last attained a mature conclusion.

On November 1, Mr. Taft wrote to a New York Jew deprecating these articles as “a foolish pronouncement which I understand has been issued through THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT.” The expression, “which I understand,” is equivalent in ordinary speech to “which I have heard.” He had not read them. He was taking hearsay on which to base his opinion. There are signs that he had not read them even at the time of his speech in Chicago, for he did not so much as allude to one of the startling parallels which have weighed on the minds of many important men in this country.

The Jews wanted Mr. Taft’s name, they wanted “a Gentile front,” and they got it. The speech contributes nothing to the discussion; it proves nothing, it disproves nothing. In parts it is a rehash of a speech delivered by a New York rabbi. Indeed, one of William Howard Taft’s most telling points was the almost verbal repetition of a point made by that rabbi.

Mr. Taft’s business now is the delivery of addresses. Between November 1, at which time he had not read the Jewish Question at all, until December 23, when he presumed to pronounce judgement on it for all time, he had been away a great deal on the road. Indeed, he reached Chicago without having done any of his Christmas shopping. He explained that he had “been traveling over the country so fast” that his time had all been taken up. When he found time to study the Jewish Question does not appear. It is most probable that he had no time and did no studying. If he did, he carefully concealed the fruits of it when delivering his address.

Before his address was delivered, the newspapers had announced that it was to be made against “anti-Semitism,” and this series of articles was specified. It was apparently foreknown, therefore, that not a judicial pronouncement was to be expected from Mr. Taft, but a partisan plea. The newspapers indicate that Mr. Taft had not even dictated his speech until he reached Chicago. The material he had at hand during his dictation was the printed propaganda with which the Jews have been flooding the country. Taft’s speech reeks with it. There isn’t an original idea in it. He was the human megaphone whom the Jews retained for one night through whom to voice their words. The real purpose of the speech was, of course, to secure its publication throughout the country as the voice of the people on the Question. But nothing whatever excuses the fact that the speech contains absolutely no contribution to the Question.

Mr. Taft is against religious prejudice. So is everybody else. Mr. Taft is against racial prejudice. So is everybody else. Mr. Taft wants concord and good will. So does everybody else. But what have these to do with the facts which comprise the Jewish Question?

The real story of Mr. Taft and the Jews begins back in the time when Mr. Taft lived in the White House. The Jews maintain a lobby in Washington whose business it is to know every President and every prospective President, and, of course, Mr. Taft was known to them a long while before he was made President, but whether they did not foresee his political future or whether they considered his opinions as having too little force for them to bother about, is not clear, but the fact seems to be that very little fuss was made about him. There are no indications that he ran after the Jews or the Jews after him in the days before his presidency.

As President, Mr. Taft once stood out against the Jews, was strongly denounced as unfavorable to the Jews, was soundly beaten by the Jews in a matter on which he had taken a firm stand, and has ever since shown that he has learned his lesson by accommodating the Jews in their desires.

The story involves a portion of that voluminous history which consists of the quarrels between the United States and other nations on account of the Jews. Readers interested in this phase of the history of the United States can find it fully set out by Jewish writers. There seems to be a certain pride taken in recounting the number of times the nations have been compelled to give diplomatic recognition to the Jewish Question. From 1840 until 1911, the United States had special diplomatic trouble concerning the Jews. The trouble that culminated during 1911, in an unparalleled act by the United States, involved William Howard Taft, who then was President.

For centuries, Russia has had her own troubles with the Jews and, as the world knows, has at last fallen prostrate before the Jewish power which for centuries has been working to undermine her. Even Disraeli was not blinded to the fact that Jews had a control over Russia which the rest of the world never knew. The biggest hoax in modern times was the propaganda against Russia as the persecutor of the Jews. Russia devoted to the Jews a large part of the most favored section of the land, and was always so lax in those laws which prohibited Jews from settling in other parts of the country that the Jew was able to create an underground system throughout the whole of Russia which controlled the grain trade, controlled public opinion and utterly baffled the czar’s government. The cry of “persecution” arose because the Jews were not permitted to exploit the peasants as much as they desired. They have, however, gained that privilege since.

Now, when the United States appeared as “the new Jerusalem,” its Jewish citizens conceived the idea of using the American Government to achieve for the Jews what other means had failed to achieve. Russian and German Jews would come to the United States, become naturalized as quickly as possible, and go back to Russia as “Americans” to engage in trade. Russia knew them as Jews and held them to be subject to the laws relating to Jews.

Protest after protest reached the State Department as more and more German or Russian Jews went back to Russia to circumvent the Russian laws. At first the matter was not serious, because it was shown in many cases that these naturalized “Americans” did not intend to return to the United States at all, but had acquired “American citizenship” solely as a business asset in Russia. In these cases, of course, the United States did not feel obligated to bestir herself.

The time came, however, when American ministers to Russia were requested to look into the situation. Their reports are accessible. John W. Foster was one of these ministers and he reported in 1880 that “Russia would be glad to give liberal treatment to bona fide American citizens, not disguised German Jews.”

During all this time the “Russian Question” was being sedulously propagated in the United States. It appeared first in the aspect of the “Russian persecutions.” The Jews represented that their life in Russia was a hell. John W. Foster, later Secretary of State, father-in-law of Robert Lansing, the recently resigned Secretary of State under President Wilson, was at that time representing the United States in Russia, and he reported as follows on the status of the Russian Jews:

“* * * in all the cities of Russia the number of Jewish residents will be found more or less in excess of the police registry and greater than the strict interpretation of the law authorizes. For instance, persons who have given the subject close attention estimate the number of Jewish residents in St. Petersburg at 30,000, while it is stated the number registered by the police authorities is 1,500. From the same source I learn that * * * while only one Hebrew school is registered by the police, there are between three and four thousand children in unauthorized Jewish schools of this capital. As another indication of the extent of Jewish influence, it is worthy of note that one or more Jewish editors or writers are said to be employed on the leading newspapers of St. Petersburg and Moscow almost without exception * * *”

At every turn the United States Government discovered that the Jews were exaggerating their difficulties for the purpose of forcing government action.

Presently, after years of underground work and open propaganda against Russia in the daily press, until the American conception of Russia was fixed almost beyond correction, the agitation took the form of the “Russian passport question.” Russia dares to flout an American passport! Russia insults the government of the United States! Russia degrades American citizens! And so forth and so on.

Jews in the United States demanded nothing less than that the United States break all treaty relations with Russia. They demanded it! James G. Blaine desired one thing more than another, which was this: that something, anything, be done to block the flood of Jewish immigration then beginning to flood the country. “The hospitality of a nation should not be turned into a burden,” he wrote.

There was then the strange situation of the United States itself making complaints about the Jews and at the same time being asked to question Russia’s right to handle similar complaints in her own domain. The minister of foreign affairs for Russia appreciated this point, and when the American minister told him that 200,000 Jews had emigrated to the United States from Russia, he rejoined: “If such a number of people had gone to the United States as workers to aid in developing the country he supposed they would be acceptable, but if they went to exploit the American people, he could understand how objectionable it was.” Of course, the whole point with Russia was that the Jews were exploiting her. They were milking Russia, not feeding her.

If space permitted, much rich material could be presented here. The attitude of the American statesmen of 25 to 40 years ago, on questions of immigration and racial propaganda, was eminently wise and sound.

So, until the days of William Howard Taft, this Jewish propaganda continued, always aimed at Russia, always planning to use the United States as the club with which to strike the blow.

It must be borne in mind at all times that the Jews maintain a lobby at Washington, a sort of embassy from the Jewish Nation to the Government of the United States, and this lobby is in the hands of a principal “ambassador.” It was, of course, this ambassador’s business to get hold of President Taft as firmly as possible.

But President Taft was not at that time so “easy” as the people have since been taught to regard him. There was a commercial treaty between Russia and the United States, and it had existed since 1832, and President Taft behaved as if he thought the Jewish demand that the treaty be broken was rather too much. The Jewish demand was that the United States denounce a treaty which had existed between the two countries for almost 80 years, and during the life of which Russia had repeatedly proved herself to be a reliable friend of this country.

The Jews wanted just two things from William Howard Taft: the abrogation of the Russian treaty and the veto of what Congress had repeatedly tried to do, namely, put a literacy test on immigrants. Jewish immigration into the United States being so important an element of Jewish plans, American Jews never cared what kind of human riffraff filled the country as long as the Jewish flood was not hindered.

Presently, President Taft had undergone the persistent nagging characteristic of such campaigns and had asked, perhaps impatiently, what they wanted him to do.

“Have a conference with some of the leaders of American Jewry” was the proposal made to him, and on February 15, 1911, there walked into the White House, Jacob H. Schiff, Jacob Furth, Louis Marshall, Adolph Kraus and Judge Henry M. Goldfogle. They had lunch with the President’s family and adjourned to the library.

The President was fairly wise in the matter. There was no chance whatever for him in an argument. His guests had come prepared to talk, to “tell” him, as some of the same men lately “told” an eastern publisher, pounding the table and uttering threats. The President was to be overwhelmed, his good nature carried with a rush.

But, instead of anything like that, the President, as soon as they gathered in the library, took out a paper and began to read his conclusions! That staggered the Jewish ambassadors at once—the President was reading his conclusions! He was “telling” them!

The President’s statement is really worth reading, but it is far too lengthy to present here. He called attention to the right which this country exercised to say who shall, and who shall not sojourn here, and also to the conflicting interpretations which American secretaries of State had given the Russian treaty. He contrasted with that Russia’s consistent interpretation from the beginning. He then said that the treaty was sacred because under it for more than 50 years the citizens of the United States had made their investments in Russia—resting solely on their faith in the United States’ and Russia’s treaty honor. He said that if it were a new treaty that was being written, the case would be different; he would then consider the Jewish argument of weight. But he said, we had other treaties with other countries who did not always share our views as to what certain sections of the treaties meant, but we have lived and worked under them. He instanced the Italian treaty with regard to the extradition of criminals. He wished to impress on the Jewish ambassadors that they wanted to make an exception of their case, which, of course, they did.

The President then said he would be willing to consider taking some action if he did not believe that in taking action he would be endangering the status the Jews already enjoyed in Russia. If this treaty were denounced, large American interests would be jeopardized (here the President mentioned certain interests, all Gentile).

He said he liked to see Russian Jews come into the country, but added “the more we spread them out in the West, the better I like it.” He ended with a plea for the Jewish ambassadors there present to consider the plight which denunciation of the treaty might involve Russian Jews, and ended with the words—“That is the way it has struck me, gentlemen. That is the conclusion I have reached.”

The Jewish group was plainly taken aback. Simon Wolf, who was always on guard at Washington, said, “Please, Mr. President, do not give to the Press such conclusions,” but Jacob Schiff broke in with a voice vibrant with anger—“I want it published. I want the whole world to know the President’s attitude.”

The discussion then opened, with the President cool and self-contained. Finally, after some useless talk, and having other business to attend to, he gave them a letter just received from the American Ambassador at St. Petersburg, Mr. Rockhill. Mr. Rockhill presented in that letter to the President the whole Russian contention about the Jews—statements which have been confirmed a thousand times by the events that have since occurred.

They then renewed their expostulations and arguments, but to no avail. The President expressed regret, but said he could see no other course to pursue; he had studied the question in all its lights, and his conclusion was as stated.

On leaving the White House, Jacob Schiff refused to shake the President’s hand, but brushed it by with an air of offended power.

“Wasn’t Mr. Schiff angry yesterday!” exclaimed the President the next day.

But the President did not know what was going on. When Jacob Schiff was descending the White House steps he said, “This means war.” He gave orders to draw on him for a large sum of money. He wrote a curt letter to President Taft. The President sent Mr. Schiff’s letter and the reply to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Charles Nagel, who replied to the President with these words: “I am very much impressed with the patience which you exhibit in your answer.”

Neither did the President know what was behind it all. Look at most of the names of the men who represented American Jewry in the White House that 15th of February, 1911. And then consider that the abrogation of the Russian treaty would throw all the vast business between the United States and Russia into Germany, into the hands of German Jews. The Frankfort bankers and their relatives in the United States knew what that meant. It meant that German Jews would be the intermediaries of trade between Russia and the United States. The business itself meant money, but the relation meant power over Russia—and Jacob H. Schiff lived to overthrow Russia. The neutrality of the United States was torn to shreds by a movement organized and financed on American soil for the overthrow of a friendly nation, and the organizers and financiers were Jews! They used their internal power to deflect the policy of the United States to assist their plans.

The game was financial and revolutionary. It was decreed. It was then part of the program to be accomplished, and the United States was to be used as the crowbar to batter down the walls.

When the Jewish ambassadors left the White House, orders flew from Washington and New York to every part of the United States, and the Jewish “nagging” drive began. It had a center in every city. It was focused on every Representative and Senator—no official, however, was too mean or unimportant to be drafted.

American editors may remember that drive; it was operated on precisely the same lines as the one which is proceeding against the press today. The Jews have furnished absolute proof in the last two months that they control the majority of the American press. There are signs, however, that their control does not mean anything, and will not last long.

Jacob Schiff had said on February 15, “This means war.” He had ordered a large sum of money used for that purpose. The American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith and others of the numerous organizations of Jewry (how well organized they are the signatories of the recent Jewish defense prove) went to work and on December 13 of the same year—almost 10 months to a day after Jewry had declared war on President Taft’s conclusions—both houses of Congress ordered President Taft to notify Russia that the treaty with Russia would be terminated.

Frankfort-on-the-Main had won!

In the meantime, of course, the Jewish press of the United States berated President Taft with characteristic Jewish unreserve. It would be an eye-opener if, at every speech which William Howard Taft makes for his Jewish clients, there could be distributed copies of the remarks printed about President Taft by those same clients nine years ago.

The methods by which the Jews set forth to force congressional action are all known, and the glee with which Jewry hailed the event is also known. Two governments had been beaten—the American and the Russian! And the American President had been reversed!

Whether this had anything to do with the fact that William Howard Taft became that unusual figure—a one-term President—this chronicle does not undertake to say.

There was quite a scurry for cover at that time. Taft had been beaten, and all the men who had stood beside him ran in out of the storm. John Hays Hammond was represented as having been sympathetic with the Russian view of the Jews—as most of the American representatives were. As late as 1917, William Howard Taft, then a private citizen, wrote to the principal Jewish lobbyist at Washington asking that Mr. Hammond be not held up in Jewish histories as one who had opposed the breaking of the Russian treaty.

The President had really done what he could to prevent the Jewish plan going through. On February 15, 1911, he withstood them face to face. On December 13, 1911, they had whipped him.

And yet in the next year, 1912, a peculiar thing occurred; the high officials of the B’nai B’rith went to the White House and there pinned on the breast of President Taft a medal which marked him as “the man who had contributed most during the year to the welfare of the Jewish cause.”

There is a photograph extant of President Taft standing on the south portico of the White House, in the midst of a group of prominent Jews, and the President is wearing his medal. He is not smiling.

But even after that, the Jews were not sure of President Taft. There was a fear, expressed by private letters between prominent Jews, and also in the Jewish press, that President Taft, while officially abrogating the treaty, would consent to some working agreement which would amount to about the same thing. There were cables from Jews in Russia, stating that Taft would do that. The President was closely watched.

Whenever there was an open chink in his daily program, he was approached on the matter. It was made utterly impossible for him to do anything to patch up the differences. Frankfort was to have the handling of American trade with Russia, and Jewry was to have that club over Russia. Money, more and more money, always accompanies every Jewish plan for racial or political power. They make the world pay them for subjugating it. And their first cinch-hold on Russia they won in the United States. The end of that American influence was the rise of Bolshevism, the destruction of Russia, and the murder of Nicholas Romanoff and his family.

That is the story of William Howard Taft’s efforts to withstand the Jews, and how they broke him. It is probably worth knowing in view of the fact that he has become one of those “Gentile fronts” which the Jews use for their own defense.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 15 January 1921]

When Editors Were Independent of the Jews

The first instinctive answer which the Jew makes to any criticism of his race coming from a non-Jew is that of violence, threatened or inflicted. This statement will be confirmed by hundreds of thousands of citizens of the United States who have heard the evidence with their own ears. Of recent months the country has been full of threats against persons who have taken cognizance of the Jewish Question, threats which have been spoken, whispered, written and passed as resolutions by Jewish organizations.

If the candid investigator of the Jewish Question happens to be in business, then “boycott” is the first “answer” of which the Jews seem to think. Whether it be a newspaper, as in the case of the old New York Herald; or a mercantile establishment, as in the case of A. T. Stewart’s famous store; or a hotel, as in the case of the old Grand Union Hotel at Saratoga; or a dramatic production, as in the case of “The Merchant of Venice”; or any manufactured article whose maker has adopted the policy that “my goods are for sale, but not my principles”—if there is any manner of business connection with the student of the Jewish Question, the first “answer” is “boycott.”

The technique is this: a “whispering drive” is first begun. Disquieting rumors begin to fly thick and fast. “Watch us get him,” is the word that is passed along. Jews in charge of ticker news services adopt the slogan of “a rumor a day.” Jews in charge of local newspapers adopt the policy of “a slurring headline a day.” Jews in charge of the newsboys on the streets (all the street corners and desirable places downtown are preempted by Jewish “padrones” who permit only their own boys to sell) give orders to emphasize certain news in the street cries—“a new yell against him every day.” The whole campaign against the critic of Jewry, whoever he may be, is keyed to the threat, “Watch us get him.”

Just as Mr. Gompers and Justice Brandeis believe in “the secondary strike,” as a recent Supreme Court decision reveals, so the Jews who set out to punish the students of the Jewish Question believe in a secondary boycott. Not only do they pledge themselves (they deny this, but the newspaper reports assert it, as do unpublished telegraphic dispatches to some of the newspapers) not to use the specific product in question, but they pledge themselves to boycott anyone else who uses it. If the article is a hat (it is unlikely to be a hat, however, hats being largely Jewish) not only do the Jews pledge themselves to refrain from buying that kind of hat, but also to refrain from doing business with anyone who wears such a hat.

And then, when anything seems to occur at the hat works which indicates slackness, the Jews, forgetting all about their denial of a pledged boycott, begin to boast—“See what we did to him?”

The “whispering drive,” “the boycott,” these are the chief Jewish answers. They constitute the bone and sinew of that state of mind in non-Jews which is known as “the fear of the Jews.”

They do not always notify their victim. Recently the young sales manager of a large wholesale firm spoke at a dinner whose guests were mostly the firm’s customers. He is one of those young men who have caught the vision of a new honor in business. He believes that the right thing is always practicable, and, other things being equal, profitable as well. Among the guests were probably 40 Jewish merchants, all customers of the firm. In his address the young sales agent expressed his enthusiasm for morality by saying, “What we need in business is more of the principles of Jesus Christ.” Now, as a matter of fact, the young man knows very little about Jesus Christ. He has caught fire from the Roger Babson idea of religious principle as a basis of business, but he expressed it in his own way, and everybody knew what he meant; he meant decency, not sectarianism. Yet, because he used the expression he did, he lost 40 Jewish customers for his firm, and he doesn’t yet know the reason why. The agents of the firm which got the new trade know the reason. It was a silent, unannounced boycott.

This article is the story of a boycott which lasted over a number of years. It is only one of numerous stories of the same kind which can be told of New York. It concerns the New York Herald, one newspaper that dared to remain independent of Jewish influence in the metropolis.

The Herald enjoyed an existence of 90 years, which was terminated about a year ago by an amalgamation. It performed great feats in the world of news-gathering. It sent Henry M. Stanley to Africa to find Livingstone. It backed up the Jeannette expedition to the Arctic regions. It was largely instrumental in having the first Atlantic cables laid. But perhaps its greatest feat was the maintenance during many years of its journalistic independence against the combined attack of New York Jewry. Its reputation among newspapermen was that neither its news nor its editorial columns could be bought or influenced.

Its proprietor, the late James Gordon Bennett had always maintained a friendly attitude toward the Jews of his city. He apparently harbored no prejudice against them. Certainly he never deliberately antagonized them. But he was resolved upon preserving the honor of independent journalism. He never bent to the policy that the advertisers had something to say about the editorial policy of the paper, either as to influencing it for publication or suppression.

Thirty years ago the New York press was free. Today it is practically all Jewish controlled. This control is variously exercised, sometimes resting only on the owners’ sense of expediency. But the control is there and, for the moment, it is absolute. One does not have to go far to be able to find the controlling factor in any case.

Newspapermen do not glory in the fact, however; it is a condition, not a crusade, that confronts them, and for the moment “business is business.”

Thirty years ago there were also more newspapers in New York than there are today. There were eight or nine morning newspapers; there are only five today. The Herald, a three-cent newspaper, enjoyed the highest prestige, and was the most desirable advertising medium due to the class of its circulation. It easily led the journalistic field.

At that time the Jewish population of New York was less than one-third of what it is today, but there was much wealth represented in it.

Now, what every newspaperman knows is this: most Jewish leaders are always interested either in getting a story published or getting it suppressed. There is no class of people who read the public press so carefully, with an eye to their own affairs, as do the Jews; and many an editor can vouch for that.

The Herald simply adopted the policy from the beginning of this form of harassment that it was not to be permitted to sway the Herald from its duty as a public informant. And that this had a reflex advantage for the other newspapers is apparent from the following statement:

If a scandal occurred in Jewish circles, influential Jews would swarm into the editorial offices to arrange for a suppression of the story. But the editors knew that not far away was the Herald which would not suppress for anything or anybody. What was the use of one paper suppressing, if another would not? So the editors would say, “We would be very glad to suppress this story, but the Herald is going to use it, so we’ll have to do the same in self-protection. However, if you can get the Herald to suppress it, we will gladly do so, too.”

But the Herald never succumbed. Neither pressure of influence nor promises of business nor threats of loss availed: it printed the news.

There was a certain Jewish banker who periodically demanded that Bennett discharge the Herald’s financial editor. This banker was in the business of disposing of Mexican bonds at a time when such bonds were least secure. Once when an unusually large number of bonds were to be unloaded on unsuspecting Americans, the Herald published the story of an impending Mexican revolution, which presently ensued. The banker frothed at the mouth and moved every influence he could to change the Herald’s financial staff, but was not able to effect the change even of an office boy.

Once when a shocking scandal involved a member of a prominent family, Bennett refused to suppress it, arguing that if the episode had occurred in a family of any other race it would be published regardless of the prominence of the figures involved. The Jews of Philadelphia secured suppression there, but because of Bennett’s unflinching stand there was no suppression in New York.

A newspaper is a business proposition. There are some matters it cannot touch without putting itself in peril of becoming a defunct concern. This is especially true since newspapers no longer receive their support from the public but from the advertisers. The money the reader gives for the paper scarcely suffices to pay for the amount of white paper he receives. In this way, advertisers cannot be disregarded any more than the paper mills can be. And as the most extensive advertisers are the department stores, and as most department stores are owned by Jews, it comes logically that Jews often try to influence the news policies at least, of the papers with whom they deal.

In New York it has always been the burning ambition of the Jews to elect a Jewish mayor. They selected a time when the leading parties were disrupted to push forward their choice. The method which they adopted was characteristic.

They reasoned that the newspapers would not dare refuse the dictum of the combined department store owners, so they drew up a “strictly confidential” letter, which they sent to the owners of the New York newspapers, demanding support for the Jewish mayoralty candidate.

The newspaper owners were in a quandary. For several days they debated how to act. All remained silent. The editors of the Herald cabled the news to Bennett who was abroad. Then it was that Bennett exhibited that boldness and directness of judgement which characterized him. He cabled back, “Print the letter.” It was printed in the

Herald’s editorial columns, the arrogance of the Jewish advertisers was exposed, and non-Jewish New York breathed easier and applauded the action.

The Herald explained frankly that it could not support a candidate of private interests, because it was devoted to the interests of the public. But the Jewish leaders vowed vengeance against the Herald and against the man who dared expose their game. They had not liked Bennett for a long time, anyway. The Herald was the real “society newspaper” in New York, but Bennett had a rule that only the names of really prominent families should be printed. The stories of the efforts of newly rich Jews to break into the Herald’s society columns are some of the best that are told by old newspapermen. But Bennett was obdurate. His policy stood.

Bennett, however, was shrewd enough not to invite open conflict with the Jews. He felt no prejudice against the race; he simply resented their efforts to intimidate him.

The whole matter culminated in a contention which began between Bennett and Nathan Straus, a German Jew whose business house is known under the name of “R. H. Macy & Company,” Macy being the Scotchman who built up the business and from whose heirs Straus obtained it. Mr. Straus was something of a philanthropist in the ghetto, but the story goes that Bennett’s failure to proclaim him as a philanthropist led to ill feeling between the two. A long newspaper war ensured, the subject of which was the value of the pasteurization of milk—a stupid discussion which no one took seriously, save Bennett and Straus.

The Jews, of course, took Mr. Straus’ side. Jewish speakers made the welkin ring with laudation of Nathan Straus and maledictions upon James Gordon Bennett. Bennett was pictured in the most vile business of “persecuting” a noble Jew. It went so far that the Jews were able to put resolutions through the board of aldermen.

Long since, of course, Straus, a very heavy advertiser had withdrawn every dollar’s worth of his business from the Herald and the Evening Telegram. And now the combined powerful elements of New York Jewry gathered together to deal a staggering blow at Bennett—as years before they had dealt a blow to another citizen of New York. The Jewish policy of “Dominate or Destroy” was at stake, and Jewry declared war.

As one man, the Jewish advertisers withdrew their advertisements from Mr. Bennett’s newspapers. Their assigned reason was that the Herald was showing animosity against the Jews. The real purpose of their action was to crush an American newspaper owner who dared be independent of them.

The blow they delivered was a staggering one. It meant the loss of $600,000 a year. Any other newspaper in New York would have been put out of business by it. The Jews knew that and sat back, waiting the downfall of the man they chose to consider their enemy.

But Bennett was ever a fighter. Besides he knew Jewish psychology probably better than any other non-Jew in New York. He turned the tables on his opponents in a startling and unexpected fashion. The coveted positions in his papers had always been used by the Jews. These he immediately turned over to non-Jewish merchants under exclusive contracts. Merchants who had formerly been crowded into the back pages and obscure corners by the more opulent Jewish advertisers, now blossomed forth full page in the most popular spaces. One of the non-Jewish merchants who took advantage of the new situation was John Wanamaker, whose large advertisements from that time forward were conspicuous in the Bennett newspapers.

The Bennett papers came out with undiminished circulation and full advertising pages. The well-planned catastrophe did not occur. Instead, there was a rather comical surprise. Here were the non-Jewish merchants of New York enjoying the choicest service of a valuable advertising medium, while the Jewish merchants were unrepresented. Besides, the “punishment” that the Jews had administered showed no signs of inflicting inconvenience, let alone pain. The “boycott” had been hardest on the boycotters.

Unable to stand the spectacle of trade being diverted to non-Jewish merchants, the Jews dropped their hostile attitude and came back to Bennett, requesting the use of his columns for advertising. Bennett received all who came, displaying no rancor. They wanted back their old positions, but Bennett said, No. They argued, but Bennett said, No. They offered money, but Bennett said, No. The choice positions had been forfeited.

Then a curious circumstance transpired. A few Jews whose business sense had overcome their racial passions had continued to advertise in the Herald all through the “boycott.” When they saw their rebellious brethren coming back and taking what positions they could get in the advertising pages, they suspected that Bennett had lured them back by offering a lower rate. So the wrote to Bennett, demanding to know the circumstances, and as usual Bennett published the letter and replied that his rates had not been lowered.

Bennett had triumphed, but it proved a costly victory. The Jews persistently followed the plan which they had inaugurated as early as 1877, for the ruin of another New Yorker who had refused to bow before them. All the time Bennett was fighting them, the Jews were gradually growing more powerful in New York. They were growing more powerful in journalism every year. They were obsessed by the fatuous idea that to control journalism in New York meant to control the thought of the country. They regarded New York as the metropolis of the United States, whereas all balanced minds regard it as a disease.

The number of newspapers gradually diminished through combinations of publications. Adolph S. Ochs, a Philadelphia Jew, acquired the Times. He soon made it into a great newspaper, but one whose bias is to serve the Jews. A tabulation of the Jewish publicity that finds its way into the Times reveals interesting figures. Of course, it is the quality of the Times as a newspaper that makes it so weighty as a Jewish organ. In this paper the Jews are persistently lauded and eulogized and defended. No such tenderness is granted other races. It is quite possible that the staff of the Times will not regard this as entirely true. Personally and individually, the majority of them are “not that kind of people.” But there is the Times itself as evidence.

And then Hearst came into the field—a dangerous agitator because he not only agitates the wrong things, but because he agitates the wrong class of people. He surrounded himself with a coterie of Jews, pandered to them, worked hand in glove with them, even fell out with them, but never told the truth about them—“never gave them away.” Naturally, he received large advertising patronage. The trend toward the Jewish-controlled press set in strongly, and has continued that way ever since. The old names, made great by great editors and American policies, slowly dimmed.

A newspaper is founded either on a great editorial mind, in which event it becomes the expression of a powerful personality, or it becomes institutionalized as to policy and becomes a commercial establishment. In the latter event, its chances for a continuing life beyond the lifetime of its founder are much stronger. The Herald was Bennett, and with his passing it was inevitable that a certain force and virtue should depart out of it.

Bennett, advancing in age, dreaded lest his newspaper, on his death, should fall into the hands of the Jews. He knew that they regarded it with longing eyes. He knew that they had pulled down, seized, and afterward built up many an agency that had dared speak the truth about them, and boasted about it as a conquest for Jewry; a vindication of the oft misquoted prophecy, “He that curses you I will curse.” Bennett loved the Herald as a man loves his child. He so arranged his will that the Herald should never fall into individual ownership. He devised that its revenues should flow into a fund for the benefit of the men who had worked to make the Herald what it was. He died in May, 1918.

The Jewish enemies of the Herald, eagerly watchful, more and more withdrew their advertising to force, if possible, the sale of the paper. They knew that if the Herald became a losing proposition, the trustees would have no course but to sell, notwithstanding Mr. Bennett’s will.

But there were also strong moneyed interests in New York who were beginning to realize the peril of a Jewish press. These interests provided a large sum for the Herald’s purchase by Frank A. Munsey. Then, to the general astonishment, Mr. Munsey discontinued the gallant old sheet and bestowed its name as part of the name of the New York Sun. But the actual newspaper managed by Bennett is extinct. Even the men who worked upon it are scattered abroad in the newspaper field.

Even though the Jews had not gained possession of the coveted Herald they had at least succeeded in driving another non-Jewish newspaper from the field. They set about obtaining control of several evening newspapers, which action is now complete.

But the victory was a financial victory over a dead man. The moral victory, as well as the financial victory, remained with Bennett as long as he lived; the moral victory still remains with the Herald. The Herald is immortalized as the last bulwark against Jewry in New York. Today the Jews are more completely masters of the journalistic field in New York than they are in any capital in Europe. Indeed, in every capital in Europe there is a newspaper that gives the real news of the Jews. There is none in New York. And thus the situation will remain until Americans shake themselves from their long sleep, and look with steady eyes at the national situation. That look will be enough to show them all, and their very eyes will quail the oriental usurpers.

The moral is: whatever comes out of New York now must be doubly scrutinized, because it comes from the center of that Jewish government which desires to guide and color the thoughts of the people of the United States.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 5 February 1921]

Why the Jews Dislike the Morgenthau Report

It seems a far cry from the Jewish Question in the United States to the same question in Poland, but inasmuch as the Jews of the United States are constantly referring to Poland for propaganda purposes, inasmuch as there are 250,000 Polish Jews arriving in the United States on a schedule made by their brethren here, and inasmuch as the people of Poland have had their own illuminating experience with the World Program, it would seem that Poland has something to teach the United States in this respect.

Especially is this true since it is impossible to pick up an American newspaper without finding traces of Jewish anti-Polish propaganda—a propaganda which is designed to take our eyes away from the thing that is transpiring at the Port of New York. If a reader of these articles should say, “Let us not think about Poland, let us think about the United States,” the answer is that he is already thinking about Poland the way the Jews of the United States want him to think, and the fact that he is thinking according to Jewish wishes in this respect incapacitates him up to a certain point to understand the entire Jewish Question in this country.

Three chapters back in this series we presented part of a hearing before the United States Senate committee on the census question as it affected the Jew. The immigration question appeared as part of that inquiry. Then followed an article which showed that Jewish authorities adopt principles exactly opposite to those which had been defended before the United States Senators. A third article followed showing how Jewish leaders resent the influence of the modern State upon Judaism. All these subjects are essential to a well-rounded understanding of the Jewish Question as a whole in its relation to the United States.

Today we go back to the home of that quarter of a million people who are rapidly being landed on our shores to see what they did there, and to find the basis for Jewish propaganda statements that these people are fleeing from “persecution.”

We have five official witnesses whose observations have been printed under the seals of the United States and the British governments. The American document is a “Message from the President of the United States, transmitting pursuant to a State Resolution of October 28, 1919, a communication from the Secretary of State submitting a report by the Honorable Henry Morgenthau on the work of The Mission of the United States to Poland.” It is Senate Document No. 177.

This document includes also a supplementary report signed by Brigadier-General Edgar Jadwin, United States Army.

There is a certain mystery about this document. Though an edition was printed for public circulation, it soon became extremely rare. It seemed to disappear almost overnight. The copy from which this present examination is made was secured with the utmost difficulty. The head of that American Mission, which remained in Poland from July 13 to September 13, 1919, was Henry Morgenthau, an American Jew, who had been United States Minister to Turkey, a man of excellent public and private reputation.

It is commonly said that the Jews did not like his report, hence its scarcity. This much appears: The Jewish press has never made much of it; it is not cited in Jewish propaganda; it has not had the endorsement of American Jewry. The reason appears to be this—that it told the calm truth about the situation of the Jews in Poland and made very fair observations.

But it is indirectly that American Jews show the opinion which they hold of the Morgenthau report, and it comes about in this way: When the American Mission left Poland, the British Mission arrived, and remained until December. The chief member of the British Mission was an English Jew, Sir Stuart Samuel, whose brother Herbert is now High Commissioner of Palestine. He was accompanied by a British military officer, Captain P. Wright, who also submitted a supplementary report. The two reports were submitted with an introductory report by Sir H. Rumbold, British representative at Warsaw.

Now, of all five reports, the Morganthau, Samuel, Jadwin, Wright and Rumbold reports, the Jews of the United States have circulated only one—the Samuel report. It has been printed in full in newspapers at advertising rates; it has been circulated broadcast as an American Jewish Congress Bulletin. Any number of Samuel reports may be obtained, but none of the report which a member of the American diplomatic service made and which the President of the United States transmitted as a Message to the Senate.

Why? Because four reports examined the situation all around and reported it without bias, and if they were printed in the United States and spread broadcast before the people, it would throw an entirely different light on the Jewish propaganda in favor of Polish immigration in enormous numbers.

Even when the Jews of the United States published the Samuel report, they did not publish the Captain Wright report which accompanied it. In the American Jewish Congress Bulletin, the Wright report was condensed, mutilated, and shorn of its real meaning; while in the Maccabaean, the reports of Rumbold and Wright are treated without courtesy and the Samuel report published in full.

That the reader may form his own conclusions, the testimony of the five official witnesses (or six, if we count Homer H. Johnson, who signed the American report with General Jadwin) will be given on the principal points; the agreements and disagreements will therefore be noticeable.

1. ON THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF PERSECUTION.

SIR STUART SAMUEL says: “Poles generally are of a generous nature, and if the present incitements of the press were repressed by a strong official hand, Jews would be able to live, as they have done for the past 800 years, on good terms with their fellow citizens in Poland.”

Note how easily Sir Stuart talks about repression of the press. The Polish press has at last obtained freedom of writing. It is exercising a privilege which the Jewish press of Poland always had. But now that it speaks freely of Jews, repress it with a strong hand, says Sir Stuart. He would not dare suggest that in England where the press also is finding its freedom. As to the Yiddish press in Poland, the reader will find some information in Israel Friedlaender’s essay, “The Problem of Polish Jewry.” Friedlaender was a Jew and his book was published by a Jewish house in Cincinnati. He says:

“The Yiddish press sprang up and became a powerful civilizing agency among the Jews of Poland. The extent of its influence may be gathered from the fact, which curiously enough is pointed out reproachfully by the Poles, that the leading Yiddish newspaper of Warsaw commanded but a few years ago a larger circulation than that of all the Polish newspapers combined.”

HENRY MORGENTHAU says (par. 7)—“The soldiers had been inflamed by the charge that the Jews were Bolsheviks, while at Lemberg it was associated with the idea that the Jews were making common cause with the Ukrainians. These excesses were, therefore, political as well as anti-Semitic in character.“

And again (par. 8)—“Just as the Jews would resent being condemned as a race for the action of a few of their co-religionists, so it would be correspondingly unfair to condemn the Polish nation as a whole for the violence committed by uncontrolled troops or local mobs. These excesses were apparently not premeditated, for if they had been part of a preconceived plan, the number of victims would have run into the thousands instead of amounting to about 280. It is believed that these excesses were the result of widespread anti-Semitic prejudice aggravated by the belief that the Jewish inhabitants were politically hostile to the Polish State.”

SIR H. RUMBOLD says: “It is giving the Jews very little real assistance to single out, as is sometimes done, for reprobation and protest the country where they have perhaps suffered least.”

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT says: “It is an explanation often given of what may be called, according to the point of view, the idiosyncrasies or defects of the Jews, that they have been an oppressed and persecuted people. This is an idea so charitable and humane that I should like to think it, not only of the Jews, but of every other people. It has every merit as a theory, except that of being true. When one thinks of what happened to the other ‘racial, religious and linguistic minorities’ of Europe in modern times * * * the Jews appear not as the most persecuted but as the most favored people of Europe.”

BRIGADIER GENERAL JADWIN states clearly that the “persecution” cry may be regarded as propaganda. He says:

“The disorders of November 21 to 23 in Lemberg became, like the excesses in Lithuania, a weapon of foreign anti-Polish propaganda. The press bureau of the Central Powers, in whose interest it lay to discredit the Polish Republic before the world, permitted the publication of articles * * * in which an eye-witness estimated the number of victims between 2,500 and 3,000, although the extreme number furnished by the local Jewish committee was 76.” (p. 15.)

And again: “In common with all free governments of the world, Poland is faced with the danger of the political and international propaganda to which the war has given rise. The coloring, the invention, the suppression of news, the subornation of newspapers by many different methods, and the poisoning by secret influences of the instruments affecting public opinion, in short, all the methods of malevolent propaganda are a menace from which Poland is a notable sufferer.” (p. 17.)

Of course, all this propaganda has been Jewish. The methods described are typically Jewish.

Speaking about the number killed, Mr. Morgenthau estimates the total at 258; while Sir H. Rumbold says only 18 were killed “in Poland proper,” the others having been killed in the disorders of the war zone. Sir Stuart Samuel estimates the total killed at 348.

2. ON THE GENERAL CAUSE OF JEWISH TROUBLE BEFORE THE WAR.

SIR STUART SAMUEL—“The Jews in Poland and Galicia number about 3,000,000 * * * Public opinion had been aroused against them by the institution of a virulent boycott. This boycott dates from shortly after the by-election for the Duma, which took place in Warsaw in 1912 * * * Business relations between Poland and Russia were very considerable in the past, and were generally in the hands of the Jews, not only in the handling of the goods exported, but also in their manufacture * * * Initiative in business matters is almost entirely the prerogative of the Jewish population * * * Nearly the whole of the estate agents who act for the Polish nobility are of the Jewish race * * * Attention must be paid to the fact that Jews form the middle class almost in its entirety. Above are the aristocracy and below are the peasants. Their relations with the peasants are not unsatisfactory. The young peasants cannot read the newspapers and are therefore but slightly contaminated by anti-Semitism until they enter the army. I was informed that it is not at all unusual for Polish peasants to avail themselves of the arbitrament of the Jewish rabbi’s courts.”

That shows the Jews to have occupied a very favorable position in Poland and is to be remembered in connection with the previous quotation from Sir Stuart in which he says that if the incitements of the press were repressed by a strong official hand, “the Jews would be able to live, as they have done for the past 800 years, on good terms with their fellow citizens in Poland.”

Let us take the points made by Sir Stuart, and observe what the other witnesses say about them:

(a) Beginning with the point as to the Jews’ monopoly of business in Poland:

SIR H. RUMBOLD—“Sir Stuart Samuel would appear to be mistaken in his appreciation of the part played by the Jews in the pre-war business relations between Poland and Russia and in the industry of the former country. Whereas it is true that goods exported from Poland were to a large extent handled by the Jews, only a small percentage of those goods were actually manufactured by them.”

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT—“In Poland until the last generation all business men were Jews: The Poles were peasants or landowners, and left commerce to the Jews; even now certainly much more than half, and perhaps as much as three-quarters, of business men are Jews.”

“For both town and country I think it a true generalization to say that the East Jews are hardly ever producers, but nearly always middlemen.”

“Economically, the Jews appear at the very outset as dealers, not as producers, nor even as artisans, and chiefly dealers in money; in course of time the whole business and commerce of Poland became theirs, and they did nothing else.”

(b) With regard to the “estate agents” mentioned by Sir Stuart Samuel:

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT—“Poland is an agricultural country, but the East Jews, unlike the West Jews, play a large part in its country life. Every estate and every village has its Jew, who holds a sort of hereditary position in them; he markets the produce of the peasants and makes their purchases for them in town; every Polish landowner or noble had his own Jew, who did all his business for him, managed the commercial part of his estate, and found him money * * * Besides this, nearly all the population of nearly all the small country towns is Jewish, corn and leather dealers, storekeepers and peddlers, and such like.”

(c) Regarding Sir Stuart’s assertion that “Jews form the middle class almost to its entirety,” with the nobles above them and the peasants beneath them (a typical Jewish position—dividing Gentile society and standing between the parts), this illustration may help to make it clear:

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT—“It is instructive to try and imagine what England would be like under the same conditions. Arriving in London, a stranger would find every second or third person a Jew, almost all the poorer quarters and slums Jewish, and thousands of synagogues. Arriving at Newbury he would find practically the whole town Jewish, and nearly every printed inscription in Hebrew characters. Penetrating into Berkshire, he would find the only storekeeper in most small villages a Jew, and small market towns mostly composed of Jewish hovels. Going on to Birmingham he would find all the factories owned by Jews, and two shops out of three with Jewish names.”

Captain Wright is trying to give the people at home a picture of conditions in order that they may understand how Poland feels. The Jewish press strongly resented this. Sir Stuart Samuel’s report is notable for the number of things he mentioned, and the few he explained.

3. ON THE GENERAL CAUSE OF TROUBLE ARISING DURING THE WAR.

SIR STUART SAMUEL—“The fact of their language being akin to German often led to their being employed during the German occupation in preference to other Poles. This circumstance caused the Jews to be accused of having had business relations with the Germans * * * The Government publicly declared its disapproval of boycotting, but a certain discrimination seems to have been made in the re-employment of those who served under the German occupation. I find that many Jews who thus served have been relieved of their offices and not reinstated, whereas I can find no evidence of similar procedure in regard to other Poles.”

SIR H. RUMBOLD—“The fact of Yiddish being akin to German may have been the reason why the Germans employed a large number of Jews during their occupation of Poland, although a great many of the Poles with a good knowledge of German could have been found. There is this difference, however, that the Poles only served the Germans by compulsion, as they considered them to be their enemies.”

BRIGADIER GENERAL JADWIN—“During the German occupation of Poland, the Germanic character of the Yiddish vernacular and the readiness of certain Jewish elements to enter into relations with the winning side, induced the enemy to employ Jews as agents for various purposes and to grant the Jewish population not only exceptional protection, but also the promise of autonomy. It is alleged that the Jews were active in speculation in foodstuffs, which was encouraged by the armies of occupation with a view to facilitating export to Germany and Austria.” That is, the Jews were the means by which Poland was to be drained of its food supply.

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT—“But the high day and triumph of the Jews was during the German occupation. The Jews in Poland are deeply Germanized, and German carries you over Poland because Jews are everywhere. So the Germans found everywhere people who knew their language and could work for them. It was with Jews that the Germans set up their organization to squeeze and drain Poland—Poles and Jews included—of everything it had; it was in concert with Jews that German officials and officers toward the end carried on business all over the country. In every department and region they were the instruments of the Germans, and poor Jews grew rich and lordly as the servants of the masters. But though Germanized, the accusation of the Poles that the Jews are devoted to Germany is unfounded * * * They have no more loyalty to Germany—the home of anti-Semitism—than to Poland. The East Jews are Jews and only Jews.

“It has seemed certain that one of two, the German or the Russian Empire, must win, and that the Jews, who had their money on both, were safe; but the despised Poland came in first. Even now the Jews can hardly believe in its resurrection, and one of them told me it still seemed to him a dream.”

Mr. Morgenthau does not touch this matter in his report.

4. WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOYCOTT, THE METHOD BY WHICH THE

POLES SOUGHT TO LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE JEWISH STRANGLEHOLD.

SIR STUART SAMUEL—“This boycott dates from shortly after the by-election for the Duma, which took place in Warsaw in 1912 * * * During the war, owing to the scarcity of almost everything, the boycott diminished, but with the armistice it revived with much of its original intensity * * * A severe private, social and commercial boycott of Jews, however, exists among the people generally, largely fostered by the Polish press. In Lemburg I found there was a so-called social court presided over by M. Przyluski, a former Austrian vice-president of the Court of Appeals, which goes so far as to summon persons having trade relations with Jews to give an explanation of their conduct. Below will be found a typical cutting from a Polish newspaper giving the name of a Polish countess who sold property to Jews. This was surrounded by a mourning border such as is usual in Poland in making announcements of death.

(translation)

“Countess Anna Jablonowska, resident in Galicia, has sold her two houses, Stryjska street, Nos. 18 and 20, to the Jews, Dogilewski, Hubner and Erbsen. The attorney of the countess was Dr. Dziedzic; her administrator, M. Naszkowski. Will the Polish public forever remain indifferent and passive in such cases?”

This illustration of Sir Stuart brings to mind a practice common in England. It is related on page 123 of “The Conquering Jew” by John Foster Fraser, published by Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1916: “The housing question in the Whitechapel district has reached such a pitch that there are large blocks of buildings where ‘No English Need Apply’ is a common legend. Whole streets are being bought up by Hebrew syndicates, whose first act is to serve notice on all Gentile tenants.”

It is also worth stating in this connection, that some of the feeling which has recently led to race riots in American cities has been engendered by the practice of small Jewish real estate syndicates purchasing a house in the middle of a desirable block, ousting the tenants and installing a Negro family, thereby using race prejudice to depreciate the property in the entire block and render it purchasable by the Jews at a low price. Thereafter, the property is lost to Gentile ownership or use.

It may be that in Poland a similar condition exists which makes the sale of property into Jewish hands a kind of disloyalty to the people generally. Apparently the Poles think so. “Racial prejudice” is not a sufficient explanation of such beliefs: there is always something pretty tangible beneath them.

The “boycott” was merely this:—an agreement among Poles to trade with Poles. The Jews were numerous, well-to-do, and in control of all the channels of business. They own practically all the real estate in Warsaw. The Jews claimed that the so-called boycott (the Polish name for it is “the co-operatives”) was “persecution.”

SIR H. RUMBOLD—“It must be further remembered that under the influence of economic changes and owing to the fact that since 1832 the Poles have not been allowed to hold posts in the government, they were gradually obliged to take to trade, and competition between the Jewish population and the Poles commenced. This competition became stronger when the Russian Government allowed co-operative and agricultural societies to be started in Poland. The cooperative movement is becoming very strong and will undoubtedly form an important factor in the development of economic relations in Poland, so that indirectly it will be bound to affect the position of the small Jewish trader.

“In so far as the Polish Government are able to do so by legislation or proclamations, the boycotting of the Jews should be prohibited. But I would point out that it is beyond the power of any government to force its subjects to deal with persons with whom they do not wish to deal.”

HENRY MORGENTHAU, however, takes a more reasonable view than his British co-religionist, Sir Stuart Samuel. Mr. Morgenthau says:

“Furthermore, the establishment of co-operative stores is claimed by many Jewish traders to be a form of discrimination. It would seem, however, that this movement is a legitimate effort to restrict the activities and therefore the profits of the middleman. Unfortunately, when these stores were introduced into Poland, they were advertised as a means of eliminating the Jewish trader. The Jews have, therefore, been caused to feel that the establishment of co-operatives is an attack upon themselves. While the establishment and the maintenance of co-operatives may have been influenced by antiSemitic sentiment, this is a form of economic activity which any community is perfectly entitled to pursue.”

It is not difficult, therefore, to see through the eyes and minds of these five men the situation that prevailed in Poland. Eight hundred years ago, Poland opened her gates to the persecuted Jews in all Europe. They flocked there and enjoyed complete freedom; they were even allowed to form a “state within a state,” governing themselves in all Jewish matters and doing business with the Polish Government only through their own chosen spokesmen and representatives. The Polish people were their friends, evincing neither religious nor racial antipathy to them. Then Europe fell upon Poland, divided her asunder, until in the roster of the nations there was no more Poland, except in the hearts of the Polish people. During this period of Poland’s humiliation, the Jews grew to be a mighty power, ruling the Poles, regulating their very lives. The Great War came with its promise of liberation and the restoration of a Polish free government. The Jews were not favorable to that restoration. They were not Poland’s friends. The Poles resented this and at the signing of the armistice when they were free to express their resentment, they did so. Many regrettable things occurred, but they were not unintelligible. They had explanatory backgrounds. Even the armistice was not the end. The Bolsheviks from Russia came down upon Poland, and once more, so the Poles strongly declare, the Jews were against the land that had sheltered them for 800 years.

These are a few of the facts. Another article will be required to complete the story. In the meantime enough has been said to show the utter wrong which Jewish propaganda in the United States has done to Poland. But the purpose was not altogether to injure Poland; it was also to blind the American people, and cause them to view with equanimity the great influx of those same Jews into this country.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 30 October 1920]

Jews Use the Peace Conference to Bind Poland

There is one difference between the Polish report of Sir Stuart Samuel and those of the others, which illustrates a difference between the Jewish mind and the general mind. The type of mind represented by the other investigators, Captain Wright, Brigadier General Jadwin, Sir H. Rumbold and even Henry Morgenthau is the type of mind which looks behind events for causes.

Here is, for illustration, trouble between the Jews and other people. It is a continuous situation. There is always trouble between the two. We seldom hear of it, however, until the Jew begins to get the worst of it. As long as the Jew remains on top, making the Gentile serve the Jewish plan, there is no publicity whatever. The Gentiles may complain as much as they like, may protest and rebel—no international commissions arrive to investigate the matter.

Trouble between the Jews and other people is designated as trouble only when it begins to grow inconvenient for the Jew. It is then that he sends the cry of “persecution” around the earth, though the plain fact may be that he is only being nipped at his own game. The Poles saw how the Jews clung together in the most admirable teamwork, a minority absolutely controlling the majority because the minority formed a close corporation and the majority did not. So the Poles said: “We will take a leaf out of the Jews’ own book. They work co-operatively among themselves; we, therefore, will work co-operatively among ourselves.” Which they did, and at once the cry of “persecution” resounded loud and long; propaganda was begun against the good name of the Poles, more resentment followed, regrettable violence ensued, and the dispute still continues.

Jewish reports of these disturbances rarely go beyond the fact that Jews are suffering from certain acts of the Polish populace. Incident after incident is given with full detail, and with a very apparent journalistic appreciation of horror. Names, dates, places, circumstances are all in order.

Very well. It is no part of this article to deny or minimize the suffering of Jews wherever or for whatever cause it may occur. There is nothing whatever to be said in extenuation of injustice inflicted on the humblest human being. The murder of even one person, the terrorizing of even one family, is a very terrible thing to contemplate. It is a great pity that the world has become so accustomed to the piled-up tales of horror that it no longer has any sensibilities left to feel the shame and degradation of these things. From the days of Belgium onward, all races in Europe have suffered, and by sympathy all races in America have suffered with them, though it is a fact that we hear more, far more, about the sufferings of the Jews than of any other people.

There is, however, this reaction of the practical mind: Why do these things occur? Grant that robberies, assaults and murders described in the complaint, have occurred, why should they occur?

Are the Polish people naturally given to perpetrating such acts? Have such acts marked the residence of the Jews in Poland for the last 800 years? And if the Polish people are not naturally abusive, if the story of the Jews’ residence in Poland has been mostly pleasant, what causes the change now?—that is the way the practical mind works. It seeks to know the background.

Mr. Morgenthau, apparently, put in too much of this background, though at that he put in very much less than the other investigators, except Mr. Samuel. Therefore, Mr. Morgenthau’s report was pigeonholed by American Jewry, because the facts make very poor material for the kind of propaganda which American Jewish leaders had in mind. Apparently they did not dare publicly to criticize or renounce his report; they simply passed it over. Captain Wright, who endeavored to put in all the background he could find to make Polish conditions comprehensible to the British people, has been handled insultingly by the Jewish press. They don’t want investigation. They want sympathy for themselves and denunciation for the Poles.

In America, we are inclined to believe that every condition is explainable: it may be reprehensible, but it is intelligible; we believe that the explanation is the first step toward the remedy.

Mr. Morgenthau does not speak of “pogroms” at all. In this he sets an example that certain hysterical American Jews ought to follow. The present series of articles in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is a “pogrom” (some Jewish spokesmen speak as if each separate article were a “pogrom”) in the hectic but uninstructive oratory of Hebrew lodge meetings. But Mr. Morgenthau exercises more precision in the use of words, He says:

“The mission has purposely avoided the use of the word ‘pogrom,’ as the word is applied to everything from petty outrages to premeditated and carefully organized massacres * * *”

On one point all the reports agree, namely, that the unjust killing of Jews has been on a scale so much smaller than that alleged by the propagandists that there is no comparison. In that part of Poland where war disorder was less common, 18 persons were unjustly deprived of their lives. For the whole territory during the entire period when it was being overrun by various elements, Sir Stuart Samuel admits, apparently with reluctance, that he can count only 348. Captain Wright says: “I estimate that not more than 200 or 300 have been unjustly killed. One would be too many, but, taking these casualties as a standard with which to measure the excesses committed against them, I am more astonished at their smallness than their greatness.” Sir H. Rumbold says: “If the excesses had been encouraged or organized by the civil and military authorities, the number of victims would probably have been much greater.”

That the reader may see how the various reports run with reference to specific charges of brutality, the agreements and divergences are set down. Look at the reports concerning what happened at Lemberg.

1. The excesses occurred November 21-23, 1918. The city was taken by Ukrainian troops, formerly in the Austrian service. (Samuel, Morgenthau, Wright, Jadwin.)

2. “General Monczyunski raised a Polish army, about 1,500 in number, consisting of men, women, boys, some of them criminals, and, after a severe struggle, succeeded in capturing half the city, the other half of which remained in the occupation of the Ukrainians.” (Samuel.) “A few hundred Polish boys, combined with numerous volunteers of doubtful character, recaptured about half the city and held it until the arrival of Polish reinforcements on November 21.” (Morgenthau.) “When the German troops revolted all over Poland at the time of the armistice, and the whole edifice of German organization fell to the ground in a day, a few Polish officers raised a small volunteer force in Lemberg, numbering between 1,000 and 2,000, which was composed of boys, roughs and criminals, and even women in uniform. For nearly a fortnight they fought in the streets against the Ukrainians and on the arrival of a similar force * * * drove the Ukrainians out of town. This was really a splendid feat of arms.” (Captain Wright.)

3. “The Jewish part of the population of Lemberg declared itself to be neutral.” (Samuel.)

“The Jewish population declared themselves neutral, but the fact that the Jewish quarter lay within the section occupied by the Ukrainians, and that the Jews had organized their own militia and, further, the rumor that some of the Jewish population had fired upon the soldiery, stimulated among the Polish volunteers an anti-Semitic bias that readily communicated itself to the relieving troops.” (Morgenthau.)

“During the struggle the Jews proclaimed themselves neutral; but, though I do not think they gave any armed assistance to the Ukrainians, their neutrality was highly benevolent to the Ukrainians and probably helpful. They thought the Ukrainians would win.” (Captain Wright.)

4. “In the result none of the military commanders responsible for these events has been punished.” (Samuel.) “As early as December 24, 1918, the Polish Government, through the ministry of justice, began a strict investigation of the events of November 21 and 23 * * * In spite of the crowded dockets of the local courts, where over 7,000 cases are now pending, 164 persons, ten of them Jews, have been tried for complicity in the November disorders, and numerous similar cases await disposal. Forty-four persons are under sentences ranging from 10 days to 18 months. Aside from the civil courts, the local court-martial has sentenced military persons to confinement for as long as three years for lawlessness during the period in question.” (Morgenthau.) Speaking of the general subject of punishment, Captain Wright says: “The Government has inflicted a good deal, though an insufficient amount of punishment; these punishments it has never published, for fear of Polish public opinion.” And Brigadier General Jadwin, of the United States Mission, says: “If complaints as to slowness and uncertainty of military and government punishments and relief were heard, as they were, it seemed nevertheless to indicate that orderly process of government was in operation.”

5. “No compensation has been paid for the damage done.” (Samuel.)

“This mission is advised that on the basis of official investigations the government has begun the payment of claims for damages resulting from these events.” (Morgenthau.)

“Payments had begun to be made in Wilna, Pinsk and Lemberg before our departure from Poland.” (General Jadwin.)

The occurrences in Lemberg were bad enough, to be sure. But Sir Stuart Samuel let it be understood that all the blame rested with the Poles. The other investigators gave reports that explain the matter, although no report could excuse it. And all but Samuel agreed that the Polish Government did what it could to repair what had occurred and to prevent recurrences. This from the American report is worth considering: “General Jadwin was present at the taking of Minsk and a personal witness of the strenuous efforts of the military authorities toward preventing acts of violence.” The fact seems to be that as soon as any sort of order could be brought out of the chaos of war, the disorder ceased. And yet we read, even today in our newspapers, of “thousands and tens of thousands of Jews being slaughtered in Poland.”

Further, to indicate that these events did not occur without Jewish provocation to a certain extent, there is the case in Pinsk. This was on April 5, 1919.

1. Pinsk had been recaptured from the Bolsheviki a short time before. The population was overwhelmingly Jewish, only 25 per cent being Polish. (General Jadwin, Captain Wright.) The Polish officer had only a very small detachment of men, and the Bolshevist lines were quite close. The Polish officer was treated with coldness by the Jews, and he suspected them of friendly relations with the Bolsheviki; he was very anxious. He had posted notices that any unauthorized meeting would be punishable by death. (Captain Wright.)

2. The Government Organizer of Co-operative societies had given permission for the Jewish co-operatives to meet for discussion of the plan to join other co-operatives. (Samuel, Morgenthau, Wright.)

3. “It seems that two Polish soldiers * * * and another soldier * * * informed the military authorities that they had information that the Jews intended to hold a Bolshevik meeting on Saturday in what is known as the People’s House, being the headquarters of the Zionists.” (Samuel.) “This meeting took place in the offices of the Zionist organization, which is very anti-Polish.” (Wright.)

“* * * it is recognized that information of Bolshevist activities in Pinsk had been received by two Jewish soldiers * * *” (Morgenthau.)

“The town commander with judgement unbalanced by fear of the Bolshevik uprising of which he had been forewarned by two Jewish soldier informers * * *” (General Jadwin.)

“After the meeting had ended and been formally closed, a great many members of the co-operative association remained in the same room talking together; other members of the Zionist organization, including ladies, were in the room at the same time. This collection of people must have presented the appearance of a meeting, and I think the members remaining in one room were numerous enough technically to constitute a meeting. There was some insolence in this and the previous behavior of the Jews: Sir Stuart Samuel pointed out to the witnesses that their authorized meeting itself had been a breach of the Sabbath, and therefore a grave religious offense.” (Captain Wright.)

All of the investigators agree in denouncing what followed. Captain Wright says the Polish officer would hardly have acted with such promptitude if the prisoners had been others than Jews.

General Jadwin sums it up thus: “The Pinsk outrage * * * was a purely military affair. The town commander with judgement unbalanced by fear of a Bolshevik uprising of which he had been forewarned by two Jewish soldier informers sought to terrorize the Jewish population (about 75 per cent of the whole) by the execution of 35 Jewish citizens without investigation or trial, by imprisoning and beating others and by wholesale threats against all Jews. No share in this action can be attributed to any military official higher up, to any of the Polish civil officials, nor to the few Poles resident in that district of White Russia.”

Sir Stuart says: “Under the present local administration Pinsk is once more peaceful, and the relations between the Christian and non-Christian inhabitants have become normal.”

It is sometimes forgotten here in the United States that for Poland the war is not yet over. Poland is now a free nation—on paper—but her freedom seems to be a day-by-day tenure, dependent on fighting. Bolshevism made serious inroads on her. Wherever the Bolshevik Red armies swept across Poland, the Jews met them with welcomes. This is no longer denied, even in the United States: it is explained by the statement that the Bolsheviki are more friendly to the Jews than are the Poles—a statement which readers of our recent articles on the Jewish character of Sovietism can well understand.

When the Poles beat back the Reds, they commonly found that the Jews had already set up Sovietism, as if they had long awaited it and were well prepared. It is scarcely strange, therefore, that the Poles still retain their suspicions.

The Jews do not want to become Poles. That is the root of the present difficulty between the two peoples. Sir Stuart Samuel barely touches it—“On several occasions the resentment of the soldiery and civil population was aroused by the Zionists’ claim to Jewish nationality as opposed to Polish nationality.” Mr. Morgenthau goes a step further—“This had led to a conflict with the nationalist declarations of some of the

Jewish organizations which desire to establish cultural autonomy financially supported by the State.” Mr. Morgenthau, you will observe, gives a wider peep into conditions.

But the best description of the situation is given in the report of Captain Wright: “Their (the Jews’) party program in Poland is to have all Jews on a separate register. The Jews thus registered are to elect a representative body of Jews, with extensive powers of legislation and taxation; e. g., it could tax for purposes of emigration. This body to be handed over by the Polish State a proportionate amount of money to spend on Jewish charitable and financial institutions. Besides this separate organization, a number of seats proportionate to their numbers to be set aside in every local and in the national legislature. A sixth or seventh of the Polish Diet to be occupied only by Jews to be elected only by Jews. Some Jews also demand separate law courts, or at least the right to use Yiddish as well as Polish in legal proceedings. This is the practical program, but the ambition of the advanced section is national personal autonomy granted in the Ukraine by one of the ephemeral governments of the Ukraine, the Ukrainian Central Rada, on January 9, 1918, and called the Statute of National Personal Autonomy, of which I have a copy. It organizes Jews as a nation with full sovereign powers; the Ukrainian bank notes were printed in Yiddish as well as in Ukrainian.”

People sometimes ask, where is proof of the program of the Protocols? It is everywhere the Jewish leaders have attained power, and everywhere they are striving for power. The Protocols can be written out of Jewish rabbinical writings; they can be written out of Jewish tendencies in the United States; they can be written out of Jewish demands in the Balkans; they can be written out of Jewish achievements in Russia. They represent the Jewish program, ideal and real, at every stage of modern history.

Do you ever hear of this Jewish program in Poland when you are invited to sympathize with 250,000 Jews who are being brought from Poland to the United States? Will these people leave their ideas outside New York harbor?

Incidentally, Captain Wright’s full investigation of the Jewish program may throw some light on the refusal of the American Jews to circulate his report, although it was attached to the report of Sir Stuart Samuel, which is being so widely circulated.

However, that his government at home might fully understand the situation, Captain Wright draws an illustrative parallel:

“If the Jews in England—after multiplying their numbers by twenty or thirty—demanded that the Jewish Board of Guardians should have extensive powers, including the right to tax for purposes of emigration, and that a separate number of seats should be set aside in the London County Council, the Manchester Town Council, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, to be occupied only by Jews chosen by Jews; that the president of the board of education should hand over yearly to the Jews sums proportionate to their numbers; if some were to demand the right to have separate Jewish law courts, or at least to be allowed to use Yiddish as well as English in the King’s Bench and Chancery Division; if the most advanced even looked forward to a time when the Bank of England notes were to be printed in Yiddish as well as in English, then they might well find public opinion, even in England, less well disposed to them * * *”

In view of this state of affairs, it cannot be regarded as a fact of minor significance that the Jewish investigators who must have known all this virtually concealed it, and that the other investigators brought it forth to general knowledge. Neither is it of minor significance that the Jewish press has absolutely suppressed these facts even while pretending to give the results of the British Mission’s investigations. Insulting references have been made to Captain Wright’s report in a Jewish publication of the better class, because he made references to certain practices which are common among the Jews in Poland. It may be said, however, that the references made by Captain Wright are in great restraint compared with the number given in the recent book by Arthur Goodhart. Whether Mr. Goodhart is a Jew or not, the present writer cannot now say. He is a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He is “lately Captain, United States Army.” He was transferred from the army at the suggestion of Mr. Morgenthau, to act as counsel for the Mission. And he says on page 161, “After dinner Mr. Morgenthau attended a meeting of the B’nai B’rith Lodge, the only chapter of this Jewish organization in Poland. No branches had been permitted in Russia before the war, as it was a secret society and therefore illegal in the Czar’s Empire. Major Otto and I, not being members, walked round the town.” Mr. Goodhart, as counsel of the American mission, makes an excellent witness as to the kind of people who are coming in such large numbers to this country. But their sense of their own political importance and power is the principal point for Americans to consider.

The Peace Conference did not tend to bring unity in Poland; it rather established the disunity for as long a period as the treaty of Versailles remains to rule the world. The reader has just seen Captain Wright’s description of what the Jews demanded. Let the reader now understand what the Peace Conference decreed.

Poland is prohibited from having an election on Saturday. Poland is prohibited from having a registration on Saturday. The Jewish Sabbath is established by law, and government and courts must govern themselves accordingly. Do what you like on Sunday—order elections on Sunday, as the Poles sometimes do—but not on Saturday; it is the Jews’ Sabbath!

“Article 11—Jews shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their Sabbath, nor shall they be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend courts of law or to perform any legal business on their Sabbath * * * Poland declares her intention to refrain from ordering or permitting elections, whether general or local, to be held on a Saturday, nor will registration for electoral or other purposes be compelled to be performed on a Saturday.”

What the Bolsheviki did in Russia, the Peace Conference did in Poland—established the Jewish Sabbath.

The people who saw this strange setting up of Jewish customs as a part of the law of the land, one of the authorities for such action being the President of the United States, are now flocking to the United States in large numbers. Is it unreasonable for them to believe that if the President of the United States could bind Poland to Jewish custom, it is all right to bind the United States too?

Moreover, the Jewish separate schools were established by law in Poland. Poland’s great trouble has resulted from her lack of schools in which all the population could imbibe Polish ideals expressed in the Polish language. The Peace Conference authorizes the continuance of that source of trouble.

In Article 11, “the Jews” were mentioned. In Article 9, the term used is “Polish nationals.” The reader will save himself a great deal of misunderstanding in the perusal of European news if he will translate the clause “racial, religious and linguistic minorities” to mean simply Jews. They are the “minority” that is at the bottom of most of the difficulty, and they are the minority that is most heard of. It was this minority that dominated the Peace Conference.

“Article 9—Poland will provide in the educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Polish nationals of other than Polish speech are residents, adequate facilities for insuring that in the primary schools instruction shall be given to the children of such Polish nationals through the medium of their own language * * *

 “In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Polish nationals belonging to racial, linguistic or religious minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the state, municipal or other budgets for education, religious or charitable purposes.”

But even that is not all. The Polish State is to hand over the money, but the Jews will distribute it:

“Educational committees appointed locally by the Jewish communities of Poland will, subject to the general control of the state, provide for the distribution of the proportional share of the funds allocated to Jewish schools in accordance with Article 9 * * *”

It is most amazing how “racial minorities” are dropped the moment money comes into view, and the definite term “Jew” is substituted.

More than all this, “the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, the principal allied and associated powers, on the one hand; and Poland, on the other hand,” (so the text of the treaty begins) together make of all these special privileges, not a national agreement on the part of hard-pressed Poland, but an international demand on the part of the League of Nations. Article 12 stipulates that all the agreements affecting “racial, linguistic and religious minorities,” which is mere diplomatic camouflage for “Jews,” shall be placed under the guaranty of the League of Nations. This lifts the Jews in Poland completely out of Polish obligation. All they will have to do is complain to the League of Nations—and International Jewry will do the rest.

The United States was a party toward the writing of these stipulations into the treaty. The American people are not yet a party to their enforcement.

There are a quarter of a million of these Jews coming to the United States from Poland. You have read their demands in Poland. You have read their achievements in the Peace Conference.

Do you say, as an American citizen, that you are ready to take for the United States the dose of Jewish medicine, which the Peace Conference gave to Poland?

Do you say, in view of what has been said about the whole situation, that the Jews are showing anything besides a wicked and gloating spirit of revenge in the way they have propagandized against Poland after humiliating her in the Peace Conference?

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 6 November 1920]

The Present Status of the Jewish Question

The Jewish Question in the United States has existed for years, but until now in silence and suspicion. Everyone knew that there was such a Question; the Jew himself knew best of all; but very few possessed the courage to open the Question to the sanitary influences of sunlight and speech. The mention of courage in this connection is needful to explain the silence. A few men of insight have attempted publicly to define the Question in the United States, and they have been so effectually dealt with by an invisible power of which the public could have no knowledge, that Free Speech on the Jewish Question naturally became unpopular. The fact, it is true, reflects far more seriously on non-Jews than on Jews. But it is a fact nevertheless. He who undertakes to speak truth on this question must expect far more opposition than he could ever withstand were he not speaking the truth.

One fact that militated against Free Speech on the Jewish Question was the condition into which our American people have been trained, of expecting applause and approval to follow every act and word. There was a time in American history, and it was the most glorious period of out past, when opposition was considered an often desirable attitude. A man’s weight was accounted equal, whether computed by the number of his enemies or his friends. But a softening change has come over us. We have grown to like applause. Hisses used to stir our fathers; hisses cow their sons. Public speech has thus grown flabby; the Press has thus become neutral; we have grown pudgy and futile in our program of “helping the weak,” so pudgy and futile that we no longer have gristle to attack the strong who have brought weakness upon the others.

As a people, we have passed the “bunk” around so habitually; we have enervated our judgement and moral convictions so seriously by our fake “philosophy of Boost,” we have become so accustomed to measure the effectiveness of work by the applause it immediately provokes, that we have lost all stomach for courses that call for contest, unless it be those spurious contests of the political arena, which are all managed from the same Great Headquarters, or those verbal assaults against “Big Business,” which bring no reaction. We have lost all taste for tangible foes who have a ready retaliation.

Nevertheless it is true that, whereas a year ago it was not possible to speak the word “Jew” in the United States, it is now possible. The name appears on the front page of every newspaper nearly every day. It is the subject of discussion everywhere. For the time at least, speech has been liberated, although our friends of the B’nai B’rith in every state are doing their best to throttle it.

This freedom is of benefit both to Jew and non-Jew. The Jew need no longer look askance at the name of his race on the lips of the non-Jew. It only means that suppression and deceit are past, that is all; the Jew is a Jew, is recognized as a Jew, is spoken of as a Jew; and thus an honest relation between the mind and the fact is established in both the Jew and the non-Jew. The air is cleared. Concealment on the one hand is done away; on the other hand a missing fact, whose absence meant confusion, is supplied. The Jew may now say, “I am a Jew,” as casually as any other man might claim his race. We may even see some noted Americans who all their lives have tried to conceal their race, come forward now and say, “We are Jews.” It is freedom to the Jew; it is interpretation to the non-Jew. Half the confusion which men meet in their efforts to account for the world is due to their ignorance of just where the Jew is. He is always a key. But if the key be disguised as something else, how can it be used?

About eight months ago THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT began a series of studies on the Jewish Question. It was an attempt to state the facts on which the Question is based. It was not at its beginning, nor has it since developed into, an attack on Jews as Jews. Its purpose was enlightenment, and if it secretly indulged a hope, it was this—that the leaders of American Jewry might be wise to see that this is the country and this is the time in which the causes of distress and distrust and disrepute might be removed from Jewry and a genuine modus operandi, not of toleration, but of reconciliation, arrived at.

The proof that these articles have contained facts and only facts is found in the failure of the Jewish spokesmen to show any one of them to be false. The record stands that way—not one disproof. The reason for the record is this: when only facts are sought and are subjected to the tests, only facts are found. If, however, one embarks on a “campaign” whose purpose is to besmirch an opponent or create a prejudice, one’s partisan zeal may induce him to accept as facts what is merely probability. These articles, however, do not constitute a campaign. They are the lighting of lamps here and there about the country, in this industry and that, in corners heretofore kept dark by those who should serve more faithfully on the watchtower of the Press.

What THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has said could have had no weight at all, had not the people been able to see the same facts all about them. It is not information, but illumination, that has given these articles the importance they have found among hundreds of thousands of readers.

The Jewish response to these articles has in one way been gratifying, and in another way quite disappointing.

The Jewish response has been gratifying in that it has furnished substantial proof of all the statements made in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT. This journal has no doubt of the truth of its statements, and is possessed of a very substantial reserve of evidence, but none the less the corroborative evidence produced by the Jewish leaders themselves in endeavoring to meet the issue is appreciated. There is no reason to believe that this was an intentional contribution on the part of Jewish leaders; it was simply impossible for them to move without revealing further evidence.

It is quite well known what is the position of Jewish leaders today: it is one of fear. For once they themselves are possessed with the fear of the unknown. Knowing how much of truth exists behind the statements made in this series, they are in fear of what may yet come forth. They do not even make any more pretense of considering it a joke; in their own conclaves they do not rave and roar like the rabbinical editors, they behave themselves like sober frightened men, who sometimes have a desire to own up to some of the things that have been charged, but who are halted by a doubt as to how far the owning-up process would lead them if once begun. They are in fear of the truth, but mostly of the whole truth.

Needless to say a responsibility rests also on those who hold the whole truth. The purpose determines everything. If the purpose is to breed hatred of the Jews, that involves one course of action. If the purpose is to excite the public mind with startling facts, that involves another course of action. There is a certain danger in certain kinds of information. If the purpose is to lay a basis for intelligent, straightforward understanding and possible solution of the question, then such information as defines the question and presents all essential material, is all that is necessary. It is within these limits that this series has endeavored to keep. If there are facts which are unfavorable to the Jews, that is a matter for the Jews. If the Jews do despite to a certain class of facts, it may be necessary to produce still another class of facts. If the leaders of the Jews had been fair, just argumentatively, oppositionally fair, they would not now be in fear of what may yet be produced.

Jews, for illustration, have proved the statement that they are the best organized people in the United States. They have proved that they are more closely grouped together in their own national interest than are the citizens of the United States whose whole nationality is defined by their citizenship. The government of the United States itself is not so well organized as American Jewry—and that fact is not due to anything American; it is the same in every country. Telegraphic speed and instantaneous mass action have marked every move organized Jewry has made in this country in the last six months.

It is not for nothing that they control the avenues of communication in this country. It is not for nothing that the wireless of the world is under ironclad Jewish control. They are not loosely organized in social lodges for occasional fellowship; they are organized as states of the Jewish people, with officials who do nothing whatever but attend to the advancement of Jewish power in this and other countries. They have proved by the mass play of their synagogues, their newspapers, their alleged “social” organizations, their conservative clubs and their Bolshevik-Socialist groups—all of them working together, under orders—that they are a separate people within the American people, a people that do not agree with the genius of the American people, and a people that constantly make distinction between Jewish and American rights.

In every state, in every city, there is a Jewish organization with a definite policy, and the first policy is to suffocate, destroy, put the “fear of the Jew” upon any man, newspaper, or institution that gives the least indication of independent thought on the Jewish Question. These organizations have special committees to do certain work. One of these works is to start “a whispering drive” against the person or institution aimed at. This “whispering drive” is a most hideous oriental device; it can be sustained only by groups of minds which bear a certain racial twist.

Without giving a full description of the devices used, it can be seen that the fact of their being centrally controlled and working simultaneously in all parts of the country, creates a considerable force. No other institution now operating in the United States can accomplish that so quickly and unitedly.

Jewish solidarity would be above criticism were it used for the benefit of the whole communal life, but it is not; it is not only Jewish, but its operations show it to be largely anti-American. This does not mean anti-American in the sense of being pro-German or pro-Mexican, but in this sense, that it opposes many things that have been conceded to constitute the American tradition. The Jew assumes that the United States is still an unformed entity which is fair prey to any who can seize it and mold it. That is his attitude today. He refuses to assume that America is here; he adopts the belief that part of his duty is to bring America into being, on Jewish lines, of course.

Now, in a sense, the United States is private property. It is the property of those who share the ideals of the founders of the government. And those ideals were ideals held by a white race of Europeans. They were fundamentally Christian ideals. And with most of these the Jews not only disagree, but hold them in contempt. Indeed, a Jewish leader recently said in New York that the United States was not a Christian land, and the context of his statement showed that he clearly intended that it should never be. He was condemning the Christian Sunday, though he is an officer of a society whose purpose is the establishment of the Mosaic Sabbath.

The Jews have also proved the charge that they exercise disproportionate influence in governmental affairs. This charge has only been stated in this series. The mass of proof has not yet been brought to bear. But it exists, fixed beyond all change. However, another important bit of evidence has been transpiring before the country’s eyes. When the immigration bill was first put up to Congress, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of restricting entry into the country. Congress voted upon the facts and its patriotic convictions. Taking the question just as it was, no other verdict could have been given.

Hardly had the vote been taken, however, than the wires were hot and the trains crowded and Jewish protests and Jewish agents began flocking to Washington. The magic name Jew was uttered. Legislators fled to cover. Learned speeches were made. Compromises were suggested. Modifications of the original law were framed. Under the magic of Jew the whole proposal simply melted like an icicle before a fire.

The only protest made against that Congressional vote was made by Jews. Their wonderful teamwork in all parts of the county gave their protest the air of national importance. BUT there was one point the Jews were not able this year to deny, and that is that the majority of the immigrants are Jews. That fact, fortunately, was established beforehand. The hand of the Congress of the United States was stayed by the Jews in a matter of serious importance to national protection, just as a few years ago the hand of the Congress of the United States was forced to break the treaty with Russia when President Taft held it would be wrong to break it.

This proof of political power, based on nothing but sheer force and sheer determination to have what they want regardless of what the United States wants, has appeared broadcast as a matter of public knowledge.

And let the reader mark this: it will be found that this present immigration move is as much a part of the Jewish World Program as was the breaking of the treaty with Russia. Readers of the article of January 15 will recall how at the behest of the Jews, the United States’ trade with Russia was thrown into the hands of German Jews who were using it to further their plans for the destruction of the Russian Empire, which later came to pass. The Jews “used” the United States to put across an essential part of that plan.

Well, what are they using the United States for now? We may well believe that the Jews are not without several reasons for what they are doing. The Jew excels as a chess player because he plays a game wherever he may be. The immigration matter amounts to this: Jews are streaming out of Poland as speedily as they can. It is not “pogroms” that are driving them out. “Pogroms” have been proved to be immigration propaganda for consumption outside Poland.

The Jews are leaving Poland because they know something is going to happen.

And if they are leaving Poland it is a sign it is going to happen to Poland.

And if the Jews have advance news of it, it is a sign that what will occur will be inflicted by Jews.

Plainly it is this: Jewish Bolshevism in Russia has made a secret decree against Poland. The Jews are getting out of the way. American Jewish agents are constantly passing into Poland. Rich American Jews are sending agents to bring back groups of “relatives.” There is an exodus from Poland and there is a reason for it which spells trouble for Poland. The United States is being used as the chief means by which the Jews are to clear out. France protests against them and will not have them. England most decidedly refuses to have them. The Jews of the United States are powerful enough to compel this country to take them. We are utilized to effect the entrance of Bolshevism into Russia; it went from our East Side thither. We are now being utilized to assist at the destruction of Poland. It is possible, however, that by the time the Jewish program reaches that point, something may have intervened.

The Jews of the United States have also given a splendid illustration of what THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT said of their control of American newspapers. Of course, the local newspaper editor is not dominated by any Jewish authority seated at Washington, New York, or Chicago, of course not; but he is very amendable to the twenty richest Jews in his community who advertise in his paper, and it is they who take orders from Washington, New York and Chicago. So the editor gets his orders from Jewish headquarters just the same, though he may not realize it.

This, however, is one instance where publicity does not count, because it represent a business favor oftener than it does an editorial conviction. The knowledge of the Jewish Question which newspaper men possess is quite complete, and a confidential council of the best informed editors of the United States would include all that the government or the people would need to know for a complete handling of the Jewish Question. The publicity demanded and received by the organized Jews has proved a roorback; it has served the cause of truth more than the cause they desired, which was suppression.

Gratifying as these proofs are to the producers of the facts, there is a very decided element of disappointment in the Jewish answers. Either Jewry is feinting, or is defenseless; certainly the present status of the defense must be humiliating to those who have any conception of the importance of the matter.

The answer signed by the Jews themselves—a list of signatures which showed as in panorama the close-locked corporational solidarity of the Jewish race in this country—was devoid of a single fact which threw light. In this, the Jewish answer was almost a confession of “no defense.”

But aside from its ineptitude was the utter lack of frankness. It refuses to face the question. It will not meet a single statement, either in the substance of the Protocols or in the substance of this series. It veers off whenever it approaches a concrete theme, and loses itself in a vapor of denials. If a statement is wrong, it is provably wrong, especially a statement which deals with matters now actual in daily life.

The official Jewish answer, signed by a few, not all, of the Jewish leaders, is at least decent in its language, and that is more than can be said for most of the other Jewish answers. But it is indecent in its attempt to create the impression that anti-Semitism is abroad in the country.

Mark this: All the anti-Semitism that exists in the United States today is the deliberate creation of the Jewish leaders and is a recent creation.

The Jewish leaders want anti-Semitism here. Unable to create it among non-Jews, they are seeking the effects of it among the Jews by telling them that it exists.

The Jewish leaders of the United States have done everything possible to keep THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT away from the Jews, to prevent their reading it and learning the fact that NO ATTACK IS BEING MADE ON THE JEWS AS JEWS.

From the first, after wrestling for weeks to discover a way of meeting these articles without having to confess too much, these leaders threw up their hands and took refuge in the lie of anti-Semitism.

What they ought to fear now is not the force of an anti-Semitic feeling among the non-Jews, but the force of a righteous indignation among American Jews when they discover the deceit and incompetence of their leaders.

“Anti-Semitism” has always been the last resort of scoundrelly Jewish leaders when cornered by the truth, and they have been known deliberately to incite it among the Gentile rabble in order through it to maintain their hold on their own people.

Recently there was printed in the newspapers “A Protest Against Anti-Semitism,” signed by various non-Jews. The “protest” was printed twice, in fact, because it did not “go big” the first time. The newspapers were evidently growing a little weary of printing daily communiques from Jewish Great Headquarters. So, to give it more vim for a thorough circulation, the signature of Woodrow Wilson was obtained. And of course that put it on the telegraph wires again.

It was quite proper for President Wilson to sign a protest against anti-Semitism. It was quite proper for all the other signers to do so, provided that was what they meant to do.

If the protest had been sent to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, its responsible officials would have signed also. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is against antiSemitism and protests against leading Jews using its name to foment that spirit.

The “protest,” however innocent the signers may have been of this fact, was against any public discussion of the Jewish Question, and especially against this one.

The dispatches are careful to state that the Jews had nothing to do with that protest. A supposedly non-Jewish organization has been in the service of a coterie of New York Jews for a long time. The assertion that the “protest” was written by “a single citizen, a non-Jew, acting upon his own initiative and responsibility, and without consultation with anybody,” is mildly amusing.

There was just enough “consultation” to make the whole “non-Jewish protest” nothing more nor less than a previously approved document, and the citizen who did the job has known for a long time where it pays to please.

As to Mr. John Spargo, whose name is beginning to appear prominently as a Gentile defender of the Jews, this much is known: he did not undertake the Jewish defense without several secret consultations with a group of New York Jews, who had to overcome several of Spargo’s scruples before they could make much headway with him. Spargo’s attitude was something like this: “Gentlemen, they’ve got it on you. It is not a matter that can be whitewashed.” Spargo told a lot of truth in that New York room. The Jewish conferees knew it was truth. If Spargo should speak one-twentieth as much truth on the platform, his lecture engagements would dwindle in number.

All of the literature of the Anti-Defamation Society, all of the speech of the retained defenders, is very welcome. Open the Question up! If the Jews engage enough Gentile defenders, the time will come when Gentile logical faculties will bring about a real discussion of the Question. The Jewish spokesmen must, on pain of losing their position, limit themselves to denials, abuse and threats; but the Gentile defenders are constitutionally unable to dwell in that state of mind for long; they will probe through to the truth; in which event real discussion may be expected.

There is not a single Jewish publication, however vituperative and truthless, that we would forbid the mails or exclude from a public library. There is not a single Jewish spokesman whom we would heckle or hinder on the public platform. There is not a single Jewish enterprise that we would recommend for boycott. We believe in Free Speech and unfettered conviction. By means of these the people may yet hope to clean up the United States.

The Jews do not believe in Free Speech. They do not believe in a Free Press.

In every state in the Union the B’nai B’rith is introducing into the local legislatures a bill that will prevent any publication from saying anything derogatory of the Jews.

That is the Jews’ answer to the facts produced in this publication.

In scores and hundreds of public libraries, the Jews are using the members of their race who happen to be on library boards, or are using committees of their race to influence library boards to clear the libraries of all books, pamphlets and papers that deal with the Jewish Question in a manner to leave any doubt that the Jews are paragons of virtue and The Chosen People.

This is occurring in the United States. It is occurring in some of those eastern

American states that stood most valiantly for the cause of Free Speech and a Free Press in other days.

Let it go on! Multiply the instances! Add madness to madness! Each act of this nature simply gives a local proof, visible and intelligible to each community where it transpires, that what is written about the Jews is true.

The present status of the Jewish Question in the United States is this:

A beginning has been made on the too-long accumulating facts.

Jewish recognition of the truth has been expressed in soberness among the leaders. Jewish action in response has been, for themselves, denial; for others, SUPPRESSION. The result to date is:—abject failure to meet the case.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 29 January 1921]

The International Jew – Vol. 3

Preface

The present volume, third in the series, is compiled for the sane purpose as its predecessors—to enable new readers of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT to commence their reading with the earlier articles in the series of studies in The Jewish Question.

It was inevitable that the publication first to open the discussion of this Question should be compelled to meet the degrading charge of “anti-semitism” and kindred falsehoods; but it was also inevitable that if the work of such a publication should prove to be valid, the way would be cleared for discussion by other publications which had not and need not bring upon themselves the charge of racial hatred.

This is precisely what has occurred. An undreamed of publicity for the essentials of the Jewish Question has been achieved in this country. It is noteworthy that whether the publicity be in agreement with or against THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT the essential facts are the same, and these facts were first set forth in this paper.

That, indeed, constitutes the strength of the articles. The facts are provable; they are not disprovable. The reader can confirm the facts from his own observation. With regard to the matters discussed in these volumes, there are too many observers of the Jew to permit misstatements to pass. This also constitutes the dilemma of the self-appointed defenders of the Jews: they may abuse THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, but they cannot disprove the facts. They do not make even an impressive denial of them. The whole situation would be much clarified if Jewish spokesmen would use frankness, instead of a fusillade of cheap and irrelevant abuse.

The year has witnessed much notable discussion of The Jewish Question in magazines of quality. A few have descended to white-washing, fewer still to sheer pro-Jewish propaganda; but such articles as those in the September Century; those in the

Atlantic for February, May and July; The Nineteenth Century and After for April; the true and admirable accounts by Lieut. Commander Hugo W. Koehler, of the U. S. Navy, in the World's Work for July, August, September and October—these testify to the reality of the matter. The more serious religious press, as represented by publications like the Christian Standard, the Christian Century, The Moody Monthly which is published by The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, have also added materially to the literature of the question. In editorial vision and liberty of discussion, the religious press has shown itself to be freer of control than has the secular press.

This volume contains information dealing with the influence of the Jewish idea on American life. The departments of life here studied do not by any means exhaust the list. The studies are more and more centering on the actual operations of the Jewish program upon the American people, and the effect of Jewish conceptions on our common life. These studies are appearing in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT now. They will be gathered into future volumes as may be required.

November, 1921.

The Writer of the Following Letter Is a Jew:

“Gentlemen:

“‘Because you believe in a good cause,’ said Dr. Johnson, ‘is no reason why you should feel called upon to defend it, for by your manner of defense you may do your cause much harm.’

“The above applying to me I will only say that I have received the books you sent me and read both with much interest.

“You are rendering the Jews a very great service, that of saving them from themselves.

“It takes courage, and nerve, and intelligence to do and pursue such a work, and I admire you for it.”

The Jews and the “Religious Persecution” Cry

We cheerfully give the Jews of the United States credit for knowing when they are getting their money’s worth. In the defense that has been set up for them they know that they have not had their money’s worth, neither from Jewish money collectors nor from the “Gentile fronts” to whom the money has been paid. The Louis Marshall line of defense has broken down. The boycott has dribbled into nothingness. Speeches in Congress and editorials in newspapers have sounded too hollow to carry conviction. The Question has proved itself far too big for those who have entered the defense for gain, to satisfy personal grudges, or to win what they feel to be the favor of the stronger side. The Jews long ago quit the course which some of the “Gentile fronts” still continue; the Jews recognized the futility of it.

No intelligent Jew in the United States ever was asinine enough to declare that the Jewish Question is a religious question and that THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s investigation of that question constituted “religious persecution.” No Jew known beyond the next street has ever ventured such a silly charge. But it is apparently all that remains for the “Gentile fronts” to shout about. From what can be learned from them they are for the most part men of no religion themselves and they use the term “religious persecution” as a red flag which they think will stir people into action. It is rather curious how the cry of “religious persecution” is used to evoke the spirit of persecution against alleged persecutors.

THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT this week goes out of its course to squelch once and for all this cry of religious persecutions.

Three statements are sufficient to outline the situation:

First, neither directly nor by implication has THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT held that the Jewish Question is a religious question. On the contrary, supported by the highest Jewish authority, this paper has held that the Jewish Question is one of race and nationality. (See Issues of October 9 and 16, 1920; reprinted in the new book, volume two of “The International Jew.”)

Second, there is no religious persecution of the Jew in the United States, unless the agitation of various humane societies for the abolition of “kosher killing” may be considered such. The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has published a valuable study of the Jewish method of slaughtering animals for food, in which is adduced much scientific evidence to support the conclusion that the Jewish method is “needlessly cruel.” But even this can only with difficulty be stretched into an interference with “the religion of the Jews.” The Jewish method of slaughter as now practiced is not commanded in the Old Testament but in the Talmud, and is, therefore, not religious in the authoritative sense, but traditional. Moreover, there is positive evidence that modern methods achieve the Jewish purpose (the disposal of the blood of the carcass) much better than does the Jewish method. This is the only instance where even remotely the religion of the Jews has been touched.

Third, the fact is that while there is no “religious persecution” of the Jews, there is very much real religious persecution by the Jews. That is one of the outstanding characteristics of organized Jewish life in the United States, its active, unceasing, powerful and virulent attacks upon any and all forms of Christianity which may chance to come to public notice. Now and again we hear of outbreaks of sectarian bigotry between Catholics and Protestants, but these are not to be compared with the steady, relentless, alert, anti-Christian activity of the Jewish organizations. There are doctrinal disputes within the Christian churches, but none that challenge the basis of Christianity itself; organized Judaism, however, is not content with doctrinal disputation, but enlists its vast commercial and political power against everything that it regards as, in its own words, “Christological manifestations.”

Now, these are facts, and being facts, they are important, and they ought to be publicly known.

No President of the United States has yet dared to take his inaugural oath on the open pages of the New Testament—the Jews would denounce him. When General Pershing announced that he considered the morale of the American soldier due to the interest of the Christian men and women at home, the Jews had him cut out the word “Christian.” Various governors of American states, having used the word “Christian” in their Thanksgiving proclamations, have been obliged to excise it on demand of the Jews. The word “Christian” was compelled to be cut out of the officers’ training manual at the Plattsburg training camp. Everything that would remind the child in school that he is living in the midst of a Christian civilization, in a nation declared by the Supreme Court to be founded on Christian principles, has been ordered out of the public schools on Jewish demand.

People sometimes ask why 3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of 100,000,000 Americans. In the same way that ten Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.

In a nation and at a time when a minority of Jews can print every year a record of apologies they have extorted from public officials for “having inadvertently used the term ‘Christian,’” it is desirable that this charge of “religious persecution” should be placed where it belongs. In the Daily American Tribune, a Catholic daily published at Dubuque, Iowa, appeared a recent headline which said a great deal—Not Persecution of The Jews, But Protection of The Christians.

It is now proposed to let the Jews speak for themselves on this question. The Jewish press has been searched for an authoritative expression charging that the study of the Jewish Question constitutes “religious persecution,” and none has been found. That cry has been reserved for “Gentile fronts” for use among Christians. All the attacks from the Jewish camp are against the doctrines and institutions of the Christians. They have carried on an insistent and successful persecution, and the details of it have filled the Jewish press for years past.

Upon reading the following selections, the remark of Dean Swift will probably come to mind: “We are fully convinced that we shall always tolerate them, but not that they will tolerate us.”

The Red Cross is objectionable to the Jew. H. Lissauer, in The Jewish Times, proposed that the Magen David be substituted for “the red cross” on the Red Cross Society badges worn by Jews.

“We should not let our sensitiveness to charges of intolerance overcome out conscientious religious objections to the cross,” says Mr. Lissauer. The editor of The Jewish Independent thinks the suggestion “is worthy of serious consideration.”

The Gideons are objectionable to the Jew. The Gideons is the name given to the Christian Commercial Travelers’ Association of America, whose efforts are responsible for the Bibles which are to be found in most hotel rooms. This is from the Cleveland Jewish Independent:

“It is quite evident that the Gideons do not know a typically Jewish name when they see or hear one. The Gideons’ object, according to their letterheads, is ‘winning commercial traveling men for Christ’ and the way this is done is by placing a Christian Bible in each guest room of every hotel.

“The Gideons have been at it a long time, long enough to know better, but the other day they sent a letter to Max Cohen of this city, who is a traveling man but the kind the Gideons have no right to ask for funds, and the person who selected him for an ‘easy mark’ certainly should have had better sense.

“Mr. Cohen utterly failed to ‘fall’ for the invitation and instead of sending his little donation he wrote a letter to the secretary, C. A. Johnson, in which he bluntly said: ‘Don’t you think you ought to use better judgement than to ask me to contribute to a strictly religious work opposite to my own belief?’

“If the Gideons insist upon filling up hotels with Bibles that have no business there they should go to the right persons for contributions.”

The Jews do not like the Salvation Army nor the Y.M.C.A. Many thousands of printed lines expressed the fury with which they regarded attempts to “Christianize the Army and Navy” during the war, and the wild arguments with which they sought to make “Y” work and Salvation Army work to appear to be a violation of the principle of no union of Church and State. The same objection was made to religious welfare work during the building of the Panama Canal. If there is any challenge of this on the part of uninformed “Gentile fronts” (the Jews themselves will not challenge it) the evidence can be produced. It is only a matter of space.

The Jews did not like Theodore Roosevelt’s choice of a hymn for the Progressive party:

“With Hon. Oscar S. Strauss as the nominee for the governorship of New York on the Progressive ticket, this question rises: Will the voters on the East Side of New York march to the Progressive battle hymn, ‘Onward, Christian Soldiers,’ or will the song have to be changed to fit the candidate?”—American Israelite.

The Jews hate with a malice beyond expression what they call “mission holes,” that is, a place of instruction maintained by Christian churches where inquiring Jews may learn what Christianity is and, in many instances, where destitute and neglected Jews may receive assistance and counsel. The boast of how “the Jew cares for his own” is given a jolt by the dire need which has called Christian welfare work into Jewish settlements.

This hatred overrode good judgement so completely that in 1911 Assemblymen Heyman introduced into the New York State legislature a bill making it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment to entice or tempt a minor under sixteen years of age into a religious mission, Sunday school or church without the written consent of the parents or guardian of the minor! The language indicates a part of the contempt in which the welfare work undertaken by Christian institutions for the neediest class of children in America is held by the leaders among the Jews; not by the masses of the Jews themselves, however, except when they are terrified by their leaders.

In St. Louis, application for a charter of the Jewish Christian Association was opposed. The converted Jews wanted an association of their own. They represented that they had been ostracized by the Jews and were desirous of organizing and owning their own meeting place. A referee advised against the charter on the ground that “it would be contrary to the broad spirit of religious freedom guaranteed under the constitution of Missouri.” The referee was, of course, coached by Jews. In the name of religious freedom these Jews opposed giving an association freedom enough to preach the gospel.

In Toronto the Jewish leaders issued a proclamation throughout all Toronto Jewry forbidding the use of reading rooms, baths, dispensaries, motion picture shows or anything else which they described as “the petty bribery of conversionist tricksters who seek for their wealthy donators to open the gates of heaven and find salvation for their sins by converting a weak-minded Jew.”

By the way, all converted Jews are weak-minded or criminal, if we are to believe the hundreds of statements to that effect in the Jewish papers. The Jews are, without exception, superior people until they become Christians; then learn what they are from the Jewish leaders!

Among the nice names for this welfare work are “Jesus holes,” “mission traps,” “Jew-snatchers,” “child stealers.”

