Jewish Influences
in
American Life
Volume III
of
The International Jew
The World’s Foremost Problem
_Being a Reprint of a Third Selection
from Articles Appearing in_
THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT
Preface
The present volume, third in the series, is compiled for the same
purpose as its predecessors—to enable new readers of THE DEARBORN
INDEPENDENT to commence their reading with the earlier articles in the
series of studies in The Jewish Question.
It was inevitable that the publication first to open the discussion of
this Question should be compelled to meet the degrading charge of
“anti-semitism” and kindred falsehoods; but it was also inevitable that
if the work of such a publication should prove to be valid, the way
would be cleared for discussion by other publications which had not and
need not bring upon themselves the charge of racial hatred.
This is precisely what has occurred. An undreamed of publicity for the
essentials of the Jewish Question has been achieved in this country. It
is noteworthy that whether the publicity be in agreement with or against
THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, the essential facts are the same, and these
facts were first set forth in this paper.
That, indeed, constitutes the strength of the articles. The facts are
provable; they are not disprovable. The reader can confirm the facts
from his own observation. With regard to the matters discussed in these
volumes, there are too many observers of the Jew to permit misstatements
to pass. This also constitutes the dilemma of the self-appointed
defenders of the Jews: they may abuse THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, but they
cannot disprove the facts. They do not make even an impressive denial of
them. The whole situation would be much clarified if Jewish spokesmen
would use frankness, instead of a fusillade of cheap and irrelevant
abuse.
The year has witnessed much notable discussion of The Jewish Question in
magazines of quality. A few have descended to white-washing, fewer still
to sheer pro-Jewish propaganda; but such articles as those in the
September _Century_; those in the _Atlantic_ for February, May and July;
_The Nineteenth Century and After_ for April; the true and admirable
accounts by Lieut. Commander Hugo W. Koehler, of the U. S. Navy, in the
_World’s Work_ for July, August, September and October—these testify to
the reality of the matter. The more serious religious press, as
represented by publications like the _Christian Standard_, the
_Christian Century_, _The Moody Monthly_ which is published by The Moody
Bible Institute, Chicago, have also added materially to the literature
of the question. In editorial vision and liberty of discussion, the
religious press has shown itself to be freer of control than has the
secular press.
This volume contains information dealing with the influence of the
Jewish idea on American life. The departments of life here studied do
not by any means exhaust the list. The studies are more and more
centering on the actual operations of the Jewish program upon the
American people, and the effect of Jewish conceptions on our common
life. These studies are appearing in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT now. They
will be gathered into future volumes as may be required.
November, 1921.
Contents
Page
XLIII. The Jews and the “Religious Persecution” Cry 7
XLIV. Are the Jews Victims or Persecutors? 21
XLV. Jewish Gamblers Corrupt American Baseball 37
XLVI. Jewish Degradation of American Baseball 51
XLVII. Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music 64
XLVIII. How the Jewish Song Trust Makes You Sing 75
XLIX. Jewish Hot-Beds of Bolshevism in the U. S. 88
L. Jew Trades Link With World Revolutionaries 102
LI. Will Jewish Zionism Bring Armageddon? 114
LII. How the Jews Use Power—By an Eyewitness 128
LIII. How Jews Ruled and Ruined Tammany Hall 141
LIV. Jew Wires Direct Tammany’s Gentile Puppets 155
LV. B’nai B’rith Leader Discusses the Jews 167
LVI. Dr. Levy, a Jew, Admits His People’s Error 179
LVII. Jewish Idea in American Monetary Affairs 191
LVIII. Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve Plan 205
LIX. Jewish Idea of Central Bank for America 218
LX. How Jewish International Finance Functions 230
LXI. Jewish Power and America’s Money Famine 243
_The Writer of the Following Letter Is a Jew:_
_“Gentlemen:_
_“‘Because you believe in a good cause,’ said Dr. Johnson, ‘is no
reason why you should feel called upon to defend it, for by your
manner of defense you may do your cause much harm.’_
_“The above applying to me I will only say that I have received the
books you sent me and read both with much interest._
_“You are rendering the Jews a very great service, that of saving
them from themselves._
_“It takes courage, and nerve, and intelligence to do and pursue
such a work, and I admire you for it.”_
XLIII.
