“‘In order to give to this section the construction claimed by the

defendant’s counsel, we must hold that the legislature has not only

utterly ignored this elementary principle (that to constitute a crime

there must be not only the act itself, but a criminal intent must

accompany the act), but, in violation thereof, has declared that, while

in the case specified, malice or intent must exist in order to

constitute the crime of procuring a process to be served on Saturday or

of procuring a civil action to be adjourned to that day, the crime of

serving a process which is returnable on Saturday may be committed

without any intent accompanying the act.

“‘This proposition, it seems to us, has only to be stated to render its

absurdity manifest; for the person who served the summons in this

action, as is generally the case, was a public officer; and it is fair

to assume that he performed his official duty in this instance without

knowing, or having any reason to suppose, that the party served regarded

one day of the week as more sacred than another.

“‘It is true that the defendant is a Jew, and certain racial

characteristics may have manifested themselves to such an extent as to

acquaint the officer with that fact, but there are other religions than

the Jewish which require the observance of the seventh day of the week

as “holy time,” and, consequently, if the rule contended for is to

obtain, an officer must somehow ascertain, in every instance before

serving a process, that the party upon whom it is to be served does not

come within the favored class; otherwise he renders himself amenable to

the statute.

“‘It is inconceivable that the legislature intended that a person thus

serving a process returnable on Saturday, in ignorance of the fact that

he was in any way interfering with the religious liberty of the party

served, should be regarded as a criminal and it is equally certain that

a conviction under such circumstances would be absurd and unjust, if not

impossible. A construction of a statute, therefore, which leads to such

a result should manifestly be avoided if practicable.’

“Judge Adams thereupon reversed the judgment of the county court and of

the municipal court, with costs.”

“Now Jewish politicians and Jewish lawyers are clever enough, as a

rule,” continued this magistrate. “Therefore it seems the more

surprising that they should waste their time and efforts in placing such

laws on the statute books, and trying to establish precedents by means

of them. It is very stupid business. The ultimate effect is calculated

to bring ridicule upon the Jew, and awaken suspicion, dislike and enmity

against his race.”

Another of the magistrates commented on the fact that in London, Jews

were permitted to trade on Sunday by Act of Parliament, but only within

the circumscribed limits of their ghetto. “When I was in London several

years ago,” he continued, “I was shown one of the Jewish Sunday markets

in full swing. Opposite it was an English church. But trade was confined

to the Yiddish district.

“But compared with New York, there is only a small Yiddish population in

the British metropolis. Our millions of Jews are scattered throughout

the city, and if we were to relax our Sunday laws in their favor, it

would mean goodby to the Christian Sabbath. I cannot understand the

attitude of the Jews on this question. They cheapen their own status by

their conduct.”

——

Issue of December 10, 1921.

LXXIII.

Jews Are Silent, the National Voice Is Heard

By order of Louis Marshall, the American Jewish Committee and the B’nai

B’rith, American Jewry has muffled the calculated furioso of its outcry,

and contents itself now with occasional yelps. No longer do the

syndicated sermons of the rabbis take their course across the country,

saying the same old untrue things in the same old insincere way. No

longer do editorial echoes spew villification across pages supported by

advertising blackmail levied upon the community. The outcry has ceased.

Suddenly, on order, orderly as a regiment on parade, American Jewry has

been turned from a termagant in action to a silent mystery. A most

impressive illustration of the inner control exercised by Jewish

leaders.

The psychology of it all, of course, is false. Jewry decided that it was

the attention which it paid to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT which gave these

articles vogue. The leaders asserted, indeed, that had the Jews of the

United States paid no attention, no one would have known that they were

under scrutiny. It is a rather flattering criticism to lay upon their

inability to meet the situation, but it lacks the merit of being true.

The Jews of the United States issued the order of silence, not out of

wisdom but out of fear. And not out of fear of injustice, but out of

fear of the truth. As soon as THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT issued its first

articles on the New York Kehillah (and only the outer edges of the facts

concerning that institution have as yet been set forth) it became

evident to Jewish leaders that something had to be done. They did not

challenge a public investigation; rather they used discretion, refused

to answer even the questions of local reporters, made absurdly untrue

denials, and gave every evidence of panic. Thereafter their safest

course was silence.

Not that they are inactive. Fearing a sudden investigation by the

authorities, the New York Kehillah has grown extremely busy and has

doubled the guards all round. Why?

The reason is that _there is a resolution in the United States Senate

which points directly at the New York Kehillah_.

Prominent Jews have invaded Washington on one pretext or another, but

only to turn their influence against that resolution. Why?

The reason is that that resolution provides for an investigation by a

Senate Committee into certain matters which have already been set forth

in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT.

Senate Resolution No. 60, introduced by Senator George H. Moses, of New

Hampshire, provides that the Amalgamated Clothing Workers (a Jewish

Bolshevik organization that is the feeder of Red activity throughout

this country) be thoroughly investigated. In the official language of

the Resolution: “The purposes, objects, methods and tactics of the

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and its relations, if any, with

_other political organizations and quasi-political groups_, and to make

a report to the Senate of such findings.”

Why has the New York Kehillah closed the portholes and called in

help—“Gentile,” by the way—to face a possible storm?

Why have the most prominent Jews in the United States hurried to

Washington to hold conferences with Senators, their object being to

bring pressure to bear against the Resolution?

Why should the American Jewish Committee, or members of it, why should

Jewish clothing manufacturers who are the principal sufferers from the

Amalgamated, why should Jewish members of the Baruch “war government” go

to Washington to interfere with a proposed investigation? Why?

Because such an investigation of the Amalgamated, honestly conducted,

would lead straight through to the New York Kehillah and the American

Jewish Committee and would rip the Jewish program in the United States

clean open to the public gaze—_if honestly conducted_.

Next to stopping the investigation, the Jews will try to control it.

That is really the greater danger. The country does not need the

investigation to get the facts. Most of the facts can be given now. The

country does need an investigation that will give the facts a

governmental exposure. But a pro-Jewish investigation, an investigation

conducted by elective office-holders who quake under “the fear of the

Jews,” would simply be an additional crime.

If the Jews lose their fight to kill the resolution, they have already

started on their plans to control the initiative of, divert the course

of, and defeat the purpose of the investigation.

If, therefore, the Jews are silent, they are not inactive.

But, the gain has been general. For instance, the country has been given

quiet and leisure to hear what the non-Jews think. During the Jewish

clamor, which was nothing more nor less than an attempt to stampede the

public opinion of the United States, it was impossible to hear the voice

of the people. Ministers who poured adulation upon the Jews were

reported in the Press; but ministers who seriously handled the Jewish

Question were not reported. Publications which could be induced to act

as Judah’s mouthpieces, were worked to the limit; publications which

desired to preserve the value of their opinions, did not join the

general hue and cry. In the succeeding lull, the still, small voice of

American conviction, both Jewish and non-Jewish, began to be heard.

In public propaganda, after having felt it inadvisable to print any more

telegraphic news from Palestine, because even the Jews could no longer

juggle the truth, the spotlight was turned on Russia, and now the

newspapers are filled with headlines intended to prepare the public for

a new exodus when the Russian people awake to take back their land from

the Jewish usurpers.

We are told that 6,000,000 Jews in Russia are in danger of violence. It

is true. Much truer than the miles of telegraphic lies which have been

printed about alleged “pogroms” in Russia and adjacent countries. THE

DEARBORN INDEPENDENT knows that in Eastern Europe the Jew has not been

persecuted, but has consistently acted as persecutor. The proof of it is

in the Jews’ ability to flee; they have taken all the wealth of the

people of those countries. Poles cannot flee, Rumanians cannot flee,

Russians cannot flee; but after having squeezed the life out of those

nations the Jews see the dark clouds of justice rolling toward them, and

they are able to flee, filling the ships of the sea with their hosts. In

fact, their desertion of the Jew-spoiled countries of Europe is as

precipitate as was their desertion of Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic

party last autumn—Barney Baruch ostentatiously staying behind to cover,

if possible, the shamefulness of it. When the Jew has fried the fat and

skimmed the cream, he’s off. Gratitude and loyalty mean nothing to his

people. They are persecutors in Poland. They are persecutors in Russia.

They are persecutors in Palestine. They were the arch religious

persecutors of history, as the best historians testify. They will be

persecutors here as soon as they think they can start it. It is

possible, however, that in the United States their anti-social career

will be rolled back upon itself.

American magazines have begun to pay attention to the Jewish Question.

It is a good sign. Even magazines cannot long ignore what all the people

know. It is a good sign of the degree of freedom the Press still enjoys.

It is true, of course, that this freedom is not very great; indeed, not

so great as it was a few years ago. But in so far as the Press is

American it is impossible for Americans to think it will consent to be

permanently gagged even by the Jews. There have been, it is true, some

rather sad instances of editorial weakness. We know that of two oldest

publishing firms, both of New York, one of them published a most

scurrilous Jewish defense by a non-Jewish socialist who, if he has not

deliberately lied, has shown too dark an ignorance of facts to command

the confidence of a great publishing firm; and we know that that

publication was made with a view to the value of the publisher’s imprint

and that Jews would undertake to buy tens of thousands of copies for

gratuitous circulation.