It happened that one of the helpers in the Chicago Gospel Mission was principal of a Chicago public school. The Jews raised a great outcry against him, denounced him as unfit to teach children, and guilty of “the moral turpitude of eating food provided by taxes of which a large share is received from Jews, whose children they seek to entice from their parental religion and whose men and women they are seeking to degrade into liars and hypocrites.” All because a competent man was willing to meet Jewish inquirers, or perhaps bring a few of the benefits of civilization into the neglected ghetto. If this school teacher were Christian enough to have a conscience, he would resign, said the Jewish thunderers, and with that never-failing tinge of dark-mindedness they added: “What is done in secret in these haunts can, of course, only be guessed at.”

Talk about bigotry! This from a people who encourage the cry that THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is engaged in “religious persecution,” though THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has not yet carried even one of the scores of sensational and important stories which show the Federal Government discovering synagogues and rabbis as agents of the illicit liquor traffic. “These haunts” and hints of the things that may go on there, is the only way the American Israelite can find to refer to welfare works in which some of the best people, from no motive but the goodness of their hearts, engage.

A book of about 500 pages could be filled with the unreasonable and in many cases positively vicious statements of leading Jews on any of the subjects touched here.

The Jews do not like the Christian Sabbath. The literature of attack against this institution is voluminous and the arguments extreme. Sunday is Christian, therefore to the Jew it is taboo. Court records in every state bear testimony to the fight of the Jews against Sunday. Few legislatures have escaped being pestered with bills on the subject. The latest fight has been the strongest yet waged, to destroy Sunday by throwing it wide open to Jewish exploitation. Yet the Jews are most chary of their own Sabbath.

When recent college examinations fell on Jewish holy days, the Jews had the examinations changed. When primary elections last year fell on Jewish days, every power was moved to change them . There are Jewish records of a western governor being remonstrated with because a condemned criminal was sentenced to be hanged on Saturday—did the governor mean to “offend 3,000,000 Jews”? The St. Louis Charity Fair in 1908 planned to remain open on Friday evening; a great outcry; did the managers of that fair mean to insult the Jews; didn’t they know that the Jewish Sabbath began on Friday night?

But when it is a question of maintaining the integrity of Sunday—pooh! pooh! “Don’t the Christians know that Sunday perpetuates the silliest superstition, that their god Jesus rose from the dead?” When certain people aid the post office employes in an attempt to close the post offices on Sunday, the Jews regard it as a step back toward the dark ages.

Here is a Jewish editorial relating to Governor Cox. It appears that Governor Cox in 1914 stood for a decent Sunday and liquor law enforcement, and this is the threat held out to him:

“At the 59th Jackson Day banquet of the Wayne County (Ohio) Democracy, which was held at Wooster, Governor Cox made the principal address in which he defended laws passed at his instigation. The governor laid particular stress on the fact that for the first time in her history, Ohio now enjoys a ‘Christian Sabbath.’

“‘I stand or fall by the Christian Sabbath in the next campaign,’ the governor is reported to have said

“There are many who construe the declaration to mean that Governor Cox has bid defiance to the liberal element of the state and will rely upon the religious and class prejudices which he is arousing and keeping alive in the rural districts, to re-elect him to his present office, or, what is clearly plain from his entire attitude, boost him into the nomination for United States Senatorship. The Israelite will take great pleasure about the time the leaves begin to turn in reminding Governor Cox of his statement that he ‘will stand or fall by a Christian Sabbath’ in the coming campaign.”—American Israelite.

The literature of Jewish thought toward Sunday presents complete evidence of the leaders’ antagonism to this distinctly Christian and Anglo-Saxon institution. Sunday has never been regarded as set apart, in those countries where the Jewish idea has most infiltrated. The decline of Sunday in the United States is directly along the line of those invasions of the Sunday spirit which are mostly aligned with Jewish commercial interests. In Great Britain and her colonies where the Jew is not permitted to usurp a superior place as chief censor of morals and religion and education, Sunday is decently observed. The situation in this country is that, instead of enjoying its liberty, the Jewish leaders have taken liberties. The student who wishes to know how deep and hard-set is the anti-Sunday program will find all the material he wants in Jewish sources.

The theme of this article is “religious prejudice.” You will not find it anywhere within the whole range of the Jewish Question, except on the Jewish side. There is, in the United States, a religious prejudice, but it is strictly Yiddish. If the Christian population bothered one one-hundred-thousandth part as much about Jewish religion as the Jews bother about Christian observances, the whole fabric of Talmudical teaching would be consumed in the bright light to which general attention would bring it, the bright light from which it has always been concealed. Sheer analysis in the interest of mental health, if undertaken by fifty men, would compel the Jewish people by their own decision to abandon the darkness which holds them now. Jewish Talmudism owes its existence today to the indifference with which it is regarded. This is the far opposite extreme of “religious persecution.”

The list of headlines describing the various angles of Jewish anti-Christian religious prejudice is not, however, exhausted.

The Jew is prejudiced against the Bible. When he uses that term, he does not mean what the ordinary person means. Therefore, he does what he can to destroy public honor of the Book, unless it be an occasion where a President has been inaugurated, when it will run through the Jewish press like a strong breeze that once more has a Christian statesman ignored the Christian Bible and turned to the Jewish Bible. It is rather a trifling matter to mention; its significance comes solely from the light it throws on the Jewish attitude. It is not a trifling thing in Jewry, as the country will probably be made aware if any future President should be sworn in with, say, the Sermon on the Mount open before him.

And yet, even here, we observe a strange paradox. A Jewish authority says: “The Jew is a paradox. He is at once an idealist and a materialist. He is parsimonious and extravagant. He is courageous and cowardly. He is modest and vulgar. He is persistent and yielding. He is peaceful and warlike”—and so on. And though the Jew opposes the Bible in the schools, he never misses a chance to put it there, with the Jewish trademark. He quotes the Psalms—“We wrote them.” He quotes Isaiah—“We Jews did that.”

Most people sit open-mouthed at these glorious authors of Scripture and do not know how to answer. It is time the Churches began to learn what to say to the Jewish taunts—“We gave you your god;” “We gave you your bible;” “We gave you your savior.” Perhaps it is also time that the Jews themselves considered how long the boast will stand the usage they are giving it.

In any case the literature which the Jews wrongfully claim as their own production, is rather far distant in time to justify its being used as a mantle of glory for the political rabbis, the discredited theatrical and movie magnates, and the violent penmen of the Jewish Press. Rather too distant in time! We, the race that confronts the Jews, have done somewhat more recent work; for example, the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation, not to mention the psalms and pronouncements of great American prophets that have lifted up the world.

So, the Jew is very willing that the Bible should be in the schools, provided it is not what he calls “the Christian Bible.” Listen to this:

“Hebrew is to be taught in the Chicago high schools. Students who include this language in their course are to receive the credit now allowed for the study of other classical languages. Of infinite value in the training of the mind are the wonderful narratives of Genesis, and boys and girls will find the history of Israel under the Judges much more appealing than Caesar’s bridge over the Rhine.”

The people of New Jersey thought so, too; they believed that a reading from this ancient book every day would mean much to the general culture of the pupils. But what did the paper just quoted say about it? It called the cultivated Bible appreciators of New Jersey “soul-snatching enthusiasts” and raised a mighty yell about “the forcible conversion of Jewish children,” although it was provided that Jewish or any other children should be excused from the reading if desired. Another mighty yell about excusing the children all on account of the tyranny of reading the Christian Bible in the schools—regardless of the fact, which every school teacher knows, that no class of children is oftener out of school for religious reasons than are the Jews.

Truly, these people are a paradox. They are not fair. They are constituted so that they cannot see the other side of anything. For a time they actually do convince the secularists that everything public should be secularized down to the last notch of atheistic demand. Non-Jews are fair. They are willing to see the other people’s point of view. When it was said to us that the “Merchant of Venice” was a cruelty upon Jewish school pupils, we said, without investigation, “Out goes the Merchant, then!” We discovered later that the Jewish children liked and appreciated the play better than any other group. Brander Matthews helped us discover that.

And so when they said, “Reading the Bible is sheer proselytizing; it isn’t fair,” the non-Jew, who wanted to prove that he is fair and unprejudiced above all things else (a weakness the Jews know how to manipulate), said, “Well, then, out goes the Bible!” And it went out. Very well! What next? “You must abolish Christmas, too.” “You must not keep Easter—the Jews don’t like it.” “It is anti-Semitic to observe Good Friday.” In other words, to please the sensitive Jewish natures we must eradicate from Christian civilization all that is Christian in it.

In the meantime what transpires? Having induced “fair-minded” non-Jews to do all these things—and every one above enumerated has been done over and over again at Jewish demand—the Jews then proceeded to sow Judaism on the fields thus denuded of Christianity. “No religion in the institutions of the State”—yet in every state university last year there were, and in every state university this year there probably will be, courses of lectures delivered by Jewish rabbis—the lectures delivered in the colleges themselves—propagandizing the youth of the non-Jews with Judaistic religion, ethics, and economics. That is what the so-called Jewish “Chautauqua” exists for. It is not a Jewish “Chautauqua”; it is Jewish propaganda in public educational institutions.

That is the repayment the Jews have made for our “fair-mindedness.” Their demand for complete secularization is merely their preparation of the soil for their carefully organized sowing of the seed of Judaism. And non-Jews permit it to continue, for there is nothing they fear so much as that their opposition will be regarded as “religious prejudice.”

The Jew glories in religious prejudice, as the American glories in patriotism. Religious prejudice is the Jews’ chief expression of their own true patriotism. It is the only well-organized, active and successful form of religious prejudice in the country because they have succeeded in pulling off the gigantic trick of making not their own attitude, but any opposition to it, bear the stigma of “prejudice” and “persecution.” That is why the Jew uses these terms so frequently. He wants to label the other fellow first. That is why any investigation of the Jewish Question is so quickly advertised as antiSemitism—the Jew knows the advantage of labeling the other man; wrong labels are most useful.

This does not by any means exhaust the list of headlines describing the various avenues in which the expression of virulent Jewish religious prejudice and persecution is found. But it exhausts the space allotted to these articles each week. Therefore, the subject will be concluded next week.

It is not a pleasant subject. Religious prejudice is just as unpleasant to write about as it is to experience in any other way. It is totally contrary to the genius of the American and the Anglo-Saxon. We have always regarded religion as a matter of conscience. To believe as he will is part of every man’s fundamental liberty. To interfere with force to change anyone’s belief is exceedingly stupid.

Holding these hereditary principles, one chooses to study that active stream of influence in American life which is known as the Jewish stream, and immediately upon doing so, one finds himself classed with the bigots and torturers of other times.

It is now time to show that the cry of “bigot!” is raised mostly by bigots. There is a religious prejudice in this country, there is, indeed, a religious persecution, there is a forcible shoving aside of the religious liberties of a majority of the people, and this prejudice and persecution and use of force is Jewish and nothing but Jewish.

This is the answer to the cry of “religious persecution,” and we shall make it so complete and definite that a repetition of the cry against students of the Jewish Question will automatically mark the criers as either too ignorant or too vicious for consideration.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 4 June 1921]

Are the Jews Victims or Persecutors?

“Half of Christendom worships a Jew; the other half worships a Jewess.”—Jewish editorial.

“If the gospel story is correct, Judas was a pretty decent sort of fellow. It was only after he had become a convert to Christianity that he became that which has made his memory an accursed thing for nineteen hundred years.”—Jewish editorial.

“Our land is frequently called a Christian nation. No doubt the majority of our citizens believe this. No less an authority than Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court so expressed himself in 1892. But the statement is clearly false This is not a Christian nation. In inspiration, at least, it is a Hebrew nation, for the Constitution which we now enjoy traces back to the Hebrew Commonwealth.”—Jewish editorial.

(From the minutes of a meeting of the Committee on Families of the New York Board of Child Welfare.)

Mr. Hebbard: “That is one of the things I have in mind, that a widow brings deliberately into her home a nameless child and the inevitable consequence of that is that her legitimate children are always thereafter pointed out.”

Miss Sophie Irene Loeb: “As far as nameless children are concerned, Christ himself was a nameless child. Let us get away from nameless children.”

Dr. Dirvoch: “I think where there are three or four children in a home and a little stranger enters that home without a father, you are corrupting the morals of those legitimate children by permitting them to remain in such surroundings.”

Miss Loeb: “I say to you that this committee, if it takes such an attitude as that, is one hundred years behind the times.”

Mr. Cunnion: “Anything against purity is immoral.”

Miss Loeb: “What has that to do with the question of purity? Was the mother of Christ pure?”

Mr. Cunnion: “Certainly.”

Miss Loeb: “He had no name!”

Mr. Cunnion: “You can’t bring that in here. We believe he was conceived without sin.”

Mr. Menehan (to Miss Loeb): “That is very wrong to make that statement.”—Cited in a letter of complaint to Mayor Hylan.

“The intimate relation of church and state in the great non-sectarian United States of America received direct demonstration on August 12 (1913), when a deputy sergeant-at-arms of the Senate was hurriedly sent out to get a preacher of any old denomination to open the Senate with prayer. The session opening an hour earlier than usual, the regular chaplain was not at hand, but with still two minutes to spare the deputy returned in an automobile, hurried to the Vice President’s office and introduced the Rev. Dr. C. Albert Homas, of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, to Mr. Marshall just in time for the Vice President to lead the way into the Senate chamber to open the session at 11 o’clock, and once again the Union was saved. We shudder to think what might have happened if no preacher had been captured in time to open the session with prayer!”—Jewish editorial.

“President Wilson in his inaugural address said: ‘The firm basis of the Government is justice, not pity.’ This is sound Jewish doctrine as laid down by Moses and the Prophets in contradistinction to the doctrine of love, as attributed to Jesus. This coming from so good a churchman as President Wilson might be a little surprising were it not that it is a well-known fact that whenever our Christian brethren want to talk to reasoning men they go to the Old Testament for their inspiration.”—Jewish editorial.

“President Wilson at his inaugural gave another instance of the well-known fact that in solemn moments when they need comfort and inspiration, Christians turn to the Old Testament and not to the New. So President Wilson, when he kissed the bible after taking the inaugural oath, selected the passage, Psalm 46.”—Jewish editorial.

“Reference has frequently been made in these columns to a number of addresses made by the late Isaac M. Wise at the celebration in honor of his 80th birthday anniversary in the course of which he predicted that in a quarter of a century from that date (1899) there would be practically nothing left in Protestant Christianity of a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ or the distinctive dogmas of Christianity, and that all Protestant Christians by whatever name they call themselves, would be substantially Jews in belief. To any one who notes the signs of the times it is apparent that this prophecy is being rapidly fulfilled The Jesus superstition and the fantastic dogmas built upon his supposed divine origin, die but slowly, but that they are dying is nevertheless apparent.”—Jewish editorial.

The subject of this article is “Religious Prejudice and Persecution—Are the Jews Victims or Persecutors?” A study of history and of contemporary Jewish journalism shows that Jewish prejudice and persecution is a continuous phenomenon wherever the Jews have attained power, and that in neither action nor word has any disability placed upon the Jew equaled the disabilities he has placed and still contemplates placing upon non-Jews. It is a rather startling reversal of all that we have learned from our Judaized histories, but nevertheless, it seems to be the truth.

Attention is once more called to the fact that the Jews themselves are not raising the cry of “religious persecution” here or elsewhere, but they are allowing their “Gentile fronts” to do it for them—just as they have not denied the statements made in this series (among themselves they freely admit most of them) but let “Gentile fronts” do it for them. The Jews would not be averse to raising the cry of “religious persecution” perhaps, (provided they could make it stand) were they not afraid that it would call attention to their own persecuting activities. But their “Gentile fronts” have brought that upon them.

There is no Christian church that the Jews have not repeatedly attacked.

They have attacked the Catholic Church. This is of special interest just now when Jewish agents are doing their utmost to arouse Catholic sentiment in their favor by circulating charges which these agents personally know to be false. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has perfect confidence in the information which Catholic leaders may have on the Jewish Question. On this subject the Catholic priesthood is not misled.

Examples of this attack are numerous. “Half of Christendom worships a Jewess,” is not a statement but a slur, flung by Jewish men who say in the ritual of morning prayer: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast not made me a woman.” The Talmudists’ discussions of the Virgin Mother are often vile. The Christian festivals, whose preservation is due to the Catholic custom and conscience, are all attacked by Jews.

The American Israelite, whose great prestige in American Jewry is due to its having been founded by Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, opposed the establishment of Columbus Day and berated Governor Hughes for signing the law making it a holiday in New York. The act that established it deserved “the contempt of thinking men.” Why? Is not the discovery of America a memorable event? Yes, but Columbus was a Catholic! However, in recent months the Jews are proving him to have been a Jew, so we may expect some day to see Columbus Day insisted upon with Jewish rites.

The Catholic Columbian made editorial reference to the increasing Jewish influence on the American press, in these words: “Jewry is getting its grip on the news of this country as it is on Reuter’s and the Havas agency in Europe.”—A perfectly polite and true observation.

But the Jewish editorial thunderer came back—“The Columbian, in its sneaking Jesuitical way, does not mention the fact that these (the Jewish) papers are the very cleanest in the country. The Columbian cannot point to a single daily owned by one of its co-religionists that begins to compare with the above papers.”

The sweet spirit here evidenced is very significant today when an appeal is being made to create a strong pro-Jewish Catholic sentiment.

If there is in the world any extra-ecclesiastical undertaking by Catholics which has won the undivided approval of the Christian world as the Passion Play of Oberammergau has done, the present writer does not know what it is. Yet in a volume entitled “A Rabbi’s Impressions of the Oberammergau Passion Play,” Rabbi Joseph Krauskopf, D.D., of Philadelphia, has stigmatized that notable production as reeking with falsehoods and vicious anti-Semitism. In the rabbi’s eyes, of course, it is, for to him the entire Christian tradition is a poisonous lie. The whole fabric of Christian truth, specially as it concerns the person of Christ, are “the hallucinations of emotional men and hysterical women.”

 “Thus,” says the rabbi (p. 127) “was invented the cruel story that has caused more misery, more innocent suffering, than any other work of fiction in the range of the whole world’s literature.” And thus the simple peasants of Oberammergau, presenting the Catholic faith in reverent pageant, are labeled anti-Semites.

These are not isolated instances. Antagonism to the Catholic Church runs throughout Jewish literature. The Jewish attitude was summed up in an editorial in the Jewish Sentinel of November 26, 1920, as follows: “Our only great historical enemy, our most dangerous enemy, is Rome in all its shapes and forms, and in all its ramifications. Whenever the sun of Rome begins to set, that of Jerusalem rises.” These, however, are matters well known to Catholic leaders.

In their turn the other Christian denominations have been attacked. When the Methodist Church put on a great pageant entitled “The Wayfarer,” Rabbi Stephen S. Wise played critic and made the solemn and silly statement that had he been a South Sea Islander (instead of the itinerant platform performer which he is) his first impulse after seeing “The Wayfarer,” would have been to rush out into the street and kill at least three Jews. It says a great deal, perhaps, for the channel in which Rabbi Wise’s impulses run, but the tens of thousands of Methodists who saw “The Wayfarer” will not be inclined to attribute such a criticism to the spirit of tolerance which Rabbi Wise so zealously counsels the Christians to observe.

The Episcopal Church also has felt the attack of the Jews. Recently the Jewish press raised a clamor that the Episcopal Church was not competent to teach Americanism in our cities because it held that Christianity and good citizenship were synonymous. And when the Episcopal Church made provision for mission work among the Jews, the torrent of abuse that was poured out gave a very vivid picture of what the Jewish mind naturally turns to when aroused. This abuse is not reproduced here because of its excessive violence and disrespect. It is similar to that which is heaped upon all attempts to explain Christianity to the Jews. “What would the Gentiles do if we sent Jewish missionaries to them?” ask the violent editors. Any Gentile can answer that—nay, even the Jews can answer that. In the first place, the Jews do not want to teach their religion to Gentiles because there is a Talmudical restriction against it; Talmudically the Gentiles are not good enough to mingle with the religious matters of the Jews. In the second place, the Jews do send missionaries everywhere, not to spread Jewish religious principles, but propaganda favoring the Jews as a race and people, as is done in our colleges through the so-called “Jewish Chautauqua.” In the third place, let there be produced one Jewish missionary, who has ever received anything but considerate reception wherever he has appeared.

The Jews are bitter against all Christian denominations because of the conversion of numerous Jews to them. A large number of Jews have become Catholics; one of the Knights of Columbus’ most useful lecturers against the menace of radical socialism is a converted Jew. It is so also with the Presbyterian Church which has been the most recent victim of Jewish vituperation. But only upon the Catholic Church has the Jew poured more wrath and malediction than he has poured upon Christian Science. The Christian Science church has attracted large numbers of Jewish converts. Some of them have become very active, devoted members of that form of faith. Scores of columns and pages have been devoted to their denunciation in Jewish newspapers, magazines and books. Christian Science is a peculiar anathema to the Jew.

Where then is the religious prejudice? Search through the publications of all the churches named, and you cannot find in all their history so much of the spirit of prejudice and persecution as you can find expressed in the Jewish press in one single day. Jewry reeks with such prejudice. In politics, education, social functions, public holidays, literature and newspapers, they see everywhere traces of “Christological manifestations” and cry them down.

No public man has ever given public evidence of his Christian faith without rebuke from the Jews. Mr. Bryan, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Taft, Mr. Wilson, two of them Presidents, one of them Vice President, and the other Secretary of State, have all been taken to task from time to time for their sins in this respect. Mr. Marshall is a devout man, whose faith is real to him, and he speaks very naturally about it at times. He has, therefore, been attacked oftener in the Jewish press than has any other public man of recent times. Nothing is more ludicrous to the Jewish press than a Vice President of the United States openly confessing that he is an “idolator,” that is, a worshipper of the dead Jewish imposter whom the Christians ignorantly call “Christ.” To Mr. Marshall’s honor, be it said, he never apologized, he never begged to withdraw his public statements. Neither did William J. Bryan, whose lecture “The Prince of Peace” contained statements in honor of Christ which brought him into conflict with Jewish spokesmen everywhere, and whose remarks about missions after a trip around the world were savagely attacked by Jews. Mr. Bryan did not apologize either. Mr. Taft was promptly called down on several occasions for using forms of the word “Christian,” which were particularly offensive to the Jewish press because they had advertised far and wide during the Taft campaign that Mr. Taft was practically a Jew in his belief in that he had abandoned all the distinctive Christian doctrines pertaining to Christ. After his lapses in which he used the term “Christian” approvingly, it was explained on his behalf (1) that he was accommodating himself to the audience, and (2) that he used the term as a synonym for civilization! But isn’t it significant that the name of Christ should be an integral part of the very name of the highest civilization? Mr. Taft was a true liberal, liberal enough to tolerate Christian orthodoxy. And that was a rather weak spot, as far as the Jews’ estimate of him went.

Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish. As a Presbyterian elder, Mr. Wilson had occasional lapses into the Christian mode of thought during his public utterances, and was always checked up tight by his Jewish censors. In 1914, speaking before the American University at Washington, he said:

“That is the reason why scholarship has usually been most fruitful when associated with religion, and scholarship has never been, so far as I can at this moment recall, associated with any religion except the religion of Jesus Christ.”

That was terrible. So terrible that Herman Bernstein was chosen to administer the castigation.

And Mr. Wilson made proper reparation:

“My dear Mr. Bernstein: I am sorry that there should have been any unfair implication in what I said at the opening of the American University. You may be sure that there was nothing of the kind in my mind, or very certainly nothing in my thoughts that would discriminate in the important matter you speak of against Judaism. I find that one of the risks and penalties of extemporaneous speaking is that you do not stop to consider the whole field, but address yourself merely to the matter in hand. With sincere respects and appreciation,

     Cordially yours, Woodrow Wilson.”

The heading given this notice in the Jewish press was, “He Did Not Mean It.”

All of the President’s offending took place in 1914. The second offense he gave was by taking the position of honorary chairman of the International Lord’s Day Congress, which was to be held the next year in connection with the Panama Exposition. It was, however, the Christian Sunday which received the bulk of the abuse on that occasion.

The subject is “religious prejudice.” Where does it exist in this country in more continuous and virulent character than among the Jews? Read these items selected at random from Jewish papers:

“District Grand Lodge No. 4, Independent Order B’nai B’rith, voted at the annual election held in San Francisco, March 2 (1911) to exclude from the order Jews who join the Christian Science Church. The body after earnest discussion decided that the portals of the order shall be closed against the Christian Scientist Jews on the ground that such Jews have abjured Judaism. The vote upon the question was almost unanimous.”

“The Jewish Community of Philadelphia has found it necessary to publish a warning to the Jewish people against the Daily Vacation Bible Schools which are being established in various parts of the city, also against certain missions and settlement houses, all of which are traps into which Jewish children are decoyed for the purpose of seducing them from the religion of their parents. These institutions belong to that class of conversionist agencies which wage a campaign for the seeking of converts through workers . . . (who) are a class of criminals that keep just within the law and deserve no better treatment than is usually accorded to people of that kind.”

When a bishop of the Episcopal Church said, “We must make the United States indisputably a Christian nation,” the Jewish press retorted that such a thing could not be done until the Constitution of the United States had been “abolished.” “Christian America” is a persecuting term according to the professional Jewish spokesmen, and the most laborious efforts have been put forth by them to prove on paper that the United States is not and cannot be Christian.

Not only do the Jews disagree with Christian teaching—which is their perfect right, and no one dare question it—but they seek to interfere with it. It is not religious tolerance in the midst of religious difference, but religious attack that they preach and practice. The whole record of the Jewish opposition to Christmas, Easter and certain patriotic songs shows that.

When Cleveland and Lakewood arranged for a community Christmas, the Cleveland Jewish press said: “The writer of this has no idea how many Jews there are in Lakewood, but if there is only one, there should be no community Christmas, no community religion of any kind.” That is not a counsel of tolerance, it is a counsel of attack. The Christmas literature of American Judaism is fiercer than the flames of the Inquisition. In the month of January, the Jewish press has urged its readers to begin an early campaign against Christmas celebrations the next Christmas—“Only three hundred and sixty days before Christmas. So let us do our Christmas arguing early and take plenty of time to do it.”

If anything, Easter is attacked yet more bitterly. But we refrain, for good reasons, from repeating what Jews commonly say on such occasions. The strange inconsistency of it all is to see the great department stores of the Levys and the Isaacs and the Goldsteins and the Silvermans filled with brilliant Christmas cheer and at Easter with the goods appropriate to the time. The festivals of the “heathen” are very profitable. Jewish merchants have been chided for this—not over-severely—by certain rabbis. But on the whole the rabbis had better remain content, for there are no forces more rapidly secularizing the two festival days than are the merchandising and profiteering forces.

Even religious intolerance has its gleesome moments, and the Jews’ come whenever the signs appear of the greater secularization of the church. One parallel between the Protocols and the real hopes of the Jews is written in the common Jewish prophecy that Christianity is doomed to perish. It will perish by becoming, to all intents and purposes, Judaism. And it will become Judaism, first, by ousting all the doctrines pertaining to the person of Christ, excising from the Gospels the great “I Ams” which are His distinctive teachings concerning Himself; and, second, by devitalizing Christianity of all the spiritual content which flows from a union by faith with a Person believed to be divine. That is the only way it can be done. There may be a union of all the churches of the Christian faith because the fundamentals are the same; no union of Christianity and Judaism can occur unless Judaism takes in Jesus as the Messiah, or unless Christianity ejects Him as the Messiah. Judaism sees the union coming by the ejection of the Lord as the Messiah, and rejoices at every sign of it.

Dr. Charles F. Aked, who has since blossomed out as a Jewish spokesman, delivered a sermon in which he cast aside all the “supernatural” elements in the life of Christ, from His birth, to the significance of His death, and was hailed by the Jewish press as “the fulfillment of the prophecy that within fifty years the religion of all the American people, outside the Catholic Church, would be Judaism in principle even though not in name.”

“No Jew,” says the American Israelite, “will conceal his gratification when he finds Christians virtually admitting that liberal Christianity is practically an acceptance of the doctrine of liberal Judaism.”

Unfortunately, this is true. Liberal Christianity and Liberal Judaism meet, but only by the surrender of all that is distinctively Christian in doctrine. A liberal Christian is more Jewish than Christian. The statement may sound harsh and arouse resentment, but it is a very simple matter for any liberal Christian to convince himself of this by reading the volume of liberal Jewish doctrine put out by Kaufman Kohler, president of the Hebrew Union College. Liberalism is the funnel by which Christianity is expected to run into Judaism, just as liberalism so-called in other departments of life is expected to bring about certain other Jewish aims.

“Liberalism” in Jewish thought means a wide-open country in every way. Judaism has opposed every significant reform that has come to the country; prohibition, Sunday decency, movie and stage regeneration, and community reverence for sacred things. Judaism has been the prop of the liquor traffic, Sunday desecration, movie and stage excesses, and public contempt for the sacred things of the prevailing religion; and it is all too evident that the Jewish propaganda has made serious inroads everywhere.

A Congregational Church in New Jersey decided to abandon the Bible in some of its classes and substitute sociology, politics, municipal government and kindred subjects for study, and the Jewish press hailed it as another sign that the church was “in a fair way to adopt what is in substance American Judaism.” In St. Louis a clergyman, instead of preaching sermons, began to act out moralistic dramas which he himself had written, and the Jewish press again hailed it as a sign of the dissatisfaction of the Christian with his church. Everything done in every branch of the Christian church has been closely watched, and wherever a departure occurred from the distinctly Christian position it was extravagantly applauded; and wherever loyalty to the landmarks appeared, it was just as extravagantly condemned. Judaism does not wish the Christian church to remain Christian. This accounts for destructive Higher Criticism being almost exclusively the work of Jews, although the world has long known them under the guise of “German critics.”

Jewish intolerance today, yesterday and in every age of history where Jews were able to exert influence or power, is indisputable except among people who do not know the record. Jewish intolerance in the past is a matter of history; for the future it is a matter of Jewish prophecy. One of the strongest causes militating against the full Americanization of several millions of Jews in this country is their belief—instilled in them by their religious authorities—that they are “chosen,” that this land is theirs, that the inhabitants are idolators, that the day is coming when the Jews will be supreme. How can they otherwise act than in agreement with such declarations? You can see what is meant if you read Jewish articles describing the shoving aside of the New

England people by the Jews; the supercilious attitude adopted toward the stock that made America is merely a fore-shadowing of what would be the complete attitude if power and influence made it possible. Bolshevism, which began with the destruction of the class that contained all the promise of a better Russia, is an exact parallel for the attitude that is adopted in this country regarding the original stock.

We are not permitted by the Jews to sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” in our schools because one of the stanzas has a Christian flavor. The Jews claim that the presence of one Jewish child in any assembly of children ought in “fairness” to prevent the singing of that historic song.

Norman Hapgood, writing in a Jewish publication, said: “I need hardly explain that I do not think Jews ought to insist overmuch on their rights or nationality in a negative sense. They ought to be as much Jews as they can, but ought to be as little as possible of what is merely anti-Christian. For the Jews to try to get a song out of the public schools because it praises Jesus is perhaps natural but hardly wise.” Mr. Hapgood received a lot of abuse for his well-conceived counsel.

Again we come to the end of our space with the record hardly scratched. Sufficient has been presented to show the strong, unceasing anti-Christian activity of the Jews in the United States. Had the Jewish press been read extensively by non-Jews during the past 15 years, this present series of articles would have been unnecessary—the people would have known the facts. It is to present some of the facts that are illustrated in the Jewish press along the line of religious intolerance that these two articles have been written.

Jewish spokesmen plead for suppression of facts in the name of “religious tolerance,” and they denounce exposure of facts as being “religious persecution.” Read the whole non-Jewish religious and secular publications and you will not find one one-hundred-thousandth part of the animosity against the Jewish religion which is found in the Jewish press—continuously found week after week for long years—against the Christian religion. The present writer has never seen nor heard of an article attacking the Jews’ religion.

So, once for all, in spiking the cry of “religious persecution,” we show that it exists in quantity and strength among the Jews—nowhere else. No one imbued with the American spirit would or could condemn, hinder, or even remonstrate with any person on account of the faith he holds.

As to “religious prejudice” or “persecution” entering into the present series of articles—there they are, reprinted in booklet form for permanent examination: where is the prejudice or persecution? Cite the page!

Jewish spokesmen would use their energy to better advantage, and more to the honor of the Jewish people, if they would address themselves to what is in the articles, rather than to what is not in them. The statements made by THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT have been voluminously discussed; but they are still awaiting an answer.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 11 June 1921]

“This clannishness would eventually break down were it not for the deliberate efforts of Jewish leaders who are determined that Israel shall remain an imperium in imperio. If the Jews persist in maintaining a distinct ethnic consciousness and an exclusive community life, anti-Semitism will thrive in America as it has thrived in Europe. The American nation, itself the result of fusion, will not tolerate without protest a foreign element in it.”

—Herbert Adams Gibbons in the Century, September. Page 789.

Jewish Gamblers Corrupt American Baseball

There are men in the United States who say that baseball has received its death wound and is slowly dying out of the list of respectable sports. There are other men who say that American baseball can be saved if a clean sweep is made of the Jewish influence which has just dragged it through a period of bitter shame and demoralization.

Whether baseball as a first-class sport is killed and will survive only as a cheap-jack entertainment; or whether baseball possesses sufficient intrinsic character to rise in righteous wrath and cast out the danger that menaces it, will remain a matter of various opinion. But there is one certainty, namely, that the last and most dangerous blow dealt baseball was curiously notable for its Jewish character.

Yet only lesser Jews were indicted. Inevitably the names of other Jews appeared in the press accounts, and people wondered who they were. A Jewish judge presided. Jewish lawyers were prominent on both sides of the cases. Numerous strange things occurred.

But strangest of all is the fact that although American fans felt that something epochal had happened in baseball, few really know what it is.

There has been time enough for others to tell the truth if they were so disposed. Many sport editors have come as near telling it as their newspapers would permit them. But it becomes daily more evident that if the whole matter is to be laid bare, so that Americans may know where to look for danger, THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT will have to do it.

And this is not of our own choosing. Baseball is a trivial matter compared to some of the facts that are awaiting publication. Yet it is possible to see the operation of the Jewish Idea in baseball as clearly as in any other field. The process is the same, whether in war or politics, in finance or in sports.

To begin with, Jews are not sportsmen. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. It may be a defect in their character, or it may not; it is nevertheless a fact which discriminating Jews unhesitatingly acknowledge. Whether this is due to their physical lethargy, their dislike of unnecessary physical action, or their serious cast of mind, others may decide; the Jew is not naturally an out-of-door sportsman; if he takes up golf it is because his station in society calls for it, not that he really likes it; and if he goes in for collegiate athletics, as some of the younger Jews are doing, it is because so much attention has been called to their neglect of the sports that the younger generation thinks it necessary to remove that occasion of remark.

And yet, the bane of American sports today is the presence of a certain type of Jew, not as a participant, but as an exploiter and corrupter. If he had been a sportsman for the love of sport he might have been saved from becoming an exploiter and corrupter, for there is no mind to which the corrupting of a sport is more illogical and even unexplainable than the mind of the man who participates in it.

There will be a very full case made out in justification of the use of the above terms “exploiter” and “corrupter” with regard to baseball. But it would be just as easy to make out the same sort of case with regard to wrestling and horse-racing. Wrestling is so completely ruled by Jews as to have become an outlawed sport. The story of wrestling is not only the story of the demoralization of a sport, but also the story of the wholesale bunkoing of the public.

The same is true of horse-racing. The whole atmosphere of this sport has been tinged with dishonesty. The horses remain almost the only well-bred creatures connected with it. Yet why should the art of breeding and training and testing fine horses be debasing? Only because a certain class saw in it a chance to play upon the weaknesses of men for the sake of gain.

That, indeed, explains the presence of the Jew in modern sports and it also explains why the Jewish Idea in sport, instead of being preservative, is corruptive. The Jew saw money where the sportsman saw fun and skill. The Jew set out to capitalize rivalry and to commercialize contestant zeal.

This is not necessarily the only course the Jew could have taken with regard to sports, but it is the course that he most notably has taken, and as scandal follows scandal it would seem to be high time that organized Jewry should undertake to control or repudiate those Jews who have been most instrumental in corrupting and nearly destroying our cleanest, most manly public sports.

It is worth noting that in Chicago, where the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has its headquarters, there was not a word of reproof sent out from Jews to the Jewish culprits, chiding them for their activities. Not a word. But at the same time the pressure of the Anti-Defamation League was heavy on the whole American newspaper press to prevent the public statement that the whole baseball scandal was a Jewish performance from end to end.

Baseball had a close call for its life back in 1875. Rowdyism, gambling, drinking and general disorderliness on the baseball fields brought the sport very low in public estimation, so low that attendance at the games fell heavily.

In this year 1921 there is another public rebuke being administered baseball by the same means—a very heavy reduction of public support in attendance at the games.

The storm began to be heard as far back as 1919. The Cincinnati Nationals had defeated the Chicago Americans in the World Series of that year, and immediately thereafter the country became a whispering gallery wherein were heard mysterious rumors of crooked dealing. The names of Jews were heard then, but it meant nothing to the average man. The rumors dealt with shady financial gains for a number of Jew gamblers of decidedly shady reputation.

But “they got away with it,” in the parlance of the field. There was not enough public indignation to force a show-down, and too many interests were involved to prevent baseball being given a black eye in full view of an adoring public.

However, not everyone forgot the incident. Some who had the interest of honest sport at heart, and a regard for facts as well, kept on the trail—long after the trail grew cold, long after the principal wrongdoers forgot their early caution. Where money had once been taken successfully, the gang would be sure to return.

Time went on until the 1920 season began to wane. One day when the Chicago and Philadelphia National League teams were engaged in a series at Chicago, strange messages began to reach the office of the Chicago club. The messages were dated from Detroit and informed the Chicago club and management that several “well-known” Jews were betting heavily on Philadelphia. The bets involved large sums of money, and as the contest was only the ordinary run of daily game, not an important contest at all, the unusual interest of Jewish plungers attracted attention. At the same time it was observed that money began rolling into the pool rooms on Philadelphia.

Chicago club officials called a hasty conference on receipt of the messages. They called in Grover Cleveland Alexander, explained the situation to him, and told him it was up to him to save the game. It was not Alexander’s turn to pitch, Claude R. Hendryx having been chosen for that day; neither was Alexander in training to pitch that day. However, he did go to the box, and although he hurled his heart out to beat Philadelphia and thwart the Jew gamblers, he failed.

Then came the big scandal. A Cook County grand jury was called into session at Chicago and asked to investigate. When the grand jury had completed its labors, eight members of the Chicago American League team were under indictment for throwing the World Series of 1919, the previous year, to the Cincinnati Reds. And all along the line of investigation the names of Jews were plentifully sprinkled.

It was discovered that the indictments brought by the first grand jury were faulty; a second one was called and it was under the second group of indictments that the famous trial at Chicago was held.

One difference in the work of the two grand juries was that the second indicted five Jews who had escaped the first one. Two of these men were Carl Zork and Benny Franklin, who were just as much implicated at the time of the first grand jury as the second, but the prosecutor’s office did not try to secure their indictment. Why? Because Replogle, the attorney representing the prosecution, said there were enough men indicted without Zork and Franklin. These two St. Louis Jews were represented by Alfred S. Austrian, a Jewish lawyer, of Chicago.

This second grand jury also indicted Ben and Louis Levi and their brother-in-law, D. A. Zelser, gamblers from Des Moines. Their indictment was not secured at the first grand jury investigation directed by Replogle, assistant to Hoyne, who was then acting for the state of Illinois. Between the first and second grand juries a political change had occurred, and the public interests in the second grand jury were in the care of a new prosecuting attorney, Robert Crowe, a former judge.

It becomes necessary at this point in the narrative to give a brief “Who’s Who” of the baseball scandal, omitting from the list the names of the baseball players, who are sufficiently known to the public. This list will comprise only those who have been in the background of baseball and whom it is necessary to know in order to understand what has been happening behind the scenes in recent years.

For the first name let us take Albert D. Lasker. He is a member of the American Jewish Committee, was recently appointed by President Harding to be chairman of the United States Shipping Board, and is known as the author of the “Lasker Plan,” a widely heralded plan for the reorganization of baseball, which practically took the sport out of non-Jewish control. He is reputed to be the second richest Jew in Chicago and was head of the advertising agency which became famous under the Gentile names of Lord & Thomas. Moreover he is a heavy stockholder in the Chicago Cubs—the Chicago Nationals.

The so-called “Lasker Plan” has been attributed to Mr. Lasker, although it is not here intimated that he has specifically claimed to be its originator. The intimation is not made for the reason that to do so might be putting Mr. Lasker in the position of claiming what is not true. Until he makes the claim, the term “Lasker Plan” must remain merely a designation, and not a description of its origin.

This matter brings us to the name of Alfred S. Austrian, a Jewish lawyer of Chicago, who is a warm friend both of Mr. Lasker and of the Replogle aforementioned. It is said that Mr. Austrian was really the originator of the “Lasker Plan” which for certain reasons was handed to Mr. Lasker, who was not averse to publicity and who knew the art of self-advertising. Now, it appears that Austrian was also the legal representative of Charles A. Comiskey, owner of the Chicago Americans, and that he was also, if he is not now, the legal adviser of William Veeck, president of the Chicago National League Club, in which it has just been said that Lasker is a heavy stockholder. It was this club which was touched by the questionable game of August, 1920, and which afterward released Hendryx, the pitcher chosen for and withdrawn from that game. The Chicago National League Club has never explained why it released Hendryx and he has never demanded redress.

Mr. Austrian’s further activities will appear when the narrative of the investigation and trial is resumed.

Then there is Arnold Rothstein, a Jew, who describes himself as being in the real estate business, but who is known to be a wealthy gambler, owner of a notorious gambling house at Saratoga, a race track owner, and is reputed to be financially interested in the New York National League Club.

Rothstein was usually referred to during the baseball scandal as “the man higher up.” It is stated that in some manner unknown he received the secret testimony given before the grand jury and offered it to a New York newspaper. However, the fact is this: the grand jury testimony disappeared from the prosecuting attorney’s safe-keeping. It is stated that, when Rothstein found out it did not incriminate him, he then offered it for publicity purposes. The price which it is said to have cost is also stated. It is further stated that the New York paper to whom the secret stolen testimony was offered, in turn offered its use for a larger sum to a Chicago newspaper, and that the Chicago newspaper, to protect itself, called up Robert Crowe, the new prosecutor, who advised that, in printing it, the newspaper would incur an unpleasant risk. Other Chicago editors were warned, and the testimony was not printed. Even the New York newspaper thought better of it, and did not print it.

In this connection, Rothstein threatened suit against Ban Johnson. of the National Commission, the big-bodied, big-minded, honest director and protector of straight baseball—but the suit, like others of the kind, has not been brought.

Rothstein is known on Broadway as “a slick Jew.” That he is powerful with the authorities has been often demonstrated. His operations on the turf have led to suggestions that he be ruled off.

Alfred S. Austrian, herinbefore mentioned, was the legal adviser of Rothstein during the baseball scandal.

Hugh S. Fullerton, the able sport writer of the New York Evening Mail, writing on July 28, 1921, made a plea that “a person guilty of crooked work on a race track should be expelled not only from the race track but from ball parks, tennis courts, football fields and every place where sport is promoted. These sport spoilers must be barred from every sport.”

And in the same paper, referring specifically to Rothstein, Mr. Fullerton writes:

“There is in New York a gambler named Rothstein who is much feared and much accused. His name has been used in connection with almost every big thieving, crooked deal on the race track, and he is openly named in this baseball scandal. There has been no legal proof advanced against him beyond the fact that he is the only man in the entire crowd who had money enough to handle such a deal. At least $200,000 was used in actual cash, and no one concerned could command that much money excepting Rothstein, who is either the vilest crook or the most abused man in America.

“Rothstein sits in the box with the owner of the New York Giants. He has the entrée to the exclusive clubhouses on race tracks; he is prominent at fights.”

Then, after naming Abe Attell and Bennie Kauff, who also enjoy exceptional privileges around the New York club, Mr. Fullerton makes his plea for the exclusion of “sport spoilers” from every ground where sport is promoted.

Then there is Charles A. Comiskey, who is one of the most impressive examples in the country today of a good Irishman being entirely eclipsed by a Jew. Comiskey was one of the staunchest supporters of honest baseball in this country and he gave great assistance in erecting the major league game to the position it occupied just before the scandal. He used his best endeavors, also, to get the truth about the “throwing” of the World Series by his men. But his efforts were thwarted and even he, perhaps, has not the ghost of a suspicion how it was done.

So that, instead of Mr. Comiskey, we look at the Jew behind him who is Harry Grabiner. With Comiskey in failing health, Grabiner is in charge at Comiskey Park. More than that, he appears to be in charge of Comiskey himself, preventing him from making public statements and otherwise dictating to him—pushing himself forward in a manner that has indelibly and unpleasantly impressed nearly every sport writer in America.

Chicago’s support of the White Sox began to slump even before the scandal and it was helped on by the unpopularity of Grabiner’s methods which were wholly characteristic of what the Americanized Jew calls the “kikes.” As secretary of the club, Grabiner has grabbed the headship and if Comiskey had power enough to unseat him he would do more than the courts have done to purge the White Sox from its most serious remaining blemish.

There are shady spots at Chicago that neither the grand jury nor the court trial brought out, one of which is now related:

At all ball parks in the American League, and in the National, for that matter, officials of the “home club”—that is, of the club in whose home city the game is being played—“take the gate.” To “take the gate” is to collect the tickets and render a report of the attendance. Tickets are designed and numbered for the different gates—box gate, pass gate, grandstand gate, bleacher gate, and the rest. The accounts are made up showing the number of people who passed through each gate. When all the reports are in, it can be seen at a glance what the paid attendance is, and the shares of the contesting clubs.

In former times it was the custom for the visiting club to assign a secretary to watch the gates and thus insure an honest count, but years ago the “honor system” was adopted, leaving the entire accounting to the “home club,” and this “honor system” was strictly observed. No one suspected cheating. The count was made during the sixth and seventh innings of each day’s game, the officials of the home club visiting all the gates, taking the turnstile count, and making the record. Three slips were then prepared showing the home club’s share, the visiting club’s share, and the grand total.

Under Grabiner’s régime the “honor system” as practiced at the Chicago park began to be suspected. It began to be mysteriously suggested that visiting teams were not getting their full share. Through a system of false accounting, it was said, money was being held out. Naturally, with all the other secret investigations that were proceeding in baseball, this clue was not left untouched. Detectives were hired. Watchers were stationed. Secret counts were made. Not only one club nor only two clubs adopted secret methods of finding out what was occurring under Grabiner’s secretaryship. They discovered that the “honor system” was not in vogue at that park. Their suspicions were confirmed, the mysterious rumors were verified. It would probably be highly objectionable to pro-Jewish persons to mention the Jewish management with these methods—but there are the facts.

The White Sox of Comiskey’s palmy days have certainly ridden to a sorry finish under the Jewish control that has been foisted upon it. And it is typical; for there is no surer clue by which to trace a certain type of Jew than by the near certainty that even with honest money rolling in upon him, he will try to increase the flow by petty dishonesty which, once discovered, declasses him forever. It is typical. There is a lure in trickery that appeals to some men more than sound and satisfying achievement does. Think of a world-famous baseball club allowing a system that cheated the guest club of a few hundred admission fees!

Then next in this gallery of notables in the background of baseball is the Jew gambler, Abe Attell, whose connection with sports has been of a questionable character ever since his dethronement from his pugilistic pedestal. Attell is known as the “king bee” of the scheme to “throw the games” in the World Series. He knows all about underhanded “throwing” of contests, because he has “thrown” his own fights, now feigning to be beaten when it involved gambling bets and easily winning when the same reasons prompted. Attell is of such a character that he ought to be barred from the grounds of any sport, as Mr. Fullerton suggests. He is the Morris Gest of sport, without Gest’s success. All the players named Attell as the “fixer.” Even Rothstein named Attell as the “fixer.” It seemed unanimous—with perhaps Attell’s own consent—that he should be regarded as the “fixer”: it made it so much more comfortable for others. Attell went so far as to say that he approached Rothstein with the proposition to raise a pool to bribe the players to “throw the games,” but Rothstein declined. And yet Maharg, another Jew, whose name spelled backward is “Graham,” says that a telegram came through signed “A. R.” which promised $20,000. The “A. R.” was supposed by some to mean Arnold Rothstein, but others say he is too shrewd even to sign his initials. However, it was asserted that 10 gamblers, all Jews, cleaned up $250,000 on the games and that nearly as much money was used to manage it.

Attell was the “goat,” the unanimity being rather startling. It has been known, of course, that men have been so deep in sin that they have been chosen to bear the sins also of their friends on promise that “influence” would be exerted, or on threat that if they didn’t stand as “goat” certain past indiscretions would be advertised. Whatever Attell’s case might have been, he stood the gaff.

Attell told the ball players that Rothstein was putting up the money.

And Attell was never brought to book. It was even testified that Abe Attell was not Abe Attell at all. Certain moneys lost in a bet had been repaid and the expected testimony in a certain matter turned out to be other than expected. Attell was held in New York for an extradition hearing. Sammy Pass, a Jew, was one of the witnesses. So was Johnny Seys. The hearing resulted in New York refusing the extradition of Abe Attell.

Then came the Dempsey-Carpentier fight, in Jersey, which Abe Attell attended. Chicago officers were in attendance, too, with extradition papers signed by the governor of New Jersey. They intended to take Attell back with them, though without passing through New York. Attell attended the fight, but the underground wires, so active in this entire case, were working, and Attell eluded the western officers.

The next name in the roster will be that of Barney Dreyfuss, a Jew, owner of the Pittsburgh National League Club. Mr. Dreyfuss appeared in the public eye during the conduct of the grand jury inquiry into the shady games, with an insistent demand that the National Commission, the ruling body in baseball, of which Ban B. Johnson is the acknowledged leader, should be abolished, and another plan, the “Lasker Plan,” substituted. It was intended to discredit the National Commission under cover of the rottenness that had been discovered between the Jew gamblers and the venial Chicago players. It was primarily an anti-Johnson move and nothing else, and it was led by a Jew whose principal followers were the rapidly increasing group of Jewish controllers of American baseball. What they have against Ban B. Johnson, impartial investigators have been unable to discover. Mr. Johnson’s chief characteristic, with reference to the Jewish side, has been his implacable enmity to crookedness of any kind. That ought not to be a disqualification if baseball is to be saved. Yet the Jew-conceived, Jew-named and Jew-advocated “Lasker Plan” won out.

Carl Zork, the St. Louis Jew who was indicted, is variously described as a shirt-maker and a silk-broker. There are no variations, however, in his description as a gambler. He is part of the Jewish national net of gamblers which acts nationally and makes “killings” on a national scale.

It should be observed that the principal Jewish abuses are nation-wide. This was shown in the United States Government’s investigation of the white slave traffic; the bootlegging business is nation-wide; so is race-track gambling; baseball pools also are a national network for the catching of “suckers.” There is, therefore, nothing unusual that a shirt-maker from St. Louis and a horse-trader from East St. Louis, and a bootlegger from Albany—together with clever high-ups and hopelessly declassed low-downs—should all be involved in a baseball scandal that breaks in Chicago. They are all really part of a national group.

Carl Zork, for example staged the fight between Attell and a third-class boxer in which Attell welched in the sixth round in order to “throw” the fight, because his friends had all bet on the third-rate man, getting tremendous odds. His friends would never have made the bet, or having made it could never have won it, without Attell’s deliberate quitting and feigned whimpering. It was one of the rawest of many raw deals witnessed in Jew-controlled sports, but Attell is that kind of man. He is a servant for that kind of scheme. It was not by accident that Zork, the silk-broker, and Attell, an ex-prize fighter, should be linked together in the baseball scandal. They had been linked in crooked work before. They are part of the national machinery organized and operated for the purpose of separating “Gentile boobs” from their money.

If there were no “Gentle boobs,” or if the “Gentile boob” would only take a square look at the man behind the nation-wide spider web, the gamblers and the Jewish sport purveyors would be in another kind of business, with perhaps less money to flaunt in the faces of honest people.

If fans wish to know the trouble with American baseball, they have it in three words—too much Jew. Gentiles may rant out their parrot-like pro-Jewish propaganda, the fact is that a sport is clean and helpful until it begins to attract Jewish investors and exploiters and then it goes bad. The two facts have occurred in pairs too frequently and under too many dissimilar circumstances to have their relationship doubted.

When you contrast the grandstands full of Americans supposing they are witnessing “the only clean sport,” with the sinister groups playing with the players and the managers to introduce a serpent’s trail of unnecessary crookedness, you get a contrast that is rather startling. And the sinister influence is Jewish. So patent was this that even newspapers could not cover the facts this time.

Years before this public scandal broke, involving a whole team, it was noticed that certain Jewish gamblers formed the habit of rooming with certain baseball players. It worried the managers. The fact that the gamblers coddled in among the players was fraught with a suggestion of disturbing unusualness. Managers tried the experiment of trading such players, getting them out of their teams as quickly as possible. However, the snuggling game was continued until it honey-combed the whole of baseball, with the result that it was with no trepidation at all that the Jewish gamblers could walk up and suggest to players that a game be thrown for a price. The occurrence which formed the basis of the investigation was not the first of the kind—far from it; the approach of the gamblers was too easy, the reception given them by the players was too casual, to warrant that view. Nor were the men whose names were given to the public the only men involved.

The only fact of value brought out of all the trouble is that American baseball has passed into the hands of the Jews. If it is to be saved, it must be taken out of their hands until they have shown themselves capable of promoting sports for sports’ sake. If it is not taken out of their hands, let it be widely announced that baseball is another Jewish monopoly, and that its patrons may know what to expect.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 3 September 1921]

Jewish Degradation of American Baseball

Every non-Jewish baseball manager in the United States lives between two fears, and they are both describable in the Biblical term “the fear of the Jews.” The first fear concerns what the Jews are doing to baseball; the second fear concerns what the Jew would do to the manager if he complained about it. Hence, in spite of the fact that the rowdyism that has afflicted baseball, especially in the East, is all of Jewish origin—the razzing of umpires, hurling of bottles, ceaseless shouting of profane insults; in spite of the fact that the loyalty of players had to be constantly guarded because of the tendency of individual Jewish gamblers to snuggle up to individual players; in spite of the evidence that even the gate receipts have been tampered with—the managers and secretaries of baseball clubs have been obliged to keep their mouths closed. Through fear they have not dared say what they know. As one manager said, “Good God, man, they’d boycott my park if I told you!”

This is in free America, and in the “cleanest game”! It is time for baseball to begin to look round.

Incidentally, the fans have been looking round. The fans know. If managers only knew how much the fans have observed, they might feel more certain of support in the event of a move toward a clean-up.

All that a Jew needs to make him eligible to baseball or any other sport on the same terms with other people, is to develop a sportsman’s spirit. The Jew has crowded into all the lucrative sports, but only on the commercial side of them, seldom if ever in sympathy with the sport as a real sportsman. The Jews referred to as gamblers in these articles are not really gamblers: they take no chances; they are not sportsmen enough to gamble; they are “sure thing” men. The “Gentile boobs” who walk into their traps are the people who provide the money. Even in the field of money, the Jew is not a sport—he is a gangster, ringing a gang of his ilk around his victims with as much system as a storekeeper supplies clerks and delivery boys.

Lately the Jews have been endeavoring to prove that they are sports. Venial sport editors are sometimes induced to write certain laudatory articles along that line, and frequently the name of Benny Leonard is used—Benny Leonard, the light-weight fighter. Benny forms an instructive illustration just along this line. Benny declares that he went into the ring without a scar and that he will leave the ring without a scar.

Why? Because he will let no one hit him. He will go a long way to avoid pain.

The true wrestler risks and often suffers physical pain. So does the true ring fighter. But it is a Jewish characteristic to avoid, if possible, the pain of contest, just as it is a characteristic to avoid unnecessary effort.

Look at the other light-weight champions and fighters. Kid Lavinge carries scars; his hearing is affected by the blows he took. Battling Nelson was so badly shattered by his fights that operations were necessary. Ad Wolgast, as a result of the honest straight fighting he endured, went into a sanatorium. Imagine Willie Ritchie and Freddie Welsh boasting that they never took a blow! But Benny Leonard is still unscarred. It may be boxing, but it is not fighting.

Wrestling is so tightly controlled by Jewish managers, that a real wrestler is absolutely barred out, for fear he will be able to show that the handful of wrestlers hired by the Jewish trust are not wrestlers at all, but only impositions on the good nature of the public. In order that the statement just made may not be misunderstood, it is repeated: the wrestling game at present is like the chariot race in a circus—the performers are hired men and the race is only a sham. The Jewish controllers of wrestling will not permit real wrestler to appear—indeed, they go to infinite pains to bar him out—because a real wrestler would immediately show up the game. Wrestling is as much a Jewish business, controlled in its every part, as the manufacture of clothing, and its hirelings are mostly Gentiles.

That is what baseball was coming to. The whole sport was getting down to an “exhibition game” status. The overtone of “money, money, money” grew louder and louder. The sport aspect of the game was beginning to give way to the “show” aspect. There were numerous signs that an attempt was being made to “star” certain persons, to run “headliners,” and to pull off a game with a sensational ending—just like a ballet is staged, or a pageant. Thrills were being offered—not as the give and take of the game, the accident of tensest action, but as practiced acting.

That is, baseball was slowly being brought under the level of the box-office idea.

There were forces against this metamorphosis of the game. Certain men saw what was coming. There were also forces favoring the change, and wanting it to come. Curiously enough, the forces that favored turning baseball into afternoon vaudeville were Jews, and those who favored keeping the game as part of American outdoor sports were non-Jews.

There were more involved in that Chicago trial—that curious medley of Jewish defendants, witnesses, lawyers and judge—than the mere trial of baseball players accused of unlawfully taking money.

The players were the “Gentile boobs.” The players were not a whit different than a candidate for the United States Senate who plays the game according to the Jewish method. Every player on trial was there because he had listened to the suggestions of a Jew. The Jews who made the suggestions were not on trial. Some of them were not even indicted. Some who were called before the grand jury were not required to testify. Others who were indicted were acquitted. The spotlight of the whole scandal was centered on the non-Jewish players who were pushed out in front to do the job and who were known to any number of Jewish witnesses as having been mixed up in whatever shady work there might have been. The “Gentile boobs” had no witnesses; the Jews had all of them.

This is not a whitewash for the players. They deserved all they got for mixing up with the low hangers-on; but they did not deserve it alone. Had they been half men there would have been a few Jewish gamblers cured for life of the little habit of approaching ball players with a shady proposition. The players are Jewish dupes. To be such a dupe is punishment enough.

It would be erroneous, however, to hold the opinion that corruption in baseball began with the matter which was aired in court. Reference was made at the beginning of this article to the fear which the managers feel. This fear is of long standing. The managers had observed certain manifestations of evil years before. They had heard rumors which they did not repeat to their closest friends. They had started quiet investigations, the results of which they did not reveal even to their partners in the clubs. Everybody acquainted with the true situation lived in deathly fear of emitting a whisper that might give a clue to the truth. But the truth is stronger than walls and doors and steel vaults—the truth was known at every stage of the game, by somebody.

Fans may recall that several years ago one of the eastern teams began to get rid of most of its men. It was a strange proceeding and occasioned much discussion. The sport pages speculated about it, and the “wise” ones doped out plausible or fantastic explanations. The true explanation has never yet been given, and it is this: the manager of that club had seen certain things in the World Series of that year which turned him cold. He knew that he saw them; morally he was convinced that something was wrong; he exhausted every available method to get to the truth and failed; so, unable to bring the men to public punishment, he simply got rid of them one by one, and the next season he had practically “rebuilt” his team. That was not more than ten and not less than five years before the 1919 World Series which formed the basis of the Chicago scandal.

It may be stated also that this which follows is the consensus of Jewish opinion as regards baseball: “You can’t kill baseball as a business. It will always draw a gang on an afternoon, particularly a Sunday afternoon. It can be ‘pepped’ up and ‘jazzed’ up in a way that will make it quite a show.”

The Jews are probably right, that baseball cannot be killed as a business. But it can be killed as a sport. And the American baseball fans who value the game as a sport should wish its utter destruction rather than consent that it become a rendezvous for the gangs that now fill the Jew-controlled burlesque houses. Baseball as a business will become a danger in American life, a mob-center, a hang-out of the disorderly and criminal classes.

There is another peculiar Jewish story regarding baseball which has not been told and it necessarily brings in the name of Judge Landis, of Chicago, an upright man with a wise head, whom the Jews would better not try to fool.

When the story is told, however, even the Jews will agree that Judge Landis is too shrewd for them.

Before the baseball scandal the situation was this: Ban Johnson was the head of organized baseball, through the National Commission. He had brought the sport from a minor place to its position as the national game. Ban Johnson was something of an autocrat, as all leaders must be, because as old General Booth of the Salvation Army said: “If the Children of Israel had been managed by a committee, they never could have crossed the Red Sea.” Autocracy has its uses, especially in striking out new lines. Ban Johnson used his power for baseball, not for personal aggrandizement. He saw the game grow great, he wanted it kept clean. In his efforts to keep it clean, he made certain enemies. One of those enemies, the Jewish owner of a baseball club, threatened to “get Johnson.” As far as the National Commission as the head of organized baseball is concerned, they did “get” him. But so far as his prestige is concerned, so far as his character and reputation are concerned, they did not “get” him.

Judge Landis was a fan. That is, he was a fan, besides being a learned and rather strict judge. Judge Landis was one of the few judges who did not quail before Chicago meat packers and Jewish bootleggers. Judge Landis always went the limit on the numerous cases of Jewish business crookedness that came before him—“blue sky” investment companies, and the like. He was at least one judge who tried Jew and Gentile alike and whose impartiality and fearless righteousness no one doubted.

Judge Landis was a rather uncomfortable man to have on the bench in Chicago.

Moreover he was a comparatively poor man. The United States pays its judges only $7,500 a year. That is less than $150 a week, comparatively little on which to live as a Federal judge must live. Yet Judge Landis lived in a modest house and within his income. And no one ever dared tamper with him. An honest judge on the bench, a frugal man outside.

And he was a fan!

Now, while Ban Johnson was doing his best for baseball, and while Judge Landis was seeing a game as often as his duties permitted, certain others were viewing the situation. One of them was Alfred S. Austrian, the Jewish lawyer referred to in the last article, attorney for several ball clubs, friend of Replogle and Lasker, attorney for Rothstein the gambler and several others. Barney Dreyfuss, the Jewish owner of the Pittsburgh Club, was on the trail of Johnson, on persistent enmity. The Jewish coterie in Chicago and the Jewish influence throughout American baseball looked at Johnson and they looked at Judge Landis.

Then the great idea broke! If at one stroke they could rid baseball of Johnson and rid the bench of Landis, what a good job that would be.

Both these men were dangerous to Jews—not that they intended to be, not that they were consciously so—and it would be desirable to remove both from the spheres of their activity.

Then it was that the Jew lawyer, Austrian, came forth with the “Lasker Plan,” named for his Jewish friend Lasker, member of the American Jewish Committee, head of Lord & Thomas (Gentile names) and Chairman of the United States Shipping Board.

The “Lasker Plan” proposed that the National Commission with Ban Johnson be superseded by a one-man government, that one man be selected from outside both leagues.

The proposal was not an immediate success. Even the National League was in no hurry to obey this suggestion against Johnson. Indeed, there was so much hesitancy on the part of the Nationals in which the Jewish colleagues expected to find their best support, that the trump card was played.

What was that trump card? It is said to be the secret testimony of the grand jury before which Ban Johnson was glad to appear as a witness to tell the jury everything it would need for a proper prosecution of its inquiry, and before which Alfred S. Austrian also appeared to save some of his clients from the consequences of such testimony. The report is that Austrian was able to reproduce at the National League meeting the secret testimony which Ban Johnson had given before the grand jury, and by that means swing the Nationals against Johnson and in favor of the “Lasker Plan,” because in the grand jury room Johnson told the truth about certain elements in baseball, which was held to reflect on National League members. What those elements are may be gathered from a survey of the people who were interested in “getting” Johnson. Johnson is anything but anti-Semitic. He probably has never stopped to think about such a thing. He has never been known to attack Jews as Jews. But he has stood for straight baseball, and for so standing he has won the enmity of the Jews in baseball. These facts are sufficient to justify a conclusion.

So, with Johnson left to head only the American League and not both leagues, the next task was to select the new autocrat of baseball. Not a commission this time, but one man! With all his power, Johnson was never more than one of a commission; but the “Lasker Plan” disposes of such safeguards and leaves the whole authority in one man’s hands. It will be interesting to see who becomes the second incumbent of that office, if indeed the “Lasker Plan” lasts long enough to warrant a second autocrat.

Gentle reader, do you suppose for a moment that the Jews who opposed Johnson did not know who the new leader would be? Ah, well they knew! He was to be a man outside both leagues. And he was to be a man whom the Jews would just as soon have off the bench as on it. He was, indeed, none other than Judge Landis, who can be trusted to see through a trick as far as any other living man.

Of course, he would accept a $42,500 job, he who was receiving only $7,500 a year! And, of course, he would resign from the bench!—thus the coterie reasoned.

They trooped over to the court to interview the judge. They made so much commotion on their entry that the gavel was banged for order. The interview was held. Judge Landis agreed to accept. This news was widely heralded. The judge tied them down to a seven-year contract. It was assumed in all the interviews in all the newspapers that the judge would resign. It was assumed he would devote the rest of his life to baseball.

The baseball magnates signed up under the “Lasker Plan” put across by Austrian.

Judge Landis also signed.

And then he remained on the bench!

The reader no doubt remembers how quickly enthusiasm for Judge Landis died down in certain quarters; remembers, too, no doubt, that a fight was started immediately afterward in the United States Congress to force Judge Landis off the bench—not to make him give up the dictatorship of baseball, but to make him quit the bench.

And be this said: in spite of all the collusion and conspiracy and trickery, of which Judge Landis was the unconscious object, baseball fell into the hands of a man who will be just as jealous for its good name as Ban Johnson was. The Austrian-Lasker-Dreyfuss plan has so far failed. And Judge Landis has rendered several decisions which show that on the bench or off the bench he has the same shrewd eye for the detection of a fallacy.

Judge Landis is safeguarded by a seven-year contract. He is free to be absolutely fearless and fair. What his accession means to baseball will be anxiously awaited.

Judge Landis is probably not empowered to stop the steady falling of baseball clubs into Jewish hands, and if this cannot be stopped, his position as supreme dictator becomes little better than that of a police court judge settling disputes relating to the rules and offenses against them. The peril of baseball goes deeper than that.

A few years ago the owners of the American League entered into a gentleman’s agreement not to sell their holdings at any time without first consulting all the other owners. The name of a prospective purchaser was to be submitted and considered, and the deal was to wait upon the approval of all the owners in the league.

In the face of that fact many people wonder how Harry Frazee became owner of the Boston American club. It is very simply explained: the agreement was not observed in Boston’s case, and thus another club was placed under the smothering influences of the “chosen race.” The story is worth telling:

Frazee, like so many of his kind, was in the “show business,” a manager of burlesque companies. Then he saw a chance in sport. In partnership with Jack Curley, another Jew, he put on the notoriously crooked fight between Jack Johnson and Jess Willard at Havana. Curley has been the principal influence in killing wrestling, by precisely the kind of Jewish policy here described.

Jack Johnson, the Negro, was a fugitive from justice, yet he was champion prize fighter of the world. He was spending money like a wild sailor, and his funds were running low. He was getting into precisely the condition where Jews like to find a man, to use him. Unable to fight in the United States, but still possessing the championship, he was in need of a way out. At this time Frazee and Curley made a proposition to Johnson, said to involve the sum of $35,000, if he would “lay down” before Jess Willard. And thus Jess Willard, “probably the worst fighter that ever held a title,” was made world champion. Frazee and Curley then exhibited Willard on the stage and in circuses, and drew rich dividends. The crooked fight at Havana did not involve Willard, he was too poor a fighter to need “fixing.” Only Johnson had to be “fixed” not to knock Willard out, which he could easily have done. But between the time when Curley and Frazee gave Willard the title, and the time when Dempsey took it away from him, the Jewish syndicate made a very rich killing out of the gullible American public.

But Curley is not the subject here, he deserves a separate story. Frazee concerns this article because he became owner of the Boston baseball team. He bought a new show—the Boston club, in the best baseball city of the American League. John J. Lannin, former owner, was a real baseball man, so much so indeed, that the excitement of the games told on his health and it became necessary for him to relieve himself of the strain. Frazee was waiting to cut in, and whether Lannin feared that the proposal of Frazee’s name to the American League would result in disapproval, or whether Frazee himself, knowing it, contrived to make it worth while that the agreement between the American League owners should be ignored, remains an open question.

However that may be, the American League woke up one morning to find the little burlesque manager and promoter of a crooked prize fight in their midst. It was a sad shock to the dignity of “the cleanest sport.”

What could they do about it? Nothing. Frazee had bought and paid for what he held.

Baseball was about as much of a sport to Frazee as selling tickets to a merry-go-round would be. He wanted to put his team across as if they were May Watson’s girly girly burlesquers. Baseball was to be “promoted” as Jewish managers promote Coney Island.

The American League owners rebelled, but let them rebel! What could they do about it?

Frazee began his next inside work almost immediately. Ban Johnson was unalterably opposed to the Frazee idea of sport, and Frazee set out to “get” Johnson. A split occurred in the American League, with Frazee, Til Huston and Jake Ruppert of the New York Club, and Charles A. Comiskey and Grabiner, of the Chicago Club, on one side against Johnson, and the other American owners comprising the other party supporting Johnson.

Frazee got money out of Chicago—the home of Lasker, Austrian, Replogle and Grabiner—to put through his Boston deal. A bank loaned him a quarter of a million dollars—one of Frazee’s friends was a director of the bank. Frazee’s friend died and Frazee had difficulty with the bank about remaking the notes. He finally was enabled to pay $125,000. Frazee secured this money from the New York American Club by selling “Babe” Ruth. Thus the New York and Boston clubs have become financially interwoven. Boston is referred to as “New York’s farm” in baseball circles.

In the meantime, the fans of Boston feel toward Frazee as the fans of Chicago feel toward Grabiner. The “class” of Boston no longer flows through the gates. The attendance at Boston park is smaller than at any other time in the last 15 years.

Now, it is unlikely that Judge Landis could tackle that question. Has he power, or lacking power, has he daring enough to assume power to drive the peril away from the ownership and fringes of baseball? It is probably not his field, but it pertains to the future character of baseball.

The Chicago American League Club is the most recent to attract the desire of Jewish capital. The Ascher brothers of that city have offered $1,500,000 for the club franchise. The Ascher brothers comprise a Jewish family, Max, Nathan and Harry, who conduct a string of motion picture theaters in Chicago. They have erected their own theatrical circuit. Like Frazee, they wish to add baseball to their string of “show businesses,” and are willing to pay the price. At the time of this writing, their offer has not been turned down.

But a significant development—and in Chicago also—is the announcement made by the Chicago Tribune that it will curtail the space heretofore devoted to baseball on its sport pages. This, more than anything which has occurred, indicates the new scrutiny with which the game is being viewed. For a long time many observers have wondered where the “sport” was found in sitting on a bleacher watching a few men earn their salaries. Hours thus spent in a ball park “do not take anything off the waistline of the spectators nor add anything to the chest measurement,” says the Tribune; “the majority of spectators get only eye and mouth exercise.” “Journalism has overfed it with space,” the Tribune rightly says, referring to professional baseball. In ruining baseball and securing control, the Jews may be just in time to take a loss. Better no baseball than every park an afternoon midway filled with the alien and Red elements of the country.

There is, however, a baseball duty devolving upon the police of every city, and that is the abolition of the Jew-controlled baseball pool. Gambling has grown up round the “cleanest game” to the extent of $20,000,000 a year. It flourishes in 150 cities in the country, and in many small towns. The “boobs,” of course, are mostly non-Jews, the owners and profit-takers are Jews. It is as much a part of the national network of the Jewish gambling fraternity as are booze-running and horse-racing. The baseball pool runs more openly than the “books” because the very name “baseball” has seemed to give it the protection of “the cleanest sport.” However, it has turned cigar-stores, barber shops, pool rooms, near-beer saloons, and newspaper stands into agencies for the national and international Jewish gambling forces. The bettor is entirely at the mercy of the managers of these pools.

These dishonest money-collecting devices are in violation of the law everywhere. The police could put them out of business easily if they should decide to give their attention to it. And thereby they would be taking the hands of the most undesirable alien class out of the pockets of the American people.

If baseball is to be saved, and there are those who seriously doubt it ever can be restored, the remedy is plain. The disease is caused by the Jewish characteristic which spoils everything by ruthless commercial exploitation. The disease may be too far gone for any cure. There are those who, like the Chicago Tribune, deny that professional baseball ever was a sport, and who are glad that Jewish exploiters, like scavengers, have come along to reduce it to garbage. But there is no doubt anywhere, among either friends or critics of baseball, that the root cause of the present condition is due to Jewish influence.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 10 September 1921]

Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music

About a year ago the following article appeared in the New York Times, a newspaper that has never been accused of anti-Semitism, and whose proprietor is one of the best-known Jews in the United States:

“Irving Berlin, Leo Feist and other officers of seven music publishing corporations in this city were charged with violating the Sherman anti-trust law in an equity suit begun yesterday in Federal District Court by the United States Government. The defendants, it was alleged, controlled 80 per cent of the available copyrighted songs used by manufacturers of phonographs, player piano rolls and other musical reproducing instruments, and fixed prices at which the records or rolls were to be sold to the public

“The corporations involved in the action were the Consolidated Music Corporation, 144 West Thirty-seventh street; Irving Berlin, Inc., 1567 Broadway; Leo Feist, Inc., 231 West Fortieth street; T. B. Harms, Francis, Day and Hunter, Inc., 62 West Forty-fifth street; Shapiro, Bernstein & Company, 218 West Forty-seventh street; Watterson, Berlin & Snyder, Inc., 1571 Broadway, and M. Witmark & Sons, Inc., 144 West Thirty-seventh street.

“The agreement which the government seeks to dissolve is alleged to provide that the defendant would make contracts only through the Consolidated Music Corporation which they had organized ”

Many people have wondered whence come the waves upon waves of musical slush that invade decent parlors and set the young people of this generation imitating the drivel of morons. A clue to the answer is in the above clipping. Popular Music is a Jewish monopoly. Jazz is a Jewish creation. The mush, the slush, the sly suggestion, the abandoned sensuousness of sliding notes, are of Jewish origin.

Monkey talk, jungle squeals, grunts and squeaks and gasps suggestive of cave love are camouflaged by a few feverish notes and admitted to homes where the thing itself, unaided by the piano, would be stamped out in horror. Girls and boys a little while ago were inquiring who paid Mrs. Rip Van Winkle’s rent while Mr. Rip Van Winkle was away. In decent parlors the fluttering music sheets disclosed expressions taken directly from the cesspools of modern capitals, to be made the daily slang, the thoughtlessly hummed remarks of high school boys and girls.

The United States Government alleged, in the above complaint, that 80 per cent of these popular songs was under the control of the seven Jewish houses named above; and the other 20 per cent controlled by other Jewish music houses not included in that special group.

It is rather surprising, is it not, that whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group of Jews? In baseball corruption—a group of Jews. In exploitative finance—a group of Jews. In theatrical degeneracy—a group of Jews. In liquor propaganda—a group of Jews. In control of national war policies—a group of Jews. Absolutely dominating the wireless communications of the world—a group of Jews. In the menace of the Movies—a group of Jews. In control of the Press through business and financial pressure—a group of Jews. War profiteers, 80 per cent of them—Jews. Organizers of active opposition of Christian laws and customs—Jews. And now, in this miasma of so-called popular music, which combines weak-mindedness with every suggestion of lewdness—again Jews.

The Jewish influence on American music is, without doubt, regarded as serious by those who know anything about it. Not only is there a growing protest against the Judaization of our few great orchestras, but there is a strong reaction from the racial collusion which fills the concert stage and popular platform with Jewish artists to the exclusion of all others.

The American people have been urged and chided and shamed into the beginning of a rather generous popular support of music in this country, and the first thing they see for their money is that Jewish artists supplant the non-Jewish artists, and use the prestige of their membership in symphony orchestras to work various small business schemes of their own. If they were superior artists, nothing against it could be said, but they are not superior artists; they are only better known and racially favored in Jewish musical circles.

That, however, is a big subject. It will receive attention in its turn. Just now it is the “popular song” that is being considered. However, as something which true lovers and knowers of music may meditate upon in view of future studies of Jewish influence in music, this observation is offered (the italics are ours):

 “Meanwhile the Oriental, especially the Jewish, infection in our music, seemingly less widespread than the German was or the French is, may prove even more virulent. Those not temperamentally immune to it catch it less severely, like Mr. Leo Ornstein; and if they ever throw it off, as he has given some signs of doing, seem to be left devoid of energy and, as it were, permanently anemic.

“The insidiousness of the Jewish menace to our artistic integrity is due partly to the speciousness, the superficial charm and persuasiveness of Hebrew art, its brilliance, its violently juxtaposed extremes of passion, its poignant eroticism and pessimism, and partly to the fact that the strain in us that might make head against it, the deepest, most fundamental strain perhaps in our mixed nature, is diluted and confused by a hundred other tendencies.

“The Anglo-Saxon group of qualities, the Anglo-Saxon point of view, even though they are so thoroughly disguised, in a people descended from every race, that we easily forget them, and it is not safe to predicate them of any individual American, are nevertheless the vital nucleus of the American temper. And the Jewish domination of our music, even more than the Teutonic and the Gallic, threatens to submerge and stultify them at every point.”

“Let me make a nation’s songs and I care not who makes the laws,” said one; in this country the Jews have had a very large hand in making both.

It is the purpose of this and the succeeding article to put Americans in full possession of the truth concerning the moron music which they habitually hum and sing and shout day by day, and if possible to help them to see the invisible Jewish baton which is waved above them for financial and propaganda purposes.

Just as the American stage and the American motion picture have fallen under the influence and control of the Jews and their art-destroying commercialism, so the business of handling “popular songs” has become a Yiddish industry.

Its leaders are for the most part Russian-born Jews, some of whom have personal pasts which are just as unsavory as THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has shown the pasts of certain Jewish theatrical and movie leaders to be.

The country does not sing what it likes, but what the vaudeville “song pluggers” popularize by repeated renditions on the stage, until the flabby mind of the “ten-twent’-thirt’” audiences begin to repeat it on the streets. These “song pluggers” are the paid agents of the Yiddish song agencies. Money, and not merit, dominates the spread of the moron music which is styled “Jewish Jazz.” Of the business details, however, more later.

Tin Pan Alley, so-called because it constitutes a group of “song shops,” is populated by the “Abies” and “Izzies” and “Moes” who make up the composing staffs of the various institutions.

In this business of making the people’s songs, the Jews have shown, as usual, no originality but very much adaptability—which is a charitable term used to cover plagiarism, which in turn politely covers the crime of mental pocket-picking. The Jews do not create; they take what others have done, give it a clever twist, and exploit it. They have bought up all the old hymn books, opera scores and collections of folk songs, and if you stop to analyze some of the biggest “hits” of the Yiddish song manufacturers, you will find they are woven on the motif and the melody of clean songs of the last generation; the music jazzed a little, the sentiment sensualized very much, and set upon their smutty road, across the country.

Because of absolute Jewish control of the song market, both in publishing and in theatrical performance, it is next to impossible for anything but a Jewish song to be published in the United States or, if published, to get a hearing. The proof of this is in the fact that the Yiddish trust owns the business and the so-called “song hits” all bear Jewish names.

A typical incident occurred in New York recently. A non-Jewish song composer had produced work of such commanding merit that musical sentiment demanded its public rendition. Jewish manager after Jewish manager was approached, but the combination was unbreakable. Finally, one New Yorker talked out and said something about “Jewish combine,” which had its effect. A Jewish manager protested that he would be glad to give the work to the public. Rehearsals were held and the night of presentation arrived. The first number was a solo and a Jew appeared to sing it. He could not pronounce English words. He sang through his nose. He was most Yiddish in appearance, the long nose, with narrow, sloping forehead, curly hair. The second number was a duet, and behold two Jews appeared, whose pronunciations differed between themselves. The performance was a most hilarious tragedy. The purpose was to kill a non-Jewish product by a poor Jewish rendition. But—the Jewish manager overdid it. It needed just that to bring non-Jewish musical consciousness to the surface and to explode the advertised and money-bought notion that the Jew has predominant artistic genius. Say that he predominates in music—yes; he has paid for and organized that predominance; do not, however, say anything about his predominance in musical genius or art.

Non-Jewish music has been stigmatized as “high brow.” It is purveyable only in expensively good society. The people, the masses, are fed from day to day on the moron suggestiveness that flows in a hurtful flood out of Tin Pan Alley.

Tin Pan Alley is the name given to the region in Twenty-eighth street, between Broadway and Sixth avenue, where the first Yiddish song manufacturers began business. Flocks of young girls who thought they could sing, and others who thought they could write song poems, came to the neighborhood allured by dishonest advertisements that promised more than the budding Yiddish exploiters were able to fulfill. Needless to say, scandal became rampant, as it always does where so-called “Gentile” girls are reduced to the necessity of seeking favors from the eastern type of Jew. It was the constant shouting of voices, the hilarity of “parties,” the banging of pianos and the blatting of trombones that gave the district the name of Tin Pan Alley.

The first attempt to popularize and commercialize the so-called “popular” type of music was made by Julius Witmark, who had been a ballad singer on the minstrel stage. He ceased performing to become a publisher, and was soon followed by East Side Jews, many of whom have become wealthy through their success in pandering to a public taste which they first debased.

Irving Berlin, whose real name is Ignatz or Isadore Baline, is one of the most successful of these Jewish song controllers. He was born in Russia and early became a singer and entertainer. With the rise of “rag-time,” which was the predecessor of “jazz,” he found a new field for his nimble talents and his first big success was “Alexander’s Rag-Time Band”—a popular piece which by comparison with what has followed it, is a blushing, modest thing.

It was worth noting, in view of the organized eagerness of the Jew to make an alliance with the Negro, that it was Jewish “jazz” that rode in upon the wave of Negro “ragtime” popularity, and eventually displaced the “rag-time.”

Berlin has steadily gone the road from mere interestingness to unashamed erotic suggestion. He is the “headliner” in homes as well as in the not-too-particular music halls, but his stuff without its music sometimes savors of vile suggestion.

The motif of this business can be clearly seen in the “Berlin Big Hits.” There are the so-called “vamp” songs, such as “Harem Life,” and “You Cannot Make Your Shimmy Shake on Tea.”

Among the “successes” is the song entitled, “I Like It.” It is a “vamp” song which has been sung everywhere, even by myriads of children who could not appreciate the full suggestion of the words, but were hypnotized by the atmosphere which the words created when sung; and by older folks who would not under any circumstances speak the words of the song, but who are victims of the modern delusion that a little flashy music covers a multitude of sins. “I Like It” deals with a girl, “Mary Green, seventeen,” whose mother reproves her for flirting with the boys. (In the writing of this paragraph it was debated whether THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT should print what Mary replies to her mother. It was argued that printing the words might give a salutary shock to skeptical readers. It was also argued that the pages of this paper never yet had been defiled by obscenity. Mary’s words, sung broadcast through the country, are therefore not given here.)

Readers should reserve comment until they search the piles of moron music rubbish in their own parlors. Readers have listened to much worse stuff than Mary’s words, but covered by Yiddish “jazz.” It takes cold type to show what a song really is. A good test for a song is to try to read it aloud. Few normal people can.

“O-Hi-O,” as sung by Yiddish comedians, has a stench of its own. It may be commented on more extensively later as an example of the Yiddish practice of having three grades of the same song, to suit different degrees of degenerate appetites.

Such songs are not the worst, by any means. Jewish purveyors to degenerate appetites have a peculiarly devilish system of presenting the same song in two or three grades. There will be the song as it is sold at the music store to addle-pated young men and women who fill their leisure with hearing or humming this syncopated senility—young men and women who pitiably imagine they are keeping up with the times. The songs thus sold and sung are rotten enough. But there is the same song, Class 2. The theme and the melody are the same, but it goes “a little further.” There is a line or two in each stanza which dips below even the low standard which Jewish “jazz” has permitted in some of our parlors. And there is Class 3—same theme, same melody—but “going the limit.”

Young men about town usually know Class 2 and Class 3. The instance has been known that young women have become acquainted with these lower grades also. Forgetfulness by young men while singing at the piano evenings has given hints of the filthier version. And even where version 1 has been strictly adhered to, the mutual knowledge, politely concealed, has created an atmosphere far from wholesome.

The diabolical cunning with which an unclean atmosphere is created and sustained through all classes of society and by the same influence, will not be overlooked by any observer. There is something Satanic about it, something calculated with demonic shrewdness. And the stream flows on and on, growing worse and worse, to the degradation of the non-Jewish public and the increase of Jewish fortunes.

If THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT were to print on this page the bare words of the popular songs that are to be found in the parlors of the most respectable section of every city, the reader’s sense of decency would cry out against it. The same words, when drawn out by numerous hyphens and covered up with nervous music, insinuate their way into the hummed tones of age and into the lilts of innocent childhood. Between the movies and the popular songs the Jewish groups dictate the intellectual life of the masses.

Among the latest Jewish “song hits” may be included these titles: “I’ll Say She Does”; “You Cannot Shake That Shimmy Here”; “Sugar Baby”; “In Room 202”; “Can You Tame Wild Wimmen?” and an almost endless list of the same nature, some of which titles are too suggestive for print. Yet they have free course everywhere—as everything Jewish does, in this country.

Ministers, educators, reformers, parents, citizens who are amazed at the growth of looseness among the people, rail at the evil results. They see the evil product and they attack the product. They rail at the young people who go in for all this eroticism and suggestiveness.

But all this has a source! Why not attack the source? When a population is bathed in sights, sounds and ideas of a certain character, drenched in them and drowned in them, by systematic, deliberate, organized intent, the point of attack should be the cause, not the effect. Yet, that is precisely where the point of attack has not been made, presumably because of lack of knowledge.

It is of little use blaming the people. The people are what they are made. Give the liquor business full sway and you have a population that drinks and carouses. After preaching abstinence to the victims for a century, the country turned its attention to the victimizers, and the abuse was greatly curtailed. The traffic is still illicitly carried on, but even so, the best way to abolish the illicit traffic is to identify the groups that carry it on.

The entire population of the United States could be turned into narcotic addicts if the same freedom was given the illicit narcotic ring as is now given the Yiddish popular song manufacturers. But in such a condition it would be stupid to attack the addicts; common sense would urge the exposure of the panderers.

A dreadful narcotizing of moral modesty and the application of powerful aphrodisiacs have been involved in the present craze for popular songs—a stimulated craze. The victims are everywhere. But ministers, educators, reformers, parents, and public-spirited citizens are beginning to see the futility of scolding the young people thus diseased. Common sense dictates a cleaning out of the source of the disease. The source is in the Yiddish group of song manufacturers who control the whole output and who are responsible for the whole matter from poetry to profits.

Next to the moral indictment against the so-called “popular” song is the indictment that it is not popular. Everybody hears it, perhaps the majority sing it; it makes its way from coast to coast; it is flung into the people’s minds at every movie and from every stage; it is advertised in flaring posters; phonograph records shriek it forth day and night, dance orchestras seem enamored with it, player pianos roll it out by the yard. And by sheer dint of repetition and suggestion the song catches on—as a burr thistle catches on; until it is displaced by another. There is no spontaneous popularity.

It is a mere mechanical drumming on the minds of the public. There is often not a single atom of sentiment or spiritual appeal in the whole loudly trumpeted “success”; men and women, boys and girls have simply taken to humming words and tunes which they cannot escape, night or day.

The deadly anxiety of “keeping up with the times” drives the army of piano-owners to the music stores to see what is “going” now, and of course it is the Yiddish moron music that is going, and so another home and eventually another neighborhood is inoculated.

But there is no popularity. Take any moron music addict you know and ask him what was the “popular” song three weeks ago, and he will not be able to tell. These songs are so lacking in all that the term “popular” means as regards their acceptableness, that they die overnight, unregretted. Directly the Yiddish manufacturers have another “hit” to make (it is always the public that is “hit”) a new song is crammed down the public gullet, and because it is the “latest,” and because the Yiddish advertisements say that it is a “hit,” and because the hired “pluggers” say that everybody is singing it, that song too becomes “popular” for its brief period, and so on through the year. It is the old game of “changing the styles” to speed up business and make the people buy. Nothing lasts in the Yiddish game—styles of clothing, movies nor songs; it is always something new, to stimulate the flow of money from the popular pocket into the moron music makers’ coffers.

There hasn’t been a real “popular” song of Yiddish origin since the Jewish whistlers and back-alley songsters of New York’s East Side undertook to handle musical America—not one, unless we except in genuine gratitude George Cohan’s “Over There,” a song which came out of a period of strain and went straight to the people’s heart.

Two facts about the “popular song” are known to all: first, that for the most part it is indecent and the most active agent of moral miasma in the country, or if not the most active, then neck and neck with the “movies”; second, that the “popular song” industry is an exclusively Jewish industry. But the inside story of the operation of this control of the people’s music presents other facts which the people ought to know, and these additional facts will appear in another article.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 6 August 1921]

How the Jewish Song Trust Makes You Sing

Jews did not create the popular song; they debased it. The time of the entry of Jews into control of the popular song is the exact time when the morality of popular songs began to decline. It is not a pleasant statement to make, but it is a fact. It would seem to be a fact of which American Jews ought to take solemn cognizance, not to anathematize those who do service by exposing the fact, but to curb that group of Jews who, in this instance, as do other groups of Jews in other instances, bring a stain upon the Jewish name.

The “popular” song, before it became a Jewish industry, was really popular. The people sang it and had no reason to conceal it. The popular song of today is often so questionable a composition that performers with a vestige of delicacy must appraise their audience before they sing. There are songs and choruses that can be purchased in any reputable music store and found in many reputable parlors which cannot be printed in this column of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT. If they were printed here, “Gentile fronts” would be the first to complain that this paper was using obscenity to give interest to these articles. Yet, if those songs were printed, this paper would be doing nothing more than following its policy of going to Jewish sources for its material.

Americans of adult age will remember the stages through which the popular song has passed during the past three or four decades. War songs persisted after the Civil War and were gradually intermingled with songs of a later time, picturesque, romantic, clean.

These latter were not the product of song factories, but the creation of individuals whose gifts were given natural expression. These individuals did not work for publishers but for the satisfaction of their work. There were no great fortunes made out of songs, but there were many satisfactions in having pleased the public taste.

The public taste, like every other taste, craves what is given it most to feed upon. Public taste is public habit. The public is blind to the source of that upon which it lives, and it adjusts itself to the supply. Public taste is raised or lowered as the quality of its pabulum improves or degenerates. In a quarter of a century, given all the avenues of publicity like theater, movie, popular song, saloon and newspaper—in the meantime having thrown the mantle of contempt over all counteractive moral agencies—you can turn out nearly the kind of public you want. It takes just about a quarter of a century to do a good job.

In other days the people sang as they do now, but not in such doped fashion nor with such bewildering continuity. They sang songs nonsensical, sentimental and heroic, but the “shady” songs were outlawed. If sung at all, the “shady” songs were kept far from the society of decent people. Like the styles of the demimonde that formerly were seen only in the abandoned sections of cities, the songs of smut had their geographical confinement, but like the fashions of the demimonde they broke out of their confines to spread among polite society.

The old songs come readily back to memory. Though years have intervened since they were the fashion, yet their quality was such that they do not die. The popular song of last month—who knows its name? But there are songs of long ago whose titles are familiar even to those who have not sung them.

Recall their names—“Listen to the Mocking Bird”—what song today has been boosted to general acceptance on such a simple theme? The only “birds” the people are encouraged to sing about today are “flappers” and “chickens.”

And there were “Ben Bolt”; “Nellie Grey”; “Juanita”; “The Old Folks at Home”; “The Hazel Dell”; “When You and I Were Young, Maggie”; “Silver Threads Among the Gold.” What margin did these songs leave for the suggestive, for the unwholesomly emotional?

In those days the people sang; they sang together; they sang wherever they met; it was the days of that now extinct institution known as “the singing school.” People could sing together. The songs were common property, known to everybody, proper to everybody.

Is there such singing today? Hardly. At a recent meeting of young men in a church the chorus, “Hail, Hail, the Gang’s All Here” was called for, and the chairman in agreeing called out “Mustn’t say the naughty word!” With that warning the chorus was given. In calling for public singing there is an immediate uneasiness about possible indecency. There was not this uneasiness before the days of Jewish jazz.

In course of time the fashion of public song underwent a change. An entirely new crop of titles appeared, dealing with an entirely different series of subjects than the songs they displaced.

It was the period of “Annie Rooney”; “Down Went McGinty to the Bottom of the Sea”; “She’s Only a Bird in a Gilded Cage”; “After the Ball is Over”—all of them clean, lighter than the preceding fashion in songs, but just as clean, and also giving a true touch to life.

Sentiment was not lacking, but it was the unobjectionable sentiment of “My Wild Irish Rose” or “In the Baggage Coach Ahead.”

The non-Jewish period was marked by songs like these: “On the Banks of the Wabash,” by Paul Dresser; “In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree”; “When the Sunset Turns the Ocean’s Blue to Gold”; “Down by the Old Mill Stream”; “My Sweetheart’s the Man in the Moon,” by Jim Thornton; “The Sidewalks of New York,” by Charles Lawlor.

There was also the “western” and “Indian” strain of songs, represented by “Cheyenne, Cheyenne, Hop on My Pony”; “Arawanna”; “Trail of the Lonesome Pine.”

Then came the African period, being the entrance of the jungle motif, the so-called “Congo” stuff into popular pieces. “High Up in the Coconut Tree,” “Under the Bamboo Tree,” and other compositions which swiftly degenerated into a rather more bestial type than the beasts themselves arrive at.

Running alongside all this was the “ragtime” style of music which was a legitimate development of Negro mistrelsy. Lyrics practically disappeared before the numerous “cake walk” songs that deluged the public ear. “There’ll Be a Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight”—the marching song of the Spanish-American War, belongs to that period. The “black and tan” resorts of the South began to reign over the nation’s music both North and South. Seductive syncopation captured the public ear. The term, “ma baby,” brought in on the flood of Negro melody has remained in uncultivated musical speech ever since. Minstrelsy took on new life. “Piano acts” made their appearance. “Jazz bands” were the rage.

By insensible gradations, now easily traceable through the litter of songs with which recent decades are strewn, we have been able to see the gradual decline in the popular song supply. Sentiment has been turned into sensuous suggestion. Romance has been turned into eroticism. The popular lilt slid into ragtime, and ragtime has been superseded by jazz. Song topics became lower and lower until at last they were dredges of the slimy bottom of the underworld.

The first self-styled “King of Jazz” was a Jew named “Frisco.” The general directors of the whole downward trend have been Jews. It needed just their touch of cleverness to camouflage the moral filth and raise it half a degree above the natural stage where it begets nothing but disgust. They cannot gild the lily, but they can veil the skunk-cabbage, and that is exactly what has been done. The modern popular song is a whited sepulcher, sparkling without, but within full of the dead bones of all the old disgusting indecencies. Plain print returns them to their rightful status of disgust.

We are now in the period of “The Vamp”—that great modern goddess upon whom tens of thousands of silly girls are modeling themselves—“The Vamp.” The original “vamp” is to be found in a forbidden French novel upon which Morris Gest founded his grossly immoral spectacle called “Aphrodite.” In the Jewish popular song and the Jewish motion picture film a unity has at last been reached in “The Vamp.” The vamp heroine and the harem scene—a fitting climax!

There is work here for the Anti-Defamation League. That league knows how to put the screws on anyone who disparages the Jews. From important New York publishers, down to inconsequential country newspapers, the Anti-Defamation League makes its power felt. There is work for it in the movies and the popular song industry. Why does not the league put the screws on those Jews who have degenerated the movies and debauched the popular song movement and thus brought shame upon the racial name? Why not? Is it possible that only the non-Jews are to be controlled, and Jews let to run loose? Is it possible that “Gentiles” can be curbed as by bridle and bit and that Jews cannot?

It is repeated: there is work for the Anti-Defamation League among the Jews.

More than that: there are Jews who have begged the Anti-Defamation League to purge the name of Jewry of the shame the liquor Jews, the movie Jews, the popular song Jews, the theatrical Jews, and the others are bringing on that name, and the Anti-Defamation League has not done so. It dare not.

American Jewry is desperately afraid of opening a single seam in its armor by means of a single investigation or reform. They are afraid of how far the fire of self-correction may spread.

It was the intention of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT to give in this article a sample of the manner in which Jewish jazz is written in three classes—No. 1 for general consumption; No. 2 for stage consumption; No. 3 for the lowest resorts. On searching through the songs for the least offensive example it is found that even the least offensive cannot be printed here. The fact is greatly regretted, for certainly some method must be found by which the public can be put into possession of full information as to what is transpiring in this hideous traffic.

The Jewish art of “camouflage” (the reader may not be aware that wartime camouflage was a Jewish invention) has always been operative. “Cover names,” “cover nationalities” (these are Jewish terms) have long been known. It is quite common for Jews of the higher type to band themselves together into societies for political and racial purposes, the purposes being camouflaged by a name, such as Geological Society, or Scientific Society, or something of the sort. And thus in the vilest versification, which only a few years ago would have been refused the mails, they have flung broadcast among the youth of the world dangerous ideas under the camouflage of catchy tunes.