The Jews and the “Religious Persecution” Cry
We cheerfully give the Jews of the United States credit for knowing when
they are getting their money’s worth. In the defense that has been set
up for them they know that they have not had their money’s worth,
neither from Jewish money collectors nor from the “Gentile fronts” to
whom the money has been paid. The Louis Marshall line of defense has
broken down. The boycott has dribbled into nothingness. Speeches in
Congress and editorials in newspapers have sounded too hollow to carry
conviction. The Question has proved itself far too big for those who
have entered the defense for gain, to satisfy personal grudges, or to
win what they feel to be the favor of the stronger side. The Jews long
ago quit the course which some of the “Gentile fronts” still continue;
the Jews recognized the futility of it.
No intelligent Jew in the United States ever was asinine enough to
declare that the Jewish Question is a religious question and that THE
DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’S investigation of that question constituted
“religious persecution.” No Jew known beyond the next street has ever
ventured such a silly charge. But it is apparently all that remains for
the “Gentile fronts” to shout about. From what can be learned of them
they are for the most part men of no religion themselves and they use
the term “religious persecution” as a red rag which they think will stir
people into action. It is rather curious how the cry of “religious
persecution” is used to evoke the spirit of persecution against alleged
persecutors.
THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT this week goes out of its course to squelch
once and for all this cry of religious persecutions.
Three statements are sufficient to outline the situation:
First, neither directly nor by implication has THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT
held that the Jewish Question is a religious question. On the contrary,
supported by the highest Jewish authority, this paper has held that the
Jewish Question is one of race and nationality. (See issues of October 9
and 16, 1920; reprinted in the new book, volume two of “The
International Jew.”)
Second, there is no religious persecution of the Jew in the United
States, unless the agitation of various humane societies for the
abolition of “kosher killing” may be considered such. The Massachusetts
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has published a
valuable study of the Jewish method of slaughtering animals for food, in
which is adduced much scientific evidence to support the conclusion that
the Jewish method is “needlessly cruel.” But even this can only with
difficulty be stretched into an interference with “the religion of the
Jews.” The Jewish method of slaughter as now practiced is not commanded
in the Old Testament but in the Talmud, and is, therefore, not religious
in the authoritative sense, but traditional. Moreover, there is positive
evidence that modern methods achieve the Jewish purpose (the disposal of
the blood of the carcass) much better than does the Jewish method. This
is the only instance where even remotely the religion of the Jews has
been touched.
Third, the fact is that while there is no “religious persecution” of the
Jews, there is very much real religious persecution _by_ the Jews. That
is one of the outstanding characteristics of organized Jewish life in
the United States, its active, unceasing, powerful and virulent attacks
upon any and all forms of Christianity which may chance to come to
public notice. Now and again we hear of outbreaks of sectarian bigotry
between Catholics and Protestants, but these are not to be compared with
the steady, relentless, alert, anti-Christian activity of the Jewish
organizations. There are doctrinal disputes within the Christian
churches, but none that challenge the basis of Christianity itself;
organized Judaism, however, is not content with doctrinal disputation,
but enlists its vast commercial and political power against everything
that it regards as, in its own words, “Christological manifestations.”
Now, these are facts, and being facts, they are important, and they
ought to be publicly known.
No President of the United States has yet dared to take his inaugural
oath on the open pages of the New Testament—the Jews would denounce him.
When General Pershing announced that he considered the morale of the
American soldier due to the interest of the Christian men and women at
home, the Jews had him cut out the word “Christian.” Various governors
of American states, having used the word “Christian” in their
Thanksgiving proclamations, have been obliged to excise it on demand of
the Jews. The word “Christian” was compelled to be cut out of the
officers’ training manual at the Plattsburg training camp. Everything
that would remind the child in school that he is living in the midst of
a Christian civilization, in a nation declared by its Supreme Court to
be founded on Christian principles, has been ordered out of the public
schools on Jewish demand.
People sometimes ask why 3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of
100,000,000 Americans. In the same way that ten Jewish students can
abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing
3,000 Christian pupils.
In a nation and at a time when a minority of Jews can print every year a
record of the apologies they have extorted from public officials for
“having inadvertently used the term ‘Christian,’” it is desirable that
this charge of “religious persecution” should be placed where it
belongs. In the _Daily American Tribune_, a Catholic daily published at
Dubuque, Iowa, appeared a recent headline which said a great deal—_Not
Persecution of The Jews, But Protection of The Christians_.
It is now proposed to let the Jews speak for themselves on this
question. The Jewish press has been searched for an authoritative
expression charging that the study of the Jewish Question constitutes
“religious persecution,” and none has been found. That cry has been
reserved for “Gentile fronts” for use among Christians. All the attacks
from the Jewish camp are against the doctrines and institutions of the
Christians. They have carried on an insistent and successful
persecution, and the details of it have filled the Jewish press for
years past.