Of the other old New York firm it is known that an American diplomat was

advised if not compelled by it to eliminate from his forthcoming book

nearly one-third of its material because it dealt in an honest,

straightforward American way with what this diplomat had seen with his

own eyes of the development of the Jewish subjugation of Russia. Had

this diplomat been dealing with his own _opinions_ about the Jews or

Russia, it might have been different; but he dealt with his official

_observations_ on the spot—observations literally invaluable to history.

But this New York firm dared not, even in the interest of history, print

the truth.

The experience of G. P. Putnam’s Sons, of New York, is familiar to

students of the question in recent months. The name of this firm is used

because it has already appeared in public print with regard to a

controversy it had with the American Jewish Committee.

The Putnams, acting on the ancient and honorable principle of the

freedom of the Press, nay more, the duty of the Press to inform the

people, reprinted last year “The Cause of World Unrest,” which had first

appeared as a series of articles in the London _Morning Post_ and was

later put into book form by the publishing house of Grant Richards,

London. Both the newspaper and the publishing house are of the highest

respectability and standing, as was also the house of Eyre and

Spottiswoode which brought out the Protocols. Major George Haven Putnam,

head of the firm of G. P. Putnam’s Sons, is an American, a fair man, a

careful publisher, and one who would not stoop to propagate a lie for

any wealth.

This is not a defense of “The Cause of World Unrest.” In the main the

book is true. But it is not the result of original research. It does not

make those small but important discriminations on which the Jews always

rely to lead the people astray. It too often links in the downfall of

Jewry those things which shall stand independently and gloriously when

freed of their present insidious Jewish connections. On the whole,

however, it maintains a correct view of world affairs. But it was not a

book on which the Putnams could feel obliged to make a final stand,

except as regards their right to print it.

However, a proper understanding of the book called for the Protocols, to

which the book made frequent reference. So, like serviceable publishers,

the Putnams announced that the Protocols would follow.

Whereupon the American Jewish Committee—which means Louis Marshall—got

busy, and an interesting correspondence ensued. It is included in the

report of the American Jewish Committee for 1921. Throughout the

correspondence Louis Marshall was the dictator, but Major Putnam’s

position and statement of principles were correctly maintained. However,

there were personal conferences which are not reported in the American

Jewish Committee’s report and there were Jews crowded into those

personal conferences whose names do not appear in the correspondence,

and there were fists banged on the table and loud threats—“boycott,” of

course—and altogether a rather typical scene enacted. The upshot of that

passage was that, upon Major Putnam discovering that the Boston house of

Small, Maynard & Company had published the Protocols, he decided that

there was no call for his firm to do so. And now, in a letter to these

same people, G. P. Putnam’s Sons has decided to discontinue supplying

copies of “The Cause of World Unrest” to the book trade.

It is a rather interesting story.

In Britain, of course, publications of the highest standing like

“Blackwood’s” and the “Nineteenth Century Review” can publish articles

on the Jewish Question without regard to dictatorial Jewish attempts at

control of the Press. In this country, however, the spies of Jewry are

on the alert for every printed letter and syllable, and attempt to make

editors feel uncomfortable, as if they were the instigators of pogroms,

whenever they present an intelligent view of the question. Yet editors

have not been able entirely to ignore it.

The reader is rather impressed with one quality common to all the

articles that have been written, namely, the facts used are always those

that have been given in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT. Not that they

necessarily have been copied from this magazine, but the facts are so

well established that anyone who attempts even to “defend” the Jews must

necessarily appeal to the same facts. Thus in “New York and the Real

Jew,” by Rollin Lynde Hartt, in the New York _Independent_ for June 25,

1921, this is illustrated. It is pure Jewish publicity, but it must use

the facts that have been used in this series. It must use them in order

to extol the Jews. Mr. Hartt is not to be considered as a contributor to

the Question; the article is mentioned merely as indicating what the

American magazine editor is up against—and perhaps it is not quite fair

to be hard on the editor of the New York _Independent_ just at this

time. The one flash of value in the entire article is this paragraph:

“Ambassador Page, then editor of the _Atlantic_, once remarked to

me, ‘The most interesting fellow in America is the Jew, but don’t

write about Jews; without intending it, you may precipitate the

calamity America should be most anxious to prevent—I mean

Jew-baiting.’”

That is a strange assertion. The Jews must not be written about. To

write about them, even with good intent, may bring evil upon them. Not

only a strange assertion, but a strange situation. To mention the Jew

has always been dangerous to the non-Jew; but why also dangerous to the

Jew? The Jewish explanation of anti-Semitism, that it is in the blood of

the other races, that the moment they see a Jew they hate him, cannot be

defended. Most non-Jews can testify that it is untrue of them. But it is

a most amazing condition if even a mention of Jews arouses this feeling.

Why should it?

However, the statement is of doubtful fact-value. The Jew himself should

be the first to protest against having to go concealed all his days. He

should welcome the use of his definite racial name, and he should not

demand that it always be used in laudatory connections. A Jew should not

be a Jew when he is elected to the United States Senate, and a “Russian”

or a “Pole” when he is caught bootlegging. He should take the luck of

life with the other races, and this would come to him without

discrimination if he did not first arouse the spirit of discrimination

by insisting on discrimination in his own favor.

It is probably much nearer the truth to say that publicity is a

preventive of “Jew-Baiting.” People should not be confined in a

condition which makes the use of the word “Jew” unusual. It should

attract no more attention than does the use of any other racial name.

Mr. Page was, before his ambassadorial days, an editor of the _Atlantic

Monthly_, a magazine which is an integral part of American life. To read

the _Atlantic_ is a certificate of character. It is one of the few

publications that preserve the American spirit in literature. It is

still worthy the glory of the group that first made its name known

wherever sound thought expressed in good writing is appreciated. The

_Atlantic_ is not in need of this appraisal, it is too well established

in the regard of the class of minds that give color and sinew to our

intellectual life. In Mr. Page’s day the _Atlantic_ may never have

touched the Jewish Question with even so much as the tip of a discreet

pen.

Nevertheless the _Atlantic_ has in more recent years done its duty

toward this as toward other questions. As far back as 1917, and that is

very far back in view of the crowded years between, this old Boston

magazine contained an article relating to the Jewish Question. The fact

that the article was written by a Jew does not militate against it, but

rather adds to its value. It contained valuable suggestions which the

New York Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee might well devote

the remaining years of their activity to disseminating and actualizing

among the Jews of this country. Even today its counsel would save them

from much of the folly which marks their attempts to combat what they

call “persecution,” and which is nothing but rather plain and charitable

truth-telling.

This year the _Atlantic_ has contained three articles of value on the

Jewish Question. The first was by Professor Clay upon the situation in

Palestine. Now, Professor Clay is not an anti-Semite, and certainly the

_Atlantic_ is not, and yet the article was received with a good deal of

abuse from Jewish quarters. It told nothing but the truth, and it was

rather pertinent truth too, which intelligent Jews doubtless welcomed.

Professor Clay knew what he was writing about and his conclusions are

not challenged by any authority on the subject.

In the May _Atlantic_, Ralph Philip Boas, who is understood to be of

Jewish descent, wrote an article on “Jew-Baiting in America.” He speaks

rather disdainfully of publications which have endeavored to air the

Jewish Question, but after having thus paid his tax to the Jews’

prejudice, he proceeds in commendable fashion to contribute his thoughts

to the matter. On the whole what he says is true, and the facts he uses

as his foundation are of course the facts with which THE DEARBORN

INDEPENDENT has made its readers familiar. He sets up his straw man of

“Anti-Semitism” and after having valiantly destroyed it, to the applause

of all of us, he gets down to serious business, and says some things

which all could hope would pierce the Jewish consciousness to its

innermost stronghold and set up new vibrations there.

And in the July _Atlantic_, Paul Scott Mowrer, Paris representative of

the Chicago _Daily News_, has an article on “The Assimilation of

Israel.” Mr. Mowrer has won the respect of students of world affairs by

the conscientious ability with which he has observed and reported big

events in Europe. In his news reports he has not hesitated, when the

facts justified it, to cable a story of Jewish participation in this or

that movement. It was reported at one time that an attempt on his job

had been made by certain Jewish influences, and it is certain that

sections of the Jewish press bitterly attacked him. Yet Mr. Mowrer is

probably no more interested in the Jewish Question than the many other

big problems which have come within his journalistic ken, and it would

be extremely unfair to regard him as in any way a propagandist for

anything.