The tunes themselves carry a tale with them. There have been cases in the courts dealing with the “adaptation,” or stealing, of tunes for “popular song” purposes. If you observe carefully you will catch reminiscent strains in many of the popular songs which you sing. If you sing, “Rocked in the Cradle of the Deep,” and then sing, “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows,” you will notice a basic resemblance; but that does not prove that “Rocked in the Cradle of the Deep” is itself original, its melody was originally taken from an Opus of Chopin. This is a practice which has been greatly extended of recent years.

The reason for the spread of this particular kind of dishonesty is to be found in the Jewish policy of “speeding up business.” Ordinarily one play a week, and one or two new songs a season, was the limit of indulgence. But with the coming of the movies the “one play a week” plan has been smashed to smithereens. To get the people to pay their money every day, the programs are changed every day; and to get new plays every day, something must be cheapened. So with songs. The output is rushed to increase the income of money, and quality is sacrificed all round. There are not enough good songs in the world to supply a new one very week; not enough good plays in the world to supply a new movie every day; and so, what the songs and plays lack in worth, they make up in nastiness. In brief, nastiness is the constant quality on which producers depend to “put across” mediocre songs and otherwise pointless plays. Nastiness is the condiment that goes with cheapness in songs and movies.

Plagiarism is the result of mediocre artists being spurred on by non-artistic promoters to produce something that can be dressed up with sufficient attractiveness to draw the public’s money. But even plagiarism requires a little brains mixed with it, and when the rush of demand overwhelms the available brains, the lack is covered up by an elaborate covering of sensualism.

Men who are on the inside of the popular song business, and certain court records, all testify to the exact truth of these statements.

“But how do the Jews do it?” is a question often asked. The answer is, not public demand, nor artistic merit, nor musical ingenuity, nor poetic worth—no; the answer is simple salesmanship. The public doesn’t choose, the public simply takes what is persistently thrust upon it. It is a system impossible to any other race but the Jews, for there is no other race that centers its whole interest on the sale. There is no other race that makes so startling a choice in favor of “getting” money to the exclusion of “making” money. Who for a moment would think seriously of using the terms “production” and “service” with reference to popular songs or motion pictures? Motion pictures in their higher reaches might have some claim on those terms—not the typical Jewish pictures, however; but the modern crop of popular songs, never! The terms “production” and “service” do not belong to the popular song industry at all, but the term “salesmanship” does, as the reader will presently see. It is well to remember that where there is only “salesmanship” without the other two qualities, the public is always the sufferer.

“Popularity,” when interpreted by the Jews who manufacture jazz for the United States, means “familiarity,” that’s all. The theory is that a song need not possess merit as regards words or music to be successful. It can be “popularized” artificially by constant repetition, until it becomes familiarized to the public ear, and thus familiarized it becomes “successful.”

The principle is expressed in the words of the song, “Everybody’s Doin’ It.” You go to the theater and hear a song. Next day at lunch the café singer is singing the same song. Blaring phonographs used for advertising purposes blat out the same song at you as you pass on the street. You walk past an afternoon band concert in the park—the band is playing the same song. If you are a normal person you have a feeling that perhaps something has been going on in the world while you were engaged with your own affairs. The song—you say to yourself frankly—is silly and the music trivial; but you keep your opinion a secret, because, after all, “everybody’s singin’ it.” Not long after you find yourself humming it. You go home, and your daughter is “practicing up” on the piece. It yells its way through your home and through your neighborhood and through your city and through your state until in sheer disgust, and in one day, the people pitch it bodily out-of-doors. But, behold, another song is waiting to take its place—a song fresh from Yiddish Tin Pan Alley. And the agony is repeated. This occurs from 30 to 50 times a year.

That is the principle—repeat it until it becomes familiar; that gives it the veneer of popularity.

Now, there is a method by which all this is done. Nothing “happens.” It is like the “mob risings” which have been practiced in some of our cities—there is always a well-organized center that knows the technology of riot and knows exactly what it is doing. There is a way of making “revolution” as common and as familiar a thought as the movies and popular songs have made “vamps” and “harems” and “hooch” and “Hula Hula.” The principle is the same—constant repetition for the purpose of familiarization.

More than one tune has been deliberately rejected by the public, has not been “liked,” but the song-tinkers did not allow that little fact to intimidate them; they simply hammered it into the ears and memories of the public, knowing that “familiarization” was obtainable some time. “Whispering,” for example, did not catch on for a long time. Long ago it used to be known as “Johnnie’s Melody” because John Schoenberger wrote it—but finally it was driven home to its present popularity. There is this to say about it: it is far more deserving of its popularity than is 98 per cent of the so-called “popular” music.

Having the principle, then, that any song can be popularized by constant repetition, the Yiddish music purveyors go about their business very systematically.

The song is procured—by what means, it is not always possible to say. Perhaps one of the “staff” originates a catchy tune, or a girl who plays the church organ in a distant village sends in a pretty little melody. The girl’s melody is, of course, sent back as unsuitable, but if it really had a heart of melody in it, a copy is kept and “adapted.” In such ways are “ideas” procured.

Then there are plenty of Jewish musical comedies and vaudeville teams. A study of the vaudeville and musical comedy business will show it to be as distinctively Yiddish as are the movies and the popular song industry. So, the Jewish song publisher makes an arrangement with the Jewish manager of the musical comedy show. This arrangement provides that one or more of the song publisher’s songs should be sung several times at every performance, in response to the applause and encores of a professional song boosters’ claque which is always on hand for such purposes. This claque is paid for just as any other service might be paid for.

The night comes. The song is sung. Persistent applause. Sung again. More applause. Apparently the song is a “hit.” As the audience files out the lobby is echoing with the cries of Yiddish song vendors proclaiming the song of the evening to be “the big hit of the season,” hundreds of copies being sold in the meanwhile.

That is the usual Broadway introduction.

The next step is to capture the “provinces”—the musical comedies and vaudeville acts playing within 100 miles of the metropolitan centers. Actors called “song pluggers” are engaged. The arrangement with them is that they will sing a particular song exclusively—give no other song a chance. The public pays to hear the actor sing; the manager pays to have him sing; the song publisher pays him to sing a certain song.

From theater to theater, from company to company, from artist to artist, the publishers’ agents wend their way, making what terms they can to single artists, vaudeville teams or comedy companies for boosting a new song by giving it prominent place in the program.

There are also the “stag entertainers,” the young men who go about to “parties” of one kind another, offering amusement to the guests. This is a class of entertainers known only to the rich, but numerous enough. For instance, when the Prince of Wales toured America he was accompanied by a young man nicknamed “Rosie,” of whose racial origin there need be no doubt. “Rosie” played the piano and by songs and antics beguiled the tedium of the royal journey. Well, young men of “Rosie’s” sort are quite useful in advertising to select circles the latest product of the Yiddish song factories and they are, of course, regularly utilized for that purpose.

Orchestras, especially those of restaurants and dance halls, are worked in the same way.

Get as many people singing and playing introductory renditions as you can: that is the method of gaining an artificial popularity by constant repetition.

The chances are that the song you are humming today is being hummed by you simply because you have perforce heard it so often that it beats unconsciously within your brain.

These methods are subject to variation, of course. There was a great deal of “cutting” until the right Hebrew group survived, and then there was a great deal of “trust” method adopted. The Music Publishers’ Association was organized by “Sime” Silberman and Maurice Goodman, and now all the Jewish song manufacturers are included in it. The organization has not changed any of the methods before used but has curtailed the expense. Moreover, it has served to relieve the public to this extent, that, instead of clinging to the one song paid for until the public positively gags on it, the vaudeville or movie performers now sing impartially the various songs of the various publishers forming the trust. More variety has been introduced, that is all. The same old commercialization continues.

As readers of the studies of Jewish theatrical control, which appeared in this paper, will readily understand, the Jewish control of the popular song field means that all non-Jews are barred out. It would be next to impossible for the song of a non-Jew, however meritorious, to reach the public by the usual channels. The musical magazines, the musical critics, the musical managers, the music publishers, the music-hall owners, the majority of the performers are not only all Jews, but are Jews consciously banded together to keep out all others.

The dishonest methods practiced by the Yiddish controllers of this field have been such as to move the Billboard, the leading vaudeville publication, to refuse to print advertisements calling for song poems. Perhaps the reader has seen such advertisements, suggesting that someone has a tune or a song-poem that will probably make a fortune if only sent to an address on Broadway or in the region of Tin Pan Alley. The Billboard says:

“No More Song Poem Ads Accepted

“After investigating the business methods practiced by some Song Poem advertisers, the Billboard believes it to be to the best interest of its readers to eliminate the heading, ‘Music and Words’ under which Song Poem advertisements appeared, and hereafter, or until existing conditions are changed, the Billboard will not accept any more Song Poem advertising from any concern or person ”

Everywhere the “popular song” has been attacked by keen observers of social tendencies—but the attack has not been made intelligently. No public menace like this can be abolished without showing the public the source of it. Newspapers are now beginning to attack “jazz,” “the vicious movies,” “the disgraceful dance.” Others attack the young folk who sing jazz, the people who patronize the objectionable movies, the throngs who indulge in indecent dancing. But all the time a small group of men are deliberately and systematically forcing jazz and movies and dances upon the country, spending hundreds of thousands in the effort and reaping millions in profits.

If these men were non-Jews, a multitude of fingers would be pointed toward them in identification and denunciation.

Because these men are Jews, they are allowed to go free.

You will stop these abuses when you point out the Jewish group behind them!

People sometimes say, “Well, if you went after any other nationality, you could find just as much fault as with the Jews.” Is there any other nationality on which you can fasten the responsibility for vile movies? Is there any other on which you can fasten the responsibility for the illicit liquor traffic? Has any other nationality control of the theater? In the beginning action against the popular song trust, could the United States find anyone to indict besides Jewish song publishers, and could the United States Government lay less than 80 per cent of song control to one New York group alone?

If these things were not strictly Jewish in their origin, method and purpose, how could such statements be made?

Jews say, “Clean up among the Gentiles first, and then turn attention to us.” Will the Jews charge Gentile control of movies, popular songs, horse racing, baseball gambling, theaters, the illicit liquor traffic—will the Jews charge Gentile predominance in any line recognized by moralists today as dangerously menacing the public welfare?

The question is too big to be explained by prejudice. The facts are too challenging to be thrust aside as universal. It is a Jewish question, made such by a series of Jewish facts.

Not content with hedging life about on every side, from the gold that is used in business to the grain that is used in bread, Jewish influence enters your parlor and determines what you shall sing at your piano or hear upon your music reproducing machine. If you could put a tag marked “Jewish” on every part of your life that is Jew-controlled, you would be astonished at the showing.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 13 August 1921]

Jewish Hot-Beds of Bolshevism in the U.S.

Bolshevism is working in the United States through precisely the same channels it used in Russia and through the same agents—Revolutionary and Predatory Unionism, as distinct from Business and Uplift Unionism, and Jewish agitators. When Martens, the so-called Soviet ambassador, “left” the United States after being deported, he appointed as the representative of Bolshevik sovietism in the United States one Charles Recht, a Jew, a lawyer by profession, who maintained an office in New York. This office is the rendezvous of all the Jewish union leaders in New York, some of the labor leaders throughout the country, and occasionally of one or two American government officials known to be henchmen of Jewish aspirations in the United States and sympathizers with predatory radicalism.

The situation in New York is important because from that center lines of authority and action radiate to all the cities of the United States. New York is the laboratory in which the emissaries of the revolution learn their lesson, and their knowledge is being daily increased by the counsel and experience of traveling delegates straight out of Russia.

The American does not realize that all the public disturbances of which he reads are not mere sudden outbreaks, but the deliberately planned movements of leaders who know exactly what they are doing. Mobs are methodical; there is always an intelligent core which gets done under the appearance of excitement what had been planned beforehand. Up through the German revolution, up through the French revolution, up through the Russian revolution came the previously chosen men, and to this day in all three countries the groups thus raised to power have not lessened their hold—and they are Jewish groups. Russia is not more Jew controlled than is France; and Germany, with all her so-called anti-Semitism, tries in vain to loosen the grip of Judah from her throat.

It is this fact of prepared disorder which makes the New York situation of interest today, because its lines of influence and authority reach everywhere throughout the country.

For that reason, and before showing how the Jewish organizations advance Bolshevism and revolution in the United States, the first step will be to describe the condition and extent of the Hebrew labor movement.

Most New Yorkers remember the “Save Fifth Avenue” movement. That avenue, from Fourteenth to Thirty-fourth street, with sections of Broadway, is historic ground. It is wrought into the history of America in a peculiarly intimate way. A little more than 15 years ago it contained the homes of the older families, the establishments of famous publishers, the stores of art dealers, and the famous shopping center. It was a district known throughout the United States as typifying American substance and good taste.

But presently, Americans who thought they were secure in their own city, were aware of an advancing shadow. A subtle atmosphere of deterioration became evident. In the top lofts of buildings, sweatshops had been installed, which noon and night poured into the streets an alien stream—not a glad, hopeful-eyed immigrant rejoicing to be in America and at work, but something darker.

It was the Russian and Polish Jew. He swarmed into this district, the most typically American of any outside of Boston and Philadelphia, from the first. Nowhere else would the sweatshops go except in the very heart of Goy respectability. There were protests and organizations; Jews were appealed to in the name of the city; they smiled and promised, but like a tide coming in, the invasion swept farther and stronger every week. New Yorkers hesitated to go down into the district to trade, and merchants lost their business. Real estate values dropped in consequence, the Jews bought valuable properties at low figures.

Today, at noontime, Fifth Avenue is packed from wall to curb with dark, squat figures in masses of thousands. They parade in dense throngs and make the street impassable. They make a strange, un-American atmosphere, Slavonic with some Oriental admixture. Their tongue is alien, their attitude is one of sullenness mingled with a sense of power. You leave the New York of American meaning whenever you approach that alien throng. They have taken over the district as completely as if they had invaded it with the bayonet.

All this would be very hopeful, of course, if we could take and sustain the attitude of the unsophisticated young reader of fiction, and regard these people as “new Americans.” There is a mass of moving stories (mostly written by Jews, by the way) pretending to describe the glowing hearts with which these throngs look out upon America, their intense longing to be American, their love of our people and our institutions. Most unfortunately, the actions of these people and the utterances of their leaders give the lie to this fair picture which, as Americans, we would fain believe. The resistance offered to Americanization, consisting in the limitations put upon the Americanization program, has been sufficient to convince all observers that, so far as the Jewish invasion is concerned, it is not their desire to go the way America is going, but to influence America to go the way they are going. They talk a great deal of what they bring to America, hardly anything at all of what they found here. America is presented to them as a big piece of putty to be molded as they desire, not as a benign mother who is able and willing to make these aliens to be like her own children. The doctrine that the United States is nothing definite as yet, that it is only a free-for-all opportunity to make it what you will, is one of the most distinctive of Jewish political teachings. If it be provincialism to insist that our alien guests become American and cease their endeavors to make America something alien, then there are hundreds of thousands of Americans to plead guilty to provincialism.

“The Melting Pot,” a term to which Mr. Zangwill gave currency, is not a very dignified name for our Republic, but aside from that, it is being more and more challenged as descriptive of the process that goes on here. There are some substances in the pot that will not melt. But more significant still, there are rapidly increasing interests who want to melt the pot.

So far as Fifth Avenue was concerned, it was the pot that melted. At least, not the most intrepid Jewish leader will shout much about the American characteristics of the most conspicuous Jewish colony in the world, that of New York.

The lofty buildings in this district are filled with clothing workshops, of which the Jew has a monopoly in the United States. Coatmakers, pantmakers, buttonhole workers, ladies’ garment workers, these men are engaged in the “needle trades” in which adult men of no other race participate.

Why the tendency of the Jew to the “needle trades”? It is explained by his aversion to manual labor, his abhorrence of agricultural life, and his desire to arrange his own affairs. Arriving in the city of his destination, the Jew would rather not leave it except for other cities. There is one Hebrew society whose charter would indicate that its work is the placing of Jews in the rural districts, but it does next to nothing in this respect. On the other hand, there is testimony that city colonization goes on apace. Widespread Jewish associations are on the lookout for likely towns in which to settle a few Jews, who in time become a larger colony, and in a little longer time run the place. There is nothing haphazard about it. The Jew is not an adventurer, he does not cut himself off from his base, but all his movements are made under consultation and direction. New York is the great training school in which the newly arrived immigrant receives his instructions as to the method of handling the American goyim.

Thus, preferring any kind of a life in the city, and not taking to the trades which involve much bodily effort, the Jew gravitates to the needle, not in the capacity of a creative artist, as is the commercial tailor, but in the production of quantities of ready-to-wear goods.

Aside from the “white collar quality of the job,” the “needle trades” appeal to the Jew because at such work he can practically arrange his own hours. For this reason, the Jew generally prefers piece work to day work, domestic industries to factories—he can arrange his own time. Many people wonder how the Jews of New York have so much time for revolutionary consultation, parades, meetings, demonstrations, restaurant debates and radical authorship. No other class of working people can get the time; other people work pretty steadily. The explanation is at hand: extreme Socialism and Bolshevism have a great deal of “time off.”

Trotsky, the present head of Russia, lived that way in New York. His main arrangement was for leisure to work up his scheme. All the East Side leaders knew that Trotsky was to “take the Czar’s job,” even though he never had an extra dollar to spend. There was nothing haphazard about it. It was prearranged, and the appointed men went directly to their preappointed places. The East Side has other rulers ready now, and they live in the midst of the revolutionary “needle trades.”

One point that should not be overlooked in all this, of course, is that the “needle trades” being exclusively Jewish, all their abuses are Jewish too. This is said for the benefit of those apologists for Russian Bolshevism who explain that the reason for it all is the way the poor “Russian” was treated in America. If Americans will ever learn to remember that the Russian is not a Jew, and that Bolshevism is not Russian but Jewish, and if in addition to that the American will ever learn to remember that every Russian-Jewish laborer in New York comes into contact with a Russian-Jewish employer, and every Russian Jew tenant pays his exorbitant rent to a Russian Jew landlord, it will then be clear that once more has the United States been made to bear a slander that does not belong to it.

It may be well to remember also that it was on account of these Russian and Polish Jews, while they yet resided in Russia, that the United States broke off her trade treaty with that country—broke off with the Russia that was a country and a government before America was discovered; and, having by that act contributed to the Jewish throttle on Russia through Germany, it is now proposed that the United States, on account of these same Jews, enter into trade agreements with the present Russian tyranny. Verily, the diplomacy of Judah has come very near determining our foreign policy. If they were strong enough, in spite of President Taft’s refusal, to make us break with Russia, they may also be strong enough to make us shake hands with Bolshevism.

The Jewish trade union is exclusively Jewish for the reason that the trades affected are exclusively Jewish. That is, the Jewish trade union is not an American trade union, it is not a mixed trade union, it is Jewish. Like all other Jewish activities the purpose of the trade union is to advance Jewish interests alone. These unions are one aspect of United Israel.

This should be borne in mind with reference to the widespread strikes in the clothing trade and the rapid increase in the price of clothing to the 99,000,000 non-Jews in the United States. In spite of all the strikes, the profits advanced enormously; it may be said that the strikes were essential to the advance of profits; and the country as a whole paid.

Look at some of the figures of the “needle trades” before the war. In the entire United States, the men’s and women’s clothing manufactured in 1914 had a value of $932,099,000. In New York alone, $542,685,000 was produced. The rest was produced by the Jewish clothing centers in Chicago, Cleveland, New Jersey and Philadelphia.

The figures for the period of the war and since will be staggering. Clothing in the regular trade began to mount in price, until at the end of the war in 1918, it had attained an increase of 200 per cent and 300 per cent. Until well into 1920 the monopoly held up the price. This was done in face of the declaration by the manufacturers of cloth that the whole profiteering persistence was due to the manufacturers of clothing. Russian-Polish Jews, in this country only a few months, drew $50 to $80 a week. Threats of strike were used to get a five per cent increase in wages, which was met by a 20 per cent increase in the cost of clothing. The American public paid.

If, however, these statements were merely an attempt to arouse indignation that for once the workers got more than they earned, the attempt would be a failure. It is pretty hard to find anyone to regret the workers getting hold of a bonanza. The high wages weren’t of much use, as it proved, but people at least had the satisfaction of handling them.

These statements are made to show that during the war the Jewish unions waxed fat, a fact which has a bearing on their Bolshevik attitude today. Not all the wage was the gain of the man who earned it—there was the union to pay. Girls in the fur trade in New York earned $55 a week, of which they paid in $27.50 a week to the unions. Other workers paid in like proportion. There was great talk of what would be done. In Russia, of course, they had the government’s gold vaults immediately upon the success of the revolution, but in the United States the preliminary funds would have to be supplied by themselves. A great revolutionary stroke was planned of which the written evidence still remains.

There are two divisions of Jewish wealth and power centering in New York. The first is German-Jewish, represented by the Schiffs, the Speyers, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Lewisohns and the Guggenheims. These play the game with the aid of the financial resources of the non-Jews. The other division is composed of the Russian and Polish Jews who monopolize the hat, cap, fur, garment and toy trades. (By the way—it is the Russian and Polish Jew who controls the American stage and movies also.) Between them their grip and influence is far from negligible. They may sometimes have internecine quarrels regarding the division of profits and eager publicists may zealously call attention to these quarrels as evidence of the lack of unity among the Jews, but in the Kehillah and elsewhere they understand each other pretty well, and on the question of Jew vs. “goy” they are indivisibly one.

Between these two forces the attempt to hold up prices was continued until late in 1920. The heads of the Jewish clothing associations announced that the price of clothing would not be lowered. Solidly behind them were the associated Hebrew labor unions, so-called, which threatened dire things if the prices came down. The first great store to reduce prices in New York was Wanamaker’s, a non-Jewish house. In fact, there was no reduction of prices among Jewish manufacturers and merchants generally, until in the month of November less than a dozen Jews were called into the presence of a non-Jewish financier, after which a belated effort was made to save the buying market by sensational reductions. The Jewish controllers of the clothing business had just previously stated that not only would prices not go down, but the 1921 prices would go still higher.

There is a distinction between what the Jewish coalition would do and what it could do, but its will and its power never so closely correspond as when the non-Jewish element is asleep, and never are Jewish will and power so widely divorced as when the non-Jewish mind is alert. When the non-Jewish financial mind made itself felt in November, 1920, the bottom dropped out of the Jewish trade prophecies and policies. The only thing to fear is not the alert Jew, but the consequences of sleepiness among the Christians. The Jewish Program is checked the moment it is perceived and identified.

Ordinary people who for five years have been paying high tribute to the clothing trust are entitled to know who comprise that trust. But that is a trifling affair compared with the political uses to which the clothing trust has been put in this country. The clothing trust, being composed exclusively of Jews, most of whom have formed the ax-head of Jewry in the fight against certain Old World governments, is today the heart and center of a movement which, if successful, would leave not a shred of the Republic, its institutions, nor even the liberty, which is every American’s by inheritance.

What is the strength of these people? How are they banded together? What are the facts concerning them?

In New York City alone there are 2,760 Jewish cloak and suit manufacturing concerns; 1,200 Jewish clothing manufacturers; 2,880 Jewish fur manufacturers; 600 Jewish skirt manufacturers; 600 manufacturing tailoring establishments; 800 Jewish merchant tailoring concerns.

These employers have organized themselves into associations such as the following:

Associated Boys’ Clothing Manufacturers of Greater New York.

Associated Fur Manufacturers.

Associated Shirt Manufacturers.

Association of Embroidery and Lace Manufacturers. Children’s Dress Manufacturers’ Association. Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association. Cotton Garment Manufacturers of New York.

Dress and Waist Manufacturers’ Association.

East Side Retail Clothing Manufacturers’ Association.

Ladies’ Hat Manufacturers’ Protective Association. Mineral Water Dealers’ Protective Association. National Association of Separate Skirt Manufacturers. National Society of Men’s Neckwear Manufacturers.

New York Association of House Dress & Kimono Manufacturers.

New York Tailors’ Verein.

Shirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association.

Among the employed Jews, the unions are numerous but all gathered up into one central organization. For example, the International Fur Workers’ Union of the United States and Canada, is made up of the following:

Feather Boa Makers’ Union. Fur Cap Makers’ Union. Fur Cutters’ Union.

Fur Dressers’ Union. Fur Dyers’ Union. Fur Floor Walkers’ Union. Fur Hatters’ Union. Fur Head and Tail Makers’ Union. Fur Lined Coat Finishers’ Union.

Fur Nailers’ Union. Fur Operators’ Union. Fur Pluckers’ Union. Muff Bed Workers’ Union.

In the garment industry, the organizations include every operation in the process of making clothes. There are separate unions for buttonhole makers, vest makers, pants makers, coat cutters, coat operators, coat pressers, coat tailors, coat basters, lapel makers, knee pants makers, clothing turners, overall workers, palm beach workers, shirt makers, vest pressers, and even a washable sailor suit union. These together comprise the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

In children’s clothing we have another complete organization:

Children’s Jacket Makers (three unions).

Children’s Jacket Pressers.

Children’s Sailor Jacket Makers’ Union. Children’s Cloak and Reefer Workers’ Union. Children’s Dressmakers’ Union.

In women’s wear, there are unions organized around every garment known to the wardrobe, some of which are:

Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Union. Bonnaz, Singer and Hand Embroiderers’ Union. Buttonhole Makers and Button Sewers’ Union. Children’s Cloak and Reefer Workers’ Union.

Cloak and Suit Tailors’ Union.

Cloak and Suit Piece Tailors and Sample Makers’ Union. Cloak Examiners, Squarers and Bushelers’ Union. Cloak Makers’ Union.

Cloak Operators’ Union.

Cloak, Skirt and Dress Pressers’ Union. Ladies’ and Misses’ Cloak Operators’ Union. Ladies’ Tailors Alteration & Special Order Union. Ladies’ Waist and Dressmakers’ Union.

Skirt and Cloth Dressmakers’ Union. Waterproof Garment Workers’ Union. White Goods Workers’ Union.

Wrapper, Kimono, House Dress and Bath Robe Makers’ Union.

These unions comprise the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.

The reader will have an idea, after reading these lists, that the employes represented in these unions are women. The majority are men. It may require something of an effort to remember that, but it is essential. These organizations control an essential business which before the war produced over One Billion Dollars’ worth of goods a year, and since the war has probably received for its products each year the amount of a big fat Liberty Loan; and these unions have received 30 to 40 per cent of that for wages and propaganda funds.

Now, let it be said at once that these Jewish unions are not to be confused with the regular Labor Union Movement, as we know it in the United States.

They are not Jews who have gone into the American trades unions. They have started unions of their own which are Jewish in membership, control and purpose. It is true, of course, that the regular trades union movement which heads up in the American Federation of Labor is under the presidency of a Jew, Samuel Gompers, but the membership is mixed, the large majority being non-Jews, and the purpose is not racial.

These Jewish unions comprise a body by themselves and are to be reckoned with, not only as labor union groups, but as racial and political groups whose purposes can be determined by the character and utterances of their leaders, as well as by the actions authorized and approved by the unions themselves.

Now, this Hebrew union movement is a part of the New York Kehillah. Jewish leaders have sought to counteract THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s account of Kehillah activities by saying that the Kehillah is such a little weak thing. Admittedly, however, the Jewish clothing trust and the Jewish garment workers’ unions are among the biggest and most powerful aggregations in the country. Not even a Jewish leader would have the temerity to deny that. Well, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union are affiliated with the Kehillah.

More than that: this Kehillah, which Jewish spokesmen with cool contempt for truth would have the public believe was weak and unimportant—this same Kehillah, in its Executive Committee, constitutes The American Jewish Committee.

Is the American Jewish Committee a nonentity? Ask any President of the United States, any Senator or Governor.

The American Jewish Committee heads up in District No. 12—New York City—and the Committee for District No. 12 is also the Executive Committee of the Kehillah.

The men who represent before the world the combined organizations mentioned in this article are the Kehillah, and they are the American Jewish Committee, and besides, they are the men whose failure in candor has left such an impression of dissatisfaction throughout the masses of the Jewish people.

Who are they? Who are these men with whom the Kehillah is said to be such a puling thing?

Louis Marshall, of the law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermeyer and Marshall. Mr. Marshall is not only head of District No. 12, but he is also head of the American Jewish Committee. His headship of the A.J.C. makes him Jewish leader of the United States. His headship of District No. 12 makes him head of the New York Kehillah. Quite an important man? Yes; and an important place, in spite of lying Jewish spokesmen.

Who are the others? Eugene Meyer, Jr., formerly of the Capital Issues Committee of the United States war government.

Who else? Judah L. Magnes. Judah L. Magnes is the organizer and active leader of the New York Kehillah. The two bodies are linked up again. They are linked up by the Kehillah’s constitution which is able to decree that its executive committee shall be the American Jewish Committee as far as District No. 12 (New York City) is concerned.

There are other names on the American Jewish Committee which also constitutes the executive committee as the Kehillah—Adolph Lewisohn, Cyrus L. Sulzberger, Felix Warburg, and so on, 36 in all.

In the current annual report of the American Jewish Committee this relation with the Kehillah is acknowledged in a note at the foot of page 123, just as in the constitution of the Kehillah its relation with the A.J.C. is acknowledged and explained.

Now to recapitulate.

The Hebrew labor unions, both of employes and employers, which are in complete control of the garment industry of the United States, represent one wing of Jewish aggression in the realm of political revolutionism. It is not a small wing in itself. Certainly it does not become smaller by its connection with the Kehillah nor the Kehillah by its gain of these workers. The two unions mentioned above number over 337,000 members. That figure is conservative. Besides these there are associated with the Kehillah the members of 1,000 other Jewish organizations, such as synagogues, charitable societies and educational bodies, and 100,000 individual members who belong on their own account.

Link this organization with the powerful American Jewish Committee, and at once the protest of the editors and the spokesmen that the Kehillah is a weak, unimportant body becomes a deliberate falsehood.

And as for those “Gentile fronts” who are ready victims of Jewish propaganda, and who, without personal knowledge, are describing the Kehillah as a large and flourishing charitable society (bad teamwork there!) let them read in the next article what some of the Kehillah leaders are trying to do to the United States.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 16 April 1921]

Jew Trades Link With World Revolutionaries

There are more Bolsheviks in the United States than there are in Soviet Russia. Their aim is the same and their racial character is the same. If they are not able to do here what they have done there, it is because of the greater dissemination of information, the higher degree of intelligence and the wider diffusion of the agencies of governmental authority, than obtains in unhappy Russia.

The power house of Bolshevik influence and propaganda in the United States is in the Jewish trade unions which, almost without exception, adhere to a Bolshevik program for their respective industries and for the country as a whole.

This fact is proving most embarrassing to the Jewish leaders at the present moment. It is bad enough that Russian Bolshevism should be so predominantly Jewish, but to confront the same situation in the United States, is a double burden of which Jewish leaders do not know how to dispose.

Yet it is difficult to see how the International Jew can be absolved either from the necessity of being confronted with it, or from the necessity of bearing sole responsibility for it. Russian Bolshevism came out of the East Side of New York where it was fostered by the encouragement—the religious, moral and financial encouragement—of Jewish leaders. Leon Trotsky (Braunstein) was an East Sider. Whether he was a member of the New York Kehillah is not known. But the forces which fostered what he stood for centered in the Kehillah, and both the Kehillah and its associated American Jewish Committee were interested in the work he set out to do, namely, the overthrow of an established government, one of the allies of the United States in the recent war. Russian Bolshevism was helped to its objective by Jewish gold from the United States. And now that it is found to be numerically much stronger in the United States than it is in Russia, the fact causes no little embarrassment.

Denial is useless, for the thing is too blatant and has advertised itself too long. What amazes the student of the Jewish Question in the United States is the stupidity which permitted Jewish Bolshevism to flaunt itself so openly during the past few years. The only explanation that seems at all adequate is that the Jews never dreamed that the American people would become sufficiently awake to challenge them. The present widespread exposure of Jewish tactics in the United States has doubtless come as a surprise to the Jewish leaders, and this cannot be accounted for otherwise than that they thought they had gained too strong a grip on the American mind to make a challenge possible.

It remains to be seen whether the Jewish leaders shall be able to control the Frankenstein that their false policies have created.

Following exactly the program which the Jewish leaders approved for Russia, the organized Jews of New York are exhibiting a zeal and a directness which Jewish leaders would like to curb for the present, if we are to judge from some of the complaints that the Bolshevik Jews are making.

Benjamin Schlessinger, president of the International Garment Workers’ Union, whose membership numbers 150,000, and which is a part of the New York Kehillah, is one of the complainants. His union, of course, is not the regular American labor union formed for the betterment of working conditions and wages; it is a revolutionary union for the complete change of the social system, involving also a change of government. In an interview printed in the Jewish Forward of April 8, Schlessinger complains against the manner in which Jewish judges have recently come to interfere with Jewish strikes:

“‘And Jewish judges come to their assistance. They issue injunctions; and it is said that they do it to save the Jewish name, so that it shall not be said that “all Jews are Bolshevists.” So the injunctions become a Jewish affair

“‘We have a gigantic wide-branched Kehillah in New York. In all corners, Jews! All over, what you see and what you hear—Jews. And, of course, also dress; politicians and greater ones.’

“But only we may say this. And I understand Schlessinger Schlessinger explains it this way: Several reasons are given why judges like (here a Jewish judge is named) twist the law The real purpose is to break our strike But, then, after all, there is a reason, a Jewish reason. He wants to demonstrate to the American community, he claims, that not all Jews are Bolshevists.”

This excerpt shows several things: that only “we” may say certain things; that Jewish authority is trying to cover the blemish of Bolshevism; and that this is done in order to demonstrate to “the American community” a certain desirable thing. The Jewish community, it is presumed, is not so easily impressed. The Kehillah is apparently trying to call in its kites but they have apparently flown too high in the rarefied atmosphere of revolutionism.

Another big union which makes part of the New York Kehillah is the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, whose membership is about 200,000. It is officered by Russian Jews whose pronounced Bolshevik utterances have been widely reported in the Jewish press of New York, until plain and unprivileged Americans have wondered how far treason to the United States Government could go on our own soil.

Sidney Hillman, the president, is one of the most radical Socialists in the United States—so radical that he would probably spurn the name of Socialist as ordinarily used. He is a Sovietist. He is so far “advanced” that to him the regular type of American labor union is “a scab union.” The purpose of the American labor union is stated to be the improvement of the workers’ condition in industry and the establishment of their industrial rights, whereas the object of Hillman’s union is the overthrow of industry and its communization in the hands of the radical element. That is to say, Russia over again. Hillman was born in Russia. He personally knows most of the Bolshevik Jews now ruining that great land.

The secretary of the Amalgamated is Joseph Schlossberg, also born in Russia. Schlossberg has a very free gift of words. One of his promises to his Jewish followers, publicly made at Madison Square Garden, is this:

“The clothing industry is ours. We are not going to permit the employer to determine where his factory shall be, or how many hours we shall work.”

Abraham Shiplacoff, a Socialist member of the New York board of aldermen, and next to Sidney Hillman in command of the Amalgamated, is also a free speaker, as the following excerpt will show:

“We are going to move heaven and earth to educate our people that they and they alone are the owners of industry. The workers of Russia have found it out, God bless them!

“If I knew old Sammy Gompers knew as much as that, I would tell you to go and do what the workers did in Turine. Ten thousand of them marched to the factory with music and a flag, and they opened the doors and went to work and said, ‘To hell with the owners of the factory.’

“Everybody knows it is war. We are going to control the industry.”

Always the omission, of course, that the factories so spectacularly captured, cease to run soon after. The Hillmans and the Schlossbergs and the Shiplacoffs are heroic figures on the platform, but in manufacturing the common commodities of life and making both ends meet so that the consumer may be served and the producer rewarded, they have been the most tragic failures. “The workers of Russia have found it out, God help them!”

As a matter of fact, besides the I. W. W., the Amalgamated is the only organization which not only preaches Bolshevism but actually practices it—all in the United States, and all apparently in perfect consistency with its membership in the Kehillah and under the officership of the high gentlemen of the American Jewish Committee. The Amalgamated actually does run the industry which has mulcted such a heavy tax from the American public since 1914.

They tell the factory manager where the factory is to be located.

They have a minimum wage of $12 a day, independent of skill or production.

They enforce that rule, that an employe who has worked for two weeks has thereafter a job for life.

No improved machinery can be introduced without the union’s permission.

The employer cannot hire even a cartage firm that the union has not first approved.

The employer cannot withdraw from business unless he goes into bankruptcy, else the whole force of the union and its allies will be marshaled against him and his. He must inform the union of all his plans in advance.

This, of course, is part of the endowment of Trotsky to the East Side. He did great missionary work there while waiting to go across and take the Czar’s place. Even to this day in the Jew-controlled theaters that crowd Broadway, the picture of Trotsky brings wild delirious cheering, while the portrait of the President of the United States is hissed. A favorite state scene is the Star of David high over all flags. The recent debate between Senators King and France, said to have been organized with the assistance of two rabbis, developed into such an outrageously anti-American pro-Soviet demonstration, that prudence intervened to prevent a vote. Recently when pro-Jewish Germans endeavored to stir up trouble by holding a great mass meeting to protest the alleged “Black horror on the Rhine,” the audience was packed with Jews. Not that they love Germany more, but they love any regular government less. While a few days later, at a great American meeting, the Jews of New York, according to the testimony of incredulous observers, were most conspicuous by their absence.

Now, the Jewish leaders must admit that the Jewish Question does not consist in American citizens uncovering these facts and helping other American citizens to become aware of them; the Jewish Question inheres in the facts themselves and in Jewish responsibility for the facts. If it is “anti-Semitism” to say that Bolshevism in the United States is Jewish, so be it; but to unprejudiced minds it will look very like Americanism.

There is not a single, solitary American-born citizen serving as officer or director of those great unions which form part of the New York Kehillah. These men have not the faintest idea of what America stands for. They are not here to become Americanized, but to change America to their own model. In this they have the articulated support of most of the Jewish rabbis who have been very keen to explain that Americanization does not at all mean what the American means by it.

America will have become what these people want it to be when America is sovietized with Jewish radicals in control, and that is the objective toward which they are working now.

The other officers of the Amalgamated are Jacob Petowsky, secretary, who is a Russian Jew, and J. B. Salutsky, who is also a Russian Jew and “National Director of the Educational Department,” which means that he is the propagandist of the union in the United States.

Regarding the assertion that the great radical unions are not officered by native-born citizens (the statement has been made that Russian Jews do not usually complete their citizenship but stop short at the “declaration of intention”), there is some interesting material in a study of 2,000 presidents of Jewish organizations in New York City.

Of this number, 1,054 were born in Russia, 536 in Austro-Hungary, 90 in Rumania, 64 in Germany and four in Palestine. These countries produced 89.1 per cent of Jewish leaders in New York.

Of this number, 531 entered the country between the ages of 14 and 21, and 977 entered over the age of 21.

Of this number, 1,270 are still under 50 years of age.

These figures include all organizations from synagogues to trade unions.

How far they have been Americanized, or wish to be, can only be judged by the policies and activities of the organizations which they direct.

The big Jewish labor organizations are the direct offspring of the Jewish Socialist Bund of Russia. It is due to the propaganda of the Bund in the United States that the united Hebrew trades have gone over to the ranks of radicalism. Bundists swarmed to the United States after the abortive revolution of 1905 at which time they failed to put Bolshevism over in Russia, and these Bundists gave their time to the Bolshevizing of the Hebrew Trade Unions in this country. An Agitation Bureau was formed which propagated radical Socialism through the medium of the Yiddish language, which is one of the official languages of the New York Kehillah, made so by the demands of the Kehillah’s overwhelming radical constituency.

The Bundists incorporated in 1905 in New York an organization known as “The Workmen’s Circle” and “swelled the ranks of the Jewish trade unions,” to quote the Kehillah’s Register. After a brief attempt to propagate Socialism without reference to the Jewish Question, it was given up, and in 1913 a resolution was adopted declaring that the whole purpose of the work was Jewish. This is attributed, in the Kehillah record, to the spread of “the idea of Jewish nationalism.”

Now, care would have to be exercised to avoid confusion between the Hebrew labor unions, radical as they are, and the avowed communistic bodies, if it were not the fact that the unions and the Communists are so inextricably interlocked as to make distinctions unnecessary.

That this is not a judgement dictated by mere adverse attitude may be seen from the following facts:

The Workmen’s Circle has 800 branches throughout the United States and is officered by Jews throughout. The membership is 98 per cent foreign-born and is Jewish in like portion.

Among the higher officers of this organization are Joseph Schlessinger, Sydney Hillman, Benjamin Schlossberg, Sam Feinstein and J. B. Salutsky. The names will probably have become familiar to the reader by this time. They form part of the interlocking directorate so commonly found among Jewish organizations, a system which finally heads up in the executive committee of the Kehillah which also composes the leaders of the American Jewish Committee, of which the great public lights of Jewry are members.

Schlessinger is president of the Union of Ladies’ Garment Workers, and made a trip to Russia in behalf of communism in the United States, to finance which the members of the Communist party were assessed $1.50 each.

Hillman is president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Schlossberg is secretary of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Feinstein is secretary of the United Hebrew Trades.

Salutsky is food commissar to the striking Amalgamated, and is national director of Bolshevik propaganda carried on by his crowd.

They are, of course, all Jews.

The line-up is this: Hebrew trade union leaders are also members of the Workmen’s Circle and of the Communist party, and the majority of their trade union followers go with them into the other associations. The reverse process is this: Communism and radical Bolshevism then find their way to the consciousness of the American public by the Bolshevik demands of the so-called trade unions of Jewry.

An extreme defense of all this activity might be that these Jewish leaders and workers are only enamored of the idea of Bolshevism, are playing with it academically, and are not to be considered as actively the proponents of a form of government contrary to the Constitution of the United States and to be established by “direct action.”

This defense, however, appears insufficient when confronted by another set of facts in which these same union leaders and Communists are shown to be in communication with the Soviet government in the United States—and the Soviet government in the United States is not a mere idea, it is a program. Moscow has repeatedly stated that the purpose of the Lenin-Trotsky government has been World Revolution. And one reason for the colossal economic failure of the Soviet governmental experiment has been the Jewish Soviet leaders’ neglect of their proper work to follow this fetish of World Revolution. If one-tenth the effort had been made to govern and feed Russia that has been made to sow Bolshevik ideas in other countries, Russia might today have been in a less unhappy plight. Propaganda is the sole art which the Bolsheviks have mastered.

This Soviet government in the United States, therefore, must be regarded as an advance post of World Revolution. It is so regarded by those who know anything about it. It is so regarded by those who ordered the deportation of L. C. A. K. Martens, the “Soviet Ambassador.” Martens was announced to be here for the purpose of opening up trade relations with the United States. He had a vast fund of gold—indeed, it was to explain his gold hoard that he used the story about trade relations. The Government of the United States judged, however, that his purpose here was World Revolution—and the government was right.

Martens has departed but the Soviet Embassy remains. As stated in a former article, Martens’ successor is Charles Recht, who is a Russian Jew about 36 years of age. In the same building with Recht is Isaac A. Hourwich, another Russian Jew and attorney, whose office is supposed to be the headquarters whence proceeds much of the Russian Bolshevik propaganda.

Now, the people who go to the offices of Recht and Hourwich are the same people whose names we have been tracing all through this interlocker, with some notable additions. Into the sanctum of ambassadorial Bolshevism in the United States, come, of course, Recht the representative and Hourwich the attorney for Lenin and Trotsky in this country.

Another caller is Judah L. Magnes, head of the New York Kehillah. He is a rabbi without a synagogue, an extreme extremist, a master of the language of agitation, and pro-Bolshevist in his influence and associations. He is credited with being the mediator between rich Jews and radicals when the latter are in need of funds. This is the Judah L. Magnes, head of the Kehillah, who tried to tell New York newspaper reporters what a weak and innocent foundling the New York Kehillah is; the same Judah L. Magnes whom the American Hebrew tried to picture as a diaphanous idealist broken-hearted because the ghetto doesn’t fall in with his educational schemes. The Kehillah is not an educational institution; it is not a welfare institution in the charitable sense; it is a nerve-center of Jewish power; in Rabbi Magnes’ own words, “a clearing house”; and if it amounted to nothing politically and nationally, the men who are now prominent in it would soon desert it. Kehillah is just what the word signifies—the whole Jewish Community.

Then, of course, there are Benjamin Schlessinger again, president of the Ladies’ Garment Workers, and Sydney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and Joseph Schlossberg, another Amalgamated official whose Bolshevik utterances were quoted earlier in this article, and others of the Hebrew trades crowd whose radical relationships have been shown.

In addition, there are certain immigration inspectors from Ellis Island—all Jews, of course; occasionally a courier from Russia who has slipped into the country for a secret purpose; occasionally also a courier to Russia bearing messages from Recht and Hourwich.

Then I.W.W. leaders—Jews. Among them Baletin, secretary of the I.W.W. Metal Machinery Workers’ Branch, and Peltner, joint secretary of the I.W.W. branches in New York.

In close touch with these Jewish radicals are a number of revolutionists of other countries, representing various violent programs against the established order.

It is through the office of Charles Recht that passports, issued by the State Department of the government of the United States, are being viséed. This statement refers to a regular practice known to have been followed until a few days preceding this writing, and there is no reason to believe it has since been altered. Ambassador Recht, or Acting Ambassador Recht, or whatever he may be called, is in close touch with Soviet authorities and has full notice of all their intentions regarding American affairs.

A frequent subject of conferences in Recht’s office is the Soviet propaganda in America. Men like Hillman and Schlossberg and Schlessinger are merely liaison officers between the Soviets and the Hebrew trades unions. The orders received from Moscow are thus transmitted to the Jews in America, and are obeyed along perfectly defined lines.

Of course, Rabbi Magnes, head of the New York Kehillah, could hardly be expected to remain in ignorance of what the whole Kehillah knows. And that Magnes is temperamentally a radical, any two-minute perusal of his speeches will show. He is head of what Schlessinger calls the “gigantic, wide-branched Kehillah,” the foremost political racial organization in this country, a close community of a single racial type which has its own code and its own customs and its own method of gaining its ends.

This is not the whole story by any means. Schlessinger and Schlossberg and Hillman and the rest are leaders, but they are not the higher-ups. The connections run straight up to the lofty heights of those who dwell in palaces and sway the finances of the nation, and to those who play large parts in the government of the United States. The Jews who finance radical publications—good conservative Jews who form the standing illustration in the argumentative question, “What possible gain can they hope from Bolshevism?” Jews who pull official wires to gain immunity and privilege for known traitors and revolutionists. Jews who replenish the coffers of dangerous elements. It is a long story, and all of it does not require telling, for the point to be gained is not that everyone should be told, but that the involved persons should be aware that it is known, proved, safely put away, in hope that the occasion to use it may never come. However, it is due the public to tell at least a part of it.

The Jewish leaders never played so stupid a card as when they endeavored to minimize the Kehillah and the place it fills. Nor did their Gentile echoes ever fall for so miserable an imposition.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 23 April 1921]

Will Jewish Zionism Bring Armageddon?

When the British Army passed into Jerusalem in the memorable capture of the city in 1917, the Protocols went in with it. A symbolic circle was thus closed, though not in the way the Protocolists had hoped. The man who carried the Protocols knew what they signified, and they were carried not in triumph but as the plans of the enemies of world liberty.

Zionism is the best advertised of all present Jewish activities and has exerted a greater influence upon world events than the average man realizes. In its more romantic aspects it makes an appeal to Christian as well as to Jew, because there are certain prophecies which are held to concern the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. When this return takes place, certain great events are scheduled to ensue.

Because of this admixture of the religious sentiment, it will be rather difficult for a certain class of people to scrutinize modern Political Zionism; they have been too well propagandized into believing that political Zionism and the “return” promised by the prophets are the same thing. Having succumbed to the initial confusion of mistaking Judah for Israel they have entirely mistaken the ancient writings that relate to these two, and have made the single tribe of Judah (whence comes the name Jew) the hub around which all history and humanity swing. Judah was the tribe with which Israel could not live in peace over two thousand years ago, and which has the fateful gift of stirring up the same kind of dissension today. And yet no one ever thought of charging the Ten Tribes of Israel with “anti-Semitism.”

Zionism is challenging the attention of the world today because it is creating a situation out of which many believe the next war will come. To adopt a phraseology familiar to students of prophecy, it is believed by many students of world affairs that Armageddon will be the direct result of what is now beginning to be manifested in Palestine.

For these, if for no other reasons, the subject becomes important.

With Zionism as a dream of pious Jews this article has nothing to do. With Zionism as a political fact, every first class government is now compelled to have something to do. It is a bigger question than the German indemnities or American immigration, because it lies back of both, and is rapidly proceeding under cover of both.

It is worthy of note, if only in passing, that Zionism in the active modern political sense took its rise racially and geographically where Bolshevism arose, namely, in Russia, and that its center, the seat of its Inner Actions Committee, was at Berlin. There was always a close relationship between the Zionists of Russia and the New York Kehillah, as is evidenced by public utterances made in Russia after the Revolution in which the Kehillah is extolled.

At the time the war was declared in 1914, the Inner Actions Committee was spread about in various countries. For example: Dr. Schmarya Levin, of Berlin, was in the United States and remained here. He was Russian rabbi, German scholar, and cosmopolitan. Although his headquarters were Berlin, he remained in the United States and became recognized as the leader of the leaders of Zionism, until the great Jewish shift to Versailles. Another member of the Inner Actions Committee was one Jacobson, who was in Constantinople. “When he saw that Constantinople could no longer be the center of Zionist politics, he left and went to Copenhagen, Denmark, where in a neutral country he could be of practical usefulness to the Zionists by transmitting information and funds.” (Guide to Zionism, page 80.) In fact, the entire Inner Actions Committee, with headquarters at Berlin, moved freely through a warlocked world, the only exceptions being Warburg and Hantke—and there was no need for the Berlin Warburg to move about, for there were others who represented him.

Dr. Levin gave his sanction for the shifting of the center of Jewish gravity from Berlin to America, and “as early as August 30, 1914, a month after the outbreak of war, an extraordinary conference of American Zionists was called in New York.”

What this change of seat meant, has formed the subject of much discussion. In 1914 the Jews apparently knew more about the probable duration of the war than did the principals. It was not to be a mere excursion through Belgium, as some fancied. There was time to dicker, time to show the value of certain Jewish support to the governments. Germany gladly pledged the land of Palestine to the Jews, but the Jews had already seen what Wilhelm had done in that ancient state when he enthroned himself on the Mount of Olives. Evidently the Allies won in the contest of making promises, for on November 2, 1917, when General Allenby was pushing up through Palestine with his British Army, Arthur James Balfour, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, issued the famous declaration approving Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people.

“The wording of it came from the British foreign office, but the text had been revised in the Zionist offices in America as well as in England. The British declaration was made in the form in which the Zionists desired it, and the last clauses were added in order to appease a certain section of timid anti-Zionist opinion.” (Guide to Zionism, pages 85-86.)

Now please read the declaration and note the italicized clauses just referred to:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Zionism is of particular interest, not merely because of the quarrels which have arisen among the leaders over money—it is the war of “interest” against “capital”—but also because of the light it throws on the two great armies of Jews in the world, the way in which they use their power where they can, and the trouble that always embroils the nations which become Jewish tools.

People sometimes ask why Jewry, which is capitalistic, should favor Bolshevism, which is the announced enemy of capital. It is an interesting question. Why should a New York Jewish financier, an officer of the government of the United States, help finance a “Red” publication which even our tolerant government cannot stomach? In addition to the fact that it is only “Gentile capital” that is attacked, the answer is that the Jew who has fallen for the worship of the Golden Calf is anxious to keep in the good graces of the Jew of the East—the Mongolian Jews—who are rampaging against orderly systems of society. It is quite useful when there is a revolution in Paris to have the 600 houses which you may own spared by the incendiary mobs—as were Rothschild’s houses. Zionism has been one of the subjects upon which Western and Eastern Jew can unite. Indeed, it was the Eastern Jew that compelled the Western Jew to take a favorable stand on this matter. The Jewish gentlemen who are receiving the freedom of our cities today in their various aspects as “German” and “British” scientists are Eastern Jews. They have come to a contest with the Jews of America on the question of Money. The Jews of America have smothered some very ugly charges. The Jews of the East, more recently of Germany or England, are not likely to be browbeaten by the moneybags of Jewish New York, for the Eastern type of Jew knows of a situation in which money is the most useless thing in the world—and that is why he is feared and favored by Western Jewry of the Golden Calf.

The Jewish defenders are just now capitalizing the “split” in Jewry. The real split in Jewry will come when Jews of vision begin to support the attempts which have been made to liberate the Jews from their leaders. This internal squabble means nothing but a squabble of leaders; but when the Jews themselves divide, one side for twentieth century light and the destruction of the class power of selfish leaders, then may we look up hopefully. When the Jew recognizes the honesty of his critics and the righteousness of what they charge, then will there be a “split,” but not before. The division in Jewry as evidenced by the contempt of the revolutionary party for the financial party, and as even more strongly evidenced by the fear of the revolutionary party by the financial party, is being brought about by the insincerity of the Western Jew’s Zionism. The Western Jew says that the United States is the Promised Land, profits and interest are the “milk and honey” and New York is Jerusalem; the Jew of Russia has another view.

A knowledge of Political Zionism is worth while also as an authoritative illustration of what the Jew does when he is in power. Heretofore there has been Russia to illustrate this, but now there is Palestine. With every fact against them, with every traveler and observer giving them the lie direct, there are still Jewish spokesmen and poor befuddled “Gentile fronts” who insist that Bolshevism is not Jewish and that Russia is not now governed by Jews. It is just this constant denial of facts, this failure to use their opportunity to be honest, that is going to be the judgement of Jewish leaders. Bolshevism all over the world, not in Russia only, but in New York, in Chicago, in New Orleans, in San Francisco, is Jewish.

However, there is no need further to insist upon that, except occasionally to add confirmatory illustrations of it. More to the present point is Palestine. It will be very difficult for the most irresponsible Jewish spokesman to deny that Palestine is Jewish. The government is Jewish, the plan of procedure is Jewish, the methods used are Jewish. Does anyone rise to deny that? Scarcely.

Very well, Palestine will do to illustrate the genius of the Jew when he comes to power.

Professor Albert T. Clay, in the Atlantic Monthly (will anyone declare that this long-established and thoroughly respectable Boston publication is “anti-Semitic”?) warns us that the information about Palestine which we receive in America comes to us through the Jewish Telegraph Service (which is the Associated Press of world-wide Jewry) and the Zionist propaganda. “The latter,” he says, “with its harrowing stories of pogroms in Europe, and its misrepresentations of the situation in the Near East, has been able to awaken not a little sympathy for the Zionist propaganda.”

This propaganda of pogroms—“thousands upon thousands of Jews killed”—amounts to nothing except as it illustrates the gullibility of the press. No one believes this propaganda, and governments regularly disprove it. But the fact that it continues indicates that something besides facts is necessary to keep the scheme going.

In Jerusalem, as this is being written, martial law is proclaimed. There has been a struggle between the native inhabitants, whom the Balfour declaration sought to protect, and the new-come Jews. As in the famous Easter disorders of last year, the wounded in the hospitals show that the Jews were armed and the natives fought with whatever weapons they could find on the spot; the conclusion of all impartial observers under the circumstances being that the Jews prepared for and sought the fight with unprepared natives.

The mark of disorder perpetrated by the Jews is all over the place, the “persecuted” turned persecutor, and lest this should be charged to the general wildness of the people in Palestine let it be said that the rioters were only expressing in deeds what cultivated American and English Jews have expressed in words—namely, that the lawful inhabitants of the land ought to be driven out, in spite of governmental promises to the contrary. One of the first Easter rioters, Jabotinsky, whom the British authorities sentenced to 15 years in prison, was released immediately upon the arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel, and is now traveling in state, and is talked of as a possible successor to Sir Herbert, although he is originally one of the Russian Bolsheviki come down to practice the gentle arts of that tribe in Palestine.

The government is Jewish. Sir Herbert Samuel is High Commissioner, representing the power of the British Government, which holds the mandate over Palestine. The head of the judicial department, who appoints the judges of Palestine, is a Jew. Christian or Moslem judges who do not give the Jews a shade the better of the proceedings are ousted—a condition not unknown in New York. Chaim Weizman is head of the department of works—he is a Jew, now traveling in this country and having the polite lie passed to him occasionally by Judge Julian W. Mack. In fact, at the heads of all departments are Jews, a former New York Jew being head of the department of immigration, who has made splendid rules for the protection of Palestine from an undesirable class of Jews, rules so well adapted for the purpose that if the Congress of the United States should adopt them the cry of “persecution” would girdle the world.

It is to be noted that the Jewish government of Palestine is very much like that of Russia—mostly foreign. Trotsky came from the East Side of New York. A gentleman recently released from Bolshevik custody told the writer that the governor of his prison was an ordinary Jew who formerly lived on Fourteenth street, Detroit. Practically every big American city is represented in the Bolshevik government of Russia. There is another full-fledged government waiting in this country for service wherever necessary.

The methods being adopted to get the land are such as will fill the world with indignation once the world fully understands what is being done. And that it is done with the knowledge and approval of the Zionist Commissioner is indicated by the fact that he suspended the activities of the British officer who endeavored to stop the abuse. It was the old game of lending money at an exorbitant rate of interest to people hard pressed by war and crop failure, and then seizing their land when they could not pay. The bank that did this was the Anglo-Palestine Bank, a Zionist concern. This British officer, to save the people and the land, made arrangements with a British bank to lend them money at 6 1/2 per cent, with five years to pay. If payment failed, the land was to go to the government for redistribution, not to the Zionist bank. This was the humane plan which the Zionist Commissioner forbade, whereupon the British officer resigned. Some effort was afterward made to redress the terrible act, but there it stands as the well-considered action of Jewry in power.

Then follows what is described by every impartial observer as an “arrogant” attempt to expropriate everything in sight. In Russia it could have been done very easily under the plea of “nationalization,” but there was Great Britain whose laws do not condone theft. The only schools that have been established in Jerusalem have been built and manned by the so-called “Gentiles,” although the Jews of Jerusalem have been the pensioners of world-wide Jewry for centuries. As long ago as 1842 Dr. Murray M’Cheyne noted that the Jerusalem Jews cared nothing for schools because their children were only growing up into pensioners too. But Christians, with a warm regard for the Holy City, set about to improve the miserable condition of the Jewish inhabitants, and thus it came that at the time of the Zionist invasion a considerable number of Jewish children were in attendance at the schools. The new-come Zionist leaders demanded that the best of the schools be given up to them. Of course, this was refused.

“The Council of Jerusalem Jews” then caused it to be published in the Hebrew daily that parents who did not withdraw their children from the schools would be punished. And now look at the typical punishments threatened:

If any parent refused whose name was on the list of the American Relief Fund, the relief would be withdrawn. An interesting bit of news to subscribers to that fund.

Doctors would be forbidden to visit the families that had children attending the enlightened schools.

Their names would be sent to the blacklist at the places where circumcision was performed, so that new-born descendants of the recalcitrants might be refused the rite of Moses.

They would be denied all share in Zionist benefits or funds.

If they were in business, they would be boycotted.

If they were workmen, they could get no work.

“Anyone who refused, let him know that it was forbidden for him to be called by the name of Jew. They will be fought by all lawful means. Their names will be put upon a monument of shame and their deeds made to reproach them to the last generation. If they are supported, their support will cease. If they are rabbis, they will be moved far from their office. They shall be put under the ban and persecuted, and all the world will know that in this justice there has been no mercy.”

It is the Jewish Bolshevist spirit all over again, that spirit which so many people have been vainly endeavoring to reconcile with the Russian temperament—because it is so un-Russian.

It is tyranny, and not the tyranny of strength, but of meanness and darkness. It is now perfectly clear what was meant by Dr. McInnis, who is Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, when he said: “The emigrants so far brought in (to Palestine, under the Commission) did not include many respectable English Jews; but they did include a great number of Russians, Poles and Rumanians, many of them thoroughly Bolshevik in their attitude to the government.”

If this spirit obtains at the beginning of a movement which the Christian world has been taught by propaganda to regard as a profoundly religious and respectable exodus, it burdens the imagination to forecast what will be done in a period of full and unquestioned rule.

Observing and weighing the events and tendencies of Jewish rule thus far in Palestine, it is not difficult to see the purpose in it all. The Jews still distrust their ability to make a State. They do not distrust the world’s willingness to let them have a State; indeed, it is amazing how naturally the Jews place confidence in that portion of the world they have always affected to despise. But deep-seated in the Jew is a distrust of himself. He doesn’t know how his people will contrive to live together. He doesn’t know how they will contrive to drop the principles and practices which are so destructive of social comity elsewhere. And he feels that, patient as the mandatory power may be now, it is doubtful how long that patience will hold out under the blunders and brutalities that will be inseparable from Zionist rule, if any deductions can be drawn from the facts at hand. Therefore, feeling that the time may be short, he is endeavoring by such actions as interference with the cultural question, with the racial rights if the natives, and by such schemes as the land-grabbing device described above, to get so strong a hold on the situation as will seriously complicate it whenever Great Britain shall feel it to be her duty to the world to step in and attempt to bring some kind of order out of the chaos.

It begins to be very clear that Jewish nationalism will develop along the line of enmity to the rest of the world. Already the dangerous proposal has been made to organize a Jewish army for the protection of the Suez Canal. Instead of thinking of roads and farmsteads, of vineyards and oil presses, of schools and sanitary villages, the Jews are thinking of elevating themselves into the military power that shall stand between East and West on that most strategic strip of ground in the world. The whole situation is fraught with danger, and men who wish well to the Jews are alarmed and saddened by the prospect.

There are three elements of danger in the situation as it exists today: the overwhelmingly predominant Bolshevik element that is being poured into Palestine; the intense, egotistic and challenging nationalism that Zionists exhibit even before they get a potato patch—the taste for world politics and world power; and the racial confusion which now exists in Palestine.

These combined are dynamite. The first is more vital than many realize. Already the Jews who have gone to Palestine at great sacrifice and for pious reasons are complaining that instead of the Psalms of David the people are singing songs of the Red Revolution, and instead of meeting for instruction and prayer there are riotous gatherings extolling Trotsky as Messiah and the Soviet as the kingdom of heaven. On the third anniversary of the Jewish Revolution in Russia, the streets of Jerusalem were placarded with sentiments of blasphemy and treason, and May Day this year was devoted to the exaltation of anarchy.

This fact will be of interest to students of prophecy. It is as certain as any human forecast can be that this sort of thing will not be permitted to go forward in the face of the world. It is unimaginable that the nations responsible to humanity for the conduct of that important strip of territory will remain supine while Bolshevism spreads under the false pretense of a religious movement favored by Christendom. An attempt will be made to stop it. The Jews of Palestine will turn on their sponsor nation. The Jews of Russia will come down to help. Great Britain and perhaps the United States will defend the old pure vision of a Jerusalem redeemed. Then will come to pass the prophecy of Zachariah:

“And Judah also shall fight against Jerusalem.”

Judah also! It is a thought to make a Jew bethink himself where the lawlessness of the East and the materialism of the West will lead him. Against Jerusalem! What a terrible ending of Judah’s present mad delusion.

Palestine has been called the center of the earth. It is. The power that controls Palestine controls the world. Although exercising no sovereignty over the land itself, Great Britain’s control of adjacent waters and of Egypt and Persia and India, forms the key of her power. The white race has thus far been the Chosen People to whom the dominion of the earth has been given. Palestine is the key to world military strategy and trade. In question 12 of the Questions and Answers published by the department of education, Zionist Organization of America, this occurs:

12. What are the commercial possibilities of Palestine?

The location of Palestine between the three continents favors foreign trade.

All this lends itself to dreams of future glory, and many Christian friends of the Jew have pleased themselves by conceiving an universal Hague at Jerusalem and a new social order going out to bless the nations from Zion. It is the idea conveyed by men like A. A. Berle in books like “The World Significance of a Jewish State.” All this might be expected if the Jews of today were Old Testament people, anxious to reestablish the social laws of Moses, which are conceded to be the best safeguards ever devised against pauperism on the one hand and plutocracy on the other. But Palestine has not fallen into the hands of that sort of Jews. Before the dream can be fulfilled Judah must come to himself, as he has not yet, for from of old the Word is—

“And Judah also shall fight against Jerusalem.”

The racial situation in Palestine just now is very delicate. Americans do not understand it. The Zionist propaganda has always been accepted on the assumption that Palestine is the Jews’ land and that they only need help to go back. It is an historical and political fact that Palestine has not been the Jews’ land for more than 2,000 years. There are in Palestine 500,000 Moslems, 105,000 Christians and 65,000 Jews. The industry of the land is agriculture. Engaged in this are 69 per cent of the Moslems, 46 per cent of the Christians and 19 per cent of the Jews. Neither numerically nor industrially have they held the land. Yet, as the result of a war bargain, it is handed over to them as regardless of the native inhabitants as if Belgium had been handed over to Mexico. Many of the natives are Semites, like the Jews, but they do not want the Jews among them.

That is a strange fact for those who use the term “anti-Semitism”; why do real Semites also dislike the Jews? Surely Semites are not victims of “anti-Semitism.”

The Balfour Declaration, as well as the terms of the Mandate adopted at San Remo, recognized the rights of the native races. Indeed, everyone who knows about the people who have been native to Palestine for 2,000 years recognizes their rights, everybody except the Jews. Bethlehem was a Christian town, as befits the birthplace of Christ. Yet the Jews have contrived that 2,000 Bethlehemites leave Palestine rather than submit to what they see coming. The other races are not so placid about it, hence the trouble. It is now that the last clauses, added as the Zionist historian declares, “in order to appease a certain section of anti-Zionist opinion,” begin to get a meaning for the reader. Was the purpose only to quiet disturbing questions until all the arrangements were made? Evidently. It was then a dishonest appeasement! Such may have been the Zionists’ intention, but no one need expect perjury on the part of the responsible nations. The end of the matter will see those last clauses redeemed by honest application of their terms to the people involved.

General Allenby promised those native races of Palestine that their rights would be respected. So did the Balfour Declaration. So did the San Remo Conference. So also did President Wilson in the twelfth of his Fourteen Points.

But Judah says, “Let them get out!” “The last clauses were added in order to appease a certain section of timid anti-Zionist opinion.”

“Let them get out!” says Israel Zangwill. “We must gently persuade them to ‘trek.’ After all, they have all Arabia with its million square miles, and Israel has not a square inch. There is no particular reason for the Arabs to cling to those few kilometers. To fold their tents and silently to steal away is their proverbial habit; let them exemplify it now.” Aside from the falsity of using the term “Arab,” there is the delightful Jewishness of it—let them give it up to us, we want it! Americans have been in their land less than 150 years as a nation, and there is China and Arabia or Siberia for us to go to if we should want to, but we prefer our own country, and so do the native races of Palestine, who have dwelt there for 2,000 years.

The watchmen on the towers of the world are alarmed at what seems brewing in Judah’s geographical caldron.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 28 May 1921]

How the Jews Use Power—By an Eyewitness

The Jewish Question continues to mount the scale of public attention, attracting ever a higher type of mind to the discussion of its significance. When THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT first began to print some of the results of its research into the Question, the initial response was largely from those who disliked the Jew because he was a Jew. This class expected to find in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT a spokesman for all their coarse humor and abuse.

The method that was followed by this paper, however, was not abusive enough, nor bitter enough to satisfy Jew-baiters and Jew-haters, and gradually a new response from another class began to be heard, which by this time has attained massive proportions. The better class of people, seeing that racial and religious prejudice had no part in the work, began to consider the Question with relation to our American life and the future of this nation as a Christian people.

Upon this ascent of the discussion to its proper plane, the better periodicals began to give thoughtful attention to the matter. These publications have been referred to in previous articles. There is to be added to the list the Century Magazine for September, which contains an article by Herbert Adams Gibbons which clearly intends to be fair and is certainly able, in spite of a difference of opinion that might exist with regard to some of the author’s conclusions. Mr. Gibbons states some matters more plainly than they have been stated outside the pages of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, and some matters he states just as plainly; and he will be justified by the unprejudiced reader.

One of the most notable studies of the Jewish Question has come out of the University of the South, at Sewanee, Tennessee. It is entitled “Zionism and the Jewish Problem,” the author being the Rev. Dr. John P. Peters, formerly canon residentiary of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, Morningside Heights, New York, also rector emeritus of St. Michael’s Church, New York, and professor of New Testament Languages and Literature in the University of the South. The article has been reprinted from the Sewanee Review and makes a brochure of 29 pages.

Dr. Peters begins with an historical sketch of the development of the two lines of thought among the Jews: the nationalistic which made for exclusiveness, and the religious which made for inclusiveness, and he describes the domination of the latter by the former with the coming of modern Zionism, which he finds to be racial and not religious. He says “the dominant control of the Zionist party is at present in the hands of those who are not religious but merely racial Jews.” He believes that the development of race-consciousness along these lines “must be inevitably in the end to make the Jews bad citizens of the United States or of any other country and to keep alive and increase the hostility to the Jews ”

This monograph by Dr. Peters will repay study. By permission, THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT reprints the article from page 20 to the end, this portion being selected because it deals with Dr. Peters’ testimony as an eyewitness of certain conditions in Palestine: (The italics are ours, there being none in the university reprint.)

“The experiment of the Zionist homeland is now being tried. It is too early to determine fully how it will work, but it is at least of interest to consider its manifestations so far. My earliest contact with Zionism and Zionistic influences in Palestine dates from 1902. When I first visited Palestine, in 1890, the Jews in Jerusalem were almost exclusively of old oriental Sephardic families. Jerusalem was then still the old Jerusalem within the walls. There were no houses without. Jewish colonization, economic and philanthropic in character, had just then begun on the Sharon plain, but what little there was in the way of colonization was a feeble, unsuccessful exotic—an attempt to replace the persecuted Jews of Russia on the land, where, however, the Jew, unused to manual and especially farm labor, sat under an umbrella to protect himself from the sun and engaged native Syrians to do the work.

“On my next visit, in 1902, more colonies had been planted, and a serious effort was being made to turn the Jewish colonists into farmers. The majority of Jews who had come to Palestine, however, were settled about Jerusalem, and the new Jerusalem without the walls was larger, in space at least, than the old Jerusalem within. The Alliance Israelite had developed there splendid schools to teach agriculture, and manual and industrial arts. I was urgently solicited by the management to visit and inspect these schools. Here I found Jew, Moslem and Christian working side by side without prejudice. This was, in my judgement, the best work of any sort being done in Palestine, for two reasons: first, these schools were teaching the dignity and the worth of manual labor, which the oriental of all sorts had theretofore despised, regarding it as unworthy of any man of intelligence or capacity; secondly, because they brought Moslem, Christian and Jew together on a plane of common work and common worth, the most valuable agent for the breaking down of those ancient prejudices, religious, racial and social, which have been the curse and bane of the land.

“I was asked to put this down in writing because, I was told, great pressure was being exerted—I regret to say, especially from America—to prevent the management from continuing this particular work of teaching the Jew, Christian and Moslem on the same plane, the demand being that the Jew should not be brought into such contact with the Moslem and the Christian, and that he alone should be trained, that he might not be infected, as it were, by the others, and that they might not be prepared to compete with him for possession of the land. This spirit I met in a more thoroughly organized and offensive form on my latest visit in 1919 and 1920.

“I found immense progress in the development of agricultural colonies. There was still difficulty in persuading the Jew, except only the African or Arabian Jew, to do the actual work of the colony, but colonies were prospering, and fruit-culture, vine-culture and especially the manufacture of wine and liquors on a grand and most scientific scale, had progressed wonderfully. In general, the land occupied by those colonies was not in a proper sense ancient Jewish land. They were on the Sharon and Esdraelon plains and in the extreme upper end of the Jordan Valley; but those regions were being enriched, and the country at large benefited by the colonists. The great bulk of the Jews were still gathered in Jerusalem as heretofore, and there were on one hand the intellectuals and on the other the parasitic or pauperized Jew, what would ordinarily be regarded as the very best and the very worst. Life in the colonies was often very sweet and very lovely, a wholesome, normal family life, and an exhibition in peace and prosperity of what religious Judaism at its best may be.

“In Jerusalem one found the extremes of intensely narrow and bitter orthodoxy, and unbelief with extreme Bolshevik radicalism. Here, too, aggressive Zionism manifested itself in an attitude of bumptiousness and aggressiveness. The country was for the Jew. It belonged to him and he would shortly take possession. One was made to feel that one’s presence in the land was objected to. The Hebrew press contained angry diatribes against the existence of Christian schools and missions. The attitude taken by these Zionists at first alarmed, then aroused and irritated enormously, the native population, both Christian and Moslem, making the Jew an object of dread and hatred as he had never been before. I had opportunities to talk on intimate and friendly terms with leaders in all camps, albeit I was unable, through language difficulties, to communicate with the rank and file as freely as I should like to have done. I myself felt the annoyance and in some places the danger of the animosity aroused. Under government order I was not permitted to visit certain sections of the country on account of the raids or uprisings of the Arabs, partly due to animosity roused by their apprehension of the Jewish invasion, and partly due to banditry, which took advantage of that as an occasion. In other parts it was difficult to travel, because any stranger, unless he could prove the contrary, was suspected of being an agent of the Zionists, spying out the land for possession by the Jews. It was difficult to obtain lodgings or food, and there were sometimes unpleasantly hostile demonstrations on account of these suspicions. Everywhere it was believed that the Jew by unfair means was seeking to oust the true owners and to take possession of their land.

“In Jerusalem it was asserted that the Zionist funds, or the Jewish funds which the Zionists could influence or control, were used to subsidize Jewish artisans or merchants to underbid Christians and Moslems and thus oust them by unfair competition, and that similar means were being used to acquire lands or titles to lands. It was even believed by many that the English authorities were unduly favoring and helping the Jews in these endeavors, as is shown by a letter from a Christian in Jaffa published in the Atlantic Monthly:—

“‘We are already feeling that we have a government within a government. British officers cannot stand on the right side because they are afraid of being removed from their posts or ticked off.’

“From time immemorial the Jews the world over have contributed for the help of pious Jews in Jerusalem and the other sacred cities, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed, the so-called halukha, or dole, in return for which the Jews in those cities were to win merit for themselves and those who contributed to their support by study of the law, prayer and pious observances. St. Paul carried over the same practice into the Christian Church, causing alms to be collected in the different congregations to be transferred to Jerusalem for the benefit and support of the Christians living there. To this day annual collections are taken in the Roman Catholic churches throughout the world which go to the Franciscans for the same use in Jerusalem. The Greeks and Armenians have like customs. In the past there had been no prejudice with regard to these doles, but now, it was claimed, the Zionist committees were using the moneys thus collected or contributed to organize and help their people in a systematized attempt to gain the upper hand in the land.

“Perhaps the attitude of the extremists who possessed the dominating power in the community can best be shown by the utterances of one of their own organs, written in Hebrew. (It should be stated that the English edition of this journal was, as a rule, quite different in its contents from the Hebrew edition. One article, entitled, ‘Malignant Leprosy,’ is a denunciation of parents who allow their children to go to any school except those under the control of Jews and conforming to the demands of the local Zionist Committee. Parents are notified that a list has been made by the Zionist Committee of all children who are attending foreign schools, even though they are not subjected to any religious teaching, and it is demanded that they shall be withdrawn from those schools and placed in schools where they shall be taught the Hebrew language, customs and traditions, and kept separate from contamination by the Gentile, with his different ways and customs. Those teaching in foreign schools, or schools not complying with the conditions laid down by this committee, are ordered to withdraw from their positions. The ‘malignant leprosy’ is the contamination by the outside world which results from education with the Gentiles. It is admitted in this article, in answer to protests, that the opportunities in some non-Jewish schools are better than in the Jewish schools—for example, in the teaching of foreign languages, so important for conducting business or securing employment; that there is greater diligence in instructing; and better hours and better care of pupils. Nevertheless, parents are informed that they must sacrifice for the sake of their race those chances for their children, doing their best meanwhile to raise their own schools to the higher level. Those who are failing to live up to these ideals are designated as ‘traitors’ and by other opprobrious names, and the article ends with this threat of persecution to any who do not obey the orders of the Zionist Committee thus conveyed:

“‘Let him know at least that it is forbidden him to be called by the name of Jew and there is to him no portion or inheritance with his brethren, and if after a time they will not try to reform, let them know that we will fight against them by all lawful means at our disposal. Upon a monument of shame we will put their names for a reproach and blaming forever, and until the last generation shall their deeds be written. If they are supported, their support will cease, and if they are merchants, with a finger men will shoot at them, and if they are Rabbis, they will be moved far from their office, and with the ban shall they be persecuted, and all the people of the world shall know that there is no mercy in judgement.’

“This was followed about a month later by a second article, also in Hebrew, entitled ‘Fight and Win,’ which announced that the threatened persecution would now be carried out:

“‘The names of the traitorous parents and of the boys and girls who have not taken notice of the warnings ought to be published at once and without delay, in the papers and on public notices, placarded at the entrance of every street. The list of these names should be sent to the heads of every institution and to the rulers of the synagogues, to hospitals, to those who arrange and solemnize marriages, and to the directors of the American Jewish Relief Fund, and so on. It should be the title of “Black List” and “Traitors of Their People.” An order should go forth to all, and if one of these men has a son, he shall not be circumcised; in case of death the body is not to be buried among Israelites; religious marriages will not be sanctioned; Jewish doctors will not visit their sick; relief will not be given to them when they are in need, if they are on the list of the American relief fund—in short, we must hunt them down until they are annihilated. Men will cry to them: “Out of the way, unclean, unclean!” Because these people will be considered as malicious renegades, there can be no connecting link between them and us. Again, the society of young men and girls of Jerusalem must accept it as a principle to expel from their societies all those who visit these schools; to point the finger of scorn at them; and to make them see that they are put out of the camp. These traitor scholars, boys and girls, must understand themselves that they are sinners and transgressors, who are isolated, driven from all society, separated from the Jewish community, after they have once despised Israel and its holiness, and it will be interdicted to all sons of Israel to come near them War against the traitors among our people. War by all means legal. War without pity or mercy; that the traitors may know that they must not trifle with the sentiment of a people. Fight and win.’

“The Zionist Committee, of whom one was an American, followed this by a printed announcement that the time of grace had passed and that forthwith the names of those who were still refractory would be posted publicly on street-corners, and the boycott begin. Miss Landau, a devout Jewess, the head of the best and highest Jewish school for girls in the city, the Eva Rothschild School, one of those, however, whose pupils and teachers were threatened under these rulings because they would not follow the dictates of the Zionist Committee, appealed to the civil authorities. The committee was haled into court and the threatened boycott enjoined.

“With such an attitude on the part of Zionist leaders in Jerusalem it might be expected that violence would ensue. Easter is a time of great excitement and unrest in Jerusalem for Christians, Jews and Moslems alike, for with Easter coincide the Jewish Passover and the Moslem pilgrim feast of Nebi Musa, when Moslems gather from all over Palestine to hear sermons in the Haram Esh-Sherif, and then march to the so-called tomb of Moses near the Dead Sea. The religious excitement of that season which vents itself in curses of each against the others, is always likely to produce physical outbursts if the cursers come into contact with one another. The Turks wisely segregated at that time each religion in its own quarter. This, in spite of warnings and requests from the Moslem religious leaders, the English failed to do, either through ultra-confidence in the pax angelicana, or because of objections from Jewish representatives against such segregation as applied to them. For days beforehand hot-heads among the Jews and Moslems were inciting to riot, and in their quarter Jewish trained bands were preparing for the conflict, a preparation of which Moslems from long wont probably had no need. On Easter morning, 1920, the fanatical Moslems of Hebron arrived at the Jaffa gate with their sacred banner, singing their songs of religious intolerance. There numerous Jews were waiting to greet them. The English Tommies with their officers were all in church. Whose insults were the worst and who struck the first blow is not clear. Battle was speedily joined. The Jews were better armed, with guns against the Moslem knives; but the Moslems were the better fighters. The city within the walls was speedily in their hands. The Jews living there were the old-time Sephardic families, dwelling close packed in miserable slums, with no sympathy with Zionism, peaceful and quite unprepared. Moslem fury vented itself on these poor wretches. Without the walls the Jews were in the vast majority. All told, by official count there were at that time 28,000 Jews, 16,000 Christians and 14,500 Moslems in Jerusalem. What the Moslem did within the walls the Jew endeavored to do without the walls. Before my eyes an Arab camp just below the great Jewish quarters was set upon, burned and plundered, the poor inhabitants fleeing for their lives while guns popped from the Jewish quarter. Two men were killed there. When the troops reached the scene the great bulk of rioters whom they rounded up were Jews. The subsequent court proceedings also seemed to place the chief responsibility for the outbreak on them. The major sentences were equally divided between Jews and Moslems, but of the criminals who received lighter sentences the majority were Jews. For a week we lived in a state of siege, not allowed to pass in or out of the city gates, or to show ourselves on roof or balcony after sundown, and for months there were guards at every turn, assemblies were prohibited and there was continual danger of a new outbreak.

“The appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew, as governor of the new protectorate under the Zionist Mandate, greatly increased the excitement. In Moslem towns like Nablus it was openly said in my presence that no Jew might enter the place and live. The Christians, who had taken no part in the riots, were nevertheless to a man in sympathy with the Moslems, and one saw the curious spectacle of Cross and Crescent making common cause. It was prophesied that should Sir Herbert come as governor, he would never enter Jerusalem alive. In point of fact, he landed at Jaffa and came up to Jerusalem under strong guard, with machine-guns before and behind, and the following week made a visit to Nablus and Haifa in the same manner. That was the situation when I left Palestine. Sir Herbert had at that time just issued his declaration and his interpretation of the mandate. English officers and officials almost to a man were against the Zionist Mandate, and their utterances in many cases were extraordinarily frank. Some of the most prominent and best-trained sought transfers to other posts because of their feelings on the matter, and some resigned.

“It has since that time been extremely difficult to obtain reliable information of prevailing conditions. It would seem, however, from all the information I have been able to gather, that Sir Herbert, who is, I believe, not himself a Zionist, has acted with singular tact and discretion. He has shown great fairness and indicated his intention to govern with impartiality, granting no special favors to any, nor allowing outside committees or local organizations to dictate or assume to dictate unfair policies. When I left Palestine, Jews were leaving in considerable numbers, especially those claiming American citizenship, so that the outgo was larger than the income. Since then, if I may judge by reports, Jews have been coming in, chiefly from eastern European countries, some parasitic and objectionable, others of a higher type. Some of the latter, graduates of universities, both men and women, may be seen engaged in hard manual labor, I am told, building roads and the like, not despising to do such work in order to secure their Palestinian home and fulfill their aspirations.

“It is too soon to judge the future of the Zionist experiment in Palestine. If the English authorities will give fair play to all, and if the Jews will pursue the old policy of the Alliance Israelite and its schools of seeking to benefit all dwellers of the land alike, to break down, not to build up, religious, racial and social prejudices, then the Jew may perhaps overcome the present prejudice against him, and his invasion of Palestine may prove to be a blessing both to himself and to the land. The methods of those in control of the Zionist movement in Palestine while I was there were, however, aimed in the opposite direction and tended to make the Jew an object of hatred and violence wherever the opportunity for violence offered. This has been illustrated again by the recent bloody riot in Jaffa which compelled the expedition of a British warship to that port; and the order issued holding up all immigration shows that not Jaffa only but the whole country is unsafe. The Jews in Palestine are now protected only by force of British arms. Were the British troops withdrawn, the Jews would be exterminated by the angry natives, of whom the Moslems alone outnumber them in the ratio of more than ten to one; and with such action the neighboring countries would sympathize, yielding ready assistance if any were required. Mesopotamia and Egypt are seething with disaffection against British rule, and racial-religious ferment, and Palestine is to them and to the Arabs of Arabia a holy land included in the heritage of Islam. Moslem India also feels this keenly, and the British have been obliged to withdraw Moslem Indian troops from Palestine, because they will not fight fellow-Moslems.

“In this country the Jewish problem which we have hitherto had to face is not a result of religious antipathy. Religiously, politically, and economically, the Jew has the same opportunity as everyone else. The Jewish problem here has been merely a matter of social prejudice, resulting from the extremely difficult task of amalgamating with great rapidity an enormous population, alien in race, culture, custom and habit. In 1880 there were, according to Jewish statistics, 250,000 Jews in this country. The Jews now claim 3,500,000, for the most part an undistributed mass huddled together in a few of the great cities—one-third of them in New York. Coming in such great numbers in so short a time and herding together thus, intentionally or unintentionally they help one another to resist the process of Americanization. This enormously increases the incidence of social prejudice. Those who have no conscious prejudice either of religion or of race, are in danger of imbibing or developing such prejudice as a method of protection of their institutions, their traditions and their habits. The Zionist movement, with its intentional development of race consciousness and race peculiarity on the part of the Jew, is an additional obstacle against the efforts of those Jews and those Christians who are seeking to break down prejudice and to bring Jew and Christian together within a common recognition of the Golden Rule: that each should treat the other as he, in like instance, would wish to be treated by him. One of the greatest of English Jews, honored and respected by Jew and Christian alike for his learning, his philanthropy and his godly piety, says of this racial-political Zionism that it has broken his heart, and set the clock backward for his people a hundred years. The Christian lover of his country and his fellow-men may well express a similar feeling on his side.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 17 September 1921]

How Jews Ruled and Ruined Tammany Hall

Within the memory even of young men, Tammany Hall has been the synonym of all political trickery, in the vocabulary of popular criticism. Tammany Hall was held up as the worst example of boss rule and political corruption that it was possible to find in either of the parties. Its very name became a stigma.

But even the most unobservant newspaper reader must have observed the gradual fading out of Tammany Hall from public comment, the cessation of the bitter criticism, the entire absence of headlines bristling with ugly charges, and the calling of the hosts of good citizenship to do battle against the grim bossism that maintained its headquarters at the Wigwam.

Why this change? Is it due to the dying out of Tammany Hall as a political force? No, Tammany is still there, as any New York politician will tell you. Is it due, then, to a reform of that organization? No, the Tammany tiger has not changed its stripes. Then, perhaps, this change is due to public sentiment? Not at all. The explanation is to be found along other lines.

There was a time when fearless publications told the truth about Tammany, but Harper’s Weekly and others which waged fierce war against the Tiger, have either gone out of existence or have fallen under control of the Jews. The silence which has shrouded certain matters must not be noted and set aside without reference to the changed control of the press. There was a time when public bodies like the Citizens’ Union organized to oppose Tammany and to keep a volunteer vigil on its activities; these groups have succumbed to Jewish contributions and officership and no longer stand guard.

The outcry against Tammany seemed to be hushed the moment that Tammany patronage fell into the hands of New York Jews, where it now reposes, the Kehillah being the real political center, and Tammany but a distributing station—a sort of organizational “Gentile front” for the more powerful Kehillah. A few Tammany leaders are permitted to strut out in front, but everyone knows that from the Wigwam chiefs the power has departed, it is now to be found in Jewish conferences. Murphy is still the titular head of Tammany, but like a Samson shorn, he is not feared and obeyed as of yore. In fact, the Judaization of Tammany Hall is now complete. Once in a while the Irish—always a match for the Jews—rear their heads and show battle, but for the most part Jewish money rules and the Tiger lies down.

Tammany Hall was one of the strongest political organizations ever seen in the United States, potent not only in municipal and state politics, but often exercising a decisive influence on national affairs. It was, without exaggeration, powerful.

If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power. Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequiously. As Tammany was power and the gate of power, it was natural that the Jews of the biggest Jewish city in the world should court it. Doubtless, they were also affected by the incongruity of the fact that in the biggest Jewish city, the most solid political power was non-Jewish. That was a condition which called for correction.

When the German Jewish banker, Schoenberg, came to this country under the name of August Belmont to represent the interests of the Rothschilds, his keen eye at once took in the situation and at once he began to court the favor of Tammany. He became a member and a supporter. It was good business for this Jewish banker, because the funds of the Rothschilds were heavily invested in New York tractions. The properties of city tractions were and to a great extent still are, as in all American cities, at the mercy of the local Tammany power, by whatever name it may be known. Belmont was insinuating himself under the wing of power to protect the investments for which he was responsible.

August Belmont eventually attained the coveted eminence of Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society. The Belmont family for a time represented the sole Jewish banking support of Tammany Hall, but that honor is now divided among many.

In Richard Croker’s day, when corruption went hand in hand with power, and power apparently was none the weaker for it, we find that this notorious leader’s intimate friend, business partner and political associate was a Jew—Andrew Freedman. Freedman and Croker lived together at the Democratic Club in Fifth Avenue, Tammany politicians even then having become rich enough to despise Fourteenth Avenue. Freedman held the purse strings of the organization, as head of the Committee on Finance, and he was Croker’s representative and mouthpiece when the chief went into exile on an over-sea estate.

The most recent Jewish power in Tammany Hall, and one of the most liberal contributors to Tammany campaign funds, is the lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer, whose specialty of recent years seems to be to serve as the battering ram of the Jewish power against interests which it wants destroyed, and whose efforts are usually camouflaged under exaggerated journalistic advertisements as being wholly in the public interest. Mr. Untermeyer is not in particularly good humor with Tammany these days, because of the recent defeat of his son, Irving Untermeyer, for a judgeship. There was somewhere a slip. The Jews deserted the Wilson ship anyway, apparently seeing what was coming in the way of retribution for the colossal and amazing mismanagement of war business which was principally in their hands; and in the ensuing mix-up, a scion of the house of Untermeyer tasted defeat.

Tammany numbers other Jews among its supporters. Nathan Straus, one of the owners of R. H. Macy & Company, has been for years an active member of the organization and one of the rulers of its inner councils.

A Jewish ghetto politician, Henry M. Goldfogle, has represented the Jewish interests in Congress for a number of years, and expected to continue, but he slipped in the election and has recently been “taken care of” by a city appointment.

There is also Judge Rosalsky who has been implicated in a number of interesting matters which illustrate the completeness of the Jewish network of control in New York City.

One might mention also M. L. Erlanger and Warley Platzek, justices of the supreme court of the state of New York, but if one began a list of the Jewish judiciary of that city, where would one end?

Another Tammanyite is Randolph Guggenheimer, founder of the corporation law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermeyer and Marshall—Untermeyer being the aforesaid grand inquisitor of Gentile activities generally and Marshall being head of the American Jewish Committee and the Kehillah.

It was doubtless necessary for a Jewry that contemplated control of the judiciary as well as special protection for certain powerful Jewish enterprises that are near enough to the borderline of the law to merit question—it was necessary to obtain control of the supreme political engine through which favors were disbursed in local politics. And control of such organizations can always be had by money.

Not that the Jews threw themselves entirely into Tammany. The Jew’s natural political home seems to be in the Republican party, for thither he returns after venture elsewhere. But his predilection for the Republican party does not move the Jew to make the mistake of being exclusively the partisan of one group. It is better, as he knows, to control both groups.

As a matter of political fact, strong as is the Jewish element in Tammany, it is still stronger in the ranks of the Republican party, while New York Socialism is completely headed and manned by Jews. This renders it extremely easy for the Jews to swing support in whichever direction they choose, and for Kehillah to fulfill any threat it may make. It also insures that any Jewish candidate on any ticket will be elected. The fluke in the case of young Untermeyer is perhaps not to be entirely explained politically; other causes were doubtless working in that matter.

It is a long time since Ferdinand Levy bore the distinction of being the first Jew in New York to hold a political job. He was only a coroner, and the man who appointed him was only a fire commissioner, but the fire commissioner was Richard Croker. And Levy was solidly backed by the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, whose success in this matter laid the foundation for more ambitious demands later.

But at the beginning, the Kehillah Jews adopted the ancient policy, not of putting forward their own people, but non-Jews who could be useful to Judah. The difference between pro-Jewish politicians who are not themselves Jews, and politicians of the Jewish race, is that the former in office can sometimes go further than the Jew in office can, without detection. This has been true at least up to this time, but it will probably not be true very long, now that the people’s eyes are being opened. The Jewish officeholder is only standing for his race, but the “Gentile front” has betrayed the people for the pottage of Jewish favor.

Thus, in the early days of Tammany, indeed until comparatively recent years, we see the “Gentile front” in Tammany offices and basking in the glory of Tammany publicity, but in the background there is always his “Jewish control.” This also is a formula for citizens who wish to know the meaning of things otherwise unexplainable—“look for the ‘Jewish control.’”

To this end, therefore, the Jews have been strong in all parties, so that whichever way the election went, the Jews would win. In New York it is always the Jewish party that wins. The campaign is staged as an entertainment, a diversion for the people; they are permitted to think and act as if they were really making their own government, but it is always the Jews that win.

And if after having elected their man or a group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of “scandals” and “investigations” and “impeachments,” for the removal of the disobedient official. Usually a man with a “past” proves the most obedient instrument but even a good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise him.

It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of campaign matters has been so skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him. To arrange this is part of the thoroughness of Jewish control. And, of course, the American people have been sufficiently trained to roar against the public official immediately the first Jewish political hound emits its warning bay.

Amazing as is the technique of the Jewish political process, the readiness with which the American people can be counted on to do their part in forwarding the game is still more amazing.

What Mr. Hylan, the present mayor of New York has done to merit chastisement, is scarcely clear to a non-partisan investigator. But the fact that the Jews have set out to “get” him for something is evident on every side.

In the Untermeyer so-called “housing investigation,” the people hauled up were non-Jews and the result of the whole business has been a stronger Jewish hold than ever on the housing affairs of New York. Jews are exempt from such inquisitions. The choice prey are non-Jewish business houses whose secrets may be forced and whose good name may be stained under cover of a legal procedure. There is such a thing as blackmail so entirely respectable as to be unsuspected.

Governor Sulzer, of New York, was the choice of the Jews. They subscribed money for his campaign, forced it on him, and kept careful account of it. Finally, under pressure of a compelling sense of justice, Sulzer pardoned a non-Jewish valet of an important Jewish New York family, a young man, whom a coterie of Jews very prominent in the political, financial and social worlds had contrived to “put away” for a period of 30 years. Sulzer had no option but to pardon young Brandt. But he paid the penalty. He was impeached. The Jews who supported him testified against him and their checks were used to assist his dismissal.

The story of young Brandt hangs heavily over the heads of some of the proudest Jewish names in New York.

Playing on both sides of the political fence, and always retaining a string on the men they elect to office, are two Jewish characteristics which should not fail to be reckoned with. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, in its recent articles showing the hand of Paul Warburg in the Federal Reserve System, was able to prove by Mr. Warburg’s own words that his firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, during the three-cornered fight between Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, supported all three. The Jewish owners of R. H. Macy & Company, New York, illustrate the same principle; while Nathan Straus looked after affairs at Tammany Hall, his brother and partner, Isador Straus, was one of the most active opponents of Tammany. Were the interests of the two men therefore different? Not at all.

Take the firm of Guggenheimer, Untermeyer and Marshall. This is a notable firm for the part it plays in the people’s business. Every community in America has been affected by Louis Marshall’s decisions as head of the American Jewish Committee. Untermeyer is the arch-inquisitor for Jewry. Randolph Guggenheimer, the founder of the firm, achieved the foremost influence of any except the Chief in the old Wigwam, and was a power to be reckoned with in all matters. But Louis Marshall is a “staunch” Republican and a member of the Republican Club. Here again is the favorite method of including all parties under the capacious wing of the Jewish program.

Hence the popularity of “Fusion” in New York City elections. It has become the fad, but its most notable purpose is to insure the election of a Jew whatever his politics may be. In some Assembly Districts it is impossible to find anyone but a Jew to vote for. When Otto A. Rosalsky, a jurist who was implicated in the Brandt scandal, was reelected Judge of General Sessions in 1920, he was the “Fusion” candidate on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. It was perhaps fortunate for his candidacy that he was. The point just now is that whenever a candidate may be vulnerable, it is very desirable to forestall a fight upon him by eliminating all opposition before the election. “Fusion” is another matter that should be carefully scrutinized in behalf of American rule of American cities.

By the way things are going in New York, these inter-party and “fusion” expedients may soon be unnecessary, because in any event it will be most difficult to avoid electing a Jew. Of the candidates of all parties for the offices of justice of the supreme court of New York, numbering 26, 14 were Jews. Of the Democratic presidential electors, 13 were Jews. Of the Republican presidential electors, 14 were Jews. Of the Socialist presidential electors, 22 were Jews.

The strength of Tammany had exactly the same source as the strength of the Kehillah, namely, in the foreign population; the difference being that the Kehillah had a more compact foreign mass to draw upon. But both the Jewish leaders and the Tammany leaders have always been alertly aware of the fact that their power depended upon an uninterrupted flow of immigration, to supply the losses sustained by the Americanization of the people. It is always the un-Americanized foreigner that makes the best material for the Kehillah’s and Tammany’s purposes. The Kehillah is based upon the principle of recognizing racial minorities, and Tammany has made a specialty of giving representation of racial minorities in its councils. This was a liberal policy, and was thoroughly American in its original intent (as Tammany was a thoroughly American assemblage at its inception) but it was soon seized upon by the Jews and used to their own ends, and to the eventual ruin of all except Jewish representation. Thus all through the history of immigration activity, Tammany has been on the side of the wide open gate without any restrictions. The lower the type of immigrant, the more easily amenable it is to the ward boss’s orders.

Tammany of recent years has been the able seconder of the Kehillah in all efforts to frustrate control of immigration.

The third great influx of immigration into the United States occurred in 1884 and was really the cause of the beginning of the degeneration of Tammany Hall. The great wave was composed of Russian, Austrian and Hungarian Jews, whose arrival was followed by a memorable period of crime, the marks of which remain to this day. Indeed, the downfall of Richard Croker was a direct result.