Upon reading the following selections, the remark of Dean Swift will
probably come to mind: “We are fully convinced that we shall always
tolerate them, but not that they will tolerate us.”
_The Red Cross is objectionable to the Jew._ H. Lissauer, in _The Jewish
Times_, proposed that the Magen David be substituted for “the red cross”
on the Red Cross Society badges worn by Jews.
“We should not let our sensitiveness to charges of intolerance overcome
our conscientious religious objections to the cross,” says Mr. Lissauer.
The editor of _The Jewish Independent_ thinks the suggestion “is worthy
of serious consideration.”
_The Gideons are objectionable to the Jew._ The Gideons is the name
given to the Christian Commercial Travelers’ Association of America,
whose efforts are responsible for the Bibles which are to be found in
most hotel rooms. This is from the Cleveland _Jewish Independent_:
“It is quite evident that the Gideons do not know a typically Jewish
name when they see or hear one. The Gideons’ object, according to their
letterheads, is ‘winning commercial traveling men for Christ’ and the
way this is done is by placing a Christian Bible in each guest room of
every hotel.
“The Gideons have been at it a long time, long enough to know better,
but the other day they sent a letter to Max Cohen of this city, who is a
traveling man but the kind the Gideons have no right to ask for funds,
and the person who selected him for an ‘easy mark’ certainly should have
had better sense.
“Mr. Cohen utterly failed to ‘fall’ for the invitation and instead of
sending his little donation he wrote a letter to the secretary, C. A.
Johnson, in which he bluntly said: ‘Don’t you think you ought to use
better judgment than to ask me to contribute to a strictly religious
work opposite to my own belief?’
“If the Gideons insist upon filling up hotels with Bibles that have no
business there they should go to the right persons for contributions.”
_The Jews do not like the Salvation Army nor the Y. M. C. A._ Many
thousands of printed lines expressed the fury with which they regarded
attempts to “Christianize the Army and Navy” during the war, and the
wild arguments with which they sought to make “Y” work and Salvation
Army work appear to be a violation of the principle of no union of
Church and State. The same objection was made to religious welfare work
during the building of the Panama Canal. If there is any challenge of
this on the part of uninformed “Gentile fronts” (the Jews themselves
will not challenge it) the evidence can be produced. It is only a matter
of space.
_The Jews did not like Theodore Roosevelt’s choice_ of a hymn for the
Progressive party:
“With Hon. Oscar S. Strauss as the nominee for the governorship of New
York on the Progressive ticket, this question rises: Will the voters on
the East Side of New York march to the Progressive battle hymn, ‘Onward,
Christian Soldiers,’ or will the song have to be changed to fit the
candidate?”—_American Israelite._
_The Jews hate with a malice beyond expression what they call “mission
holes,”_ that is, a place of instruction maintained by Christian
churches where inquiring Jews may learn what Christianity is and, in
many instances, where destitute and neglected Jews may receive
assistance and counsel. The boast of how “the Jew cares for his own” is
given a jolt by the dire need which has called Christian welfare work
into Jewish settlements.
This hatred overrode good judgment so completely that in 1911
Assemblyman Heyman introduced into the New York State legislature a bill
making it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment to entice or
tempt a minor under sixteen years of age into a religious mission,
Sunday school or church without the written consent of the parents or
guardian of the minor! The language indicates a part of the contempt in
which the welfare work undertaken by Christian institutions for the
neediest class of children in America is held by the leaders among the
Jews; not by the masses of the Jews themselves, however, except when
they are terrified by their leaders.
In St. Louis, application for a charter of the Jewish Christian
Association was opposed. The converted Jews wanted an association of
their own. They represented that they had been ostracized by the Jews
and were desirous of organizing and owning their own meeting place. A
referee advised against the charter on the ground that “it would be
contrary to the broad spirit of religious freedom guaranteed under the
constitution of Missouri.” The referee was, of course, coached by Jews.
In the name of religious freedom these Jews opposed giving an
association freedom enough to preach the gospel.
In Toronto the Jewish leaders issued a proclamation throughout all
Toronto Jewry forbidding the use of reading rooms, baths, dispensaries,
motion picture shows or anything else which they described as “the petty
bribery of conversionist tricksters who seek for their wealthy donators
to open the gates of heaven and find salvation for their sins by
converting a weak-minded Jew.”