Mr. Mowrer talks about Israel when, of course, he means Judah. There is

a deep distinction there. And he talks also about assimilation, which

the Jew will not admit as a solution. He protects himself fore and aft

by attacking the “anti-Semites,” whoever they are, and by expressing his

confidence in the Jews, but on all the decks of his article he gives the

facts—and they are the same facts. It ought to be pretty well settled by

this time that there are facts, not two sets of facts, but only one set

of facts, concerning Jewish influence and activity.

The _World’s Work_ has taken the liberty of setting before the people

the only real anti-Jewish article that has appeared in the United States

since the present discussion of the Question began, and that article was

written by Henry Morgenthau, a Jew whom the government is accustomed to

honor whenever it would pay a compliment to the Jews. It turns out that

he attacks Jewry in its most tender spot—Zionism. Most people have read

it, for it was immediately turned into propaganda and published in hosts

of newspapers, in many of them as first-column, first-page news. Mr.

Morgenthau said that Zionism was not a solution but a surrender. He

attacks the whole Palestinian plan from every angle, and not only

attacks but belittles it.

Of course, this is very interesting. But one doesn’t understand the heat

displayed. If the Jews wish to go back to Palestine, why all this

objection? Mr. Morgenthau does not wish to go back, it is true; it is

extremely difficult to find a Jew who does want to go back; but to

desire a national land for the Jews is quite another thing, and most

Jews desire that. The pity is that they carry into Palestine the same

method which puts them upon question here, and they are in danger of

tipping over the apple cart in their imperious disregard of the rights

of men in Palestine.

Mr. Morgenthau’s motive in writing the article must remain a mystery,

because it would seem to leave him practically outside of American

Jewry, and of course he is not outside. Not at all. Watch and see. His

article was printed in a magazine read and supported by non-Jews and was

intended for non-Jews; it was not a plea to his people, it was a kind of

confidential explanation, whispered from behind the hand, to non-Jews.

Mr. Morgenthau knows that Zionism is the core of Jewry in this country.

The Zionists rule. The Zionists, and not the Americans, dictate the

policy of American Jewry. The Zionist program was the only program that

went unaltered through the Peace Conference at Versailles. Zionism is

the heart of Jewish aspiration. “Not of American Jews,” Mr. Morgenthau

may retort. But who are the American Jews? Inquire of the recent

convention of Zionists at Cleveland for information.

That convention is worth a story by itself, but it explains why the

_World’s Work_ stopped its press for the July issue and made an

insertion of eight extra pages for the accommodation of Mr. Morgenthau’s

article. The Jews who call themselves Americans had been thrown down and

out by the Cleveland convention, and Russian Jews proved themselves the

stronger.

It was an event that called for quick explanation. The humiliation of

the Americans was something to be covered as speedily as possible. Why

the _World’s Work_ should have been chosen as the vehicle is not known.

But the presses were stopped and the Morgenthau backfire started.

Mr. Morgenthau’s article as a Jewish pronouncement is negligible, but

the Editor’s Note that preceded it has the value of unbiased testimony.

Referring to the world Organization of Zionists, whose chief officer

stepped over here from Europe and simply slammed the American Jewish

leaders out of office, the editor of the _World’s Work_ has this to say:

“_This world organization has a highly centralized form of

government. This consists of an international committee, including

representatives from all countries that have a local organization.

But the real control is vested in what is known as the ‘Inner

Actions Council.’ This is a compact body of only seven men and it is

dominated by the Jews of Europe._”

The “Jews of Europe” might be still more definitely described as the

“Jews of Russia.”

And “Dr. Chaim Weizmann, from London” might more accurately be described

as from Pinsk, Russia.

The Russian Jews won, as they have always won, for they are the

originators and corruptors of the false political Zionism which is

leading so many Jews to disappointment and distress.

The point in all this is that in the silence of the Jewish regimented

protest, the voice of the country has had a chance to be heard. The

religious press has not been mentioned here, for it deserves a separate

account, nor have the many newspapers which have reacted from the

previously imposed burden of Jewish propaganda. Editorial speech is

becoming freer. Jews themselves are coming to see that the call is not

for abuse, but for a clean-up. The expression of the press of the

country indicates that there is a Jewish Question and that the Jews used

the worst possible tactics in trying to suppress the knowledge of it.

They behaved in a way to show what bad masters they would be if given

the chance, and what essential cowardice controls their actions. One by

one the holds they gained by force of fear, are being loosened. And if

the Jews would lay up capital on which to draw—the capital of public

confidence in their desire to do the right thing—they would go around

and loosen the holds they still have. This, however, is not expected of

them. It requires too much foresight.

——

Issue of July 30, 1921.

LXXIV.

What Jews Attempted Where They Had Power

The time of the year has come when Christians implore the tolerance of

Jews while Christmas is being celebrated. If the Jews will only permit

the Christians to celebrate Christmas in their schools, their homes,

their churches—in their city squares and country villages—there will be

more disposition on the part of the public to believe the Jewish boasts

of tolerance.

It is not yet announced whether the Jews will give their permission or

not. But that there are inquiries being made into the matter is

indicated by this article in the Brooklyn _Eagle_, of October 31:

“Canon William Sheafe Chase today made public a letter he has sent

to the secretary of the Board of Education asking for a copy of

rules and regulations which, he alleged, forbid the telling of a

Christ story at Christmas time in the public schools. Canon Chase

said that the attention of the Federation of Churches has been

called to a statement of a kindergarten teacher who last year said

she had told such a story and had been notified that ‘she will be

removed from her position if she repeats such an exercise this

Christmas.’

“He said that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that

this is a Christian country and ‘the courts in the State of New York

have said that Christianity is the common law of our land.’” Dr.

Chase added:

“‘This government has treated the Hebrew more generously than any

other nation in the world. I believe that the people generally,

Hebrew as well as Christian, are very glad to enter into the spirit

of Christmas time. Any attempt, therefore, to eliminate Christ from

the hymns of our country, from the reading books, and from the

religious holidays of the Christian people, I believe, is not

instigated by the Hebrews as a whole, but by certain misguided

leaders of Jewish religion.’”

This is a variation of the Christmas theme. Instead of looking forward

to Christmas, it is a spirit of inquiry as to how far we can go at

Christmas. We are asking whether we dare, as Christians in a Christian

land, whisper the Name that gives Christmas its meaning. That is, the

Christians are doing the Christmas asking early this year. Christian

teachers want to know if they will be discharged if they give their

classes a bit of Christmas flavor, as all our teachers gave us when we

were young. The contrast between the schools which we of the mature

generation attended when we were young, and the schools of today whose

pupils are carefully screened from the fact that Christmas celebrates

Christ, is such a contrast as ought to give mature Americans a pause.

But, if past experience be the standard of judgment, the appeal to

Jewish tolerance in New York will be futile. If Christians do not take

their rights, it is certain the Jews will never grant them. It would be

un-Jewish to do so; and the ceaseless cry of the leaders is, “Be

Jewish!”

Any number of instances could be cited of the whip which Jewish leaders

crack across the educational and political systems of the City of New

York, but one or two must serve for the present.

The first case to be considered is that of Rev. William Carter, D. D.,

given in “Who’s Who in America” as pastor of the Throop Avenue

Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn; author of “The Gate of Janus,” an epic

story of the War; also of “Milton and His Masterpiece” and “Studies in

the Pentateuch.” He is an extensive traveler and a lecturer of

reputation, his specialty being history and literature. At an important

Y. M. C. A. center he has lectured for thirty consecutive weeks a year

on “Current Events,” which course was so successful that he was asked by

the New York Board of Education to start a similar one at the Erasmus

High School. For ten years he has been engaged by the New York Board of

Education as special lecturer in the popular evening extension courses.

The course Dr. Carter undertook was badly run down, but in six weeks the

regular audience had been increased from 35 to 350. The plan of the

lectures was to discuss a major topic selected by the Board, a second

period was devoted to the discussion of current events, and a third

period to questions from the audience.

Now it happened that for the week of November 15, 1920—just a year

ago—the topic selected by the Board of Education was “The Racial Origins

of the American People,” a study of immigration. That is to say, Dr.

Carter was asked to study that matter and discuss it publicly before his

weekly lecture audience at Erasmus School. He did so, taking time to

make a serious investigation of all phases of the subject.

He showed that just before the war—thirty days before the war—the

highest peak of immigration was reached; the year ending June 30, 1914,

having seen 1,403,000 aliens enter this country. Analyzing this great

flood, he showed that whereas six per cent came from Great Britain and

two per cent came from Scandinavian countries, over ten per cent were

Jews. The doctor’s subject was “The _Racial_ Origins of the American

People.”

Again, on the subject, “What Has Immigration Done for America?”—this

subject also scheduled by the Board of Education—Dr. Carter showed that

some parts of Europe had given their worst instead of their best, and

stated that the lowest percentage of immigration came from the best

developed and most desirable countries, while the largest percentage

came from the least desirable. For example, he differentiated between

the desirable Italians and those who form the material for Black Hand

activities. Speaking of Russia and Austro-Hungary, he made a reference

to the Jews.