At that time the police department and the police courts before which all criminal cases in the city were first brought, were in the hands of Tammany Hall. The result was a partnership between local government and crime which has not been duplicated outside of Semitic countries.

Immigrant Jews of the shadier type organized an association called The Max Hochstim Association, which was known during the Lexow Investigation as “The Essex Market Court Gang.” One of its chief rulers was Martin Engel, Tammany leader of the Eighth Assembly District. The “king” of this Jewish district was a man named Solomon who had changed his name to the less revealing one of “Smith,” and who became known as “Silver Dollar Smith” because of the fact that he ruled his little empire from the Silver Dollar Saloon, which gained its name from the silver dollars that were cemented into the floor of his place of business. This saloon was just opposite the Essex Market Court, which was thronged daily by hordes of Yiddish criminals, the bondsmen, false witnesses and lawyers.

Let not the fastidious reader deem it unnecessary to linger longer round the old police court at Essex Market, for out therefrom came a word which has fixed itself in common English speech—the term “shyster,” by which a certain type of lawyer is described. A Clinton street lawyer named Scheuster, whose practices were quite characteristic, made himself very obnoxious to Justice Osborne. Whenever another Yiddish lawyer attempted a shady trick, the judge would openly denounce it as “Scheuster practice,” and so it came that the first men in the profession to bear the name “shyster” were the Yiddish lawyers of Essex Market Court.

To make a nasty story brief, the Max Hochstim Association became the first organized White Slaver group in America, and the revelations made by the Lexow Committee are shuddering glimpses into that lowest form of depravity—a cooly conducted, commercialized, consolidated traffic in women. The traffic was made to yield dividends to politicians, to Tammany Jews in particular. The Ghetto became the Red Light District of New York. The first man to undertake the export trade in women with foreign countries, especially South America, was a man who later became a Tammany notable.

The surprising fact is that, although these matters are written in official documents, and although the same matters have been written into the record of every similar investigation which has been made, Jewish leaders persist in denying that the leaders in this particular form of depravity are Jews. When the United States Government made a nation-wide investigation, it found and recorded the same facts. The New York Kehillah came into existence as a defense organization at a time when the exposure of the Jewish White Slave traffic threatened to overwhelm the New York ghetto.

The Max Hochstim Association was not the only organization of its kind. The other was the New York Independent Benevolent Association, which was organized in 1896 by a party of Jewish white slave dealers as they were returning from the funeral of Sam Engel, brother of Martin Engel, Tammany leader of the red light district.

The gangs that formed the backbone of Tammany power in the slum districts were made up of “cadets.” Their principal field of operation was the cheap dance halls. Paul Kelly’s gang originated in the halls about lower Broadway. Monk Eastman’s gang grew strong in the Russian Jewish District below Delancey street. And Kid Twist’s gang developed close to a dance hall for Galician Jews on the far East Side. All of these three were Jewish gang leaders. They were slavers as their forbears were in the days of Rome’s decline; they were bootleggers before the days of prohibition; and they constituted a strong support of the international narcotic ring which to this day has defied the law by corrupting the officers of the law.

It was to associations like these that the lights of Tammany lent their names. Tim Sullivan was a vice president of the Max Hochstim Association. The name of the Honorable Henry M. Goldfogle also appeared on the picnic announcements.

The exposure which resulted when the white people of New York finally succeeded in getting the forces of law to function impartially for a little while, caused many of the implicated Jews to change their names. These names are now representative of some of the best Jewish families, whose concealed bar sinister is the fact that the foundation of the family fortune was laid in the red light district. Society, sliced down to its seeds, is a queer growth.

It is due in justice to say that men like Tim Sullivan were not the originators of the Jewish abuses referred to, nor willing participants in the gains therefrom. Tammany would do favors for its friends, at the police court or elsewhere; Tammany had its occasional political upheavals; Tammany believed that they who profited by political spoils should divide with the Wigwam’s treasury; but with such traffic as seduction and barter in women, Tammany had never been compromised until the Yiddish invasion of New York and the Judaization of the Wigwam. This much must be said for the Irish and American leaders.

The situation is the same in Boston. An Irish city, its chief political control is in the hands of Jews. The old-time Irish leaders are still permitted to be out in front, but the inner power has departed from them. One Boston ward, where once none but Irish lived, now contains only Jews, but the old-time Irish boss retains his seat. This is by favor of the Jews and nothing else.

The same state of facts accounts in large degree for the connection between a man like Tim Sullivan and the Jews. “Tim,” as everyone knew him, was leader of a district inhabited by Irish and Germans. Then the Jews came in. And then began the Jews’ practice of profiting by the people’s dislike of them.

Foreign Jews well know that they are disliked. It is one of their assets which never fails to produce dividends. They choose the part of the city where they desire to live, and a few move in. Their immediate neighbors move out. More Jews move in—more of the others move out. The property nearest the Jews always goes down in value. People will sell at a loss rather than live engulfed in a ghetto.

It was so in Tim Sullivan’s district. As the Jews swarmed in, the Irish and Germans fled north. Sullivan stood his ground. It was his old territory, he would not leave it, nor remove his family. He cultivated the new arrivals and made a partnership with the ex-kosher chicken butcher, Martin Engel.

The Jews lived under Sullivan’s rule for a time, awaiting the moment when they should know what to do for themselves. The Yiddish flood increased until the district was crowded, and then the Jews demanded representation for themselves. With a premonition that a new force had arisen, Tim Sullivan played safe and helped the Jews to get recognition—Martin Engel was made leader of the old Eighth. But Sullivan had previously gone to Tammany—or to what remained of the old non-Jewish Tammany—and exacted an understanding that his rule should be left unchanged below Fourteenth street.

From that time forward, in spite of the understanding, Sullivan’s power began to wane, principally because he continued to get in deeper and deeper with the Jews. He went into Jewish lines of business. He formed a theatrical partnership with George Kraus, among his enterprises being the Imperial Music Hall, the Dewey Theater, and the traveling Eagle Burlesque Company. Still the old district continued to become crowded and overcrowded and saturated with Yiddish newcomers, for whom neither the name Sullivan nor the traditions of the district had any meaning.

In his closing years, scarcely more than a hanger-on around the former scene of his power, Tim Sullivan bitterly lamented the ease with which he was led into associations that undermined his power.

Croker was destroyed in public confidence by the terrific shock of the exposure attending the Jewish “cadet” activities. Sullivan, equally picturesque, was the slowly shoved-out victim of Jewish infiltration. There were other occurrences and other downfalls, all of which are a part of the real story of Tammany.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 24 September 1921]

“I need hardly explain that I do not think Jews ought to insist overmuch on their rights or nationality in a negative sense. They ought to be as much Jews as they can, but ought to be as little as possible of what is merely antiChristian. For the Jews to try to get a song out of the public schools because it praises Jesus is natural but perhaps hardly wise. I admit that question, however, is an extremely complex and baffling one. Again, the Jews have naturally taken a great interest in this war, but in that case also they ought to choose as far as possible the more tolerant view. Too much hostility to Russia was shown, it seems to me, when some of their spokesmen were fighting over the wording of the Immigration Act. They seemed to be fighting not for a real gain, but simply to rub their political power in America into the Russian mind.”

—Norman Hapgood.

Jew Wires Direct Tammany’s Gentile Puppets

The proposal that non-Jews emigrate from New York City, 500,000 in the first exodus, and 500,000 in the second, to hasten the event which is held to be certain of occurrence, namely, that New York shall become an all-Jewish city, may be a joke; but it is no joke that the Jews themselves discuss and have proposed that the City of New York be separated from the state of New York, and made both a state and city in itself. This would entail three governments—state, county and municipal—whose offices the Jews could parcel out as they pleased. Besides, it would rid them of Albany. It is a most amazing fact that the state capital, as bad as it is, has always been able to defeat the New York Jew in his most ardently pursued quests, as notably, his insistent appeal to abrogate the Sunday law.

Of course, if the non-Jews emigrated from New York, the Jews would soon follow. They are not self-sufficient. If New York could be isolated, Jewish initiative would not suffice to provide enough potatoes for the inhabitants.

It is too trite to say that New York is already in the hands of the Jews. But it would be most startling to give a schedule illustrating how completely this is so. The New Yorker himself can scarcely comprehend the extent of his vassalage to the Jew. The average intelligent New Yorker does not know what the Kehillah is, nor yet how it works. Like a child born within the sound of Niagara Falls, the New Yorker takes Jewish supremacy as a matter of course, as the way things should be, and as the way they probably are elsewhere. The New Yorker is thus like a native of the Balkans.

The Hylan administration, ostensibly non-Jewish, is really Jewish, as any New York administration must necessarily be, except there should arise a man whose ambition would be to prove that New York could be better governed if the Jews should be excluded from the government. Well-informed New Yorkers say that the power of Hylan is Hirschfield.

This is a rather peculiar situation to those who do not understand how the Jewish leaders work. Directly you say the Hylan administration is Jewish, it is objected: “But it is the arch-Jewish inquisitor Untermeyer, who is trying to break down the Hylan administration!” Exactly. That is the game. It’s inside and outside that does it. There is power gained in making them and there is power gained in breaking them, and often it is profitable to try both ways with the same man. That is the way Russia went: there were Jews plentifully sprinkled throughout the government of Russia (in spite of the “persecution”) and there were Jews outside. Between the two, they got Russia. It is the same in a Texas city today. Four non-Jewish candidates for postmaster were made the center of a political deadlock—up through the deadlock pops a Jew as a compromise candidate for all sections. A sufficient number of Jews were available in that city to keep all the non-Jewish candidates in a deadlock until their own man was trotted out. The “Gentile mind,” of course, does not easily realize these turnings and twistings of group conspiracy. And that is why the Jews feel safe, as a rule: they rely on what they call “Gentile stupidity.” The Gentile says, “incredible!” And the traditional Jewish game is incredible, until by mountainous proofs and centuries of illustration the actuality of it is forced home to the mind.

But to return to the New York City government: The police department has its Jewish streak in the higher offices—a Jewish police commissioner who has fortunately escaped thus far the full story of his career. The department of health, where it actually touches the people, is Jewish, although occasionally a distinguished non-Jewish name meets the eye in the roster of the higher officials. The public health is becoming more and more a Jewish monopoly in all our cities. The department of accounts, the board of child welfare, the board of inebriety, the municipal service commission, the board of taxes and assessments, are all under the leadership and domination of Jews. The judiciary becomes increasingly Jewish, litigation is almost overwhelmingly Jewish, and the consequences to the reputation of the courts of justice and the profession of the law are well understood. Real estate exploitation and speculation is strictly Jewish, the profiteers treating even their own co-nationalists with the utmost cruelty.

In short, New York’s most influential press (within New York) is the Yiddish press; New York’s real government is the Yiddish Kehillah; New York’s real administration of the law is the Yiddish administration; New York’s real politics is Jewish. A little more, and New York’s official language would be the Yiddish dialect.

In all this Tammany Hall is little more than a name; it is one of the rallying centers which the Jews have left the non-Jew who still interests himself in New York politics. There must be rallying places for the non-Jews, and one or two do not hurt. The Jew has the double advantage in such a matter, for while he claims equality with all, he denies equality with any. That is, any Jew proclaims his right to join any fraternity, or any club, or any society, or any party whose members are chiefly non-Jewish, but where is the Jewish fraternity, or club, or society that admits non-Jewish members? The newspapers carried the report, after a certain occurrence, that hundreds of Jews had offered to join the Knights of Columbus! It was very typical of Jewish character. But let any non-Jew attempt to join B’nai B’rith or the Hebrew Young Men’s Association, or the Menorah Society, or any of the others: he will see how far the principle of equality operates. “We want to be part of yours, but we want our own for ourselves,” is the Jewish attitude.

So, politically, the New York Jew has the advantage. He belongs, together with the non-Jew, to organizations like Tammany or the Republican Club—but the non-Jew cannot with him belong to the Kehillah.

It is all so very familiar: the Jew insists on double everywhere. In the Balkans he insists on a double citizenship. He insists on a double protection. He insists on a double standard of education. He insists on all his own religious rights as strenuously as he insists that all Christian majority rights shall be stamped out in this country. He insists that he shall have his Sabbath and that you shall not have yours. He wants his own social rights and yours too—but he wants you to have only your own and not his with it. It casts serious doubts on Jewish intelligence that this course should be so seriously pursued, as if on the one hand the humor of the “nerve,” and on the other hand the disgusting impudence of it, had never appeared to his consciousness.

In New York, therefore, the Jew politically belongs twice, while all non-Jews belong but once, and it can easily be perceived that this is an advantage.

In the previous article it was rehearsed how Tammany besmirched its name by association with Jews who used the organization as a protection for their traffic in vice. This was in 1894. The revelations were so terrible that in any other community they would have led to a complete abolition of any possible chance of recovery, but as it was never made plain to the people that the traffic in vice was not a sudden appearance of rottenness among Americans, but was the normal activity of an alien racial strain, the moral power of exposure was dissipated. The people were left staggered by what they were allowed to believe about the origin of the horror. People said it was Tammany because the press said it was Tammany, and yet people could not understand how it could be Tammany, and so in the midst of hesitancy the fire of reform burned out. It was exactly like these days when we are told that “American business men” abroad are doing terrible things; yet even while the press declares them to be “American” we cannot understand how Americans could do such things—and we never get the key to the matter, nor see the solution, until we stumble on to the fact that these so-called “Americans” are not Americans at all, but alien Jews. Over in Canada the name, “American” is becoming a stigma because it is borne by men who are not Americans. What Canadians point out in the United States as definitely “American” is mostly Jewish, but how are the Canadians to know? The national name suffers. The whole cause of evil is camouflaged and a nation pays the price of a racial group’s misdeeds. There should be some method of protecting this forging of national names.

Thus Tammany became a synonym for what was not characteristically Tammany at all, but what was characteristically Jewish.

The exposure of 1894 disclosed that vice was really a thing of cold blood. Evil that springs from passion and impulse really amounts to far less than is commonly supposed. It is when passion is deliberately cultivated and impulse stimulated, that the great bulk of the world’s social evil occurs. And this stimulation is undertaken in cold blood by those who make profit out of providing the means of gratification—like the old-fashioned bar keepers who served very salty free lunches to stimulate the sale of beer.

This kind of vice is not a thing to be shamed by exposure as can be done with involuntary vice, as it might be called. This cold-blooded merchandising of human weakness was merely a matter of profits, and if business had been interfered with by a Lexow Committee it was rather unfortunate, but good business required that operations be resumed at the earliest possible moment. And so, though the investigations of 1894 were successful and the exposure duly made, it was not to be expected that mere oratory and printer’s ink would suffice to keep the serpent down.

It was only seven years before scandal flamed again throughout the length and breadth of New York, and strangely enough—strange enough in all conscience for “Gentile fronts” of this day and generation to heed!—it was found again that the traffic in evil and its ramifications all over the land, and even to foreign countries, was in the hands of Jews. There was no doubt about it. There was even no accident about it. The fact was as continuous as it was colossal.

William Travers Jerome, then Justice of the Court of Special Sessions, made in 1901 a ringing indictment of conditions in the city and used the full power of his court to punish wrongdoers; he even went so far as to specify individuals and political connections—but he did not mention the keyword of it all, which was “Jew.” It was doubtless wise for him that he did not, else he could not have enjoyed the subsequent political career which came to him.

Tammany was defeated in the election of 1901. The defeat was due to the same cause—the stigma of Jew-controlled vice traffic under political protection.

It was at this time that Richard Croker “abdicated.” He was a rich man. He sailed for Ireland, where he became a country squire on his Wantage estate.

Public curiosity was fed the statement that Croker had selected Lewis Nixon to be his successor, but this turn in Tammany’s career is too important to be thus misstated. The truth is that when Croker left he surrendered Tammany to the Jews.

Croker could confirm this if he would talk, if he should be permitted to talk. It is, however, not well to have garrulous old men spilling the secrets of other days. Croker in his age took a bride who is said to be of “Indian descent,” and he has not been much in touch with his family nor the public since.

Lewis Nixon was the convenient and perhaps unconscious “Gentile front.” The real ruler of Tammany in Croker’s stead was Andrew Freedman, mentioned in the former article as Croker’s friend and house mate.

(Judging from the habit of individual Jews to room with baseball players before the baseball scandal, and the result of another Jew’s living with Croker, it might be just as well to keep an eye on those other men who are in positions to do favors or influence legislation, whose close cronies happen to be Jews. Some of these friendships may indeed be perfectly conceived; but there are numerous instances where the plans of the “Jewish friend” are very completely matured through the agency of the “Gentile chum.”)

So, upon departure of Croker from these shores, we find Tammany under the dictatorship of a Jew who was Croker’s chief influence, if not his absolute master.

But by the time this occurred, it was useless for Tammany to rebel. Tammany men who had noticed the infiltration of Jews and were alarmed by it had consoled themselves with the thought that, at least, the higher offices were immune from Jewish occupation. This consolation served only to permit the filling of the lower offices by Jews, with less protest from the membership. By the time the Jews were ready to permit Croker to “abdicate,” they had permeated every part of the Wigwam and the assumption of supreme control was thus made a simple matter. Croker stepped aside; instantly into his place stepped the Jew, Freedman, operating through Nixon.

It was too late for Tammany to remonstrate. Tammany could not protest against the Wigwam becoming Jewish, because the Wigwam already was Jewish. To remonstrate then was to ruin Tammany. Becoming reconciled to what seemed to be inevitable, Tammany leaders saw that their only hope of survival came through preserving Jewish support.

Presently even Nixon was relegated to the background and Freedman issued his orders directly. The Jews, however, with great astuteness continued to make much of Nixon, because he was the last thin veil which concealed the change which had come over Tammany, and he was valuable to that extent. He was, unwillingly, perhaps, their puppet, but even puppets must be accorded their proper dignity. Nixon was tendered a great reception in 1902, but the influential men on the reception committee were mostly Jews: Andrew Freedman was chairman; then followed the names of Oliver H. P. Belmont, Max F. Ihmson, Samuel Untermeyer, Nathan Straus, Randolph Guggenheimer, Henry M. Goldfogle, Herman Joseph, and others.

On the executive committee of Tammany Hall at this time were Randolph

Guggenheimer, Isaac Fromme, Nathan Straus, Henry M. Goldfogle, O. H. P. Belmont, and other Jews.

On the committee on law were Samuel Untermeyer, M. Warlet Platzek, Abraham Levy, Henry W. Unger, Morris Cukor and Fred B. House.

Andrew Freedman had complete control of the committee on finance that was nominally headed by Lewis Nixon.

Randolph Guggenheimer was president of the municipal council.

Ferdinand Levy was on the committee on resolutions and correspondence.

Jews had so spread themselves as to constitute a controlling group in all the assembly districts that were under tribute to Tammany. In the “Fighting Eighth” district, Martin Engel was leader. His chief aid was “Manny” Eichner, chairman of the Isidor Cohn Association and of the Young Men’s Democratic Association. His other assistants, Max J. Porges, Max Levein, and Moe Levy were floor managers of the dances and balls of the Florence Sullivan Association.

In the Tenth district, Simon Steingutt, “Mayor of Second Avenue,” was one of the hardest workers in Tammany affairs.

Edward Mandell was the active Jewish Tammany man in the Twelfth district.

In the Eighteenth district, Maurice Blumenthal was one of the principal workers. He devoted his career chiefly to the training of Jewish speakers for the Wigwam.

The Eighteenth district was known as “the Gashouse district,” notorious for the Gashouse scandals over padded pay rolls, and here Charley Murphy ruled, his aides being Julius Simon, Edward E. Slumasky, Joseph Schlesinger, Leopold Worms, Hugo Siegel, Alfred B. Marx, Nathan Fernbacher, and other Jews.

And so on through the list. Among the Sachems of the Tammany Society there were to be found the wealthier and more socially exalted Jews.

However, the Jews made their cyclically recurrent mistakes: they carried things with too high a hand, and rebellion broke out. It is this Jewish tendency to boast and overdo that has always given the game away. Superficial observers and writers like John Spargo and Norman Hapgood have observed the recurrent periods of protest against Jewish presumption and bumptiousness and have explained them as being recurrent spasms of a vile poison which is supposed to reside in the blood of the Gentiles—the vile poison of anti-Semitism. That, of course, is the conventional Jewish propagandist explanation, and Spargo and Hapgood are merely retailing it. They say it always breaks out after wars. Why after wars? Because in wars the world sees more clearly than at other times the real purpose and personality of the Jew. Thus, it is not antiSemitism that breaks out—it is Semitism, gross and exaggerated Semitism; and the serum that forms in the social body to encist and control the germ of Semitism comes in the form of public exposure and protest. That serum is working now—the serum of publicity, and the Jewish program cannot endure it. Study the history of all things whatsoever into which Jews inject themselves, from summer resorts to empires, and you see the same cycle appearing.

Thus it happened in Tammany Hall—“too much Jew” engendered revolt. Lewis Nixon became aware of his position. As a gentlemen of standing and responsibility he could not continue in a position whose falsity had become clear to him. When he accepted the leadership of Tammany Hall, it was not with a purpose to continue the old order. His understanding was that he was to be left free to restore Tammany to the plane of its former serious purpose and respectable character. He discovered he was being used as the “respectable Gentile front” behind whose name the Jews expected to carry on the old game. Therefore, in May, 1902, three months after the great reception above mentioned, Nixon resigned as leader of Tammany Hall. Doubtless the reception that was tendered him was for the purpose of inducing him to love the exaltation of his position so much that he would sacrifice its moral obligations.

Nixon accompanied his resignation with a speech in which he protested that ever since he had accepted the leadership of Tammany he had been hampered in his every action by a group headed by Andrew Freedman; they dictated the names that were to be placed on the list of Sachems: “When I rebelled, I found that at every turn I would be opposed by this coterie of interferers; I found that all my important acts had to be viséed before they could become effective.” He said he could no longer retain his position and his self-respect; he had to give up one or the other.

With this Mr. Nixon vanished from the scene of Tammany politics.

The resignation of Mr. Nixon had a bad effect on the reputation of Tammany with the public. The plan had been to allow him to serve as long as ordinarily and then replace him with a Jew by means of the usual process of selection. But the resignation and the explanation that accompanied it, showing as it did the Jewish influence in Tammany, made it seem inadvisable to follow with a Jewish leader. So the district leaders were obliged to find another “Gentile front,” only this time one who would prove sufficiently docile. There was enough rankling disfavor against the Jews in the old organization to warrant this observance of appearances, at least.

The dictatorship of Freedman was seen to be a failure, much as the dictatorship of Trotzky is seen to be a failure. A rearrangement of committees automatically eliminated him from control, at the same time the name of Croker was dropped. A triumvirate of leaders was chosen, of whom Charles F. Murphy became and remains the chief. “Boss Murphy” he is called. Mr. Murphy has been an ideal “front,” not attempting to do anything, not attempting to interfere with the Jews doing anything, keeping wisely silent and thereby gaining a reputation for silent wisdom. Mr. Murphy is a millionaire. Those who do the higher Jewish leaders’ bidding get their reward that way; there is no other reward they can hope for; certainly they never have a reward of public confidence and the people’s gratitude.

That is the status of Tammany Hall at the present time. A few of the Old Guard are left at their posts, but they are officers in name only. Tammany is no longer denounced by the public press, but the Jewish leaders of Tammany live daily to a chorus of praise in the Jewish-controlled newspapers of New York. Samuel Untermeyer, for example, receives more publicity in New York than does the President of the United States, but it is not discriminating publicity; it does not penetrate to the inner purposes and consequences of his actions.

Those who were the lesser Jewish lieutenants of Tammany a few years ago have now arrived at posts of influence and affluence. Morris Cukor was made president of the municipal service commission, to be succeeded by former State Senator Abraham Kaplan. Fred B. House rose to be a city magistrate. The city marshals are mostly Jewish. Jews predominate in the College of the City of New York. Jews control the municipal courts, the city magistrates’ courts, the city court, the New York state court of appeals, the New York state supreme court. They rule in the departments enumerated in the fore part of this article. The New York judiciary has a distinctly Semitic complexion.

The leadership of the Tammany-controlled districts tells the same story. In the second, the leader is M. S. Levine; in the Sixth, David Lazarus; in the Eighth, S. Goldenkranz, F. Bauman and S. Salinger; in the Ninth, Mrs. P. Lau, in the Seventeenth, Nathan Burkan—and so on.

The Jewish conquest of Tammany, however, is only one phase of the conquest of New York. The Jewish objective is more than political. Merely to strive that the lucrative and powerful offices of the city shall fall to their people, is not the end in view. New York has been turned into the Red Center of America. There most of the alien treason carried on against the government of the United States has its source. The United States Government has been compelled at times to regard New York as almost alien soil, but even that watchfulness on the part of the national government is relaxed as Jewish influence becomes more potent at Washington. Tammany is a convenient cover for ostensible political activity as the Kehillah is for the more radical and anti-American racial activity. The United States Government could not do better than to investigate—through a committee of invulnerable Americans—the Jewish activities of that center. And that there is much to investigate is indicated by the rush of Jews to Washington when it was recently proposed in the United States Senate that such a thing be done.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 1 October 1921]

B’nai B’rith Leader Discusses the Jews

To the pro-Jewish spokesmen who have filled the air with cries of “lies” and “slander,” to those self-appointed guardians of “American ideals” who rule out with rare finality all those who would dare suggest that possibly there is a hidden side of the Jewish Question, it must come as something of a jolt to be reminded that in this series there is scarcely a line that is without high Jewish authority.

The Protocols themselves are written for centuries in Jewish authoritative teachings and records. All the plans that have been described from time to time in these articles are written in the fundamental laws of the Jews. And all that the ancients have taught, the modern Jews have reaffirmed.

The writer of these articles has had to take constant counsel of prudence in his selection of material, for the Jews have always counted confidently on the fact that if the whole truth were told in one comprehensive utterance, no one would believe it. Thus, bigots and minds bursting with the discoveries they have made, have never been feared by the Jews. They counted on the incapacity of the non-Jews to believe or receive certain knowledge. They know that facts are not accepted on proof, but only on understanding. Non-Jews cannot understand why human beings should lend themselves to certain courses. They are, however, beginning to understand, and the proof is therefore becoming more significant.

There are yet more important revelations to be made, always following closely the best Jewish sources, and when these revelations are made, it will be impossible for the Jewish leaders to keep silent or to deny. The time is coming for American Jewry to slough off the leadership which has led it and left in the bog. Leadership knows that. Indeed, it is amazing to discover the number of indications that the attempts made to suppress THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT have been made principally to prevent the Jews reading it. The leaders do not care how many non-Jews read these articles; but they do not desire their own people to read them. The Jewish leaders do not desire their people’s eyes to be opened.

Why? Because, just now, only Jews can truly know whether the statements made in these articles are true or not. Non-Jews may know here and there, as their observations may confirm the printed statements. But informed Jews really know. And large numbers of the masses of the Jews really know. When they see the truth in all its relationships in these articles, the hitherto “led” Jew may not be so tractable. Hence the effort to keep the non-Jewish point of view away from him.

In support of the statements that these articles have been based on Jewish authority, we quote today a series of declarations by one of the most able of the presidents of the B’nai B’rith, Leo N. Levi. Mr. Levi was American-born and died in 1904. He was a lawyer of distinction and attained the presidency of the international Jewish order, B’nai B’rith, in 1900. He took part in the international politics of his people and is credited with collaborating with Secretary of State John Hay on several important matters. The utterances here quoted were for the most made while he was president of B’nai B’rith, but all of them were published the year after his death under B’nai B’rith auspices. There is therefore no question of their Jewishness.

Non-Jewish defenders of the Jewish program have pretended to much indignation because of references that have been made to the Oriental character of certain Jewish manifestations. The references in these articles have been two in number, once regarding Oriental sensuality as it has been introduced to the American stage by Jewish theatrical panderers, and again in quoting Disraeli, the Jew who became premier of Britain, to the effect that the Jews—his people—were “Mosaic Arabs.”

But it never seemed to have occurred to Leo N. Levi to deny the Oriental character of his race. Instead, he asserted it. On page 104 of the B’nai B’rith memorial, he excuses certain social crudities of the Jew on the ground “that hailing originally from the Orient and having been compelled for twenty centuries to live in a society of his own, he has preserved in his tastes much that is characteristically Oriental.” Again on page 116, he excused the multiplicity of religious rites as being due to the fact that the Jew “drew upon his Oriental imagination for a symbolism that appealed to his ideal emotions.” On page 312, he speaks of the Jews’ “Oriental devotion to their parents.” This easy recognition of the fact is commended to those bootlicking editors who, out of the vastness of their ignorance of the Jewish Question, have seen in the reference to Orientalism an “insult” to the Jews and an unfailing indication of anti-Semitism.

The Jewish Question! Ah, that is another point which pro-Jewish spokesmen hasten to deny, but they will be somewhat disturbed by the candor with which true Jewish spokesmen admit the Question.

In a strong passage on page 101, Mr. Levi says:

“If I have dwelt so long upon this subject, it is because I recognize that if the Jew has been denied so much that is rightfully his, he often claims more than is his due. One of the claims, most persistently urged, is that there is no Jewish Question; that a Jew is a citizen like any other citizen and that as long as he abides by the law and does not subject himself to criminal prosecution or civil action, his doings are beyond legitimate inquiry by the public at large.

“This contention on his part would certainly be well based if he claimed nothing further than the right to live in peace, but when he demands social recognition the whole range of his conduct is a legitimate subject of inquiry against which no technical demurrers can be interposed nor must the Jew be over-sensitive about the inquiry.

“The inconsistencies and the unwisdom exhibited in the consideration of the Jewish Question are not to be found altogether on the side of those who are hostile to the Jews.”

“Since then the refugees from Russia, Galicia and Rumania have raised the Jewish Question to commanding importance. Since then it has dawned on the world that we are witnessing another exodus which promises soon to change the habitat of the Jews to the Western Hemisphere.” (Page 59)

“The Jewish Question cannot be solved by tolerance. There are thousands of well-meaning people who take to themselves great credit for exhibiting a spirit of tolerance toward the Jews.” (Page 98)

Mr. Levi also lays down rules for “the study of the Jewish Question,” and he says that if they were followed the result “would be startling at once to the Jews and the general public.” (Page 93) How far present Jewish leadership has departed from that frank and broad view taken by Mr. Levi, is everywhere evident.

Not that Mr. Levi was a critic of his people, but he was a lawyer who was accustomed to weighing facts, and he saw facts that weighed against his people. But he was pro-Jewish even in his most severe observations. He could make an attack on the rabbis, taunting them with the saying that “many of you are ‘rabbis for revenue only,’” but he could also insist on Jewish solidarity and exclusiveness.

In this connection it may be interesting to see how strongly Mr. Levi supports the contention of Jewish leaders (as outlined in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT of October 9 and 16, 1920) that the Jews are a race and not merely a religion, a nation and not merely a church, and that the term “Jew” is biological rather than theological.

This is specially commended to the attention of those dim-minded shouters of “religious prejudice,” who come into action whenever the Jewish Question is mentioned. (Of “religious prejudice” there are many examples to give in future articles.)

“Certain it is that thus far the race and the religion have been so fused, as it were, that none can say just where the one begins and the other leaves off.” (Page 116)

Attacking the contention of the “liberals” or “reformed Jews” to the effect that “Jew” is the name of a member of religious denomination, and not of a member of a certain race, Mr. Levi says:

“Nothing to my mind is more pregnant with error than this postulate of unreason. (Page 185) It is not true that the Jews are only Jews because of their religion.” (Page 189)

“The Jews are not simply an indiscriminate lot of people who hold to a common belief.” (Page 190)

“A native Eskimo, and American Indian might conscientiously adopt every tenet of the Jewish church, might practice every form and ceremony imposed by the Jewish laws and the Jewish ritual, and as far as the religion is concerned, be a Jew, but yet, no one who will reflect for a moment would class them with the Jews as a people. If the truth were known, a very large percentage of so-called Christians would be found to be believers in the essentials of the Jewish religion, and yet, they are not Jews.

“It requires not only that men should believe in Judaism, but that they should be the descendants in a direct line of that people who enjoyed a temporal government and who owned a country up to the time of the destruction of the second commonwealth.

“That great event took away from the Jews their country and their temporal government; it scattered them over the face of the earth, but it did not destroy the national and race idea which was a part of their nature and of their religion.”

“Who shall say, then, that the Jews are no longer a race? Blood is the basis and sub-stratum of the race idea, and no people on the face of the globe can lay claim with so much right to purity of blood, and unity of blood, as the Jews.”

“If I have reasoned to any purpose, the inquiry of rights in the premises is not to be limited to Jews as exponents of a particular creed, but to the Jews as a race.” (Pages 190-191)

“The religion alone does not constitute the people. As I have already maintained, a believer in the Jewish faith does not by reason of that fact become a Jew. On the other hand, however, a Jew by birth remains a Jew, even though he abjures his religion.” (Page 200)

This is the view of such men as Justice Brandeis, the Jew who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Brandeis says, “Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, his shade of belief, is necessarily a member.”

Believing all this, Mr. Levi subscribes to the Jewish law and practice of exclusiveness.

Describing the state of the Jews, Mr. Levi says (page 92): “The Jews have not materially increased or diminished in numbers for 2,000 years. They have made no proselytes to their religion They have imbibed the arts, the literature and the civilization of successive generations, but have abstained very generally from intermixture of blood They have infused their blood into that of other peoples but have taken little of other peoples into their own.”

As to intermarriage between the Jew and non-Jew, Mr. Levi calls it miscegenation. “In remote countries, sparsely populated, the choice may lie between such marriages and a worse relation.” Those are his words on page 249. He does not advise the worse relation, but he has said quite enough to indicate the Jewish view of the case. He continues:

“It seems clear to me that Jews should avoid marriages with Gentiles and Gentiles with Jews, upon the same principle that we avoid marrying the insane, the consumptive, the scrofulitic or the Negro.” (Page 249)

This exclusiveness goes down through all human relations. The Jew has one counsel for non-Jews and another for himself in these matters. Of the non-Jew he demands as a right what he looks down upon as shady privilege. He uses the Ghetto as a club with which to bludgeon the non-Jew for his “bigotry,” when as a fact he chooses the Ghetto for well-defined racial reasons. He condemns the non-Jew for the exclusion of the Jew from certain sections of society, when as a Jew his whole care is to keep himself unspotted from that very society to which he seeks entrance. The Jew insists on breaking down non-Jewish exclusiveness while keeping his own. The non-Jewish world is to be public and common, the Jewish world is to be kept sacrosanct. Read the teachings of this enlightened leader of Jewry as published by the B’nai B’rith.

He favors the public school for non-Jewish children, not for Jewish children; they are to be kept separate; they are the choice stock of the earth:

“Because the government tenders free education, it does not follow that it must be accepted; if education be made compulsory, it does not follow that government schools must be attended As a citizen I favor free schools, because the education they afford, imperfect as it is, is better than none, and society is benefited thereby; but as an individual I prefer to pay to support free schools and send my children to more select places.” (Page 253) He speaks of the fact that “all classes of children frequent the public schools” as an argument against Jewish children going there.

“In my judgement, Jewish children should be educated in Jewish schools.” (Page 254) “Not only is it a positive and direct advantage to educate our children as Jews, but it is absolutely necessary to our preservation. Experience has shown that our young people will be weaned from our people if allowed indiscriminately to associate with the Gentiles.” (Page 255)

Discussing the possibility of Jews losing their crudeness, Mr. Levi asks, “How shall we best accomplish that end?” Then he quotes the frequent answer: “Since the exemplars of gentility most abound among the Gentiles, we should associate with them as much as possible, in order to wear our own rudeness away.” He meets the suggestion this way:

“If gentlemen were willing to meet all Jews on a parity because they are Jews, we should doubtless derive much benefit from such association. But, while it is true that no gentleman refuses association with another because that other is a Jew, he will not, as a rule, associate with a Jew unless he be a gentleman. As we are far from being all gentlemen, we cannot reasonably expect to be admitted as a class into good society. So, better keep by ourselves,” concludes Mr. Levi. (Page 260)

That is, Mr. Levi admits the willingness of society to meet Jews on equal terms, as with all others, but not on unequal terms. And this being so, Mr. Levi holds they had better meet as little as possible, they had better keep apart; in the formative years, certainly, Jewish young people should be kept rigidly apart from non-Jews. The exclusiveness of which the Jews complain is their own. The Ghetto is not a corner into which the non-Jews have herded the Semites; the Ghetto is a spot carved out of the community and consecrated to the Chosen People and is therefore the best section of the city in Jewish eyes, the rest being “the Christian quarter,” the area of the heathen. Mr. Levi himself admits on page 220 that there is no prejudice against the Jew in this country.

Certain wild-eyed objectors to the series of studies on the Jewish Question have made the assertion that THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has declared cowardice to be a Jewish trait. That the statement is false as regards this paper does not change the fact that the subject has been generally discussed in and out of army circles. If it ever becomes necessary to discuss it in these studies, the facts will be set forth as far as they are obtainable. But the point just now is that Mr. Levi has had somewhat to say which may repay reading:

“Physical courage has always been an incident, not an element, of Jewish character. It has no independent existence in their make-up, and always depended on something else. With some exceptions this may be said of all Oriental people. The sense and fear of danger is highly developed in them, and there is no cultivation of that indifference to it which has distinguished the great nations of Western Europe.” (Page 205)

Were a non-Jew to call attention to this difference between the Jews and others, he would be met with the cry of “anti-Semitism” and he would be twitted with the fact that all his relatives may not have served in the war. Loudest to twit him would be those who served in what our soldiers called “the Jewish infantry,” the quartermaster’s corps in the late National Army.

It is to this aversion to danger, however, that Mr. Levi attributes the Jews’ greatness among the nations. Other nations can fight, the Jews can endure, and that, he says, is greater. Note his words (the italics are his own):

“Other nations may boast conquests and triumphs born of aggression, but though the fruits of victory have been manifold, they have not been enduring; and it may be truly said that the nation whose greatness grows out of valor passes through the stages of discord and degeneracy to decay In the virtue of endurance I believe the Jews have a safeguard against the decay that has marked the history of all other peoples.”

It appears, therefore, that the draft-dodger, if he can endure long enough, may yet come to own the country.

Jewish leaders have lately tried to minimize as “wild words” the disclosures made by Disraeli with reference to the Jews’ participation in European revolutions. What Disraeli said can be found in his “Coningsby,” or in the quotations made therefrom in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT of December 18, 1920. With reference to the German Revolution of 1848, Disraeli wrote—before it had taken place:

“You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate That mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews. That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.”

It is interesting, therefore, to hear Mr. Levi confirming from the American side those significant statements made by Disraeli.

“The revolution of 1848 in Germany, however, influenced a great many highly educated Jews to come to America.” (Page 181) “It is unnecessary to review the events of 1848; suffice it to say, that not a few among the revolutionists were Jews, and that a considerable number of those who were proscribed by the government at home, fled to the United States for safety.” (Page 182) These German Jews are now the arch-financiers of the United States. They found here complete liberty to exploit peoples and nations to the full extent of their powers. They still maintain their connections with Frankfort-on-the-Main, the world capital of International financial Jewry.

With these quotations from the speeches and writings of Leo N. Levi, a famous president of the B’nai B’rith, it would seem to be a fair question as to the reason for the denial and denunciation which have followed the making of these statements in the course of this series of studies. Leo N. Levi studied the Jewish Question because he knew a Jewish Question to exist. He knew that the Jewish Question was not a non-Jewish creation but appeared wherever Jews began to appear in numbers. They brought it with them. He knew the justice of many of the charges laid against the Jews. He knew the impossibility of disproving them, the futility of shrieking “anti-Semitism” at them. He knew, moreover, that for the Jews to solve the Jewish Question by departing from the peculiar racial traditions of superiority, would be to cease to be Jews. Therefore, he threw his whole influence on the side of the Jews remaining separate, maintaining their tradition of The Chosen Race, looking upon themselves as the coming rulers of the nations, and there he left the Question just about where he found it.

But in the course of his studies he gave other investigators the benefit of his frank statements. He did not put lies into the mouths of his people. He was not endeavoring to maintain himself in position by prejudiced racial appeals. He looked certain facts in the face, made his report, and chose his side. Several timers in the course of his argument, his very logic led him up to the point where, logically, he would have to cast aside his Jewish idea of separateness. But with great calmness he discarded the logic and clung to the Jewish tradition. For example:

“The better to facilitate such happiness in every country and in every age, various kinds of organizations have existed as they exist today. The Jews have theirs.

“For many reasons they are exclusive. In theory they should not be so. In our social organizations we should, in deference to the argument which I have already named, admit any congenial and worthy Gentile who honors us with his application. But what may be theoretically correct may be found practically wrong. It certainly is a wrong to exclude a worthy person because he does not happen to be a Jew; but on the other hand, where are you to draw the line?”

This is frankness to a fault. Of course, it is wrong, but the right is impractical! Logic goes by the boards in the face of something stronger. Mr. Levi is not to be blamed for having gone to his tribe. Every man’s place is with his tribe. The criticism belongs to the lick-spittle Gentile Fronts who have no tribe and become hangers-on around the outskirts of Judah, racial mongrels who would be better off if they had one-thousandth of the racial sense which the Jew possesses.

This brief survey of the philosophy which Mr. Levi both lived and taught, and which is shared by the leaders of American Jewry, is in strict agreement with Jewish principles all down the centuries. In his published addresses Mr. Levi does not touch upon all the implications of the separateness which he enjoins upon his nation. Why do they keep by themselves? What is it that keeps them distinct? Is it their religion? Very well; let us regard them as a sect of religious recluses and wish them well in their endeavors to keep themselves unspotted of the world. Is it their race? So their leaders teach. Race and nationality are strictly claimed. If this is so, there must be a political outlook. What is it? Palestine? Not that any one can notice. A great deal may be read about it in the newspapers, the newspapers in turn being supplied through the Associated Press with the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s propaganda dispatches; but no one in Palestine notices the Land becoming more Jewish. Jewry’s political outlook is world rule in the material sense. Jewry is an international nation. It is this, and nothing else, which gives significance to its financial, educational, propagandist, revolutionary and immigration programs.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 14 May 1921]

Dr. Levy, a Jew, Admits His People’s Error

A Jew of standing, Dr. Oscar Levy, well known in English literary circles and a lover of his people, has had the honesty and the wisdom to meet the Jewish Question with truth and candor. His remarks are printed in this article as an example of the methods by which Jewry can be saved in the estimation of Twentieth Century Civilization.

The circumstances were these: George Pitt-Rivers, of Worcester College, Oxford, wrote a most illuminating brochure entitled, “The World Significance of the Russian Revolution,” which is published and sold for two shillings by Basil Blackwell, Oxford. The book is the result of unprejudiced observation and study and agrees with the statements made in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT about the personnel of Bolshevism. The manuscript was sent to Dr. Oscar Levy, as a representative Jew, and Dr. Levy’s letter was subsequently published as a preface to the book.

That the reader may understand the tenor of Mr. Pitt-Rivers’s book, section XVI, pp. 39-41, is herewith given in full, and is followed by Dr. Levy’s comments. The italics throughout are intended to remind the reader of remarks on similar lines made in this series:

It is not unnaturally claimed by Western Jews that Russian Jewry, as a whole, is most bitterly opposed to Bolshevism. Now although there is a great measure of truth in this claim, since the prominent Bolsheviks, who are preponderantly Jewish, do not belong to the orthodox Jewish Church, it is yet possible, without laying oneself open to the charge of anti-Semitism, to point to the obvious fact that Jewry, as a whole, has, consciously or unconsciously, worked for and promoted an international economic, material despotism which, with Puritanism as an ally, has tended in an ever-increasing degree to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the ugly and deadening machinery of finance and factory. It is also a fact that Jewry, as a whole, strove every nerve to secure and heartily approved of the overthrow of the Russian monarchy, which they regarded as their most formidable obstacle in the path of their ambitions and business pursuits. All this may be admitted, as well as the plea that, individually or collectively, most Jews may heartily detest the Bolshevik régime, yet it is still true that the whole weight of Jewry was in the revolutionary scales against the czar’s government. It is true their apostate brethren, who are now riding in the seat of power, may have exceeded their orders; that is disconcerting, but it does not alter the fact. It may be that the Jews, often the victims of their own idealism, have always been instrumental in bringing about the events they most heartily disapprove of; that perhaps is the curse of the Wandering Jew.

Certainly it is from the Jews themselves that we learn most about the Jews. It is possible that only a Jew can understand a Jew. Nay, more, it may be that only a Jew can save us from the Jews, a Jew who is great enough, strong enough—for greater racial purity is a source of strength in the rare and the great—and inspired enough to overcome in himself the life-destructive vices of his own race. It was a Jew who said, “Wars are the Jews’ harvest”; but no harvest so rich as civil wars. A Jew reminds us that the French Revolution brought civil emancipation for the Jews in Western Europe. Was it a Jew who inspired Rousseau with the eighteenth century idea of the sameness of man according to nature? Dr. Kallen, a Zionist author, writes: “Suffering for 1,000 years from the assertion of their difference from the rest of mankind, they accepted eagerly the escape from suffering which the eighteenth century assertion of the sameness of all men opened to them They threw themselves with passion into the republican emancipating movements of their fellow subjects of other stocks.” It was a Jew, Ricardo, who gave us the nineteenth century ideal of the sameness of man according to machinery. And without the Ricardian gospel of international capitalism, we could not have had the international gospel of Karl Marx. Moses Hess and Disraeli remind us of the particularly conspicuous part played by Jews in the Polish and Hungarian rebellions, and in the republican uprising in Germany of ’48. Even more conspicuous were they in the new internationalism logically deducible from the philosophy of Socialism. This we were taught by the Jew Marx, and the Jew Ferdinand Lasalle, and they but developed the doctrine of the Jew David Ricardo.

It was Weininger, a Jew—and also a Jew hater—who explained why so many Jews are naturally Communists. Communism is not only an international creed, but it implies the abnegation of real property, especially property in land, and Jews, being international, have never acquired a taste for real property; they prefer money. Money is an instrument of power, though eventually, of course, Communists claim that they will do away with money—when their power is sufficiently established to enable them to command goods, and exercise despotic sway without it. Thus the same motives prompt the Jew Communist and his apparent enemy, the financial Jew. When owners of real property in times of economic depression feel the pinch of straightened circumstances, it is the Jewish usurers who become most affluent and who, out of goodness of their hearts, come to their assistance—at a price.

To these and other statements, Dr. Levy, as a Jew, made this reply:

Dear Mr. Pitt-Rivers:

When you first handed me your MS. on The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, you expressed a doubt about the propriety of its title. After a perusal of your work, I can assure you, with the best of consciences, that your misgivings were entirely without foundation.

No better title than The World Significance of the Russian Revolution could have been chosen, for no event in any age will finally have more significance for our world than this one. We are still too near to see clearly this Revolution, this portentous event, which was certainly one of the most intimate and therefore least obvious, aims of the world-conflagration, hidden as it was at first by the fire and smoke of national enthusiasms and patriotic antagonisms.

It was certainly very plucky of you to try and throw some light upon an event which necessarily must still be enveloped in mist and mystery, and I was even somewhat anxious, lest your audacity in treating such a dangerous subject would end in failure, or what is nearly the same, in ephemeral success. No age is so voracious of its printed offspring as ours. There was thus some reason to fear lest you had offered to this modern Kronos only another mouthful of his accustomed nourishment for his immediate consumption.

I was, I am glad to report, agreeably surprised—surprised, though not by the many new facts which you give, and which must surprise all those who take an interest in current events—facts, I believe, which you have carefully and personally collected and selected, not only from books, but from the lips and letters of Russian eye-witnesses and sufferers, from foes as well as from friends of the Great Revolution.

What I appreciate more than this new light thrown on a dark subject, more than the conclusion drawn by you from this wealth of facts, is the psychological insight which you display in detecting the reasons why a movement so extraordinarily bestial and so violently crazy as the Revolution was able to succeed and finally to overcome its adversaries. For we are confronted with two questions which need answering and which, in my opinion, you have answered in your pamphlet. These questions are: (1) How has the Soviet Government, admittedly the government of an insignificant minority, succeeded not only in maintaining but in strengthening its position in Russia after two and a half years of power? and (2) Why has the Soviet Government, in spite of its outward bestiality and brutal tyranny, succeeded in gaining the sympathies of an increasing number of people in this country? . . . .

You rightly recognize that there is an ideology behind it and you clearly diagnose it as an ancient ideology. There is nothing new under the Sun, it is even nothing new that this Sun rises in the East

For Bolshevism is a religion and a faith. How could these half-converted believers ever dream to vanquish the “Truthful” and the “Faithful” of their own creed, these holy crusaders, who had gathered round the Red Standard of the Prophet Karl Marx, and who fought under the daring guidance of these experienced officers of all latter-day revolutions—the Jews?

I am touching here on a subject which, to judge from your own pamphlet, is perhaps more interesting to you than any other. In this you are right. There is no race in the world more enigmatic, more fatal, and therefore more interesting than the Jews.

Every writer, who, like yourself, is oppressed by the aspect of the present and embarrassed by his anxiety for the future, MUST try to elucidate the Jewish Question and its bearing upon our Age.

For the question of the Jews and their influence on the world past and present, cuts to the root of all things, and should be discussed by every honest thinker, however bristling with difficulties it is, however complex the subject as well as the individuals of this Race may be.

For the Jews, as you are aware, are a sensitive Community, and thus very suspicious of any Gentile who tries to approach them with a critical mind. They are always inclined—and that on account of their terrible experiences—to denounce anyone who is not with them as against them, as tainted with “medieval” prejudice, as an intolerant Antagonist of their Faith and of their Race.

Nor could or would I deny that there is some evidence, some prima facie evidence of this antagonistic attitude in your pamphlet. You point out, and with fine indignation, the great danger that springs from the prevalence of Jews in finance and industry, and from the preponderance of Jews in rebellion and revolution. You reveal, and with great fervor, the connection between the Collectivism of the immensely rich International Finance—the Democracy of cash values, as you call it—and the international Collectivism of Karl Marx and Trotsky—the Democracy of and by decoy-cries And all this evil and misery, the economic as well as the political, you trace back to one source, to one “fons et origo malorum”—the Jews.

Now other Jews may vilify and crucify you for these outspoken views of yours; I myself shall abstain from joining the chorus of condemnation! I shall try to understand your opinions and your feelings, and having once understood them—as I think I have—I can defend you from the unjust attacks of my often too impetuous Race. But first of all, I have to say this: There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews. Take the Great War that appears to have come to an end, ask yourself what were its causes and its reasons: you will find them in nationalism. You will at once answer that nationalism has nothing to do with the Jews, who, as you have just proved to us, are the inventors of the international idea. But no less than Bolshevist Ecstasy and Financial Tyranny can National Bigotry (if I may call it so) be finally followed back to a Jewish source—are not they the inventors of the Chosen People Myth, and is not this obsession part and parcel of the political credo of every modern nation, however small and insignificant it may be? And then think of the history of nationalism. It started in our time and as a reaction against Napoleon; Napoleon was the antagonist of the French Revolution; the French Revolution was the consequence of the German Reformation; the German Reformation was based upon a crude Christianity; this kind of Christianity was invented, preached and propagated by the Jews; THEREFORE the Jews have made this war! Please do not think this is a joke; it only seems a joke, and behind it there lurks a gigantic truth, and it is this, that all latter-day ideas and movements have originally sprung from a Jewish source, for the simple reason, that the Semitic idea has finally conquered and entirely subdued this only apparently irreligious universe of ours.

. . . . There is no doubt that the Jews regularly go one better or worse than the Gentile in whatever they do, there is no further doubt that their influence today justifies a very careful scrutiny, and cannot possibly be viewed without serious alarm. The great question, however, is whether the Jews are conscious or unconscious malefactors. I myself am firmly convinced that they are unconscious ones, but please do not think that I wish to exonerate them on that account A conscious evildoer has my respect, for he knows at least what is good; an unconscious one—well, he needs the charity of Christ—a charity which is not mine—to be forgiven for not knowing what he is doing. But there is in my firm conviction not the slightest doubt that these revolutionary Jews do not know what they are doing; that they are more unconscious sinners than voluntary evildoers.

I am glad to see that this is not an original observation of mine, but that you yourself have a very strong foreboding about the Jews being the victims of their own theories and principles. On page 39 of your pamphlet you write: “It may be that the Jews have always been instrumental in bringing about the events that they most heartily disapprove of; that maybe is the curse of the Wandering Jew.” If I had not the honor, as well as the pleasure, of knowing you personally, if I were not strongly aware of your passionate desire for light and your intense loathing of unfairness, this sentence, and this sentence alone, which tells the truth, will absolve you in my eyes from the odious charge of being a vulgar anti-Semite.

No, you are not a vulgar, you are a very enlightened, critic of our Race. For there is an anti-Semitism, I hope and trust, which does the Jews more justice than any blind philo-Semitism, than does that merely sentimental “Let-them-all-come Liberalism” which in itself is nothing but the Semitic Ideology over again. And thus you can be just to the Jews without being “romantic” about them.

You have noticed with alarm that the Jewish elements provide the driving forces for both Communism and capitalism, for the material as well as the spiritual ruin of this world. But then you have at the same time the profound suspicion that the reason of all this extraordinary behavior may be the intense Idealism of the Jew. In this you are perfectly right. The Jew, if caught by an idea, never thinks any more in watertight compartments, as do the Teuton and Anglo-Saxon peoples, whose right cerebral hemisphere never seems to know what its left twin brother is doing; he, the Jew, like the Russian, at once begins to practice what he preaches, he draws the logical conclusion from his tenets, he invariably acts upon his accepted principles. It is from this quality, no doubt, that springs his mysterious force—that force which you no doubt condemn, but which you had to admire even in the Bolshevists. And we must admire it, whether we are Jews or whether we are Christians, for have not these modern Jews remained true to type, is there no parallel for them in history, do they not go to the bitter end even in our day?

Who stirred up the people during the late war in Germany? Who pretended to have again the truth, that truth about which Pontius Pilate once shrugged his shoulders? Who pleaded for honesty and cleanliness in Politics, that honesty which brings a smile to the lips of any experienced Pro-consul of today? Writers, who were mostly Jews: Fried, Fernau, Latzko, Richard Grelling—the author of “J’accuse.” Who was killed and allowed himself to be killed for these very ideas and principles? Men and women of the Jewish Race: Haase, Levine, Luxemburg, Landauer, Kurt Eisner, the Prime Minister of Bavaria. From Moses to Marx, from Isaiah to Eisner, in practice and in theory, in idealism and in materialism, in philosophy and in politics, they are today what they have always been: passionately devoted to their aims and to their purposes, and ready, nay, eager, the shed their last drop of blood for the realization of their visions.

“But these visions are all wrong,” will you reply “Look where they have led the world to. Think, that they have now had a fair trial of 3,000 years’ standing. How much longer are you going to recommend them to us and to inflict them upon us? And how do you propose to get us out of the morass into which you have launched us, if you do not change the path upon which you have led the world so disastrously astray?”

To this question I have only one answer to give, and it is this: “You are right.” This reproach of yours, which—I feel it for certain—is at the bottom of your anti-Semitism, is only too well justified, and upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting Race Hatred: If you are anti-Semite, I, the Semite, am an anti-Semite too, and a much more fervent one than even you are We (Jews) have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. And if there was truth in our error 3,000, 2,000, nay, 100 years ago, there is now nothing but falseness and madness, a madness that will produce an even greater misery and an even wider anarchy. I confess it to you, openly and sincerely, and with a sorrow, whose depth and pain an ancient Psalmist, and only he, could moan into this burning universe of ours We who have posed as the saviours of the world, we who have even boasted of having given it “the” Saviour, we are today nothing else but the world’s seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners We who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, we have finally succeeded in landing you in a new Hell There has been no progress, least of all moral progress And it is just our Morality, which has prohibited all real progress, and—what is worse—which even stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours I look at this world, and I shudder at its ghastliness; I shudder all the more as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness

But its authors themselves, unconscious in this as in all they are doing, know nothing yet of this startling revelation. While Europe is aflame, while its victims scream, while its dogs howl in the conflagration, and while its very smoke descends in darker and even darker shades upon our Continent, the Jews, or at least a part of them and by no means the most unworthy ones, endeavor to escape from the burning building, and wish to retire from Europe into Asia, from the somber scene of our disaster into the sunny corner of their Palestine. Their eyes are closed to the miseries, their ears are deaf to the moanings, their heart is hardened to the anarchy of Europe: they only feel their own sorrows, they only bewail their own fate, they only sigh under their own burdens They know nothing of their duty to Europe, which looks around in vain for help and guidance, they know nothing even of their own great ancestor to whose heart the appeal of pity was never made in vain: they have become too poor in love, too sick at heart, too tired of battle, and lo! these sons of those who were once the bravest of soldiers are now trying to retire from the trenches to the rear, are now eager to exchange the grim music of the whistling shells with that of the cowbells and vintage songs in the happy plain of Sharon

And yet we are not all Financiers, we are not all Bolshevists, we have not all become Zionists. And yet there is hope, great hope, that this same race which has provided the Evil will likewise succeed in supplying its antidote, its remedy—the Good. It has always been so in the past—was not that fatal Liberalism, which has finally led to Bolshevism—in the very midst of that dark nineteenth century, most strenuously opposed by two enlightened Jews—Friedrich Stahl, the founder of the Conservative Party in Germany, and by Benjamin Disraeli, the leader of the Tory Party in England?

And if these two eminent men had no suspicion yet that their own race and its holy message were at the bottom of that unfortunate upheaval, with which their age was confronted: how eager, how determined, how passionate will be the opposition of the Disraelis of the future, once they have clearly recognized that they are really fighting the tenets of their own people, and that it was their “Good,” their “Love,” their “Ideal,” that had launched the world into this Hell of Evil and Hatred. A new “Good” as new Love, a true Love, an intelligent Love, a Love that calms and heals and sweetens, will then spring up among the Great in Israel and overcome that sickly Love, that insipid Love, that romantic Love, which has hitherto poisoned all the Strength and all the Nobility of this world. For Hatred is never overcome by Hatred: it is only overcome by Love, and it wants a new and a gigantic Love to subdue that old and devilish Hatred of today. That is our task for the future—a task which will, I am sure, not be shirked by Israel, by that same Israel which has never shirked a task, whether it was for good or whether it was for evil

Yes, there is hope, my friend, for we are still here, our last word is not yet spoken, our last deed is not yet done, our last revolution is not yet made. This last Revolution, the Revolution that will crown our revolutionaries, will be the revolution against the revolutionaries. It is bound to come, and it is perhaps upon us now. The great day of reckoning is near. It will pass a judgement upon our ancient faith, and it will lay the foundation to a new religion. And when that great day has broken, when the values of death and decay are put into the melting pot to be changed into those of power and beauty, then you, my dear Pitt-Rivers, the descendant of an old and distinguished Gentile family, may be assured to find by your side, and as your faithful ally, at least one member of that Jewish Race, which has fought with such fatal success upon all the spiritual battlefields of Europe.

Yours against the Revolution and for Life ever flourishing,

OSCAR LEVY,

ROYAL SOCIETIES CLUB, ST. JAMES STREET, LONDON, S. W., JULY, 1920.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 30 April 1921]

Jewish Idea in American Monetary Affairs

Mr. Brisbane says that Jewish bankers exercise their large measure of control because they are abler than the other bankers. It was very good of Mr. Brisbane to say so, and it adds to the sum of his weekly, almost daily, worship at the Jewish shrine, but it is scarcely true. Jewish bankers do not yet control the United States, and the principal reason they do not is that they are not abler than the other bankers. Doubtless they seek control; doubtless they have almost grasped it on several occasions; but not yet.

Nevertheless they form such a formidable force, and with their international connections constitute such a political problem, that the mere fact of their failing to top the column of control is not so reassuring as it sounds.

The great Jewish banking houses of the United States are foreign importations, as perhaps everyone knows. Most of them are sufficiently recent to be considered in their immigrant status, while the thought of them as aliens is stimulated by their retention of oversea connections. It is this international quality of the Jewish banking group which largely accounts for Jewish financial power: there is team-play, intimate understandings, and while there is a margin of competition among themselves (as at golf) there is also a wiping out of that margin when it comes to a contest between Jewish and “Gentile” capital.

Four conspicuous contemporary names in Jewish-American finance are Belmont, Schiff, Warburg and Kahn. All of them, even the most recent, are of foreign origin.

August Belmont was the earliest and arrived in America in 1837 as the American representative of the Rothschilds in whose offices he had been raised. His birthplace was that great center of Jewish international finance, Frankfort-on-the-Main. He became the founder of the Belmont family in America, which has largely forgotten its Jewish origin. Politics was a part of his concern in this country, and during the critical time from 1860 to 1872 he was chairman of the National Democratic Committee. His management of the Rothschild interests was exceedingly profitable to that house, although the operations in which he engaged were quite simple compared with the operations of the present day.

Jacob Schiff is another Jewish financier who was given to the world by Frankfort-on- the-Main. He entered the United States in 1865, after having passed his apprenticeship in the office of his father, who was also an agent of the Rothschilds. The name Schiff runs a long way back without change, unlike the name of Rothschild. Originally named Bauer, this family of financiers took a new name from the red shield which adorned their house in the Jewish section of Frankfort and thus became “Rot-schild.” Commonly the last syllable is pronounced as if it were “child”; it is “schild,” shield. An epoch-making family in itself, it has trained hundreds of agents and apprentices, of whom Jacob H. Schiff was one. He became one of the principal channels through which German-Jewish capital flowed into American undertakings, and his agency in these matters gave him a place in many important departments of American business, especially railroads, banks, insurance companies and telegraph companies. He married Theresa Loeb, and in due time came to be head of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company.

Mr. Schiff, too, was interested in politics with a Jewish angle, and was perhaps the moving force in the campaign which forced Congress and the President to break off treaty relations with Russia, then a friendly nation, on a strictly Jewish question which had been skillfully given an American aspect. Mr. Schiff was of inestimable assistance to Japan in the war against Russia, but is understood to have been disappointed by Japan’s shrewdness in preventing too high a return being made for that assistance.

Associated with Mr. Schiff in Kuhn, Loeb & Company is Otto Herman Kahn, who is probably more international than were either of the two gentlemen mentioned above and is more constantly engaged in dabbling in mysterious matters of an international nature. This characteristic may be accounted for, however, by his experience of many countries. He was born in Germany and is also a product of the Frankfort-on-the-Main school of finance, having had connection with the Frankfort Jewish house of Speyer.

Of just how many countries Mr. Kahn has been a citizen is a question not easy to determine here because of the doubt that was recently cast upon his American citizenship by a protest against his being permitted to cast his vote last year and by his failure—the announced cause being physical indisposition—to cast his vote. If Mr. Kahn is a citizen of the United States (a status that will be readily proclaimed upon proof that he is), that probably increases the number of his citizenships to three. He was a German citizen by birth, and served in the German Army. And in 1914, in August, at the time of the outbreak of the European War, when efforts were being made, which afterwards succeeded, to put Paul M. Warburg, a member of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, on the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Warburg testified that at that time Mr. Kahn was not a citizen of the United States.

Senator Bristow—“How many of these partners are American citizens, or are they all American citizens ”

Mr. Warburg—“They are all American citizens except Mr. Kahn.”—(p. 7, Senate Hearings, August 1, 1914.)

Senator Bristow—“Now, the members of your firm, are they all American citizens except Mr. Kahn?”

Mr. Warburg—“Except Mr. Kahn, yes.”

Senator Bristow—“Was Mr. Kahn ever an American Citizen?” Mr. Warburg—“No.” Senator Bristow—“He never was?” Mr. Warburg—“No; he is a British subject.” Senator Bristow—“He is a British subject?” The Chairman—“He lives in England, does he not?”

Mr. Warburg—“No. At one time he thought he would move to Europe, and that was when the question arose of his standing for Parliament; then he changed his mind and moved back to the United States.”

Senator Bristow—“He was at one time a candidate, or a prospective candidate for Parliament, was he not?”

Mr. Warburg—“No; he was not; but there was talk about it; it had been suggested, and he had it in his mind. Something had been written about it in the papers.”—(p. 76, Senate Hearings, August 3, 1914.)

So, that if Mr. Kahn is a citizen of the United States now, which as a matter of fact has been disputed, then he has been a citizen of three countries, Germany and Great Britain being the other two.

Mr. Kahn, by the way, is one of those Jews whose adoption of another form of faith brings no denunciation whatever from the Jews themselves. A most peculiar circumstance! But doubtless not inexplicable. Mr. Kahn is not called a “renegade Jew” nor any of the other nasty names heaped upon Jewish converts to Christianity, because he does not deserve them. They would not fit him. He is not renegade. And he never was regarded for a moment by Jacob H. Schiff as anything but a Jew, else that “Prince of Israel” would not have chosen him to remain in America and run the business of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, at a time when it seemed undesirable to put the junior Schiff in full charge of it.

Doubtless it was Mr. Kahn’s desire, just at the time Jacob Schiff made his wishes known, to go to England and stand for Parliament.

But from New York he fulfills, probably as well as he could from London, those mysterious missions which frequently take him to the Continent, at which times he makes what are regarded as certain authoritative decisions, though just whose decisions it is not always possible to say. In Paris particularly, and at points east thereof, Mr. Kahn has been established in the position of spokesman of the American Financial Hierarchy, which, of course, he is not. But he undoubtedly is the spokesmen of some group, possibly the group which so ably put through the Jewish program at the Peace Conference, the group that impressed Eastern Europe with the feeling that the United States of America was a very powerful Semitic empire. Mr. Kahn’s trips abroad are usually unheralded, but their results richly repay observation.

A fourth member of the Jewish financial group in America (which is the form of statement which Mr. Chaim Weizmann would sanction, rather than to say “Jewish-American financiers”) is Mr. Paul Warburg, to whose testimony we have just alluded.

Mr. Warburg is the most recent of all. He was born in Germany in 1868; he came to the United States in 1902; he became an American citizen in 1911. He came to the United States for the express purpose of reforming our financial system, and it is hardly possible to understand fully the system in operation today without reference to Paul Warburg. He is a man of very fine mind, a money-maker, but something more—a shrewd student of the systems by which money is made. There are two types engaged in the mere work of money-making which is better described as “money-getting,” without reference to production; one type grubs away under whatever system obtains, regarding it as fixed as the solar system; another type is sufficiently detached to see the system as an artifice which may be mended, remodeled or supplanted altogether. Paul Warburg, scion of a long line of German Jewish bankers, is of the latter type. He is not content with the fact that the cash-register fills itself with money; he wants also to know how the cash-register works, and whether it can be worked. He is thus a student of money and of the number of ways in which it can be manipulated.

Perhaps it will be best to let him tell his own story as far as he goes. When he told it to the Committee on Banking and Currency of the United States Senate in executive session, there was some dispute as to whether the proceedings should be recorded by stenographer. It was finally agreed that notes should be made but should not be divulged. The testimony was printed, “in confidence” on August 5, 1914, and nominally “made public” on August 12.

The Warburgs are one of the international families whose importance was not realized until the war, and would not have been realized then if their internationalism had not been so apparent. It was an interesting spectacle to see brothers occupying important places of counsel on either side of the great struggle.

Paul Warburg learned the rudiments of banking in his father’s bank at Hamburg, Germany, studying the over-sea trade which is the foundation of that city’s business. The banking house of Warburg in Hamburg dates from 1796.

“After that I went to England, where I stayed for two years, first in the banking and discount firm of Samuel Montague & Company, and after that I took the opportunity of staying two months in the office of a stockbroker in order to learn that part of the business.

“After that I went to France, where I stayed in a French bank, so that—”

The Chairman—“What French bank was that?”

Mr. Warburg—“It is the Russian bank for foreign trade, which has an agency in Paris.

“And after that I went back to Hamburg and worked there again for a year, I think.

“Then I went round to India, China and Japan.

“And then I came to this country for the first time in 1893. I stayed here only a short time then, and went back to Hamburg, and then became a partner of the firm in Hamburg.”

The Chairman—“How long were you in Hamburg then in the banking business?”

Mr. Warburg—“Until 1902 And then I moved over here to this country to become a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company.”

“I explained in the curriculum which I gave you, Mr. Chairman, that by marriage I am related to members of the firm, the late Mr. Loeb having been my father-in-law, which brought about a desire on the part of the family to bring me over here I ought to say that I got married in this country in 1895 and that I have been in this country every year since, for several months That is the history of my banking education.”

It will be recalled that Jacob H. Schiff also married a daughter of Mr. Loeb, so that Mr. Warburg married the sister of Mrs. Jacob H. Schiff. Felix Warburg, Paul’s brother, who is also in the firm, married Mr. Schiff’s daughter.

Mr. Warburg immediately cast a critical eye upon the state of financial affairs in the United States and it is significant of the grasp he already had on such matters that he found the country rather behind the times.

He conceived the ambition—the very daring ambition—of taking hold of the United States’ monetary system and making it what he thought it ought to be.

This alone would make him a remarkable man. It illustrates very well that detached point of view which the Jew is more fitted to take than any other man perhaps. He sees countries and systems with the same freedom from intimate bias with which another man would view assorted fish upon a market stall. Most of the world is engaged in doing its work and indulging its national, racial, domestic and social affections and inclinations; a small minority stands in the background and watches the entire mass at its unconscious maneuvers, and studies it as an observer studies a hive of bees. The man at work has no time except for his job. One man, standing back and studying 1,000 men at work, is able to see how he might utilize their labor or possess himself of a first toll on their production. Doubtless there must be men to stand at a sufficient distance from things to get a correct idea of their interrelationship, and doubtless such an attitude may be made of great service to the race, but doubtless it has also contributed to the selfish manipulation of natural and social processes.

Mr. Warburg testified: “When I came here I was at once impressed by the lack of system, by the old-fashioned nature of the system that prevailed here; and I got immediately into one of those periods of high interest rates, where call money went up to 25 and 100 per cent; and I wrote an article on the subject then and there for my own benefit.

“I was not here three weeks before I was trying to explain to myself the roots of the evil. I showed the article to a few friends but I kept it in my desk, because I did not want to be one of those who try to inform and educate the country after they have been here for a month or so; and I kept that article until the end of 1906, shortly before the panic, when those conditions arose again, and when one newspaper wanted for an issue at the end of the year an article dealing with the conditions in our country.

“Then I took out that article and touched it up and brought it up to date; and that was the first article of mine that was published. It was called, ‘Defects and Needs of Our Banking System.’

“That was, however, the first time that I know of that the question of the discount system and the concentration of reserves was really brought out; and I got a great many encouraging letters asking me to go on and explain my ideas.”

Mr. Warburg was perfectly willing to talk to the committee about himself, but not about Kuhn, Loeb & Company, his firm.

“I cannot discuss the affairs of my firm nor my partners,” he said, “nor be asked to criticize acts of my partners, either to approve them or in any other way,” but eventually he did tell a number of things which students of American financial affairs have considered interesting. Of which more later.

On page 77 of the testimony, more personal matters appear:

Senator Bristow—“When did you become a citizen of the United States, Mr. Warburg?”

Mr. Warburg—“1911. Did I not answer that?”

Senator Bristow—“Perhaps so. Did you intend to become a citizen when you came to the United States in 1902?”

Mr. Warburg—“I had no definite intentions then, because some of the reasons that brought me over here were family reasons; That had a good deal to do with my first coming here; and I was not sure at all that I would stay here when I came.”

Senator Bristow—“When did you decide to become a citizen of the United States?”

Mr. Warburg—“In 1908, when I took out my papers.”

Senator Bristow—“When you took out your first papers? You took out your second papers then, in 1911?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes.”

Senator Bristow—“You made your declaration in 1908; that is when you decided to become an American citizen?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes.”

Senator Bristow—“Why did you wait as long as you did after you came to this country, before deciding to become a citizen of this country?”

Mr. Warburg—“I think that a man that does not come here as an immigrant; a man who has had, if you may call it such, a prominent position in his own country, will not give up his nationality so easily as a man who comes over here knowing that he does not care for his own country at all. I had been a very loyal citizen of my own country; and I think that a man who hesitates in giving up his own nationality and taking a new one, is apt to be more loyal to his new country when he does change his nationality than a man who gives up his old country more lightly.”

Senator Bristow—“Yes.”

Mr. Warburg—“I may add this: That a thing which had a great deal of influence on my making up my mind to remain in this country and work here, and become a part and parcel of this country, was that monetary reform work, for I felt I had a distinct duty to perform here; and I thought I could do that; and in fact I have been working on it since 1906 or 1907.

“Then I felt that it was the right thing for me to become an American citizen and work here and throw in my lot definitely with this country.”

Senator Bristow—“When you became an American citizen; and the motive which induced you to become an American citizen was, then, as I understand it, largely with a view of laboring to bring about a reform of the American monetary system?”

Mr. Warburg—“Well, you put it nearly exclusively on that. I think a man wants to feel that he is going to do some useful work in his country; that he has a mission to perform; and that is what happened to me Moreover, I had been long enough in this country then to have thoroughly taken root and feel that I was a part and parcel of it.”

Senator Bristow—“Yes. When did you first become active in promoting the monetary reforms in the United States?”

Mr. Warburg—“1906.”

Senator Bristow—“What was your method of promoting your ideas with regard to monetary reforms?”

Mr. Warburg—“Mainly writing.”

Senator Bristow—“Were you connected with the Monetary Commission?”

Mr. Warburg—“No, not directly ”

Senator Bristow—“Were you consulted in regard to the report of the Monetary Commission in any way?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes, Senator Aldrich consulted with me about details, and I gave him my advice freely.”

Senator Bristow—“And in regard to the bill which was prepared by Senator Aldrich in connection with the commission, were you consulted in regard to that?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes.”

Senator Bristow—“What part did you have in the preparation of that bill, directly or indirectly?”

Mr. Warburg—“Well, only that I gave the best advice that I could give.”

Most readers will recall that the name of “Aldrich” was, a few years ago, the synonym for the money power in government. Senator Aldrich was an able man and a tireless worker. His character for thoroughness and industry did more than anything else to disabuse the popular mind of the notion that such men were mere “tools of the money interest,” or engaged in their work out of lust for gain, or out of sheer pleasure in legislating against the interests of the people. Senator Aldrich led on tariff and financial matters because he understood them; and he understood them by tireless study of them; and, therefore, he was the master of other men who had not paid the price of knowledge. But, he understood these matters from the standpoint of the business interests only. He was sincerely desirous of the prosperity of the country, but that prosperity was written in banking balances. Fifteen years ago it might not have been possible to judge him thus calmly, because then he represented in the public mind, more than any individual does today, the concentrated power of the financial group. Their prosperity was his first care, possibly because he believed that their prosperity was also the country’s.

It was such a man, then, that came to Mr. Warburg for advice. The labors of Senator Aldrich comprise many volumes of difficult material and Senator Aldrich’s appeal to Mr. Warburg was a very high compliment to the quality of the latter’s mind and financial experience—this, of course, assuming that Mr. Warburg’s counsel was not forced upon the Aldrich committee by the New York money interests.

In his testimony, Mr. Warburg did not tell all. The omission, however, was supplied by an article in Leslie’s Weekly in 1916, the author being B. C. Forbes.

It is a story of which Current Opinion said: “It reads like the opening in a shilling shocker.”

It appears that the conferences between Mr. Warburg and Senator Aldrich took place on an isolated island off the coast of Georgia—Jekyl Island. Included in the party, besides Senator Aldrich and Mr. Warburg, were two New York bankers and the then Assistant Treasurer of the United States. The mysteriousness of it all was well brought out by Mr. Forbes:

“Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing hundreds of miles south, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking out to an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the name of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servitors learn their identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret episode in the history of American finance.

“The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car which the railroad had received orders to draw up at an unfrequented platform. Drawn blinds balked any peering eyes that might be around. Off the party set. New York’s ubiquitous reporters had been foiled. So far so good. After bowling along the railroad hour after hour into southern country, the order was given to prepare to disembark.

“Stepping from the car when the station had been well cleared of travelers, the members of the expedition embarked in a small boat. Silence reigned, for the boatmen must not find out how distinguished were their passengers.

“In due time they drew up at another deserted pier. They were at Jekyl Island, off Georgia. The island was entirely unpeopled save for half a dozen servants.

“‘The servants must under no circumstances learn who we are,’ cautioned Senator Aldrich.

“‘What can we do to fool them?’ asked another member of the group. The problem was discussed.

“‘I have it,’ cried one. ‘Let’s all call each other by our first names. Don’t ever let us mention our last names.’

“It was so agreed.

“The dignified veteran Senator Aldrich, king of Rhode Island and a power second to none in the United States Senate, became just ‘Nelson’; and the quiet, scholarly member of the powerful international banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, became ‘Paul.’

“Nelson had meanwhile confided to Harry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up on Jekyl Island, cut off from the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, a system that would embody all that was best in Europe, yet so modeled that it could serve a country measuring thousands where European countries measured only hundreds of miles.”

Mr. Forbes does not omit to write this further description of Mr. Warburg’s condition at the time:

“unable then to speak idiomatic English with perfect freedom and without an accent, an alien not naturalized.”

Mr. Forbes also wrote—“Here is a German-American, but the sort of one that makes the hyphen look like a badge of honor.”

That was in 1916. Hyphens went out of fashion, though not entirely out of use, soon after.

Thus far the story of Paul Warburg.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 18 June 1921]

Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve Plan

The last view the reader had of Paul M. Warburg in the preceding article was as “an alien not naturalized” secretly closeted with Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and a party of bankers on an obscure island off the southeastern coast of the United States, all the members of the party concealing their identity even from the servants by calling each other by their first names.

That conference in its ultimate results was of the utmost importance to the United States, for then and there were formulated those fiscal devices, those financial methods, those “monetary reforms” which have exerted an influence on every citizen, rich and poor, of the Republic.

Much history was made in that little trip. It irresistibly calls to memory that other trip made in 1915—almost two years before America’s entry into the war—by Bernard M. Baruch. As readers of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT of November 27, 1920, will recall, Mr. Baruch had been financial backer of the Plattsburg camp, and in his testimony he said he thought that General Wood would admit this. Then—“I went off on a long trip, and it was while on this trip that I felt there ought to be some mobilization of the industries, and I was thinking about the scheme that practically was put into effect and was working when I was chairman of the board. When I came back from that trip I asked for an interview with the President The President listened very attentively and graciously as he always does.” Mr. Baruch was an authority on the President’s demeanor, for there was a long period in 1917 and 1918 during which he called at the White House every afternoon.

Two momentous trips in our recent history, both of them signalized and given their principal meaning by the presence of Jews. Not that there should not have been Jews in either case; to insist upon their total exclusion would be going too far. The Jew as a citizen, bearing his part, is one matter; the Jew as a master, directing the national show, is quite another thing. It is by no means agreed that Barney Baruch was the only man in the United States who could have run this nation’s war business. That is the explanation made of the high place he took—that he was the only man who could do it. Nonsense! If that be so, let us close up the nation and hand the keys over to the New York Kehillah. Mr. Baruch could say—“I probably had more power than any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true,” but he had that power because he was for the time the head and front of the Jewish group for war purposes.

If the explanation of Jewish mastery at critical moments were “brains,” well and good, but if it were, it would be more evident to the people; brains do not need to be advertised, they advertise themselves. There is another reason.

The British public recently awoke to the fact that not Lloyd George but Mr. Montagu and Sir Alfred Mond were in charge of the recent negotiations over the German indemnities. These gentlemen are both Jews, one of them of German descent. Of all the British Empire are they the only two men to advise the premier in a great crisis? If they are, why is it? The Montagus, we know, control the silver of the world; Sir Alfred Mond, we know, turned a very neat trick of keeping the sign of the Cross off the war memorials raised to the soldiers of the empire; their Jewishness always so apparent. Both financiers; both the close advisers of the premier; as Baruch to Wilson, so they to Lloyd George.

Apparently there are no Anglo-Saxons on either side of the sea capable of managing these deep matters, if we are to judge from the war administrations—those that have passed off the stage and those that still linger. Lloyd George, for once stung to the quick by the criticism of the British public of his tendency to closet himself with Jews when confronted with a crucial question, retorted bitterly—with what? With the old outworn Jewish propagandist boast, that it ill became people who sang Jewish psalms in church to rag the race that wrote them! A most illuminating defense! The world would give a good deal for a true psalm from Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Montagu, or even Sir Philip Sassoon, who is soon to become the premier’s son-in-law.

In our own history, Barney Baruch boldly claims his place, he unhesitatingly asserts that he had more power than any man in the war. If Allenby in Palestine needed a locomotive, if the Americans in Russia needed clothing, if the munition mills needed copper—it was Baruch who gave or withheld the word.

Mr. Warburg, being of somewhat finer grain, probably due to his having less than Mr. Baruch of the rough experience of “the Street,” does not make the claim that he is the chief factor in the present monetary system of the United States, nor does THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT undertake to make it for him lest the cry of “antiSemitism” wax wrathful again; but fortunately the fact is amply attested by a Jew whose knowledge of the matter is unquestionable.

Readers have doubtless become aware by this time that for a non-Jew to say that a certain Jew is a most important factor in any field is to be guilty of anti-Semitism, while for a Jew or a “Gentile front” to say it is perfectly proper. It is a rather odd etiquette in which simple minds sometimes become confused.

Professor E. R. A. Seligman, of Columbia University, is the sponsor of this great honor for Mr. Warburg. What Professor Seligman says is of such importance, both as to its source and its subject, that quotation is justified: (the italics in all cases are ours)

“It is in a general way known to the public that Mr. Warburg was in some way connected with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, and his appointment to his present responsible position on the Federal Reserve Board was acclaimed on all sides with a rare degree of approval and congratulation; but I fancy it is known only to a very few how great is the indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg. For it may be stated without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man in the country

“When the Aldrich commission was appointed it was not long before Senator Aldrich—to his credit be it said—was won over by Mr. Warburg to the adoption of these two fundamental features. The Aldrich Bill differed in some important particulars from the present law The concession in the shape of the twelve regional banks that had to be made for political reasons is, in the opinion of Mr. Warburg as well as of the writer of this introduction, a mistake; for it will probably, to some extent at least, weaken the good results which would otherwise have followed. On the other hand, the existence of a Federal Reserve Board creates, in everything but in name, a real central bank; and it depends largely upon the wisdom with which the board exercises its great powers as to whether we shall be able to secure most of the advantages of a central bank without any of its dangers

“In many minor respects also the Federal Reserve Act differs from the Aldrich Bill; but in the two fundamentals of combined reserves and of a discount policy, the Federal Reserve Act has frankly accepted the principles of the Aldrich Bill; and these principles, as has been stated, were the creation of Mr. Warburg and of Mr. Warburg alone.

“ It must not be forgotten that Mr. Warburg had a practical object in view. In formulating his plans and in advancing slightly varying suggestions from time to time, it was incumbent on him to remember that the education of the country must be gradual and that a large part of the task was to break down prejudices and remove suspicions. His plans, therefore contain all sorts of elaborate suggestions designed to guard the public against fancied dangers and to persuade the country that the general scheme was at all practicable. It was the hope of Mr. Warburg that with the lapse of time it might be possible to eliminate from the law not a few clauses which were inserted, largely at his suggestion, for educational purposes.

“As it was my privilege to say to President Wilson when originally urging the appointment of Mr. Warburg on the Federal Reserve Board, at a time when the political prejudice against New York bankers ran very high, England also, three-quarters of a century ago, had a practical banker who was virtually responsible for the idea contained in Peel’s Bank Act of 1840. Mr. Samuel Jones Lloyd was honored as a consequence by the British Government and was made Lord Overstone. The United States was equally fortunate in having with it a Lord Overstone

“The Federal Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul M. Warburg ”—(pp. 387-390, Vol. 4, No. 4, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Columbia University).

It surely cannot be considered invidious for THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT thus to introduce to the people of the United States a gentleman whose influence upon the country is so vital. Just how vital can be understood only by those who have studied the puzzle of a country filled with the good things of life, and still unable to use them or to share them because of a kink in the pipe line called “money.”

But that Mr. Warburg himself is not entirely unaware of his position is indicated on page 56 of his testimony quoted last week. Mr Warburg had just told the Senate Committee that he was making a heavy financial sacrifice to accept the position on the Federal Reserve Board offered him by President Wilson, and into the fitness of which appointment the Senate was carefully inquiring:

Senator Reed—“May I ask what your motive is, or your reason for making that sacrifice?”

Mr. Warburg—“My motive is that I have, as you know, taken a keen interest in this monetary reform since I have been in this country.

“I have had the success which comes to few people, of starting an idea and starting it so that the whole country has taken it up and it has taken some tangible form.”

Professor Seligman advises us of the strategy that was used to get the whole country to take up Mr. Warburg’s idea, and of the fact that some of the items inserted to appease the public might easily be removed when the public shall have become accustomed to Mr. Warburg and the Federal Reserve Board; but Mr. Warburg adds another hint, to the effect that you can do some things by administration which you cannot do by organization.

For example: Mr. Warburg wanted only one central bank which should be the sole arbiter of finance in the United States. The United States Government would have almost nothing to do save to make the money and stand back of it; the bankers of the United States, and the people thereof, would have nothing to do except what they were told; the one central bank would be the real financial governing authority.

When asked by Senator Bristow to state the fundamental difference between the Aldrich plan and the present Federal Reserve plan, Mr. Warburg replied:

“Well, the Aldrich Bill brings the whole system into one unit, while this deals with 12 units, and unites them again into the Federal Reserve Board. It is a little bit complicated, which objection, however, can be overcome in an administrative way; and in that respect I freely criticized the bill before it was passed.”

There is evidently, then, a method of administration for which severe critics might even use the word “manipulation,” by which the plain provisions of a banking law, whatever they may be, may be, if not evaded, then somewhat adapted.

This idea is brought to mind by a more colloquial expression of Mr. Warburg’s to be found in his address on “bank acceptances” delivered in 1919:

“In this connection I am reminded of a story I once heard concerning a man belonging to a species now soon to be extinct and to be found by our children in Webster’s dictionary only, the ‘bartender.’ A man of this profession, in pre-historic times, was abandoning his position and was turning over his cash-register to his successor. ‘Please show me how it works,’ said the newcomer. ‘I will show you how it works,’ said the other,

‘but I won’t show you how to work it.’”

The politics of Mr. Warburg and the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company formed part of the inquiry, and Mr. Warburg made some interesting revelations which illustrate the oft-repeated statement that it is part of Jewish policy—perhaps of large financial firms generally—to attach themselves to both parties so that certain interests may be the winners regardless of which party is defeated.

Senator Pomerene—“What are your politics?”

Senator Nelson—“No; we have not raised that before this committee.” Senator Reed—“It has not been raised here, but I should like to know.” Senator Pomerene—“It has been raised before the Senate.” Senator Reed—“I will say why I should like to know.”

Senator Pomerene—“Well, I have no objection to saying what was in my own mind.”

The Chairman—“I will say that I do not know what Mr. Warburg’s politics are.”

Senator Pomerene—“Well, I did not.”

Senator Shafroth—“I do not know and I do not care to know.”

Senator Pomerene—“I heard the statement made that the entire board was Democratic, and I had understood that Mr. Warburg was a Republican, or had been, in his affiliations.”

Mr. Warburg—“Well, so I was; and my sympathies were entirely, in the early campaign, for Mr. Taft against Mr. Roosevelt in the first fight. When later on Mr. Roosevelt became President Wilson’s opponent my sympathies went with Mr. Wilson ”

Senator Reed—“Well, you would count yourself a Republican, generally speaking?”

Mr. Warburg—“I would.”

Senator Bristow—“It has been variously reported in the newspapers that you and your partners directly and indirectly contributed very largely to Mr. Wilson’s campaign funds.”

Mr. Warburg—“Well, my partners—there is a very peculiar condition—no; I do not think any one of them contributed largely at all; there may have been moderate contributions. My brother, for instance, contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign.”

Senator Bristow—“Just what would you consider a moderate contribution to a presidential campaign?”

Mr. Warburg—“Well, that depends who the man is who contributes; but I think anything below $10,000 or $5,000 would not be an extravagant contribution, so far as that should be—”

(Examination resumed another day)

Senator Bristow—“Now, Mr. Warburg, when we closed Saturday some Senator asked you in regard to political contributions, and I understood you to say that you contributed to Mr. Wilson’s campaign.”

Mr. Warburg—“No; my letter says that I offered to contribute; but it was too late. I came back to this country only a few days before the campaign closed.”

Senator Bristow—“So that you did not make any contribution?”

Mr. Warburg—“I did not make any contribution; no.”

Senator Bristow—“Did any members of your firm make contributions to Mr. Wilson’s campaign?”

Mr. Warburg—“I think that is a matter of record. Mr. Schiff contributed. I would not otherwise discuss the contributions of my partners, if it was not a matter of record. I think Mr. Schiff was the only one who contributed in our firm.”

Senator Bristow—“And you stated that your brother had contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign, as I understand it?”

Mr. Warburg—“I did. But again, I do not want to go into a discussion of my partners’ affairs, and I shall stick to that pretty strictly, or we will never get through.”

Senator Bristow—“I understood you also to say that no members of your firm contributed to Mr. Roosevelt’s campaign.”

Mr. Warburg—“I did not say that.”

Senator Bristow—“Oh! Did any members of the firm do that?”

Mr. Warburg—“My answer would please you probably; but I shall not answer that, but will repeat that I will not discuss my partners’ affairs.”

Senator Bristow—“Yes. I understood you to say Saturday that you were a Republican, but when Mr. Roosevelt became a candidate, you then became a sympathizer with Mr. Wilson and supported him?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes.”

Senator Bristow—“While your brother was supporting Mr. Taft?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes.”

Senator Bristow—“And I was interested to know whether any member of your firm supported Mr. Roosevelt.”

Mr. Warburg—“It is a matter of record that there are.”

Senator Bristow—“That there are some of them who did?”

Mr. Warburg—“Oh, yes.”

Senator Bristow—“Will you please indicate—or do you care to indicate—what members of your firm supported Mr. Roosevelt in that campaign?”

Mr. Warburg—“No, sir; I shall have to go on the principle that I cannot disclose the business of a member of my firm.”

The result was this: that in a three-cornered fight between three candidates, Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, the men who constituted the firm of Kuhn, Loeb, & Company, chief Jewish financial institution of the United States, distributed their support among all three. Schiff for Wilson; Felix Warburg for Taft; and an unknown for Roosevelt—was that unknown Mr. Kahn? In any case, Wilson won, and the above examination relates to a member of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company receiving an important appointment which gave him large power over the finances of the United States.

The point of not discussing the affairs of Kuhn, Loeb & Company was frequently made by Mr. Warburg.

“I cannot discuss the affairs of the firm nor my partners, nor be asked to criticize acts of my partners, either to approve them or in any other way. I would like to say that before we come to the point where I would feel that I should not answer any question,” said Mr. Warburg.

The principle of this objection was conceded by the Senate Committee, but that it ought to serve as a blanket injunction against a number of pertinent inquiries was doubted.

Senator Bristow—“But you are a partner in this firm, and have you not had something to do with its operations and its management?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes.”

Senator Bristow—“Does that not go to show your general views and practices as a financier and as a citizen and as a business man?”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes; but you have got to take them individually I cannot permit my firm to be drawn into this discussion.”

Senator Bristow—“But how can you divest yourself from your firm when you have been one of the managers of the firm?”

Mr. Warburg—“I shall divest myself of the firm.”

Senator Bristow—“If the firm has done something that I might think was improper—to illustrate, being called upon to say whether or not I approve your nomination to this responsible position—have I not a right to know what your attitude was in regard to that transaction which your firm performed?”

Mr. Warburg—“Well, inasmuch as my answer there might be a criticism of my firm, I would beg to be excused, and I would leave it to the committee to draw its own conclusions ”

In examining Mr. Warburg about the handling of $100,000,000 Southern Pacific securities, the same difficulty was experienced; Mr. Warburg objected, “but we are getting here again into the transactions of my firm!”

To which Senator Bristow retorted—“Ah! but when you participated in the profits of the transaction, is it not a part of your business life?”

Mr. Warburg—“Certainly it is a part of my business life, and there is no reason why I should not be proud of it. But as a matter of principle I think we should not get into a discussion of the business of my firm.”

Senator Bristow—“I am discussing your business.”

Mr. Warburg—“No, you are discussing the firm’s business.”

Senator Bristow—“Did you get any of the profits that came from the handling of this $100,000,000?”

Mr. Warburg—“You may take it that whatever my firm did I got my profits—my share in the profits.”

Senator Bristow—“Your share in the profits. Now, without being specific, I take it for granted that this was quite material; that that was quite a material interest in size; that is, that you are one of the important members of the firm.”

Mr. Warburg—“I am one of the important members of the firm.”

Senator Bristow—“Yes, I think the testimony and the report here show that you are the third important member—or the second, which is it?—of the firm.”

Mr. Warburg—“We are not numbered.”

Senator Bristow—“You are not; all right.”

Mr. Warburg—“There is Mr. Jacob H. Schiff who is the senior.” Senator Bristow—“Yes.” Mr. Warburg—“And the others rank very much alike.”

Senator Bristow—“Yes. We may take it for granted, then, that whatever profits accrued to your firm in the handling of this business here since you became a member of it, you participated in the profits as one of the partners.”

Mr. Warburg—“Yes, sir.”

Senator Bristow—“Yes. So I will assume then, of course, that you participated in the marketing of $113,000,000 of Union Pacific, and so on.”

The responsibilities of a member of the Federal Reserve Board, especially such a member as Paul M. Warburg would be (for it was recognized that because of his purpose and connections he would become a dominating factor), were very great, especially at the time when the appointment was being considered. They are as important now, of course, but in a different way; it is not now a question of military safety. This thought was evidently in the mind of the senators, as the following shows:

Senator Hitchcock—“Mr. Warburg, one of the important functions of the board is to guard the gold supply of the country, and it has been thought that it is very important to have men on the board who had at heart only the interests of the United States, and had no foreign interests or alliances. You have said that you proposed to divest yourself altogether of your banking connections in Germany. Have you any other interests in Europe?”

“No, not to speak of,” said Mr. Warburg. “I may have very unimportant things, like everybody has; but I could dispose of those; it would not amount to anything.”

Senator Hitchcock—“Nothing in the line of banking?”

Mr. Warburg—“No.”

A few moments later the chairman, Senator Owen, said—(the date was August 1, 1914)—“We are on the eve of a great European war, and the organization of this board is of great national importance.”

At this time, Mr. Warburg was a member of the Hamburg firm. He testified (p. 7)—“I am going to leave my Hamburg firm, though the law does not require me to do so.”

A part of the German firm of his father and brothers, a part of the American firm to which he and his brother were related by marital as well as financial ties, Mr. Warburg repeatedly said he would break off all business relationships so that he, like Caesar’s wife (to quote himself), should be above suspicion.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 25 June 1921]

Jewish Idea of Central Bank for America

According to his own statements and the facts, Paul M. Warburg set out to reform the monetary system of the United States, and did so. He had the success which comes to few men, of coming an alien to the United States, connecting himself with the principal Jewish financial firm here, and immediately floating certain banking ideas which have been pushed and manipulated and variously adapted until they eventuated in what is known as the Federal Reserve System.

When Professor Seligman wrote in the Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science that “the Federal Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul M. Warburg,” a Jewish banker from Germany, he wrote the truth. But whether that association will be such as to bring the measure of renown which Professor Seligman implies, the future will reveal.

What the people of the United States do not understand and never have understood is that while the Federal Reserve Act was governmental, the whole Federal Reserve System is private. It is an officially created private banking system.

Examine the first thousand persons you meet on the street, and 999 will tell you that the Federal Reserve System is a device whereby the United States Government went into the banking business for the benefit of the people. They have an idea that, like the Post Office and the Custom House, a Federal Reserve Bank is a part of the Government’s official machinery.

It is natural to feel that this mistaken view has been encouraged by most of the men who are competent to write for the public on this question. Take up the standard encyclopedias, and while you will find no misstatements of fact in them, you will find no direct statement that the Federal Reserve System is a private banking system; the impression carried away by the lay reader is that it is a part of the Government.

The Federal Reserve System is a system of private banks, the creation of a banking aristocracy within an already existing autocracy, whereby a great proportion of banking independence was lost, and whereby it was made possible for speculative financiers to centralize great sums of money for their own purposes, beneficial or not.

That this System was useful in the artificial conditions created by war—useful, that is, for a Government that cannot manage its own business and finances and, like a prodigal son, is always wanting money, and wanting it when it wants it—it has proved, either by reason of its inherent faults or by mishandling, its inadequacy to the problems of peace. It has sadly failed of its promise, and is now under serious question.

Mr. Warburg’s scheme succeeded just in time to take care of war conditions, he was placed on the Federal Reserve Board in order to manage his system in practice, and though he was full of ideas then as to how banking could be assisted, he is disappointingly silent now as to how the people can be relieved.

However, this is not a discussion of the Federal Reserve System. General condemnation of it would be stupid. But it is bound to come up for discussion one day, and the discussion will become much freer when people understand that it is a system of privately owned banks, to which have been delegated certain extraordinary privileges, and that it has created a class system within the banking world which constitutes a new order.

Mr. Warburg, it will be remembered, wanted only one central bank. But, because of political considerations, as Professor Seligman tells us, twelve were decided upon. An examination of Mr. Warburg’s printed discussions of the subject shows that he at one time considered four, then eight. Eventually, twelve were established. The reason was that one central bank, which naturally would be set up in New York, would give a suspicious country the impression that it was only a new scheme to keep the nation’s money flowing to New York. As shown by Professor Seligman, quoted in the last number, Mr. Warburg was not averse to granting anything that would allay popular suspicion without vitiating the real plan.

