LXIX.
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 re-enforcements 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, be 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 into 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 strategem. 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 then he goes, but not, we may well believe, until he had done all he
intended to do. David is delightfully Jewish and the Council are naïvely
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 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 ever
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 which 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 as
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 Franks’ 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
perjury on that occasion never left him. Franks insisted on having
himself vindicated all round, 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 intrusted 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.
——
Issue of October 23, 1921.
LXX.
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 brought 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 the 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 that 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 as 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 the 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 religions 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,” any more 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 Committee. 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.
——
Issue of November 12, 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 the 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._
LXXI.
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 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
criticising 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 the “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 burdensome 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 the 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
formula 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 point you are utterly puzzled to
understand the excitement it rouses.
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 father’s 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 near by 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.
——
Issue of November 5, 1921.
LXXII.
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 a 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 when 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, Incorporated.
“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 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 Fri__day, 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 statute 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: