Page
LXII. How Jews Gained American Liquor Control 7
LXIII. Gigantic Jewish Liquor Trust and Its Career 19
LXIV. The Jewish Element in Bootlegging Evil 31
LXV. Angles of Jewish Influence in American Life 41
LXVI. The Jews’ Complaint Against “Americanism” 54
LXVII. The Jewish Associates of Benedict Arnold 67
LXVIII. Benedict Arnold and Jewish Aid in Shady Deal 81
LXIX. Arnold and His Jewish Aids at West Point 95
LXX. The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names 109
LXXI. Jewish “Kol Nidre” and “Eli, Eli” Explained 121
LXXII. Jews as New York Magistrates See Them 132
LXXIII. Jews Are Silent, the National Voice is Heard 143
LXXIV. What Jews Attempted Where They Had Power 156
LXXV. The Jewish Question in Current Testimony 167
LXXVI. America’s Jewish Enigma—Louis Marshall 179
LXXVII. The Economic Plans of International Jews 193
LXXVIII. A Jew Sees His People As Others See Them 207
LXXIX. Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem 223
LXXX. An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Problem 235
_“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 cooperation 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._
LXII.
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 moral 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 a 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 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 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 the
original 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 judgment 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 the 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.
——
Issue of December 17, 1921.
LXIII.
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 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 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. Meyers 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 Levy 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 clean-up. 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 his 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 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 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” 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 Judaization, 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.
——
Issue of December 24, 1921.
LXIV.
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 1909, 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 this carefulness, the bulk of the arrests made
in the United States have been among Jews. The bulk of the liquor
permits—a guess of 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, vermuth, absinthe, or any other kind of hard liquor.
The stocks that existed when Prohibition went into force have not only
_not_ decreased, 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 of 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 years 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.
——
Issue of December 31, 1921.
LXV.
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 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 workingmen 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. These 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.