So, while admitting to the Senators who examined him as to his fitness for membership on the Federal Reserve Board—the Board which fixed the policies of the banks of the Federal Reserve System and told them what to do—that he did not like the 12 district banks idea, he said that his objections to it could “be overcome in an administrative way.” That is, the 12 banks could be so handled that the effect would be the same as if there were only one central bank, presumably in New York.

And that is about the way it has resulted, and that will be found to be one of the reasons for the present situation of the country.

There is no lack of money in New York today. Motion picture ventures are being financed into the millions. A big grain selling pool, nursed into existence and counseled by Bernard M. Baruch, has no hesitancy whatever in planning for a $100,000,000 corporation. Loew, the Jewish theatrical man, had no difficulty in opening 20 new theaters this year—

But go into the agricultural states, where the real wealth of the country is in the ground and in the granaries, and you cannot find money for the farmer.

It is a situation which none can deny and which few can explain, because the explanation is not to be found along natural lines. Natural conditions are always easiest to explain. Unnatural conditions wear an air of mystery. Here is the United States, the richest country in the world, containing at the present hour the greatest bulk of wealth to be found anywhere on earth—real, ready, available, usable wealth; and yet it is tied up tight, and cannot move in its legitimate channels, because of manipulation which is going on as regards money.

Money is the last mystery for the popular mind to penetrate, and when it succeeds in getting “on the inside” it will discover that the mystery is not in money at all, but in its manipulation, the things which are done “in an administrative way.”

The United States has never had a President who gave evidence of understanding this matter at all. Our Presidents have always had to take their views from financiers. Money is the most public quantity in the country; it is the most federalized and governmentalized thing in the country; and yet, in the present situation, the United States Government has hardly anything to do with it, except to use various means to get it, just as the people have to get it, from those who control it.

The Money Question, properly solved, is the end of the Jewish Question and every other question of a mundane nature.

Mr. Warburg is of the opinion that different rates of interest ought to obtain in different parts of the country. That they have always obtained in different parts of the same state we have always known, but the reason for it has not been discovered. The city grocer can get money from his bank at a lower rate than the farmer in the next county can get it from his bank. Why the agricultural rate of interest has been higher than any other (when money is obtainable; it is not obtainable now) is a question to which no literary nor oratorical financier has ever publicly addressed himself. It is like the fact of the private business nature of the Federal Reserve Sysem—very important, but no authority thinks it worth while to state. The agricultural rate of interest is of great importance, but to discuss it would involve first an admission, and that apparently is not desirable.

In comparing the present Federal Reserve Law with the proposed Aldrich Bill, Mr. Warburg said:

Mr. Warburg—“ I think that this present law has the advantage of dealing with the entire country and giving them different rates of discount, whereas, as Senator Aldrich’s bill was drawn, it would have been very difficult to do that, as it provided for one uniform rate for the whole country, which I thought was rather a mistake.”

Senator Bristow—“That is, you can charge a higher rate of interest in one section of the country under the present law, than you charge in another section, while under the Aldrich plan it would have been a uniform rate.”

Mr. Warburg—“That is correct.”

That is a point worth clearing up. If Mr. Warburg, having educated the bankers, will now turn his attention to the people, and make it clear why one class in the country can get money for business that is not productive of real wealth, while another class engaged in the production of real wealth is treated as outside the interest of banking altogether; if he can make it clear also why money is sold to one class or one section of the country at one price, while to another class and in another section it is sold at a different price, he will be adding to the people’s grasp of these matters.

This suggestion is seriously intended. Mr. Warburg has the style, the pedagogical patience, the grasp of the subject which would make him an admirable public teacher of these matters.

What he has already done was planned from the point of view of the interest of the professional financier. It is readily granted that Mr. Warburg desired to organize American finances into a more pliable system. Doubtless in some respects he has wrought important improvements. But he had always the banking house in mind, and he dealt with paper. Now, if taking up a position outside those special interests, he would address himself to the wider interests of the people—not assuming that those interests always run through a banking house—he would do still more than he has yet done to justify his feeling that he really had a mission in coming to this country.

Mr. Warburg is not at all shocked by the idea that the Federal Reserve System is really a new kind of private banking control, because in his European experience he saw that all the central banks were private affairs.

In his essay on “American and European Banking Methods and Bank Legislation Compared,” Mr. Warburg says: (the italics are ours)

“It may also be interesting to note that, contrary to a widespread idea, the central banks of Europe are, as a rule, not owned by the governments. As a matter of fact, neither the English, French, nor German Government owns any stock in the central bank of its country. The Bank of England is run entirely as a private corporation, the stockholders electing the board of directors, who rotate in holding the presidency. In France the government appoints the governor and some of the directors. In Germany the government appoints the president and a supervisory board of five members, while the stockholders elect the board of directors.”

And again, in his discussion of the Owen-Glass Bill, Mr. Warburg says:

“The Monetary Commission’s plan proceeded on the theory of the Bank of England, which leaves the management entirely in the hands of business men without giving the government any part in the management or control. The strong argument in favor of this theory is that central banking, like any other banking, is based on ‘sound credit,’ that the judging of credits is a matter of business which should be left in the hands of business men, and that the government should be kept out of business The Owen-Glass Bill proceeds, in this respect, more on the lines of the Banque de France and the German Reichsbank, the presidents and boards of which are to a certain extent appointed by the government. These central banks, while legally private corporations, are semi-governmental organs inasmuch as they are permitted to issue the notes of the nation—particularly where there are elastic note issues, as in almost all countries except England—and inasmuch as they are the custodians of practically the entire metallic reserves of the country and the keepers of the government funds. Moreover in questions of national policy the government must rely on the willing and loyal co-operation of these central organs.”

That is a very illuminating passage. It will be well worth the reader’s time, especially the reader who has always been puzzled by financial matters, to turn over in his mind the facts here given by a great Jewish financial expert about the central bank idea. Observe the phrases:

(a) “without giving the government any part in the management or control.”

(b) “these central banks, while legally private corporations are permitted to issue the notes of the nation.”

(c) “they are custodians of practically the entire metallic reserves of the nation and the keepers of the government funds.”

(d) “in questions of national policy, the government must rely on the willing and loyal co-operation of these central organs.”

It is not now a question whether these things are right or wrong; it is merely a question of understanding that they constitute the fact.

It is specially notable that in paragraph (d) it is a fair deduction that in questions of national policy, the government will simply have to depend not only on the patriotism but also to an extent on the permission and counsel of the financial organizations. That is a fair interpretation: questions of national policy are, by this method, rendered dependent upon the financial corporations.

Let that point be clear, quite regardless of the question whether or not this is the way national policies should be determined.

Mr. Warburg said that he believed in a certain amount of government control—but not too much. He said: “In strengthening the government control, the Owen-Glass Bill therefore moved in the right direction; but it went too far and fell into the other and even more dangerous extreme.”

The “more dangerous extreme” was, of course, the larger measure of government supervision provided for, and the establishment of a number of Federal Reserve Banks out in the country.

Mr. Warburg had referred to this before; he had agreed to the larger number only because it seemed to be an unavoidable political concession. It has already been shown, by Professor Seligman, that Mr. Warburg was alive to the necessity of veiling a little here and a little there, and “putting on” a little yonder, for the sake of conciliating a suspicious public. There was also the story of the bartender and the cash register.

Mr. Warburg thinks he understands the psychology of America. In this respect he reminds one of the reports of Mr. von Bernstorff and Captain Boy-Ed of what the Americans were likely to do or not to do. In the Political Science Quarterly of December, 1920, Mr. Warburg tells how, on a then recent visit to Europe, he was asked by men of all countries what the United States was going to do. He assured them that America was a little tired just then, but that she would come round all right. And then harking back to his efforts of placing his monetary system on the Americans, he said:

“I asked them to be patient with us until after the election, and I cited to them our experiences with monetary reform. I reminded them how the Aldrich plan had failed because, at that time, a Republican President had lost control of a Congress ruled by a Democratic majority; how the Democrats in their platform damned this plan and any central banking system; and how, once in full power, the National Reserve Association was evolved, not to say camouflaged, by them into the Federal Reserve System.”

Remembering this play before the public, and the play behind the scenes, this “camouflaging,” as Mr. Warburg says, of one thing into another, he undertook to assure his friends in Europe that regardless of what the political platforms said, the United States would do substantially what Europe hoped it would. Mr. Warburg’s basis for that belief was, as he said, his experience with the way the central bank idea went through in spite of the advertised objection of all parties. He believes that with Americans it is possible to get what you want if you just play the game skillfully. His experience with monetary reform seems to have fathered that belief in him.

Politicians may be necessary pawns to play in the game, but as members of the government Mr. Warburg does not want them in banking. They are not bankers, he says; they don’t understand; banking is nothing for a government man to meddle with. He may be good enough for the Government of the United States; he is not good enough for banking.

“In our country,” says Mr. Warburg, referring to the United States, “with every untrained amateur a candidate for any office, where friendship or help in a presidential campaign, financial or political, has always given a claim for political preferment, where the bids for votes and public favor are ever present in the politician’s mind, a direct government management, that is to say, a political management, would prove fatal There can be no doubt but that, as drawn at present (1913), with two cabinet officers members of the Federal Reserve Board, and with the vast powers vested in the latter, the Owen-Glass Bill would bring about direct government management.”

And that, of course, in Mr. Warburg,s mind, is not only “dangerous,” but “fatal.”

Mr. Warburg had almost his whole will in the matter. And what was the result?

Turn to the testimony of Bernard M. Baruch, when he was examined with reference to the charge that certain men close to President Wilson had profited to the extent of $60,000,000 on stock market operations which they entered into on the strength of advance information of what the President was to say in his next war note—the famous “leak” investigation, as it was called; one of the several investigations in which Mr. Baruch was closely questioned.

In that investigation Mr. Baruch was laboring to show that he had not been in telephone communication with Washington, especially with certain men who were supposed to have shared the profits of the deals. The time was December, 1916. Mr. Warburg was then safely settled on the Federal Reserve Board, which he had kept quite safe from Government intrusion.

The Chairman—“Of course the records of the telephone company here, the slips, will show the persons with whom you talked.”

Mr. Baruch—“Do you wish me to say, sir? I will state who they are.”

The Chairman—“Yes, I think you might.”

Mr. Baruch—“I called up two persons; one, Mr. Warburg, whom I did not get, and one, Secretary McAdoo, whom I did get—both in reference to the same matter. Would you like to know the matter?”

The Chairman—“Yes, I think it is fair that you should state it.”

Mr. Baruch—“I called up the Secretary, because someone suggested to me—asked me to suggest an officer for the Federal Reserve Bank, and I called him in reference to that, and discussed the matter with him, I think, two or three times, but it was suggested to me that I make the suggestion, and I did so.” (pp. 570-571)

Mr. Campbell—“Mr. Baruch, who asked you for a suggestion for an appointee for the Federal Reserve Bank here?”

Mr. Baruch—“Mr. E. M. House.”

Mr. Campbell—“Did Mr. House tell you to call Mr. McAdoo up and make the recommendation?”

Mr. Baruch—“I will tell you exactly how it occurred: Mr. House called me up and said that there was a vacancy on the Federal Reserve Board. and he said, ‘I don’t know anything about those fellows down there, and I would like you to make a suggestion.’ And I suggested the name, which he thought was a very good one, and he said to me, ‘I wish you would call up the Secretary and tell him.’ I said, ‘I do not see the necessity; I will tell you.’ ‘No,’ he said, ‘I would prefer you to call him up.’” (p. 575)

There we have an example of the Federal Reserve “kept out of politics,” kept away from government management which would not only be “dangerous,” but “fatal.”

Barney Baruch, the New York stock plunger, who never owned a bank in his life, was called up by Colonel E. M. House, the arch-politician of the Wilson Administration, and thus the great Federal Reserve Board was supplied another member.

A telephone call kept within a narrow Jewish circle and settled by a word from one Jewish stock dealer—that, in a practical operation, was Mr. Warburg’s great monetary reform. Mr. Baruch calling up Mr. Warburg to give the name of the next appointee of the Federal Reserve Board, and calling up Mr. McAdoo, secretary of the United States Treasury, and set in motion to do it by Colonel E. M. House—is it any wonder the Jewish mystery in the American war government grows more and more amazing?

But, as Mr. Warburg has written—“friendship or help in a presidential campaign, financial or political, has always given a claim to political preferment.” And as Mr. Warburg urges, this is a country “with every untrained amateur a candidate for office,” and naturally, with such men comprising the government, they must be kept at a safe distance from monetary affairs.

As if to illustrate the ignorance thus charged, along comes Mr. Baruch, who quotes Colonel House as saying, “I don’t know anything about those fellows down there and I would like you to make a suggestion.” It is permissible to doubt that Mr. Baruch correctly quotes Colonel House. It is permissible to doubt that all that Colonel House confessed was his ignorance about “those fellows.” There was a good understanding between these two men, too good an understanding for the alleged telephone conversation to be taken strictly at its face value. It is possibly quite true that Mr. House is not a financier. Certainly, Mr. Wilson was not. In the long roll of Presidents only a handful have been, and those who have been have been regarded as most drastic in their proposals.

But this whole matter of ignorance, as charged by Mr. Warburg, sounds like an echo of the Protocols:

“The administrators chosen by us from the masses will not be persons trained for government, and consequently they will easily become pawns in our game, played by our learned and talented counsellors, specialists educated from early childhood to administer world affairs.”

In the Twentieth Protocol, wherein the great financial plan of world subversion and control is disclosed, there is another mention of the rulers’ ignorance of financial problems.

It is a coincidence that, while he does not use the term “ignorance,” Mr. Warburg is quite outspoken concerning the benighted state in which he found this country, and he is also outspoken about the “untrained amateurs” who are candidates for every office. These, he says, are not fitted to take part in the control of monetary affairs. But Mr. Warburg is. He says so. He admits that it was his ambition from the moment he came here an alien Jewish-German banker, to change our financial affairs more to his liking. More than that, he has succeeded; he has succeeded, he himself says, more than most men do in a lifetime; he has succeeded, Professor Seligman says, to such an extent that throughout history the name of Paul M Warburg and that of the Federal Reserve System shall be united.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 2 July 1921]

How Jewish International Finance Functions

“Such has been the development of international bankers that they can no longer be regarded in their professional capacity as the nationals of any country, entitled to do business under their own government’s supervision exclusively. They are really world citizens, with world-wide interests, and as such ought to be made amenable to some form of supernational control.”—George Pattullo, in Saturday Evening Post.

Not only did the Jewish financial firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company use far-sighted prudence in splitting its political support—one Warburg supporting Wilson, another Warburg supporting Taft and an unnamed member of the firm supporting Roosevelt, all at one time, as Paul M. Warburg testified—but it split its activities in several other ways also.

The international interests of the Jews comprising this firm are worthy of note. The influence which forced the United States to repudiate a commercial treaty with Russia while Russia was a friendly country (1911), and thus to compel all business between the United States and Russia to pass through German-Jewish hands, was generated by Jacob H. Schiff. Russia seems to have been the country on which he chose to focus his activities. The full story is told in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT of January 15, 1921, under the title, “Taft Once Tried to Resist the Jews—and Failed,” and is reprinted in Volume II of the booklet containing this series.

Mr. Schiff’s activity consisted in forcing the Congress of the United States to do a thing that was repugnant to the reason and conscience of President Taft, and which he personally refused to do or to recommend. Mr. Schiff left the White House in great anger with the threat, “This means war.” It did not mean as much war as it might have, for President Taft acquiesced gracefully in the Jewish victory and has since been extremely laudatory of them on the public platform.

Mr. Schiff’s firm also helped finance the Japanese war against Russia, and in return desired Japan as a Jewish ally. The wily Japs, however, saw the game and kept their relations with Mr. Schiff to purely business matters. Which fact is well worth bearing in mind when reading the widespread propaganda for war with Japan. If you will give particular attention, you will observe the same interests which are just now engaged in most loudly “defending” the Jew, are most active in spreading anti-Japanese sentiments in this country.

The Japanese war with Russia, however, enabled Mr. Schiff to advance his plan to undermine the Russian Empire, as it has now been accomplished by Jewish Bolshevism. With funds provided by him, the basic principles of what is now known as Bolshevism, were sown among the Russian prisoners of war in Japan, who were sent back as apostles of destruction. Then followed the horrible murder of Nicholas Romanoff, Czar of Russia, with his wife, his crippled son, and his young daughters, the full tale of which has now been told by the Jew who managed the crime.

For the part he played in destroying Russia, Mr. Schiff was wildly hailed in New York the night the news came that the Emperor had abdicated.

Meanwhile, the Jew who was “to take the Czar’s job” (as the common New York ghetto phrase ran, weeks before the event) had left New York to be in waiting.

This Jew was passed out of the United States at the request of a very high American personage whose subservience to the Jews was one of the marvels of the past seven years. Halted by the British, this Jew was released from their toils at the request of a very high American personage. And thus, the Jewish Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the program of which was made in America, was set in operation without a hitch.

This whole firm is German Jewish, its members having originated in Germany. It had German connections. How far it maintained those connections through all subsequent events is a separate question.

Mr. Otto Kahn’s allotted portion of the world seems to be Great Britain and France. Mr. Kahn is of German origin, like the rest of the firm, but he has not publicly shown such concern for Germany as have the other members. Mr. Schiff was once very active for the settlement of a peace on the basis of a victorious Germany. Mr. Paul M. Warburg also had interests, discussion of which is postponed for the present. But Mr. Kahn succeeded, through the connivance of American authority and the excessive repression of the newspapers, in conveying the impression that by some species of occult separatism he was not “German-minded.”

Therefore Mr. Kahn flits lightly everywhere—except Germany. He is sufficiently French to be able to tell in the first column on the first page of Le Matin on what terms America will do business with Europe, and he speaks as one having authority. He is sufficiently British to have thought of standing for the British Parliament, when an unfortunate event made it necessary for him to remain in the United States. Mr. Kahn sometimes flits farther East into the more Jewish portions of Europe, and his comings and goings are marked by certain changes with which his name remains most ostentatiously disconnected.

Mr. Kahn has very recently been telling France on what terms the United States will help her. There apparently being no other spokesman, Mr. Kahn’s word is accepted as authority. France is one of the most Judaized countries in the world, the haunt of International Jewish Financiers who exercise their power (thus saving France the trouble of passing laws) to keep the emigrant Jew out of France; so that France presents the spectacle of being Judaized by Jewish finance and not by immigrant Semitic hordes, and is thus a fit platform from which Mr. Otto Herman Kahn may utter his pronouncements.

In his last declaration to France, Mr. Kahn prepares her to expect little by stating that “America is a country of immense resources; but the actual money which the people have at their disposal is comparatively limited.” True enough. It was a member of Mr. Kahn’s firm who invented a monetary system which was promised to keep money in more equal relation to wealth.

But as he goes on telling what America will and will not do (the American people knowing nothing about it meanwhile) Mr. Kahn discovers with great enthusiasm a place where he thinks American capital can be placed, namely, “In the development of the vast and immensely rich colonial empire of France.”

And pray where is that? Any Frenchman would tell you now, “In Syria.”

Syria—ah!—that part of the East where the natives are loudly complaining that the Jews are driving them out contrary to every written and moral law. The Jewish powers have already succeeded in getting French troops over there; bad blood has been caused between France and Great Britain; the Jews on both sides are playing for the middle; and here is Mr. Otto Kahn himself pledging American capital to the development of the French colonial empire! Talk to any Syrian who knows his country’s present status, and he will interpret Mr. Kahn’s words very vividly.

One of the nicest bits of work Mr. Kahn has done is to denounce “pro-German propaganda” which he says has exasperated Americans in favor of France. Next to committing the United States to an undying admiration for Briand, this is really his finest bit. Especially, with Partner Paul playing the German sympathy string! It is a great international orchestra, this Jewish financial firm; it can play The Star Spangled Banner, Die Wacht am Rhein, the Marseillaise, and God Save the King in one harmonious rendering, paying obsequious attention to the prejudices of each.

Next come the Warburgs. Their interest is, of course, in Germany. Paul stated in his testimony given at the beginning of the World War that he had interests in Hamburg and would dispose of them. The war came on. The Jewish government in the United States was augmented. Mr. Warburg was no mean figure, as previous articles have shown.

The Warburgs are three in number. Felix M. is the other one in America. He appears but slightly in public affairs although he is a member of the American Jewish Committee and of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. His retiring habit, however, does not argue lack of consequence. He was of sufficient consequence, Jewishly, to have bestowed upon him a sort of honorary rabbinical degree of “Haber” which entitles him to be known as “Haber Rabbi Baruch Ben Moshe.” He is the only Jew in America upon whom the title has ever been conferred.

Max Warburg represents the family in its native land. Max Warburg had as much to do with the German war government as his family and financial colleagues in America had to do with the United States war government. As has been recounted in the press the world over, the brother from America and the brother from Germany both met at Paris as government representatives in determining the peace. There were so many Jews in the German delegation that it was known by the term “kosher,” also as “the Warburg delegation,” and there were so many Jews in the American delegation that the delegates from the minor countries of Europe looked upon the United States as a Jewish country which through unheard-of generosity had elected a non-Jew as its President.

Max Warburg is an interesting character also as regards the establishment of Bolshevism in Russia. The Jews had several objectives in the war, and one of them was “get Russia.” To this end the German Jews worked very assiduously. Because Russia was a member of the Allies, the work of German Jews was made the easier. But the fact that Russia was an ally made no difference with the Jews who were resident in Allied countries. Win or lose, Russia must be destroyed. It is the testimony of history that it was not so much the German military prowess as the Jewish intrigue that accomplished the downfall of that empire.

In this work Max Warburg was a factor. His bank is noted in a dispatch published by the United States Government as being one whence funds were forwarded to Trotzky for use in destroying Russia. Always against Russia, not for German reasons, but for Jewish reasons, which in this particular instance coincided. Warburg and Trotzky—against Russia!

Poor John Spargo, who ought to know better, denies all this—while every American who comes back from Russia, even those who went over there pro-Bolshevik, yes, and returned Jews themselves, proclaim it.

The crushing fact is that Bolshevism is not only Jewish in Russia, and in America, but it is Jewish in the higher regions of Jewry where better things ought to exist. Take Walter Rathenau, a German Jew on the plane of the Warburgs. Rathenau was the inventor of the Bolshevik system of centralization of industry, material and money. The Soviet Government asked Rathenau directly for the plans, and received them directly from him. Max Warburg’s bank held the money; Walter Rathenau’s mind held the plans—which makes it a pertinent question: If Bolshevism can be so Jewish outside of Russia, what hinders it being Jewish inside Russia?

It is a most significant fact that, as in Washington, the most constant and privileged visitors to the White House were Jews, so in Berlin the only private telephone wire to the Kaiser was owned by Walter Rathenau. Not even the Crown Prince could reach the Kaiser except through the ordinary telephone connections. It was the same in London. It was the same in Paris. It was the same in Petrograd—in Russia which so “persecuted” the race that controlled it then and controls it now.

Now, this sketchy outline of the internationalism of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company is not offered as the result of keen research, for the facts are found on the very surface of the matter, for anyone to see. What is revealed by research is this: whether Mr. Schiff’s interest in Russia had underground features which affected the welfare of nations; whether Mr. Kahn’s flitting missions here and there, which he made with great freedom during the war, were wholly taken up with the business announced in the public notices; and whether Mr. Warburg, whose interest in Germany has not abated, to judge from his recent utterances, was able to retain complete neutrality of mind during the war. These are questions of value. Obviously, they are not easy to answer. But they can be answered.

It was a family enterprise, this international campaign. Jacob Schiff swore to destroy Russia. Paul M. Warburg was his brother-in-law; Felix Warburg was his son-in-law. Max Warburg, of Hamburg, banker of the Bolsheviks, was thus brother-in-law to Jacob Schiff’s wife and daughter.

Speaking of the far-sighted manner in which the house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company disposes itself over world affairs, there is also the curious fact that in this Jewish firm is one who goes to a Christian church—a most heinous thing for a Jew to do. Split three ways in American politics and as many ways as international matters require, we find this firm split two ways with regard to religion. Mr. Kahn professes—at least he attends—a Christian church and is accounted an adherent of it. Yet he is not ostracized. His name is not taboo. The Jews do not curse him. He is not denounced as a renegade. The Jews have not buried him out of mind, as they do others who desert the faith.

This presents a strange situation when it is considered. Not to recount again the horror and reprehension and active antagonism with which Jews view such a desertion, suffice it to say that there is no greater marvel than that of Jacob H. Schiff retaining in the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company a “renegade” Jew. He could not have done it; every fiber of his intensely Jewish nature would have rebelled against it. Yet there it is!

Without going further into this ingenious system of covering all vital points from one center, enough has been said to show one busy Jewish financial firm with which political matters, national and international, is almost a profession. The family of Warburg high in the controlling group of two countries, and enemy countries at that. The family of Warburg high in the negotiations of world peace and the discussions of a League of Nations. The family of Warburg now advising the world from both sides of the earth, what to do next. It was probably with more reason than the general public surmised that a New York paper printed during the Peace Conference an article headed, “Watch the Warburgs!”

The fact seems to be that, as Mr. Pattullo is quoted as saying at the head of this article, the international financiers have been so engrossed in world money that the sense of national responsibility sometimes becomes blurred in their minds. They desire everyting—war, negotiations and peace—to be conducted in such a way as to react favorably on the money market. For that is their market: money is what they buy and sell: and because money has no fixed price, it is a market which offers the widest opportunity for the trickster and swindler. One cannot play such tricks with stone or corn or metals, but with money as the commodity everything is possible.

Mr. Warburg is already very much interested about the treatment to be accorded foreign securities in the next war. Readers of the daily newspapers may recall that recently a demand was made for the gold in the Reichsbank, which was resisted on the ground that the Reichsbank, although the central bank of Germany, was really a private concern—just as Paul Warburg said it was and just as he has insisted that our own Federal Reserve System should be, and which it is. There is far-sighted wisdom in that, with a view to possible defeat in war.

Mr. Warburg is apparently quite disapproving of the treatment accorded alien enemy property “by some countries.” He quotes a French banker throughout—nationality not stated—and drives home his point. The French banker used as an illustration a possible war between England and France (this was only last year) and said that the bankers in each country would proceed to withdraw their mutual balances and securities, for fear of confiscation, and that such a course would precipitate a panic.

To which Mr. Warburg adds: “I think that our bankers ought carefully to study this very serious question. We have nothing to gain and much to lose by joining in a policy of disregarding the rights of private property. We shall probably, in the course of time, become the largest owners of foreign securities and properties, which would become endangered in case we were drawn into war. To me, however, it is of greater interest that nothing be done that might stand in the way of making the United States the gold reserve country of the world ”

Such talk passes with too little scrutiny. It bears a strong reflection of recent events which should not be overlooked. Moreover, it presents a grandiose vision which is supposed to command instant agreement because of its appeal to superficial national pride and selfish ambition.

If what Mr. Warburg says is an intimation that the International Jews are planning to move their money market to the United States, it is safe to say that the United States does not want it. We have the warning of history as to what this would mean. It has meant that in turn Spain, Venice, Great Britain or Germany received the blame and suspicion of the world for what the Jewish financiers have done. It is a most important consideration that most of the national animosities that exist today arose out of resentment against what the Jewish money power did under the camouflage of national names. “The British did this,” “the Germans did this,” when it was the International Jew who did it, the nations being but the marked spaces on his checker board.

Today, around the world the blaming word is heard, “The United States did this. If it were not for the United States the world would be in better shape. The Americans are a sordid, greedy, cruel people.” Why? Because the Jewish money power is largely centered here and is making money out of both our immunity and Europe’s distress, playing one against the other; and because so many of the so-called “American business men” abroad today are not Americans at all—they are Jews, and in many cases as misrepresentative of their own race as they are of the Americans.

The United States does not want the transfer of All-Judaan to this soil. We do not desire to stand as a gold god above the nations. We would serve the nations, and we would protect them, but we would do both in the basis of real values, not in the name or under the sign of gold.

On the one hand Mr. Warburg recites pitiful facts about Germany in order to raise sympathy for her, and on the other hand he stimulates the gold lust of the United States. The plight of Germany is entirely due to the forces from which the United States has only narrowly escaped; and to harken to international Jewish plans for the rehabilitation of Germany is to be in danger of approving plans which will fasten Jewish domination more strongly on that unhappy country than it is now. Germany has paid dearly for her Jews. The Warburg voice that speaks for her would seem indeed to be the voice of Jacob, but the hand that proposes financial dealings is that of Esau.

The internationalism of the Warburgs is no longer in doubt, and cannot be denied. Felix Warburg hung on to the Hamburg connection longer than did Paul, but the breakage of either was probably perfunctory. At the same time that Felix left the Hamburg firm of his brother, Max, a Mr. Stern also left the Frankfort firm of Stern, and both became very active on the Allies side, taking sides against the German nation as lustily as anyone could. “Impossible!” say those who fancy that a German Jew is a German. Not at all impossible; the Jew’s loyalty is to the Jewish nation; what the Jew himself refers to as his “cover nationality” may count or not as he himself elects.

This statement is always met with frothing wrath by the Jews’ “gentile fronts” in the purchased pro-Jewish press. But here is an example: Do you remember “The Beast of Berlin,” that lurid piece of war propaganda? You did not, perhaps, know that its producer was a German Jew, Carl Laemmle. His German birth did not prevent him making money out of his film, and his film does not prevent him annually going back in state to his birthplace. This year he goes accompanied by Abe Stern, his treasurer; Lee Kohlmar, his director; and Harry Reichenbach—a list of names duplicable in any movie group.

Messrs. Stern and Warburg, of Frankfort and Hamburg, respectively, and away from home perhaps only temporarily, were not concerned about the fate of the “Huns,” but they were immensely concerned about the fate of Jewish money power in Germany.

To indicate how blind the public has been to the inter-allied Jewish character of much of the world’s important international financial activity, note this from the Living Age earlier in the year:

“According to the Svensk Handelstidning, the recent American loan of $5,000,000 to Norway was really the outcome of an agreement between the Hamburg firm of Warburg & Company and the New York bankers, Kuhn and Loeb. It is regarded as a significant sign of the times that a German firm should be responsible for an American loan to a neutral country. The conditions subject to which this money was borrowed, are not regarded as very favorable to Norway, and no marked effect on the rate of exchange between the two countries has followed.”

Note, in the light of all the statements made about Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and the Warburgs in particular, the assumption in the above quotation that the transaction was really between a German and an American firm. It was principally an arrangement between the Warburgs themselves in family counsel. But the loan will pass in Norway as “an American loan,” and the fact that the terms of the loan, “are not regarded as very favorable to Norway” will react upon Scandinavian opinion of this country. It goes without saying that “no marked effect on the rate of exchange between the two countries has followed,” for that would not be the object of such a loan. The dislocation of exchange is not unprofitable.

It would be most interesting to know in how far Kuhn, Loeb & Company has endeavored to readjust the rate of exchange.

During the war, Kuhn, Loeb & Company made a loan to the city of Paris. Considerable German comment was occasioned by this—naturally. And it is very well worthy of record that in the city of Hamburg, where Max Warburg does business, the chief of police issued this order:

“Further mention in the press of loans made by the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company to the city of Paris, and unfavorable comments thereon, are forbidden.”

The following story is vouched for as reliable, and if in one or two minor details it does not represent the exact fact, it is a trustworthy illustration of how certain things were done:

“A Jewish international banking corporation bought up the mining and other similar concessions of Jugo-Slavia, and consequently the policy pushed at the Peace Conference was that which was most convenient for that group. An understanding on the Fiume question was in progress between Wilson and Nitti. Certain concessions had been agreed upon and Wilson was willing to negotiate, when Oscar Straus and one of the Warburgs appeared on the scene. Wilson changed his attitude over night and afterward insisted on the Jugo-Slavia solution of the problem. The way in which concessions had been bought through that territory was a disgrace, and observers expected that it would play an important part at the Peace Conference.”

The financiers are not the only International Jews in the world. The revolutionary Jews, of all countries and none, are international also. They have seized upon the idea of Christian internationalism, which means amity between nations, and have used it as a weapon with which to weaken nationality. They know as well as anyone that there can be no internationalism except on the basis of strong nationalism, but they count on “cover words” to advance their plan.

Enough transpired between the lower and higher Jewish groups of every large center during the war to render it imperative that Jewry confess, repent and repudiate the madness that has ruled it, or else boldly assert and espouse it before the world.

Certainly enough has transpired to render it desirable that the American people look again into the purposes of those Jews who were instrumental in reorganizing our financial system at a most critical time in the world’s history.

Max Warburg was apparently strong enough to suppress German discussion of his brothers’ activity in America. The Warburgs at present resident in America must suffer it, therefore, that American comment be made as full as need be.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 9 July 1921]

Jewish Power and America’s Money Famine

The international Jewish banker who has no country but plays them all against one another, and the International Jewish proletariat that roams from land to land in search of a peculiar type of economic opportunity, are not figments of the imagination except to the non-Jew who prefers a lazy laxity of mind.

Of these classes of Jews, one or both are at the heart of the problems that disturb the world today. The immigration problem is Jewish. The money question is Jewish. The tie-up of world politics is Jewish. The terms of the Peace Treaty are Jewish. The diplomacy of the world is Jewish. The moral question in movies and theaters is Jewish. The mystery of the illicit liquor business is Jewish.

These facts are unfortunate as well as unpleasant for the Jew, and it is squarely up to him to deal with the facts, and not waste time in trying to destroy those who define the facts. These facts are interpreted by the Jew and the anti-Semite with strange extremes of blindness. The Jew never gets the world’s point of view at all; he always gets the anti-Semite’s point of view; and the anti-Semite is equally at fault in always getting the Jew’s point of view. What both need is to get society’s point of view, which is the one being set forth in this present series of articles.

To say that the immigration problem is Jewish does not mean that Jews must be prohibited entry to any country; it means that they must become rooted to a country in loyal citizenship, as no doubt some are, and as no doubt most are not. To say that the money question is Jewish does not mean that Jews must get out of finance; it means that they must rid finance of the Jewish idea which has always been to use money to get a strangle-hold on men and business concerns, instead of using finance to help general business. To say that the tie-up of world politics is Jewish does not mean that Jews, as human beings, are to be denied a voice in affairs; it means that they must give up trying to make the world revolve around the Jewish nation as its axis. To describe the influence of the Jew on the theater is not to demand that he leave the theater, but it is to demand that he rid the theater of his idea that sensualism is entertaining.

The Jewish Question is first for the Jews to solve; if not, the world will have to solve it for them. They may stay in business, say the theater, for example, if they will cease spoiling the theater; if they do not cease, the theater will be taken away from them just as certainly as that day follows night. The world has been patient and the world will be fair, but the world knows the limit of imposition.

It is not the true Jewishness of the Jew, nor yet the nationalism of the Jew that is on trial, but his anti-national internationalism. A true Mosaic Jew—not a Talmud Jew—would be a good citizen. A nationalist Jew would at least be logical. But an international Jew has proved an abomination, because his internationalism is focused on his own racial nationalism, which in turn is founded on his ingrained belief that the rest of humanity is inferior to him and by right his prey. Jewish leaders may indulge in all the platitudes they possess, the fact which they cannot deny is that the Jew has for centuries regarded the “goyim” as beneath him and legitimately his spoil.

The internationalism of the Jew is confessed everywhere by him. Listen to a German banker: imagine the slow, oily voice in which he said:

“We are international bankers. Germany lost the war?—what of it?—that is an affair of the army. We are international bankers.”

And that was the attitude of every international Jewish banker during the war. The nations were in strife? What of it? It was like a Dempsey-Carpentier bout in New Jersey, or a baseball game in Chicago—an affair of the fighters—“we are international bankers.”

A nation is being hamstrung by artificial exchange rates; another by the sucking of money out of its channels of trade; what of it to the international banker?—he has his own game to play. Hard times bring more plums tumbling off the tree into the baskets of the international bankers than does any other kind of times. Wars and panics are the Jewish international bankers’ harvests.

Citizens wake up with a start to find that even the white nations are hardly allowed to see each other nowadays except through Jewish eyes. When the United States supposedly speaks to France, through whom does she speak? All that France sees is Otto H. Kahn! Why must a Jew represent the United States of America to France? When France supposedly speaks to the United States, through whom is it done? Through Viviani, Jewish in every thought and method. Now they are talking of sending Millerand over, another Jew. Britain sends Lord Reading. Germany sent Dr. Dernberg. And to other countries the United States sent Morgenthau, Strauss, Warburg, and lesser Jewlings.

It comes with something of a shock to learn that Foch is coming to the United States. We have not seen a Frenchman since Joffre visited us. It is good to see man of the white race come across the sea as if to reassure us that white men still live in those countries. The business of the Peace Conference was done by Jews—has it come to a point where international diplomacy is to become a Jewish monopoly also? Must the special conversations between France, Britain and the United States be held through Jewish interpreters, while Anglo-Saxons and true Frenchmen do the routine embassy work—or shall it be possible for the non-Jewish nations to see one another occasionally through non-Jewish representatives?

Internationalism is not a Jewish conviction, but a Jewish business device. It is most profitable. In diplomacy and at the immigrant station, internationalism pays. Jews interpret nation to nation in the high rites of special conversations between governments; Jewish interpreters swarm at the ports of every country also, where the poor swarm in. It was stated in the House of Lords the other day that most of the trouble in Palestine was caused by Jewish interpreters. It was charged that the Jewish administration added an extra language to the official list in order to make Jewish interpreters indispensable.

Go through the government of the United States, where the income tax secrets are kept, where the Federal Reserve secrets are kept, where the State Department secrets are kept—and you will find Jews sitting at the very spot where International Jewry desires them to sit, and where nothing is kept from their knowledge.

Go abroad and come back to your country, and a Jew will open the gate to let you in, or close it to keep you out—as he chooses.

“Will you be going to Detroit while you are here?” asked a Jewish government agent of a gentleman entering the country on a visit a few weeks ago.

“I may go to Detroit,” was the reply.

“Well, you go to the damned DEARBORN INDEPENDENT and tell them a Jew let you into this country,” said the government agent.

What the visitor replied is known, but had better not be quoted. The American Jewish Committee might shriek that the people were being incited to pogroms.

The incident, however, is but a sample of what is occurring every day. The truth about the Jewish Question in the United States is perhaps the one form of truth that cannot be indiscriminately told.

The international Jewish bankers regard themselves as in similar fashion “letting” the nations do this or that, regarding the nations not as fatherlands but as customers—and as customers in the Jewish sense. If an army wins or loses, if a government succeeds or fails, what of it?—that is their affair—“we are international bankers,” and we win, whoever loses.

For international Jewish bankers, the war is not over. The period of actual hostilities and the emergencies of the nations were but the opening of the trade. The ready cash was skimmed in then—all the cash the world had. True, some of it had to be distributed among the people as war wages and bonuses, in order to keep the struggle going, but this was soon recovered through the means of high prices, artificial scarcities and the orgy of extravagance deliberately organized and stimulated among the people. That phase over, and money disappeared.

Is there any more tragic joke than that diligently disseminated in this country—“The United States has more gold than any other country in the world”? Where is it? How long since you have seen a piece of gold? Where is all this gold—is it locked up in the Treasury of the United States Government? Why, that government is in debt, desperately trying to economize, cannot pay a soldier bonus because the finances of the country cannot stand it! Where is that gold? It may be in the United States, but it does not belong to the United States.

The American farmer, and those American industries which were not “wise” to the tricks of international Jewish bankers, and who were nipped by small loans, are wondering where all this money is. Furthermore, Europe, suffering from every possible lack, is looking to us and wondering where the money is.

This dispatch in a London paper may throw light on the matter: (italics are ours)

“It is learned today that new gold shipments aggregating $2,800,000 are consigned to Kuhn, Loeb & Company, New York, making nearly $129,000,000 imported by that firm since the movement started. In responsible banking circles the belief is expressed that some of the German coin recently imported by the firm is from Russia, instead of Germany, as generally supposed.”

This dispatch, coupled with one printed in a former article which showed Warburg & Company of Germany arranging with Kuhn, Loeb & Company of New York for a $5,000,000 loan to Norway, is not devoid of light on the question—Where is the money?

The Jewish international banking system may be easily described. First, there is the international Jewish headquarters. This was in Germany. It had ramifications in Russia, Italy, France, Great Britain and the South American states. (South American Jewry is very menacing.) Germany and Russia were the two countries scheduled for punishment by the International Jewish bankers because these two countries were most aware of the Jew. They have been punished; that job is done.

Jewish political headquarters, as related to the internal affairs of the Jews, was also located in Germany, but the headquarters dealing with the “goyim” was in France. Statements have been made that the political center of Jewry has been transplanted to the United States. But these statements have been made by American Jews whose wish may have been father to the thought. During the Wilson Administration it was possible for a Jew to think and to hope this, but affairs have slightly changed. The ousting of American Jews from the Zionist movement at the behest of Eastern Jews indicates that if the political center of world Jewry has shifted to the United States, the power is still in the hands of aliens resident here. The center is still in Jewry; the United States is merely a square on Jewry’s world checker-board.

But, wherever the financial and political world centers may be, each country is separately handled. In every country—the United States, Mexico and the republics of South America; in France, England, Italy, Germany, Austria—yes, and in Japan—there is an international Jewish banking firm which stands at the head of the group for that country. Thus, the chief Jewish firm in the United States is Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which one of the members is Paul M. Warburg, brother of M. Warburg & Company, of Hamburg; and another member of which is Otto H. Kahn, resident successively of Germany, Great Britain and the United States, and self-appointed financial spokesman for the United States to France and Great Britain. Great Britain and France seldom see a special American spokesman who is not a Jew. That may be the reason why they reciprocate by sending Jews to us, thinking perhaps that we prefer them.

Paul M. Warburg was the inventor, perfector and director of the Federal Reserve System of the United States. He is not the only Jew in the Federal Reserve System, but he was the chief Jew there. His mind counted for a great deal. There were others in the war government, of course; Bernard M. Baruch; Eugene Meyer, Jr.; Hoover’s regiment of Jews; Felix Frankfurter; Julius Rosenwald—hundreds of them, and everywhere; but the financial group alone is receiving our attention just now, and they are not so notably successful in getting the country out of financial difficulty as they were in other lines of effort.

The Federal Reserve System may not be a bad system, in spite of the fact that it yields government monetary functions to private financial corporations, but there are all sorts of testimony that it has been badly manipulated. Mr. Warburg, the reader will remember, spoke about certain things being “overcome in an administrative way,” showing that there was a certain amount of “play” or loose motion in the system which could be manipulated either way. The fact remains that the country went swimmingly through the war by reason of the assistance of the System, and is coming very lamely through the Peace, as the result, monetary experts say, of the hindrance of the same System. Mr. Warburg, whose name was so prominently connected with the advertisement of the glory of the System, must also stand being mentioned in connection with the criticism.

Whatever money we are said to have as the per capita in the United States, it is a false statement. The money per capita should always be figured on the basis of money in circulation. The statistical “per capita” is not always in circulation. Less than half of it, as a rule. The rest is being juggled.

Whatever the gold in the country, the wealth is still greater. There is more wealth in the United States than there is gold in the world. One year’s products of the farms of the United States exceeds in money value all the gold in the world.

Yet, under our present system, the burgeoning bulk of the country’s wealth must pass through the narrow neck of Money. And the Money must pass through the still narrower neck of Gold. And the controller of the Gold, under our present system, controls the world. There is more wealth than there is money; there is more money than there is gold; money exists at the pleasure of gold; wealth moves at the pleasure of money. Whoever sits at the neck of money, opening or closing as he will, controls the movement of the world’s wealth. And the world’s prosperity depends on the movement of that wealth. When wealth stands still and does not pass from hand to hand, the world’s circulation has stopped; the world becomes economically sick.

The scarcity of cash in hand has led to Credit. Credit is a form of barter. It is a form of dealing by which many transactions are carried on, only the final one being cleared in money. It is a device which has its dangers, in spite of the efforts of apologists to exploit its advantages. But one thing the system of Credit indubitably does—it allows the money masters to hang on to the Cash. When the world is caught, it is caught with paper, not with Cash. The Cash is always in the hands of those who extol the advantage of the Credit System. Who holds money holds power, and will hold it, until real barter or real money comes in fashion again.

In 1919-1920, according to one of the best monetary authorities in the United States, the total shrinkage in values of the products of our fields, mines, factories, mills and forests represented a sum greater than the total gold supply of the world. It runs as high as the total amount of Liberty Bonds outstanding.

People say, “Well, the prices were too high.” Certainly they were too high, but who and what made them too high? It was the generosity with which money was supplied by the private Federal Reserve System. There was plenty of money. People say, “Well, the shrinkage is only in paper values; the real value of the product is still there.” Certainly, but when you live under a system in which “real” value and “money” value are so intimately intertwined that it affects your bread and butter, the tenure of your farm, and the steadiness of your job, it is pretty hard to separate the two. Moreover, when your prosperity was due to the readiness of a group of men to let out money, and your adversity is due to the unwillingness of the same group, and your own welfare and your country’s welfare is thus see-sawed up and down without any reference to natural law but solely upon determinations taken in committee rooms, you naturally inquire, “Who is doing this? Where is all the money gone? Who is holding it? Here is the wealth of the country; here is the need of the country; where is the money to transfer the wealth to the need? Every condition remains as it was, except money.”

We have a Federal Reserve System which still is benefiting by the assistance of its perfector and director, Paul M . Warburg. And what is the condition in the United States?

Some of the biggest industrial institutions in the country now in the hands of creditors’ committees.

Farmers being sold out by the hundreds, their horses bringing about $3 each.

Cotton and wool enough to clothe the nation, spoiling in the hands of the men who raised it and cannot dispose of it.

Every line of business, railroading, newspaper publishing, store-keeping, manufacturing, agriculture, building, in depression. Why? For lack of money.

Where is the money? This is a country that is supposed to be the financial center of the world—where is the money?

It is in New York. The Federal Reserve System, which Mr. Warburg desired to head up in one central bank, has just about turned out that way. The money is in New York. Here is the charge made to the governor of the Federal Reserve Board by a responsible public official who knows:

While there is a scarcity of money for the producing sections of the West and

Northwest, the South and Southwest, “we find that individual banks in New York City are borrowing from the Reserve System, in a number of cases, more than $100,000,000 each; and sometimes as much as $145,000,000 is loaned there to a single bank—twice as much as some of the Reserve Banks have been lending recently to all the member banks in their districts.”

One bank in New York borrowed $134,000,000, or $20,000,000 more than the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City was advancing to 1,091 member banks in that Reserve District, which covers the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and parts of Missouri, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

At the same time, another New York bank was borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank about $40,000,000, which was more than the aggregate loans which the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis was lending to its 1,000 member banks in the great states of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Montana and part of Wisconsin.

Another New York bank borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank a sum which was greater by $30,000,000 than the Federal Reserve Bank at Dallas was lending to all the banks in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

Still another New York bank got a loan which equaled the total loans allowed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to the 569 member banks of that very important district, which includes the whole state of Arkansas, parts of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi, and the larger part of Missouri.

Take the Fifth Federal Reserve District, served by the Federal Reserve Bank at Richmond, Virginia: one New York bank was able to borrow from the New York Reserve Bank more than the Richmond Reserve Bank would lend to all its member banks in Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and the larger part of West Virginia.

That is the situation. The twelve regional banks, which were supposed to make money serve all parts of the country equally, have apparently been “overcome in an administrative way” to such an extent that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is to all intents and purposes the Central Bank of the United States and serves the speculative part of the country with millions, while the productive part of the country is permitted to wilt with paltry thousands.

When it can occur that four New York banks can borrow from the New York Federal Reserve Bank as much money as the banks of 21 states were able to borrow from the five Federal Reserve Banks of St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Dallas and Richmond—there would seem to be need of explanation somewhere.

Where did this money loaned in New York come from? It came from those parts of the country where money was scarcest. In May, 1920, the word went out over telephones—“The tie-up will come on the 15th.” And it came. Credit was stopped. Payment was pressed. A stream of money, literally squeezed out of the producing sections of the country, began to roll toward New York. Otherwise those giant loans just recorded would have been impossible. It was pressure, Federal Reserve pressure, politely known as deflation, and that is the way it worked. The banks of the West were squeezed dry that the banks of New York might overflow.

“The money was withdrawn from legitimate business in various parts of the country to be loaned at fancy rates in Wall Street,” says the official referred to above.

The speculative banks, it has been discovered, were able to borrow money at six per cent, which money they loaned at as high as 20, 25 and 30 per cent.

Federal Reserve deflation created a scarcity which speculative banks utilized. The Federal Reserve policy took the money out; New York banks borrowed the money taken out, and loaned it at tremendous rates—rates which people paid to stave off the ruin caused by the moneyless condition which the ill-measured deflation process brought on.

And all this time the Federal Reserve System was in the best financial condition of its whole career. In December, 1920, it had 45 per cent of its reserves, which was a higher reserve than it had in December, 1919. But at this writing (July, 1921) the reserve has reached 60 per cent.

The money is in New York. Go out through the agricultural states, and you will not find it. Go into the districts of silent factories and you will not find it. It is in New York. The Warburg Federal Reserve has deflated the country. A System that was intended to equalize the ups and downs of financial weather has been used “in an administrative” way to deplete the country of money.

The Federal Reserve Idea was doubtless right; if it had not been, it could not have been established. But it has been manipulated. It has not been a “federal” reserve; it has been a private reserve. It has been operated in the interest of bankers and not of everyone in general. Capable of being used to carry the country gradually back to a natural flow of business and to a natural level of prices, it was used to bludgeon business at a critical time and to bludgeon it in such a way that money-lenders profited when producers suffered.

If that is the fact, there is no American banker but will say that the method was wrong; economically wrong, logically wrong, commercially wrong, if not criminally wrong.

Today the Federal Reserve boasts of its own reserve as if that were a sign of national economic health. With the country struggling to live, the Federal Reserve ought to be low, not high. The height which the reserve has reached is a measure of the depth of the country’s depression.

If the Federal Reserve would let out a part of that flood of money—a high financial authority suggests that less than 10 per cent would do it—it would be like an infusion of blood into the nation’s veins.

Kuhn, Loeb & Company, the Speyers and the other Jewish money-lenders have money for Mexico, Norway, Germany, and all sorts of commercial companies being organized to do business overseas, and it is American money. The Warburg Federal Reserve System has been badly misused, badly manipulated, and the country is suffering from it.

Still, the people know not what to do. Money is still a mystery. Banking is still sacrosanct. What would be perfectly apparent if done in ordinary business intercourse with a $5 bill, is exceedingly complicated when the sum is five millions and the parties are (1) country banks, (2) Federal Reserve banks and (3) Wall Street speculative institutions. Yet they are only Tom, Dick and Harry with a $5 bill, after all.

The matter is somewhat affected by the gags that are placed on many men competent to criticize. High officials are more or less tied up, by campaign contributions in which all financial concerns have an interest. Legislative officials are, too many of them, indebted to these same interests. A schedule of the private debts of some of the men who have aspired to the Presidency in the last eight years would be very illuminating—almost as illuminating as a schedule of the names of Jews at whose homes they stayed while on journeys through the country. Men who are thus tied up with the present financial system cannot say what in their minds they know.

It is all illustrated in the testimony of T. Cushing Daniel before a committee of Congress. It shows to what an extent the power of this private corporation called the central bank can reach:

“When going through the Bank of England I presented a letter which I had from Secretary Hay, and the official of the bank was very polite. He took me through the bank and when we got back to the reception room I asked him if he would allow me to put a few leading questions to him. He said he would, and I asked him if he would give me a statement of the Bank of England. ‘We do not issue statements.’ ‘Does not the House of Parliament sometimes call on you for some statement as to the condition of the bank?’ ‘No, sir; they do not call on us.’ ‘How is it that some of these revolutionists, so-called, do not get up in the House of Commons and raise the devil to know something about what is going on down here? That would be the condition in our country.’ ‘Oh most of them are large borrowers from the bank, and we have no difficulty with them.’ (laughter.)”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 16 July 1921]

The International Jew – Vol. 4

Preface

This is the fourth volume of reprinted studies in the Jewish Question as they appeared in THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT. The articles follow the same general line as the previous volume in showing the various angles of Jewish influence and achievement in the affairs of the people of the United States, but they do not by any means exhaust either the number of the angles nor the depth of the significance in the angles traced.

Deliberate public opinion has shown many signs of a new alertness to the movement which was proceeding deftly and unnoticed in the midst of America, and many checks have been put in operation. The work of THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT was undertaken at a disadvantage because of the tremendous emphasis of the American mind on racial peace and because of the ease with which racial propagandists can make a purely economic and political matter assume the aspects of a religious controversy. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT opened the Question to public gaze, and was therefore assumed to be the attacker. In this country our sense of fairness always leaves the advantage with the attacked, and false accusations quickly fall. The country has seen, however, the truth of the statements and has observed the mild and unprejudiced manner in which they were made, so that it may now be said that truth has made its way.

Most gratifying are the signs which Jews themselves have given that certain abuses must be quickly stopped. A Jewish leader has appealed for the removal of the exemption which nullifies the Constitution of the United States in favor of the Jew with reference to the use of liquor. Other Jewish leaders have sought to compel Jewish theatrical controllers to observe elementary decency in their productions.

These articles have always held that the cleansing must come from within Judah itself. It is recognized that racial pride might prevent many improvements being attempted under fire, but American Jews cannot afford to be ruled by a false pride in this respect. These are days of judgment for all the corruptive forces of society and the Jews cannot expect to escape responsibility for their part in these things.

May, 1922.

“United, then, by the strongest feelings of solidarity, the Jews can easily hold their own in this disjointed and anarchic society of ours. If the millions of Christians by whom they are surrounded were to substitute the same principle of co-operation for that of individual competition, the importance of the Jew would immediately be destroyed. The Christian, however, will not adopt such a course, and the Jew must, inevitably, I will not say dominate (the favorite expression of the anti-Semites) but certainly possess the advantage over others, and exercise the supremacy against which the anti-Semites inveigh without being able to destroy it.”—Lazare.

How Jews Gained American Liquor Control

To those who have been surprised and confounded by the widespread evidence, which even the newspapers have been unable to suppress, that the bulk of the organized bootlegging which is being carried on in this country is in the hands of Jews, it would have been less of a surprise had they known the liquor history of this country.

The claim made for the Jews, that they are a sober people, is undoubtedly true, but that has not prevented two facts concerning them, namely, that they usually constitute the liquor dealers of the countries where they live in numbers, and that in the United States they are the only people exempted from the operations of the Prohibition law.

Here as elsewhere the principle holds true that “the Jew is the key.” The demoralization which struck the liquor business, causing its downfall, and the demoralization which has struck Prohibition enforcement for a time, cannot be understood without a study of the racial elements which contributed to both phenomena. If in what follows the Jews find objectionable elements, they should remember that their own people put them there. It is impossible to doubt that if the organized Jews of the United States were to make one-thousandth of the protest against the illegal liquor activities of their own people that they make against the perfectly legal and morally justifiable exposures being made in THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT, the result would be not only favorable but immediate.

There was a time when the term “whisky” had a much more respectable connotation than it has today. There was a time when to use whisky and even to make it, were customs sanctioned by the better class of public opinion.

It is a common explanation of the difference between then and now, that people of the latter period became more sensitive morally than their forbears, that whereas the previous generation guzzled its whisky, innocently oblivious of the evil in it, the latter generation developed a stronger discrimination and banned the custom.

The truth is this: the people did not become better; the whisky became worse. When the entire story of the people’s justifiable indignation is written, the competent historian will trace along with the people’s rising disgust, the whisky’s decreasing quality.

Attention to this matter will materially assist an understanding of the fact that Jews and bootlegging are so continuously and prominently connected in the public prints these days.

Readers of the old romances know how proud the master was of his wines. Vintages ripened under certain skies, on certain hills, where certain waters flowed, with cellarage in certain soils, had a faculty of aging gracefully, mellowing to a smoothness and purity and desirableness that made for cheer and health without the alloy of sordid inebriety. The bouquet of wine, the perfected essence of the grape subjected to the further courses of nature, has been a theme of praise for centuries. If it were uttered today the source of the utterance would be suspected, and very probably with good reason, of being in pay of the “wets.” For the vile stuff which civilization threw out is not at all the wine of popular custom and century-long esteem.

Nevertheless, it is not difficult for even a modern to grasp the fact that there was an art in making wine and strong drink, in which art men took pride. That art required time, experience, a love of good quality.

It is a little difficult to speak of this art in connection with whisky—wine being a more poetic word—yet it is a matter of knowledge that three places in the world have devoted to the production of whisky the same spirit which France and Portugal devoted to their wines. These three districts are Glenlivet in Scotland, the region of Dublin in Ireland, and the Blue-Grass region of Kentucky. Why in these three regions? First, because there were men—non-Jews, of course—who were willing to wait ten years to produce a good article. Second, the waters of these regions are of a quality which is beautifully adapted to the making of pure goods. Pure whisky, it should be remembered, is a vegetable product matured by natural forces and no other. Grain, water, and time—not even artificial heat added, nor any other thing—completes the best whisky product.

In older times in America there were men who were as choice of their whiskies as of their horses or books. There was then such a thing as quality. But there was no such thing as delirium tremens. That came later, with the disappearance of pure whisky. A distiller seldom grew rich—he was too engrossed in maintaining the quality of his product; and it consumed much time.

There were certain brands known nationally because of their mildness and purity—purest wine of the choicest grapes, aged in the best adapted cellars, was not more mild or pure. There are names that remain until this day—Pepper, Crow, Taylor, and others—the names of men who took time and pains, whose names became “brands” which guaranteed quality and purity. These men were distillers in the true sense, not manufacturers nor compounders, but distillers in a time when distilling was both a science and an art, and not a mere name to conceal a gigantic fraud on the public.

In time to come, when the people’s justifiable moral indignation will permit a study of the steps by which the reputation of whisky came to its present low degree, they will see how much better it would have been, how much more efficacious and clarifying, if the attack on whisky had included an exposure of the men who had driven whisky out of the country and were selling rank poison as a substitute. The saloon, the brewer, the man who used strong drink were all of them made the target for attack; the Jews who demoralized the whole business went on collecting their enormous and illegitimate profits without so much as their identity being revealed.

Whisky ceased to be whisky and beer grew less like beer; the results upon humanity became apparent and deplorable. So society raised the license fee and increased the restrictions. To meet this, the Jewish compounders turned out still cheaper stuff, and still more vicious mixtures. Licenses went up, and quality went down; the Jewish compounders always getting a larger margin of profit. And through the long, long fight, no one, with one or two notable exceptions, had the sense and the courage to point a finger at the solid racial phalanx lined up behind the whole rotten combination.

Distilling is one of the long list of businesses which has been ruined by Jewish monopoly. Those who favor Prohibition will probably thank the Jew for his work in that direction. It may be that the Jew is destiny’s agent to demoralize the business that must pass away. But set against that the fact that it is Jewish influence that demoralizes Prohibition, too, and both “wets” and “drys” have an interesting situation to consider.

In general, the Jews are on the side of liquor and always have been. They are the steadiest drinkers of all. That is why they were able to secure exemption from the Prohibition laws; their religious ceremonies require them to drink an amount which the law has considered to equal ten gallons a year. And so the Prohibition law of the United States—a part of the Constitution of the United States—is made legally ineffective to the extent of ten gallons of year a Jew. The amount, of course, is very much more; it is always easy to get 100 gallons through a 10-gallon loophole. In fact, thousands of gallons have come through that 10-gallon loophole.

It will come to many people as new knowledge that the liquor business of the world has been in the hands of Jews. In the United States the liquor business was almost exclusively in the hands of Jews for 25 years previous to Prohibition, during the period, in fact, when the liquor trade was giving point and confirmation to Prohibition arguments. This knowledge has an important bearing on the interpretation of our times.

In the volume, “The Conquering Jew,” published by Funk & Wagnalls Company in 1916, John Foster Fraser writes:

“The Jews are masters of the whisky trade in the United States. Eighty per cent of the members of the National Liquor Dealers’ Association are Jews. It has been shown that 60 per cent of the business of distilling and wholesale trade in whisky is in the hands of the Jews. As middlemen they control the wine product of California. Jews visit the tobacco-growing States and buy up nearly all the leaf tobacco, so that the great tobacco companies have to buy the raw product from them. The Jews have a grip on the cigar trade. The American Tobacco Company manufactures about 15 per cent of the cigars smoked in the United States. The Jews provide the rest.”

It was also true in Russia, Poland, Rumania. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that “The Establishment of the government liquor monopoly (in Russia in 1896) deprived thousands of Jewish families of a livelihood.” They controlled the liquor traffic, the vodka business which undermined Russia. The government made the liquor business a national monopoly in order to abolish it, which was done. Liquor in Russia was Jewish, as the Encyclopedia testifies. Anyone reading carefully the article on Russia, especially pages 527 and 559 in the Jewish Encyclopedia, will be in no doubt as to the fact. In Rumania the whole “Jewish Question” was the liquor question. The land of the peasants came into control of the liquor sellers, and the business of handling liquors was a strict Jewish monopoly for years. In Poland the same was true. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the United States whisky also became Jewish.

For convenience in detailing this story, most of the observations made will center in the state of Kentucky. Almost every one of age knows the phrase “fine old Kentucky whiskies.” It was once a phrase that meant something. Kentucky produced, in her limestone regions, the kind of water that served best with the grain ingredients of whisky. The word “Bourbon,” known mostly as a kind of whisky, is really the name of a county in Kentucky where “Bourbon whisky” was first made. How profoundly the region in which whisky is manufactured affects the product may be gathered from the fact that a primitive Kentucky distiller named Shields, who became famous for a brand of Bourbon made from the waters of Glen’s Creek, conceived of the idea of lowering his costs by transferring his distillery to Illinois, where he would be nearer the rich cornfields. He was disappointed. Illinois water would not make Bourbon. “The rule of the region” is supreme. Jamaica rum owes its characteristic to the waters of Jamaica. Port wine is best produced in the region of Duro in Portugal, champagne in the region of Rheims in France, and beer in Bavaria. And so, in Kentucky there was the right combination of elements which made the whisky product of that state world famous.

An alcoholic spirit from grain may be made in any climate and by many methods. Neutral spirits, high wines and alcohol, are not indigenous anywhere. They can be made in any back room or cellar, in very little time. Little care is required. A concoction of drugs and spirits, properly colored and flavored, fraudulently labeled “whisky” and passed out over the bar, is a crime against the art of distilling, against the human nervous system, and against society.

Readers may recall that in 1904, Dr. Wiley, then chief of the United States Bureau of Chemistry, had a great deal to say about this. But because he did not point out that the evil he was attacking was fostered by a single class of men bent on gain at the cost of ruin to an American industry and to countless thousands of American citizens, few paid any attention to him. The public supposed that Dr. Wiley was discussing a technical question which interested American distillers only. It vastly more interested the American citizen, if he had but known it, if anyone had but had the clear vision and the courage to expose the great Jewish whisky conspiracy.

The difference between the non-Jewish and the Jewish method, as illustrated in the history of American whisky, is thus described by Dr. Wiley:

“The aging of whisky takes years of time. It is expensive. The whisky leaks out. It is allowed to stand for four years at least. The object of this is to permit the oxidation of the alcohols There is a loss of interest on the value of the whisky while it is aging; hence it is an expensive process.

“But the manufacture of compounded, or artificial whisky has for its purpose the avoiding of this long and expensive process. The makers begin with the pure article of spirits which can be made in a few hours To this is added enough water to dilute it to the strength of whisky. The next step is to color it this is done by adding burnt sugar and caramel. The next thing is to supply the flavors By the way I have described, in two or three hours the compounder can make a material which looks like, smells like, tastes like, and analyzes like genuine whisky, but it has a different effect on the system. The people who drink this whisky are much more liable to receive injury from it than those who drink the genuine article.”

All sorts of practices were resorted to. Drugs and raw “crops” of whisky were bought up and the business of “rectifying,” as it was called, began the ruin of the natural and wholesome process of distilling. Quick money, regardless of what happened to the customer: that was the motive of the rectifying business.

This rectifying business was mostly Jewish. Here and there a non-Jew was associated with Jewish partners, but rarely. The way had been found to trade on the reputation of the term “whisky” by compounding a liquid which looked and tasted like whisky but the effect of which was harmful. That was the capital fraud—the capture of the name “whisky” for a synthetic poison. There was a concealment of the meaning of “rectified spirits,” a deceptive use of the word “blend,” and even a most fraudulent misrepresentation concerning aging. If chemical deception could be used to make a whisky taste as if it were nine years old, then it was advertised as “Nine Years in the Wood.” Here is a bit of Jewish court testimony:

Q.  Is your make of whisky nine years old?

A.  Nine years old, but I want to explain in that respect that the whisky may not have existed nine years before it was put into that bottle That brand of whisky which we brand as nine years old blended, means that it is equal to a nine-year-old whisky in smoothness and quality.

Q. How did you arrive at the fact which you put upon this bottle that the whisky was nine years old?

A.  Because it is comparatively nine years old.

Q.  How do you arrive at that result?

A.  By sampling. You take the whisky that is allowed to remain in theoriginal package for nine years and compare it with our nine-year-old blend and you will find them in smoothness the same. Therefore, we class it as nine-year-old whisky.

Let the reader form his own judgement on that type of mind. The whisky bore a name resembling a time-honored brand of pure goods, and it flaunted the name Kentucky, when it was not whisky at all, was not a Kentucky product, but was compounded of neutral spirits from Indiana, prune juice from California, rock candy from anywhere, and raw Illinois whisky from Peoria to give it flavor.

Although Louisville, Kentucky, became headquarters of whisky men, it was

Cincinnati, Ohio, a thoroughly Judaized city, which became a greater headquarters for the pseudo-whisky men, the compounders, mixers and rectifiers. The list of Cincinnati liquor dealers reads like a directory of the Warsaw ghetto. In Louisville the Judaic complexion of the city, as well as society, is very noticeable; indeed, most of the leading Jews in the whisky business are now Kentucky “Colonels.”

The Jewish character of the whisky business since the Civil War may be visualized, by the simple expedient of noting how many of the better known brands have been at various dates under Jewish control:

There is “Old 66,” owned by Straus, Pritz & Co.

“Highland Rye,” owned by Freiberg & Workum.

“T. W. Samuel Old Style Sour Mash,” owned by Max Hirsch, the Star Distilling Company.

“Bridgewater Sour Mash and Rye Whiskies,” “Rosewood and Westbrook Bourbon Whiskies,” distilled by J. & A. Freiberg.

“T. J. Monarch” and “Davies County Sour Mash Whiskies,” controlled by J. & A. Freiberg.

“Louis Hunter 1870,” “Crystal Wedding,” and “Old Jug,” blended by J. & A. Freiberg.

“Gannymede ’76,” put out by Sigmund and Sol H. Freiberg.

“Jig-Saw Kentucky Corn Whisky,” “Lynndale Whisky,” “Brunswick Rye and Bourbon,” by Hoffheimer Brothers Company.

“Red Top Rye” and “White House Club,” by Ferdinand Westheimer & Sons.

“Green River” came into the control of E. La Montague.

“Sunnybrook,” a widely advertised brand, on whose advertising matter a man in a United States inspector’s uniform stood behind as if endorsing it, was at the time owned by Rosenfield Brothers & Co.

“Mount Vernon,” as from the Hannis Distilling Company, was at the time owned by Angelo Meyer.

“Belle of Nelson” came into control of the Jewish trust, which was brought to legal birth by Levy Mayer and Alfred Austrian, the latter being the Chicago attorney whose name will be recalled in connection with the baseball articles in this series.

“James E. Pepper” was owned by James Wolf.

“Cedar Brook” was owned by Julius Kessler & Co. It was formerly the old “W. H. McBrayer” brand, but the real W. H. McBrayer, knowing the new methods that were arising in liquor-making, requested in his will that his name should not be used as a brand after he had ceased to see that the product was worthy of his name.

In the Pittsburgh and Peoria districts, the same story held true; the alleged whisky made in those districts was controlled, with one exception, by Jews.

The Great Western Distillery, in Peoria, is owned by a corporation of Jews. Two of its brands were “Ravenswood Rye” and “Ravenswood Bourbon.”

The Woolner Distillery made “Old Grove Whisky” and “Old Ryan Whisky,” and “Bucha Gin.”

In the city of Peoria alone there are fifteen great fortunes, all held by Jews, and for the most part made in what passed in Peoria for Whisky.

Take the city of Cincinnati alone and note what even an incomplete list reveals as to the names of the men classified as “distillers”:

Bernheim, Rexinger & Company; Elias Bloch & Sons; J. & A. Freiberg; Freiberg & Workum; Helfferich & Sons; Hoffheimer Brothers Company; Elias Hyman & Sons; Kaufman, Bare & Company; Klein Brothers; A. Loeb & Co.; H. Rosenthal & Sons; Seligman Distilling Company; Straus, Pritz & Company; S. N. Weil & Company, and F. Westheimer & Sons; with many other Jews concealed under fancy trade names and corporation designations. It is the same throughout Ohio, which state, incidentally, is one of the most Jew-ridden states in the Union.

The lists here given do not by any means begin to indicate the numbers of the Jews who were engaged in the liquor business, they only indicate the complexion which the business takes on when a search is made behind the “brands” and the trade names. Any citizen in any city of size will have no trouble in confirming the statement that most of the rectifiers and wholesalers and brokers in the whisky trade of his city also were Jews.

But it is not only the fact that the liquor business was controlled by Jews that assumes importance. That is a fact which no one will deny—not even the Jewish defenders. But it is the additional fact that there was spread over this country the machinery of a vicious system which while it was destined to ruin the liquor business—as perhaps it deserved to be ruined—also ruined hundreds of thousands of citizens who trusted that “pure and unadulterated” meant what the words were intended to convey. It would be a separate story to tell of all the manipulation of labels, the piracy of brand names, the conscienceless play upon words “pure and unadulterated” of which the un-American “compounded liquor” combine was guilty. Of course, the stuff was “pure and unadulterated”—so is carbolic acid—but it was not whisky! There were law violations galore, and it was well enough recognized in the rectifying business as a regular practice to appropriate annually a certain sum to pay the fines that were bound to be assessed against it. A riot of adulteration and chicanery ensued, with whisky being made in many saloon cellars and the dangerous secrets of synthetic booze-making being peddled abroad among the customers of the trust.

Presently the saloon men became aware of the fact that they were the goats of the game. Seldom was the Jew engaged in dishing out five-cent beers or ten-cent whiskies; it remained for the “boob Gentile” to do that; the Jew was at the wholesale end where the real profits were made. But it was the saloon man who took the brunt of the blame. The Jewish “distillers,” as the compounders and blenders of the Louisville and Peoria districts were called, wore silk hats and their respectability was unquestioned. The saloon men made an eleventh hour effort to save their business, but the stuff they were pouring out had not improved, and Prohibition came, sweeping the saloon away, but, as the sequel will show, not depriving the Jewish compounder of his profits.

How much of the liquor business of the United States was in whisky and how much in rectified spirits?

The Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, said: “Most of the distilled liquors consumed as a beverage by the American people pass through rectifying houses. The different classes of rectified spirits range from the cheapest concoctions of neutral spirits and drugs to the simple blending of young and old whisky.”

Twenty years ago statistics showed that 80 per cent of the so-called whisky put up in the United States was imitation whisky. Chief Chemist Wiley, whose concern was not with the quantity but with the quality, gave it as his information “that over half the whisky in this country was compounded whisky. Less than half was genuine; and while they usually mix a little old whisky with it, they often sell it purely and simply as it is, whisky which has no claim to be called whisky under the real meaning of that term.”

But all that was only a beginning. The time came when the vision of a great liquor combination rose in certain minds in this country. It was planned to sweep the good brands and the bad brands alike into one common management—whose control the reader will by this time suspect—and thus not only capitalize the reputation which the old-time American distillers had made through years of honest distilling, but use the trade names of pure goods as a mask for a deluge of the dishonest kind of liquor which left a trail of suicide, insanity, crime and social wreckage in its path.

This, with independent testimony as to the Jewish direction of it all, will form the subject matter of a separate story.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 17 December 1921]

Gigantic Jewish Liquor Trust and Its Career

It has been shown how the American Whisky business became Jewish. The distillers of pure whisky which required years to make, were driven out by the manufacturers of drugged and chemicalized liquors which could be made in three or four hours. The latter, being cheaper and more intoxicating, so completely usurped the market that the public never knew that it was not whisky. It had stolen the name of whisky, and under that name the righteous indignation of the people prohibited it; and under that name still it is being sold by bootleggers at an advance of 1,000 per cent. The use of the fraudulent label is not new, it is not a product of Prohibition days; it began with the advent of Jewish capital into the liquor business. Whisky, carefully and scientifically made, purified by long years of repose in the warehouse, was an American product; “red eye,” “forty rod stuff,” “knock ’em dead” and “squirrel whisky” mixed and sold the same day, were Jewish products.

The Pure Food Law came into the fight to protect the American industry, but it was flouted at every turn. Bad liquor was in such a deep state of public disgrace that the people paid little attention to Chief Chemist Wiley’s efforts. They thought when he said “whisky” he meant the stuff that they knew as “whisky,” and they disregarded him. The degeneracy of the liquor business became deeper and deeper, to the amazement of both its friends and its foes, and no one had the key to the situation because no one saw, or seeing, had the courage to expose, the Jewish program behind the scenes.

To resume the story: Even after the cheap compounded liquors which masqueraded as “whisky” had won a commanding place in the market, to the serious detriment of the business in pure brands, the Jewish compounders were far from satisfied. There remained a few American brands whose names, by reason of their dependability, topped the list. Their very quality, though of limited quantity, was a constant challenge to the vicious mixtures of which the rectifiers produced millions of gallons a year.

How to remove those standard American brands, with their honest labels, from the market?—that was the problem which the leaders of the Jewish compounding business tackled. The first resort was, characteristically, to trickery. Shipments of pure goods would be sidetracked somewhere en route, while the rectifiers drew off half the whisky and refilled the barrels with mixed compounds. People who have been amazed at the stunts of the bootleggers—the sidetracking of whisky shipments, the “robbery” of loaded trucks, and so on—would not be so surprised if they knew that every trick was used by the compounders of bad liquor twenty years ago! It was Jewish then, as it is Jewish now, but no one dared say so. Merely to list the tricks would require too much space. It was a nasty business from any point of view.

But still the standard brands held their place in public confidence. The Jew who claims to be the superior of the American in skill did not think of making a better whisky and thus winning the market; he thought to get rid of the better whisky that the vicious, adulterated product might own the field.

It was the day of Trusts. Big Business was amalgamating. It occurred to the leaders of the compounding business that if they could sweep all the honest distilleries into a combine with all the backroom rectifying places, put them all under one management and run down the quality of famous brands to the standard of cheap ones—cashing in on the names of the brands, and doubly profiting by decreasing the cost which quality requires—they could thus accomplish in a financial way what had been formerly tried by less respectable methods.

The inception of the idea of a “whisky combine” was legitimate. The Kentucky distillers (who must at all times be distinguished from compounders and rectifiers) endeavored in 1898 to establish a combination that would unite all the legitimate distilleries in the fight against the flood of counterfeit whisky. It is, however, significant that there was not enough capital in the legitimate whisky business to finance the plan. But when the idea was picked up by the makers of spurious liquor, there were millions of dollars at their command—just as today, with industry suffering, there are millions of Jewish capital at the disposal of the motion picture business!

In the Louisville Courier-Journal, February, 1899, the story of the first operations toward a combine is told, the language being inflated, of course, that hesitant distilleries might be stampeded. “Absorbed Kentucky Distilleries in a Mammoth Combine. Capital Stock $32,000,000. Some of the Biggest Plants in the State Involved. Sixteen in Louisville. Controls 90 per cent of the Product and Nearly All Standard Brands.”

“Levy Mayer, of Chicago, has acted as counsel in the drawing up of the papers. He becomes the general counsel of the new company.”

This article contained a list of Kentucky distilleries, all of them American—that is, non-Jewish. It was the well-established brands, the names of quality, that were sought. These names were all non-Jewish.

“Levy Mayer, the general counsel of the new company, said tonight: ‘The Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company is a reality and will bring prosperity to the state of Kentucky where depression has prevailed for some years on account of the discord which has existed among the distillers of Bourbon whisky, who for a generation prior enjoyed a great prosperity.’”

A most ingenuous statement. But Mr. Mayer is a most ingenuous man. However, there is some truth in his statement: it was true that the legitimate distillers had suffered from depression, not because the American people were not consuming liquor, however, but because the American people had been turned from pure whisky to “red eye”; and Mr. Mayer’s smooth statement that this depression was “on account of the discord which has existed among the distillers of Bourbon whisky” needs revision to “the fight between the non-Jewish makers of real whisky and the Jewish makers of compounded liquor.”

In the story of the combine a great deal is heard of Mr. Mayer and Alfred Austrian. Mayer is a Chicago Jew who is worth a story by himself. He is one of those Jews with whom candidates for the American presidency—mostly those candidates who are in debt—feel it is necessary to stay, when he invites them. Mr. Austrian is sufficiently well known by his connection with the baseball scandal. He was attorney for Rothstein, the gambler, whose name figured so prominently in that scandal, and who is credited with doing things to the grand jury testimony in a way that makes a pretty tale. Austrian also appeared for two St. Louis Jew gamblers, implicated in the baseball scandal, who were afterward indicted. Austrian is also credited with being the author of the so-called “Lasker Plan” of baseball reorganization. The services of Mayer and Austrian to the liquor interests of Chicago and Cook County, were and are important.

There were Jewish names previously appearing. About 1889 Nathan Hoffheimer had tried to bring all the Kentucky whisky business under one head, and later Morris Greenbaum tried it. It will probably be conceded that both these men are Jews, and it is provable by the records that they were endeavoring to consolidate the whisky business. But the big stunt was really pulled off under the guidance of the two Chicago Jews, Mayer and Austrian.

“The various companies forming the Trust are:

“American Spirits Manufacturing Company, $35,000,000; Kentucky Distilling and Warehouse Association, $32,000,000; The Rye Whisky Distillers Association $30,000,000; the Standard Distilling Company, $28,000,000; and the Spirits Distributing Company, $7,500,000.

“The forerunner of the gigantic combination of the whisky interests of the country was the organization of the American Spirits Manufacturing Company upon the ruins of the old whisky trust which was controlled and directed by Joseph Greenhut

“Attorney Levi Mayer, of Chicago, who has been legal adviser of the whisky people from the inception of the American Spirits Manufacturing Association, was called to New York Saturday last to confer over the legal form of the charter and the closing of the negotiations.”

The italicized portions indicate the connection, and it was a connection maintained to the end, and may indeed be continued yet.

Then, in the current accounts of this merger of the liquor business under Jewish control, another name appears. On March 15, 1899:

“Angelo Meyer, a big whisky buyer of New York, is in Louisville trying to buy a big lot of whiskies.” It appears that Mr. Meyer put on a poor mouth and told how hard it was to buy whisky in big lots.

And then on March 17, two days later, this appeared: “Mr. Angelo Meyer, the wealthy Philadelphia whisky man, has been appointed one of the general managers of the business of the Kentucky Distilleries Company, and is engaged in appointing men to take charge of the various departments of the combine’s affairs.”

The discrepancy in the above two paragraphs need not be charged to the untruthfulness of the newspaper reporter. Reporters as a rule faithfully report what they are told; but sometimes what they are told is not true.

“Mr. Meyer has commonly been called the Napoleon of the whisky trade. He is largely interested in the recently formed combine.

“‘We intend to make plenty of whisky. No brand will be killed.’ said Mr. Meyer.”

Henceforth the names of Levi Mayer, Alfred Austrian and Angelo Meyer appear most frequently in the reports.

“Alfred Austrian, who is Levy Mayer’s legal representative, says that all the distilleries now negotiated for will be absorbed in three weeks more.”

“In an interview today Mr. Angelo Meyer said, ‘I believe confidently that in the next five years a business calling for 10,000,000 gallons of whisky a year will be built up.’”

In April, 1899, another Jewish movement appeared: “Joseph Wolf, the Chicago whisky dealer, who is said to own more Kentucky whisky, independent of the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company, than any other individual or corporation, is behind the new whisky combine formed in Chicago with a capital stock of $3,000,000. The purpose of the new trust, which it is said will be given the title of the Illinois Distilleries and Warehouse Company, is to fight the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company.”

The few remaining Kentucky Distillers were wary; they regarded Wolf, probably with reason, as simulating enmity to the other part of the Jew-made whisky trust in order to sweep into his net the remaining independents.

“Alfred Austrian and C. H. Stoll, attorneys for the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company, will leave Louisville today for Chicago to confer with Levy D. Mayer, chief counsel for the trust; and in fact, counsel for three big whisky and spirits combines.”

“Alfred Austrian, of Chicago, left last night for Cincinnati to close the deal for the celebrated Sam Clay distillery of Bourbon County.”

Under an exciting headline detailing the departure of the Jew lawyer Austrian to Chicago to see the Jew lawyer Mayer, there is the story of a still greater whisky combine:

“The projected combination of all the whisky interests of the country will probably be completed in Chicago today. A rye whisky trust is now being formed, and will soon be ready for incorporation and presentation to men with capital It is said that the

capitalization of the rye whisky trust will be $60,000,000, and the combined capitalization of the five companies will amount to about $175,000,000. . . .

Levy

Mayer, of Chicago, Alfred Austrian, of Chicago, and C. H. Stoll, of New York, are the attorneys for the three trusts, Mr. Mayer being the chief counsel.”

And still later, a statement by Levy Mayer:

“The new rye distillery combination will be the largest individual whisky amalgamation in the world. It is controlled and is being financed by the same people and the same trust companies of New York and Philadelphia now controlling and financing the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company, whose capital is $32,000,000; the Standard Distilling and Distributing Company, with a capital of $28,000,000; the American Spirits Manufacturing Company, with a capital of $35,000,000; and the Spirits Distributing Company, with a capitalization of $15,000,000.

“Rumor has it,” and Mr. Mayer smiled as he patted a big bundle of legal documents, “that after the rye consolidation has been perfected all the separate companies will be merged into one central company, which will have an aggregate capital close to $200,000,000. A whisky combination of that size will certainly hold foremost place among the world’s liquor trusts and organizations.”

Another dispatch: “Alfred Austrian today returned to Louisville from New York, where he assisted in forming the combine of the American Spirits Manufacturing Company (and the three other companies).

“Mr. Austrian leaves tonight for Chicago, where he expects to close the deal with Elias Bloch & Sons to purchase the Darling distillery in Carroll County, and with Freiberg and Workum to secure their two plants in Boone County.”

Here it is possible to see the Jewish agents of Jewish capital hurrying to and fro with every assurance of success, working along well-defined lines, known to themselves but concealed from the public, building up a colossal structure which public opinion was to hurl down in two decades. But two decades were enough for enormous revenues to be derived from the criminal debasement of all kinds of liquor, which became more apparent from the time of the giant consolidation.

Whisky became so rotten that in Kentucky, the pioneer whisky state, there were only four whole “wet” counties by 1908. The first decade of absolute Jewish control put even the first whisky state in the “dry” column.

The Jewish compounders did not care how they marketed their goods, so long as they could sell them in quantities. The cheap “barrel house” appeared with its windows full of gleaming bottles and gaudy labels and “cut rate” whisky prices. The compounders became saloon owners toward the end of the saloon era, and many Jews went into the “barrel house” business for a quick cleanup. The proportion of vicious dives increased everywhere, and the moral guardians of society were amazed at “the wave of vice” that was “sweeping over the country”; but they did not have the key that explained it. The whisky business was riding to a wild finish, but the men at the helm knew exactly what they were doing every moment of the time. To look back upon that period, with all the facts at hand, makes it more and more apparent how fitting is the term, “boob Gentile.”

Why, even Norman Hapgood knew how bad it was, and Collier’s Weekly, under his editorship, was the first journal in the land to print the names of Jews in connection with the liquor debauchery of the country. But those were the good old days, when Hapgood could tell the truth even about Hearst, the man for whom he now writes his graceless palaver of pro-Jewish propaganda.

In Collier’s Weekly, during the year 1908, solid truths appeared, which are in point today as proofs of what was transpiring. There was a specially scathing attack on what was called “nigger gin,” a peculiarly vile beverage which was compounded to act upon the Negro in a most vicious manner. Will Irwin spoke of this gin as “the king iniquity in the degenerated liquor traffic of these United States.” This author and Collier’s started a new fashion in giving publicity not only to the names of certain brands of liquors, but also the names of the men who made them. It turned out that the maker of a brand of “nigger gin” which had spurred certain Negroes on to the nameless crime, was one Lee Levy. Mr. Irwin wrote:

“Because the South is not through with Lee Levy, and because its citizens may at least drive him out of business—if they cannot get him behind the bars—one declaration of the Commercial Appeal is worthy of reply. That paper raises a question of fact—it charges that Levy’s gin, Dreyfuss, Weil & Company’s gin, Bluthenthal & Blickert’s gin, the Old Spring Distilling Company’s gin, do not exist; or that, if they exist, their sales are insignificant. Let me present my own evidence on that point.”

Mr. Irwin then details some of this experiences. The gin which he was discussing was provocative of peculiar lawlessness, its labels bore lascivious suggestions and were decorated with highly indecent portraiture of white women. “I bought, for evidence, many other brands, some emanating from the big liquor cities and some put up by local people; but I could always get Levy’s. I never saw it in any saloon which bars the Negro.

“In Galveston, which prides itself on its clean government, some brand or other was for sale in nearly all the corner grocery ‘drums.’

“In a Negro street of New Orleans I saw five saloon shop windows in one block which displayed either Lee Levy’s or Dreyfuss, Weil & Company’s. This latter firm is more clever in its work than the others, much more delicate and subtle in its labeling policy. It takes one who understands the Negro and his slang to appreciate the enigma of their wording; it all comes in a ‘caution label’ on the obverse of the bottles.

“. . . Such gins were sold everywhere in Birmingham a bottle of the stuff, half empty, had been taken from a Pickens County Negro just after his arrest for the nameless crime.

“Levy—so the gossip of the liquor trade has it—grew rich through this department of his business. Dreyfuss, Weil & Company advertise everywhere that theirs is ‘the most widely sold brand in the South.’ And more and more one hears of tragedies that lie at the end of this course.”

That is a sample—an expurgated sample—of what went on in every part of the country. Newspaper reporters will remember how the police used to wonder about the change that came over certain foreign communities. “They come here nice people,” the experienced police captain would say, “but in a short time they are giving us all sorts of trouble. They don’t do that in their own country.”

“It’s the drink,” somebody would suggest.

“No, they drink in their own country, they drink all the time there. It’s the kind of drink they get here that does it—the ‘rot-gut,’ that drives them wild.” That was the captain’s diagnosis, made a thousand times, but no one was the wiser. No one saw the key, which was the Jew.

In the South a terrible lynching period came and divided the country into pro-lynching and pro-Negro parties, but still no one saw the reason for it all. The race question rose to threatening proportions, the Americans of the North and South looked at each other askance, there was a cooling of sympathy between the regions. Northerners were inclined to look at Southerners as unjust and inhuman in their treatment of the Negro, and Southerners were inclined to look upon Northerners as temperamentally unsympathetic and stupidly ignorant of what the conditions were.

Behind it all were the products of men like Lee Levy and Dreyfuss, Weil & Company, to use only the names quoted from Collier’s.

The ancient Jewish policy of Divide-Conquer-Destroy was in operation. Jewish policy favors disunion as a preparation to the kind of union which Jewish leaders want. Jewish influence was strong for disunion in the Civil War. Jewish influence is directly behind the present attitude of the Negro toward the white man—look at the so-called “Negro welfare societies” with their hordes of Jewish officials and patrons! Jewish influence in the South is today active in keeping up the memory of the old divisions. And, with reference to the Negro question, “nigger gin,” the product of Jewish poisoned liquor factories, was its most provocative element.

Trace the appearance of this gin as to date, and you will find the period when Negro outbursts and lynching became serious. Trace the localities where this gin was most widely sold and you will find the places where these disorders prevailed.

It is extremely simple, so simple that it has been overlooked. The public is being constantly deceived by an appearance of complexity, where there is none. When you find the fever-bearing mosquito, yellow fever is no longer a mystery.

The same policy of “Divide-Conquer-Destroy” tells the story of the liquor traffic. Jewish influence divided between distilling and compounding, drove out distilling, and in the end destroyed the traffic as a legalized entity.

It needs to be said, however, that the destruction is not part of the Jewish intention. “Divide and Conquer” is the formula as the Jewish leaders conceive it, as, indeed, it is stated in the Protocols. The “destroy” comes as Nemesis upon Jewish achievements. Russia was divided and conquered, but just as the Jews had conquered it, the canker worm of fate began to consume their conquest. The story is repeated wherever Jewish intrigue has succeeded. Whatever the Jews can succeed in making Jewish, falls!

It may be fate. It may be Destiny’s way to the survival of the fittest. That which succumbs to complete Judiazation, as Jewish leaders conceive it, may deserve to fall. The justification of its destruction may appear in the possibility of its Judaization. Anything that can be Judaized is to that extent sentenced to oblivion.

The story of Jewish control of liquor has now been carried through two stages, the “Divide and Conquer” stages. The third stage follows with swift and relentless steps. Blind though the country was to the Jewish character of the liquor business, it was not blind to the ravages of that business upon society.

There came a sentiment that moved ceaselessly through the country, and mounted to stormy power; people could only speak of it as a “wave.” The term became hackneyed by overuse, but it was accurately descriptive. The indignation of the people, the arousal of their just moral resentment was as a flood which rose to cleanse the land. The attack was on liquor, and the attack was just. The attack was on liquor and it came none too soon. The country was drenched in vile concoctions which rapidly undermined large sections of the population. Crime increased and domestic misery was everywhere. The people attacked the only thing they could see—they attacked the stuff and the places that distributed it. They did not see the $200,000,000 Jewish whisky combination, they did not see the sinister devices by which strong drink was made vile and viler with the growth of Jewish control.

The people rose and swept away the saloon. They did not sweep away the stocks of liquor. They did not sweep away Jewish interest in liquor. They left the source untouched. And that source is still existent.

There remains another chapter of the narrative: the coming of Prohibition and of the illicit traffic in liquor. It remains to be seen whether the same thread carries through the latter phases.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 24 December 1921]

The Jewish Element in Bootlegging Evil

A student of the liquor history of the United States is left wondering, not that Prohibition came, but that the authorities ever allowed matters to go so far as to compel the people to take the issue into their own hands. That is the point where those who believe in “personal liberty” and those who believe in “public safety” ought to meet each other. It cannot be contended that every believer in Prohibition is a crank, nor can it be contended that every believer in “personal liberty” is a drunkard or a liquor guzzler; each of them stands for a principle that is a principle of right. But the Prohibitionist has been able to command victory over the “personal liberty” advocate because the stuff that the Prohibitionist is against ought not to be sold nor used under any circumstances, whereas the stuff the “personal liberty” advocate thinks he favors is not the stuff he thinks it is at all.

If the element in question were poisoned tooth paste, or opium, or any other concededly dangerous substance, both the Prohibitionist and the “personal liberty” advocate would agree. What the honest “personal liberty” advocate needs to learn is that the liquor which caused the adoption of Prohibition was most dangerous to the individual and society. The question was not one of “liberty” but of safety.

It is scarcely to be hoped that all the “personal liberty” groups will come to agree with this, because most of them are formed of the very men who made and profited by the drugged and chemicalized substances which were sold over the bar and in bottles.

Liquor men themselves must agree with the facts. Even Bonfort’s Wine and Spirits Circular admitted years ago that “the bulk of spirits sold today in glass under well-known brands is not what it is represented to be.” “The truth of the matter is (we dislike to say it) the wine and spirit trade of this country is honeycombed with fraud, and the most radical measure should be applied and applied vigorously.” “Many a dealer prominent socially, morally, religiously and in philanthropic circles will take a lot of neutral spirits, only a few days old, flavor them with a little heavy-bodied whisky, and brand them on the label or glass with the name of any state or county desired, and with any age, and this he will do with all smiles and glee and inward delight that is said to characterize the bold buccaneer when he cuts a throat and scuttles a ship.”

These excerpts show how near the official publications of the liquor trade could come to describing the practice and indicating the Jew. The last quotation was a direct hit at Louisville liquor Jews, one of which compounders furnished a room at the Y.M.C.A. of that city, another of whom adorned the town with public gifts, all of whom are Kentucky “Colonels”; though their ancestry is not exactly Kentuckian, nor even American.

The wine companies of Ohio, whose vineyards on Kelleys Island and elsewhere had built up a standard business, joined in the protest. They pointed out that counterfeit wines were flowing out of factories in Cleveland and Cincinnati, while the legitimate wine districts of Sandusky and Put-in-Bay were being saddled with the stigma of poisoned goods. As all the counterfeit business was in the hands of Jews, the statement is unavoidable that the whole movement of the degradation of liquor was Jewish.

Then came Prohibition. The Constitution of the United States was amended, the amendment being ratified by 45 states. The issue had been actively before the nation longer than any other issue except the slavery question, so that the people’s action on it must be regarded as deliberate. And the liquor business was legally ended. BUT—

What was the Jewish attitude toward Prohibition while it was being argued before the nation? What has been the Jewish attitude toward Prohibition since it has been adopted?

Both questions can be answered the same way. There are, of course, Kentuckians and others who have convinced themselves that the Jewish compounders foresaw Prohibition and welcomed it, because they saw that it would increase their profits 1,000 per cent. But whatever the truth of that may be, there are no available records to support it. The Jews destroyed the business—that is true; but whether intentionally, for greater illegitimate profits, we cannot say. There are, however, records of Jewish activity during the reform agitation. The Jews were against Prohibition. Their press and pulpit were against it. Their whole influence in politics and finance were against it. They were the backbone of the entire “wet” propaganda, and are today. The great temperance organizations will tell you that Jews did not contribute to their work. One national Prohibition organization admits a gift of $5 in many years. Will Irwin, investigating the early Prohibition movement in the South for Collier’s in 1901, found that The Modern Voice, a Jewish religious weekly which is still published, was engaged in carrying the “wet” propaganda into the southern states. The Modern Voice lost more votes than it made for its lack of taste in printing a halftone picture of Christ endorsing the liquor traffic. J. K. Baer, one of the editors of this Jewish paper, explained his activity in this direction by saying, “We are a Jewish weekly, and the Jews are opposed on moral grounds to prohibition.” A Mr. Rosenthal was associated in the work. This was typical of the Jewish press everywhere. The Jewish stage was enlisted, every man and every girl, just as it is now, to deride those who protested against the destruction of the American people by counterfeit whisky and wine. Jazz music, the movies, fake medical “experts”—every agency under Jewish control was mobilized to assist the fight for a continuance of the privilege of drugging the people’s drink.

This will scarcely be denied, at least by Jews. Some “Gentile fronts” may feel obliged to rush to the defense of the Jews by denying it, but their work is unnecessary. Jews themselves make no bones about it. They did not favor Prohibition, but they did not fear it; they knew that they would be exempt, they knew that it would bring certain illegitimate commercial advantages; they would be winners either way. Jewish luck!

It is not surprising, therefore, that violation and evasion of the Prohibition law has had a deep Jewish complexion from the very beginning. THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT would be glad to be excused from making the raw statement that bootlegging is a 95 per cent controlled Jewish industry in which a certain class of rabbis have been active; we, therefore, avail ourselves of the report of an address of Rabbi Leo M. Franklin, of Detroit, president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, as given before that body at Washington in April, 1921, confirming the general fact:

“In making the recommendation I gave you in my message in regard to this matter, and in going to the extreme in suggesting that we appeal to the government to rescind that part of the Prohibition law which gives rabbis permission to issue permits for the purchase and distribution of wine for ritual purposes, I did so after very mature consideration. I am sure that after (his successor) shall have been in the chair of the conference for any length of time, he will come to exactly the same conclusions as I did.

“You gentlemen, members of the conference, who have dealt with this situation as a local question have had, here and there, some small question to solve; but when you become president of the conference and have letters from every part of the country, almost day by day, asking you as president of the conference to give the necessary authority to all sorts of men in all sorts of conditions, to purchase and distribute wine for ritual purposes, then you will take a different angle on this whole situation.

“I pointed out to one of my colleagues, next to whom I was just now sitting, that within the past month I have received requests from three different men calling themselves rabbis in their communities, for authorization to purchase and distribute wine. I know that I am not exaggerating when I say that during this last year I received requests from not less than 150 men in all parts of the country for permits to distribute wine I had the applicants investigated, and I may say to you that in nine cases out of ten we found those who were attempting to use this conference, through its executive officers, for the obtaining of this authority, were men who had not the slightest right to stand before their communities as rabbis.

“What were they for the most part? They were men without the slightest pretense at rabbinical training or position who, for the purpose of getting into the wholesale liquor business, if you will, organized congregations. Nothing on God’s earth could prevent them from doing so. They simply gathered around them little companies of men; they called them congregations; and then, under the law as it now exists, they were privileged to purchase and distribute wine to these people. And I call your attention to the fact that many of the so-called members of these congregations were not members of one congregation only! (Laughter.) This is not a laughing matter. They were not only members of one congregation, but members of two, three, four and upward. Why, you don’t know what good Jews many have become since this law has gone into effect!

“What is more, gentlemen, perhaps some of you don’t realize what popularity has come to the—sermon, and how many Jews have suddenly come to realize the beauty and the duty of the Kiddush on Friday night. I tell you it is a mighty serious problem, and say what you will, our conference, under present conditions, is being used as a medium by unscrupulous men, by the dozens and by the hundreds, to carry on a bootlegging business in the name of religion

“Now you say there have been just small scandals here and there. A wine company in New York was raided last week and a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of wine was taken away by the authorities, supposed to be for ritual purposes. Don’t forget that rabbi after rabbi last week in New York, a few of whom I happen to know, and in Rochester, Buffalo, Flint, Michigan, and Port Huron, Michigan—in any number of small towns throughout the country, if you have read your papers carefully, you will find that Rabbi So-and-So has been arrested as a bootlegger.”

The discussion of this subject by the other rabbis present was very interesting. There was a request that “personal experiences be debarred,” but some crept in. Rabbi Cohen, for example, was quite explicit. “Being one of those who opposed the whole Prohibition law, I am not in sympathy with the whole Prohibition law It seems to me that we rabbis ought not to stand in the way of our own members in their legitimate ways of getting wine for their homes If a member wants the wine, I would like to be in a position that he may have the wine, even though he may not absolutely have to have it.”

Rabbi Cohen pronounced the typical Jewish view. If the fool Gentiles want to prohibit themselves from having liquor, let them do it, but if there is a loophole for the Jews such as the rabbinical permit offers, it should be used generously for any “member,” “even though he may not absolutely have to have it.”

The pre-Prohibition Jewish liquor business is also the post-Prohibition Jewish liquor business. That fact is established by mountainous evidence. This does not mean, of course, that every bootlegger you meet is a Jew, nor that you will ever meet a Jew serving as an itinerant bootlegger. Unless you live in Chicago, New York or other large cities, an actual meeting with the Jew in this minor capacity will not be frequent. The Jew is the possessor of the wholesale stocks; he is the director of the underground railways that convey the stuff surreptitiously to the public; seldom does he risk his own safety in being the last man to hand the goods to the consumer and to take the money.

But notwithstanding all the carefulness, the bulk of the arrests made in the United States have been among Jews. The bulk of the liquor permits—a guess at 95 per cent would not be too high—are in the hands of Jews. More and more the Jews are being appointed as Prohibition enforcement officers at the central points of distribution. It is a fact, as Rabbi Franklin showed, that part of the trouble arises over the abuse of what has been called “rabbinical wine,” but big as it seems by itself, it is really a small part in comparison with the whole. Numbers of lesser rabbis have profited from the sale of liquor, no doubt of that. And not only among their own people, but from any people making the demand. “If you sign a Jewish name you can get it,” is the watchword. Newspaper offices have been kept “wet” in some cases by “rabbinical wine,” which accounts for the dribble of “wet” propaganda in the so-called humorous and other columns of the evening journals.

It happens that “rabbinical wine” is a euphemism for whisky, gin, Scotch, champagne, vermouth, absinthe, or any other kind of hard liquor. The stocks that existed when Prohibition went into force have not only not deceased, but have actually increased, because of the increase in the “doctoring” of the stuff. It has been cheapened, its bulk has been increased and it has been made, if anything, more deadly than before. “As fatal as bootleg whisky” is a saying founded on thousands of deaths.

The wholesale stocks of compounded liquor remained in the hands of the men who owned them, while the retail stocks in stores and saloons had to be disposed of. That was one of the first big mistakes—that the little fellow was compelled to get rid of his stock, while the big fellow was permitted to keep his. The so-called rabbis who had advance information of the special privileges which the Jews were to enjoy under the Prohibition law, were very active in buying up the smaller stocks and storing them away. Of course, no one could prevent them. Was it not “ritual wine”?—Even though it was any kind of liquor, it went under the “cover name” of “ritual wine,” and of course, as everybody knows, great scandal resulted. Protests like that of Rabbi Franklin indicate that a part of Jewish public opinion resents the policy of exempting Jews from the Prohibition law, but this is minority opinion. What the Central Conference of American Rabbis may think is of little consequence to the mass of Jews in America. The people to scrutinize with regard to this are not the Rabbi Franklins, who are amenable to the significance of American opinion, but those Jews who do not consult with Americanized rabbis, but run the political end of Jewry as they choose.

There is no reason why the Jews should be exempt from the operation of the

Constitution of the United States at all, yet the Constitution is suspended in their favor when the Ten-Gallon Permit is given.

But it would be a great mistake to suppose that there is or could be any objection to the Jews’ ritualistic use of wine, or that the present scandal with regard to law violation rises from that. It is not a religious question at all. It is purely a commercial question. The people who are breaking the Prohibition law are the same people who broke the Pure Food law with regard to the ingredients of whisky. They are essentially a lawbreaking class.

The “Gentile boobs” who patronize bootleggers today are being sold a liquor which is never what it is represented to be, in spite of names blown in the bottles, in spite of seals and in spite of labels. The most conscienceless fraud is being perpetrated on gullible people at an increase in profit from 400 to 1,000 per cent. The stuff brought from Havana is Jew whisky shipped there, “doctored” still more and shipped back at increased prices—the “Gentile boobs” fancying they are getting something extra special “just brought in from Havana.”

Twenty hears ago Jewish liquor dealers of Chicago were using genuine James E. Pepper bottles refilled with vile ingredients compounded in back rooms. Twenty years ago there were counterfeit whiskies sold in the United States bearing forged Canadian Government stamps. The forgers of the labels were Jewish liquor houses. Twenty years ago there was unlimited faking of liquor labels, a Chicago printing house furnishing Jewish liquor houses with clever imitations of any reputable label in use, to be placed on bottles containing doped goods. Foreign, American and Canadian labels were unscrupulously adopted and brazenly advertised everywhere.

These abuses did not wait for Prohibition; they were daily Jewish practices twenty years ago.

The only difference now is that the stuff which is sold is still worse.

The enforcement of the Prohibition law ought to be rigidly complete, for the same reason that the enforcement of the Pure Food law should have been complete years ago—it is necessary to prevent the wholesale harming of an ignorant public.

The maintenance of the idea of drink in the minds of the people is due to Jewish propaganda. There is not a dialog on the stage today that does not drip with whisky patter. As all the plays making much noise this year are not only Jew-written, Jew-produced and Jew-controlled, but also Jew-played (the stage swarms with Jewish countenances this year), the drip of whisky patter is constant. If theatergoers were at all observant they would see that most of their money goes to support pro-Jewish propaganda in one form or another, which, is of course, a tribute to Jewish business genius—what other people could embark on a pro-racial propaganda and make the opposite race pay for it?

This idea of drink will be maintained by means of the Jewish stage, Jewish jazz and the Jewish comics until somebody comes down hard upon it as being incentive of treason to the Constitution. When a Jewish comedian can indulge in a 15-minute monologue “panning” the United States, defaming Liberty, heaping contempt upon the Pilgrims, and openly praising a violation of a portion of the Constitution of the United States—and when choruses sing this sort of thing, and slap-stick artists take it up, and it becomes evident that the country is being ringed around every week by repeated attacks upon what the people have established—it is certain not to be very long before a heavy hand will be laid on the whole business.

The Department of Justice should pay some attention to the treason nightly spouted on the legitimate stage before Americans who pay as high as $5 each in support of the propaganda.

First and last, the illicit liquor business in all its phases, both before and after Prohibition, has always been Jewish. Before Prohibition it was morally illicit, after Prohibition it became both morally and legally illicit.

And it is not a cause for shame among the majority of the Jews, sad to say; it is rather a cause for boast. The Yiddish newspapers are fruitful of jocular references to the fact, and they even carry large wine company advertisements week after week.

As before Prohibition the key to the steady degeneration of the liquor business was the fact of Jewish domination, so now the key to the organized and lawless rebellion against a recently enacted article of the Constitution is also Jewish. Prohibition enforcement officers will find a short-cut to successful enforcement along this line. And if law-abiding Jews would help with what they know, the work could be soon accomplished.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 31 December 1921]

Angles of Jewish Influence in American Life

The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews appear, says Theodor Herzl, because they bring it with them. It is not their numbers that create the Question, for there is in almost every country a larger number of other aliens than of Jews. It is not their much-boasted ability, for it is now coming to be understood that, give the Jew an equal start and hold him to the rules of the game, and he is not smarter than anyone else; indeed, in one great class of Jews the zeal is quenched when opportunity for intrigue is removed.

The Jewish Question is not in the number of Jews who here reside, not in the American’s jealousy of the Jew’s success, certainly not in any objection to the Jew’s entirely unobjectionable Mosaic religion; it is in something else, and that something else is the fact of Jewish influence on the life of the country where Jews dwell; in the United States it is the Jewish influence on American life.

That the Jews exert an influence, they themselves loudly proclaim. One is permitted to think that they really claim a stronger influence than they possess, especially in those higher regions where excellent and determinative influences have been at work. The Jews claim, indeed, that the fundamentals of the United States are Jewish and not Christian, and that the entire history of this country should be rewritten to make proper acknowledgment of the prior glory due to Judah. If the question of influence rested entirely on the Jewish claim, there would be no occasion for doubt; they claim it all. But it is kindness to hold them to the facts; it is also more clearly explanatory of conditions in our country. If they insist that they “gave us our Bible” and “gave us our God” and “gave us our religion,” as they do over and over again with nauseating superciliousness throughout all their polemic publications—not a single one of these claims being true—they must not grow impatient and profane while we complete the list of the real influences they have set at work in American life.

It is not the Jewish people but the Jewish idea, and the people only as vehicles of the idea, that is the point at issue. As it was Prussianism and not the German people that was the objective in the recent war, so in this investigation of the Jewish Question, it is Jewish influence and the Jewish Idea that are being discovered and defined.

The Jews are propagandists. This was originally their mission. But they were to propagate the central tenet of their religion. This they failed to do. By failing in this they, according to their own Scriptures, failed everywhere. They are now without a mission of blessing. Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service.

The essence of the Jewish Idea in its influence on the labor world is the same as in all other departments—the destruction of real values in favor of fictitious values. The Jewish philosophy of money is not to “make money,” but to “get money.” The distinction between these two is fundamental. That explains Jews being “financiers” instead of “captains of industry.” It is the difference between “getting” and “making.”

The creative, constructive type of mind has an affection for the thing it is doing. The non-Jewish worker formerly chose the work he liked best. He did not change his employment easily, because there was a bond between him and the kind of work he had chosen. Nothing else was so attractive to him. He would rather draw a little less money and do what he liked to do, than a little more and do what irked him. The “maker” is always thus influenced by his liking.

Not so the “getter.” It doesn’t matter what he does, so long as the income is satisfactory. He has no illusions, sentiments or affections on the side of work. It is the “geld” that counts. He has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn’t make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-drawing value. “The joy of creative labor” is nothing to him, not even an intelligible saying.

Now, previous to the advent of Jewish socialistic and subversive ideas, the predominant thought in the labor world was to “make” things and thus “make” money. There was a pride among mechanics. Men who made things were a sturdy, honest race because they dealt with ideas of skill and quality, and their very characters were formed by the satisfaction of having performed useful functions in society. They were the Makers. And society was solid as long as they were solid. Men made shoes as exhibitions of their skill. Farmers raised crops for the inherent love of crops, not with reference to far-off money-markets. Everywhere The Job was the main thing and the rest was incidental.

The only way to break down this strong safeguard of society—a laboring class of sturdy character—was to sow other ideas among it; and the most dangerous of all the ideas sown was that which substituted “get” for “make.” With the required manipulation of the money and food markets, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the ultimate consumers to give point to the idea of “get,” and it was not long before the internal relations of American business were totally upset, with Jews at the head of the banking system, and Jews at the head of both the conservative and radical elements of the Labor Movement, AND, most potent of all, the Jewish Idea sowed through the minds of workingmen. What Idea? The old idea of “get” instead of “make.”

The idea of “get” is a vicious, anti-social and destructive idea when held alone; but when held in company with “make” and as second in importance, it is legitimate and constructive. As soon as a man or a class is inoculated with the strictly Jewish Idea of “getting”—(“getting mine;” “getting while the getting is good;” “honestly if you can, dishonestly if you must—but get it”—all of which are notes of this treasonable philosophy), the very cement of society loses its adhesiveness and begins to crumble. The great myth and fiction of Money has been forced into the place of real things, and the second step of the drama can thus be opened up.

Jewish influence on the thought of the working men of the United States, as well as on the thought of business and professional men, has been bad, thoroughly bad. This is not manifested in a division between “capital” and “labor,” for there are no such separate elements; there is only the executive and operating departments of American business. The real division is between the Jewish idea of “get” and the Anglo-Saxon idea of “make,” and at the present time the Jewish idea has been successful enough to have caused an upset.

All over the United States, in many branches of trade, Communist colleges are maintained, officered and taught by Jews. Those so-called colleges exist in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester, Pittsburgh, New York, Philadelphia and other cities, the whole intent being to put all American labor on a “get” basis, which must prove the economic damnation of the country. And that, apparently, is the end sought, as in Russia.

Until Jews can show that the infiltration of foreign Jews and the Jewish Idea into the American labor movement has made for the betterment in character and estate, in citizenship and economic statesmanship, of the American workingman, the charge of being an alien, destructive and treasonable influence will have to stand.

The last place the uninstructed observer would look for traces of Jewish influence is in the Christian church, yet if he fail to look there he will miss much. If the libraries of our theological seminaries were equipped with complete files of Jewish literary effort in the United States during the past 15 years, and if theological students were required to read these Jewish utterances, there would be less silly talk and fewer “easy marks” for Jewish propaganda in the American pulpit. For the next 25 years every theological seminary should support a chair for the study of Modern Jewish Influence and the Protocols. The fiction, that the Jews are an Old Testament people faithful to the Mosaic Law, would then be exploded, and timid Christians would no longer superstitiously hesitate to speak the truth about them because of that sadly misinterpreted text: “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.”

There is a mission for the pulpit to liberate the Church from what the New Testament Scriptures call “the fear of the Jews.”

The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the confusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements.

The Jews are not “The Chosen People,” though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so.

The Jewish tinge of thought has of late years overspread many Christian statements, and the uninstructed clergy have proved more and more amenable to Jewish suggestion.

The flaccid condition of the Church, so much deplored by spokesmen who had regard for her inner life, was brought about not by “science,” not by “scholarship,” not by the “increase of light and learning”—for none of these things are antagonistic even to incomplete statements of truth—but by Jewish-German higher criticism.

The defenders of the faith have fought long and valiantly against the inroads made by the so-called Higher Criticism, but were sadly incapacitated in their defense, because they did not see that its origin and purpose were Jewish. It was not Christian; it was not German; it was Jewish. It is almost wholly discounted today in the practical life of the church, but it still adheres to the darker corners of the colleges, along with the Red Bolshevism which is taking root there under Jewish influences.

Let the Christian minister who wishes to know the source of Jewish influence in the church look over the names of the more notorious “German” Higher Critics of the Bible, and consider their race. Add to them one Frenchman, an atheist and a Jew, and you have modern “liberal” sources very complete:

Wellhausen Strauss Ewald

Kuehne Hitzig Renan

It is perfectly in keeping with the Jewish World Program that this destructive influence should be sent out under Jewish auspices, and it is perfectly in keeping with non-Jewish trustfulness to accept the thing without looking at its source. A great many so called “liberals” played the Jewish game for a time; they are now coming back to the old citadel which stood in its own strength and without their patronage while the fever of the Higher Criticism raged.

The church is now victim of a second attack against her, in the rampant Socialism and Sovietism that have been thrust upon her in the name of flabby and unmoral theories of “brotherhood” and in an appeal to her “fairness.” The church has been made to believe that she is a forum for discussion and not a high place for annunciation. She has been turned from a Voice into an echo of jangling cries. Jews have actually invaded, in person and in program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situation that they were met with the inevitable check.

Clergymen ought to know that seven-eighths of the economic mush they speak from the pulpit is prepared by Jewish professors of political economy and revolutionary leaders. They should be informed that economic thought has been so completely Judaized by means of a deliberate and masterly plan of camouflaged propaganda, that the mass thought of the crowd (which is the thought mostly echoed in “popular” pulpits and editorials) is more Jewish than Jewry itself holds.

The Jew has got hold of the church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many pulpits and adult classes.

If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made, with the Bible always in hand as the authoritative textbook, it is in the modern church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda.

It is not reaction that is counseled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders and Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightforward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah.

Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxon are being attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths, both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significant of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him in the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able “to sit on the fence and see themselves go by,” and they come back to sanity. They find that “free love” doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family—the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children—is the basis, not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery debates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of supermanlikeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress.

And, too, they come at length to see that the Stars and Stripes and the Free Republic are better far than the Red Star and Soviet sordidness.

When a Supreme Court Justice addressed one of the greater American universities, a student came to him after a lecture and said: “It gave me so much pleasure to hear your lectures, for they were the first kindly words I have heard said about our government since the commencement of my university career.”

For years the secular magazines have been carrying articles on the question, “What Is Wrong With the Colleges?” The answer is perfectly clear to those who can discern Jewish influence in American life.

The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been described above in connection with the churches. First, Jewish higher criticism in the destruction of young men’s sense of respect for the ancient foundations; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol’s program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas.

It is idle to attack the “unbelief” of college students, idle to attack their

“radicalism”—these are always the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism (“radicalism” being a very good word very sadly misused) and antagonism to the religious sanctions of the moral law, both come from the same source. Over the fountain of Revolutionism and Anti-Christian belief place the descriptive and definitive term “Jewish,” and let the sons of the Anglo-Saxons learn from what waters they are drinking. That source is not Mosaic, but Jewish—there is a world of difference between them.

The central groups of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a “Gentile front” in the shape of a deluded professor. Some of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Socialist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish influences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing medics and lits and even the Divinity schools, under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda. Intercollegiate Liberal Leagues are established everywhere, the purpose evidently being to give students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a great new movement, comparable to the winning of Independence or the Abolition of slavery. As stein parties gradually cease as a college diversion, Red conferences will come in; it is part of the effervescence of youth.

The revolutionary forces which head up in Jewry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia—everyone knows what the name “student” eventually came to signify in that country. And as a result, while Sovietists are glorifying the “success” of the Revolution, men like Maxim Gorky are sending out appeals for food to prevent the intelligentsia from starving to death.

The Jewish Chautauqua, which works exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. And these are ably assisted by professors and clergymen whose thinking has been dislocated and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology.

What to do about it? Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our colleges. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down.

It is not a case for argument. Radicalism and religious indifferentism are states of mind. Normal men usually grow out of them in good time. Others are caught and held to the end. But the treatment is not argument.

The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race. We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came across Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny; the men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove west to California and north to Alaska; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibralter and Panama; the men who opened the tropics and subdued the arctics—Anglo-Saxon men, who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius—they are the Ruling People, Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by Building it ever better and better and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of “get,” cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be.

If our sons in college follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions.

Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thought be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret. The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of procedure is already fully known. And how simple it is:

First, you secularize the public schools—“secularize” is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race.

Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the Christian landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.

The influence of the common people is driven out of the public schools, where common people’s influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people’s influence cannot go.

Secularize the public schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.

This is the “liberalism” which Jewish spokesman so much applaud. In labor unions, in church, in university, it has tinctured the principles of work, faith and society. This will not be denied, because the proof of it is too thickly written over Jewish activities and utterances. Indeed, it is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself it is fulfilling its “mission” to the world. The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society, all of which by their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.

The list could be extended—the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.

“Well,” one very badly deluded Anglo-Saxon editor, wrapped up in Jewish advertising contracts, was heard to say, “if the Jews can get away with it, then they have a right to.” It is a variant of the “answer” of Jewish origin, which runs thus: “How can a paltry 3,000,000 run the 100,000,000 of the rest of us? Nonsense!”

Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and Anglo-Saxon power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle. It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the public schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is “sectarian” or “clannish” or “obsolete” or something else. It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as Anglo-Saxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon-Celtic fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon-Celtic sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promise all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. And it is against this that the Jews protest. “You must not identify us,” they say, “you must not use the term ‘Jew’” Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 21 May 1921]

The Jews’ Complaint Against “Americanism”

From the earliest record of the Jews’ contact with other nations, no long period of years has ever passed without the charge arising that the Jews constitute “a people within a people, a nation within a nation.” When this charge is made today it is vehemently denied by men who pose as the defenders of their people, and the denial is more or less countenanced by all the Jews of every class.

And yet there is nothing more clearly stated in Jewish teaching, nor more clearly indicated in Jewish life, than that the charge is true. But whether the truth should be used against the Jews is quite another question. If the Jews are a nation, their nationality founded upon the double ground of race and religion, it is certainly outside the bounds of reason that they should be asked or expected to de-racialize, denationalize and de-religionize themselves; but neither is it to be expected that they should bitterly denounce those who state the facts. It is only upon a basis of facts that a solution of any problem can come. Where blame attaches is here: that the evident facts are denied, as if no one but the Jews themselves knew that there are such facts.

If the Jews are to be continuously a nation, as they teach, and if the condition of “a nation within a nation” becomes more and more intolerable, then the solution must come through one of two things: a separation of the “nation” from the rest of the nations, or an exaltation of the “nation” above the rest of the nations. There is a mass of evidence in Jewish writings that the leaders expect both of these conditions to come—a separate nation and a super-nation; indeed the heart of Jewish teaching is, as quite fully illustrated in the last article, that Jewry is a separate nation now, and on the way to becoming a super-nation. It is only those appointed to address the Gentiles who deny this: the real rabbinate of Israel does not deny.

Now, in any investigation of the Jewish Question, the student is struck over and over again by the fact that what the Jews most complain of, they themselves began. They complain of what they call anti-Semitism; but it must be apparent to the dullest mind that there could never have been such a thing as anti-Semitism were there not first such a thing as Semitism.

And then take the complaint about the Jews having to live in ghettos. The ghetto is a Jewish invention. In the beginning of the invasion of European and American cities the Jews always lived by themselves because they wanted to, because they believed the presence of Gentiles contaminated them. Jewish writers, writing for Jews, freely admit this; but in writing for Gentiles, they refer to the ghetto as a surviving illustration of Gentile cruelty. The idea of contamination originated with the Jews; it spread by suggestion to the Gentiles.

And so with this fact of the separate “nation”; it was the Jews who first recognized it, first insisted upon it and have always sought to realize that separateness both in thought and action.

Nay, more, the true and normal type of Jew today believes that the influence of Americanism, or of any civilized Gentile state, is harmful to Judaism.

That is a serious statement and no amount of Gentile assertion will be sufficient to confirm it. Indeed, it is such a statement as the Gentile mind could not have evolved, because the trend of Gentile feeling is all in the opposite direction, namely, that Americanization is a good thing for the Jew. It is from authoritative Jewish sources that we learn this fact, that what we call civilizing influences are looked upon as being at enmity with Judaism.

It is not the Gentile who says that the Jewish ideals, as ideals, are incompatible with life in our country; it is the Jew who says so. It is he who inveighs against Americanism, not the American who inveighs against Judaism.

As this article is one with the last, the same method of impassive presentation of the testimony will be followed. Readers of this study of the Jewish Question should know that neither rhetoric nor emotion will contribute a single element to the solution of the Question. We prefer to leave rhetoric and emotion to the anti-Semites who call names and to the pro-Semites who are apparently reduced to the same necessitous level.

Now, the first thing to know is this: that though Americanism is yet unfinished, Judaism has been complete for centuries; and while no American would think of pointing to any part of the country or to any group as representing the true and final type of Americanism, the Jews quite unhesitatingly point to parts of the world and to certain groups as representing the true type of Judaism.

Where is the type to be found which Jewish writers recognize as the true one?

The Jew of the ghetto is held up in Jewish treatises as the norm of Judaism.

The visitor in New York has perhaps seen on Central Park west the massive synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Its famous rabbi was the Rev. Dr. D. de Sola Pool. He is the author of the following words:

“In the ghetto the observance of Judaism was natural and almost inevitable. The regimen of Jewish life was the atmosphere that was breathed. * * * Not only did public opinion make it possible for men to go bearded, to keep the head covered at all times, to carry the palm branch in the public street, or to walk the street in stockinged feet on fast days, but public opinion made it almost impossible for a Jew to profane the Sabbath or the Passover regulations, or openly to transgress any of the main observances”—and, as we shall later see, the learned rabbi considers these conditions more preservative of Judaism than are American conditions.

Rev. Dr. M. H. Segal expresses the view that Jewry in the more modern portions of Europe and America was really kept alive by the infusions of immigrants from Poland and Lithuania. Asserting, in agreement with other Jewish leaders, that the Jewish center of the world has been, until now, in Russia and Poland, Dr. Segal says:

“The war has destroyed the last traces of the declining Jewish society which has dragged out its feeble existence in the semi-medieval ghettos of Poland and Lithuania. With all their growing feebleness, these communities were yet the last refuge of Judaism in the Dispersion. In them there had still survived something of the old Jewish life, some of the old Jewish institutions, practices and traditions. These communities also supplied such vitality as they could afford to the attenuated and atrophied Judaism in the communities of the more modern states of Europe and America.”

The idea is not at all uncommon—that large infusions of “real Jews” from the Old World ghettos are desirable and necessary in order to keep Judaism alive in countries like the United States.

Israel Friedlaender, whose name just at present is held in peculiar honor by the Jews, and justly so, was a man of most enlightened intellect, and he too recognized the service of the ghetto stream to Judaism. In his lecture, “The Problem of Judaism in America,” he speaks about the de-Judaizing tendency of absolute freedom, such as the Jew has always enjoyed in the United States. This tendency, he says, is corrected in two ways—by anti-Semitic influences and “by the large stream of Jewish emigration, on the other hand, which, proceeding from the lands of oppression to the lands of freedom, carries with it, on or under the surface, the preserving and reviving influences of the ghetto.”

The same authority, in an article entitled “The Americanization of the Jewish Immigrant,” frankly prefers the Jew fresh from the ghetto to the Jew who has been influenced by American life.

He says that he “prefers the kaftan-clad, old-fashioned Jew, with his unattractive appearance and ungainly manners, whose whole life is dominated by the ideals and mandates of an ancient religion and civilization * * * to that modernized, amphibious creature, the gaudily attired, slang-using, gum-chewing, movie-visiting, dollar-hunting, vulgar and uncultured, quasi-Americanized ‘dzentleman.’”

The “kaftan-clad, old-fashioned Jew” of whom Mr. Freidlaender writes, is the Polish Jew, 250,000 of whom are coming to the United State as “a preserving and reviving influence” upon Judaism in the United States.

Not to use more space, however, on the identity of the normal type of Jew as precisely stated by those who have expressed themselves on this subject, it is possible to preserve the idea and add its logical complement, by quoting some testimony on the Jewish view of Americanization.

What now follows is of special interest because it is so generally stated and received throughout Jewish circles, that the center of Jewry has shifted to America. That is the form in which Jewish spokesmen make the statement: they say “America,” not the United States.

A little story—a true one—may be worth while here. It may throw a sidelight on the use of the word “American” as used in the testimony. A certain editor of an American newspaper gave a trifling bit of publicity to this series of articles. Jewish advertising was withdrawn from his columns by the chairman of the Anti-Defamation Committee of the local lodge of B’nai B’rith, which chairman was also an advertising agent who handled all the Jewish advertising in that city. The editor, not being a wise man, yielded to the bulldozing methods used upon him, and in a half-hearted bit of editorial praise for the Jews used the word “Americanism.” The advertising agent toyed with the word in the manner of one who, having a weak Gentile in his power, would make the best of it.

“Why did you say, ‘Americanism’? Why did you not say ‘civilization’?” he asked.

The editor to this day thinks it was a bit of captiousness. It was not. There is meaning in it.

To “Americanize” means, in our ordinary speech, to bring into sympathy with the traditions and institutions of the United States, but the Jews do not mean only the United States when they say “America.” They mean also South and Central America—where so many revolutions have occurred. There are large numbers of Jews in Argentina, and many are found in other countries. The next place to be extensively colonized will be Mexico. If the people of the United States see a Jewish ambassador sent to represent them in Mexico, they must know that the invasion of that country is about to begin. If the ambassador is not himself a Jew, it will be well to scrutinize his connections; there may be reasons which will make it necessary to employ a “Gentile front” for a time.

Now, it would probably give a wrong twist to the fact to say that the Jewish leaders are anti-American, but it is true that they are against the “Americanization” of the Jewish immigrant stream. That is, the trend of “Americanism” is so different from the trend of “Judaism” that the two are in conflict. This does not indicate treason toward American nationalism, perhaps, so much as it indicates loyalty toward Jewish nationalism.

But the reader must himself be the judge as to how far the difference goes. The testimony which will now be given divided itself into two parts: first, that relating to the American state in particular; second, that relating to any Gentile state.

After he had spoken in praise of the old type of Jew, as seen in the foreign ghettos, Dr. D. de Sola Pool added:

“To a large extent the adult Jewish population of the United States has been reared in Jewish communities of this type of Jewish inevitableness. To a large extent the young generation is being reared in an atmosphere in which this type of Jewishness is unknown, or at least strange and impossible. Jewish religious observance in the United States is becoming increasingly difficult and increasingly rare.”

Describing the antagonism between the American and the Jewish tendencies, he continues with this reference to the effect of “Americanism” on Jewish modes of worship:

“On the platform officiate a cantor and a preacher, who turn their backs to the ark and address themselves to their congregation. The tallith and similar externals are un-American, and have consequently been sacrificed. The ‘American’ worships with bare head; therefore the American of Jewish persuasion must also doff his headgear when at worship. Hebrew, an Oriental language, is not an American tongue. The American prays in English, which all understand, and accordingly the American of Jewish faith has Anglicized his ritual. Such a ritual is not susceptible of being chanted with traditional Jewish Chazzanuth, and the music of the temple has therefore been brought up to date by the introduction of an organ, sacred music borrowed from non-Jewish neighbors, and mixed choirs in which non-Jewish singers are almost the rule * * * The Jewish Sabbath is out of keeping with the environment, and the only way in which it seemed to be possible to save it was by celebrating it with a Friday evening temple service after supper, and resting, and sometimes also attending temple on Sunday.”

It is not difficult to detect underneath these words the tone of criticism for such “Americanization.” It is a criticism which is fully justified by conditions. And it must be remembered that it was not uttered by a “kaftan-clad, old-fashioned Jew,” but by a learned rabbi with a magnificent temple on Central Park west, a man whom our government has seen fit to honor.

But that is not all that Dr. de Sola Pool objects to. Nor does he mince words in making his objections known: “If so far, Reform has avoided the logical end of the process and has stopped short of identifying itself with Christianity, it has Americanized Judaism by dropping the elements that are characteristically Jewish and un-American, and has thereby created an almost non-sectarian Judaism housed in an almost non-sectarian Temple.”

It will be noticed that the learned doctor uses the word “American” as one accustomed to quite another atmosphere. A further illustration is found in this:

“Neglect of the un-American dietary laws is usually the first step that the Americanizing Jew takes in asserting his Americanism.”

The “un-American dietary laws” are, of course, the Jewish dietary laws. But if any Gentile writer had so referred to them, he would have been abused as a hostile witness.

It is very curious indeed to read the long list of complaints against modern conditions in their power to bring about the “decay of Judaism.” The ghetto, which makes for separateness, is frequently heralded as the true safeguard of Judaism. Intercourse with the world is dangerous. “Americanizing” influences are distrusted.

No doubt many and many a Gentile parent in New York, Boston, Louisville, Dallas and other American cities has witnessed the spectacle of Jewish teachers and “welfare workers” instructing Gentile children in the principles of Americanism, but did anyone ever see a Gentile teacher instructing Jewish children in Americanism?

Recently when the American Legion asked permission of the government to establish Americanization classes at Ellis Island, where tens of thousands of Polish Jews gain entry into the United States, the reply was a refusal, and the reason was that all the space for charitable institutions was already taken. What charitable institutions? How many of them were Jewish?

“The beginning of this decay,” says Israel Friedlaender, referring to the effect of modern life on Judaism, “is obviously coincident with the beginning of Jewish emancipation, that is to say, with the moment when the Jews left the ghetto to join the life and culture of the nations around them.”

Mr. Friedlaender even went so far as to say that pogroms against the Jews were “fortunate” in that they drove the Jews back to their Judaism—“Fortunately, however, Russian Jewry was halted on its downward rush toward national self-annihilation. The process of assimilation was cut short by the pogroms, and ever since then the Jews of Russia have stood firmly their ground * * *”

That may be the reason why some Jewish spokesmen of the Jews in America are trying to make this series of articles appear as a “pogrom.” There is plenty of evidence to indicate that Jewish leaders have regarded “pogroms,” in modern times at least, as very useful in preserving the solidarity of Jewry. However, those who are responsible for the present series of articles, much as they hope to benefit the general situation of the humbler Jews by showing the use which the leading Jews are making of them, must decline to be counted among those who justify “pogroms” on any ground whatsoever.

Justice Brandeis, of the United States Supreme Court, is also an exponent of the idea that, released from ghetto influences, the Jew becomes less of a Jew. He says:

“We must protect America and ourselves from demoralization, which has to some extent already set in among American Jews. The cause of this demoralization is clear. It results, in large part, from the fact that in our land of liberty all the restraints by which the Jews were protected in their ghettos were removed and a new generation left without necessary moral and spiritual support.”

Justice Brandeis is a Zionist on these very grounds. He wants the land of Palestine because there the Jews, as he says, “may live together and lead a Jewish life.”

Not the United States, but Palestine, is Justice Brandeis’ hope for the Jews; he says of Palestine that “there only can Jewish life be fully protected from the forces of disintegration.”

Arguing the same question, the Rev. Mr. S. Levy says: “I shall probably be told that the re-establishment of Jews as a nation would mean the recreation of the ghetto. I am frankly prepared to admit the force of the criticism, but with an important qualification dependent on the interpretation of the word ‘ghetto.’

“In so far as the national center will insure the existence of this Jewish environment, Jewish atmosphere, and Jewish culture, there will be a recreation of the ghetto.” (The italics are Mr. Levy’s.)

“The continuance of Judaism, then, is dependent on the existence of an area with an aggregation of Jews living in a Jewish environment, breathing a Jewish atmosphere and fostering a Jewish culture, and these factors must predominate over all other influences.”

It is therefore plain that, however startling and improbable the statement may seem when made by a Gentile, the Jews themselves regard the influences of modern lands as inimical to Judaism.

But there is still a further consideration, which is distinctly set forth in Jewish writings, namely, that the trend of the modern State is harmful to all that Judaism holds to be essential to its moral and spiritual welfare.

The modern State is changing, and Jewish observers sense the fact more readily than do the rest of the people, because Jews see in the change both an opportunity and a menace. If the State continues to change according to the trend of the general mind of the world, Jewish ideas of supremacy will find less and less opportunity to be realized—that is the menace. If the change, or the spirit of change, can be seized and twisted to Jewish purposes, as was done in Russia, and a Jewish type of State erected on the ruins of the old—that is the opportunity. Readers of these articles know that stimulation of “the spirit of change” is one of the clearest planks in the World Program.

As Cyril M. Picciotto points out in his “Conceptions of the State and the Jewish Question,” there is a tendency to “increase the control of the State over the individual.” This, of course, has nowhere been done so thoroughly as in Russia under the Jewish-Bolshevik regime, but it is not of this that Mr. Picciotto speaks, it is of the tendency observed in the Gentile states; and he asks: “In the face of such a tendency in political development (which it is not rash to assume will be more pronounced in the future than in the past) how does the Jew stand?”

He adds: “The time is not far distant when the development of the State will continue on organic and collectivist lines. The central authority will embrace an ever wider area, and will make such a penetration into the recesses of individual freedom as would have been thought inconceivable thirty or forty years ago. Compulsory military service, compulsory education, compulsory insurance are but milestones on the road which logically leads to the adoption of a State morality, a State creed, and of a common way of life. To say this is merely to indicate the probable trend, not to approve it.”

“How, then, is the State of the future going to deal with a people in its midst which largely preserves its separateness of blood, which in its fasts, its day of rest, its dietary laws, its marriage ceremony, suggests a distinct historic entity?”

The question is a disturbing one to Jews, as is shown by Rabbi Segal’s words in “The Future of Judaism.” He even says that “the medieval State, with all its tyranny and obscurantism” was more favorable to the Jews than the modern type of State. “Its defective organization permitted both individuals and whole classes to live their life in their own way. Hence the medieval State enabled the Jews to organize themselves on semi-national lines, and, as far as circumstances permitted, to create afresh in their dispersion the national institutions and practices of their ancient commonwealth.”

They did this, of course, by establishing the ghetto.

“But this has become an absolute impossibility in the modern State,” continues the rabbi. “The rise of democracy and the transference of the ultimate power of government from the oligarchy to the majority involves the practical suppression of weak minorities. The identification of the State with the culture and aspiration of a particular nationality leads inevitably to the crippling of and gradual extinction of those classes who do not share that particular culture and those aspirations. The State, moreover, enforces a system of education which is purposely designed to fashion and mold all the inhabitants * * * It also maintains a thoroughgoing organization which embraces all the departments of the public and private life of all its inhabitants, irrespective of class, race or tradition. There is thus no room in the modern State for Jewish culture, for Jewish national life, or for a specifically Jewish society, with its own specific institutions, customs and practices * * *

“Therefore, Judaism can live and work only with a specifically Jewish society and within a Jewish national organization. The medieval ghetto, with all its narrowness, with all the unhealthy and abnormal conditions of its existence, yet contained such a semi-national society: therefore, Judaism flourished in the medieval ghetto. The modern State, on the other hand, has broken up that specifically Jewish society * * *”

Now, there are the reactions of leading Jewish minds to conditions in America particularly, and to conditions in the modern Gentile State generally. The statement of the antagonism which exists between the two is clear and complete. The Gentiles do not notice that antagonism, but the Jews are always and everywhere keenly aware of it. This throws a light, a very strong light, on all the revolutionary programs to break up the present control of society, by sowing dissensions between capital and labor so-called, by cheapening the dignity of government through corrupt politics, by trivializing the mind of the people through theaters and movies and similar agencies, and by weakening the appeal of distinctively Christian religion. A breakdown of Gentile seriousness is the opportunity of the Jew. A colossal war is also his opportunity, as witness his seizure of the United States Government during the recent war. Judaism says that Americanism and Gentile nationalism generally, are harmful to it. Judaism has therefore the alternative of changing and controlling Gentile nationalism, or of constructing a nationalism of its own in Palestine. It is trying both.

This all harks back to what Lord Eustace Percy is quoted in the Jewish press as saying: that the Jew participates in revolutions “not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him.”

And the same author—“In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties, he (the Jew) has only two possible cities of refuge: he must either pull down the pillars of the whole national state system or he must create a territorial sovereignty of his own. In this perhaps lies the explanation both of Jewish Bolshevism and of Zionism, for at this moment Eastern Jewry seems to hover uncertainly between the two.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 23 October 1920]

The Jewish Associates of Benedict Arnold

As the Jewish propagandists in the United States cannot be trusted to give the people all the facts—even though these propagandists have the facts in their possession—it devolves upon some impartial agency to do so. The Jewish propagandists are accorded the utmost freedom of the newspapers of the United States—by reason of Jewish advertising being more than 75 per cent of all the advertising done in this country—and thus a wide web of false impressions is constantly being woven around the Jewish Question. The most recent is the widespread publication of a new “exposure” of the origin of the Protocols. This makes the sixth “final” and “complete” exposure that the Jews have put forth for public consumption. The Jews have still time to repent and tell the truth. Suppose they make the seventh the whole truth with a true repudiation of the Protocols.

It is THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s purpose to open up from time to time new angles of the Jewish Question, so that the candid reader who would be informed of the extensive character of Jewish influence may obtain a general view of it.

The part taken by Jews in the wars of the United States has been a subject of considerable boasting by Jewish publicists. It is a most interesting subject. It deserves the fullest possible treatment. It is not THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s present purpose to challenge the Jewish boast; it is, however, our purpose to fill in the omitted parts of the story, and supply the missing links in several of the most interesting episodes in American history. This will be done on the basis of unquestioned historical authority, mostly of a Jewish character, and solely in the interests of a complete understanding of a matter which Jewish leaders have brought to the front.

The first subject which will be treated in this series is the part of Jews in the treason of Benedict Arnold.

Benedict Arnold, the most conspicuous traitor in American history, has been the subject of considerable comment of late. Among the commentators have been American Jews who have failed to make known to the American public the information which may be found in Jewish archives concerning Benedict Arnold and his associates.

To begin with, the propensity of the Jews to engage in the business of supplying the needs of armies and to avail themselves as far as possible of war contracts, is of long standing and notice.

An authority on this matter, Werner Sombart, says in his “Jews and Modern Capitalism” (pp. 50-53):

“The Jews throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries were most influential as army-purveyors and as the moneyed men to whom the princes looked for financial backing . . . we cannot attempt to mention every possible example. We can only point the way; it will be for subsequent research to follow.

“Although there are numerous cases on record of Jews acting in the capacity of army-contractors in Spain previous to 1492, I shall not refer to this period, because it lies outside the scope of our present considerations. We shall confine ourselves to the centuries that followed, and begin with England.

“In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Jews had already achieved renown as army-purveyors. Under the Commonwealth the most famous army contractor was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal, ‘the great Jew,’ who came to London some time between 1630 and 1635, and was very soon accounted among the most prominent traders in the land. In 1649 he was one of the five London merchants intrusted by the council of state with the army contract for corn. It is said that he annually imported into England silver to the value of £100,000. In the period that ensued, especially in the wars of William III, Sir Solomon Medina (‘the Jew Medina’) was ‘the great contractor,’ and for his services he was knighted, being the first professing Jew to receive that honor.

“It was the same in the wars of the Spanish Succession; here, too, Jews were the principal army-contractors. In 1716 the Jews of Strassburg recall the services they rendered the armies of Louis XIV by furnishing information and supplying provisions. Indeed, Louis XIV’s army-contractor-in-chief was a Jew, Jacob Worms by name; and in the eighteenth century Jews gradually took a more and more prominent part in this work. In 1727 the Jews of Metz brought into the city in the space of six weeks, 2,000 horses for food and more than 5,000 for remounts. Field Marshall Maurice, of Saxony, the victor of Fontenoy, expressed the opinion that his armies were never better served with supplies than when the Jews were contractors. One of the best known of the army-contractors in the time of the last two Louises was Cerf Beer, in whose patent of naturalization it is recorded that ‘. . . in the wars which raged in Alsace in 1770 and 1771 he found the opportunity of proving his zeal in our service and in that of the state.’

“Similarly the house of Gradis, of Bordeaux, was an establishment of international repute in the eighteenth century. Abraham Gradis set up large store-houses in Quebec to supply the needs of the French troops there. Under the Revolutionary Government, under the Directory, in the Napoleonic wars it was always the Jews who acted as purveyors. In this connection a public notice displayed in the streets of Paris is significant. There was a famine in the city and the Jews were called upon to show their gratitude for the rights bestowed upon them by the Revolution by bringing in corn. ‘They alone,’ says the author of this notice, ‘can successfully accomplish this enterprise, thanks to their business relations, of which their fellow citizens ought to have full benefit.’ A parallel story comes from Dresden. In 1720 the Court Jew, Jonas Meyer, saved the town from starvation by supplying it with large quantities of corn. (The Chronicler mentions 40,000 bushels.)

“All over Germany, the Jews from an early date were found in the ranks of the army-contractors. Let us enumerate a few of them. There was Isaac Meyer in the sixteenth century, who, when admitted by Cardinal Albrecht as a resident of Halberstadt in 1537, was enjoined by him, in view of the dangerous times, ‘to supply our monastery with good weapons and armour.’ There was Joselman von Rosheim, who in 1548 received an imperial letter of protection because he had supplied both money and provisions for the army. In 1546 there is a record of Bohemian Jews who provided great-coats and blankets for the army. In the next century another Bohemian Jew, Lazarus by name, received an official declaration that he ‘obtained either in person or at his own expense, valuable information for the imperial troops, and that he made it his business to see that the army had a good supply of ammunition and clothing.’ The Great Elector also had recourse to Jews for his military needs. Leimann Gompertz and Solomon Elias were his contractors for cannon, powder and so forth. There were numerous others: Samuel Julius, remount contractor under the Elector

Frederick Augustus of Saxony; the Model family, court-purveyors and army-contractors in the Duchy of Aensbach in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are well known in history. In short, as one writer of the time pithily expresses it, ‘all the contractors are Jews and all the Jews are contractors.’

“Austria does not differ in this respect from Germany, France and England. The wealthy Jews, who in the reign of the Emperor Leopold received permission to resettle in Vienna (1670)—the Oppenheimers, Wertheimers, Mayer Herschel and the rest—were all army-contractors. And we find the same thing in all the countries under the Austrian Crown.

“Lastly, we must mention the Jewish army-contractors who provisioned the American troops in the Revolutionary and Civil wars.”

Sombart’s record ceases there. He does not go on to mention “the Jewish contractors who provisioned the American troops in the Revolutionary and Civil wars.” That task shall be THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’s from time to time in the future.

It is in the study of Jewish money-making out of war that the clues are found to most of the great abuses of which Jews have been guilty. In the present instance, it was in the matter of profiteering in war goods, that the Jewish connections of Benedict Arnold were discovered.

“Wars are the Jews’ harvests” is an ancient saying. Their predilection for the quartermaster’s department has been observed anciently and modernly. Their interest being mostly in profits and not in national issues; their traditional loyalty being to the Jewish nation, rather than to any other nation; it is only natural that they should be found to be the merchants of goods and information in times of war—that is, the war profiteers and the spies. As the unbroken program is traced through the Revolutionary War, through the American Civil War, and through the Great War of recent occurrence, the only change observable is the increasing power and profit of the Jews.

Although the number of Jews resident in the American colonies was very small, there were enough to make a mark on the Revolutionary War; and while there was no wholesale legislation against Jews as there was in the Civil War, there were actions against individuals for the same causes which in 1861-5 obtained more extensively.

The Journals of the Continental Congress contain numerous entries of payments made to Jews, as well as the records of various dealings with them on other scores. For drums, for blankets, for rifles, for provisions, for clothing—these are the usual entries. Most of the Jewish commissars were Indian traders (the extent to which the Jews dealt with the American Indians has not as yet been made a subject of research it deserves). The Gratz family of Pennsylvania carried on a very extensive Indian trade and amassed a vast fortune out of it. A most curious lot of information concerning the dealings of the Colonies with the Jews is obtainable by a search through the old records.

The Jews of Colonial New York were both loyalists and rebels, as the tide turned. They profited under loyalism by the contracts which they secured, and by buying in the confiscated property of those who were loyal to the American cause. It is interesting to note that some of the purchasers of the extensive Delancey properties were Jews. Delancey was a patriot whom New York City afterward honored by giving his name to an important thoroughfare. That same New York has recently by official action separated the name of Delancey from that thoroughfare, and substituted the name of Jacob H. Schiff, a Jew, native of Frankfort-on-the-Main.

We enter immediately into the limits of the Benedict Arnold narrative by making mention of the Franks family of Philadelphia, of which family several members will claim our attention.

The Franks were Jews from England who settled in America, retaining their English connections. They were in the business of public contracts, principally army contracts. They were holders of the British army contracts for the French and Indian wars, and for the succeeding Revolutionary War.

To get the picture, conceive it thus, as it is taken from Jewish sources:

Moses Franks lived in England, doing business with the British Government direct. He had the contract for supplying all the British forces in America before military trouble between the Colonies and the Home Government was thought of. He was the principal purveyor of the British Army in Quebec, Montreal, Massachusetts, New York and in the country of the Illinois Indians. It was all British territory then.

Jacob Franks lived in New York. He was American representative of Moses Franks of England. He was the American agent of the Franks Army Purveyors Syndicate—for that is what it was.

In Philadelphia was David Franks, son of Jacob, of New York. David was the Franks’ agent for the state or colony of Pennsylvania. He was at the seat of the colonial government, the center of American politics. He was hand in glove with many of the fathers of the American Government. He was an immensely rich man (although but an agent) and carried a high hand at Philadelphia.

At Montreal was another Franks—David Solesbury Franks—also in the business of army contractor. He was a gay young man, described as “a blooded buck,” who knew all the arts of turning an honest penny out of the needs of armies and the distress of nations. This young man was a grandson or grand nephew of the Moses Franks of England, as he was a nephew of the David Franks of Philadelphia.

Here and there were other Franks, all intent on business with the non-Jewish government, but the four here mentioned carry along the main parts of the tale.

A moment’s digression will give us at once a view of the looseness of the liberalism of some of the Fathers of the Country, and a view of the equanimity with which David Franks, of Philadelphia, could pass from one role to another—a facility which cost him dearly when war came on.

John Trumbull, an artist of considerable note at the time, whose paintings still adorn the National Capitol, was invited to dine at Thomas Jefferson’s home, among the guests being Senator Giles, from Virginia, Trumbull tells the story:

“I was scarcely seated when Giles began to rally me on the Puritanical ancestry and character of New England. I saw there was no other person from New England present, and, therefore, although conscious that I was in no degree qualified to manage a religious discussion, I felt myself bound to defend my country on this delicate point as well as I could. Whether it had been prearranged that a debate on the Christian religion, in which it should be powerfully ridiculed on the one side and weakly defended on the other, was to be brought forward as promising amusement to a rather free-thinking dinner party, I will not presume to say, but it had that appearance, and Mr. Giles pushed his raillery, to my no small annoyance, if not to my discomfiture, until dinner was announced.

“That I hoped would relive me by giving a new turn to the conversation, but the company was hardly seated at the table when he renewed the assault with increased asperity, and proceeded so far at last as to ridicule the character, conduct and doctrines of the Divine Founder of our religion; Mr.

Jefferson in the meantime smiling and nodding approval on Mr. Giles, while the rest of the company silently left me and my defense to our fate, until at length my friend David Franks took up the argument on my side. Thinking this a fair opportunity for avoiding further conversation on the subject, I turned to Mr. Jefferson and said, ‘Sir, this is a strange situation in which I find myself; in a country professing Christianity and at a table with Christians, as I supposed, I find my religion and myself attacked with severe and almost irresistible wit and raillery, and not a person to aid in my defense but my friend Mr. Franks, who is himself a Jew.’”

This episode throws a curious light on the character of Thomas Jefferson’s

“philosophical unbelief,” the unlovely fashion of that day; it also illustrates a certain facility in David Franks.

Relations between the Colonies and the Mother Country became strained. Political feelings ran high. The lines of division between “American” and “British” began to appear for the first time. At first there was a degree of agreement among all the population, except the government officials, that a protest against governmental abuses was justified and that strong representations should be made in behalf of the Colonists. Even loyalists and imperialists agreed with that. It was a question of domestic politics. But when presently the idea of protest began to develop into the idea of rebellion and independence, a cleavage came. It was one thing to correct the Empire, another thing to desert it. Here is where the people of the Colonies split.

Mr. Jacob Franks in royalist and loyalist New York, was, of course, royalist and loyalist. As army-contractor for the British Government, he had no choice.

Mr. David Franks, down in Philadelphia, was a little nearer the heart of the new American sentiment, and could not be so royal and loyal as was his kinsman north. In fact, David Franks tried to do what is modernly called “the straddle,” attempting to side with the Empire and with the Colonies, too.

It was natural. His business was in Philadelphia. He may also have wished to remain as long as possible in the position of a spy, and send information of the state of public feeling to the royalists. Moreover, he was received in good society and his reputation for wealth and shrewdness won him attentions he could not otherwise have commanded.

So, in 1765 we find him joining the merchants of Philadelphia in the pact not to import articles from England while the hated Stamp Act was in force. In 1775 he favors the continuance of the colonial currency.

He was enjoying his accustomed life in the city—and his acquaintance with the Shippen family into which the dashing young Benedict Arnold married.

There is a strange intermingling of all the tragic figures of the play: Benedict Arnold marries the girl for whom Major André wrote a parlor play. Major André, during his period of captivity as an American prisoner of war and before his exchange, was often at the home of David Franks. And David Solesbury Franks, at his post as agent of the Franks syndicate at Montreal, is placed by a strange turn of the wheel of destiny in the military family of Benedict Arnold for a considerable period preceding and including the great treason.

So, for the moment let us leave the Jewish family of Franks—all of them still stationed as we first described them: Moses in England, Jacob at New York, David at Philadelphia, David S. at Montreal—and let us scrutinize the young American officer, Benedict Arnold.

These facts would most of them be lost, had they not been preserved in the Jewish archives, by the American Jewish Historical Society. You will read any history of Benedict Arnold without perceiving the Jews around him. The authors of the accepted histories were blind.

The principal defect in Benedict Arnold’s character was his love of money. All of the trouble which led up to the situation in which he found himself with reference to the American Government and Army, was due to the suspicion which hung like a cloud over many of his business transactions. There have been attempts to paint Arnold as a dashing martyr, as one who was discouraged by the unmerited slights of the Continental Congress, as a victim of the jealousy of lesser men, as one from whom confidence was unjustly withheld. Nothing could be further from the fact. He was a man to whom men were instinctively drawn to be generous, but so general was the knowledge of his looseness in money matters that, while admiring him, his brother officers acted upon the protective instinct and held aloof from him. He was tainted by a low form of dishonesty before he was tainted with treason, and the chief explanation of his treason was in the hard bargain he drove as to the amount of money he was to receive for his guilty act.

Arnold’s own record makes this clear. Let us then take up his career at a certain point and see how the Franks strand and the money strand weave themselves through it like colored threads.

Extraordinary efforts have been made in recent years to extenuate Arnold’s treason by the recital of his daring services. These services need not be minimized. Indeed, it was his great achievement of the winter march to Montreal and Quebec in 1775-6 that seems to begin the chapter of his troubles. To rehearse this feat of courage and endurance would be to tell a tale that has thrilled the American schoolboy.

It was at Montreal that Benedict Arnold came into contact with the young Jew, David Solesbury Franks, the Canadian agent of the Franks army-purveying syndicate. And the next thing known about young Franks is that he returns to the American Colonies in the train of Benedict Arnold as an officer of the American Army.

How this change was effected is not explained in any of the records. There is a moment of darkness, as it were, in which the “quick change” was made, which transformed the young Montreal Jew from an army-contractor for the British into an officer of Benedict Arnold’s staff.

But as it is impossible for every fact to be suppressed, there are here and there indications of what might have been, what indeed most probably was, the basis of the attraction and relation between the two. It was very probably—almost certainly—the opportunities for graft which could be capitalized by a combination of General Arnold’s authority and young Franks’ ability in the handling of goods.

From the day they met in Montreal until the hour when General Arnold fled, a traitor, from the fort on the Hudson, young David Solesbury Franks was his companion.

In one of the numerous court-martials which tried General Arnold for questionable dealings in matters pertaining to army supplies, Franks, who was aid-de-camp to Arnold, and by rank of major, testified thus:

“I had, by being in the army, injured my private affairs very considerably, and meant to leave it, if a proper opportunity of entering into business should happen. I had several conversations on the subject with General Arnold, who promised me all the assistance in his power; he was to participate in the profits of the business I was to enter in.”

This testimony was given by Major Franks in 1779; the two men had met in the winter of 1775-1776, but, as the records will show, Major Franks was always General Arnold’s reliance on getting out of scrapes caused by questionable business methods in which Arnold’s military authority was used quite freely. Major Franks admits that he was to enter business and General Arnold was to share the profits. On what basis this arrangement could exist, is another point not known. Arnold had no capital. He had no credit. He was a spendthrift, a borrower, notorious for his constant need of money. The only credible inducement for Franks to accept a partnership with him was on the understanding that Arnold should use his military authority to throw business to Franks. Or, to state it more bluntly, the “profits” which Benedict Arnold was to receive were payments for his misuse of authority for his own gain.

A complete opening of the records will show this to be the most reasonable view of the case.

It was at Montreal that Benedict Arnold’s name first became attainted with rumors of shady dealing in private and public property. General George Washington had laid down the most explicit instructions on these matters, with a view to having the Canadians treated as fellow-Americans and not as enemies. General Washington had cashiered officers and whipped soldiers who had previously disobeyed the order against looting and theft.

General Arnold had seized large quantities of goods at Montreal and had hurried them away without making proper account of them. This he admits in his letter to General Schuyler: “Our hurry and confusion was so great when the goods were received, it was impossible to take a particular account of them.” This means only that Arnold seized the goods without giving the Canadian citizens proper receipts for them, so that he had in his hands a large amount of wealth for which he was under no compulsion to account to anybody. This mass of goods he sent to Colonel Hazen at Chambley, and Colonel Hazen, evidently aware of the conditions under which the goods were taken, refused to receive them. This disobedience of Colonel Hazen to his superior officer, especially in a question relating to goods, made it necessary for Arnold to take some self-protective action, which he did in his letter to General Schuyler. Meantime, a very ugly rumor ran through the American Army that General Benedict Arnold had tried to pull a scurvy trick of graft, but had been held up by the strict conduct of Colonel Hazen. Moreover, it was rumored (and the fact was admitted by Arnold in his letter) that in the transfer the goods were well sorted over so that when they finally arrived a great part of them was missing. All the principal facts were admitted by Arnold, who used them, however, to throw blame on Colonel Hazen. He even went so far as to prefer charges against Colonel Hazen, forcing the matter into a court-martial. The court was called and refused to hear the witnesses chosen by General Arnold in his behalf, on the ground that the witnesses were not entitled to credibility. Whereupon General Arnold flouted the court, who ordered him arrested. General Gates, to preserve the useful services of Arnold to the United States Army, dissolved the court-martial, to that extent condoning the conduct of Arnold. Before the court-martial dissolved, however, it informally acquitted Colonel Hazen with honor.

Here then, almost immediately, as it would seem, upon his new connection with David Solesbury Franks, Benedict Arnold is involved in a bad tangle concerning property which had come into his possession irregularly and which disappeared soon after. His attempt to throw the blame on an officer whose disobedience was the factor that disclosed the true state of affairs, failed. It was his bold scheme to forestall an exposure which must inevitably have come.

While it is true that on this Montreal case, no verdict stands recorded against Benedict Arnold, for the theft of goods, it is also true that the American Army became suspicious of him from that day.

Had Benedict Arnold been innocent then and had he kept his hands clean thereafter, the Montreal episode would have been forgotten. But as a matter of fact such affairs came with increasing frequency thereafter, all of them strangely enough, involving also the Jew whom he associated with himself at the time of that first exposure.

The story of this Jew’s relations with Benedict Arnold all through the period ending with the great treason, may now be taken up with greater consecutiveness, for now their formerly separate courses run together. In another article this relationship and all that it meant will be illustrated from the government records.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 8 October 1921]

Benedict Arnold and Jewish Aid in Shady Deal

While Benedict Arnold was in Canada and David Solesbury Franks, the Jew of Montreal and a British subject, was serving as quartermaster to the American troops, David Franks, of Philadelphia, a member of the same Jewish family and of the same Jewish syndicate of army-contractors, was also engaged in an interesting business.

It has already been shown that this David Franks, the Philadelphia Jew, had gone part way with the colonists in their protests against British colonial rule. That this was not sincerity on his part, his subsequent actions proved. He first comes into the purview of this narrative in 1775, the year in which Benedict Arnold performed the remarkable feat of marching into Canada, whence he was sending back into the colonies numerous Canadian prisoners. These prisoners were kept in the New England colonies for a time, but were later collected into Pennsylvania, some of them being quartered in the city of Philadelphia.

How inspired it is impossible now to tell, but presently a committee of the Continental Congress proposes that Mr. David Franks be commissioned to feed and otherwise care for these British prisoners, and be allowed to sell his bills for as much money as may be necessary for the purpose. Of course, in accepting this proposal, Franks was not only pursuing the course for which he and his numerous relatives had come to America. He was really doing business with and for Moses Franks, the head of the family syndicate in London. Shortly afterward we read of David under the mouth-filling title of “Agent to the Contractors for Victualing the Troops of the King of Great Britain,” and to check him up, a British officer was allowed to pass the lines once a month and spend a few hours with David. That this was a dangerous practice may be deduced from his further story.

In the records of the Continental Congress is a request from Franks that he be permitted to go to New York, then the British headquarters; and such was the power of the man that his request was granted on condition that he pledged his word “not to give any intelligence to the enemy” and to return to Philadelphia.

In January, 1778, six months before Benedict Arnold took command of Philadelphia, David Franks got himself into trouble. A letter of his was intercepted on its way to England. The letter was intended for Moses Franks, of London, and was concealed under cover of a letter to a captain in a regiment commanded by a British general who had married Franks’ sister. It appears on the record of the American Congress “that the contents of the letter manifest a disposition and intentions inimical to the safety and liberty of the United States.”

Whereupon it was “Resolved, that Major General Arnold be directed to cause the said David Franks forthwith to be arrested and conveyed to the new gaol in this city (Philadelphia), there to be confined until the further order of Congress.”

Thus Benedict Arnold comes into contact with another member of the Franks family, whose name was to be closely associated with the great treason.

And now begins a serpentine course of twistings and turnings which are so delightfully Jewish as to be worth restating if only to show how true the race remains to its character through the centuries. It is in October, about the eleventh day of the month. Franks is imprisoned and remains a week. Then by strange reasoning it is discovered that the United States has no jurisdiction over the charge of treason against the United States (!) and that the prisoner should be handed over to the Supreme Executive Council of the state of Pennsylvania. It follows that the state of Pennsylvania has nothing to do with the crime of treason against the United States either, and in spite of the contents of the letters and the findings of the Congressional Committee thereon, David Franks smiles pleasantly and goes free! It was a time, of course, when much money was lent by Jews to public officials. The Jew, Haym Salomon, was credited with having most of the “fathers” on his books, but he did not charge them interest nor principal. He grew immensely wealthy, however, and was recipient, in lieu of interest and repayment, of many official favors. David Franks, likewise a wealthy man, charged with treason, has his case transferred and finally dismissed. It is a trick not unknown today.

The Jewish records give much credit to Mr. Franks for not being daunted by this experience. Whether he is entitled to particular credit for his courage when he was master of so much influence, is a matter for the reader to decide, but that he was undaunted his subsequent actions show. He is very soon on the records again with an appeal for permission for his secretary to go again to New York within the British lines. He appeals to the Council of Pennsylvania. The Council refers him to Congress. Congress says it has no objection, if the secretary will be governed by General George Washington’s orders in the matter. Washington’s aid-de-camp gives permission, and the secretary gives sufficient bonds and sets out for New York.

Arrived in New York, the secretary discovers that Mr. Franks’ presence is necessary and has made all arrangements for his master to go to New York, having even secured British permission to pass the lines. It was made very easy for Congress, it had only to say yes. But this time Congress said “no.” The former escape of Franks made people aware of an un-American influence at work. After his first arrest he was regarded as dangerous to the American cause. He apparently succeeds in living well in Philadelphia in spite of his difficulties, living even gayly with the society of the city.

Up to this time, David Franks had come into contact with the two principal figures in Arnold’s treason. As purveyor to the captured troops, Franks had met and entertained, in 1776, the young and engaging Major André, who in 1780 was to become the tragic victim of Arnold’s perfidy. And in 1778 Franks had been the subject of an order of arrest given to General Benedict Arnold. Jacob Mordecai “mentions that it was at Mr. Franks’ house that he met Major André, then a paroled prisoner, who was passing his idle hours and exercising his talents in the most agreeable ways by taking a miniature likeness of the beautiful Miss Franks.” (American Jewish Historical Society, Vol. 6, page 41.)

In the meantime, Benedict Arnold was pursing his career, a career strangely checkered with brilliant bravery and subtle knavery, a career sustained by the confidence of noble friends who believed in Arnold even against himself. Except for this strange power of holding friends in spite of what they knew about him, Arnold’s career would have terminated before it did. That psychic gift of his, and the desperate need of the Continental cause for military leaders, held him on until his moral turpitude matured for the final collapse. As before stated, there is no intention to minimize Arnold’s services to his country, but there is a determination to show what were his associations during the period of his moral decline, and thus fill in the gaps of history and account for the distrust with which the American Congress regarded the young general.

David Solesbury Franks, the Montreal Jew, who was an agent of the Franks army-contractor syndicate in Canada, came south to the American colonies with Arnold when the American Army retreated. In his own account of himself, written in 1789—eight years after the treason—he makes so little of his association with Arnold that were it not for the reports of certain courts-martial it would be impossible to determine how close the two men had been. In his record of himself, as preserved in the tenth volume of the American Jewish Historical Society’s publications, he admits leaving Canada with the Americans in 1776 and remaining attached to the American Army until the surrender of Burgoyne, which occurred late in 1777. He then lightly passes over an important period which saw the command of Philadelphia bestowed on General Arnold. He mentions simply that he was “in Arnold’s military family at West Point until his desertion,” which was in 1780. Reference to the first court-martial of Arnold, in which Colonel David Solesbury Franks was Arnold’s chief witness, will show, however, that Franks and Arnold were more closely associated than the former would care to admit after Arnold’s name had become anathema. Indeed, as the Jewish Historical Society’s note correctly observes, the account of this court-martial “is of much interest, as it bears directly upon the relations of General Arnold and his aid, Major David S. Franks, before the traitor’s final flight in September, 1780.”

There were in all eight charges preferred against Arnold, the second one being—“In having shut up the shops and stores on his arrival in the city (Philadelphia), so as even to prevent officers of the army from purchasing, while he privately made considerable purchases for his own benefit, as is alleged and believed.”

Follows a supporting affidavit, printed in the style of the original, with emphatic italics added:

“On the seventh day of May, A. D. 1779, before me, Plunket Fleeson, Esq., one of the justices, etc., for the city of Philadelphia, comes colonel John Fitzgerald, late aid de camp to his excellency general Washington, and being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith: That on the evening of the day on which the British forces left Philadelphia, he and Major David S. Franks, aid de camp to major Arnold, went to the house of miss Brackenberry, and lodged there that night; and the next morning, major Franks having gone down stairs, the deponent going into the front room of the said house, to view colonel Jackson’s regiment then marching into the city, saw lying in the window two open papers; that on casting his eye on one of them, he was surprised it contained instructions to the said major Franks to purchase European and East Indian goods in the city of Philadelphia, to any amount, for the payment of which the writer would furnish major Franks with the money, and the same paper contained also a strict charge to the said Franks not to make known to his most intimate acquaintance that the writer was concerned in the proposed purchase; that these instructions were not signed, but appeared to the deponent to be in the hand-writing of major general Arnold, whether or not there was a date to it the deponent doth not recollect; that the other paper contained instructions signed by major general Arnold, directing major Franks to purchase for the said general Arnold some necessaries for the use of his table; that the deponent compared the writing of the two papers and verily believes that they were both written by major general Arnold’s own hand; and soon afterward major Franks came into the room and took the papers away, as the deponent supposes. And further the deponent saith not.

“Sworn, etc. John Fitzgerald.”

That such a charge involved as much the trial of Major Franks as General Arnold, will at once appear. The statements in the charge argue close association between Arnold and Franks. Yet in Franks’ written record of himself in 1789 he passes over this Philadelphia period thus lightly: “In 1778, after the evacuation of Philadelphia by the British Army & on the arrival of Count D’Estaing I procured Letters of recommendation from the Board of War and joined him off Sandy Hook, I continued with that Admiral until he arrived at Rhode Island, where on the failure of the Expedition I returned to Philadelphia where my military duty called me.”

No reference here, nor anywhere in his record, to a closeness of bond between the two which his testimony, now offered from the records, amply proves to have existed.

“The judge-advocate produced major Franks, aid-de-camp to major General Arnold, who was sworn.

“Q. On General Arnold’s arrival in Philadelphia, do you know whether himself or any person on his account, made any considerable purchases of goods?

“A.  I do not.

“Q. At or before general Arnold’s arrival in Philadelphia did you receive orders from general Arnold to purchase goods, or do you know of general Arnold’s having given orders to any other person to make purchases of goods?

“A. I did receive from general Arnold that paper which colonel Fitzgerald has mentioned in his deposition. There are circumstances leading to it which I must explain. I had, by being in the army, injured my private affairs very considerably, and meant to leave it, if a proper opportunity to enter into business should happen. I had several conversations on the subject with General Arnold, who promised me all the assistance in his power; he was to participate in the profits of the business I was to enter into. At that time, previous to our going to Philadelphia, I had several particular conversations with him, and thought that the period in which I might leave the army with honor and enter into business (had come). I received at that time, or about that time, I think several days before the enemy evacuated the city, the paper mentioned in colonel Fitzgerald’s deposition that was not signed, as well as the other. Upon our coming into town we had a variety of military business to do. I did not purchase any goods, neither did I leave the army. That paper was entirely neglected, neither did I think anything concerning it until I heard of colonel Fitzgerald’s deposition. General Arnold has told me since, which is since I came from Carolina some time in August last, that the reason for his not supporting me in business was, supposing I had left the army, it was incompatible with his excellency’s instructions and the resolution of Congress.”

This testimony, seemingly straightforward in form, is rather damning to the characters of both the men involved. Arnold, upon taking command of Philadelphia, ordered the stores and shops to be closed and no goods sold. He stopped business outright. It was a most unpopular order, because it prevented the merchants profiting by the new order of things, the return of the Americans.

The very first day the closing law is in force, Arnold writes an order to Franks to make large purchases of European and East Indian goods “to any amount” and to keep the transaction secret from his most intimate acquaintance. That is, Benedict Arnold and the Jewish major on his staff, have an understanding that under cover of the military closing, they will loot the city of its most profitable goods at the enforced low selling prices—for the obvious purpose of selling at higher prices when the military order was rescinded.

These are undisputed facts. Colonel Fitzgerald saw the papers and knew the unsigned one to be in Arnold’s handwriting, even as the signed one was. They were both addressed to the Jewish Major Franks. In his testimony, Major Franks admits the existence of the unsigned order as Colonel Fitzgerald saw it, and admits also its character.

Even Benedict Arnold admitted the order, but he endeavored to show that having exhibited General Washington’s orders to him (Arnold) to command Philadelphia, that fact would be a sufficient countermand to the order given to Franks to load up on valuable goods.

 “General Arnold to Major Franks. Did you not suppose my showing you the instructions from general Washington to me, previous to your going into the city, a sufficient countermand of the order I had given you to purchase goods?

“Major Franks. I did not form any supposition on the subject.”

This admission that he wrote the order, and the fact that no large purchases of goods could be shown, constituted Arnold’s defense. It requires no keen legal mind to show its weakness. If the order was countermanded several days before they entered the city, what was it doing in Miss Brackenberry’s house in Philadelphia on the first morning of Arnold’s command and the first morning of the operation of his order to close the stores? And why did Franks come in search of it? Discarded orders are not thus carried around and preserved.

Probably no purchases were made. Probably the order was not carried out. When Colonel Fitzgerald walked into the room early in the morning and saw the papers, and when soon thereafter Major Franks walked into the room and saw both Colonel Fitzgerald and the papers, there was nothing else to do than to call the plan off. It had become known. Colonel Fitzgerald waited in the room to see what became of the papers. He saw the Jew Franks come and get them. He saw him go out with them. He knew what those papers directed the Jew to do, and he knew that the directing hand was Benedict Arnold’s. Doubtless with this clue he kept his eyes open in Philadelphia during the operation of the closing order. And doubtless Franks lost no time in transmitting to General Arnold the fact that he found Colonel Fitzgerald in the room where the papers had been left. The inadvertent visit of Colonel Fitzgerald is the key-fact in that phase of the matter.

But the Jewish major becomes talkative in his effort to explain the situation. “There are circumstances which I must explain,” he says. And then, in words that were frequently in the mouth of Arnold, he represents that his service in the army was injuring his private affairs very seriously, and that he was contemplating retiring from the army and going into business.

It is worth noting at this point that numerous opportunities were given Franks to retire, both before and after the Arnold treason, but he developed into a persistent clamorer after official jobs. In spite of his testimony, he could not be shaken loose from public employment.

And then Franks revealed the whole secret of his relations with Arnold. They were in close association in profiteering matters. “I had several conversations on the subject with general Arnold he was to participate in the profits of the business I was to enter into.” Arnold was to remain a general in the army; his aide was to get out of the army and work with him privately, sharing the profits.

But what had all this to do with the orders to close the stores at Philadelphia? What had this to do with the papers found by Colonel Fitzgerald? For after all, this was the “circumstance” which Major Franks had set out to explain. At last he reaches it: “At that time, previous to our going into Philadelphia, I had several particular conversations with him I received at that time, or about that time, the paper mentioned in Colonel Fitzgerald’s deposition which was not signed, as well as the other.”

The paper authorized him to get the most merchantable goods out of the closed stores. It followed upon “several particular conversations” about the business of which Arnold was to “participate in the profits.” But, apparently, the deal did not go through. Colonel Fitzgerald’s untimely appearance, and the carelessness of some one in leaving the papers about, were most unfavorable to the Arnold-Franks project.

There can be no question of the intimacy of the relations between the Jew and Arnold and the use that both made of their relationship. There can be no question, either, that these relationships must have been the result of continuous acquaintance and testing.

Merely to show that a Jew once crossed the path of Benedict Arnold and was implicated with him in a discreditable scheme that probably did not fully mature, means nothing. But that this Jew was involved in Arnold’s fortunes from the time the two first met in Canada until the day that Arnold betrayed his country, may mean something. And that is the case. From the time of their first meeting, their lines run along together—Franks always being relied upon by Arnold as the credible witness who extricates him from his scrapes, and Franks usually doing it with a sort of clumsy success, as in the instance just cited.

The reader may refer now to the reference made above to Franks’ record of himself in which he mentions having joined Count d’Estaing, the French admiral, at Sandy Hook. This was just a month after Arnold took command at Philadelphia, just a month after the events on which the above charge was based. Evidently Franks got out of town for a little while. He would notice the coolness of his fellow officers among whom reports of Colonel Fitzgerald’s discovery must have circulated. There would be no prejudice against him because he was a Jew, it would be solely due to the suspicions concerning him. Indeed, readers of the ordinary history will never learn that Arnold had Jews around him. There were David Franks, moneyed man and merchant in the city, and David Solesbury Franks on Arnold’s staff—both outstanding figures, yet wholly passed over by the historians, with one or two exceptions, and even these have never caught the Jewish clue. In that day there was no prejudice against Jews as Jews, even as there is none now.

Franks, then, easily gains letters which permit him to join the French fleet of d’Estaing, within a month after the Philadelphia business. And strange to relate, at precisely the same time, Benedict Arnold conceived the notion that he too should go into the navy, and a month after his appointment to Philadelphia he writes to General Washington suggesting nothing less than that he be given command of the American Navy!—at precisely the time Major Franks takes to the water.

“ being obliged entirely to neglect my private affairs since I have been in the service,” Arnold writes to General Washington, “has induced me to wish to retire from public business, unless an offer, which my friends have mentioned, should be made to me of the command of the navy I must beg leave to request your sentiments respecting a command in the navy.”

So far as the historians have been able to discover, no one ever proposed such a thing as making Arnold the admiral of the American Navy. But, then, the historians did not know David S. Franks. He, a landsman, had gone for a few weeks with the French ships. Perhaps he was the friend who “mentioned” the matter. At any rate, when Franks came off the ships again, it was to serve as witness once more for Benedict Arnold.

The charges against Arnold were such as these: Permitting an enemy ship to land, and buying a share of her cargo; imposing menial service on soldiers (a charge brought about by an action of Major Franks); issuing passes unlawfully—the case in point being that of a Jewess, named Levy; the use of army wagons for his private affairs, and so forth.

This is Major Franks’ testimony concerning Arnold’s permitting “The Charming Nancy” to land at a United States port, contrary to law:

“Q. (by the court) Do you know whether general Arnold purchased any part of the Charming Nancy or her cargo?

“A. I do not know of my own knowledge, but I have heard general Arnold say he did, and I have also heard Mr. Seagrove say he did.

“Q.  Was it previous or subsequent to general Arnold’s granting the pass?

“A.  It was subsequent.”

Here is a complete admission of all the facts, but the defense consisted in laboriously showing, by means of quite leading questions addressed to Franks, that the owners of “The Charming Nancy” were indeed good Americans, though residing and doing business in enemy territory. Franks was rather useful in this part of the business, and the court, overlooking the other elements, simply found that the permission which Arnold gave to “The Charming Nancy” was illegal. The fact that a major general of the United States Army speculated in the cargo of the ship which had come into port in violation of the law and on his military permission, was not considered at all. Neither was the fact, stated in the charge, that he gave his permission while he was in camp with General Washington at Valley Forge, whom he did not consult in any way.

But here again the fact is established that Major Franks was privy to the whole matter, and was the chief witness for Arnold’s defense.

If it had occurred but once, as at Montreal, that Arnold had been charged with irregularities involving profitable goods; or if it had occurred but once, as at Philadelphia, that Major Franks happened to be the chief available witness, no serious notice could be taken of it.

But time and again Arnold is caught in shady acts involving profitable goods, and time and again the Jewish Major Franks is his accomplice and chief witness. And this partnership in shady transactions, extending from the time Arnold first met Franks till the time Arnold betrayed his country, is significant, at least as a contribution to history, and possibly as a side light on the gradual degeneration of Benedict Arnold.

Arnold could no longer wholly escape. But still the good fortune that seemed patiently to accompany him, as if waiting for his better nature to recover from some dark spell, remained with him; the court could not exonerate him entirely, but neither could they punish him as he deserved; and so it was given as a verdict that General Arnold should be reprimanded by General Washington, his best friend.

Washington’s reprimand is one of the finest utterances in human record. It would have saved a man in whom a shred of moral determination remained:

“Our profession is the chastest of all; even the shadow of a fault tarnishes the luster of our finest achievements. The least inadvertance may rob us of the public favor, so hard to be acquired. I reprimand you for having forgotten that in proportion as you have rendered yourself formidable to our enemies, you should have been guarded and temperate in your deportment toward your fellow-citizens. Exhibit anew those noble qualities which have placed you on the list of our most valued commanders. I will myself furnish you, as far as it may be in my power, with opportunities of regaining the esteem of your country.”

It was a bad day for Benedict Arnold when he got into touch with the Jewish syndicate of army-contractors. There was hope for him even yet, if he would cast off the evil spell. But time pressed; events were culminating; the alien, having gripped him, was about to make the best of the baleful opportunity. The closing chapter was about to be written in glory or in shame.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 15 October 1921]

Arnold and His Jewish Aids at West Point

After General Washington had delivered the reprimand to Benedict Arnold, he proceeded at once to make good the intimation which he had given the unhappy officer—“I will myself furnish you, as far as may be in my power, with opportunities of regaining the esteem of your country.” It was late in July, 1780, that General Washington had learned of the British plan to march to Newport and attack reenforcements of the American cause before they could land and entrench themselves. Washington therefore decided to harry the British and perhaps prevent the attack by crossing the Hudson and marching down the east shore to menace New York, the British headquarters.

It was the last day of July, and General Washington was personally seeing the last division over at King’s Ferry, when Benedict Arnold appeared. It is true that he had been wounded, it is also true that his accounts had not been allowed by Congress; but his wound was the fortune of war, and the delay in allowing his accounts was due to his already acquired reputation for shady dealing in money matters, neither of which justified him in betraying his country, but both of which might have stimulated him to recover the status he had so early lost.

It was thus that Benedict Arnold appeared before George Washington, that last day of July, 1780—a man whom Congress rightly distrusted, a man who had just been rightly reprimanded, a man whose fellow-officers looked at him askance.

Yet it was to such a man that Washington made good his word. The army was on the way to New York to attack the British. As Arnold rode up, General Washington said to him, “You are to command the left wing, the post of honor.”

Those who were present report that, at Washington’s words, Arnold’s countenance fell. The magnanimity of the First American meant nothing to him. The opportunity to retrieve his good name had somehow lost its value.

So patent was Arnold’s disappointment, that Washington asked him to ride to headquarters and await him there. At headquarters Arnold disclosed to Washington’s aid, Colonel Tilghman, that his desire was not for a command in the army, but for the command of West Point. West Point was then but a post up the Hudson River, far outside the zone of important fighting, and certainly the last place it was thought the intrepid Arnold would desire to be. The inconsistency between Arnold’s desire for action and West Point’s lack of action struck General Washington very forcibly. He had offered Arnold a chance to rehabilitate his reputation; Arnold hung back, asking for a place where no distinctive service could then be rendered.

Now let the reader take note of this fact: it may be important, it may be unimportant; it may have some bearing on Benedict Arnold’s action, it may have none; but the fact nevertheless is this: The Forage Master, that is, the quartermaster at West Point, was Colonel Isaac Franks, a member of the same family which we have been considering in these articles. This Colonel Isaac Franks, we are informed by the Jewish records which make a great deal of the fact, was once confidential aide-de-camp to General Washington, though for what reason the relationship was dissolved we are not informed.

The reader will recall that the narrative of Benedict Arnold has already included two members of the Franks family—David, of Philadelphia, and David Solesbury Franks, who came down from Montreal.

The third Franks is now in view—Colonel Isaac Franks. He is in charge of supplies at the post of West Point. It is to West Point that Benedict Arnold wishes to go, even though General Washington is offering him the post of honor in the forward movement which the Continental Army is about to make. It is the last day of July, 1780.

On August 3, General Washington gave Arnold his orders and allowed him to proceed to take command of West Point. Accompanying him, of course, was Colonel David Solesbury Franks, his aide-de-camp, whose testimony had been so useful at the court martial. There were then two Franks at West Point—Colonel D. S. Franks, aid to the commandant, and Colonel Isaac Franks, in charge of supplying the post.

It appears that Arnold had already been in communication with the enemy and had asked for the command at West Point, not for any of the reasons he alleged to General Washington, but because he had already chosen it as the gateway through which he was to let the British through into the weakened American territory. For two months Arnold had been writing to “Anderson,” or John André. He had been reaching out toward the enemy for a longer time than that, and had at length requested that a man equal to himself be appointed to negotiate with him. Major John André, adjutant general of the British Army in America, was chosen as one of rank sufficiently high to deal with Arnold. They had already come into touch with each other before Arnold asked General Washington for the post at West Point. And André, as we have previously seen, knew the Franks.

Apologists for Arnold have said that the reason he showed so deep a disappointment when General Washington offered him the command of the left wing of the army, was that he had never expected such magnanimous treatment, and for the moment was conscience-stricken that he had gone so far with the enemy when his own country offered him such fine prospects. If that were the true state of Arnold’s mind, he need only have taken command of the left wing, or, having been committed to take West Point, he need only have gone there and performed his soldierly duty.

The history and personality of Major John André, who completed the negotiations with Arnold, and lost his life as a spy, while Arnold lived long as a traitor, have been the object of much interest and research. His descent is obscure. His parentage was known as “Swiss-French.” It is thought that the first André came to England in the train of a Jewish family. André himself had those accomplishments which were most highly prized in the society of the day. In any event, of Jewish or non-Jewish descent, he was a far finer character than Benedict Arnold.

On Arnold’s staff at West Point, besides the two Jewish Franks—Isaac and

David—there was Lieutenant Colonel Richard Varick. This Varick was a wise young fellow who preferred to have as little as possible to do with Arnold’s affairs. He refused to take any responsibility connected with Arnold’s dealings with money or goods. For some apparently good reason, which will not be difficult for the reader to surmise, Varick adopted the strict policy of keeping his hands off all supplies. Thus it was left to Major Franks to attend all such matters, to which he was apparently nothing loath. In fact, Major Franks even looked after General Arnold’s private cupboard.

Not to delay longer over details, suffice it to say that on September 22, 1780, less than two months after assuming command at West Point, the treason of Benedict Arnold was accomplished. One more day, and it was discovered and foiled.

Instant inquiry was made to detect accomplices. Major Franks is placed under arrest. David Franks, of Philadelphia, is arrested. It may or may not be significant, but it is nevertheless a fact, that upon the accomplishment of Arnold’s treason the authorities ordered that the two Jews, David Franks and David Solesbury Franks, be put under arrest.

The experience of David Franks adds a bit of Jewish comedy to this serious scene. It appears that he still has influence to save him from severe treatment and to gain him time. On the occasion of his previous arrest in 1778, Benedict Arnold was commander of the city of Philadelphia and David Solesbury Franks was on Arnold’s staff, and if Arnold and Franks could concoct a scheme of profiteering off the closed stores of the city, it was probably not beyond them to see that the elder David Franks received favor in his case. At least, as the reader of previous articles knows, David Franks went free, although caught in the act of communicating with the enemy.

But this time there is no Benedict Arnold to help him, and his nephew, like himself, is under arrest because of Arnold’s treason. Yet the Philadelphia Jew discloses a marvelous facility of playing horse with the law.

He remained in jail until October 6, and then, strange to relate, he is given two weeks to get within the enemy’s lines. Investigation somehow has been stopped; prosecution has been sidetracked. But David found 14 days too brief a time to wind up his affairs, and he petitions for an extension of time. It is denied. Then when one week of the time had passed, Franks asks for a pass to New York for himself, daughter, man-servant and two maid-servants; this is refused and passes are authorized for himself, daughter, and one maid-servant, “provided she be an indented servant.” But David does not use these passes. He applies again for an extension of time on account of an “indisposition of body.” Thus, by keeping officials busy with his evasions and his counter-suggestions the record finds him still in Philadelphia on November 18, a month after he was supposed to be out of the country.

He makes application for another pass. The Council obediently sends him one, the secretary making this observation in his note: “The Council are much surprised that you still remain in this city, and hope that you will immediately depart this state, agreeable to their late order, otherwise measures will be taken to compel you to comply with the same.”

Does David go? He does not. He writes an extremely polite letter. Incidentally he gives a hint of what may be keeping him. In his letter to the Council he says:

“Being apprehensive that a report raised and circulated that I had depreciated the currency by purchase of specie may have given rise to prejudice against me with the Honorable Council ”

More than likely this is precisely what David was doing. It was done later by another Jew in American history, Judah P. Benjamin, and it was done everywhere by Jews during the recent war. With David’s racial itch for money and his disloyalty to the American cause, there was probably sound foundation for the report.

And then, in the last line of his letter, he finds fault with his pass, and asks for another. All this time, of course, he is gaining time, and is fulfilling his purpose with regard to the specie.

This, by the way, is a common Jewish stratagem. It is very much observed in lawsuits. The non-Jew can always be depended on to desire justice and humanity, and these traits are systematically played upon. The non-Jew is also inclined to take men’s word at its face value, which is also a trait which can be used to his hurt. If, for example, in a business transaction which is to be consummated a week hence, the non-Jew could absolutely fortify himself if he had the slightest suspicion of sharp dealing, it is to the advantage of the Jew who tries to “do” him to give him his word as to exactly what steps will be taken a week hence at the final settlement. If the non-Jew believes that word, he is quieted for a week. He does nothing. He rests implicitly on the given word. Then the morning comes, and the dishonest Jew steps up without warning and drives through ruthlessly to a tricky gain. This is so common that thousands who have been tricked by it have told the full details. Keep the Gentile so busy, or satisfy him so fully, that he will not bother—that’s the strategy. David knew it even in his day, and it was ancient then.

His request for a new pass is refused. But still he does not go. Finally, an aroused Council sends him notice to be gone by the next day. And he then goes, but not, we may well believe, until he had done all he intended to do. David is delightfully Jewish, and the Council are naively Gentile.

Up at West Point other matters are proceeding. When General Washington arrived and heard the startling news, he asked Colonel Varick to walk with him. He spoke to the young officer most considerately, told him he did not question his loyalty, but under the circumstances he would ask him to consider himself under arrest. It was very like Washington to do this, to make the arrest himself, gently. There is no record, however, that a like courtesy was shown the Jewish Major David Solesbury Franks. Washington probably remembered him as the witness for Arnold in the case which led to Arnold’s court-martial and reprimand.

On that frontier post (as West Point then was) there were no witnesses. Franks and Varick were confronted with the necessity of testifying for each other. That is, the Jewish major was his own representative in court and practically his own witness.

Franks put Varick on the stand to testify for him, and Varick put Franks on the stand to testify for him. The resulting testimony shows that Franks knew much and was eager to tell how much he knew of Arnold’s traitorous intentions—but he did not tell it until Arnold’s treason was exposed and he himself under arrest.

The purpose of this article being merely to fill up the gaps which are left in the Jewish propagandist boasting of the part they have played in public affairs in the United States, the reader must himself be a judge as to how far Major David Solesbury Franks was in Arnold’s secret. (The “Smith” mentioned in the testimony was Joshua Hett Smith, who did secret work for Arnold and rowed André ashore for the night conference with Arnold.) Following are vital extracts from the testimony:

Major Franks—“What was my opinion of Joshua H. Smith’s character and conduct, and of his visits at Arnold’s headquarters ?”

Colonel Varick—“When I first joined Arnold’s family Arnold and yourself thought well of him as a man, but I soon prevailed on you to think him a Liar and a Rascal; and you ever after spoke of him in a manner his real character merited ”

Arnold, of course, knew what Smith was. Arnold and Smith were already partners in treason. But Varick did not know of this partnership. All that Varick knew was that both Arnold and Franks appeared to hold the same opinion, that Smith was all right. Here Arnold and Franks appear as agreed again. Varick regarded them as holding the same opinion. Varick says so to Franks’ face in answer to Franks’ question. He does it, however, from a friendly purpose. But the fact is significant that Franks and Arnold are found holding the same front—“Arnold and yourself thought well of him as a man.”

Now, Arnold knew what Smith was, knew enough about Smith to hang him. Smith was one of the tools of his long extended treason. The question is, did Franks also know? Was Franks kept in ignorance of Arnold’s real knowledge of Smith, or was Franks actually deceived as regards Smith? It may be, but let this be observed, that Varick, who was not at all in Arnold’s confidence, nevertheless was not deceived about Smith, but saw through him at once. Did not Franks see through him, too? Until the time that Varick dared speak out about the matter, Franks and Arnold were preserving the same appearance of opinion—they “thought well of him as a man.”

Then Varick honestly spoke out. He got hold of the Jewish Franks and told him all that he knew and suspected about Smith. The evidence was too overwhelming for Franks to scoff at. Any man scoffing at Varick’s tale would himself be under suspicion. Varick was given to understand that he had changed Franks’ opinion of Smith. Thereafter Franks comported himself in a manner to convince Varick that he regarded Smith as a “Liar and a Rascal.”

It is permissible to ask, was this pretense or reality? If Varick knew things, Varick was a man to handle wisely. If Varick knew things, it would be foolish to lose touch with him and thus lose the benefit of knowing how much was known or surmised outside. These, of course, are the arguments of suspicion, but they are made concerning the same Jewish officer who, on finding that Colonel Fitzgerald had discovered the profiteering venture in which Franks and Arnold were partners, was wise enough to inform Arnold and permit the plan to drop. Major Franks’ previous behavior, like Benedict Arnold’s, arouses the suspicion. Benedict Arnold appeared to Varick to regard Smith as a good man; Franks appeared to Varick to share Arnold’s opinion; but whether Franks really knew, as Arnold knew, and only pretended to change his opinion that he might keep the confidence of Varick, is a point on which Franks’ previous conduct compels the mind to waver.

How well Franks knew Arnold may be gathered from other points brought out in this testimony:

Major Franks—“How often did Arnold go down the river in his barge, whilst I was at Robinson’s House (Arnold’s headquarters)? Did I even attend him, and what were our opinions and conduct on his going down and remaining absent the night of the twenty-first of September?” (This was the night of his meeting André.)

Colonel Varick—(answers that Franks, to his knowledge, never accompanied Arnold) “But when I was informed by you or Mrs. Arnold, on the twenty-first, that he was not to return that evening, I suggested to you that I supposed he had gone to Smith’s, and that I considered Arnold’s treatment of me in keeping up his connection with Smith, in opposition to the warning I had given him, as very ungenteel, and that I was resolved to quit his family” (meaning his staff). “We did thereupon concert the plan of preventing their further intimacy by alarming Mrs. Arnold’s fears

“You did at the same time inform me that you could not account for his connections with Smith—that you knew him to be an avaricious man and suspected he meant to open trade with some person in New York, under sanction of his command, and by means of flags and the unprincipled rascal Smith; and that you were induced to suspect it from the letter he wrote to Anderson in a commercial style as related to you by me. We thereupon pledged to each our word of honor that if our suspicions should prove to be founded in fact, we would instantly quit him.”

It is the honest Varick talking. Franks questioning him. It will be observed that it is Franks who tells Varick of Arnold’s absence and that he will not return that night. Franks knew, but Varick did not. It will be observed also, that it was Varick who protested and threatened to quit Arnold. It was indeed the second time he had threatened to quit, but the Jewish major seems never to have had a similar thought. But most important to observe is Varick’s statement in answer to Franks, and in Franks’ presence, that it was Franks who opened up with information regarding Arnold’s character—that Arnold was an avaricious man, that Franks suspected him of opening up trade with the enemy “under sanction of his command” (just as he had planned to misuse his authority at Philadelphia) and that Smith was to be the go-between. Then he mentions a letter to “Anderson in a commercial style”—this “Anderson” being none other than Major John André of the British Army.

Here we find Major Franks intimate with every element of the conspiracy—every element of it!—and giving a certain explanation of it to Varick. Did Franks know more than he told, and was he quieting Varick with an explanation which seemed to cover all the facts, and yet did not divulge the truth? It is a question that occurs, directly we recall the close collusion of Arnold and Franks at Philadelphia.

There is other testimony, that it was Varick, not Franks, who prevented Arnold selling supplies of the government for his own profit. Time and again this occurred, but never with Franks, the long-time aid and confidant of Arnold, in the role of actor. But every time Varick did it, Franks knew of it, as he testified.

Now we approach the “Day of his Desertion,” as the records call the day of Arnold’s treason.

Major Franks—“What was Arnold’s, as well as my conduct and deportment on the Day of his Desertion, and had you the slightest reason to think I had been or was party or privy to any of his villainous practices and correspondence with the enemy, or to his flight? Pray relate the whole of our conduct on that day to your knowledge.”

Colonel Varick—“I was sick and a greater part of the time in my bed in the morning of his flight. Before breakfast he came into my room” (and talked about certain letters) “and I never saw him after it but betook myself to my bed. I think it was about an hour thereafter when you came to me and told me Arnold was gone to West Point—also a considerable time thereafter you came to the window of my room near my bed and, shoving it up hastily told me with a degree of apparent surprise that you believed Arnold was a villain or rascal, and added you had heard a report that one Anderson was taken as a spy on the lines and that a militia officer had brought a letter to Arnold and that he was enjoined secrecy by Arnold. I made some warm reply, but instantly reflecting that I was injuring a gentleman and friend of high reputation in a tender point, I told you it was uncharitable and unwarrantable even to suppose it. You concurred in opinion with me and I lay down secure in the high idea I entertained of Arnold’s integrity and patriotism ”

Here is a record of Major Franks’ conduct, told at his own solicitation before a court of inquiry. It reveals that Arnold told Franks, but did not tell Varick, where he was going. It reveals also that Franks knew of the message that came to Arnold, the bearer of which had been bound by Arnold to secrecy. (For the reader’s benefit it is recalled that Arnold’s treason was prematurely exposed by André being lost in the woods at night after his interview with Arnold, and his consequent inability to get back to the British ship. He was sighted and halted in daylight, and discovery was made of the West Point plans in his stockings. The innocent soldiers sent word to Benedict Arnold, their commanding officer, that they had captured a spy named Anderson. This gave Arnold information that the plot had fallen through. Enjoining absolute secrecy on the messenger, Arnold made off hastily as if to investigate, but really to rush to the ship to which André had failed to return.) But observe: the messenger arrived and immediately Franks appears to be informed what the message contains. He is informed also that Arnold is going to West Point. He is informed of “Anderson’s” capture. Once again

Franks is in instant touch with all the points of the matter, but this time he goes further and accuses Arnold. In the peculiar phraseology of Varick, which may or may not be significant, Franks “hastily told me with a degree of apparent surprise” that he believed Arnold to be a villain or rascal.

Then the difference between these two men appeared again; it shines out luminously. When it was possible to save Arnold, it was Varick who was most concerned, while Franks appeared to be hand-in-glove with the traitor. But when it was apparent that something irrevocable had happened, it was the Jew who was first and bitterest to denounce, while Varick remembered the conduct expected of gentlemen. Likewise, as at first, the Jewish major changed his opinion of Smith to agree with Varick’s opinion, so now he “concurred in opinion” with Varick, although he had just violently uttered the opposite opinion concerning Arnold.

Varick was charitable because he did not have the facts. Was Franks outspoken as he was because he had all the facts? If so, where did he get them? From Arnold?

How much did Franks know? That question will probably never be answered. There is, however, this additional testimony of his on record:

“I told you that I thought Arnold had corresponded with Anderson or some such name before from Philadelphia, and had got intelligence of consequence from him.”

David Solesbury Franks was implicated in every major crime of Benedict Arnold and in the great treason he gave evidence of knowing every movement of the game, from its far beginning in Philadelphia.

Franks was exonerated by the court.

From his safe retreat on the British man-of-war, Benedict Arnold wrote a letter in which he exculpated Smith, Franks and Varick, writing that they were “totally ignorant of any transactions of mine, that they had reason to believe were injurious to the public.”

Smith was neither ignorant nor innocent. He had rowed out to the British ship and brought André ashore for his conference with Arnold. He had been a go-between on many shady missions. Yet Arnold in his letter exonerates Smith. That fact seriously affects his exoneration of Franks. If Arnold can lie about Smith’s innocence, why cannot he lie about Franks’ innocence? As to Varick, he is the only one of the three who can do without Arnold’s exoneration; to Varick it is an insult to have Benedict Arnold vouch for him. Franks, however, was always afterward inclined to lean upon Arnold’s letter. An impartial study of the testimony, upon the background of a knowledge of Frank’s history, leaves grave doubts as to the unimpeachability of his relations with Benedict Arnold. So much so, indeed, that in the study of Arnold’s treason it is a grave omission to pass over Franks’ name.

The reader who will make a complete study of Franks’ character as revealed in the records will testify to this: the present study has been exceedingly charitable to his character; he could easily have been prejudiced in the reader’s mind by the presentation of a series of facts omitted here; the object has been to judge him solely on his acts with relation to Benedict Arnold.

Rightly or wrongly, Franks was suspected ever afterward. It was the Philadelphia incident that stamped his reputation. The suspicion of purjury on that occasion never left him. Franks insisted on having himself vindicated all around, but he was never satisfied with his vindications, he always wanted more. Jewish propagandists have misrepresented his subsequent work as a diplomatist. It was of the merest messenger-boy character, and he was entrusted with it only after the most obsequious appeals. He peddled petitions reciting his services and asking for government favor. The man who asserted in his defense at Philadelphia that he was eager to leave the army and enter business, could not be induced to leave the public service, until the allotment to him of 400 acres of land seems to have effectually weaned him from public life. What his end was, no one appears to know. His present-day use, however, is to furnish Jewish and pro-Jewish propagandists with a peg on which to hang extravagant praise of the Jew in Revolutionary times.

There can be no objection whatever to Jewish propagandists making the most of their material, but there is strong objection to the policy of concealment and misrepresentation. These impositions on public confidence will be exposed as regularly as they occur.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 22 October 1921]

The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names

The Madansky brothers—Max, Solomon, Benjamin, and Jacob—have written that their names henceforth will be May. It is a good old Anglo-Saxon name, but the Madanskys are of Asiatic origin.

Elmo Lincoln, a movie actor, comes into a Los Angeles court on the motion of his wife, and it is discovered that he is only Otto Linknhelt.

A large department store owner was born with the name Levy. He is now known as Lytton. It is quite possible he did not like Levy as a name; but why did he not change it for another Jewish name? Or perhaps it was the Jewishness of “Levy” that displeased him.

A popular tenor star recently brough suit against his wife, who married him after allowing him to believe that she was of Spanish origin. “I understood from her misleading stage name that she was Spanish when I married her. Later I found that she was Jewish and that her real name was Bergenstein.”

One of the biggest and best known stores in the United States goes under an honored Christian name, though every one of the owners is Jewish. The public still carries a mental picture of the good old merchant who established the store, which picture would speedily change if the public could get a glimpse of the real owners.

Take the name Belmont, for example, and trace its history. Prior to the nineteenth century the Jews resident in Germany did not use family names. It was “Joseph the son of Jacob,” “Isaac ben Abraham,” the son being designated as the son of his father. But the Napoleonic era, especially following upon the assembly of the Great Sanhedrin under Napoleon’s command, caused a distinct change in Jewish customs in Europe.

In 1808 Napoleon sent out a decree commanding all Jews to adopt family names. In Austria a list of surnames was assigned to the Jews, and if a Jew was unable to choose, the state chose for him. The names were devised from precious stones, as Rubenstein; precious metals, such as Goldstein, Silberberg; plants, trees, and animals, such as Mandelbaum, Lilienthal, Ochs, Wolf, and Loewe.

The German Jews created surnames by the simple method of affixing the syllable “son” to the father’s name, thus making Jacobson, Isaacson; while others adopted the names of the localities in which they lived, the Jew resident in Berlin becoming Berliner, and the Jew resident in Oppenheim becoming Oppenheimer.

Now, in the region of Schoenberg, in the German Rhine country, a settlement of Jews had lived for several generations. When the order to adopt surnames went forth, Isaac Simon, the head of the settlement, chose the name of Schoenberg. It signifies in German, “beautiful hill.” It is very easily Frenchified into Belmont, which also means beautiful hill or mountain. A Columbia University professor once tried to make it appear that the Belmonts originated in the Belmontes family of Portugal, but found it impossible to harmonize this theory with the Schoenberg facts.

It is noteworthy that a Belmont became American agent of the Rothschilds, and that the name of Rothschild is derived from the red shield on a house in the Jewish quarter of Frankfort-on-the-Main. What the original family name is has never been divulged.

The Jewish habit of changing names is responsible for the immense camouflage that has concealed the true character of Russian events. When Leon Bronstein becomes Leo Trotsky, and when the Jewish Apfelbaum becomes the “Russian” Zinoviev; and when the Jewish Cohen becomes the “Russian” Volodarsky, and so on down through the list of the controllers of Russia—Goldman becoming Izgoev, and Feldman becoming Vladimirov—it is a little difficult for people who think that names do not lie, to see just what is transpiring.

Indeed, there is any amount of evidence that in numberless cases this change of names—or adoption of “cover names,” as the Jewish description is—is for purposes of concealment. There is an immense difference in the state of mind in which a customer enters the store of Isadore Levy and the state of mind in which he enters the store of Alex May. And what would be his feeling to learn that Isadore Levy painted up the name of Alex May with that state of mind in view? When Rosenbluth and Schlesinger becomes “The American Mercantile Company,” there is justification for the feeling that the name “American” is being used to conceal the Jewish character of the firm.

The tendency of Jews to change their names dates back very far. There was and is a superstition that to give a sick person another name is to “change his luck,” and save him from the misfortune destined upon his old name. There was also the Biblical example of a change of nature being followed by a change of name, as when Abram became Abraham and Jacob became Israel.

There have been justifiable grounds, however, for Jews changing their names in Europe. The nationalism of that continent is, of course, intense, and the Jews are an international nation, scattered among all the nations, with an unenviable reputation of being ready to exploit for Jewish purposes the nationalistic intensity of the Gentiles. To mollify a suspicion held against them wherever they have lived (a suspicion so general and so persistent as to be explainable only on the assumption that it was abundantly justified) the Jews have been quick to adopt the names and colors of whatever country they may be living in. It is no trouble at all to change a flag, since none of the flags is the insignia of Judah. This was seen throughout the war zone; the Jews hoisted whatever flag was expedient at the moment, and changed it as often as the shifting tide of battle required.

A Polish Jew named Zuckermandle, emigrating to Hungary, would be anxious to show hat he had shuffled off the Polish allegiance which his name proclaimed; and the only way he could do this would be to change his name, which would very likely become Zukor, a perfectly good Hungarian name. Originally the Zukors were not Jews; now the usual guess would be that they are. In the United States it would be almost a certainty. Such a change as Mr. Zuckermandle would make, however, would not be for the purpose of concealing the fact that he was a Jew, but only to conceal the fact that he was a foreign Jew.

In the United States it has been found that Jews change their names for three reasons: first, for the same reason that many other foreigners change their names, namely, to minimize as much as possible the “foreign look” and the difficulty of pronunciation which many of those names carry with them; second, for business reasons, to prevent the knowledge becoming current that So-and-So is “a Jew store”; third, for social reasons.

The desire not to appear singular among one’s neighbors, when stated in just these words, very easily passes muster a being a natural desire, until you apply it to yourself. If you were going abroad to Italy, Germany, Russia, there to live and engage in business, would you cast about for a changed name immediately? Of course not. Your name is part of you, and you have your own opinion of an alias. The Jew, however, has his own name among his own people, regardless of what “cover name” the world may know him by, and, therefore, he changes his outside name quite coolly. The only likeness we have to that in America is the changing of men’s pay numbers as they move their employment from place to place. John Smith may be No. 49 in Black’s shop and No. 375 in White’s shop, but he is always John Smith. So the Jew may be Simon son of Benjamin in the privacy of the Jewish circle, while to the world he may be Mortimer Alexander.

In the United States it is hardly to be doubted that business and social reasons are mostly responsible for the changes in Jewish names. The designation “American” is itself much coveted, as may be gathered by its frequent use in firm names, the members of which are not American in any sense that entitles them to blazon that name throughout the world.

When Moses is changed to Mortimer, and Nathan to Norton, and Isadore to Irving (as for example Irving Berlin, whose relatives, however, still know him as “Izzy”), the concealment of Jewishness in a country where so much is done by print, must be regarded as a probable motive.

When “Mr. Lee Jackson” is proposed for the club there would seem to be no reason, as far as reading goes, why anything unusual about Mr. Jackson should be surmised, until you know that Mr. Jackson is really Mr. Jacobs. Jackson happens to be the name of a President of the United States, which names are quite in favor with the name-changers, but in this case it happens also to be one of the “derivatives” of an old Jewish name.

The Jewish Encyclopedia contains interesting information on this matter of derivatives.

Asher is shaded off into Archer, Ansell, Asherson.

Baruch is touched up into Benedict, Beniton, Berthold. Benjamin becomes Lopez, Seef, Wolf (this is translation). David becomes Davis, Davison, Davies, Davidson. Isaac becomes Sachs, Saxe, Sace, Seckel.

Jacob becomes Jackson, Jacobi, Jacobus, Jacof, Kaplan, Kauffmann, Marchant, Merchant.

Jonah becomes by quite simple changes, Jones and Joseph, Jonas.

Judah (the true Jewish name) becomes Jewell, Leo, Leon, Lionel, Lyon, Leoni, Judith.

Levi becomes Leopold, Levine, Lewis, Loewe, Low, Lowy.

Moses becomes Moritz, Moss, Mortimer, Max, Mack, Moskin, Mosse.

Solomon becomes Salmon, Salome, Sloman, Salmuth.

And so on through the list of Jewish “changelings”—Barnett, Barnard, Beer, Hirschel, Mann, Mendel, Mandell, Mendelsohn, with various others which are not even adaptations but sheer appropriations.

The millinery business, which is one of the principal Jewish grafts off American women, shows, the liking of the Jews for names which do not name, but which stand as impressive insignia—“Lucile,” “Mme. Grande,” and the like. Reuben Abraham Cohen is a perfectly good name, and a good citizen could make it immensely respected in his neighborhood, but Reuben thinks that the first round in the battle of minds should be his, and he does not scruple at a little deceit to obtain it, so he painted on a window of his store, R. A. Le Cán, which, when set off with a borrowed coat of arms, looks sufficiently Frenchified for even observant boobs among the Gentiles. Similarly a Mr. Barondesky may blossom out as Barondes or La Baron.

Commonly, Mr. Abraham becomes Miller. Why Miller should have been picked on for Judaization is not clear, but the Millers of the white race may yet be compelled to adopt some method of indicating that their name is not Jewish. It is conceivable that a Yiddish and an American form of the same name may some time be deemed necessary. Aarons becomes Arnold—there are a number of Jewish Arnolds. Aarons became Allingham. One Cohen became Druce, another Cohen became Freeman. Still another Cohen became a Montagu; a fourth Cohen became a Rothbury and a fifth Cohen became a Cooke.

The Cohens have an excuse, however. In one ghetto there are so many Cohens that some distinction must be observed. There is Cohen the rag gatherer, and Cohen the schacet (ritual meat killer), and Cohen the rising lawyer, as well as Cohen the physician. To make the matter more difficult their first names (otherwise their “Christian” names) are Louis. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the young lawyer should become Attorney Cohane (which does all the better if thereby certain Irish clients are attracted), and that the young doctor should become Doctor Kahn, or Kohn. These are some of the many forms that the priestly name of Cohen takes.

The same may be said with reference to Kaplan, a very common name. Charlie Chaplin’s name was, in all probability, Caplan, or Kaplan. At any rate, this is what the Jews believe about their great “star.” Non-Jews have read of Charlie as a “poor English boy.”

There is the Rev. Stephen S. Wise, for another example. He booms his way across the country from one platform to the other, a wonder in his way, that such pomposity of sound should convey such paucity of sense. He is an actor, the less effective because he essays a part in which sincerity is requisite. This Rabbi, whose vocal exercise exhausts his other powers, was born in Hungary, his family name being Weisz. Sometimes this name is Germanized to Weiss. When S. S. Weisz became S. S. Wise, we do not know. If he had merely Americanized his Hungarian name it would have given him the name of White. Apparently “Wise” looked better. Truly it is better to be white than to be wise, but Dr. Stephen S. is a fresh point in the query of “what’s in a name?”

The list of Jews in public life whose names are not Jewish would be a long one. Louis Marshall, head of the American Jewish Committee, for example—what could his old family name have been before it was changed for the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Mr. Selwyn’s name, now so widely known in motion pictures, was originally Schlesinger. Some of the Schlesingers become Sinclairs, but Selwyn made a really good choice for a man in the show business. A rabbi whose real name was Posnansky became Posner. The name Kalen is usually an abbreviation of Kalensky. A true story is told of an East Side tinsmith whose name was very decidedly foreign-Jewish. It is withheld here, because THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT prefers in this connection to mention only the names of those who can take care of themselves. But the tinsmith moved to a non-Jewish section and opened a new shop under the name of Perkins, and his luck really did change! He is doing well and, being an industrious, honest workman, deserves his prosperity.

Of course, there are lower uses of the name-changing practice, as every employer of labor knows. A man contracts a debt under one name, and to avoid a garnishee, quits his job, collects his pay, and in a day or two attempts to hire out under another name. This was once quite a successful trick, and is not wholly unknown now.

There is also much complaint among the stricter observers of the Jewish ritual requirements that the word “Kosher” is greatly misused, that indeed it covers a multitude of sins. “Kosher” has come to signify, in some places, little more than a commercial advertisement designed to attract Jewish trade. For all it means of what it says, it might just as well be “The Best Place in Town to Eat”—which it isn’t, of course; and neither is it always “strictly” Kosher.

It must be conceded, however, that the tendency to mislabel men and things is deep set in Jewish character. Jews are great coiners of catchwords that are not true, inventors of slogans that do not move. There is a considerable decrease in the power they wielded by such methods; their brilliancy in this respect is running to seed. This may be explained by the fact that there are so many song titles to write for the Jewish jazz factories, and so much “snappy” matter for screen descriptions. Their come-back is painfully thin and forced. Without peers in dealing with a superficial situation like a dispute over the beauty of two rival “stars,” or the amount and method of distributing confetti, they are the veriest dubs in dealing with a situation like that which has arisen in this country.

Immediately upon the appearance of the Jewish Question in the United States the Jews reverted naturally to their habit of mislabeling. They were going to fool the people once more with a pat phrase. They are still seeking for that phrase. Slowly they are recognizing that they are up against the Truth, and truth is neither a jazzy jade nor a movie motto, which can be recostumed and changed at will.

This passion for misleading people by names is deep and varied in its expression. Chiefly due to Jewish influences, we are giving the name of “liberalism” to looseness. We are dignifying with names that do not correctly name, many subversive movements. We are living in an era of false labels, whose danger is recognized by all who observe the various underground currents which move through all sections of society. Socialism itself is no longer what its name signifies; the name has been seized and used to label anarchy. Judaistic influence creeping into the Christian church has kept the apostolic labels, but thoroughly destroyed the apostolic content; the disruptive work has gone on quietly and unhindered, because often as the people looked, the same label was there—as the same old merchant’s name stays on the store the Jews have bought and cheapened. Thus there are “reverends” who are both unreverend and irreverent, and there are shepherds who flock with the wolves.

Zionism is another misnomer. Modern Zionism is not what its label would indicate it to be. The managers of the new money collection—millions of it, badly used, badly accounted for—are about as much interested in Zionism as an Ohio Baptist is in Meccaism. For the leading so-called “Zionists,” Mt. Zion and all that it stands for has next to no meaning; they see only the political and real estate aspects of Palestine, another people’s country just at present. The present movement is not religious, although it plays upon the religious sentiments of the lower class of Jews; it is certainly not what Judaized orators among the Christians want the Christians to think it is; Zionism is at present a most mischievous thing, potentially a most dangerous thing, as several governments could confidentially tell you.

But it is all a part of the Jewish practice of setting up a label pretending one thing, while quite another thing really exists.

Take anti-Semitism. That is a label which the Jews have industriously pasted up everywhere. If ever it was an effective label its uses are over now. It doesn’t mean anything. Anti-Semitism does not exist, since the thing so named is found among the Semites, too. Semites cannot be anti-Semitic. When the world holds up a warning finger against a race that is the moving spirit of the corruptive, subversive and destructive influences abroad in the world today, that race cannot nullify the warning by sticking up a false label of “Anti-Semitism,” anymore than it can justify the sign of gold on a $1.50 watch or the sign of “pure wool” on a $11.50 suit of clothes.

So with the whole group of labels which the Jews have trotted out like talismen to work some magic spell upon the aroused mind of America. They are lies. And when one lie fails, how quickly they hitch their hopes to another. If “Anti-Semitism” fails, then try “Anti-Catholic”—that might do something. If that fails, try “Anti-American”—get the biggest talent that can be hired for a night on the B’nai B’rith platform to shout it. And when that fails, as it has—?

The American Jewish Committee is itself a misnomer. The committee is not exclusively American, and its work is not to Americanize the Jews nor even to encourage real Americanization among them. It is a committee composed of Jews representing that class which profits most by keeping the mass of the Jews segregated from Americans and in bondage to the “higher ups” among the Jews. They are the “big Jews,” as Norman Hapgood used to call them, who say to the “little Jews,” “You hang closely together; we will be your representatives to these foreign peoples, the Americans and others.” If the American Jewish Committee would change its name to this: “The Jewish Commission for America,” it might be nearer the truth. It has dealt with America in the recent past very much as the Allied Commissions deal with Germany. There are certain things we may do, and certain things we may not do, and the Jewish Commission for America tells us what we may and may not do. One of the things we may not do is to declare that this is a Christian country.

There is one absolutely safe rule in dealing with anything emanating from the

American Jewish Commitee. Don’t rely on the label, open the matter up. You will find that the Kehillah is not what it pretends to be; that the Jewish labor union is not what it pretends to be; that Zionism is a camouflage for something entirely different; that the name and the nature are nearly always different, which is the reason for a particular name being chosen. It runs all the way through Jewish practice, and presents another little job for the Jewish reformer.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 12 November 1921]

“What the American Jew needs to develop is the habit of self-criticism. If the spokesmen of the Jewish people would devote one-half the energy they now expend in answering attacks to attacking the evils that stare everyone in the face, they would make a real contribution to American life. But judged by their public utterances, they seem to be supersensitive to trivial prejudice in non-Jews and extraordinarily insensitive to the faults of Jews. They are hypochondriac and morbidly defensive about their critics, and indulgent and complacent about what the Jewish people is and does. Races, not cursed with a sense of inferiority, do not shrink from criticism. They initiate it.”—Walter Lippmann, in The American Hebrew.

Jewish “Kol Nidre” and “Eli, Eli” Explained

“I have looked this year and last for something in your paper about the prayer which the Jews say at their New Year. But you say nothing. Can it be you have not heard of the Kol Nidre?”

“Lately in three cities I have heard a Jewish religious hymn sung in the public theaters. This was in New York, Detroit and Chicago. Each time the program said ‘by request.’ Who makes the request? What is the meaning of this kind of propaganda? The name of the hymn is ‘Eli.’”

The Jewish year just passed has been described by a Jewish writer in the Jewish Daily News as the Year of Chaos. The writer is apparently intelligent enough to ascribe this condition to something besides “anti-Semitism.” He says, “the thought that there is something wrong in Jewish life will not down,” and when he describes the situation in the Near East, he says, “The Jew himself is stirring the mess.” He indicts the Jewish year 5681 on 12 counts, among them being, “mismanagement in Palestine,” “engaging in internal warfare,” “treason to the Jewish people,” “selfishness,” “self-delusion.” “The Jewish people is a sick people,” cries the writer, and when he utters a comfortable prophecy for the year 5682, it is not in the terms of Judah but in the terms of “Kol Yisroel”—All Israel—the terms of a larger and more inclusive unity which gives Judah its own place, and its own place only, in the world. The Jewish people are sick, to be sure, and the disease is the fallacy of superiority, with its consequent “foreign policy” against the world.

When Jewish writers describe the year 5681 as the Year of Chaos, it is an unconscious admission that the Jewish people are ripening for a change of attitude. The “chaos” is among the leaders; it involves the plans which are based on the old false assumptions. The Jewish people are waiting for leaders who can emancipate them from the thralldom of their self-seeking masters in the religious and political fields. The enemies of the emancipation of Judah are those who profit by Judah’s bondage, and these are the groups that follow the American Jewish Committee and the political rabbis. When a true Jewish prophet arises—and he should arise in the United States—there will be a great sweeping away of the selfish, scheming, heartless Jewish leaders, a general desertion of the Jewish idea of “getting” instead of “making,” and an emergence of the true idea submerged so long.

There will also be a separation among the Jews themselves. They are not all Jews who call themselves so today. There is a Tartar strain in so-called Jewry that is absolutely incompatible with true Israelitish raciality; there are other alien strains which utterly differ from the true Jewish; but until now these strains have been held because the Jewish leaders needed vast hordes of low-type people to carry out their world designs. But the Jew himself is recognizing the presence of an alien element; and that is the first step in a movement which will place the Jewish Question on quite another basis.

What the Jews of the United States are coming to think is indicated by this letter—one among many (the writer is a Jew):

“Gentlemen:

“‘Because you believe in a good cause,’ said Dr. Johnson, ‘is no reason why you should feel called upon to defend it, for by your manner of defense you may do your cause much harm.’

“The above applying to me I will only say that I have received the books you sent me and read both with much interest.

“You are rendering the Jews a very great service, that of saving them from themselves.

“It takes courage, and nerve, and intelligence to do and pursue such a work, and I admire you for it.”

The letter was accompanied by a check which ordered THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT sent to the address of another who bears a distinctively Jewish name.

It is very clear that unity is not to be won by the truth-teller soft-pedaling or suppressing his truth, nor by the truth-hearer strenuously denying that the truth is true, but by both together honoring the truth in telling and in acknowledging it. When the Jews see this, they can take over the work of truth-telling and carry it on themselves. These articles have as their only purpose: First, that the Jews may see the truth for themselves about themselves; second, that non-Jews may see the fallacy of the present Jewish idea and use enough common sense to cease falling victims to it. With both Jews and non-Jews seeing their error, the way is opened for cooperation instead of the kind of competition (not commercial, but moral) which has resulted so disastrously to Jewish false ambitions these long centuries.

Now, as to the questions at the beginning of this article: THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has heretofore scrupulously avoided even the appearance of criticizing the Jew for his religion. The Jew’s religion, as most people think of it, is unobjectionable. But when he has carried on campaigns against the Christian religion, and when in every conceivable manner he thrusts his own religion upon the public from the stage of theaters and in other public places, he has himself to blame if the public asks questions.

It is quite impossible to select the largest theater in the United States, place the Star of David high in a beautiful stage heavens above all flags and other symbols, apostrophize it for a week with all sorts of wild prophecy and all sorts of silly defiance of the world, sing hymns to it and otherwise adore it, without arousing curiosity. Yet the Jewish theatrical managers, with no protest from the Anti-Defamation Committee, have done this on a greater or smaller scale in many cities. To say it is meaningless is to use words lightly.

The “Kol Nidre” is a Jewish prayer, named from its opening words, “All vows,” (kol nidre). It is based on the declaration of the Talmud:

“He who wishes that his vows and oaths shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year and say: ‘All vows which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.’”

It would be pleasant to be able to declare that this is merely one of the curiosities of the darkness which covers the Talmud, but the fact is that “Kol Nidre” is not only an ancient curiosity; it is also a modern practice. In the volume of revised “Festival Prayers,” published in 1919 by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, the prayer appears in its fullness:

“All vows, obligations, oaths or anathemas, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, devoted, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement (whose arrival we hope for in happiness) we repent, aforehand, of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void and made of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths.”

If this strange statement were something dug out of the misty past, it would scarcely merit serious attention, but as being part of a revised Jewish prayer book printed in the United States in 1919, and as being one of the high points of the Jewish religious celebration of the New Year, it cannot be lightly dismissed after attention has once been called to it.

Indeed, the Jews do not deny it. Early in the year, when a famous Jewish violinist landed in New York after a triumphant tour abroad, he was besieged by thousands of his East Side admirers, and was able to quiet their cries only when he took his violin and played the “Kol Nidre.” Then the people wept as exiles do at the sound of the songs of the homeland.

In that incident the reader will see that (hard as it is for the non-Jew to understand it!) there is a deep-rooted, sentimental regard for the “Kol Nidre” which makes it one of the most sacred of possessions to the Jew. Indefensibly immoral as the “Kol Nidre” is, utterly destructive of all social confidence, yet the most earnest efforts of a few really spiritual Jews have utterly failed to remove it from the prayer books, save in a few isolated instances. The music of the “Kol Nidre” is famous and ancient. One has only to refer to the article “Kol Nidre” in the Jewish Encyclopedia to see the predicament of the modern Jew: he cannot deny; he cannot defend; he cannot renounce. The “Kol Nidre” is here, and remains.

If the prayer were a request for forgiveness for the broken vows of the past, normal human beings could quite understand it. Vows, promises, obligations and pledges are broken, sometimes by weakness of will to perform them, sometimes by reason of forgetfulness, sometimes by sheer inability to do the thing we thought we could do.

Human experience is neither Jew nor Gentile in that respect.

But the prayer is a holy advance notice, given in the secrecy of the synagogue, that no promise whatever shall be binding, and more than not being binding is there and then violated before it is ever made.

The scope of the prayer is “from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement.”

The prayer looks wholly to the future, “we repent, aforehand, of them all.”

The prayer breaks down the common ground of confidence between men—“the vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths.”

It requires no argument to show that if this prayer be really the rule of faith and conduct for the Jews who utter it, the ordinary social and business relations are impossible to maintain with them.

It should be observed that there is no likeness here with Christian “hypocrisy,” so-called. Christian “hypocrisy” arises mostly from men holding higher ideals than they are able to attain to, and verbally extolling higher principles than their conduct illustrates. That is, to use Browning’s figure, the man’s reach exceeds his grasp; as it always does, where the man is more than a clod.

But “Kol Nidre” is in the opposite direction. It recognizes by inference that in the common world of men, in the common morality of the street and the mart, a promise passes current as a promise, a pledge as a pledge, an obligation as an obligation—that there is a certain social currency given to the individual’s mere word on the assumption that its quality is kept good by straight moral intention. And it makes provision to drop below that level.

How did the “Kol Nidre” come into existence? Is it the cause or the effect of that untrustworthiness with which the Jew has been charged for centuries?

Its origin is not from the Bible but from Babylon, and the mark of Babylon is more strongly impressed on the Jew than is the mark of the Bible. “Kol Nidre” is Talmudic and finds its place among many other dark things in that many-volumed and burdensom invention. If the “Kol Nidre” ever was a backward look over the failures of the previous year, it very early became a forward look to the deliberate deceptions of the coming year.

Many explanations have been made in an attempt to account for this. Each explanation is denied and disproved by those who favor some other explanation. The commonest of all is this, and it rings in the over-worked note of “persecution”: The Jews were so hounded and harried by the bloodthirsty Christians, and so brutally and viciously treated in the name of loving Jesus (the terms are borrowed from Jewish writers) that they were compelled by wounds and starvation and the fear of death to renounce their religion and to vow that thereafter they would take the once despised Jesus for their Messiah. Therefore, say the Jewish apologists, knowing that during the ensuing year the terrible, bloodthirsty Christians would force the poor Jews to take Christian vows, the Jews in advance announced to God that all the promises they would make on that score would be lies. They would say what the Christians forced them to say, but they would not mean or intend one word of it.

That is the best explanation of all. Its weakness is that it assumes the “Kol Nidre” to have been coincident with times of “persecution,” especially in Spain. Unfortunately for this explanation, the “Kol Nidre” is found centuries before that, when the Jews were under no pressure.

In a refreshingly frank article in the Cleveland Jewish World for October 11, the insufficiency of the above explanation is so clearly set forth that a quotation is made:

“Many learned men want to have it understood that the Kol Nidre dates from the Spanish Inquisition, it having become necessary on account of all sorts of persecution and inflictions to adopt the Christian religion for appearances’ sake. Then the Jews in Spain, gathering in cellars to celebrate the Day of Atonement and pardon, composed a prayer that declared of no value all vows and oaths that they would be forced to make during the year. . . .

“The learned men say, moreover, that in remembrance of those days when hundreds and thousands of Maranos (secret Jews) were dragged out of the cellars and were tortured with all kinds of torment, the Jews in all parts of the world have adopted the Kol Nidre as a token of faithfulness to the faith and as self-sacrifice for the faith.

“These assertions are not correct. The fact is that the formula of Kol Nidre was composed and said on the night of Yom Kippur quite a time earlier than the period of the Spanish Inquisition. We find, for instance, a formula to invalidate vows on Yom Kippur in the prayer book of the Rabbi Amram Goun who lived in the ninth century, about five hundred years before the Spanish Inquisition; although Rabbi Amram’s forumla is not ‘Kol Nidre’ but ‘Kol Nidrim’ (‘All vows and oaths which we shall swear from Yom Kippurim to Yom Kippurim will return to us void.’) . . .”

The form of the prayer in the matter of its age may be in dispute; but back in the ancient and modern Talmud is the authorization of the practice: “He who wishes that his vows and oaths shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year and say: ‘All vows which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.’”

That answers our reader’s question. This article does not say that all Jews thus deliberately assassinate their pledged word. It does say that both the Talmud and the prayer book permit them to do so, and tell them how it may be accomplished.

Now, as to the Jewish religious hymn which is being sung “by request” throughout the country: the story of it is soon told.

The name of the hymn is “Eli, Eli”; its base is the first verse of the Twenty-second Psalm, known best in Christian countries as the Cry of Christ on the Cross.

It is being used by Jewish vaudeville managers as their contribution to the pro-Jewish campaign which the Jew-controlled theater is flinging into the faces of the public, from stage and motion picture screen. It is an incantation designed to inflame the lower classes of Jews against the people, and intensify the racial consciousness of those hordes of Eastern Jews who have flocked here.

At the instigation of the New York Kehillah, “Eli, Eli” has for a long time been sung at the ordinary run of performances in vaudeville and motion picture houses, and the notice “By Request” is usually a bald lie. It should be “By Order.” The “request” is from Jewish headquarters, which has ordered the speeding up of Jewish propaganda. The situation of the theater now is that American audiences are paying at the box office for the privilege of hearing Jews advertise the things they want non-Jews to think about them.

If even a vestige of decency, or the slightest appreciation of good taste remained, the Jews who control the theaters would see that the American public must eventually gag on such things. When two Jewish comedians who have been indulging in always vulgar and often indecent antics, appear before the drop curtain and sing the Yiddish incantation, “Eli, Eli,” which, of course, is incomprehensible to the major part of the audience, the Jewish element always betrays a high pitch of excitement. They understand the game that is being played: the “Gentiles” are being flayed to their face, and they don’t know it; as when a Yiddish comedian pours out shocking invectives on the name of Jesus Christ, and “gets away with it,” the Jewish portion of his audience howling with delight, and the “boob Gentiles” looking serenely on and feeling it to be polite to laugh and applaud too!

This Yiddish chant is the rallying cry of race hatred which is being spread abroad by orders of the Jewish leaders. You, if you are a theatergoer, help to pay the expense of getting yourself roundly damned. The Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee, which for more than ten years have been driving all mention of Christianity out of public life, under their slogan “This Is Not a Christian Country,” are spreading their own type of Judaism everywhere with insolence unparalleled.

“Eli, Eli” is not a religious hymn! It is a racial war cry. In the low cafés of New York, where Bolshevik Jews hang out, “Eli, Eli” is their song. It is the Marseillaise of Jewish solidarity. It has become the fanatical chant of all Jewish Bolshevik clubs; it is constantly heard in Jewish coffee houses and cabarets where emotional Russian and Polish Jews—all enemies to all government—shout the words amid torrential excitement. When you see the hymn in print you are utterly puzzled to understand the excitement it arouses.

And this rallying cry has now been obtruded into the midst of the theatrical world.

The term “incantation” here used is used advisedly. The term is used by Kurt

Schindler, who adapted the Yiddish hymn to American use. And its effect is that of an incantation.

In translation it is as follows:

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? With fire and flame they have burnt us, Everywhere they have shamed and derided us, Yet none amongst us has dared depart From our Holy Scriptures, from our Law.

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? By day and night I only yearn and pray, Anxiously keeping our Holy Scriptures And praying, Save us, save us once again! For the sake of our fathers and our fathers’ fathers!

“Listen to my prayer and to my lamenting, For only Thou canst help, Thou, God, alone, For it is said, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is Our God, The Lord is One!’”

The words of the hymn are so much resembling a lament that they strangely contrast with the spirit which the hymn itself seems to arouse; its mournful melody inspires a very different spirit among the Jewish hearers than the same sort of melody would inspire among other people. Those who have heard its public rendition can better understand how a hymn of such utterly quiet and resigned tone could be the wild rage of the anarchists of the East Side coffee houses.

The motive, of course, for the singing of the hymn is the reference to non-Jewish people.

“With fire and flame THEY have burnt us, everywhere THEY have shamed and derided us?” Who are “they”? Who but the goyim, the Christians who all unsuspectingly sit nearby and who are so affected by the Jewish applause that they applaud too! Truly, in one way of looking at it, Jews have a right to despise the “gentiles.”

“THEY have burnt us; THEY have shamed us,” but we, the poor Jews, have been harmless all the while, none among us daring to depart from the Law! That is the meaning of “Eli, Eli.” That is why, in spite of its words of religious resignation, it becomes a rallying cry. “They” are all wrong; “we” are all right.

It is possible, of course, that right-minded Jews do not approve all this. They may disapprove of “Kol Nidre” and they may resent the use which the Jewish leaders are making of “Eli, Eli.” Let us at least credit some Jews with both these attitudes. But they do nothing about it. These same Jews, however, will go to the public library of their town and put the fear of political or business reprisal in the hearts of the Library Board if they do not instantly remove THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT from the library; these same Jews will form committees to coerce mayors of cities into issuing illegal orders which cannot be enforced; these same Jews will give commands to the newspapers under their patronage or control—they are indeed mighty and active in the affairs of the non-Jews. But when it is a matter of keeping “Eli, Eli” out of the theater, or the “Kol Nidre” out of the mouths of those who thus plan a whole year of deception “aforehand,” these same Jews are very inactive and apparently very powerless.

The Anti-Defamation Committee would better shut up shop until it can show either the will or the ability to bring pressure to bear on its own people. Coercion of the rest of the people is rapidly growing less and less possible.

The “Kol Nidre” is far from being the worst counsel in the Talmud; “Eli, Eli” is far from being the worst anti-social misuse of apparently holy things. But it will remain the policy of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, for the present at least, to let all such matters alone except, as in the present case, where the number of the inquiries indicates that a knowledge of the facts has been had at other sources. In many instances, what our inquirers heard was much worse than is stated here, so that this article is by way of being a service to the inquirer to prevent his being misled, and to the Jew to prevent misrepresentation.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 5 November 1921]

Jews as New York Magistrates See Them

THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has been frequently importuned to make exposure of the Jewish crime record in New York and other cities, but up to this time has chosen not to do so. The material is mountainous and the facts are damaging, but THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT will continue to assume that the majority of the Jewish people do not approve of criminal acts, even against non-Jewish life and property. This paper prefers to confine its attention to those matters which are plainly within the purpose and approval of the Jewish leaders. There is a decided criminal element in the Jewish Question, and no small part of the criminality flows directly or indirectly from the attitude of the Jewish leaders, but the Great Crime is the introduction of corruptive and anti-American ideas into American life, and Jewish leaders cannot escape responsibility for that.

The magistrates of every city with a considerable Jewish population know the facts. In practically every state in the Union there is today a celebrated case where some Jew, through money or influence, is playing horse with American law. It is locally known, but not generally, except in two or three instances. The local press—deriving 80 per cent of its support from Jewish advertising—is usually very discreet, preferring to leave the matter to the courts. Strange things occur in the courts, such as judges being taken into very lucrative partnerships after giving decisions favorable to wealthy Jewish defendants.

The following extracts of opinions given THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT by magistrates of the City of New York are offered in the hope that the Jewish leaders will read and digest them, and see, if possible, what a hopeless game they are playing. The Jewish Question of today is turning about in the direction of the Jewish Question of tomorrow—which is, When are the Jewish Leaders going to admit that their game is a losing one? They see it now; but they must admit it and quit it. And it will not be surprising if a mass movement of the Jewish people compels them to do so.

“The Jewish race,” said one of the magistrates, “seems deliberately blind to its own faults. Some twelve years ago General Bingham, then police commissioner, found it necessary to call attention to certain criminal tendencies of the East Side Jews. His criticisms were bitterly resented. I venture to say, however, that there are few men who preside in our inferior courts who will not readily indorse those views of General Bingham in their application to the conditions of the present day.”

(It was because of General Bingham’s criticisms that the New York Kehillah was increased in power—not to clean up conditions, but to shut up the critics.)

“The different groups, racial or religious, of New York City, have always each supported institutions for the care of its fallen women. We have the Magdalen Home, the Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy and the Catholic House of the Good Shepherd. The Jews alone are the exception. Yet it does not require more than short experience in the Magistrates’ Courts to convince one that more than two-thirds of the fallen women in the metropolis are of the Jewish race. This fact and the urgent necessity of caring for these unfortunates was laid before some prominent Jews. They gave the assurance that ample provision was being made by a group of wealthy Jewish families to endow an institution of the kind. However, nothing was done or even contemplated. The Jews absolutely ignored the issue. And today we magistrates are compelled, as usual, to commit such Jewish women to the Protestant Episcopal and Catholic homes.

“This is indicative of a strange refusal to look facts in the face, if the facts reflect on the Jews. A lawyer, once highly prominent in Jewish circles here, became involved in a blackmailing scandal with a notorious member of his race known as the ‘Wolf of Wall Street.’ The ‘Wolf’ was convicted and sent to a Federal prison. The lawyer was scathingly denounced by the Appellate Court and only escaped disbarment because of his age. The Jews of New York deliberately refused to condemn this man’s nefarious acts. Only the other day they ‘honored’ him by dedicating a library to him in one of their charitable institutions, and hanging his portrait on the wall. An action such as this smacks a great deal of an absence of moral sense.”

One magistrate prefaced his remarks by stating that he had no desire to dwell upon any special misdemeanors or crimes that might be considered peculiar to the Jewish race. But he pointed out that a more serious situation than one caused by sporadic criminality had been created by reason of a persistent class movement among the Jews.

“Any law,” he said, “which appears to be obnoxious to the self-centered Jewish element, is deliberately ignored by them, or opposed with a stubborn resistance which neither time nor education seems to mitigate. The result is that our Magistrates’ Courts and the Court of Special Sessions are crowded with cases of violations of that character. The newly arrived Jews especially are apparently determined to subordinate this country to their own desires, rather than to accommodate themselves to the conditions here as other races do.

“The most blatant example of this attitude is in connection with the law relating to Sabbath breaking. Our Penal Law is plain and specific on this matter. It states:

The first day of the week, being by general consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the doing on that day of certain acts hereinafter specified, which are serious interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community.

A violation of the foregoing prohibition is Sabbath breaking.

“Sabbath breaking is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, and where the offense is aggravated by a previous conviction, the fine and jail sentence are doubled. Yet the various acts specified as Sabbath breaking are violated openly and with insolent impunity by thousands of Jews every Sunday in New York. Their race has much to say about its own religious liberty, but it thinks nothing of outraging the religious liberties of other races. If any serious attempt were made to enforce this statute in the Jewish districts, the police would be compelled to arrest the larger part of the population.

“These Jews are determined to trade and traffic and to keep their factories and workshops going on the American Sunday. They impose their will upon the greatest city in the United States, through silent resistance and the sheer force of numbers.

“The Jews of whom I am speaking are mostly from Eastern Europe—Russia, Galicia, and Poland. They are of the first or second generation of immigrants. They generally speak and read only the Yiddish tongue. But it is a deplorable fact that Americanized Jews of prominence, openly encourage these ignorant people in their defiance of the law. Whenever Yiddish tradesmen and manufacturers are arrested for Sabbath breaking, hosts of Jewish lawyers spring to their defense, and powerful Jewish societies intervene to protect them. The Jewish Sabbath Alliance, with offices on Fifth Avenue, conducts a constant propaganda among the ghetto people, urging them to insist upon their alleged legal right to pursue their ordinary vocations on the American Sunday. And it provides them with legal counsel with they get into trouble.

“Jewish lawyers set up the specious claim that these people from Eastern Europe observe another day as ‘holy time,’ and therefore have a right to labor and traffic on Sunday. Some of the Jewish magistrates encourage this contention by discharging such lawbreakers. But there is no question of religion in these Sunday violations. It is merely money greed. These Jews are so hot after money that they are afraid of losing some if they close their shops on Sunday. This is easily proved by the fact that when the Jews find it to their interest or convenience to observe Sunday closing, they do it by agreement among themselves.

“This was demonstrated during last summer. In Rivington and Delancey streets, and in fact throughout the ghetto, there were signs posted in the shop windows of Jews, authorized by an organization calling itself ‘The Independent Ladies’ Garment Merchants Association, Incorporated.’ The notices read:

This Store will be closed on SUNDAYS from

JUNE 26th until the end of AUGUST

The Independent Ladies’ Garment Merchants Association, Incorported.

“In other words these shopkeepers were spending week-ends at the Yiddish summer resorts. They didn’t want any of their competitors to steal the trade of customers during their absence. So they all agreed to close up. The question of religion did not enter their minds.

“Jews of the more intelligent and well-to-do class are also constantly attempting to break the Sabbath laws in sections of the city where their race does not predominate. Non-Jewish merchants have had to organize associations to protect themselves against this unfair competition. If a non-Jew is arrested for Sabbath-breaking, he suffers. The Jewish Sabbath-breaker goes free. This gives the Jew an unfair advantage.

“Not long ago there was a large advertising sign posted conspicuously on the platforms of the elevated railroad. A Jewish wholesale house on Fifth Avenue notified buyers that its salesrooms would be open from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. every Sunday afternoon. I thought this was going a little too far, and I called the attention of several of the protective associations to the methods practiced by this firm. The signs soon afterward disappeared. However, such tactics are continually being attempted by Jewish merchants and manufacturers in the Bronx and on the West Side of the city, in an effort to gain a business advantage over their non-Jewish competitors.

“But there are means of putting an immediate and effective stop to all this rascality.

This would be by enforcing Section 2149 of the Penal Law, which provides for the forfeiture of commodities exposed for sale on Sunday. The section reads:

In addition to the penalty imposed by section 2142, all property and commodities exposed for sale on the first day of the week in violation of the provisions of this article shall be forfeited. Upon conviction of the offender by the justice of the peace of a county, or by a police justice or magistrate, such officer shall issue a warrant for the seizure of the forfeited articles, which when seized shall be sold on one day’s notice, and the proceeds paid to the overseers of the poor, for the use of the poor of the town or city.

“This statute is not enforced. But I believe we shall yet be compelled to enforce it in New York. The seizure of the stocks of some of these Jewish shopkeepers would be the most effective lesson one could administer in teaching them to respect the law.”

Another magistrate expressed himself still more forcibly on the Jewish question. “These people from Eastern Europe,” he said, “are tending to destroy all American conceptions of right and justice. Day after day my court is crowded with Jewish people. I am compelled to fine and warn them. The attitude of the women is especially truculent. They have adopted a misconception of woman’s suffrage. They say to me: ‘This is a woman’s country. Woman can do what she likes—men can’t.’

“There is no denying the fact that New York is falling more and more under the dominance of Jews. Americans are gradually being driven from public life. It will not be long before we shall have a Jewish mayor and a Jewish board of aldermen. This in itself should be no great misfortune were it not for the tendency of the Jew to abuse his power. He is ambitious and restless to obtain authority. But the moment he gets it, he becomes oppressive. This is evident already wherever the Jews are obtaining monopolies. A friend, a young man, came to me the other day, complaining bitterly that he was deliberately being driven out of business by the Jews. He was the owner of a prosperous laundry. But the large machine laundries of the city are now mostly in the hands of the Jews. They refuse to do his work for him, saying: ‘You are not a member of our syndicate.’

(This is one of the new phases of the Jewish invasion—the almost complete absorption of the laundry business.)

“We all remember the time when the Jews began to clamor for special news stand privileges. They formed Jewish organizations of news dealers, until the business was entirely in their hands. While they still had non-Jewish competition they were obliging and attentive enough. They did anything to curry favor. But today they carry themselves like lords. No Jewish news dealer in New York will deliver newspapers to his non-Jewish customers on Jewish holidays.

“In the New York postoffice, where there are now some 11,000 employes, about one-half of whom are Jews, the same conditions exist. The Jewish postal employes complained that they were being deprived of their constitutional rights if they were compelled to work on Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, and on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. The postmaster was compelled to grant their demands, at the same time pointing out that leaves of absence could not be granted to Christian employes on Christmas, New Year’s and Good Friday, otherwise the postoffice would be swamped with mail.”

Another phase of this Jewish insistence upon special rights was emphasized by one of the magistrates. “I have often observed,” he said, “that there is generally a good result when a Jew settles in a small New England town where there are only three or four stores. The situation develops social stimulus and competitive spirit. Too often there is a tendency toward dry-rot among the native population. They stagnate.

“But where Jews assemble in large numbers, as they do in New York City and the industrial towns of New Jersey, they immediately develop a class and racial consciousness that is unfortunate. It is not surprising that Jews should cling to their traditional customs. But it is a peculiar fact that of the forty different nationalities in New York, it is only one race, the Jewish, which persistently tries to impose its own modes of life upon the mass of the people.

“One dangerous feature of this tendency is a constant effort to put upon the statue books laws which favor the Jewish race, and placing weapons into the hands of the mischievous and litigious.

“In the Penal Law of the state of New York there is a statute which is outrageous in its import and should be stricken from the code. In effect it renders a man guilty of a misdemeanor if he ventures to have a process served upon a Jew on Saturday. He is equally guilty if he dares to serve a process which is made returnable on Saturday. It is a notorious fact that a large percentage of Jews deliberately alter their names in order to conceal their race. Yet if a man should induce his lawyer to procure a civil action to which such a Jew is a party to be adjourned to Saturday for trial, in ignorance of the fact that the borrowed American name conceals a Jew, that man renders himself liable to fine or imprisonment.

“This is Section 2150 of the Penal Law. Its exact wording is as follows:

Maliciously serving process on Saturday on person who keeps Saturday as holy time—Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday, upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

“Advantage was taken of this statute by a Jew in the city of Rochester to evade the payment of goods which had been delivered to him. The summons which had been served upon him was made returnable upon a Saturday, and upon the return day the Jewish defendant, evidently at the instigation of his Jewish lawyer, appeared in the action for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court upon several grounds, but more especially for the reason that the defendant was a Jew, and that as such he uniformly observed Saturday of each week as ‘holy time.’

“This case was used to tie up the business of two courts until it was finally taken to the appellate division of the Supreme Court, where Judge Adams rendered a decision in which he said:

“‘In order to give to this section the construction claimed by the defendant’s counsel, we must hold that the legislature has not only utterly ignored this elementary principle (that to constitute a crime there must be not only the act itself, but a criminal intent must accompany the act), but, in violation thereof, has declared that, while in the case specified, malice or intent must exist in order to constitute the crime of procuring a process to be served on Saturday or of procuring a civil action to be adjourned to that day, the crime of serving a process which is returnable on Saturday may be committed without any intent accompanying the act.

“‘This proposition, it seems to us, has only to be stated to render its absurdity manifest; for the person who served the summons in this action, as is generally the case, was a public officer; and it is fair to assume that he performed his official duty in this instance without knowing, or having any reason to suppose, that the party served regarded one day of the week as more sacred than another.

“‘It is true that the defendant is a Jew, and certain racial characteristics may have manifested themselves to such an extent as to acquaint the officer with that fact, but there are other religions than the Jewish that require the observance of the seventh day of the week as “holy time,” and, consequently, if the rule contended for is to obtain, an officer must somehow ascertain, in every instance before serving a process, that the party upon whom it is to be served does not come within the favored class; otherwise he renders himself amenable to the statute.

“‘It is inconceivable that the legislature intended that a person thus serving a process returnable on Saturday, in ignorance of the fact that he was in any way interfering with the religious liberty of the party served, should be regarded as a criminal and it is equally certain that a conviction under such circumstances would be absurd and unjust, if not impossible. A construction of a statute, therefore, which leads to such a result should manifestly be avoided if practicable.’

“Judge Adams thereupon reversed the judgement of the county court and of the municipal court, with costs.”

“Now Jewish politicians and Jewish lawyers are clever enough, as a rule,” continued this magistrate. “Therefore it seems the more surprising that they should waste their time and efforts in placing such laws on the statute books, and trying to establish precedents by means of them. It is very stupid business. The ultimate effect is calculated to bring ridicule upon the Jew, and awaken suspicion, dislike and enmity against his race.”

Another of the magistrates commented on the fact that in London, Jews were permitted to trade on Sunday by Act of Parliament, but only within the circumscribed limits of their ghetto. “When I was in London several years ago,” he continued, “I was shown one of the Jewish Sunday markets in full swing. Opposite it was an English church. But trade was confined to the Yiddish district.”

“But compared with New York, there is only a small Yiddish population in the British metropolis. Our millions of Jews are scattered throughout the city, and if we were to relax our Sunday laws in their favor, it would mean goodby to the Christian Sabbath. I cannot understand the attitude of the Jews on this question. They cheapen their own status by their conduct.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 10 December 1921]

Jews Are Silent, the National Voice Is Heard

By order of Louis Marshall, the American Jewish Committee and the B’nai B’rith, American Jewry has muffled the calculated furioso of its outcry, and contents itself now with occasional yelps. No longer do the syndicated sermons of the rabbis take their course across the country, saying the same old untrue things in the same old insincere way. No longer do editorial echoes spew vilification across pages supported by advertising blackmail levied upon the community. The outcry has ceased.

Suddenly, on order, orderly as a regiment on parade, American Jewry has been turned from a termagant in action to a silent mystery. A most impressive illustration of the inner control exercised by Jewish leaders.

The psychology of it all, of course, is false. Jewry decided that it was the attention which it paid to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT which gave these articles vogue. The leaders asserted, indeed, that had the Jews of the United States paid no attention, no one would have known that they were under scrutiny. It is a rather flattering criticism to lay upon their inability to meet the situation, but it lacks the merit of being true.

The Jews of the United States issued the order of silence, not out of wisdom but out of fear. And not out of fear of injustice, but out of fear of the truth. As soon as THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT issued it first articles on the New York Kehillah (and only the outer edges of the facts concerning that institution have as yet been set forth) it became evident to Jewish leaders that something had to be done. They did not challenge a public investigation; rather they used discretion, refused to answer even the questions of local reporters, made absurdly untrue denials, and gave every evidence of panic. Thereafter their safest course was silence.

Not that they are inactive. Fearing a sudden investigation by the authorities, the New York Kehillah has grown extremely busy and has doubled the guards all round. Why?

The reason is that there is a resolution in the United States Senate which points directly at the New York Kehillah.

Prominent Jews have invaded Washington on one pretext or another, but only to turn their influence against that resolution. Why?

The reason is that the resolution provides for an investigation by a Senate Committee into certain matters which have already been set forth in THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT.

Senate Resolution No. 60, introduced by Senator George H. Moses, of New Hampshire, provides that the Amalgamated Clothing Workers (a Jewish Bolshevik organization that is the feeder of Red activity throughout this country) be thoroughly investigated. In the official language of the Resolution: “The purposes, objects, methods and tactics of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and its relations, if any, with other political organizations and quasi-political groups, and to make a report to the Senate of such findings.”

Why has the New York Kehillah closed the portholes and called in help—“Gentile,” by the way—to face a possible storm?

Why have the most prominent Jews in the United States hurried to Washington to hold conferences with Senators, their object being to bring pressure to bear against the Resolution?

Why should the American Jewish Committee, or members of it, why should Jewish clothing manufacturers who are the principal sufferers from the Amalgamated, why should Jewish members of the Baruch “war government” go to Washington to interfere with a proposed investigation? Why?

Because such an investigation of the Amalgamated, honestly conducted, would led straight through to the New York Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee and would rip the Jewish program in the United States clean open to the public gaze—if honestly conducted.

Next to stopping the investigation, the Jews will try to control it. That is really the greater danger. The country does not need the investigation to get the facts. Most of the facts can be given now. The country does need an investigation that will give the facts a governmental exposure. But a pro-Jewish investigation, an investigation conducted by elective office-holders who quake under “the fear of the Jews,” would simply be an additional crime.

If the Jews lose their fight to kill the resolution, they have already started on their plans to control the initiative of, divert the course of, and defeat the purpose of the investigation.

If, therefore, the Jews are silent, they are not inactive.

But, the gain has been general. For instance, the country has been given quiet and leisure to hear what the non-Jews think. During the Jewish clamor, which was nothing more nor less than an attempt to stampede the public opinion of the United States, it was impossible to hear the voice of the people. Ministers who poured adulation upon the Jews were reported in the Press; but ministers who seriously handled the Jewish Question were not reported. Publications which could be induced to act as Judah’s mouthpieces, were worked to the limit; publications which desired to preserve the value of their opinions, did not join the general hue and cry. In the succeeding lull, the still, small voice of American conviction, both Jewish and non-Jewish, began to be heard.

In public propaganda, after having felt it inadvisable to print any more telegraphic news from Palestine, because even the Jews could no longer juggle the truth, the spotlight was turned on Russia, and now the newspapers are filled with headlines intended to prepare the public for a new exodus when the Russian people awake to take back their land from the Jewish usurpers.

We are told that 6,000,000 Jews in Russia are in danger of violence. It is true. Much truer than the miles of telegraphic lies which have been printed about alleged “pogroms” in Russia and adjacent countries. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT knows that in Eastern Europe the Jew has not been persecuted, but has consistently acted as persecutor. The proof of it is in the Jews’ ability to flee; they have taken all the wealth of the people of those countries. Poles cannot flee, Rumanians cannot flee, Russians cannot flee; but after having squeezed the life out of those nations the Jews see the dark clouds of justice rolling toward them, and they are able to flee, filling the ships of the sea with their hosts. In fact, their desertion of the Jew-spoiled countries of Europe is as precipitate as was their desertion of Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic party last autumn—Barney Baruch ostentationsly staying behind to cover, if possible, the shamefulness of it. When the Jew has fried the fat and skimmed the cream, he’s off. Gratitude and loyalty mean nothing to his people. They are persecutors in Poland. They are persecutors in Russia. They are persecutors in Palestine. They were the arch religious persecutors of history, as the best historians testify. They will be persecutors here as soon as they think they can start it. It is possible, however, that in the United States their anti-social career will be rolled back upon itself.

American magazines have begun to pay attention to the Jewish Question. If is a good sign. Even magazines cannot long ignore what all the people know. It is a good sign of the degree of freedom the Press still enjoys.

It is true, of course, that this freedom is not very great; indeed, not so great as it was a few years ago. But insofar as the Press is American it is impossible for Americans to think it will consent to be permanently gagged even by the Jews. There have been, it is true, some rather sad instances of editorial weakness. We know that of two oldest publishing firms, both of New York, one of them published a most scurrilous Jewish defense by a non-Jewish socialist who, if he has not deliberately lied, has shown too dark an ignorance of facts to command the confidence of a great publishing firm; and we know that that publication was made with a view to the value of the publisher’s imprint and that Jews would undertake to buy tens of thousands of copies for gratuitous circulation.

Of the other old New York firm it is known that an American diplomat was advised if not compelled by it to eliminate from his forthcoming book nearly one third of its material because it dealt in an honest, straightforward American way with what this diplomat had seen with his own eyes of the development of the Jewish subjugation of Russia. Had this diplomat been dealing with his own opinions about the Jews or Russia, it might have been different; but he dealt with his official observations on the spot—observations literally invaluable to history. But this New York firm dared not, even in the interest of history, print the truth.

The experience of G. P. Putnam’s Sons, of New York, is familiar to students of the question in recent months. The name of this firm is used because it has already appeared in public print with regard to a controversy it had with the American Jewish Committee.

The Putnams, acting on the ancient and honorable principle of the freedom of the Press, nay more, the duty of the Press to inform the people, reprinted last year “The Cause of World Unrest,” which had first appeared as a series of articles in the London Morning Post and was later put into book form by the publishing house of Grant Richards, London. Both the newspaper and the publishing house are of the highest respectability and standing, as was also the house of Eyre and Spottiswoode which brought out the Protocols. Major George Haven Putnam, head of the firm of G. P. Putnam’s Sons, is an American, a fair man, a careful publisher, and one who would not stoop to propagate a lie for any wealth.

This is not a defense of “The Cause of World Unrest.” In the main the book is true. But it is not the result of original research. It does not make those small but important discriminations on which the Jews always rely to lead the people astray. It too often links in the downfall of Jewry those things which shall stand independently and gloriously when freed of their present insidious Jewish connections. On the whole, however, it maintains a correct view of world affairs. But it was not a book on which the Putnams could feel obliged to make a final stand, except as regards their right to print it.

However, a proper understanding of the book called for the Protocols, to which the book made frequent reference. So, like serviceable publishers, the Putnams announced that the Protocols would follow.

Whereupon the American Jewish Committee—which means Louis Marshall—got busy, and an interesting correspondence ensued. It is included in the report of the American Jewish Committee for 1921. Throughout the correspondence Louis Marshall was the dictator, but Major Putnam’s position and statement of principles were correctly maintained. However, there were personal conferences which are not reported in the American Jewish Committee’s report and there were Jews crowded into those personal conferences whose names do not appear in the correspondence, and there were fists banged on the table and loud threats—“boycott,” of course—and altogether a rather typical scene enacted. The upshot of that passage was that, upon Major Putnam discovering that the Boston house of Small, Maynard & Company had published the Protocols, he decided that there was no call for his firm to do so. And now, in a letter to these same people, G. P. Putnam’s Sons has decided to discontinue supplying copies of “The Cause of World Unrest” to the book trade.

It is a rather interesting story.

In Britain, of course, publications of the highest standing like “Blackwood’s” and the “Nineteenth Century Review” can publish articles on the Jewish Question without regard to dictatorial Jewish attempts at control of the Press. In this country, however, the spies of Jewry are on the alert for every printed letter and syllable, and attempt to make editors feel uncomfortable, as if they were the instigators of pogroms, whenever they present an intelligent view of the question. Yet editors have not been able entirely to ignore it.

The reader is rather impressed with one quality common to all the articles that have been written, namely, the facts used are always those that have been given in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT. Not that they necessarily have been copied from this magazine, but the facts are so well established that anyone who attempts even to “defend” the Jews must necessarily appeal to the same facts. Thus in “New York and the Real Jew,” by Rollin Lynde Hartt, in the New York Independent for June 25, 1921, this is illustrated. It is pure Jewish publicity, but it must use the facts that have been used in this series. It must use them in order to extol the Jews. Mr. Hartt is not to be considered as a contributor to the Question; the article is mentioned merely as indicating what the American magazine editor is up against—and perhaps it is not quite fair to be hard on the editor of the New York Independent just at this time. The one flash of value in the entire article is this paragraph:

“Ambassador Page, then editor of the Atlantic, once remarked to me, ‘The most interesting fellow in America is the Jew, but don’t write about Jews; without intending it, you may precipitate the calamity America should be most anxious to prevent—I mean jew-baiting’”

That is a strange assertion. The Jews must not be written about. To write about them, even with good intent, may bring evil upon them. Not only a strange assertion, but a strange situation. To mention the Jew has always been dangerous to the non-Jew; but why also dangerous to the Jew? The Jewish explanation of anti-Semitism, that it is in the blood of the other races, that the moment they see a Jew they hate him, cannot be defended. Most non-Jews can testify that it is untrue of them. But it is a most amazing condition if even a mention of Jews arouses this feeling. Why should it?

However, the statement is of doubtful fact value. The Jew himself should be the first to protest against having to go concealed all his days. He should welcome the use of his definite racial name, and he should not demand that it always be used in laudatory connections. A Jew should not be a Jew when he is elected to the United States Senate, and a “Russian” or a “Pole” when he is caught bootlegging. He should take the luck of life with the other races, and this would come to him without discrimination if he did not first arouse the spirit of discrimination by insisting on discrimination in his own favor.

It is probably much nearer the truth to say that publicity is a preventive of “Jew-Baiting.” People should not be confined in a condition which makes the use of the word “Jew” unusual. It should attract no more attention than does the use of any other racial name.

Mr. Page was, before his ambassadorial days, an editor of the Atlantic Monthly, a magazine which is an integral part of American life. To read the Atlantic is a certificate of character. It is one of the few publications that preserve the American spirit in literature. It is still worthy of the glory of the group that first made its name known wherever sound thought expressed in good writing is appreciated. The Atlantic is not in need of this appraisal, it is too well established in the regard of the class of minds that give color and sinew to our intellectual life. In Mr. Page’s day the Atlantic may never have touched the Jewish Question with even so much as the tip of a discreet pen.

Nevertheless the Atlantic has in more recent years done its duty toward this as toward other questions. As far back as 1917, and that is very far back in view of the crowded years between, this old Boston magazine contained an article relating to the Jewish Question. The fact that the article was written by a Jew does not militate against it, but rather adds to its value. It contained valuable suggestions which the New York Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee might well devote the remaining years of their activity to disseminating and actualizing among the Jews of this country. Even today its counsel would save them from much of the folly which marks their attempts to combat what they call “persecution,” and which is nothing but rather plain and charitable truth-telling.

This year the Atlantic has contained three articles of value on the Jewish Question. The first was by Professor Clay upon the situation in Palestine. Now, Professor Clay is not an anti-Semite, and certainly the Atlantic is not, and yet the article was received with a good deal of abuse from Jewish quarters. It told nothing but the truth, and it was rather pertinent truth too, which intelligent Jews doubtless welcomed. Professor Clay knew what he was writing about and his conclusions are not challenged by any authority on the subject.

In the May Atlantic, Ralph Philip Boas, who is understood to be of Jewish descent, wrote an article on “Jew-Baiting in America.” He speaks rather disdainfully of publications which have endeavored to air the Jewish Question, but after having thus paid his tax to the Jews’ prejudice, he proceeds in commendable fashion to contribute his thoughts to the matter. On the whole what he says is true, and the facts he uses as his foundation are of course the facts with which THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has made its readers familiar. He sets up his straw man of “Anti-Semitism” and after having valiantly destroyed it, to the applause of all of us, he gets down to serious business, and says some things which all could hope would pierce the Jewish consciousness to its innermost stronghold and set up new vibrations there.

And in the July Atlantic, Paul Scott Mowrer, Paris representative of the Chicago Daily

News, has an article on “The Assimilation of Israel.” Mr. Mowrer has won the respect of students of world affairs by the conscientious ability with which he has observed and reported big events in Europe. In his news reports he has not hesitated, when the facts justified it, to cable a story of Jewish participation in this or that movement. It was reported at one time that an attempt on his job had been made by certain Jewish influences, and it is certain that sections of the Jewish press bitterly attacked him. Yet Mr. Mowrer is probably no more interested in the Jewish Question than the many other big problems which have come within his journalistic ken, and it would be extremely unfair to regard him as in any way a propagandist for anything.

Mr. Mowrer talks about Israel when, of course, he means Judah. There is a deep distinction there. And he talks also about assimilation, which the Jew will not admit as a solution. He protects himself fore and aft by attacking the “anti-Semites,” whoever they are, and by expressing his confidence in the Jews, but on all the decks of his article he gives the facts—and they are the same facts. It ought to be pretty well settled by this time that there are facts, not two sets of facts, but only one set of facts, concerning Jewish influence and activity.

The World’s Work has taken the liberty of setting before the people the only real anti-Jewish article that has appeared in the United States since the present discussion of the Question began, and that article was written by Henry Morgenthau, a Jew whom the government is accustomed to honor whenever it would pay a compliment to the Jews. It turns out that he attacks Jewry in its most tender spot—Zionism. Most people have read it, for it was immediately turned into propaganda and published in hosts of newspapers, in many of them as first-column, first-page news. Mr. Morganthau said that Zionism was not a solution but a surrender. He attacks the whole Palestinian plan from every angle, and not only attacks but belittles it.

Of course, this is very interesting. But one doesn’t understand the heat displayed. If the Jews wish to go back to Palestine, why all this objection? Mr. Morgenthau does not wish to go back, it is true; it is extremely difficult to find a Jew who does want to go back; but to desire a national land for the Jews is quite another thing, and most Jews desire that. The pity is that they carry into Palestine the same method which puts them upon question here, and they are in danger of tipping over the apple cart in their imperious disregard of the rights of men in Palestine.

Mr. Morgenthau’s motive in writing the article must remain a mystery, because it would seem to leave him practically outside of American Jewry, and of course he is not outside. Not at all. Watch and see. His article was printed in a magazine read and supported by non-Jews and was intended for non-Jews; it was not a plea to his people, it was a kind of confidential explanation, whispered from behind the hand, to non-Jews.

Mr. Morgenthau knows that Zionism is the core of Jewry in this country. The Zionists rule. The Zionists, and not the Americans, dictate the policy of American Jewry. The Zionist program was the only program that went unaltered through the Peace Conference at Versailles. Zionism is the heart of Jewish aspiration. “Not of American Jews,” Mr. Morgenthau may retort. But who are the American Jews? Inquire of the recent convention of Zionists at Cleveland for information.

That convention is worth a story by itself, but it explains why the World’s Work stopped its press for the July issue and made an insertion of eight extra pages for the accommodation of Mr. Morgenthau’s article. The Jews who call themselves Americans had been thrown down and out by the Cleveland convention, and Russian Jews proved themselves the stronger.

It was an event that called for quick explanation. The humiliation of the Americans was something to be covered as speedily as possible. Why the World’s Work should have been chosen as the vehicle is not known. But the presses were stopped and the Morgenthau backfire started.

Mr. Morgenthau’s article as a Jewish pronouncement is negligible, but the Editor’s Note that preceded it has the value of unbiased testimony. Referring to the world organization of Zionists, whose chief officer stepped over here from Europe and simply slammed the American Jewish leaders out of office, the editor of the World’s Work has this to say:

“This world organization has a highly centralized form of government. This consists of an international committee, including representatives from all countries that have a local organization. But the real control is vested in what is known as the ‘Inner Actions Council.’ This is a compact body of only seven men and it is dominated by the Jews of Europe.”

The “Jews of Europe” might be still more definitely described as the “Jews of Russia.”

And “Dr. Chaim Weizmann, from London” might more accurately be described as from Pinsk, Russia.

The Russian Jews won, as they have always won, for they are the originators and corruptors of the false political Zionism which is leading so many Jews to disappointment and distress.

The point in all this is that in the silence of the Jewish regimented protest, the voice of the country has had a chance to be heard. The religious press has not been mentioned here, for it deserves a separate account, nor have the many newspapers which have reacted from the previously imposed burden of Jewish propaganda. Editorial speech is becoming freer. Jews themselves are coming to see that the call is not for abuse, but for a clean-up. The expression of the press of the country indicates that there is a Jewish Question and that the Jews used the worst possible tactics in trying to suppress the knowledge of it. They behaved in a way to show what bad masters they would be if given the chance, and what essential cowardice controls their actions. One by one the holds they gained by force of fear, are being loosened. And if the Jews would lay up capital on which to draw—the capital of public confidence in their desire to do the right thing—they would go around and loosen the holds they still have. This, however, is not expected of them. It requires too much foresight.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 30 July 1921]

What Jews Attempted Where They Had Power

The time of the year has come when Christians implore the tolerance of Jews while Christmas is being celebrated. If the Jews will only permit the Christians to celebrate Christmas in their schools, their homes, their churches—in their city squares and country villages—there will be more disposition on the part of the public to believe the Jewish boasts of tolerance.

It is not yet announced whether the Jews will give their permission or not. But that there are inquiries being made into the matter is indicated by this article in the Brooklyn Eagle, of October 31:

“Canon William Sheafe Chase today made public a letter he has sent to the secretary of the Board of Education asking for a copy of rules and regulations which, he alleged, forbid the telling of a Christ story at Christmas time in the public schools. Canon Chase said that the attention of the Federation of Churches has been called to a statement of a kindergarten teacher who last year said she had told such a story and had been notified that ‘she will be removed from her position if she repeats such an exercise this Christmas.’

“He said that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that this is a Christian country and ‘the courts in the State of New York have said that Christianity is the common law of our land.’” Dr. Chase added:

“‘This government has treated the Hebrew more generously than any other nation in the world. I believe that the people generally, Hebrew as well as Christian, are very glad to enter into the spirit of Christmas time. Any attempt, therefore, to eliminate Christ from the hymns of our country, from the reading books, and from the religious holidays of the Christian people, I believe, is not instigated by the Hebrews as a whole, but by certain misguided leaders of Jewish religion.’”

This is a variation of the Christmas theme. Instead of looking forward to Christmas, it is a spirit of inquiry as to how far we can go at Christmas. We are asking whether we dare, as Christians in a Christian land, whisper the Name that gives Christmas its meaning. That is, the Christians are doing the Christmas asking early this year. Christian teachers want to know if they will be discharged if they give their classes a bit of Christmas flavor, as all our teachers gave us when we were young. The contrast between the schools which we of the mature generation attended when we were young, and the schools of today whose pupils are carefully screened from the fact that Christmas celebrates Christ, is such a contrast as ought to give mature Americans a pause.

But, if past experience be the standard of judgement, the appeal to Jewish tolerance in New York will be futile. If Christians do not take their rights, it is certain the Jews will never grant them. It would be un-Jewish to do so; and the ceaseless cry of the leaders is, “Be Jewish!”

Any number of instances could be cited of the whip which Jewish leaders crack across the educational and political systems of the City of New York, but one or two must serve for the present.

The first case to be considered is that of Rev. William Carter, D.D., given in “Who’s Who in America” as pastor of the Throop Avenue Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn; author of “The Gate of Janus,” an epic story of the War; also of “Milton and His Masterpiece” and “Studies in the Pentateuch.” He is an extensive traveler and a lecturer of reputation, his specialty being history and literature. At an important Y.M.C.A. center he has lectured for thirty consecutive weeks a year on “Current Events,” which course was so successful that he was asked by the New York Board of Education to start a similar one at the Erasmus High School. For ten years he has been engaged by the New York Board of Education as special lecturer in the popular evening extension courses.

The course Dr. Carter undertook was badly run down, but in six weeks the regular audience had been increased from 35 to 350. The plan of the lectures was to discuss a major topic selected by the Board, a second period was devoted to the discussion of current events, and a third period to questions from the audience.

Now it happened that for the week of November 15, 1920—just a year ago—the topic selected by the Board of Education was “The Racial Origins of the American People,” a study of immigration. That is to say, Dr. Carter was asked to study that matter and discuss it publicly before his weekly lecture audience at Erasmus School. He did so, taking time to make a serious investigation of all phases of the subject.

He showed that just before the war—thirty days before the war—the highest peak of immigration was reached; the year ending June 30, 1914, having seen 1,403,000 aliens enter this country. Analyzing this great flood, he showed that whereas six per cent came from Great Britain and two per cent came from Scandinavian countries, over ten per cent were Jews. The doctor’s subject was “The Racial Origins of the American People.”

Again, on the subject, “What Has Immigration Done for America?”—this subject also scheduled by the Board of Education—Dr. Carter showed that some parts of Europe had given their worst instead of their best, and stated that the lowest percentage of immigration came from the best developed and most desirable countries, while the largest percentage came from the least desirable. For example, he differentiated between the desirable Italians and those who form the material for Black Hand activities. Speaking of Russia and Austro-Hungary, he made a reference to the Jews.

But Dr. Carter made a mistake—perhaps two. It is always difficult to tell just where the line falls between fear of giving offense and fear of being unfair. In any event, Dr. Carter gave every evidence of, let us say, fear of being unfair. But it is fear, and a Jew scents fear a long way; the man who fears even though he fear to be unfair is already marked by the Jew who may happen to be stationed to watch him.

So Dr. Carter, to avoid giving offense by this part of his lecture, did the usual thing which has always drawn sneers from the Jewish press; he began to pay compliments to the Jews on their good points. He spoke of their contributions to Art, Science, and Philosophy; to Statesmanship, Religion, and Philanthropy. He lauded their distinguished men by name, such as Disraeli, Rubinstein, Schiff, Kahn, even Rabbi Wise! He referred to his pride in counting many Jews among his personal friends. With all respect to Dr. Carter, it was the same old stuff usually handed out in such circumstances. Madison C. Peters made it unjustly famous, and American clergymen have been spouting it ever since.

If Dr. Carter will study the alleged contributions of the Jews to the Arts and Sciences, study this as carefully as he did the immigration theme, he may omit the praises from future lectures. And he may also revise his list of great Jews. But that is neither here nor there.

“As we have found bad elements in these other peoples,” said Dr. Carter in this portion of his lecture, “so they are to be found in the Jew, and as the majority of these 143,000 Jews who came here the year before the war were from Russia, or Russian countries, let us not forget that the Jews themselves admit the Russian Jew is the worst of his race.”

Apparently the audience remained unshocked. The question period came round and two Jews, a woman and a man, asked the lecturer why he had picked out the Russian Jew in particular for criticism. Dr. Carter replied that he had only given the evidence of the Jews themselves, that he was merely quoting what the Jews themselves had alleged time and again to explain certain matters. He added that the statement was universally accepted except by some who came from Russia.

A few days afterward the Board of Education sent word to Dr. Carter that complaints had been received against him for certain statements against the Jews, and calling upon him to explain. Dr. Carter is said to have replied that as only two Jews out of 400 people had objected at the lecture, he regarded that as evidence that the proprieties had not been violated.

Within a week, however, a more insistent communication was sent out by the Board of Education, stating that more letters of complaint had been received and citing Dr. Carter to meet his accusers at a special meeting of investigation.

Now begins as strange a proceeding as American may hope to see in this land of the free. It is really not as rare as some might think. It can be duplicated in a number of known and proved cases. The way the Carter case worked out was this:

Dr. Carter arrived, as summoned. There were seven Jews there before him. Four of these Jews admitted they had not attended the lecture, and one had never even heard of Dr. Carter before. The minister was alone. Not knowing what was afoot, and not having been told to bring witnesses who had heard his lecture, he was there—a lone Gentile before a Jewish tribunal.

The Jewish delegation was headed by a certain Rabbi C. H. Levy, who was referred to as secretary of the Board of Jewish Ministers, a union of rabbis in connection with the New York Kehillah, which is part of the general spy system of American Jewry. Rabbi Levy admitted that he had not attended the specific lecture complained of, nor any other lecture in the course, but declared he was there to “represent my people.”

Well, Rabbi Levy’s “people” were pretty well represented. There was hardly any other kind of people there except the Christian clergyman who was on trial for telling the truth as to public opinion, and Jewish opinion particularly, about the Russian Jew.

So the Inquisition upon the Gentile began. Six letters were read, most of them having been addressed to Dr. W. L. Ettinger, Superintendent of New York Schools. One of these letters asked Dr. Ettinger as a Jew not to allow his people to be maligned and misrepresented, but to see that this Gentile was stopped!

After the reading of the letters, Dr. Carter was permitted to speak. He called attention to the similarity of the style in all the letters, a similarity which suggested to him the possibity of their having been dictated by one person. At which Rabbi Levy flew into a passion—though no had mentioned his name. Dr. Carter also observed that as Dr. Ettinger had been appealed to on racial, religious and prejudiced grounds, it would be right to permit Dr. Carter time to get witnesses on his side. This was not permitted. He was on trial!

Even the Jews admitted, under straight questioning, that what Dr. Carter had said was not uttered invidiously. They admitted that he had referred to the undesirable elements of other races as well as of the Jews. It was admitted that the subject was not of his own choosing, but was assigned to him by the Board of Education. There was very little left at the end of the examination except to assume that the Jews were a sacrosanct race, with special privileges, a race whom no non-Jews should presume even to mention in anything but awe-filled tones.

That was the issue as it appeared that day. With half the Jewish population of the United States centered in the city of New York, they had assumed control of American education at its source. The group of Jews sitting in judgement on Dr. Carter were as serene in their control of the education of the Christians, as if they had been a Soviet court sitting in Moscow. They had succeeded in driving everything Christian out of the schools; they had succeeded in introducing the most sickening praise of their own race; they had looked forward to the teaching of Judaism as the universal morality!

It was further brought out that this Christian minister had been one of the men who had preached in favor of the Jews. He had been one of those public men on whom Jewish leaders could depend to respond with typical Christian generosity. He had delivered blows at race prejudice. He had lauded the Jewish race and its leading figures. He had interpreted its commanding influence as the reward of diligence and ability. He had thundered against what Jewish reports had led him to believe was “the Crime at Kishineff.” And for this he had been duly complimented by the Jewish Publication Society, and others. BUT he had now spoken a word of truth which the Jews disliked, and he was before them for trial and condemnation.

In the course of the examination it developed that he had been a citizen of the United States for thirty years, having come to this country from England at the age of 15. Rabbi Levy apparently missed the full fact, getting only the fact that Dr. Carter was born in England.

“May I inquire as to whether the gentleman is or is not a citizen of the United States?” said the rabbi in the air of one who was innocently uncovering a great exposure.

“I became a citizen over thirty years ago, as soon as the law allowed—as I trust you did,” was Dr. Carter’s straight thrust.

The rabbi dropped the subject. He did not take up the challenge as to his own citizenship. But that the matter burned in him is evidenced by his later remark:

“I’ll see to it, notwithstanding all this, that you shall never speak again from any platform in New York, you dirty Englishman!”

Dr. Carter called the attention of the committee to the hatred and malignity expressed in the face, attitude and words of the enraged rabbi, and said he did not know whether it was a threat against his life, his pastorate, or his position as lecturer for the New York Board of Education.

The term “dirty” is rather an unusual one to apply to a race that has so long astonished Semitic countries by its insistence on its “bawth.” That is to say, the accuracy of Rabbi Levy’s description would draw about the same degree as would an appraisal of his gentlemanliness.

There was, fortunately, one other non-Jew present, namely, Ernest L. Crandall, supervisor of lectures, who was American enough to enter the fray. He addressed the hysterical little rabbi:

“I never have seen nor heard such bitterness and hatred expressed by any human being toward another as you have manifested here. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and if I hear another word from you along such lines, I will have you thrown out!”

The future of Mr. Crandall should be worth watching. If he is apologetic for his principles, they will “get” him. If not, he may be the instrument of “getting” some things that are wrong with New York.

At any rate, Mr. Crandall acquitted Dr. Carter, and the Jews went out muttering.

It is rather an unusual and noteworthy fact, the acquittal of a man against whom the Jews had moved the charge and against whom the secretary of the Board of Jewish Ministers had uttered the aforesaid threat.

Dr. Carter went back to Erasmus school. He received from the Board of Education his appointments for the ensuing months. Affairs seemed to be going along as before.

Then one day all the lecturers on “Current Events” in New York public schools received simultaneous notice that they must refrain from discussing the Jewish and Irish questions. With Zionism crowding the newspapers, and breeding a war in Mesopotamia, and dictating the policy of the diplomatic departments of Great Britain and the United States; with the Irish Question uppermost in the minds of millions and coloring the politics of the United States as well as challenging the full ability of the British Government—that is, with the two foremost “Current Events” seething throughout the world, orders were given through the New York Board of Education that lecturers must remain mum.

It was plain to be seen what had happened. Rabbi Levy, and those who worked with him, having failed in their personal attack, had achieved what they wanted another way—by an order given to lecturers not to speak about the Jewish or the Irish question.

Why lug in the Irish? The Irish were not protesting against discussion of the Irish Question. The Irish wanted the Irish Question discussed; they believed that the successful issue of the matter depended on wide and free discussion. It is beyond the realm of imagination that the Irish should ever ask, desire or sanction a gag on popular discussion of Irish affairs.

As to Dr. Carter, his audiences had been asking him questions about the Irish Question for three years. In Y.M.C.A., in public school, in people’s forum, everywhere he had been asked for information about one or another phase of the Irish Question; and being a well informed man he was able to give answers. And no one had ever complained before. Indeed, it is said that at the next lecture he gave at Erasmus School, following the encounter with Rabbi Levy, the audience had asked questions touching the Irish Question, and Mr. Crandall was present and found no ground for criticism.

Yet soon thereafter came the order to observe complete silence on the Irish Question. Why?

Even the tyro in Jewish policy knows the answer. The Irish Question was lugged in to camouflage the order regarding the Jewish Question. That is a very common Jewish practice: any Gentile name will serve for concealment!

Imagine an Irishman and his family attending an evening lecture on “Current Events” and asking a question about the Irish situation. Imagine the lecturer saying, “I am forbidden to mention Ireland, or the Irish, or the Irish Question on these premises.” The Irishman, being a white man, would not be slow to see that somehow he was being discriminated against. He would demand to be told why the lecturer dared not mention the matter. And, being forbidden to mention the Jews either, the lecturer would not be able to say, “Those Jews down at the Board of Education have put their taboo on both the Jews and the Irish!” He would be breaking the rules even in giving the explanation.

But imagine the Irishman being classed with the Jew—the Irishman who wants publicity, with the Jew who fears it! How long would it take an Irishman to see that what was intended to be discrimination in favor of the Jew was discrimination against the Irish.

Yet that was precisely what the Jews of New York brought about in the public lecture system to make their point against a Christian clergyman who had told a very well-known truth about the Jews.

Of course, there is nothing in such an order that would appear to the Jew as being subversive. Suppression is his first thought. Suppress the paper! Suppress the investigation! Suppress the out-and-out speaker! Suppress the immigration discussion! Suppress the facts about the theater, about the money system, about the baseball scandal, about the bootlegging business! Suppress the lecturers of the City of New York! Fire them from their jobs unless they stand up like phonographs and recite what men like the sentinel rabbis of New York dictate!

The order was Jewish in every element of it. And as an American citizen who did not believe that American free speech should be a plaything of a crowd of aliens, Dr. Carter resigned his lectureship. It meant serious inconvenience and financial loss to him to do so at the end of December, when it was late to make further plans for the winter, but a principle was at stake, and he resigned.

Immediately the matter came into the newspapers and there was the usual ado—the Jewish writers throwing threats about recklessly; a few timid Americans asking what New York was coming to! One newspaper came out with an American editorial defending the right of free speech, but changed its tone somewhat upon receiving a deluge of Jewish protests threatening the paper with the displeasure of the Jews.

A man of less ability and of lower standing than Dr. Carter might have been overwhelmed by the storm. But he had at last struck rock and there he stood. At that time he was not known to have said anything detrimental to the Jews, and he is not known to have made subsequent remarks upon his experience. That is, being attacked by the Jews, he is not known to have attacked them in return. It is quite possible that he might be induced to do the Madison C. Peters stunt again and speak in praise of them, giving them the usual laudation which they themselves first prepared for our consumption. But nevertheless he has been, through no fault of his own, the focus of the vindictive policy which pursues the truth-teller. It may be distasteful to Dr. Carter to have his story thus told, but if he will begin anew his studies of the history and character of the International Jew, he will find his own experience a valuable commentary thereon.

Dr. Carter is only one of many. There are teachers in New York who could a tale unfold that would stir indignation to its depths—but there has never been any one to tell their story or take their side. Many of these stories are in the possession of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 19 November 1921]

The Jewish Question in Current Testimony

The Jewish Question continues to attract more and more attention. In many quarters a new tendency toward freedom of the press is observed, and the long-concealed truth is getting itself spoken bit by bit. It has been thought worth while, before going on to other phases of the study of the Jewish Question, to present in this article a few of the informative or confirmatory articles that have appeared in the public press. It need not be said that, with a single possible exception, none of the writers or publications here quoted could be called “anti-Semitic.” Not even the most unreasonable Jew could append that term to any writer or publication here cited.

The Associated Press sent out a dispatch which was printed in American papers of August 24, as follows:

“Thousands of Russian Jews are crossing the Esthonian, Lithuanian and Polish borders every month, many sent from Soviet territory under protection of high Bolsheviki officials, according to travelers in the border states who recently have returned here. The opinion in neighboring states is that the exodus is prompted by fear of an approaching crisis.

“The fact that no appreciable organized Russian anti-Bolshevik movement has appeared since Baron Wrangel’s forces were dissipated, leads observers of the situation here to believe that, should the overthrow of the Soviets occur this winter, it will take the nature of a popular uprising, supported by such troops as are not at the front. Many fear it will result in a widespread anti-Jewish program.

“For these reasons every Jewish family of means, and many that are destitute, are attempting to get out of Russia. They have no desire to tarry in Lithuania or Esthonia, but are seeking to enter Germany, with the idea of eventually reaching America.”

To give the reader the background of this fear, we offer part of a letter from Kishinev which was received by a North Dakotan:

“My Dear Friend Gutsche:

“For one month no fugitives arrived, but now again many of them are coming from the Ukraine to Bessarabia, most of whom are Jews. They are a different lot than the former fugitives were; for they are wearing costly clothes, furs, precious stones, jewels, and so on, such as were seen before the war only by very well-to-do people, landowners and the like; they have money and money’s worth. There is no doubt that these fugitives had leading positions in the Bolshevik régime, perhaps they were commissars, or even ‘judges’ on the ‘Blood and Inquisition courts’ of the so-called ‘Tschreswytschaika’ or short ‘Tscheka’—their purses and pockets are filled, not with worthless paper money—for they themselves have manufactured that, millions and billions of it, which they have thrown before the Christian brood, the ‘goies’—no, filled with money and precious jewels which no more show traces of blood and tears, but shine and glitter the same as in those happy hours of their rightful owners.

“But the people over there (in Russia.—Ed.) are awakening; they wonder about the source of all this terror. The children of Judah know the answer thereto, but they prefer to leave the ground which is becoming unsafe to stand upon; it is getting too hot for them. The Nemesis is raising her head from out the blood of innocence which calls to heaven for revenge. Yes, they fear the result of their actions and wish to save their skins before it is too late. In this they succeed, but not always are they allowed to keep their furs, their stones and precious metals; they overlooked the Rumanians. These people are very vain and greedy for costly things! The newcomers are on their way to America and the doors on all borders are willingly opened them, even to the soldier in the army. Only on again! The faster, the better! I think that some day America will have so many Semites that they (the Semites) will be looked upon the same as the colored, the black, yellow and brown races.

“Imagine for a moment that there were no Semites in Europe. Would the tragedy be so terrible now? Hardly! They have stirred up the people in all countries, have incited them to war, revolution and communism. They believe in the saying that ‘there is good fishing in troubled waters.’

“But enough of ‘the chosen people.’ Some day they will reap what they have sown . . . .

“ Another picture—Every three or four days a ‘razzia’ (domiciliary search, graze) is being conducted in the city. Terror, fear and oppression drive the people from the streets, looking for hiding places. The people do not work, eat or sleep. Only stamping, cursing patrouilles are seen on the streets with their victims. In this manner 200 or 300 persons are often driven together: former civil and military officials, teachers, landlords, business men, and so on (only Christians, seldom Jews); among them also women. This group is then led to the ‘Tschreswytschaika.’ In front of the group are 40 to 50 armed red guards, infantry and on horses, right and left about the same number of guards, in the rear several carriages or an automobile with machine gun, and behind that again infantry and horseback riders. When this group is seen on the streets, everyone flees terrified; occupants of houses peep through cracks and press their hands to their hearts to see—what?—Father, brother, son or other relatives led away from their once happy homes, perhaps never to return again. This they know, those behind doors and windows, where occur hysterical spells, heart failures and deaths. Words cannot express the terror of it all.

“And then at the ‘Tschreswytschaika’? There are youths, mostly circumcised, often half or wholly drunk! Should there be personal enemies among the ‘judges,’ the unfortunate ones are executed either the same day or the next one, but are sometimes also ‘tried’ like they ‘tried’ the heretics in the Inquisition chambers. Several of these creatures of the ‘Tschreswytschaika’ and especially a certain Wichmann—a Jew, of course—carry on terribly; he is the terror of the city and the flat land; he even kills Bolshevist Commissars and their wives should they now and then reveal a more humane feeling.

“They fear the reprisal and hasten across the borders, laden down with valuables.

“More suffering is caused in the cities by hunger and cold. The dead bodies are buried without coffins and often without clothes. How the people dwell in houses I shall, perhaps, relate next week. Enough for today. F. Horch.”

The freedom of the Balkan Jew from the hunger and suffering which afflict the native peoples is vividly set forth in the words of an American:

“Our ship is the first to enter Libau on a peaceful mission since the war, they say. At any rate, our arrival has caused a great excitement, on account of the food cargo we have for these people. At present we are tied up to a quay, in a narrow stream that seems to be also a sewer. Unloading our flour is a ticklish piece of work, due to the terrible hunger of the crowd that watches us. Whenever a bag breaks, people fight to scrape up the loose flour, which they put in cans along with a good portion of dirt that is mixed into it Everyone has a tin can and at noon there was almost a riot over a bucket of potato peelings that were tossed into the water. The people tied strings to their cans and went fishing for the peelings. They stand all day and beg us for food It is not a very pleasant sight—this crowd of emaciated, white-faced men and women, and big-eyed children.

“The most damnable thing about it all is the dozen Jews who flit like magpies through the crowd. They are young, soft, well-groomed and prosperous. They carry canes, wear new straw hats, and resemble the kind you see in the States. They have nothing in common with the other people. They have money, plenty of it, and they seem to think this ship is a floating pedlar’s cart and tobacco store. They come up the gangway and wave British five-pound notes in the air, offering them for a carton of cigarettes. Or, they have gold watches that they will trade for a few pounds of soap. From the looks that other people favor them with, I do not wonder that we hear about periodic slaughters of the Jews in Russia. These fellows look too prosperous in comparison with the rest of the population to suit me.”

The peculiar character of the Jewish cruelty in Russia is so little in accord with the character of the Jews as we propagandized Americans have been taught to conceive it, that even THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, in its desire to present a consistent account of Jewish activities as they relate to the United States, has not opened this special phase of the study of the Jewish psychology. The Sadism displayed throughout the Russian Terror has been discussed briefly in “The World Significance of the Russian Revolution,” by George Pitt-Rivers.

There is, however, American Jewish testimony on the same point. It is found in the April, 1921 number of the Hebrew Christian Alliance Quarterly. In an article entitled “Persecution Is Not the Monopoly of Christianity and Is Contrary to Its Principles,” the Rev. M. Malbert, B.A., of Ottawa, Ontario, says:

“We must now proceed to deal with our last point. The Jews blame Christianity for its persecuting spirit. They consider it a monstrous thing to persecute another person for his convictions. Now, the question is, are they themselves free from the persecuting zeal? I am going to show that real religious persecution is uniquely Jewish, and that they themselves have been the relentless persecutors. In the year 120 B.C., John Hyrcanus, son of Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers, who fought against the Syrian hosts in defense of their religion, persecuted other religions. He destroyed the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizin. Next, he conquered the Idumeans and bade them choose between exile or Judaism. They chose the latter. That he made a mistake in forcing his religion on an unwilling people, may be seen in the treacherous Herodian dynasty, Idumean converts, who were a curse on the Jewish nation.

“The intolerant religious spirit among the Jews themselves is unique in history. In the Maccabean princes the royalty and the high priesthood were united in one person, King Alexander, third son of John Hyrcanus, who was a Sadducee. The Pharisees therefore hated him. In the year 95 B.C., on the Feast of Tabernacles, as he was officiating in his high priestly capacity in the Temple, instead of pouring the water on the altar, he spilled it at his feet. The congregation worshiping with the palm branches and citrons in their hands, noticing the water spilled at the high priest’s feet, started to pelt him with them. The king’s life was in danger and he was constrained to summon to his aid the Pisidian and Cilician mercenaries. Those fell on the people and slew 6,000 within the precincts of the Temple. The hostility of the Pharisees was more bitter against the king, and their hatred knew no bounds. But the king endeavored to make peace with them. He therefore summoned their chief men and told them that he was tired of the feuds and that he desired peace. What were their conditions? They replied, the death of the king. Then they actually set out to betray their country. They invited the Syrian king, Eucaerus, to invade Palestine and treacherously offered him their aid. Eucaerus advanced upon Judea with 43,000 men. The Pharisees kept their promise and fought in the camp of their country’s enemy against their king, who was eventually defeated. The poor king, the descendant of the heroic Maccabees, wandered about in the mountains of Ephraim. At last, 6,000 Pharisees, conscience-stricken, returned to him from the Syrian camp. With these 6,000 penitents, he was able to force the Syrians from Judea. But the majority still remained hostile and made war against him, but they were finally defeated and reaped the fruits of punishment that they deserved.

“The Jewish king himself was intolerant and he forced many heathen cities to embrace Judaism; those who refused were destroyed. Simon ben Shetach, president of the Synhedrion, condemned 80 women to be crucified for witchcraft. The son of Simon ben Shetach was accused by his enemies of some breach of a religious precept and although the father himself knew him to be innocent, he nevertheless sentenced him to death and allowed him to be executed.

“Between the school of Hillel and Shammai there was constantly bloodshed. The trial and execution of Jesus were the natural outcome of religous intolerance. The greatest service to God a Jew thought possible was to persecute the Christians. Rabbi Tarphon said that the Gilion, that is, the Gospels and all the writings of the Minim, that is, the Apostolic Epistles, should be burned even with the holy name of God in them. He maintained that Christianity was more dangerous than paganism and he would rather fly to a heathen Temple than to a meeting house of the Minim. A curse against the Minim was inserted into the Jewish daily prayers at that time, which is still used by the congregations. Bar-Kosibah, the false Messiah, persecuted the Christians without mercy. Even in the time of Justinian, in the sixth century, the Jews massacred Christians in Caesarea and destroyed their churches. When Stephanus, the governor, attempted to defend the Christians, the Jews fell on him and slew him. In 608, the Jews of Antioch fell upon their Christian neighbors and killed them with fire and sword. The Patriach Anastasius, surnamed the Sinaite, was disgracefully illtreated by them and his body dragged through the streets, before he was finally put to death. About 614, the Persians advanced upon Palestine and the Jews, after joining their standard, massacred the Christians and destroyed their churches. Ninety thousand Christians perished in Jerusalem alone. The Jews expected fair play from the Persians as a reward, but were treated worse by them than by the Christians. In 628, the Emperor Heraclius had retaken Palestine from the Persians and when marching through Tiberius, he was entertained by a wealthy Jew named Benjamin, the same man who invited the Jews to join the Persians against the Byzantines; the emperor asked him what had induced him to betray so great an animosity against the Christians, to which he replied that they were the enemies of his religion. Yet they claim the prophecy of Isaiah in the fifty-third chapter, to have been fulfilled in them. ‘He was oppressed, and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth.’ They even persecuted Mohammed in the incipient stages of his career. They prejudiced the chief Arabs against him, helped his enemies to discredit him and endeavored to alienate his followers.”

The article continues to give in detail the persecution to which the Jews subjected their own people who were progressive. It reminds one of the warning given to Rabbi Isaac M. Wise by Rabbi Lilienthal, when the former was urging the reform of Judaism: “If you want to be Christ you must expect to be crucified.” (“Isaac Meyer Wise,” p. 92)

Readers of Gibbons’ “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” will recall that in Volume 1, Chapter 16, he wrote severe words about the cruelty of the Jews. It will be agreed that only records of the most staggering cruelty could have driven the calm historian to the use of such terms. Readers will also observe, in the passage herewith quoted, that the desire for “the empire of the earth” which actuated the Jews of that period is the same as that discovered in the Protocols:

“From the reign of Nero to that of Antonius Pius, the Jew discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in the treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arm of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstitions seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman Government, but of human kind. The enthusiasm of the Jews was supported by the flattering promise which they derived from their ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters and to invest the favorites of heaven with the empire of the earth.”

In footnotes to this passage, Gibbons gives revolting details of the methods used by the Jews of that period.

In all this work the Jewish Idea has the assistance of certain Christian sects who gloss over the inhumanity and immorality of certain courses of actions by saying that “these are doubtless the means by which God is giving the Jew his promised control of the world.” This is one form of the un-Biblical conception, the un-Scriptural teaching, that the Jews are God’s Chosen People.

Of all the sects following this error, none is more active than the so-called “Russellites,” the followers of Pastor Russell, and officially known as the International Bible Students’ Association.

It has been reported to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT by numerous witnesses that Jewish interpreters at points of debarkation in Canada and the United States have circulated Russellite literature. The fact that a Jew would circulate any kind of Christian literature is sufficiently astonishing to cause inquiry. It is explained by the elaborate pro-Jewish propaganda which Russellism is conducting.

Not to go into this extensively at this time, suffice it to refer to handbill advertising in the Russian quarters of American cities. The fact that the literature is circulated among Russians and that meetings are held in Russian sections of our cities would seem to indicate a desire to explain to credulous Russians that Bolshevism, too, should be received as part of the circumstance by which the Jews are to obtain world rule. The handbills are headed “The Fifth Universal Kingdom,” and in every meeting reported the speakers have declared that in 1914 the rule of the world was taken away from “us”—that is, the non-Jews who are the so-called “Gentiles”—and was given to God’s Chosen People, who, according to this sect, are the Jews. Thus acquiescence in Bolshevism and every other form of revolutionary overturning is acquiescence in the will of God.

The teaching that world rule is already in the hand of the Jew is so novel, so unrelated to Biblical sources, as to warrant careful scrutiny for possible pro-Jewish connections.

But Palestine is not yet a fact, and other Bible students see in the present political movement a daring and God-defiant scheme destined to failure. Certainly there are great obstacles in the way—moral obstacles, matters of honor and humanity—which do not promise easily to disappear. The Jews of the world are discovering that they read too much into the Balfour Declaration and that Great Britain is not ready to violate her obligations to the Arabs. Jewish leaders are beginning to feel the weight of realities in the settlement of the land itself. The Jews are not going back. Those who have gone back are, a considerable and influential number of them, tainted with Russian Bolshevism.