By the way, all converted Jews are weak-minded or criminal, if we are to
believe the hundreds of statements to that effect in the Jewish papers.
The Jews are, without exception, superior people until they become
Christians; _then_ learn what they are from the Jewish leaders!
Among the nice names for this welfare work are “Jesus holes,” “mission
traps,” “Jew-snatchers,” “child stealers.”
It happened that one of the helpers in the Chicago Gospel Mission was
principal of a Chicago public school. The Jews raised a great outcry
against him, denounced him as unfit to teach children, and guilty of
“the moral turpitude of eating food provided by taxes of which a large
share is received from Jews, whose children they seek to entice from
their parental religion and whose men and women they are seeking to
degrade into liars and hypocrites.” All because a competent man was
willing to meet Jewish inquirers, or perhaps bring a few of the benefits
of civilization into the neglected ghetto. If this school teacher were
Christian enough to have a conscience, he would resign, said the Jewish
thunderers, and with that never-failing tinge of dark-mindedness they
added: “What is done in secret in these haunts can, of course, only be
guessed at.”
Talk about bigotry! This from a people who encourage the cry that THE
DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is engaged in “religious persecution,” though THE
DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has not yet carried even one of the scores of
sensational and important stories which show the Federal Government
discovering synagogues and rabbis as agents of the illicit liquor
traffic. “These _haunts_” and hints of the things that may go on there,
is the only way the _American Israelite_ can find to refer to welfare
works in which some of the best people, from no motive but the goodness
of their hearts, engage.
A book of 500 pages could be filled with the unreasonable and in many
cases positively vicious statements of leading Jews on any of the
subjects touched here.
_The Jews do not like the Christian Sabbath._ The literature of attack
against this institution is voluminous and the arguments extreme. Sunday
is Christian, therefore to the Jew it is taboo. Court records in every
state bear testimony to the fight of the Jews against Sunday. Few
legislatures have escaped being pestered with bills on the subject. The
latest fight has been the strongest yet waged, to destroy Sunday by
throwing it wide open to Jewish exploitation. Yet the Jews are most
chary of their own Sabbath. When recent college examinations fell on
Jewish holy days, the Jews had the examinations changed. When primary
elections last year fell on Jewish days, every power was moved to change
them. There are Jewish records of a western governor being remonstrated
with because a condemned criminal was sentenced to be hanged on
Saturday—did the governor mean to “offend 3,000,000 Jews”? The St. Louis
Charity Fair in 1908 planned to remain open on Friday evening; a great
outcry; did the managers of that fair mean to insult the Jews; didn’t
they know that the Jewish Sabbath began on Friday night?
But when it is a question of maintaining the integrity of Sunday—pooh!
pooh! “Don’t the Christians know that Sunday perpetuates the silliest
superstition, that their god Jesus rose from the dead?” When certain
people aid the post office employes in an attempt to close the post
offices on Sunday, the Jews regard it as a step back toward the dark
ages.
Here is a Jewish editorial relating to Governor Cox. It appears that
Governor Cox in 1914 stood for a decent Sunday and liquor law
enforcement, and this is the threat held out to him:
“At the 59th Jackson Day banquet of the Wayne County (Ohio) Democracy,
which was held at Wooster, Governor Cox made the principal address in
which he defended laws passed at his instigation. The governor laid
particular stress on the fact that for the first time in her history,
Ohio now enjoys a ‘Christian Sabbath.’
“‘I stand or fall by the Christian Sabbath in the next campaign,’ the
governor is reported to have said....
“There are many who construe the declaration to mean that Governor Cox
has bid defiance to the liberal element of the state and will rely upon
the religious and class prejudices which he is arousing and keeping
alive in the rural districts, to re-elect him to his present office, or,
what is clearly plain from his entire attitude, boost him into the
nomination for United States Senatorship. The _Israelite_ will take
great pleasure about the time the leaves begin to turn in reminding
Governor Cox of his statement that he ‘will stand or fall by a Christian
Sabbath’ in the coming campaign.”—_American Israelite._
The literature of Jewish thought toward Sunday presents complete
evidence of the leaders’ antagonism to this distinctly Christian and
Anglo-Saxon institution. Sunday has never been regarded as set apart, in
those countries where the Jewish idea has most infiltrated. The decline
of Sunday in the United States is directly along the line of those
invasions of the Sunday spirit which are mostly aligned with Jewish
commercial interests. In Great Britain and her colonies where the Jew is
not permitted to usurp a superior place as chief censor of morals and
religion and education, Sunday is decently observed. The situation in
this country is that, instead of enjoying its liberty, the Jewish
leaders have taken liberties. The student who wishes to know how deep
and hard-set is the anti-Sunday program will find all the material he
wants in Jewish sources.