But Dr. Carter made a mistake—perhaps two. It is always difficult to

tell just where the line falls between fear of giving offense and fear

of being unfair. In any event, Dr. Carter gave every evidence of, let us

say, fear of being unfair. But it is fear, and a Jew scents fear a long

way; the man who fears even though he fear to be unfair is already

marked by the Jew who may happen to be stationed to watch him.

So Dr. Carter, to avoid giving offense by this part of his lecture, did

the usual thing which has always drawn sneers from the Jewish press; he

began to pay compliments to the Jews on their good points. He spoke of

their contributions to Art, Science, and Philosophy; to Statesmanship,

Religion, and Philanthropy. He lauded their distinguished men by name,

such as Disraeli, Rubinstein, Schiff, Kahn, even Rabbi Wise! He referred

to his pride in counting many Jews among his personal friends. With all

respect to Dr. Carter, it was the same old stuff usually handed out in

such circumstances. Madison C. Peters made it unjustly famous, and

American clergymen have been spouting it ever since.

If Dr. Carter will study the alleged contributions of the Jews to the

Arts and Sciences, study this as carefully as he did the immigration

theme, he may omit the praises from future lectures. And he may also

revise his list of great Jews. But that is neither here nor there.

“As we have found bad elements in these other peoples,” said Dr. Carter

in this portion of his lecture, “so they are to be found in the Jew, and

as the majority of these 143,000 Jews who came here the year before the

war were from Russia, or Russian countries, let us not forget that the

Jews themselves admit the Russian Jew is the worst of his race.”

Apparently the audience remained unshocked. The question period came

round and two Jews, a woman and a man, asked the lecturer why he had

picked out the Russian Jew in particular for criticism. Dr. Carter

replied that he had only given the evidence of the Jews themselves, that

he was merely quoting what the Jews themselves had alleged time and

again to explain certain matters. He added that the statement was

universally accepted except by some who came from Russia.

A few days afterward the Board of Education sent word to Dr. Carter that

complaints had been received against him for certain statements against

the Jews, and calling upon him to explain. Dr. Carter is said to have

replied that as only two Jews out of 400 people had objected at the

lecture, he regarded that as evidence that the proprieties had not been

violated.

Within a week, however, a more insistent communication was sent out by

the Board of Education, stating that more letters of complaint had been

received and citing Dr. Carter to meet his accusers at a special meeting

of investigation.

Now begins as strange a proceeding as American people may hope to see in

this land of the free. It is really not as rare as some might think. It

can be duplicated in a number of known and proved cases. The way the

Carter case worked out was this:

Dr. Carter arrived, as summoned. There were seven Jews there before him.

Four of these Jews admitted they had not attended the lecture, and one

had never even heard of Dr. Carter before. The minister was alone. Not

knowing what was afoot, and not having been told to bring witnesses who

had heard his lecture, he was there—a lone Gentile before a Jewish

tribunal.

The Jewish delegation was headed by a certain Rabbi C. H. Levy, who was

referred to as secretary of the Board of Jewish Ministers, a union of

rabbis in connection with the New York Kehillah, which is part of the

general spy system of American Jewry. Rabbi Levy admitted that he had

not attended the specific lecture complained of, nor any other lecture

in the course, but declared he was there to “represent my people.”

Well, Rabbi Levy’s “people” were pretty well represented. There was

hardly any other kind of people there except the Christian clergyman who

was on trial for telling the truth as to public opinion, and Jewish

opinion particularly, about the Russian Jew.

So the Inquisition upon the Gentile began. Six letters were read, most

of them having been addressed to Dr. W. L. Ettinger, Superintendent of

New York Schools. One of these letters asked Dr. Ettinger as a Jew not

to allow his people to be maligned and misrepresented, but to see that

this Gentile was stopped!

After the reading of the letters, Dr. Carter was permitted to speak. He

called attention to the similarity of the style in all the letters, a

similarity which suggested to him the possibility of their having been

dictated by one person. At which Rabbi Levy flew into a passion—though

no one had mentioned his name. Dr. Carter also observed that as Dr.

Ettinger had been appealed to on racial, religious and prejudiced

grounds, it would be right to permit Dr. Carter time to get witnesses on

his side. This was not permitted. He was on trial!

Even the Jews admitted, under straight questioning, that what Dr. Carter

had said was not uttered invidiously. They admitted that he had referred

to the undesirable elements of other races as well as of the Jews. It

was admitted that the subject was not of his own choosing, but was

assigned to him by the Board of Education. There was very little left at

the end of the examination except to assume that the Jews were a

sacrosanct race, with special privileges, a race whom no non-Jew should

presume even to mention in anything but awe-filled tones.

That was the issue as it appeared that day. With half the Jewish

population of the United States centered in the city of New York, they

had assumed control of American education at its source. The group of

Jews sitting in judgment on Dr. Carter were as serene in their control

of the education of the Christians, as if they had been a Soviet court

sitting in Moscow. They had succeeded in driving everything Christian

out of the schools; they had succeeded in introducing the most sickening

praise of their own race; they looked forward to the teaching of Judaism

as the universal morality!

It was further brought out that this Christian minister had been one of

the men who had preached in favor of the Jews. He had been one of those

public men on whom Jewish leaders could depend to respond with typical

Christian generosity. He had delivered blows at race prejudice. He had

lauded the Jewish race and its leading figures. He had interpreted its

commanding influence as the reward of diligence and ability. He had

thundered against what Jewish reports had led him to believe was “the

Crime at Kishineff.” And for this he had been duly complimented by the

Jewish Publication Society, and others. _BUT_ he had now spoken a word

of truth which the Jews disliked, and he was before them for trial and

condemnation.

In the course of the examination it developed that he had been a citizen

of the United States for thirty years, having come to this country from

England at the age of 15. Rabbi Levy apparently missed the full fact,

getting only the fact that Dr. Carter was born in England.

“May I inquire as to whether the gentleman is or is not a citizen of the

United States?” said the rabbi in the air of one who was innocently

uncovering a great exposure.

“I became a citizen over thirty years ago, as soon as the law allowed—as

I trust you did,” was Dr. Carter’s straight thrust.

The rabbi dropped the subject. He did not take up the challenge as to

his own citizenship. But that the matter burned in him is evidenced by

his later remark:

“I’ll see to it, notwithstanding all this, that you shall never speak

again from any platform in New York, you dirty Englishman!”

Dr. Carter called the attention of the committee to the hatred and

malignity expressed in the face, attitude and words of the enraged

rabbi, and said he did not know whether it was a threat against his

life, his pastorate, or his position as lecturer for the New York Board

of Education.

The term “dirty” is rather an unusual one to apply to a race that has so

long astonished Semitic countries by its insistence on its “bawth.” That

is to say, the accuracy of Rabbi Levy’s description would draw about the

same degree as would an appraisal of his gentlemanliness.

There was, fortunately, one other non-Jew present, namely, Ernest L.

Crandall, supervisor of lectures, who was American enough to enter the

fray. He addressed the hysterical little rabbi:

“I never have seen nor heard such bitterness and hatred expressed by

any human being toward another as you have manifested here. You

ought to be ashamed of yourself, and if I hear another word from you

along such lines, I will have you thrown out!”

The future of Mr. Crandall should be worth watching. If he is apologetic

for his principles, they will “get” him. If not, he may be the

instrument of “getting” some things that are wrong with New York.

At any rate, Mr. Crandall acquitted Dr. Carter, and the Jews went out

muttering.

It is rather an unusual and noteworthy fact, the acquittal of a man

against whom the Jews had moved the charge and against whom the

secretary of the Board of Jewish Ministers had uttered the aforesaid

threat.

Dr. Carter went back to Erasmus school. He received from the Board of

Education his appointments for the ensuing months. Affairs seemed to be

going along as before.

Then one day all the lecturers on “Current Events” in New York public

schools received simultaneous notice that they must refrain from

discussing the _Jewish_ and _Irish_ questions. With Zionism crowding the

newspapers, and breeding a war in Mesopotamia, and dictating the policy

of the diplomatic departments of Great Britain and the United States;

with the Irish Question uppermost in the minds of millions and coloring

the politics of the United States as well as challenging the full

ability of the British Government—that is, with the two foremost

“Current Events” seething throughout the world, orders were given

through the New York Board of Education that lecturers must remain mum.

It was plain to be seen what had happened. Rabbi Levy, and those who

worked with him, having failed in their personal attack, had achieved

what they wanted another way—by an order given to lecturers not to speak

about the Jewish or the Irish question.

Why lug in the Irish? The Irish were not protesting against discussion

of the Irish Question. The Irish wanted the Irish Question discussed;

they believed that the successful issue of the matter depended on wide

and free discussion. It is beyond the realm of imagination that the

Irish should ever ask, desire or sanction a gag on popular discussion of

Irish affairs.