The English people themselves are becoming dubious about the situation as is shown by the dispatch of the London correspondent of the Detroit News printed in the August 14 issue of that paper:

“Then there is the scarcity of accurate information from Palestine. The high commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, transmits reports to the British

Government, but they are not published. Even the report which he made on going to Palestine two years ago to inquire into the exact status of affairs never has been made public. Lord Sydenham asked for it in the House of Lords, and, though Lord Curzon replied that the report contained nothing unsuitable for publication, it has never been given out. It is also charged that the Zionist Commission maintains a strict censorship; that even a petition to the king disappeared in transit; that letters have to be written guardedly. A series of articles by the special correspondent of the Times suddenly ceased, though the last, May 17, bore the line, ‘To Be Continued.’

“News from Palestine is exceedingly scanty, and no one knows whether what does come through is trustworthy. It has been printed that Sir Herbert Samuel does not dare ride through the streets of Jerusalem without an armored car in attendance. For these reasons there is a great deal of suspicion in England that all is not well in Palestine.”

The most outspoken word that has yet been uttered on the political dilemma in which Zionism places the Jew, appeared in an editorial entitled, “Political Judaism” in the Christian Century, of Chicago, a publication of weight and character:

“Political loyalty is one. Under the present world order it does not admit of division. The citizens of any nation may maintain a Platonic admiration for the political systems of neighboring nations, but their ultimate loyalty cannot be ‘Platonized.’ Spiritual Judaism is one thing. A Palestinian state, or a Jewish political organization anywhere else, is a very different thing—at least in Gentile estimation

“Once a Jewish state is set up in Palestine, in so far as it is accepted as the proper expression of Judaism, the Jew of the diaspora must surrender his religion. Is there any escape from this issue? The Jew can be a Jew anywhere, so long as his religious adherence carries with it no political implications. At least he can be an acknowledged Jew in every land were religious freedom is guaranteed or practiced. And even in states where an established religion other than Jewish debars him from the fullest and highest participation in the affairs of state, he can still hold to his religion without too serious embarrassment.

“But what would be the status of the Jew in any land of the present world when the profession of his religion would inevitably identify him with the fortunes and aspirations and diplomacy, even with the military policies, of a political state alien to the society of his residence and citizenship? The status seems, at least to the Gentile mind, altogether impossible. A revival of anti-Semitism, and its spread to lands where heretofore it has not prevailed, is not the least embarrassing of the inevitable results of such a move. How can the Jewish outlander maintain his own spiritual and mental integrity? It is not even necessary to imagine a possible precipitation of war between the new Jewish state and the land of his citizenship. War is not, let us hope, the necessary condition or even potentiality among separate political states. But it remains true, by the very nature of the present system of political organization, that political loyalty is one, and cannot be divided. Hyphenation, discriminating Americans are by this time well aware, must remain spiritual, or racial, or sentimental; it dare not become political under any circumstances.

“If the proposed new Jewish state in Palestine is to be and remain a province or dominion of the British Empire the way is smoothed for any Jew residing and claiming citizenship in any portion of the British Empire. But the way is decidedly roughened for the Jew elsewhere. The Briton is honored, especially in times of peace, in most regions of the world for his connection with so magnificent a political structure, but for that very reason his political loyalty is the more emphasized in his own mind and scrutinized by citizens of other political units. A Jew indentified with so insignificant a power as an independent Palestinian state must forever be, would, in many lands and on many occasions, be in a far more advantageous position when a resident of an outlying nation, than if he were recognized as a Briton. The anticipated dependence of a new Palestine upon British sovereignty thus fails to relieve the embarrassment of Zionism; it would seem rather to compound it.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 27 August 1921]

America’s Jewish Enigma—Louis Marshall

Something of an enigma is Louis Marshall, whose name heads the list of organized Jewry in America, and who is known as the arch-protester against most things non-Jewish. He is head of nearly every Jewish movement that amounts to anything, and he is chief opponent of practically every non-Jewish movement that promises to amount to something. Yet he is known mostly as a name—and not a very Jewish name at that.

It would be interesting to know how the name of “Marshall” found its way to this Jewish gentleman. It is not a common name, even among Jews who change their names. Louis Marshall is the only “Marshall” listed in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the only Jewish “Marshall” in the index of the publications of the American Jewish Historical Society. In the list of the annual contributors to the American Jewish Committee are to be found such names as Marshutz, Mayer, Massal, Maremort, Mannheimer, Marx, Morse, Mackler, Marcus, Morris, Moskowitz, Marks, Margolis, Mareck—but only one “Marshall,” and that is Louis. Of any other prominent Jew it may be asked, “Which Straus?” “Which Untermeyer?” “Which Kahn?” “Which Schiff?”—but never, “Which Marshall?” for there is only one.

This in itself would indicate that Marshall is not a Jewish name. It is an American, or an Anglo-Saxon name transplanted into a Jewish family. But how and why are questions to which the public as yet have no answer.

Louis Marshall is head of the American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Committee is head of all official Jewish activity in the United States.

As head of the committee, he is also head of the executive committee of the New York Kehillah, an organization which is the active front of organized Jewry in New York, and the center of Jewish propaganda for the United States. The nominal head of the Kehillah is Rabbi Judah L. Magnes, a brother-in-law of Louis Marshall. Not only are the American Jewish Committee and the Kehillah linked officially (see chapter 33, Volume II, reprint of this series), but they are linked domestically as well.

Louis Marshall was president of all the Jewish Committees of the world at the Versailles Peace Conference, and it is charged now, as it has been charged before, that the Jewish Program is the only program that went through the Versailles conference as it was drawn, and the so-called League of Nations is busily carrying out its terms today. A determined effort is being made by Jews to have the Washington Conference take up the same matter. Colonel House was Louis Marshall’s chief aid at Paris in forcing the Jewish Program on an unwilling world.

Louis Marshall has appeared in all the great Jewish cases. The impeachment of Governor Sulzer was a piece of Jewish revenge, but Louis Marshall was Sulzer’s attorney. Sulzer was removed from the office of governor. The case of Leo Frank, a Jew, charged with the peculiarly vicious murder of a Georgia factory girl, was defended by Mr. Marshall. It was one of those cases where the whole world is whipped into excitement because a Jew is in trouble. It is almost an indication of the racial character of a culprit these days to note how much money is spent for him and how much fuss is raised concerning him. It seems to be a part of Jewish loyalty to prevent if possible the Gentile law being enforced against Jews. The Dreyfus case and the Frank case are examples of the endless publicity the Jews secure in behalf of their own people. Frank was reprieved from the death sentence, and sent to prison, after which he was killed. That horrible act can be traced directly to the state of public opinion which was caused by raucous Jewish publicity which stopped at nothing to attain its ends. To this day the state of Georgia is, in the average mind, part of an association of ideas directly traceable to this Jewish propaganda. Jewish publicity did to Georgia what it did to Russia—grossly misrepresented it, and so ceaselessly as to create a false impression generally. It is not without reason that the Ku Klux Klan was revived in Georgia and that Jews were excluded from membership.

Louis Marshall is chairman of the board and of the executive committee of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, whose principal theologian, Mordecai M. Kaplan, is the leading exponent of an educational plan by which Judaism can be made to supercede Christianity in the United States. Under cover of synagogal activities, which he knows that the well known tolerance of the American people will never suspect, Rabbi Kaplan has thought out and systemized and launched a program to that end, certainly not without the approval of Mr. Marshall.

Louis Marshall is not the world leader of Jewry, but he is well advanced in Jewry’s world counsel, as is seen by the fact that international Jewry reports to him, and also by the fact that he headed the Jews at the “kosher conference”—as the Versailles assemblage was known among those on the inside. Strange things happened in Paris. Mr. Marshall and “Colonel” House had affairs very well in hand between them. President Wilson sent a delegation to Syria to find out just what the contention of the Syrians was against the Jews, but that report has never seen the light of day. But it was the easiest thing imaginable to keep the President informed as to what the Jews of New York thought (that is, the few who had not taken up their residence in Paris). For example, this prominent dispatch in the New York Times of May 27, 1919:

“Wilson gets Full Report of Jewish Protest Here. “Copyright, 1919, by the New York Times Co.

“By Wireless to The New York Times.

“Paris, May 26.—Louis Marshall, who has succeeded Judge Mack as head of the Jewish Committee in Paris, was received by President Wilson this afternoon, and gave him a long cabled account of the Jewish mass meeting recently held in Madison Square Garden, including the full text of the resolutions adopted at the meeting and editorial comment in The Times and other papers ”

When Russia fell, Louis Marshall hailed it with delight. The New York Times begins its story on March 19, 1917:

“Hailing the Russian upheaval as the greatest world event since the French Revolution, Louis Marshall in an interview for the New York Times last night said”—a number of things, among which was the statement that the events in Russia were no surprise. Of course they were not, the events being of Jewish origin, and Mr. Marshall being the recipient of the most intimate international news.

Even the new Russian revolutionary government made reports to Louis Marshall, as is shown by the dispatch printed in the New York Times of April 3, 1917, in which Baron Gunzburg reports what had been done to assure to the Jews the full advantage of the Russian upheaval.

This glorification of the Jewish overthrow of Russia, it must be remembered, occurred before the world knew what Bolshevism was, and before it realized that the revolution meant the withdrawal of the whole eastern front from the war. Russia was simply taken out of the war and the Central Powers left free to devote their whole attention to the western front. One of the resulting necessities was the immediate entrance of America into the conflict, and the prolongation of the hostilities for nearly two more years.

As the truth became known, Louis Marshall first defended, then explained, then denied—his latest position being that the Jews are against Bolshevism. He was brought to this position by the necessity of meeting the testimony of eye-witnesses as given to congressional investigation committees. This testimony came from responsible men whom even Mr. Marshall could not dispose of with a wave of his hand, and as time has gone on the testimony has increased to mountainous proportions that Bolshevism is Jewish in its origin, its method, its personnel and its purpose. Herman Bernstein, a member of Mr. Marshall’s American Jewish Committee, has lately been preparing American public opinion for a great anti-Semitic movement in Russia. Certainly, it will be an anti-Semitic movement, because it will be anti-Bolshevist, and the Russian people, having lived with the hybrid for five years, are not mistaken as to its identity.

During the war, Mr. Marshall was the arch-protestor. While Mr. Baruch was running the war from the business end (“I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true”), Mr. Marshall was running another side. We find him protesting because an army officer gave him instructions as to his duties as a registration official. It was Mr. Marshall who complained to the Secretary of War that a certain camp contractor, after trying out carpenters, had advertised for Christian carpenters only. It was to the discrimination in print that Mr. Marshall chiefly objected, it may be surmised, since it is the policy of his committee to make it impossible, or at least unhealthy, to use print to call attention to the Jew.

It was Mr. Marshall who compelled a change in the instructions sent out by the Provost Marshal General of the United States Army to the effect that “the foreign-born, especially Jews, are more apt to malinger than the native-born.” It is said that a Jewish medical officer afterward confirmed this part of the instruction, saying that experience proved it. Nevertheless, President Wilson ordered that the paragraph be cut out.

It was Mr. Marshall who compelled the revision of the Plattsburg Officers’ Training Manual. That valuable book rightly said that “the ideal officer is a Christian gentleman.” Mr. Marshall wrote, wired, demanded, and the edition was changed. It now reads that “the ideal officer is a courteous gentleman,” a big drop in idealism.

There was nothing too unimportant to draw forth Mr. Marshall’s protest. To take care of protests alone, he must have a large organization.

And yet with all this high-tension pro-Jewish activity, Mr. Marshall is not a self-advertising man, as is his law partner, Samuel Untermyer, who has been referred to as the arch-inquisitor against the Gentiles. Marshall is a name, a power, not so much a public figure.

As an informed Jew said about the two men:

“No, Marshall doesn’t advertise himself like Sam, and he has never tried to feature himself in the newspapers for personal reasons. Outside his professional life he devotes himself exclusively to religious affairs.” That is the way the American Jew like to describe the activities referred to above—“religious affairs.” We shall soon see that they are political affairs.

Mr. Marshall is short, stocky, and aggressive. Like his brother-in-law, Rabbi Magnes, he works on the principle that “the Jew can do no wrong.” For many years Mr. Marshall has lived in a four-story brownstone house, of the old-fashioned type, with a grilled door, in East Seventy-second street. This is an old-time “swell” neighborhood, once almost wholly occupied by wealthy Jews. It was as close as they could crowd to the choice Fifth Avenue corners, which had been pre-empted by the Vanderbilts, the Astors, and other rich families.

That Mr. Marshall regards the whole Jewish program in which he is engaged, not in its religious aspect alone, but in its world-wide political aspect, may be judged from his attitude on Zionism. Mr. Marshall wrote in 1918 as follows:

“I have never been identified and am not now in any way connected with the Zionist organization. I have never favored the creation of a sovereign Jewish state.”

BUT—

Mr. Marshall says, “Let the Zionists go on. Don’t interfere with them.” Why? He writes:

“Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan. It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon. All the protests that non-Zionists may make would be futile to affect that policy.”

He says that opposition to Zionism at that time would be dangerous. “I could give concrete examples of a most impressive nature in support of what I have said. I am not an alarmist, and even my enemies will give me credit for not being a coward, but my love for our people is such that even if I were disposed to combat Zionism, I would shrink from the responsibilities that might be entailed were I to do so.”

And in concluding this strange pronouncement, he says:

“Give me the credit of believing that I am speaking advisedly.”

Of course, there is more to Zionism than appears on the surface, but this is as close as anyone can come to finding a Jewish admission on the subject.

If in this country there is apprehension over the Jewish Problem, the activities of Louis Marshall have been the most powerful agents to evoke it. His propagandas have occasioned great resentment in many sections of the United States. His opposition to salutary immigration laws, his dictation to book and periodical publishers, as in the recent case of G. P. Putnam’s Sons, who modified their publishing program on his order; his campaign against the use of “Christological expressions” by Federal, State and municipal officers; all have resulted in alarming the native population and harming the very cause he so indiscreetly advocates.

That this defender of “Jewish rights,” and restless advocate of the Jewish religious propaganda, should make himself the leader in attacking the religion of the dominant race in this country, in ridiculing Sunday laws and heading an anti-Christianity campaign, seems, to say the least, inconsistent.

Mr. Marshall, who is regarded by the Jews as their greatest “constitutional” lawyer, since the decline of Edward Lauterbach (and that is a tale!) originated, in a series of legal arguments, the contention that “this is not a Christian country nor a Christian government.” This argument he has expounded in many writings. He has built up a large host of followers among contentious Jews, who have elaborated on this theme in a variety of ways. It is one of the main arguments of those who are endeavoring to build up a “United Israel” in the United States.

Mr. Marshall maintains that the opening of deliberative assemblies and conventions with prayer is a “hollow mockery”; he ridicules “the absurd phrase ‘In the name of God, Amen,’” as used in the beginning of wills. He opposes Sunday observance legislation as being “the cloak of hypocrisy.” He advocates “crushing out every agitation which tends to introduce into the body politic the virus of religious controversy.”

But Mr. Marshall himself has spent the last twenty years of his life in the “virus of religious controversy.” A few of his more impertinent interferences have been noted above. These are, in the Jewish phrase, “religious activities” with a decidedly political tinge.

The following extracts are quoted from the contentions of Mr. Marshall, published in the Menorah Journal, the official organ of the Jewish Chautauqua, that the United States is not a Christian country:

IS OURS A CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT?

BY LOUIS MARSHALL

When, in 1892, Mr. Justice Brewer, in rendering the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity against the United States (144 U.S. 457), which involved an interpretation of the Alien Labor Law, indulged in the obiter remark that “this is a Christian nation,” a subject was presented for the consideration of thoughtful minds which is of no ordinary importance.

The dictum of Mr. Justice Story in Vidal against Girard’s Executors (2 How. U.S., 198), to the effect that Christianity was a part of the common law of Pennsylvania, is also relied upon, but is not an authoritative judicial determination of that proposition. The remark was not necessary to the decision.

The remarks of Mr. Justice Brewer, to which reference has already been made, were also unnecessary to the decision rendered by the court.

The fact that oaths are administered to witnesses, that the hollow mockery is pursued of opening deliberative assemblies and conventions with prayer, that wills begin with the absurd phrase “In the name of God, Amen,” that gigantic missionary associations are in operation to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe, were all instanced. But none of these illustrations affords any valid proof in support of the assertion that “this is a Christian nation.”

Our legislation relative to the observance of Sunday is such a mass of absurdities and inconsistencies that almost anything can be predicated thereon except the idea that our legislators are impressed with the notion that there is anything sacred in the day. According to the views of any section of the Christian church, the acts which I have enumerated as permitted would be regarded as sinful. Their legality in the eye of the law is a demonstration that the prohibitory enactments relating to Sunday are simply police regulations, and it should be the effort of every good American citizen to liberalize our Sunday legislation still more, so that it shall cease to be the cloak of hypocrisy.

As a final resort, we are told by our opponents that this is a Christian government because the majority of our citizens are adherents of the Christian faith; that this is a government of majorities, because government means force and majorities represent the preponderance of strength. This is a most dangerous doctrine

If the Christianity of the United States is to be questioned, the last person to initiate the inquiry should be a member of that race which had no hand in creating the Constitution or in the upbuilding of the country. If Christian prayers in public are a hollow mockery, and Sunday laws unreasonable, the last person in the world to oppose them should be a Jew.

Mr. Marshall has the advantage of being an American by birth. He was born in Syracuse, New York, in 1856, the son of Jacob and Zilli Marshall. After practicing law in Syracuse, he established himself in New York, became a Wall Street corporation lawyer, and his native country has afforded him generous means to win a large fortune.

The question arises whether it is patriotic for Mr. Marshall to implant into the minds of his foreign-born co-religionists the idea that this is not a Christian country, that Sunday laws should be opposed, and that the manners and customs of the native-born should be scorned and ridiculed. The effect has been that thousands of immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe are persistently violating Sunday laws in the large industrial centers of the country, that they are haled to court, lectured by judges, and fined. American Jews who are carrying into practice the teachings of Mr. Marshall and his followers are reaping the whirlwind of a natural resentment.

Mr. Marshall was the leader of the movement which led to the abrogation of the treaty between the United States and Russia. Whenever government boards or committees are appointed to investigate the actions, conduct or conditions of foreign-born Jews, great influences are immediately exerted to have Mr. Marshall made a member of such bodies to “protect” the Jewish interests.

As head of millions of organized Jews in the United States, Mr. Marshall has invariably wielded this influence by means of a campaign of “protests,” to silence criticisms of Jewish wrongdoing. He thus protested when testimony was made before the Senate Sub-Committee in Washington, in 1919, that the Jewish East Side of New York was the hotbed of Bolshevism. Again he protested to Norman Hapgood against the editorial in Harper’s Weekly, criticising the activities of Jewish lobbyists in Washington.

Mr. Marshall describes himself in “Who’s Who” as a leader in the fight for the abrogation of the treaty with Russia. That was a distinct interference in America’s political affairs and was not a “religious activity” connected with the preservation of “Jewish rights” in the United States. The limiting expression “in the United States” is, of course, our own assumption. It is doubtful if Mr. Marshall limits anything to the United States. He is a Jew and therefore an internationalist. He is ambassador of the “international nation of Jewry” to the Gentile world.

The pro-Jewish fights in which Mr. Marshall has been engaged in this country make a considerable list:

He fought the proposal of the Census Bureau to enumerate Jews as a race. As a result, there are no official figures, except those prepared by the American Jewish Committee, as to the Jewish population of the United States. The Census has them listed under a score of different nationalities, which is not only a non-descriptive method, but a deceptive one as well. At a pinch the Jewish authorities will admit of 3,500,000 Jews in the United States. The increase in the amount of Passover Bread required would indicate that there are 6,000,000 in the United States now! But the Government of the United States is entirely at sea, officially, as to the Jewish population of this country, except as the Jewish government in this country, as an act of courtesy, passes over certain figures to the government. The Jews have a “foreign office” through which they deal with the Government of the United States.

Mr. Marshall also fought the proposed naturalization laws that would deprive “Asiatics” of the privilege of becoming naturalized citizens. This was something of a confession!

Wherever there were extradition cases to be fought, preventing Jewish offenders from being extradited, Mr. Marshall was frequently one who assisted. This also was part of his “religious activities,” perhaps.

He fought the right of the United States Government to restrict immigration. He has appeared oftener in Washington than any other Jew on this question.

In connection with this, it may be suggested to Mr. Marshall that if he is really interested in upholding the law of the land and restraining his own people from lawless acts, he could busy himself with profitable results if he would look into the smuggling of Jews across the Mexican and Canadian borders. And when that service is finished, he might look into the national Jewish system of bootlegging which, as a Jew of “religious activities,” he should be concerned to break up.

Louis Marshall is leader of that movement which will force the Jew by law into places where he is not wanted. The law, compelling hotel keepers to permit Jews to make their hotels a place of resort if they want to, has been steadily pushed. Such a law is practically a Bolshevik order to destroy property, for it is commonly known what Jewish patronage does for public places. Where a few respectable Jews are permitted, others flock. And when one day they discover that the place they “patronize” is becoming known as “a Jew hotel” or a “Jew club,” then all the Jews abandon it—but they cannot take the stigma with them. The place is known as “a Jew place,” but lacks both Jew and Gentile patronage as a result.

When Louis Marshall succeeded in compelling by Jewish pressure and Jewish threats the Congress of the United States to break the treaty with Russia, he was laying a train of causes which resulted in a prolongation of the war and the utter subjugation of Russia. Russia serves the world today as a living illustration of the ruthlessness, the stupidity and the reality of Jewish power—endless power, fanatically mobilized for a vengeful end, but most stupidly administered. Does Mr. Marshall ever reflect on the grotesque stupidity of Jewish leadership?

It is regretted that space does not permit the publication here of the correspondence between Mr. Marshall and Major G. H. Putnam, the publisher, as set forth in the annual report of the American Jewish Committee. It illustrates quite vividly the methods by which Mr. Marshall secures the suppression of books and other publications which he does not like. Mr. Marshall, assisted by factors which are not mentioned in his letter, procured the suppression of the Protocols, after the house of Putnam had them ready to publish, and procured later the withdrawal of a book on the Jewish Question which had attracted wide attention both here and in England.

Mr. Marshall apparently has no confidence in “absurdities” appearing absurd to the reader, nor of “lies” appearing false; but he would constitute himself a censor and a guide of public reading, as well as of international legislation. If one might hazard a guess—Mr. Marshall’s kind of leadership is on the wane.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 26 November 1921]

James Russell Lowell always declared “that he was of Jewish extraction and proud of his ancestry.”

If anybody has achieved an exceptionally high grade in a difficult course, he or she was probably Jewish.—Syracuse Jewish Monthly.

The Economic Plans of International Jews

The strength of Jewish money is in its internationalism. It stretches a chain of banks and centers of financial control across the world and plays them on the side of the game that favors Judah. This center was, and for the moment is, in Germany, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, but feverish anxiety now accompanies the fear that it may have to be moved. Destiny is overtaking the Jewish World Power. The gold which is their god—“the God of the living” is what they call their gold—is being brought overseas on every available ship and locked up in the vaults of Jewish bankers in North and South America, not to enrich this hemisphere but to mobilize Jewish financial power for any desperate stroke. Financial Jewry is afraid. It has a right to be afraid. Its conscience, still bloody from the war whose gains have not yet stopped, is in a troubled state.

Single Jewish banking houses in any country, however great such banks should grow, would be no menace. In spite of the fact that the richest bankers in the world are Jews, as mere bankers in their several countries they would not occasion alarm. In straight out-and-out banking, the Jew is not a success. The Rothschilds were never bankers in a proper sense; they were money-lenders to nations whose representatives they had corrupted to seek the loans. They did business precisely on the plane of the money-lender in the side street who induces the rich man’s son to borrow a large sum, knowing that the father will pay. That is scarcely banking. Brains of that sort may “get” money, but will not “make” money. The deposit banking of the world is not done in Jewish banks anyway, even Jewish depositors preferring banks which are managed by non-Jews.

It is not, therefore, the success of the individual Jewish banking house that concerns us. Flabby-minded non-Jews who have been blinded by pro-Jewish propaganda find difficulty in seeing that point. They say that the individual Jewish business man has as much right to his business success as has anyone else. Which is a perfect Jewish platitude! Certainly he has. Who ever stated that he had not? But when you are dealing with a world chain of financial consulates, all of them linking up in a world system, none of them to be regarded as American banks, or British banks, or French banks, or Italian banks, or German banks, but all of them members of the Jewish World Banking System, you are obviously not dealing with individuals who are trying to make a living. You are then dealing with a mighty force for good or ill, and thus far, sad truth to know, the ill is mountainous in comparison.

Nor does this Jewish banking system require that in each country a Jewish house be the most important. It is not the wealth and importance of single houses, but the wealth and importance of the world chain, that gives the strength. Kuhn, Loeb & Company is far from being the most important financial house in the United States, but with its foreign connections, all Jewish, it takes on a new aspect. Kuhn, Loeb & Company is far from being the most important banking house in the United States, and yet it was an idea that came out of Kuhn, Loeb & Company’s office that now dominates the monetary system of the United States. Paul Warburg, a German Jew, scion of the Jewish world banking group, is boosted into undue prominence and power through the pressure of banker-bought prestige in government circles. It is his connections—Jewish ones—that count.

The Warburg idea in the United States, dovetailing with the Sterns, the Furstenbergs, the Sonnenscheins and the Sassoons and Samuels and Bleichroeders overseas, was something to wonder at. Jewish bankers ran this war as they have run every great war. No informed Jew will deny that. Most informed Jews have boasted of it as indicating the importance of their people. Above the nations at war was an international financial committee, all Jewish, looking down upon all the ruction and blood as serenely as American baseball league directors look down upon a pennant series. Separated, each man tied to his country by ties of undivided nationalistic loyalty, none of these would have amounted to much. United, as a super-national financial board, knowing the secrets of all the nations, conferring one with another in all sorts of ways, even during the hardest days when all communication between countries was supposed to be locked by war, deciding the duration of the war and the hour of so-called peace, these groups constitute a danger which no one doubts after once having clearly seen it.

Men who can thus manipulate money in time of war can do so in time of peace. The United States is living under some of that peace manipulation now.

The reader of the Protocols is much impressed by the financial notes that are sounded throughout their proposals. The Jewish defense against the Protocols, that they were written by a criminal or madman, is intended only for those who have not read the Protocols, or who have overlooked the financial plans they offer. Madmen and criminals do not coolly dissect one money system and invent another, as do the Protocolists.

It will be worth while, in view of the sidelights that these articles have thrown on the money question, to recall some of the forecasts and plans made in these most remarkable documents which have been attributed to the Wise Men of Zion, the world leaders of the inner council.

“When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.” So wrote the great Jewish Zionist leader, Theodor Herzl, in his work, “A Jewish State,” (p. 23). It is precisely that union of revolutionary tendencies and financial power that the world is facing now. Look at Russia, and look at the people who swarmed at Versailles and made the Peace Treaty. The Peace Treaty was written by financiers; it is the bill presented, not to a beaten foe, but to the world. Very few people have ever read it; but its operation is evident everywhere. The Jewish bankers the world over are shoveling in the gold.

Protocol VI is interesting in this connection:

“We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, colossal reservoirs of wealth, upon which even the big Gentile properties will be dependent to such an extent that they will all fall, together with the government credit, on the day following the political catastrophe.”

Although these words were written with Europe in view (the United States not yet having been Judaized) their import is clear. At the present moment the number of business concerns in the hands of Jewish creditors, through “loans,” is very large. The Jewish idea in business is to “borrow,” instead of making the business stand on its own two feet. The trail of that idea is seen all over our land today.

“At the same time it is necessary to encourage trade and industry vigorously, and especially speculation, the function of which is to act as a counterpoise of industry. Without speculation, industry will cause private wealth to increase and tend to improve the position of agriculture by freeing the land from indebtedness for loans by the land banks. It is necessary for industry to deplete the land both of laborers and capital, and, through speculation, transfer all the money in the world into our hands

“To destroy Gentile industry, we shall, as an incentive to this speculation, encourage among the Gentiles a strong demand for luxuries, all-enticing luxuries.”

There is the Idea—Extravagance and Debt support the Jewish money-lender’s power. He does not lend to build industry, but to drain it. Independent industrial or agricultural wealth menaces his rule. Industry must be curbed by speculation; speculation must be encouraged by extravagance; an industrious people soon works itself free of its debt slavery; therefore invent new excitements to keep it in debt. Entice people from the farms, and so forth, and so forth, all which devices are now well known to the world.

“We will force up wages, which, however, will be of no benefit to workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the price of prime necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and cattle raising.

We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy and encourage them in the use of alcohol ”

That wages were forced up, that they were of little profit to the workers, that prices did rise, that the above excuses were given, that anarchistic ideas now being circulated among the workers are Jewish and are circulated by Jews, that the illicit liquor business (as once was the legal liquor business) is entirely in the hands of Jews—these things everyone knows to be true.

The Protocols have been in non-Jewish knowledge since 1896. The British Museum has possessed a copy since 1906. Were they written by a prophet who foresaw, or by a power that foreordained?

The Jewish World Program is shown in these Protocols to be largely dependent on the false economic ideas it can induce the governments and peoples to accept. The false economic ideas—not only false, but cruelly deceptive and impossible—which are being sown among the masses of the people are the counterpart of the other false economic propaganda being sown in the upper circles of banking and government.

Jewish economic ideas are quite different from the ones which Jewish thinkers put out for others to follow.

Jewish bankers know better than anyone else the utter falsity of the present system, but they profit by that falsity, and they are ruining non-Jewish rule by that falsity, and they are establishing Judah by that falsity, and they will try to maintain that falsity until it brings the inevitable collapse, after which they hope to reorganize the world on Jewish monetary principles. So at least, the Protocols indicate. This bad régime is for the so-called Gentile period only.

The temporary nature of the present Jewish system, and the destruction it is meant to work in the world, is shown in the Third Protocol, where, after discussing ways and means to make the lower classes hate the well-to-do, it says:

“This hostility will be still more accentuated as the result of crises which will close stock exchange operations and stop the wheels of industry. Having organized such a general economic crisis by all the underground means available to us, and thanks to the assistance of gold, all of which is in our hands, we will throw whole crowds of workingmen into the streets simultaneously in all the countries of Europe. These crowds will gladly shed the blood of those whom they, in the simpicity of their ignorance, have envied since childhood and whose property they will then be able to loot.”

All this, as the world knows, has occurred in Europe. The weapons first used were economic. The subjection of the people, the revolution, was first economic. The Jewish program profited by the split which Jewish ideas had been able to make between the upper and lower classes of “Gentile” society. “Divide and Rule,” is the Jewish motto, as quoted in the Protocols. “Divide the working class from the directing class. Divide the Catholic and Protestant churches.” In brief, divide Christendom on economic, creedal, social and racial lines, while the Jew remains a solid body, able because of his solidarity to handle a divided world. And this plan has succeeded. Out of the disorder of the World War look how high the government of Judah has been placed in Russia, Austria, Germany, France, Italy, England and in the United States.

All the Jewish bankers are still in Russia. It was only the non-Jewish bankers who were shot and their property confiscated. Bolshevism has not abolished Capital, it has only stolen the Capital of the “Gentiles.” And that is all that Jewish socialism or anarchism or Bolshevism is designed to do. Every banker who is caricatured with dollar marks on his clothes is a “Gentile” banker. Every capitalist publicly denounced in Red parades is a “Gentile” capitalist. Every big strike—railroad, steel, coal—is against “Gentile” industry. That is the purpose of the Red movement. It is alien, Jewish and anti-Christian.

Now, one of the interesting points about the Jewish financial scheme for the future as shown in the Protocols is the way in which it contrasts with the financial scheme which the Jewish groups now favor. As before stated, what the Protocolists now advise is not what they will adopt when their present advice has worked its hoped-for results.

The Protocols which detail the future financial plan of Jewish control are numbered XX and XXI. Protocol XX opens thus:

“Today we will speak of the financial program, the discussion of which I have postponed to the close of my report as it is the most difficult, decisive and concrete of our plans.”

Throughout the recital the Protocolist harks back to the old (our present) financial system, and some of his remarks are worth transcribing here:

“You know that the gold standard destroyed the governments that accepted it, for it could not satisfy the demand for currency, especially as we removed as much gold as possible from circulation.”

Whether the first statement is true remains to be seen; the others are demonstrably true. The gold in the ground and the gold that is money is under Jewish control, and they withdraw it when they will.

The stupid so-called “Gentile” says, “Why should they withdraw it? They cannot make any money that way!” Once again remember the distinction: it is not a matter of “making” money but of “getting” it; panics are more quickly profitable than is a long period of prosperity for men whose commodity is money. Indeed, men who deal in money as a commodity and on the Jewish plan, lose their prestige if prosperity continues too long. The banker who is a banker, who lives to serve industry and the community—he profits by prosperity, but not so the money sharks.

“We created economic crises for the Gentiles by the withdrawal of money from circulation. Mass capital stagnated, money was withdrawn from use by the various governments, and they in turn were obliged to turn back to the capitalists for loans. Such loans naturally embarrassed the governments owing to the payment of interest charges, and made them subservient to the capitalists ”

The withdrawal of money from circulation will create panics; everyone knows that. Such withdrawal of money is within the decision of a very small group of men. Here in the United States we have been for a long fifteen months witnessing such a withdrawal and its effects. The word went by wire across the land, setting a date. On that date values began to crash all over the country, and honest bankers tried to help, while others who knew the game profited hugely. As shown in the last article, money was withdrawn from legitimate use, that it might be lent to money speculators at six per cent, who in turn lent it to desperate people at rates as high as 30 per cent.

No intelligent person will attempt to explain such events on the ground of natural law or of honest practice. These things occurred in this country within recent days. It is the “elastic” system, you know, with the public as a monkey on one end of the “elastic.” A splendid idea, no doubt, if administered by the non-Jewish method of doing the greatest possible good to the greatest number, but a deliberate assassination of life and property as it has been administered.

The Protocolists then pay their respects to governmental finance with the keenness that is well justified:

“Owing to methods allowed by irresponsible Gentile governments, their treasuries became empty. Then came the period of contracting loans and using up the assets that remained. This brought all the Gentile governments to bankruptcy.”

As operating groups, the governments are bankrupt now. Only their power of confiscation keeps them up. The United States, commonly referred to as the richest country in the world, is just as poor as a government as is any other. It has nothing; it is in debt and borrowing. And its creditors are constantly discounting their obligations and are putting it into worse hands than ever. Even the Liberty Bonds are almost passed out of the hands of the people into the hands of Jewish fiscal agents who “get” money out of the necessities of the people who sell and out of the necessities of the government which borrowed. And if all signs do not fail, we shall one day be hearing in Congress pleas for special legislation in behalf of “the poor bond-holders.” It is to be hoped when that day comes, some one will have mettle enough to stand up and declare who the “poor bond-holders” are. A list should be made now, for future reference.

“Every loan proves government inefficiency and ignorance of governmental rights. Loans, like the sword of Damocles, hangs above the heads of the rulers, who, instead of placing temporary taxes on their subjects, stretch forth their hands and beg for charity at the hands of our bankers. Essentially, foreign loans are leeches, which in no instance can be removed from the government body until they fall off of their own accord or the government itself removes them. But Gentile governments, instead of removing them, continue to place more. They must perish inevitably through exhaustion by voluntary blood-letting.”

This is the plainly expressed criticism of the Jewish World Government upon the governments of the nations, and the truth of it cannot be gainsaid. It represents a statement of common wisdom upon which the Jewish World Program hopes to commend itself to the common people.

“Then why do not the Jewish world financiers help the nations out of this false financial policy?” Why, indeed? Jewish financiers are the inventors of such loans as they here describe, the barriers to such direct taxes as they here recommend. Listen—in the same page as above:

“You may well understand that such a policy, although inspired by us, cannot be followed by us.”

That is historically true, whether it will prove prophetically true or not. Compromising loans and interest are Jewish devices, historically Jewish. Practically and at present the Jew prefers not to borrow except in such a way as to place all business risks on other people’s money while he keeps his own safely, and the payment of interest is an abomination to him. These statements of the Protocols have at least these historical and racial confirmations.

The whole stupidity of the “Gentile” system by which Jewish Internatiional Financiers are enriched is clearly set forth in the same XXth Protocol:

“What is the effect of a loan, especially of a foreign loan, other than this? A loan is the issuance of government notes, pledging interest in proportion to the sum of borrowed capital. If the loan pays five per cent then in twenty years the government has paid the interest in vain, for it is equal to the sum of the loan; in forty years it has paid out an amount equal to the loan twice over; and in sixty years, three times, while the original debt remains unpaid.”

Extremely simple, and yet it is the most generally ignored fact of all.

We live in a democracy, yet loans are contracted that always cost more than the amount of the loan, and no one has a word to say about it. We Americans do not know how much interest we pay every year, and we don’t know to whom we pay it. We are still living under the lie that “A National Debt Is a National Blessing,” the most delusive doctrine ever promulgated.

The amount of our National Debt is the measure of our enslavement to Jewish World Finance.

The reader may observe in passing that Jewish apologists, John Spargo, Herman Bernstein, and others, say that the Protocols were put out by the secret police of the Russian Czarist régime. It is very unusual, is it not, to find the Czar’s police interested in plans to remove graft from high finance, and preaching doctrines exactly contrary to the established system? The reader will find some amusement in searching for Russian police spies in the further development of the Jewish financial philosophy.

The purpose of Protocols XX and XXI is not to describe the present financial chaos in which the Gentiles are encouraged to continue; that system was described in previous Protocols; their purpose is rather to describe how the Jewish World Power plans to run things when the time comes.

This is well worth considering, for there are portions of the plan which would be worth adopting. The Jewish expectation of World Rule is, of course, absurd, although the mass of Jews sincerely hold it. Their condemnation is that they regard every degeneracy in society as bringing them a step nearer their goal, which explains the great assistance they give to all degenerative processes.

“When we ascend the thrones of the world, such financial expediencies, not being in accord with our interest, will be definitely eliminated.”

That is the opening note. It is another version of the statement—“You may well understand that such a policy, although inspired by us, cannot be followed by us.”

What, then, did the Protocolists, looking for world power, propose to eliminate?

(1) “The stock exchanges will be permanently suppressed, for we will not allow the prestige of our authority to be shaken by price fluctuations on our stocks. We will fix the full value legally without permitting any power to raise or lower it. Raising prices gives the pretext for lowering them—which was what we started with the stocks and bonds of the Gentiles.”

(2)  “The lawful confiscation of money in order to regulate its circulation.”

(3)  “We must introduce a unit of exchange based on the value of labor units regardless of whether paper or wood are used as the medium. We will issue money to meet the normal demands of every subject (citizen), adding a total sum for every birth and decreasing the total amount for every death.”

(4) “Commercial paper will be bought by the government, which, instead of paying tribute on loans as at present, will grant loans on a business basis. A measure of this character will prevent the stagnation of money, parasitism and laziness, qualities which were useful to us as long as the Gentiles maintained their independence, but which are not desirable to us when our kingdom comes.”

(5) “We will replace stock exchanges by great government credit institutions, whose functions will be to tax trade paper according to government regulations. These institutions will be in such a position that they may market or buy as many as half a billion industrial shares a day.” (The reader will bear in mind that “police spies” of agricultural Russia “forged this document” in 1896. As a gentleman remarked: If this is a forgery, what must the original have been!—Ed.) “Thus all industrial undertakings will become dependent on us. You may well imagine what power that will give us.”

The Protocolist now being quoted also gives his attention to taxation (observe again the “Russian police spy” doing some “forging”). The builders of this plan for World Rule recognize that when the overturn comes they will have to be in a position to offer the people something extremely good in order to win their favor. This, of course, was the plan in Russia, although Russia presents no parallel to what the Protocolists hope to do for what they call their “kingdom.” Russia was simply tortured in punishment. Russia was a passover offering. Russia is an example of Jewish vengeance, destruction, rage, not of the rule which International Jewry hopes to put over a world economically conquered through its own weakness and lust. Hear then the taxation plan:

(1) “When we become rulers, our autocratic government, as a first principle of self-protection, will avoid burdening the people with heavy taxes. It must not forget to play the part of father and protector. But as government organizations are costly, it is necessary to raise money for maintenance. Consequently, it is necessary to study carefully in this particular the problem of checks and balances.”

(2) Kinds of taxes to be raised: (a) “The best method of taxation is to establish a progressive tax on property.” (b) The receipt of purchase money or an inheritance will be subjected to a progressive stamp tax.“ (c) “Any transfer of personal property, whether in money or other form of value ” (d) A luxury tax—“the latter will be taxed through the medium of a stamp impost.”

The rich are to be taxed in proportion to their wealth: “A tax on a poor man is the seed of revolution and it is detrimental to the government which loses the big things in its pursuit of the small.” But there are other shrewd reasons for thus taxing the rich (a) “Aside from this, the tax on capitalists will lessen the growth of wealth in private hands, where we have concentrated it at present as a counterweight to the governmental power of the Gentiles (b) “Such a measure will destroy the hatred of the poor toward the rich, who will be regarded as the financial support of the government and the exponents of peace and prosperity. The poor will realize that the rich are paying the money necessary to attain these things.”

This was written at least as early as 1896. How many forms of taxation have come precisely as here outlined!

How illuminating also the following remark: “Money should circulate; and to hinder free circulation has a fatal effect upon the government mechanism, which it lubricates. That thickening of the lubricator may stop the correct functioning of the whole machine. The substitution of a part of money exchange by discount paper has created just such an impediment.”

Remember that when next you hear the Jewish plan that “Gentiles” shall do business with their own bits of paper, while Jews keep the gold reserve safely in their own hands. If the crash comes, “Gentiles” have the paper and Jews the gold. If bits of paper serve ordinarily, the world may some time decide to do away with the gold. Certainly a system which rests on Cash yet works with Not-Cash, has disadvantages which depression and panic reveal. Says Protocol XXII—“We hold in our hands the greatest modern power—gold; in two days we could free it from our treasuries in any desired quantities.”

The Jews are economists, esoteric and exoteric; they have one system to tangle up the “Gentiles,” another which they hope to install when “Gentile” stupidity has bankrupted the world. The Jews are economists. Note the number of them who teach economics in the state universities. Says Protocol VIII:

“We will surround our government with a whole world of economists. It is for this reason that the science of economics is the chief subject of instruction taught by the Jews.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 23 July 1921]

A Jew Sees His People As Others See Them

This week we present another Jew’s comment on his race and for the good of the race. Bert Levy has said these things before Jewish Women’s Councils, and B’nai B’rith lodges, and they will assist readers of this series to an understanding of some of the truer, though minority, influences which are at work in American Jewry. He sincerely exposes every obvious defect, and it is to be hoped that one day, with as sincere a pen, he will go deeper. Mr. Levy’s chosen title is:

FOR THE GOOD OF THE RACE

From a far-off land I came, a sad-eyed, pale-faced, poetic young Jew, with an unspeakable love of my people burning in my heart. Of Polish-Russian parentage, there was implanted in my nature an indefinable sorrow (born perhaps of my father’s and mother’s persecution), which left me high-strung and sensitive to the anti-Semitic taunts of my schoolmates.

Given to idle dreaming by some old abandoned shaft or roaming the deserted alluvial diggings of the little mining town of my youth, I would conjure up visions of that new world I had so often read about—that great country where there was no prejudice against my race—the New Jerusalem.

Shyly hugging to my breast some borrowed American book or magazine I would seek the shadows of the huge decaying poppet legs and dream over the pages containing many Jewish faces, and I read with pride and gratitude of the high places occupied by my people in music, art, literature and the drama. Filled with Jewish names and good Jewish deeds was the story of this new Zion, and a longing to be among the great ones of my people took possession of me. Between my dear father and myself there was a bond of love too sacred for words, and when I looked upon his dear face for the last time in this world and bade him a sorrowful goodby before my departure for the New Jerusalem, he held me close to his breast and whispered:

“Don’t forget that you are a Jew, and if you need sympathy, love or help, go to your own race and show your Arba Kanfoth.” (According to Deuteronomy XXII, 12, the Jews are commanded to wear fringe upon four corners of their vestures and this command is observed to the present day by wearing a special garment with these fringes, generally hidden by the ordinary clothes.)

I carried my father’s words across the ocean in my heart and the memory of his tear-dimmed eyes and the pressure of his big loving arms has never left me; in fact, it is so strong at times that I find it hard to believe that he is not by my side telling me, in spite of many disappointments, that after all the Jews are still my brethren and sisters.

Words fail to describe my feelings as the beauties of the New World unfolded to me. In wonderful contrast to the melancholy aspect of my own country was the joyous color of Samoa, with its hallowed memories of Robert Louis Stevenson, lifted like some fairy veil out of the midst of the Pacific to give me a glimpse, as it were, of my dream of America—the New Jerusalem.

Oh, the wonderful days and wonderful nights out on that vast blue expanse, where God and His stars seemed so near that one formed a good resolution with every throb of the great engine far down below. On one of those nights I sat listening to some one playing in the music salon and I was inwardly thanking the Creator that there was a Puccini in the world and that he had given us “La Boheme.” There we were, thousands of miles from anywhere, languidly rolling under a perfect moonlit sky, listening to the plaintive airs that Puccini had coined for Mimi. There was hardly a sound but the gentle lapping of the waves breaking against the vessel’s side till a slight commotion on deck up ahead caused some of the listeners to investigate. One of the passengers, an ex-Harvard man, returned with the remark:

“Oh it’s only some damned Jew. He’s fallen and hurt himself pretty badly.”

Like a smudge on some beautiful picture was this anti-Semitic sentiment on such a night, and considering its source I felt deeply grieved. As I was the only other Jew in the first cabin I made my way to the stateroom where they had carried the victim of the accident and found him to be a tender-hearted old man who I subsequently learned had spent a long life in acts of charity toward his fellow men and women, regardless of creed. He was returning to end his days in Jerusalem (his Jerusalem, not the one of my dreams), where he could touch again the beloved stones of the wailing wall.

Something in the old man’s face, that “something” which was in the face of my father, my brother, that “something” which is in the face of every Jew, drew me to him, as it has drawn me to all Jews always, and I spent many intellectual hours by his bedside, picking up grains of wisdom which he had translated from the Talmud. I wished that the ex-Harvard man could have known that the old man’s wrinkles were but the pathetic records of the massacres of his kith and kin which he had witnessed in his homeland and that he daily prayed for death to efface the awful memories.

Later on the ex-Harvard man asked me to join in a deck game. I reminded him that I also was a “damned Jew.”

“I’m sorry,” he said. “I know what you refer to—that was an unfortunate slip I made the other night—merely a figure of speech, I assure you.”

I found him a charming companion and soon in a cozy corner of the smoking room we became fast friends and I tried to win him over to think better of our people.

“I would like to hear your opinion of your fellow Jew after you have spent, say, twelve months in America,” he said.

Since then I have walked the length and breadth of the great cities of America, and my very soul cried out to my fellow Jew: “Suppress Thyself!” The day I arrived in New York I learned that my dearest friend, my father, had passed away, and naturally my first thought was to say the kaddish, a prayer of the Jewish liturgy recited by orphans for the welfare of the souls of their deceased parents, somewhat after the fashion of the Catholic mass. Every male of Jewish blood at some time of his life recites this beautiful prayer. It does not matter how far one strays from the fold or how much one has denied the faith, there comes a time when the Jew in him asserts itself and he says the kaddish.

Public prayer among Jews can be recited only in the presence of ten males above the age of religious maturity, and this assembly is called minyan. Surely in this great city I would easily find a minyan, I thought; so I followed the line of least resistance, like any stranger in a strange land, and sought out the Jewish names best known to the public. I called at a business house uptown with the name of a great Hebrew over the door. He was the great man of whom I read with such pride in the little mining town at the other end of the world. Yes! The same Jewish face depicted in the huge photograph in the lobby I had seen in the magazine I had hugged so lovingly at home.

I made my way, full of hope, to his office and was asked by a doorkeeper my mission. I explained—the doorkeeper was a Hebrew—that I desired to say kaddish for my father and that I wanted to form a minyan. With a sly wink he passed me on to several Hebrew clerks and office boys, each of whom smiled, sneered, and made his little joke about “greenhorns.” Then I was ushered with many grimaces into the presence of the big man.

Just a minute’s conversation convinced me that he was a Jew in appearance only, and that he had never known anything of the traditions, the romance, the art or the literature of our race. He didn’t exactly know what minyan was, or pretended he didn’t, but recommended me to “one of our people,” as he put it, who ran a very popular chophouse close by. I began to realize that I was a stranger among my own people and that night I walked the streets of great New York with an aching heart. Everywhere in the hurrying crowds I saw the faces of my brethren and sisters, thousands, hundreds of thousands of them, hurrying, pushing, shoving brethren they were, with all the tenderness, the friendship and the Semitic look gone from their eyes.

“Oh God!” I thought, “are these the children of Israel? Is this the persecuted race—that people who had been scattered to the four corners of the earth?”

Hungry and weary, I made my way as if in a dream to the café of a great hotel. Everything in the huge room was glaringly false—marble pillars, oak beams, flowers, were all imitation: a big orchestra sat in a balcony with an artificial moon and a painted sky as a background; everywhere were lights, lights and more lights.

From table to table I went but I was roughly reminded that “this” was reserved and “that” was reserved. Presently glaringly gowned, bediamonded Jewish women, accompanied by equally vulgar Jewish men, filed in and occupied every seat, and between mouthfuls of food and drink their bodies would sway to the voices of other Jews who sang only of “Mississippi” and “Georgia.” How these people did laugh when they caught sight of my foreign clothes and my pale, poetic face, and how they would have screamed with laughter had I shown them my Arba Kanfoth, that beautiful little token which my poor father fondly imagined would have made me understood in the New World.

Out in the night I went and found myself struggling in a torrent of humanity. Every time I received an extra bump or hard push I looked only to see that my antagonist was a Hebrew. On the street, in the cars, in the subway, or at the soda fountain, wherever I saw my fellow Jews blatantly shouting and rudely pushing, I, in spite of my indignation, felt the love of my race uppermost in my heart, and I wanted to cry out:

“Oh, Jew; dear brothers and sisters, suppress yourselves for the good of the race! Stand back! For the good of the race!”

Never in the world have our people known such a free country as this, and it is a privilege to be here, but at times a great fear comes over me that we are abusing that privilege. Amid the din of Jewish music and laughter, the newsboys are shouting the names of Jewish murderers (the Rosenthal case), the gunmen of the city. The bribe givers and the bribe takers depicted in the news sheets have Jewish countenances. The gambling house keepers—yes! yes! I know that there are Christians who are murderers, gamblers and informers, but the Jew is a marked man. He is distinct, apart, so distinct that in a crowd he is the first noticed.

It is for this reason that I would have my brethren and sisters suppress themselves, stand back! I would have real Jews take the worst of a bargain once in a while for the sake of the race. I would have them once in a while give up their seats in public conveyances, behave modestly in cafés, dress quietly, and give up the use of assumed Christian names.

There is nothing so pathetic as the man who, with Hebrew face, assumes a Christian name. I never go to a public place without wishing that my fellow Jew would talk less and appear less ostentatious. When one Hebrew comes in late to a show, marches down the aisle and on the front row deliberately obstructs the view of people in the audience as he stands slowly removing and folding his coat and gloves, he seems to cause more annoyance than if half a dozen Gentiles did the same thing. When a Jew stands aside and waits patiently at a ticket window, gives his seat to a lady on a street car or behaves in a refined manner in any walk of life, he immediately makes friends for our people.

Most of our people, I have found, have aggressive personalities: it is the aggressiveness which has enabled many immigrants to pass through Ellis Island to ownership of fine apartment houses all within a couple of years—but sometimes this aggressiveness becomes absolutely cruel, crushing from the very soul all the tender elements which go to make up a happy life.

Recently I thought with much bitterness of my father’s last words to me: “If you need sympathy, love or help, go to your own race.” Ill-health overcame me and I became involved in debt for a trifling amount. Each stage of my embarrassment and consequent suffering was contributed to by a brother Jew. First, the shyster lawyer, without principle or mercy, then his brutal clerks, sly and grafting. Next, a collector, absolutely callous, then the process server, and, at last, the “bouncer,” sans heart, sans soul, sans everything.

If all these agents of misfortune were Gentiles I could have borne it, but the greatest heartbreak of all was the fact that one and all of them were brother Jews. Why must a Jew always be in at the death, as it were?

There came a time soon after this when I walked the streets almost penniless. Seeking work, I applied at the store of a wealthy Hebrew. I explained to the well-groomed proprietor that I was an orthodox member of his race and appealed on that ground for a chance. He pooh-poohed the idea.

“My dear fellow,” said he, “these are the enlightened days, when Judaism is not taken seriously, in fact, it doesn’t pay. I am a Christian Cultist, I meet nice people and it helps my business.”

Here was a poor fool with his head like the ostrich’s—in the sand. I explained to him that being a Jew was not a question of religion but a question of blood. I told him that if a Jewish leopard ceased visiting the synagogue to go to a Christian Cultist chapel it did not necessarily get rid of its spots. I left him scratching his head, and I also lost the chance of a job in his store.

In and out of offices presided over by men with Jewish faces I trudged all day. Most of these men, I subsequently learned, belonged to New Thought, Christian Cultist and other up-to-date churches and societies—it was good for their business. They called themselves Christians, but nature’s marks cannot be changed like one’s clothes.

In the great theatrical districts I found thousands of my fellow Jews who had grown rich overnight by coining perhaps a popular song that had pleased the cabaret-mad crowd or by ridiculous impersonations of their race upon the music hall stages. A good many of these were young men, sons of fathers and mothers who had been driven from their own country with fire and sword.

The mothers and fathers stay at home blessing God every hour of the day and night for guiding them to such a country as this, while the sons and daughters are out at the theaters, in the halls and cabarets singing songs of Dixie. Passing by in this great throng are prominent actors, critics and playwrights, many under assumed names, simply because their own names are Jewish.

Flashing across the horizon as I write is a notorious Jewish doctor with a consumption cure. He could have been famous and honored had he but suppressed himself, instead of which he, with his commercial instinct and his press agent methods, made more enemies for the race. Many Gentiles, I will admit, have had consumption cures, but it remained for one of our people to float companies and open institutions before the “cure” was even reported upon by the government.

Tramping the city tired and weary of looking for friendly Jewish faces I found myself near the City Hall. I approached a milk station and bought a cent’s worth of the most delicious milk I have ever tasted. A rough-looking fellow next to me said, as he smacked his lips:

“Pretty good stuff, that,” and perhaps noting that I was a stranger, he added: “The guy who is doing this milk thing is saving the babies all right—he’s some rich Jew—God bless him—I’ve got three babies of my own.”

Hungering to hear a Jew praised I talked with this man for an hour, listening with keen enjoyment to the story of one of my race who had caused his millions to do good for the people irrespective of creed, and had kept himself suppressed. I learned of this Jew’s efforts for the dying babies at home and for his starving co-religionists in Palestine and felt proud. Proud and happy for the first time, I sat in the little park watching the passing procession till I dozed off into a sound sleep. My happiness continued in my sleep, for I had a most beautiful dream.

Before me in my dream passed a grand parade; it was a series of “For the good of the race” tableaux. All the prominent professional Jews headed the procession with their real names and the name of their race emblazoned upon silk banners in letters of gold. Then came all the Hebrew gambling house keepers bearing aloft broken roulette wheels and other emblems of a discarded and disgraced “business.”

Next in order was a large army of Hebrews who were professional bondsmen for arrested street walkers headed by two crooked ward politicians carrying a streamer with the words: “Henceforth we will go to work.” These men looked a little sad as they marched along thinking of the easy money they were leaving behind, but the cheers of the multitude exulting over their great sacrifice somewhat atoned for their agony of mind. Next followed the amalgamated Jewish usurers, real estate and company promoters’ union. This part of the parade took four hours and a half to pass a given point.

All the marchers had discarded their expensive clothing and their diamonds and were modestly attired. They had also discarded their automobiles—many of the prominent men in this section carried flags and banners upon which were inscribed the legends:

 “We will not lie about values.” “We will not charge exorbitant interest” and “We will not water our stock.” These inscriptions were received with incredulous looks of astonishment, and many of the crowd called out: “We’re from Missouri,” whatever that meant.

Then came a beautiful torchlight brigade called “The Hebrew Firebugs’ Union.” Nearly all these men had their hair close-cropped and wore prison clothes, a fact which filled the crowd with relief. Next came that part of the procession which showed the greatest following among its marchers. It was the large army of Hebrew “aggressives.” Hundreds and thousands of them passed by with reformed looks upon their faces. Oh, I felt so happy as I read the buttons they wore and saw the flags they carried. Most of the streamers read: “We will suppress ourselves.” “We will stand back and keep quiet.” “We will be unostentatious.” There they were, hundreds of well-known faces and types—end-seat hogs, front-seat hogs, loud talkers, inconsiderates, bargainers and the terrible army of people that go to make up the crowd which is directly responsible for the anti-Semitic feeling. The line of them was miles long.

I was awakened from my happy dream by a rude thump from a Jewish policeman who hurried me to a police station, where I was surrounded by shyster lawyers, my brethren, who wanted money with which they could square other brethren. I could not gain the services of a Hebrew bondsman because I had no pull. A Hebrew magistrate called me a “bum” and a loafer for going to sleep in a public park.

“Keep awake in the future,” he said as I was roughly bundled out of the court.

Keep awake! This is the worst advice he could have given me, for I was so happy asleep and dreaming that my brethren and sisters had reformed and had become real Jews for the sake of the race.

I now look upon my police court humiliation as the best thing that could have happened to me, for a kindly old Jewish scholar, who acted as court interpreter, was attracted by my appearance. His long contact with human misery and his great experience with foreigners stranded in a strange country enabled him to understand me.

That night he took me to his poverty-stricken little room behind a delicatessen shop in the Ghetto. After supper he went to the street door and called the neighbors from their stoops. He called them by their first names and I said kaddish for my father as they stood around among the pickle barrels.

Since then I have lived among Jews, real Jews. I have learned that beneath the ragged coat of a push-cart vender there may beat a heart of gold, and that a poor seller of collar buttons or suspenders may be a student of the Talmud with a mind that is a gift of the gods.

Leaving the seething, modern, fashionable life of upper Broadway to enter the religious atmosphere of the numerous schools of Jewish literature on the East Side entails a violent contrast in conditions.

To see the deeply furrowed, time-scarred faces of the grand old men pouring over their beloved Talmud is to get a glimpse of another world—a world of resignation, peace and love.

Within earshot of the thundering traffic of Broadway I stood gazing at the bowed figures engaged in study and prayer. As I gazed the sordid walls of the poverty-stricken room faded from my sight, and in their stead I saw (in my mind’s eye) the wailing wall of Jerusalem or some ruin of the Holy City—a more fitting background to the rabbinical figures so strangely out of place in hustling America.

The great passion for the dead and gone past reflected in the Rembrandtesque faces of the aged students lends to their lives a religious grandeur which the uptown tourist (hastily passing on a rubber-neck wagon) would never suspect. Behind many a shabby-looking little store, or maybe, above some corner saloon, are the societies for the study of Hebrew literature, where congregate the types of Jewish scholars and philosophers that make the heart of the writer and artist glad.

Gray-haired, bewhiskered, sad old men, many of whom have tasted only the bitterness of life—yet such is their faith in the Almighty that they cling to the praying shawl and Bible to blot out the memory of a Kishineff—their lives of study and prayer amid abject poverty giving the lie to the fallacy that the Jew lives but for money.

I have often wandered among these scholars picking up the crumbs of wisdom which fall from the lips of the old men, grateful that my Jewish face and blood gave me the privilege to sit and sketch among them. Somehow or other my ramblings on the East Side are like the calm after the storm of the uptown struggle.

Many times I have felt the heart tug—the longing to be among my people—the real Jews—and, leaving theatrical uptown, the land of make-believe and unrest, I have sought the little schools of study where the wonderful real old men who live by optimism and nourish their souls by faith teach me the lesson of patience and the love of humanity.

There is something restful and inspiring when an old man—long past the biblical three score and ten—places his hand on your shoulder and murmurs in Yiddish, “It is God’s will.” I have envied the profound peace of many of these aged students living in the past and undisturbed by thoughts of the future. Their Jewish view of life is as beautiful as it is simple. It disregards neither earth nor heaven. I looks to earth and observes the evil prevailing among men; it thinks of heaven and ponders on the bliss of “the future state,” and it urges man to strive to bring heaven on earth, to establish by justice and equity those blessed conditions on earth which so many associate with heaven.

Their Jewish view of death is equally beautiful. For those who die they feel no sorrow. Having once torn aside the veil which parts the known and the unknown, having once entered into the shadow, or rather the sunshine, of the beyond, they are better off in the other life. Whether death means eternal sleep or eternal life, those who have left our side, having passed into the arms of pitiless death, repose in a condition which should give survivors no cause for anxiety on account of their beloved dead.

In the pathetic chapter of “The Old Curiosity Shop,” in which Dickens tells of the death of Little Nell, he makes the Schoolmaster utter these words of wisdom, on which all who mourn for their dead may well ponder. “If,” said he, “one deliberate wish expressed in solemn terms above the bed could call her back to life, which of us would utter it?”

Dickens took this view of death from the Talmud.

The interpretation of a difficult passage from the Talmud, or the coining of an epigram, is as food and wine to the wise old students, and there is not an ill in their lives that cannot be soothed or a blessing that cannot be acknowledged in a quotation from their beloved book. To watch them at their study and devotions undisturbed by the turmoil about them is to marvel at the faith which has enabled some of them to live more than one hundred years with no other interest in life than their God and their books.

From the dingy windows of the schools the mass of sordid buildings looks to their eyes like the hills of Palestine, and the shriek of the passing elevated trains and the clanging of the car bells and the din of passing traffic disturb them not, for they live in the past.

The alleged Jew of the fashionable uptown lobster palaces—the blatant, pushing type, who is the direct cause of much anti-Semitic feeling—knows and cares nothing for the submerged student of his race. The latter is equally oblivious of the alleged Jew who is contemptuously referred to as a meshumad (apostate). But while the former stands out in the world of money and worldly success as a target for much abuse and hatred, the latter lives with books, unknown and unheeded, drawing from the Talmud a joy that riches cannot buy and solacing himself with the love of humanity.

In strong contrast to their fathers and grandfathers are the children of these old men. Modern America, with its opportunities for all, has torn them from the religious atmosphere and sent them uptown to become the lawyers, the artists and the actors.

The Jewish comedian of the vaudeville theater who nightly sets the audience shrieking at his Yiddish idioms is in nine cases out of ten the son of a scholar, and though the glamour of Broadway success claims him and he no longer lives home, in his heart of hearts he is a Jew and never forgets the old people. He will tell many stories of his parents to his Gentile friends, imitating and exaggerating their many characteristics, but he is mighty sore when he hears a Gentile do the same thing. But, after all, the comic Jew of the modern stage is but an imaginary sketch.

There is absolutely nothing humorous in these old men of Judea. Even in the sordid surroundings where you find them engaged in prayer or study, their attitude is one of quiet dignity—a dignity enhanced by their extreme old age.

In a little dark den behind a poultry store I was sketching some of the old men at study. One old fellow one hundred and four years old was explaining to a young fellow of sixty a passage in the Talmud about which the latter was in doubt. Both men were without coats. The younger man had left his push-cart at the door, entirely forgetting the perishable goods thereon and quite oblivious to the fact that hundreds of dirty children were surrounding his cart and fooling with his wares.

Other old men were in the school, and the background to their somber faces was the shop with its ghastly poultry suspended by the necks. One of the old Talmudic students would now and again leave his ponderous Bible to serve in the shop, returning after wrapping a fowl in a newspaper, to the verse he had been propounding. There was absolutely nothing humorous in all this, but I would love to have had some of my non-Jewish friends see how little thought of money and business the real Jew has.

Sometimes when I have felt full of shame at the behavior in public places of men and women with Jewish faces but with no Judaism in their hearts, I have wished that the simple, studious lives of the old men of the East Side could be the standard by which our race is judged, and that the Talmudic saying so aptly put into verse by Rabbi Myers was better known:

“Which is the path, both right and wise, That for himself a man should find? That which himself much dignifies, And brings him honor from mankind.”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 7 May 1921]

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.”

—Jesse H. Holmes, in The American Hebrew

Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem

This is a candid address to the Jews of the United States. Without subterfuge, without flattery, wholly without fear of all that they may threaten or can do, this attempt is made to set before them the Jewish Question as their question, theirs to acknowledge, theirs to consider, theirs to solve.

It is not a question of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT at all. This paper has merely become the vehicle of unwelcome facts which have finally thrust themselves up for final disposal in this country.

Damning this paper, compelling cheap city politicians to interfere with its sale, indulging in ribald humor concerning it, will not affect the facts at all. What THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT says is true or it is untrue. If true, it ought to be considered. If untrue, it ought to be disproved. The present policy of Jewish leaders is to do neither, but to indulge in antics which go a long way toward illustrating what this paper has said.

What THE DEARVBORN INDEPENDENT says is true, and tens of thousands of Jews know it is true.

No representative Jew has ever approached us with a denial of the truth of what has been stated in this paper. Neither has any unrepresentative Jew.

The chief objection made against the publication of the facts is always stated in this form: “What you say is true. Certain Jews are guilty of the things you charge. But why do you say ‘Jew’? Why do you not say Al Wood, Morris Gest, Louis Marshall, Samuel Untermyer, ‘Wolf’ Lamar, Edward Lauterbach, Felix Warburg—why not let it go with these men’s names, why say ‘Jew’? When you say ‘Jew,’ it sounds as if you blamed all the Jews.”

This objection has been seriously and courteously made by a number of Jews who have conferred with THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT on this series of articles, and has been as seriously and courteously considered.

What is the answer? First, that these men are Jews. Second, that being Jews these men constitute a problem for the Jews themselves. Third, it is time for some one to call attention to the necessity of cleaning up on that problem. There has been too much mincing of words. There has been too much concealment of names and relationship. The method which Jews were taking in this country with regard to concealment was heading them swiftly toward the same conditions which have menaced their race in Europe, and THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT would count no labor lost that would rouse the Jews to a sense of the responsibility which rests on them to solve the Jewish Question in this country, possibly the only country where it can be solved.

Let us be frank: if this paper had mentioned only the names of individual Jews, never mentioning their race, and had exposed them as isolated persons, it would have made no difference in the general Jewish reaction, the cry would still have been that “the Jews were being attacked”; whereas the other people of the country would have been just as much in the dark regarding the close bonds which unite all the groups of evil influences in this country. The purpose of this series of articles is to let in the light—to show the Jews generally that the stench had become too great, and to show the rest of the people where the stench arose.

The list of charges for the Jews of the United States to consider as affecting the distinguished members of their race is very serious. And the charges are true.

It is true that there is a distinct “Jewish idea” in business and professional life which has eaten away the traditional principles of honor on which Anglo-Saxon life was erected. Every Jew knows that, every non-Jew knows it. Here and there a Jew in business or professional life makes a breakaway from trickery, deception, dishonesty, and exploitation of the gullible public, and achieves success with honor, but that Jew also knows that the majority of his brethren in the same line practice different methods.

It is true that behind the amazing degeneracy of the modern stage and motion picture is a solid wall of Jewish ownership and control. This ownership and control must bear the responsibility for the rapid and dangerous deterioration which has come since such ownership and control was achieved.

It is true that behind all the shoddy and make-believe and adulteration in the staples of life is the Jewish idea of profits, “making the ephah small and the shekel great,” and that the initiators of American business into these shady practices were Jewish. It is idle to retort that apt pupils have been found among non-Jews; the point is that before Jewish influence began to be felt in American business, sound quality and a fair price were the rule. It is the Jews’ ceaseless boast that wherever they go they change business, but not for the better.

It is true that beneath all the network of trivializing influences in literature, art, politics, economics, fashion and sport, is Jewish influence controlled by Jewish groups. Their Orientalism has served as a subtle poison to dry up the sound serum of Anglo-Saxon morality on which this country thrived in its formative years. Is it necessary to specify? In every movement toward a lower standard, a looser relationship, especially toward the overthrow of the old Christian safeguards, do not Jewish names predominate?

These charges and many more have all been made in detail with evidence submitted, and need not be repeated here. The present purpose is simply to get the problem squarely before the Jews of the United States.

These charges are true, they cannot be disproved, Jewish leaders have not attempted to disprove them. Thousands of Jews have said that they are true.

Then where is the obstacle to a settlement?

This question is best answered by three typical replies made by Jews during the course of the present series.

1. “What you say is true, but you should not say it.”

There is a principle, seldom expressed among the Jews, but always acted on, that Jews should not have public attention called to them except by themselves or their chosen spokesmen. This is unfortunate, because any establishment of the Jews as an accepted and trusted part of the general citizenry must include their being known as such. In this country the Jew should not only welcome the widest knowledge (unless he has something he fears to have known) but should himself undertake the exposure of those things which will eventually bring a shadow on the name of his race. The Jew has never done this. When exposure could no longer be suppressed, the Jewish attitude has always been one of defense, regardless of the merits of the case. “The Jew can do no wrong” is the principle acted upon. Never must a “Gentile” charge be admitted, however true it may be. Never must a “Gentile” reform be assisted, no matter how much needed.

Now, that principle may do for other countries, but not for the United States. If the Jew is wise, he ought speedily to take warning that in this country the old line of action will not succeed. If Jews continue to show a disposition to defend the malefactors of their race against the just expostulations of the rest of the people, they must not be surprised if the public begins to view them as all one crowd—an inner nation set against the outer nation.

2. “What you say is true, but your conclusion is wrong: it is not for the Jew to change to your standards, it is for you to change to the Jew’s standards.”

This is the fighting view. It admits that there are two ideas in conflict in the United States, what it unfairly terms the “Puritanic” idea, opposed by what it calls the Jewish Universal idea.

This view would command respect if it represented a superior morality in conflict with a lesser morality, if it represented a higher civilization against a lower civilization. Will any Jew contend that it does? Will any Jew deny that the influence of the Jewish idea in this generation is to break down such morality as we had? Will any Jew deny that the civilization of the United States before the advent of the Jews thither was superior to the highest civilization ever achieved by the Jews anywhere at any period of their history?

There are two ideas in conflict—that is certain. The Jewish idea has a tremendous infiltrating force and a serious degenerative power. It is a powerfully disintegrating influence. It eats the substance out of the civilization which it attacks, destroys its moral virility, throws down its reverence, saps its respect for authority, casts a shadow on every basic principle.

That is the way the Jewish idea works in American civilization. Moral gravitation being, like physical gravitation, downward, it is not difficult to seduce human nature to lower levels, but it is a massive task to lift it to higher levels of morality and reverence and sober justice. And this latter task, organized Jewish effort has never attempted. The campaign in the United States is a campaign for the breakdown of the ideas that now obtain, not a lifting of them to a higher degree of nobility.

If it were an attempt to substitute the austerity of the Mosaic law—the law given to Moses, not the ordinances decreed by Moses—for the half-hearted Christian idealism of the day, even that would be a task in which all right-hearted men could join. But Moses condemns the modern Jews more severely than anyone else could. They have rejected the Mosaic law. They have built their international power upon the exact opposite of the Mosaic law. Moses was given a law of human society which would have saved civilization its greatest tragedies. Moses has a social program, obedience to which for one day would completely wreck the Jewish international power. Moses is their judge, and when the Law is established Moses will be their destroyer.

Let the Jews think seriously what is this idea which they set up to follow. Let them penetrate the mists and seek out where this idea originated. Let them think forward and visualize the effect if this idea should become regnant. It will not become regnant here; there are safeguards here which the true Israelite will understand; but it is as certain as day that the idea will in the end destroy, utterly destroy, all who trust in it.

This much is gained, however, from the attitude we are now discussing: we have gained clarity of understanding as to just what it is that is in collision; it is two ideas, and one of them is the idea of disruption, fostered by the false and delusive hope that disruption will spare the disrupter.

3. “What you say is true, and we Jews could change it if we only would. The trouble is, we don’t want to seem to be driven to it. But I don’t see how otherwise we are to do it.”

Many Jews will recognize this sentiment as their own, but they will be readier to express it to a non-Jew than to a Jew. Why? Because prophets must be prepared to suffer in Judah. “Well, if you insist on playing Christ, you must expect to be crucified,” said Lilienthal to Isaac Wise. “O Jerusalem, that stonest them that are sent to thee!”

Yet there is need of prophets in Judah today, men who will rise among the people and tell them plainly. The rabbinate is utterly bankrupt of the prophetic spirit. It has fallen into the blindness of the old priesthood. Here and there a literary man attempts to speak, but Jewish “art” has so accustomed the Jews to make-believe that the writing is looked upon as a performance, nothing more.

No one with a sense for such things—and there are believers still left in Judah—will doubt that the times are ripe for a great change respecting the Jews. So strong is the feeling among the remnant of believing Jews that it is interpreted as forewarnings of the Messianic period. Among the Judaized Christian sects, other interpretations are given to the times, most of which are used to support political Zionism which represents the materialism and unbelief of present-day Judaism and which will undoubtedly fail as a national restorative and as a political program. But however misinterpretative these sectarian and Jewish conclusions may be, they indicate a sense of imminent change. A greater change is indicated than migration to Palestine would be—for that would not mean any change at all in the world, and certainly no change for the better in the fortunes of the Jews. Christians—misguided Christians, one must say—who see God’s alleged will of universal Jewish dominion fulfilled by means of the Jews’ defiance and despite of the Law given to Moses, ought to re-examine their ground for so strange and immoral a conclusion. The break-up of this civilization, this age of civilization, will occur because of the collapse of this system by which the Jew has obtained his hold on the nations. The system that gives him his hold is doomed, is passing, and the fallacy of Jewish tribal destiny to rule the world will pass with it.

With this change already on the threshold, prophets should be expected to arise in Judah to recall their people to the Law whose previous denial meant their overthrow. These prophets will not be of the “Reform school” which denies the God of Israel as a divine Person, nor will they be of the ultra-orthodox school which makes much of fringes and cookery—they will be of the race of the ancient prophets who spake boldly against Judah’s violation of the fundamental law.

Our confidence is that a sufficient number of Jews will see the truth and act upon it.

What would be the greatest overturn the present Jewish idea, the disruptive Jewish idea, could possibly have? This: a knowledge that the way they are going is the way their own Law foredooms to failure, and that the people they hope to triumph over are the people their own Scriptures say they are not to triumph over.

The first is beyond dispute: there is no success for the Jew, no establishment of him in the world except upon the basic law given to Moses. In any other attempt he must fall when the structure collapses.

The second is in dispute, but is by no means beyond consideration, especially by Jews.

In these matters the Jews are much wiser than the so-called Christians. There is among the Jews “the law of the brother” and “the law of the stranger.” The “law of the stranger” permits several important things which the “law of the brother” prohibits. The Jews have been treating the rest of the world, often intentionally, sometimes as a matter of course, according to the “law of the stranger.” This is one of the influences which has helped to solidify Jewry against the rest of the world.

Suppose it should be shown that the people in whose lands the Jews have never been persecuted, the people of those lands to which the Jews have never been “driven” but to which they have hopefully and joyfully come, are not “strangers” and are not to be treated as “strangers” and, so far from being “strangers,” are really the leaders and rulers of that ethical stream of influence of which the Jews, but for their disloyalty to their destiny, might have been an important part!

Suppose it should be shown that Judah, the “driven” part of Israel, has been blindly attacking the “led” part of Israel. Suppose it should be shown that Judah is not the Israel upon whom great destiny is to come, but a small part of that Israel and not even a participating part, until it “returns, returns, returns.”

If these things should once take hold of the intensified consciousness of Judah, as facts, there would be such a change in human society in general, such a change in the Jewish situation in particular, as would make a return to Palestine a mere summer excursion in comparison.

Jews are thinking about those very matters now. They are thinking from within. They are seeking a reason (the thoughtful among them) for the sense of unfitness which they feel when they adopt the traditional attitude of enmity toward the “others,” the “others” in this case being the Anglo-Saxon peoples. The reason for this sense of impropriety is that here, in this land, the Jew will have to change his attitude of antagonism and dwell in peace as in a land prepared for him. Not as lord of it, by any means, but as a grateful wanderer at last come home. Not as a ruler, but as adding his bit to the righteousness, prosperity and peace of the people.

It is not a question of religion. Let the Jew get back his Mosaic religion—it is the most perfect social system ever devised and directly contrary to the practical modern Jew’s idea of things.

It is not a question of intermarriage. Let the Jew keep as long as he pleases his idea that he is racially different. The suggestion of intermarriage is a crude one and always indicates a lack of grasp of the Jewish Question.

Let the Jew keep all his traditions. They are not objectionable in any way; the slightest regard for them can only hold them as romantic.

But let him shed his false notion of “the Jew against the world!”

Let him shed his false program of breaking down Christendom by the infiltration of Orientalism into business, art, entertainment and the professions.

Let him abolish the false ideal that it is an honor to Jewry to save a guilty Jew from the common law, and a disgrace to Jewry to see a guilty Jew punished by the common law.

Let him draw up notice on all the Jews of the United States who by hook or crook are sowing vile seed in society, that the Jewish community charges itself with their misbehavior and will use methods well known to Jews to bring that misbehavior to an end.

Let the Jew end forever the disgrace of an anti-defamation committee which grows frantic over innocent remarks on the part of “Gentiles,” and is absolutely indifferent to the misdeeds of thousands of Jews who do more damage to the Jewish name than all the “Gentile” critics and newspapers could do in twenty years. No one can give the Jews a bad reputation but the Jews themselves.

Most Jews who have given this matter a thought will agree. A good deal of bad temper exists among them, no doubt, and it will be hard for them to admit that anything THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT may contend for is right, but the idea here expressed, when divorced from this paper, does command respect from many Jews.

The question remains: When will they start on the program here suggested?

Human nature being what it is, they will hate to start at all if it will seem that the present agitation has compelled them. But would they have started without the agitation?

Is it possible for an additional number of Jews to catch the thought that this series of articles cannot be so easily explained away—we are not referring to the contents now, but to the fact that these articles exist at all—as being the creation of prejudice, or hatred or vindictiveness or ignorance?

Suppose these articles should be truly a sign of the times for American Jewry! Suppose they offer a warning word, however unwelcome, and a light, however undesired, which it would be most unwise for Jews to ignore.

Suppose these articles were conceived in a spirit far different than the average pro-Jewish spouter is competent to understand. Suppose the ultimate benefit will be mostly Judah’s. Suppose the set time has now come for the Jews to quit their attitude of attacking everyone who shows them the truth, and to profit by this report of the poor figure they cut in American life today. Suppose these people who are moved to search and report the truth about Judah are truly the shophar calling the people to a new day—is it wise to let stubborness counsel? Is it wise to let pride close the ear?

The enemies of the Jews are those who defend them for the pay of hire or praise or votes. The enemies of the Jews are those who bespeak them fair to their faces and express quite different thoughts behind their backs. The writer of this personally knows that two of the principal “Gentile” defenders of the Jews, men who have shouted and ranted through the Press on the Jews’ behalf, are men who privately hold and express thoughts about the Jews which are sheer hatred and enmity and—fear. Mostly fear! The enemies of the Jews are those who encourage them to take an attitude that they cannot hold in America—not as affecting their personal liberty at all, but their social attitude and the Public Right. These are the enemies of the Jews, and yet these are the ones whom Judah counts his friends. They are hired friends, false friends, incapable of realizing for a moment what this whole Question means. Judah’s friends today are those who will speak the surgical truth to him, braving his fury in the knowledge that the future will justify the word.

Judah’s leaders have betrayed him in this country—they do not know they have crossed the Jordan. The Jews are as sheep without shepherds in this land. And the chief objection which the Jewish leaders have to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is that the Jews may read it and learn how shepherdless they are, the Jewish leaders’ opposition to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT rises mostly from the fear that the Jews may read it! The Jews have read it, and they have not found hatred, they have not found abuse and calumny, they have not found ignorance and malice; they have found statements of fact calmly set forth, not to arouse hatred among the non-Jews, but to arouse a sense of social responsibility among the Jews.

These are significant times. The emergence of the Jewish Question is a part of the culmination of destiny that has come upon us, not for harm but for good. The Jews must uncover their eyes and unstop their ears, and they will see the beginning of the end of their travail, and they will hear that to which they have been too long heedless.

The justification of a discussion of the Jewish Question is the good of the Jews, and the greatest present obstacle to that good is the Jews themselves. The time is here when they shall see it.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 7 January 1922]

“Everywhere they wanted to remain Jews, and everywhere they were granted the privilege of establishing a State within a State. By virtue of these privileges and exemptions, and immunity from taxes, they would soon rise above the general condition of the citizens of the municipalities where they resided; they had better opportunities for trade and accumulation of wealth, whereby they excited jealousy and hatred.”

—Lazare.

An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Problem

The heading of this article presents difficulties. The correct use of the term “Gentile” is in question. It is a name that has been given us, not by ourselves, but by Jews, and it is by no means certain that it is accurately given. A very great chance exists that it is not. That, however, is a matter which “gentiles” do not bother to understand; they think, of course, that if one is not a Jew one must be a gentile This is only another instance of the Jewish view being “put over” without the “gentile” understanding or even questioning it.

There is another difficulty: how shall one address “gentiles” collectively? When one addresses Jews he knows that the Jew is always a Jew; that every Jew acknowledges every other Jew; that Jews understand each other and are loyal to each other as against “outsiders”; that they think together and act together; that they stand together for Jewish defense, no matter how just the charge brought against them. When you address Jews you address a unit, and when you discuss Jews you get a united reaction from them.

This cannot be said of gentiles. They are of many races, many nationalities, many religions, many tongues. They never think of themselves as being united under the name “gentiles.” They are not race or class conscious; certainly they do not think of themselves as a unit with reference to the Jews as an opposite unit. “Gentiles” cannot be organized into one group nationally, let alone internationally, as Jews can. Jews of every shade of opinion, of every degree of religion and of unreligion, can unite all round the world, and do unite, having their own news service, their own telegraph service, their own “foreign department” (as they themselves describe it), by which they keep themselves united and informed for mass action. There is nothing even remotely approaching that among “gentiles.”

Not that this fact can be urged against the “gentiles” as a fault. There are reasons why the “gentiles” never can be united. And one reason is that among the so-called “gentiles” there is a regnant superior strain that is not “gentile” at all; no more is it Jewish. There are racial and moral strains among the non-Jewish section of the world which never can be brought into agreement. And, outside this superior strain, among the gentiles proper, the very basis for enduring union is lacking.

So that the only union that can be expected is a union of the superior strain, which physically and morally is unconquerable, and whose task it is to liberate the lesser peoples who easily fall victims to subversion and have no reactive power to rescue themselves.

It is to this human Gulf Stream that flows through the ocean of humanity, blessing it, that this address is offered. As to the identity of this section of humanity—“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” The others will not, because they cannot. There are many genuine gentiles mixed up in our common population, but it is not to them that these words are offered.

The Jewish Question has existed for a long time, as the Jew knows and admits, and is a consequence of certain un-Jewish, or rather un-Israelitish ideas held by Jewish persons of power. The disability under which the Jew labors is that he is not a Jew, properly speaking, and does not desire to be. Just at that point is the soil and the root of the Jewish Question.

Tackling the Jewish Question is not congenial work. The Race which this article now addresses has always shrunk from tackling it. Our Race has little disposition to chastise any portion of humanity, to arouse feeling or resist it. We have little taste for this surgical work which becomes absolutely necessary when certain corrupt influences deeply dislocate and seriously injure the common life. Nothing but a clear vision of the danger, nothing but an imperative sense of duty would impel any one of us to embark on a course which is subject to misunderstanding and which must, in the nature of things, wait long for its complete justification. Our Race is too fair, and has always been too fair, to enter hastily into judgement—and upon this fairness and long-suffering the offending groups have often seriously trespassed.

Regarded by itself, as a separate entity, the Jewish Power is most impressive.

International Jews today occupy literally every controlling lever of power. Building up for centuries, perfecting their teamwork from generation to generation, from country to country, they have practically reached the summit. Nothing but the Christian religion remains unvanquished by them, though through false “liberalism” even that has felt the Jewish assault. So great is this power that the very knowledge of it kills hope that any movement can ever dislodge it. Earnest, honest men have walked around it, surveyed it, measured its strength, and have given up the dream of changing it. In Russia they tried to segregate it, but while segregation went on from one side, infiltration proceeded from the other, and even the “anti-Semitic” Russian Government was honey-combed with Jews, as the end showed. In Germany they endeavored to vote the Jewish power out of politics, only to find the root deep-set in finance—and no country has yet attacked the sacred image of gold. In England the policy of absorption was adopted, and the result is that wherever a Jew was put in power the British Empire has reaped trouble, in Ireland, in India, in Palestine, the present vice-regents of all these possessions being Jews. Other little countries, exasperated beyond endurance, tried violence, and failed just as miserably as the others.

Why? Because every one of these methods is precisely the method that the Jew prefers to have people try. He knows their futility first; they find it out later. He knows how these methods positively help him; they discover that later. The knowledge thus won would be pure gain, were it not that it also seems to discourage the hope of men who know how seriously wrong the situation is.

Besides this massive array of power, immovable as it appears, there is the veil cast over the Christian mind as to the supposedly peculiar destiny of “God’s chosen people.” The Christian cannot read the Bible except through Jewish spectacles, and, therefore, reads it wrong. The idea of “the chosen people” is one of the two great biblical ideas, but that the Jews constitute this Chosen People is entirely opposed to the statement of the Bible—even of the Bible which the Jews acknowledge, the Old Testament of the Christians. The blessings of world possession, world rule, superior population, commercial greatness, military power, constituted governments, “a great nation and a company of nations”—all of these means by which to spread light and healing among the nations—were truly promised to one people, to Israel, not to Judah. Judah’s destiny was to be quite different. Very few Bible readers ever note the distinction between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, yet this distinction was marked from the time of Jacob; the prophets absolutely insist upon it. Israel seceded from Judah, being unable to live with that people any longer. Israel’s destiny took them out into the world, and if the Bible be true, then Israel’s destiny of greatness is being fulfilled in Israel, and not in Judah. The two Houses are distinct to this day, although a future reunion, a spiritual reunion, is prophesied to come.

Yet the false idea that the Jews constitute All Israel has penetrated the Christian consciousness to an alarming extent, so that when the Jewish press insists, as it does every week, “We gave you your God, we gave you your Bible, we gave you your Christ,” even Christian ministers cannot find an answer. The answer is that the Old Testament is nine-tenths an Israelitish book, and not a Jewish book. Abraham was not a Jew; Isaac was not a Jew; Jacob was not a Jew; Moses was not a Jew; Joshua was not a Jew; Gideon was not a Jew; Samuel was not a Jew; even Esther and Mordecai were not Jews, but Benjamites; the majority of the prophets were not Jews, but Israelites. Upon the coming of Judah into power, in the persons of David and Solomon, the misrule was so great that Israel seceded, and the secession was sanctioned by the prophets. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ found his disciples in Galilee, far out of Judea, and of them there was but one, Judas, whose name indicates that he was a Jew. St. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, “the light tribe,” which was left with Judah “for a light.”

But there is a constant patter of preaching (the Russellites make it the great theme) that “the Jews are to rule the world because it is so prophesied.” The amazing blindness with which Christians have regarded the open pages of their Bible is the only explanation of this one-sided teaching which is confusing to the Christians and exceedingly dangerous to the Jews. In the Bible, Israel is the Chosen People of Blessing, and the time is announced when Judah shall walk to Israel and recognize them and become one with them. There is a chosen racial breed, a select seed, a superior strain of blood and soul in the world, but it is not Judah. One thing, therefore, that Christians can do, as a contribution to the solution of the Jewish Question, is to read their Bibles carefully.

The Jewish Question will be solved, and its solution will begin in the United States. But that does not mean that it will come as the result of a popular movement. Great changes do not occur that way. It makes little difference whether the mass of the people see this Question or not; the mass of the people are not always called into such matters. Their work is to hold the world steady while the change takes place. But a sufficient number of qualified persons have seen the Question to insure that now the era of solution has set in. The timid, the soft literary men in pulpits (with whose ilk Jeremiah had a keen acquaintance), the false preachers of “Peace, peace,” the hush brothers and sisters of every name, the shallow shouters for “fairness,” and all who are afraid of the truth in its surgical forms—these have no place in the healing of the hurt of these times; they are wedded to their softness. Nothing has been more shameful in the last two years than the spectacle of men bidding for the applause of bootleggers, and gamblers, and the lecherous masters of the modern stage, and the sinister Kehillah, and the antiChristian American Jewish Committee, because, forsooth, some one has fulfilled the duty to tell the truth. However, these things must always be, and the evil influences among the Jews have learned just what kind of help they may expect and from what kind of people.

THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has not been making a fight but fulfilling a duty to shed light on a matter crying for light. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, therefore, has never urged any individual or organization to join it in this work. Nor has it charged with cowardice those who for prudential or other reasons have kept silent. Editors especially have been absolved; not one of them was asked to lend his aid, although the files of this office hold thousands of written assurances from newspaper men all over the land, and from all parts of the world, testifying to the truth of our statements. Organizations have been proposed, for various purposes; strong organizations have offered themselves as vehicles for the carrying out of any plan THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT might propose. But all such undertakings have been avoided, our belief being that simply to state the truth, and let it work its own right will, was sufficient at this time. And to that belief and policy we have adhered.

“But what shall we do?” is the constant question; “How shall we balk this system which surrounds us and infects so much of our common life?”

Observe it, identify it, eschew it—that is more powerful than active opposition. The clear eye of the man who sees and understands is something that even the evil powers of Jewry cannot endure.

But the most potent action any awakened person can take is this: to erect again our own moral landmarks, which the Oriental Jewish invasion has broken down. This would spell sheer doom to the whole evil system sponsored by the Jews. And this is the course which has never been tried. To go back to the principles which made our race great, the principles to which we have been recreant and therefore have fallen an easy prey—this is the only invincible course. It is an opposition which evil Jews cannot understand and cannot defeat.

In place of the way of doing business which Jewish dealers have introduced, let the business men of the country adopt the old way of the white man, when a man’s word was as good as his bond, and when business was service and not exploitation.

Let the men and women of the country learn how to buy, let them learn how to test quallity in fabric and food, instead of being dependent on price tags. The merchandising practices of this country, in the hands of ruthless exploiters, have all but ruined honest merchants. Let any dweller in a great city recall the last twenty years, how the Christian merchants have been growing fewer and fewer. Why? Is it because the owners of Jewish department stores are better business men? No! The Jewish merchants began the practice of filling their store windows with goods that looked like the goods in reputable merchants’ windows, and sold them for a much lower price. The helpless public, no longer able to determine the quality of goods, and guided solely by price tags, flocked to the Jews’ store. The result is that one hears everywhere in ordinary conversation the complaint that “everything is shoddy.” Of course it is, and it will remain so, until we educate people in the art of buying. That of itself will break down three-fourths of the abuses practiced in the commercial world today.

Another contribution that can be made to the defeat of Jewish subversive influence is the examination of so-called “liberal” ideas, their source, their effect, their whole tendency. Men are thinking ideas today that poison them morally, socially and economically. These ideas are as deliberately shot into society as poison gas was shot into ranks of soldiers in France. Our mental hospitality has been grossly abused, the public mind has been made a sewer. The time has come for a custom barrier to be raised for the examination of imported ideas. Unrestricted immigration of ideas has been as bad for the American mentality as unrestricted immigration of people has been for American society.

We have taken our amusements withought thought of what was behind them in the way of deliberate intent to make us common and careless and coarse. We have read our newspapers, wholly innocent of the propaganda mixed with the news. We have even taken our religion in a Judaized form, without toubling to inquire whether it squared with the Bible, the textbook of religion. We have read our novels and have failed to see what serum the author was injecting along with his story. And all this has been possible because we have been asleep, enjoying, as we thought, a life which was swiftly being taken from us, and dreaming that the old principles still held sway.

It is perfectly obvious that the cure for all this is to become awake, alert, to challenge the foreign influence, and to seek out again the principles that gave us our greatness.

We have been weaned away from our natural leaders. We have been taught to look to those who cannot even speak our language and who do not hold our institutions dear. A people that turns from its own leaders, or a people whose leaders have been turned from the sacred responsibilities of the high office of leading, is in a precarious position, and becomes an easy victim to confusion of soul. There is a dearth of voices in the land today, the prophets are dumb, or are reading beautiful essays to the people. Suspicion has been sowed like darnel seed between classes of the same race, the people have been broken up, and the subversive Jewish influence supports the oligarchy of unserviceable wealth at one end of the social scale, while it stimulates the baser elements of industrial unrest at the other end. And the race thus rent asunder to its own undoing, does not see this—capital does not see, and labor does not see—that the leaders of chaos are alien in blood and soul.

To keep American and Christian the school, the church, the legislature, the jury room and the Government, is the most potent resistance that can be made to the evil influences which have been upon us and which this series of articles has partly uncovered. The strength of all subversive influence is in proportion as we cease to be what we ought to be. The evil influences surrounding this people can succeed only as they change this people into something less than it ought to be. Therefore, to go back to the old landmarks, whereby we made all the progress we ever made, is not only the part of wisdom, but the need of the hour. The school must be cleansed. The jury box must be kept inviolate—trial by jury has almost disappeared in Jewish New York. The church must be un-Judaized and Christianized. The Government must be Americanized. Let there be the utmost freedom of thought and speech, but let there be also with it a discrimination which will prevent the people being victimized by every spurious idea, every “gold brick” economic proposal which comes along. It needs only that men be awake to their better interests and to leave no place in their scheme of life for the practices which destroy the very foundations of confidence.

Surely it must be understood by this time that the Jews rule, not by reason of their brilliance or their money, but by ideas which are not even properly Jewish, but Babylonian. They have captured the castle from within. They have been able to do so only because of our ignorance of the lineage and dignity of the stock of ideas upon which our civilization has been founded. Our people needs to engraft itself again on the parent tree and draw again the sustenance which made it great and fruitful.

Many so-called “gentiles” are somewhat affected by the Jews’ wails of “persecution.” This has been sufficiently discussed in previous articles, but “gentiles” can further contribute to the solution of the Jewish Question by looking about them to see if they can discover any evidence of “persecution” here—unless it be persecution of the Christians by the organized agencies of the Jews! In this month’s Atlantic Monthly a Jewish rabbi, who undoubtedly knows better, assumes that his race is a hated race. He rather enjoys the thought and accepts it as a distinctive honor. Our “gentile” might also observe how untrue this is—how, indeed, in this mixture of nations, the Jew gets off with less even of the harmless kind of racial animosity than any other foreign admixture.

Above all, the “gentile,” so-called, who in ninety cases out of every one hundred is no gentile at all (as the Jews may well admit) will do well to avoid fear. Nothing is more abject than “the fear of the Jew,” and nothing more disastrous to the Jew than the tactics he employs to sustain that fear. The Jewish subversive power has been powerful only for evil and only where there was a disposition to evil. It has never yet succeeded in bringing shame or confusion to the right.

Indeed, there is one sure way of gaining the respect of the Jew, and that is, Tell The Truth. No one knows better than the Jew whether statements made about Jews are true or not. “Gentiles” may never be certain whether a statement made about the Jews may be relied upon, but Jews always know. That is why prejudice, abuse, hatred, scorn, ridicule, false charges roll off them as water off a duck. The Jews have never in all their history feared the lies of their enemies; but they have feared the truth. And if they only fear the truth in the ancient sense, not to be afraid of it but to fear to violate it, and to fear to have the truth testify against them, then the day of Judah’s return to standing has come. The truth is Judah’s friend, and Israel’s friend, and the world’s friend. It makes hard demands; it is sometimes not easy to speak and harder still to hear; but the truth heals, as Judah is due to discover.

There is this to say, that among the many thousands of persons who have written to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT confirming out of their own observation and experience the statements made in this series of articles, there has been a most gratifying absence of the spirit of violence. At the beginning a few rabid Jew-baiters made themselves known and expressed their hope that at last a regular program of pogroms was to be instituted. We never knew how far these advances were made with knowledge of the Jewish leaders, but we do know that for a year and a half in this United States the Jewish press, and Jewish thugs, and Jewish politicians, and even some of the most respectable of the Jewish organizations did their utmost, and in some of the strangest ways, to compel this Study of the Jewish Question to lead into violence and disorder. There was nothing that the Jewish leaders more desperately desired or more tirelessly worked for.

That was their first setback. Everywhere else in the world they had always been able to foment this sort of thing and label it “anti-Semitism.” The label “anti-Semitism” is one of the choicest weapons in the Jewish armory. But in the United States their plan failed.

It is their first notification that in this country the Question is going to be solved; it is not to be given a new lease of life by following the old mistakes.

THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT knows the temper of the American people in this question, that it is cool, fair, and somewhat more determined than it formerly was. But the Jews know this temper better than anyone else. Hence the magnitude and superb rashness of the propaganda with which they are literally flooding the country. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is grateful for the flood of Jewish propaganda. It has served in hundreds of important cases to give the confirmation to our statements which was wanted. Jewish literature has been a powerful informer of the gravity of the Jewish Question in the United States. The result was not what the Jewish leaders wished, of course, but it was serviceable to the truth just the same.

Now that the Question is open, now that the press is able to print “Jew” when necessary, now that a bunch of keys has been provided by which the people may unlock doors and make further inquiries, THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT will follow other aspects of the Question, discussing them from time to time as circumstances may warrant.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 14 January 1922]

From: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ijtoc_.htm

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/bellringers_corner/vital_articles/news.php?q=1195322144

ALSO SEE: 

http://allthatstreaming.com/pdf/the-international-jew-the-worlds-foremost-problem-by-henry-ford.pdf