As to Dr. Carter, his audiences had been asking him questions about the

Irish Question for three years. In Y. M. C. A., in public school, in

people’s forum, everywhere he had been asked for information about one

or another phase of the Irish Question; and being a well informed man he

was able to give answers. And no one had ever complained before. Indeed,

it is said that at the next lecture he gave at Erasmus School, following

the encounter with Rabbi Levy, the audience had asked questions touching

the Irish Question, and Mr. Crandall was present, and found no ground

for criticism.

Yet soon thereafter came the order to observe complete silence on the

Irish Question. Why?

Even the tyro in Jewish policy knows the answer. The Irish Question was

lugged in to camouflage the order regarding the Jewish Question. That is

a very common Jewish practice: any Gentile name will serve for

concealment!

Imagine an Irishman and his family attending an evening lecture on

“Current Events” and asking a question about the Irish situation.

Imagine the lecturer saying, “I am forbidden to mention Ireland, or the

Irish, or the Irish Question on these premises.” The Irishman, being a

white man, would not be slow to see that somehow he was being

discriminated against. He would demand to be told _why_ the lecturer

dared not mention the matter. And, being forbidden to mention the Jews

either, the lecturer would not be able to say, “Those Jews down at the

Board of Education have put their taboo on both the Jews and the Irish!”

He would be breaking the rules even in giving the explanation.

But imagine the Irishman being classed with the Jew—the Irishman who

wants publicity, with the Jew who fears it! How long would it take an

Irishman to see that what was intended to be discrimination in _favor

of_ the Jew was discrimination _against_ the Irish.

Yet that was precisely what the Jews of New York brought about in the

public lecture system to make their point against a Christian clergyman

who had told a very well-known truth about the Jews.

Of course, there is nothing in such an order that would appear to the

Jew as being subversive. Suppression is his first thought. Suppress the

paper! Suppress the investigation! Suppress the out-and-out speaker!

Suppress the immigration discussion! Suppress the facts about the

theater, about the money system, about the baseball scandal, about the

bootlegging business! Suppress the lecturers of the City of New York!

Fire them from their jobs unless they stand up like phonographs and

recite what men like the sentinel rabbis of New York dictate!

The order was Jewish in every element of it. And as an American citizen

who did not believe that American free speech should be the plaything of

a crowd of aliens, Dr. Carter resigned his lectureship. It meant serious

inconvenience and financial loss to him to do so at the end of December,

when it was late to make further plans for the winter, but a principle

was at stake, and he resigned.

Immediately the matter came into the newspapers and there was the usual

ado—the Jewish writers throwing threats about recklessly; a few timid

Americans asking what New York was coming to! One newspaper came out

with an American editorial defending the right of free speech, but

changed its tone somewhat upon receiving a deluge of Jewish protests

threatening the paper with the displeasure of the Jews.

A man of less ability and of lower standing than Dr. Carter might have

been overwhelmed by the storm. But he had at last struck rock and there

he stood. At that time he was not known to have said anything

detrimental to the Jews, and he is not known to have made subsequent

remarks upon his experience. That is, being attacked by the Jews, he is

not known to have attacked them in return. It is quite possible that he

might be induced to do the Madison C. Peters stunt again and speak in

praise of them, giving them the usual laudation which they themselves

first prepared for our consumption. But nevertheless he has been,

through no fault of his own, the focus of the vindictive policy which

pursues the truth-teller. It may be distasteful to Dr. Carter to have

his story thus told, but if he will begin anew his studies in the

history and character of the International Jew, he will find his own

experience a valuable commentary thereon.

Dr. Carter is only one of many. There are teachers in New York who could

a tale unfold that would stir indignation to its depths—but there has

never been any one to tell their story or take their side. Many of these

stories are in the possession of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT.

——

Issue of November 19, 1921.

LXXV.

The Jewish Question in Current Testimony

The Jewish Question continues to attract more and more attention. In

many quarters a new tendency toward freedom of the press is observed,

and the long-concealed truth is getting itself spoken bit by bit. It has

been thought worth while, before going on to other phases of the study

of the Jewish Question, to present in this article a few of the

informative or confirmatory articles that have appeared in the public

press. It need not be said that, with a single possible exception, none

of the writers or publications here quoted could be called

“anti-Semitic.” Not even the most unreasonable Jew could append that

term to any writer or publication here cited.

The Associated Press sent out a dispatch which was printed in American

papers of August 24, as follows:

“Thousands of Russian Jews are crossing the Esthonian, Lithuanian and

Polish borders every month, many sent from Soviet territory under

protection of high Bolsheviki officials, according to travelers in the

border states who recently have returned here. The opinion in

neighboring states is that the exodus is prompted by fear of an

approaching crisis.

“The fact that no appreciable organized Russian anti-Bolshevik movement

has appeared since Baron Wrangel’s forces were dissipated, leads

observers of the situation here to believe that, should the overthrow of

the Soviets occur this winter, it will take the nature of a popular

uprising, supported by such troops as are not at the front. Many fear it

will result in a widespread anti-Jewish program.

“For these reasons every Jewish family of means, and many that are

destitute, are attempting to get out of Russia. They have no desire to

tarry in Lithuania or Esthonia, but are seeking to enter Germany, with

the idea of eventually reaching America.”

To give the reader the background of this fear, we offer part of a

letter from Kishinev which was received by a North Dakotan:

“My Dear Friend Gutsche:

“For one month no fugitives arrived, but now again many of them are

coming from the Ukraine to Bessarabia, most of whom are Jews. They are a

different lot than the former fugitives were; for they are wearing

costly clothes, furs, precious stones, jewels, and so on, such as was

seen before the war only by very well-to-do people, landowners and the

like; they have money and money’s worth. There is no doubt that these

fugitives had leading positions in the Bolshevik régime, perhaps they

were commissars, or even ‘judges’ on the ‘Blood and Inquisition courts’

of the so-called ‘Tschreswytschaika’ or short ‘Tscheka’—their purses and

pockets are filled, not with worthless paper money—for they themselves

have manufactured that, millions and billions of it, which they have

thrown before the Christian brood, the ‘goies’—no, filled with money and

precious jewels which no more show traces of blood and tears, but shine

and glitter the same as in those happy hours of their rightful owners.

“But the people over there (in Russia.—Ed.) are awakening; they wonder

about the source of all this terror. The children of Judah know the

answer thereto, but they prefer to leave the ground which is becoming

unsafe to stand upon; it is getting too hot for them. The Nemesis is

raising her head from out the blood of innocence which calls to heaven

for revenge. Yes, they fear the result of their actions and wish to save

their skins before it is too late. In this they succeed, but not always

are they allowed to keep their furs, their stones and precious metals;

they overlooked the Rumanians. These people are very vain and greedy for

costly things! The newcomers are on their way to America and the doors

on all borders are willingly opened them, even to the soldier in the

army. Only on again! The faster, the better! I think that some day

America will have so many Semites that they (the Semites) will be looked

upon the same as the colored, the black, yellow and brown races.

“Imagine for a moment that there were no Semites in Europe. Would the

tragedy be so terrible now? Hardly! They have stirred up the people in

all countries, have incited them to war, revolution and communism. They

believe in the saying that ‘there is good fishing in troubled waters.’

“But enough of ‘the chosen people.’ Some day they will reap what they

have sown....

“.... Another picture—Every three or four days a ‘razzia’ (domiciliary

search, graze) is being conducted in the city. Terror, fear and

oppression drive the people from the streets, looking for hiding places.

The people do not work, eat or sleep. Only stamping, cursing patronilles

are seen on the streets with their victims. In this manner 200 or 300

persons are often driven together: former civil and military officials,

teachers, landlords, business men, and so on (only Christians, seldom

Jews); among them also women. This group is then led to the

‘Tschreswytschaika.’ In front of the group are 40 to 50 armed red

guards, infantry and on horses, right and left about the same number of

guards, in the rear several carriages or an automobile with machine gun,

and behind that again infantry and horseback riders. When this group is

seen on the streets, everyone flees terrified; occupants of houses peep

through cracks and press their hands to their hearts to

see—what?—Father, brother, son or other relatives led away from their

once happy homes, perhaps never to return again. This they know, those

behind doors and windows, where occur hysterical spells, heart failures

and deaths. Words cannot express the terror of it all.

“And then at the ‘Tschreswytschaika’? There are youths, mostly

circumcised, often half or wholly drunk! Should there be personal

enemies among the ‘judges,’ the unfortunate ones are executed either on

the same day or the next one, but are sometimes also ‘tried’ like they

‘tried’ the heretics in the Inquisition chambers. Several of these

creatures of the ‘Tschreswytschaika’ and especially a certain Wichmann—a

Jew, of course—carry on terribly; he is the terror of the city and the

flat land; he even kills Bolshevist Commissars and their wives should

they now and then reveal a more humane feeling.

“They fear the reprisal and hasten across the borders, laden down with

valuables.

“More suffering is caused in the cities by hunger and cold. The dead

bodies are buried without coffins and often without clothes. How the

people dwell in houses I shall, perhaps, relate next week. Enough for

today.

F. Horch.”

The freedom of the Balkan Jew from the hunger and suffering which

afflict the native peoples is vividly set forth in the words of an

American:

“Our ship is the first to enter Libau on a peaceful mission since the

war, they say. At any rate, our arrival has caused a great excitement,

on account of the food cargo we have for these people. At present we are

tied up to a quay, in a narrow stream that seems to be also a sewer.

Unloading our flour is a ticklish piece of work, due to the terrible

hunger of the crowd that watches us. Whenever a bag breaks, people fight

to scrape up the loose flour, which they put into cans along with a good

portion of dirt that is mixed into it ... Everyone has a tin can and at

noon there was almost a riot over a bucket of potato peelings that were

tossed into the water. The people tied strings to their cans and went

fishing for the peelings. They stand all day and beg us for food ... It

is not a very pleasant sight—this crowd of emaciated, white-faced men

and women, and big-eyed children.

“The most damnable thing about it all is the dozen Jews who flit like

magpies through the crowd. They are young, soft, well-groomed and

prosperous. They carry canes, wear new straw hats, and resemble the kind

you see in the States. They have nothing in common with the other

people. They have money, plenty of it, and they seem to think this ship

is a floating pedlar’s cart and tobacco store. They come up to the

gangway and wave British five-pound notes in the air, offering them for

a carton of cigarets. Or, they have gold watches that they will trade

for a few pounds of soap. From the looks that other people favor them

with, I do not wonder that we hear about periodic slaughters of the Jews

in Russia. These fellows look too prosperous in comparison with the rest

of the population to suit me.”

The peculiar character of Jewish cruelty in Russia is so little in

accord with the character of the Jews as we propagandized Americans have

been taught to conceive it, that even THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, in its

desire to present a consistent account of Jewish activities as they

relate to the United States, has not opened this special phase of the

study of Jewish psychology. The Sadism displayed throughout the Russian

Terror has been discussed briefly in “The World Significance of the

Russian Revolution,” by George Pitt-Rivers.

There is, however, American Jewish testimony on the same point. It is

found in the April, 1921, number of the _Hebrew Christian Alliance

Quarterly_. In an article entitled “Persecution Is Not the Monopoly of

Christianity and Is Contrary to Its Principles’,” the Rev. M. Malbert,

B. A., of Ottawa, Ontario, says:

“We must now proceed to deal with our last point. The Jews blame

Christianity for its persecuting spirit. They consider it a monstrous

thing to persecute another person for his convictions. Now, the question

is, are they themselves free from the persecuting zeal? I am going to

show that real religious persecution is uniquely Jewish, and that they

themselves have been the relentless persecutors. In the year 120 B. C.,

John Hyrcanus, son of Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers, who

fought against the Syrian hosts in defense of their religion, persecuted

other religions. He destroyed the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizin.

Next, he conquered the Idumeans and bade them choose between exile or

Judaism. They chose the latter. That he made a mistake in forcing his

religion on an unwilling people, may be seen in the treacherous Herodian

dynasty, Idumean converts, who were a curse to the Jewish nation.

“_The intolerant religious spirit among the Jews themselves is unique in

history._ In the Maccabean princes the royalty and the high priesthood

were united in one person, King Alexander, third son of John Hyrcanus,

who was a Sadducee. The Pharisees therefore hated him. In the year 95 B.

C., on the Feast of Tabernacles, as he was officiating in his high

priestly capacity in the Temple, instead of pouring the water on the

altar, he spilled it at his feet. The congregation worshiping with the

palm branches and citrons in their hands, noticing the water spilled at

the high priest’s feet, started to pelt him with them. The king’s life

was in danger and he was constrained to summon to his aid the Pisidean

and Cilician mercenaries. Those fell on the people and slew 6,000 within

the precincts of the Temple. The hostility of the Pharisees was more

bitter against the king, and their hatred knew no bounds. But the king

endeavored to make peace with them. He therefore summoned their chief

men and told them that he was tired of the feuds and that he desired

peace. What were their conditions? They replied, the death of the king.

_Then they actually set out to betray their country._ They invited the

Syrian king, Eucaerus, to invade Palestine and treacherously offered him

their aid. Eucaerus advanced upon Judea with 43,000 men. The Pharisees

kept their promise and fought in the camp of their country’s enemy

against their king, who was eventually defeated. The poor king, the

descendant of the heroic Maccabees, wandered about in the mountains of

Ephraim. At last, 6,000 Pharisees, conscience-stricken, returned to him

from the Syrian camp. With these 6,000 penitents, he was able to force

the Syrians from Judea. But the majority still remained hostile and made

war against him, but they were finally defeated and reaped the fruits of

punishment that they deserved.

“The Jewish king himself was intolerant and he forced many heathen

cities to embrace Judaism; those who refused were destroyed. Simon ben

Shetach, president of the Synhedrion, _condemned 80 women to be

crucified for witchcraft_. The son of Simon ben Shetach was accused by

his enemies of some breach of a religious precept and although the

father himself knew him to be innocent, he nevertheless sentenced him to

death and allowed him to be executed.

“Between the school of Hillel and Shammai there was constantly

bloodshed. The trial and execution of Jesus were the natural outcome of

religious intolerance. The greatest service to God a Jew thought

possible was to persecute the Christians. Rabbi Tarphon said that the

Gilion, that is, the Gospels and all the writings of the Minim, that is,

the Apostolic Epistles, should be burned even with the holy name of God

in them. He maintained that Christianity was more dangerous than

paganism and he would rather fly to a heathen Temple than to a meeting

house of the Minim. A curse against the Minim was inserted into the

Jewish daily prayers at that time, which is still used by the

congregations. Bar-Kosibah, the false Messiah, persecuted the Christians

without mercy. Even in the time of Justinian, in the sixth century, the

Jews massacred Christians in Caesarea and destroyed their churches. When

Stephanus, the governor, attempted to defend the Christians, the Jews

fell on him and slew him. In 608, the Jews of Antioch fell upon their

Christian neighbors and killed them with fire and sword. The Patriarch

Anastasius, surnamed the Sinaite, was disgracefully illtreated by them

and his body dragged through the streets, before he was finally put to

death. About 614, the Persians advanced upon Palestine and the Jews,

after joining their standard, massacred the Christians and destroyed

their churches. Ninety thousand Christians perished in Jerusalem alone.

The Jews expected fair play from the Persians as a reward, but were

treated worse by them than by the Christians. In 628, the Emperor

Heraclius had retaken Palestine from the Persians and when marching

through Tiberius, he was entertained by a wealthy Jew named Benjamin,

the same man who invited the Jews to join the Persians against the

Byzantines; the emperor asked him what had induced him to betray so

great an animosity against the Christians, to which he replied that they

were the enemies of his religion. _Yet they claim the prophecy of Isaiah

in the fifty-third chapter, to have been fulfilled in them. ‘He was

oppressed, and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth.’_ They even

persecuted Mohammed in the incipient stages of his career. They

prejudiced the chief Arabs against him, helped his enemies to discredit

him and endeavored to alienate his followers.”

The article continues to give in detail the persecution to which the

Jews subjected their own people who were progressive. It reminds one of

the warning given to Rabbi Isaac M. Wise by Rabbi Lilienthal, when the

former was urging the reform of Judaism: “If you want to be Christ you

must expect to be crucified.” (“Isaac Meyer Wise,” p. 92)

Readers of Gibbons’ “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” will recall that

in Volume 1, Chapter 16, he wrote severe words about the cruelty of the

Jews. It will be agreed that only records of the most staggering cruelty

could have driven the calm historian to the use of such terms. Readers

will also observe, in the passage herewith quoted, that the desire for

“the empire of the earth” which actuated the Jews of that period is the

same as that discovered in the Protocols:

“From the reign of Nero to that of Antonius Pius, the Jew discovered a

fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in

the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the

recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of

Egypt, of Cyprus and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in the treacherous

friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud

the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arm of the legions

against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstitions

seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman

Government but of human kind. The enthusiasm of the Jews was

supported ... by the flattering promise which they derived from their

ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to

break their fetters and to invest the favorites of heaven with the

empire of the earth.”

In footnotes to this passage, Gibbons gives revolting details of the

methods used by the Jews of that period.

In all this work the Jewish Idea has the assistance of certain Christian

sects who gloss over the inhumanity and immorality of certain courses of

actions by saying that “these are doubtless the means by which God is

giving the Jew his promised control of the world.” This is one form of

the un-Biblical conception, the un-Scriptural teaching, that the Jews

are God’s Chosen People.

Of all the sects following this error, none is more active than the

so-called “Russellites,” the followers of Pastor Russell, and officially

known as the International Bible Students’ Association.

It has been reported to THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT by numerous witnesses

that Jewish interpreters at points of debarkation in Canada and the

United States have circulated Russellite literature. The fact that a Jew

would circulate any kind of Christian literature is sufficiently

astonishing to cause inquiry. It is explained by the elaborate

pro-Jewish propaganda which Russellism is conducting.

Not to go into this extensively at this time, suffice it to refer to

handbill advertising in the Russian quarters of American cities. The

fact that the literature is circulated among Russians and that meetings

are held in Russian sections of our cities would seem to indicate a

desire to explain to credulous Russians that Bolshevism, too, should be

received as part of the circumstance by which the Jews are to obtain

world rule. The handbills are headed “The Fifth Universal Kingdom,” and

in every meeting reported the speakers have declared that in 1914 the

rule of the world was taken away from “us”—that is, the non-Jews who are

the so-called “Gentiles”—and was given to God’s Chosen People, who,

according to this sect, are the Jews. Thus, acquiescence in Bolshevism

and every other form of revolutionary overturning is acquiescence in the

will of God.

The teaching that world rule is already in the hand of the Jew is so

novel, so unrelated to Biblical sources, as to warrant careful scrutiny

for possible pro-Jewish connections.

But Palestine is not yet a fact, and other Bible students see in the

present political movement a daring and God-defiant scheme destined to

failure. Certainly there are great obstacles in the way—moral obstacles,

matters of honor and humanity—which do not promise easily to disappear.

The Jews of the world are discovering that they read too much into the

Balfour Declaration and that Great Britain is not ready to violate her

obligations to the Arabs. Jewish leaders are beginning to feel the

weight of realities in the settlement of the land itself. The Jews are

not going back. Those who have gone back are, a considerable and

influential number of them, tainted with Russian Bolshevism.

The English people themselves are becoming dubious about the situation

as is shown by the dispatch of the London correspondent of the Detroit

News printed in the August 14 issue of that paper:

“Then there is the scarcity of accurate information from Palestine. The

high commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, transmits reports to the British

Government, but they are not published. Even the report which he made on

going to Palestine two years ago to inquire into the exact status of

affairs never has been made public. Lord Sydenham asked for it in the

House of Lords, and, though Lord Curzon replied that the report

contained nothing unsuitable for publication, it has never been given

out. It is also charged that the Zionist Commission maintains a strict

censorship; that even a petition to the king disappeared in transit;

that letters have to be written guardedly. A series of articles by the

special correspondent of the _Times_ suddenly ceased, though the last,

May 17, bore the line, ‘To Be Continued.’

“News from Palestine is exceedingly scanty, and no one knows whether

what does come through is trustworthy. It has been printed that Sir

Herbert Samuel does not dare ride through the streets of Jerusalem

without an armored car in attendance. For these reasons there is a great

deal of suspicion in England that all is not well in Palestine.”

The most outspoken word that has yet been uttered on the political

dilemma in which Zionism places the Jew, appeared in an editorial

entitled, “Political Judaism” in the _Christian Century_, of Chicago, a

publication of weight and character:

“Political loyalty is one. Under the present world order it does not

admit of division. The citizens of any nation may maintain a Platonic

admiration for the political systems of neighboring nations, but their

ultimate loyalty cannot be ‘Platonized.’ Spiritual Judaism is one thing.

A Palestinian state, or a Jewish political organization anywhere else,

is a very different thing—at least in Gentile estimation....

“Once a Jewish state is set up in Palestine, in so far as it is accepted

as the proper expression of Judaism, the Jew of the diaspora must

surrender his religion. Is there any escape from this issue? The Jew can

be a Jew anywhere, so long as his religious adherence carries with it no

political implications. At least he can be an acknowledged Jew in every

land where religious freedom is guaranteed or practiced. And even in

states where an established religion other than Jewish debars him from

the fullest and highest participation in the affairs of state, he can

still hold to his religion without too serious embarrassment.

“But what would be the status of the Jew in any land of the present

world when the profession of his religion would inevitably identify him

with the fortunes and aspirations and diplomacy, even with the military

policies, of a political state alien to the society of his residence and

citizenship? The status seems, at least to the Gentile mind, altogether

impossible. A revival of anti-Semitism, and its spread to lands where

heretofore it has not prevailed, is not the least embarrassing of the

inevitable results of such a move. How can the Jewish outlander maintain

his own spiritual and mental integrity? It is not even necessary to

imagine a possible precipitation of war between the new Jewish state and

the land of his citizenship. War is not, let us hope, the necessary

condition or even potentiality among separate political states. But it

remains true, by the very nature of the present system of political

organization, that political loyalty is one, and cannot be divided.

Hyphenation, discriminating Americans are by this time well aware, must

remain spiritual, or racial, or sentimental; it dare not become

political under any circumstances.

“If the proposed new Jewish state in Palestine is to be and remain a

province or dominion of the British Empire the way is smoothed for any

Jew residing and claiming citizenship in any portion of the British

Empire. But the way is decidedly roughened for the Jew elsewhere. The

Briton is honored, especially in times of peace, in most regions of the

world for his connection with so magnificent a political structure, but

for that very reason his political loyalty is the more emphasized in his

own mind and scrutinized by citizens of other political units. A Jew

identified with so insignificant a power as an independent Palestinian

state must forever be, would, in many lands and on many occasions, be in

a far more advantageous position when a resident of an outlying nation,

than if he were recognized as a Briton. The anticipated dependence of a

new Palestine upon British sovereignty thus fails to relieve the

embarrassment of Zionism; it would seem rather to compound it.”

——

Issue of August 27, 1921.

LXXVI.

America’s Jewish Enigma—Louis Marshall

Something of an enigma is Louis Marshall, whose name heads the list of

organized Jewry in America, and who is known as the arch-protester

against most things non-Jewish. He is head of nearly every Jewish

movement that amounts to anything, and he is chief opponent of

practically every non-Jewish movement that promises to amount to

something. Yet he is known mostly as a name—and not a very Jewish name

at that.

It would be interesting to know how the name of “Marshall” found its way

to this Jewish gentleman. It is not a common name, even among Jews who

change their names. Louis Marshall is the only “Marshall” listed in the

Jewish Encyclopedia, and the only Jewish “Marshall” in the index of the

publications of the American Jewish Historical Society. In the list of

the annual contributors to the American Jewish Committee are to be found

such names as Marshutz, Mayer, Massal, Maremort, Mannheimer, Marx,

Morse, Mackler, Marcus, Morris, Moskowitz, Marks, Margolis, Mareck—but

only one “Marshall,” and that is Louis. Of any other prominent Jew it

may be asked, “Which Straus?” “Which Untermeyer?” “Which Kahn?” “Which

Schiff?”—but never, “Which Marshall?” for there is only one.

This in itself would indicate that Marshall is not a Jewish name. It is

an American, or an Anglo-Saxon name transplanted into a Jewish family.

But how and why are questions to which the public as yet have no answer.

Louis Marshall is head of the American Jewish Committee, and the

American Jewish Committee is head of all official Jewish activity in the

United States.

As head of the committee, he is also head of the executive committee of

the New York Kehillah, an organization which is the active front of

organized Jewry in New York, and the center of Jewish propaganda for the

United States. The nominal head of the Kehillah is Rabbi Judah L.

Magnes, a brother-in-law of Louis Marshall. Not only are the American

Jewish Committee and the Kehillah linked officially (see chapter 33,

Volume II, reprint of this series), but they are linked domestically as

well.

Louis Marshall was president of all the Jewish Committees of the world

at the Versailles Peace Conference, and it is charged now, as it has

been charged before, that the Jewish Program is the only program that

went through the Versailles conference as it was drawn, and the

so-called League of Nations is busily carrying out its terms today. A

determined effort is being made by Jews to have the Washington

Conference take up the same matter. Colonel House was Louis Marshall’s

chief aid at Paris in forcing the Jewish program on an unwilling world.

Louis Marshall has appeared in all the great Jewish cases. The

impeachment of Governor Sulzer was a piece of Jewish revenge, but Louis

Marshall was Sulzer’s attorney. Sulzer was removed from the office of

governor. The case of Leo Frank, a Jew, charged with the peculiarly

vicious murder of a Georgia factory girl, was defended by Mr. Marshall.

It was one of those cases where the whole world is whipped into

excitement because a Jew is in trouble. It is almost an indication of

the racial character of a culprit these days to note how much money is

spent for him and how much fuss is raised concerning him. It seems to be

a part of Jewish loyalty to prevent if possible the Gentile law being

enforced against Jews. The Dreyfus case and the Frank case are examples

of the endless publicity the Jews secure in behalf of their own people.

Frank was reprieved from the death sentence, and sent to prison, after

which he was killed. That horrible act can be traced directly to the

state of public opinion which was caused by raucous Jewish publicity

which stopped at nothing to attain its ends. To this day the state of

Georgia is, in the average mind, part of an association of ideas

directly traceable to this Jewish propaganda. Jewish publicity did to

Georgia what it did to Russia—grossly misrepresented it, and so

ceaselessly as to create a false impression generally. It is not without

reason that the Ku Klux Klan was revived in Georgia and that Jews were

excluded from membership.

Louis Marshall is chairman of the board and of the executive committee

of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, whose principal

theologian, Mordecai M. Kaplan, is the leading exponent of an

educational plan by which Judaism can be made to supersede Christianity

in the United States. Under cover of synagogal activities, which he

knows that the well-known tolerance of the American people will never

suspect, Rabbi Kaplan has thought out and systematized and launched a

program to that end, certainly not without the approval of Mr. Marshall.

Louis Marshall is not the world leader of Jewry, but he is well advanced

in Jewry’s world counsel, as is seen by the fact that international

Jewry reports to him, and also by the fact that he headed the Jews at

the “kosher conference”—as the Versailles assemblage was known among

those on the inside. Strange things happened in Paris. Mr. Marshall and

“Colonel” House had affairs very well in hand between them. President

Wilson sent a delegation to Syria to find out just what the contention

of the Syrians was against the Jews, but that report has never seen the

light of day. But it was the easiest thing imaginable to keep the

President informed as to what the Jews of New York thought (that is, the

few who had not taken up their residence in Paris). For example, this

prominent dispatch in the New York _Times_ of May 27, 1919:

“Wilson Gets Full Report of Jewish Protest

Here.

“Copyright, 1919, by the New York Times Co.

“By Wireless to _The New York Times_.

“Paris, May 26.—Louis Marshall, who has succeeded Judge Mack as head

of the Jewish Committee in Paris, was received by President Wilson

this afternoon, and gave him a long cabled account of the Jewish

mass meeting recently held in Madison Square Garden, including the

full text of the resolutions adopted at the meeting ... and

editorial comment in _The Times_ and other papers....”

When Russia fell, Louis Marshall hailed it with delight. The New York

_Times_ begins its story on March 19, 1917:

“Hailing the Russian upheaval as the greatest world event since the

French Revolution, Louis Marshall in an interview for the New York

_Times_ last night said”—a number of things, among which was the

statement that the events in Russia were no surprise. Of course they

were not, the events being of Jewish origin, and Mr. Marshall being the

recipient of the most intimate international news.

Even the new Russian revolutionary government made reports to Louis

Marshall, as is shown by the dispatch printed in the New York _Times_ of

April 3, 1917, in which Baron Gunzburg reports what had been done to

assure to the Jews the full advantage of the Russian upheaval.

This glorification of the Jewish overthrow of Russia, it must be

remembered, occurred before the world knew what Bolshevism was, and

before it realized that the revolution meant the withdrawal of the whole

eastern front from the war. Russia was simply taken out of the war and

the Central Powers left free to devote their whole attention to the

western front. One of the resulting necessities was the immediate

entrance of America into the conflict, and the prolongation of the

hostilities for nearly two more years.

As the truth became known, Louis Marshall first defended, then

explained, then denied—his latest position being that the Jews are

against Bolshevism. He was brought to this position by the necessity of

meeting the testimony of eye-witnesses as given to congressional

investigation committees. This testimony came from responsible men whom

even Mr. Marshall could not dispose of with a wave of his hand, and as

time has gone on the testimony has increased to mountainous proportions

that _Bolshevism is Jewish in its origin, its method, its personnel and

its purpose_. Herman Bernstein, a member of Mr. Marshall’s American

Jewish Committee, has lately been preparing American public opinion for

a great anti-Semitic movement in Russia. Certainly, it will be an

anti-Semitic movement, because it will be anti-Bolshevist, and the

Russian people, having lived with the hybrid for five years, are not

mistaken as to its identity.

During the war, Mr. Marshall was the arch-protester. While Mr. Baruch

was running the war from the business end (“I probably had more power

than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true”), Mr.

Marshall was running another side. We find him protesting because an

army officer gave him instructions as to his duties as a registration

official. It was Mr. Marshall who complained to the Secretary of War

that a certain camp contractor, after trying out carpenters, had

advertised for Christian carpenters only. It was to the discrimination

in print that Mr. Marshall chiefly objected, it may be surmised, since

it is the policy of his committee to make it impossible, or at least

unhealthy, to use print to call attention to the Jew.

It was Mr. Marshall who compelled a change in the instructions sent out

by the Provost Marshal General of the United States Army to the effect

that “the foreign-born, especially Jews, are more apt to malinger than

the native-born.” It is said that a Jewish medical officer afterward

confirmed this part of the instruction, saying that experience proved

it. Nevertheless, President Wilson ordered that the paragraph be cut

out.

It was Mr. Marshall who compelled the revision of the Plattsburg

Officers’ Training Manual. That valuable book rightly said that “the

ideal officer is a Christian gentleman.” Mr. Marshall wrote, wired,

demanded, and the edition was changed. It now reads that “the ideal

officer is a courteous gentleman,” a big drop in idealism.

There was nothing too unimportant to draw forth Mr. Marshall’s protest.

To take care of protests alone, he must have a large organization.

And yet with all this high-tension pro-Jewish activity, Mr. Marshall is

not a self-advertising man, as is his law partner, Samuel Untermyer, who

has been referred to as the arch-inquisitor against the Gentiles.

Marshall is a name, a power, not so much a public figure.

As an informed Jew said about the two men:

“No, Marshall doesn’t advertise himself like Sam, and he has never tried

to feature himself in the newspapers for personal reasons. Outside his

professional life he devotes himself exclusively to religious affairs.”

That is the way the American Jew likes to describe the activities

referred to above—“religious affairs.” We shall soon see that they are

political affairs.

Mr. Marshall is short, stocky, and aggressive. Like his brother-in-law,

Rabbi Magnes, he works on the principle that “the Jew can do no wrong.”

For many years Mr. Marshall has lived in a four-story brownstone house,

of the old-fashioned type, with a grilled door, in East Seventy-second

street. This is an old-time “swell” neighborhood, once almost wholly

occupied by wealthy Jews. It was as close as they could crowd to the

choice Fifth Avenue corners, which had been pre-empted by the

Vanderbilts, the Astors, and other rich families.

That Mr. Marshall regards the whole Jewish program in which he is

engaged, not in its religious aspect alone, but in its world-wide

political aspect, may be judged from his attitude on Zionism. Mr.

Marshall wrote in 1918 as follows:

“I have never been identified and am not now in any way connected with

the Zionist organization. I have never favored the creation of a

sovereign Jewish state.”

_BUT_—

Mr. Marshall says, “Let the Zionists go on. Don’t interfere with them.”

Why? He writes:

“_Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan. It is merely a

convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon. All the protests that

non-Zionists may make would be futile to affect that policy._”

He says that opposition to Zionism at that time would be dangerous. “I

could give concrete examples of a most impressive nature in support of

what I have said. I am not an alarmist, and even my enemies will give me

credit for not being a coward, but my love for our people is such that

even if I were disposed to combat Zionism, I would shrink from the

responsibilities that might be entailed were I to do so.”

And in concluding this strange pronouncement, he says:

“_Give me the credit of believing that I am speaking advisedly._”

Of course, there is more to Zionism than appears on the surface, but

this is as close as anyone can come to finding a Jewish admission on the

subject.

If in this country there is apprehension over the Jewish Problem, the

activities of Louis Marshall have been the most powerful agents to evoke

it. His propagandas have occasioned great resentment in many sections of

the United States. His opposition to salutary immigration laws, his

dictation to book and periodical publishers, as in the recent case of G.

P. Putnam’s Sons, who modified their publishing program on his order;

his campaign against the use of “Christological expressions” by Federal,

State and municipal officers; all have resulted in alarming the native

population and harming the very cause he so indiscreetly advocates.

That this defender of “Jewish rights,” and restless advocate of the

Jewish religious propaganda, should make himself the leader in attacking

the religion of the dominant race in this country, in ridiculing Sunday

laws and heading an anti-Christianity campaign, seems, to say the least,

inconsistent.

Mr. Marshall, who is regarded by the Jews as their greatest

“constitutional” lawyer, since the decline of Edward Lauterbach (and

that is a tale!) originated, in a series of legal arguments, the

contention that “this is not a Christian country nor a Christian

government.” This argument he has expounded in many writings. He has

built up a large host of followers among contentious Jews, who have

elaborated on this theme in a variety of ways. It is one of the main

arguments of those who are endeavoring to build up a “United Israel” in

the United States.

Mr. Marshall maintains that the opening of deliberative assemblies and

conventions with prayer is a “hollow mockery”; he ridicules “the absurd

phrase ‘In the name of God, Amen,’” as used in the beginning of wills.

He opposes Sunday observance legislation as being “the cloak of

hypocrisy.” He advocates “crushing out every agitation which tends to

introduce into the body politic the virus of religious controversy.”

But Mr. Marshall himself has spent the last twenty years of his life in

the “virus of religious controversy.” A few of his more impertinent

interferences have been noted above. These are, in the Jewish phrase,

“religious activities” with a decidedly political tinge.

The following extracts are quoted from the contentions of Mr. Marshall,

published in the _Menorah Journal_, the official organ of the Jewish

Chautauqua, that the United States is not a Christian country:

_IS OURS A CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT?_