The theme of this article is “religious prejudice.” You will not find it
anywhere within the whole range of the Jewish Question, except on the
Jewish side. There is, in the United States, a religious prejudice, but
it is strictly Yiddish. If the Christian population bothered one
one-hundred-thousandth part as much about Jewish religion as the Jews
bother about Christian observances, the whole fabric of Talmudical
teaching would be consumed in the bright light to which general
attention would bring it, the bright light from which it has always been
concealed. Sheer analysis in the interest of mental health, if
undertaken by fifty men, would compel the Jewish people by their own
decision to abandon the darkness which holds them now. Jewish Talmudism
owes its existence today to the indifference with which it is regarded.
This is the far opposite extreme of “religious persecution.”
The list of headlines describing the various angles of Jewish
anti-Christian religious prejudice is not, however, exhausted.
_The Jew is prejudiced against the Bible._ When he uses that term, he
does not mean what the ordinary person means. Therefore, he does what he
can to destroy public honor of the Book, unless it be an occasion where
a President has been inaugurated, when it will run through the Jewish
press like a strong breeze that once more has a Christian statesman
ignored the Christian Bible and turned to the Jewish Bible. It is rather
a trifling matter to mention; its significance comes solely from the
light it throws on the Jewish attitude. It is not a trifling thing in
Jewry, as the country will probably be made aware if any future
President should be sworn in with, say, the Sermon on the Mount open
before him.
And yet, even here, we observe a strange paradox. A Jewish authority
says: “The Jew is a paradox. He is at once an idealist and a
materialist. He is parsimonious and extravagant. He is courageous and
cowardly. He is modest and vulgar. He is persistent and yielding. He is
peaceful and warlike”——and so on. And though the Jew opposes the Bible
in the schools, he never misses a chance to put it there, with the
Jewish trade-mark. He quotes the Psalms—“We wrote them.” He quotes
Isaiah—“We Jews did that.”
Most people sit open-mouthed at these glorious authors of Scripture and
do not know how to answer. It is time the Churches began to learn what
to say to the Jewish taunts—“We gave you your god;” “We gave you your
bible;” “We gave you your savior.” Perhaps it is also time that the Jews
themselves considered how long the boast will stand the usage they are
giving it.
In any case the literature which the Jews wrongfully claim as their own
production, is rather far distant in time to justify its being used as a
mantle of glory for the political rabbis, the discredited theatrical and
movie magnates, and the violent penmen of the Jewish press. Rather too
distant in time! We, the race that confronts the Jews, have done
somewhat more recent work; for example, the Declaration of Independence
and the Emancipation Proclamation, not to mention the psalms and
pronouncements of the great American prophets that have lifted up the
world.
So, the Jew is very willing that the Bible should be in the schools,
provided it is not what he calls “the Christian Bible.” Listen to this:
“Hebrew is to be taught in the Chicago high schools. Students who
include this language in their course are to receive the credit now
allowed for the study of other classical languages. Of infinite
value in the training of the mind are the wonderful narratives of
Genesis, and boys and girls will find the history of Israel under
the Judges much more appealing than Caesar’s bridge over the Rhine.”
The people of New Jersey thought so, too; they believed that a reading
from this ancient book every day would mean much to the general culture
of the pupils. But what did the paper just quoted say about it? It
called the cultivated Bible appreciators of New Jersey “soul-snatching
enthusiasts” and raised a mighty yell about “the forcible conversion of
Jewish children,” although it was provided that Jewish or any other
children should be excused from the reading if desired. Another mighty
yell about excusing the children all on account of the tyranny of
reading the Christian Bible in the schools—regardless of the fact, which
every public school teacher knows, that no class of children is oftener
out of school for religious reasons than are the Jews.
Truly, these people are a paradox. They are not fair. They are
constituted so that they cannot see the other side of anything. For a
time they actually do convince the secularists that everything public
should be secularized down to the last notch of atheistic demand.
Non-Jews are fair. They are willing to see the other people’s point of
view. When it was said to us that the “Merchant of Venice” was a cruelty
upon Jewish school pupils, we said, without investigation, “Out goes the
Merchant, then!” We discovered later that the Jewish children liked and
appreciated that play better than any other group. Brander Matthews
helped us discover that.
And so when they said, “Reading the Bible is sheer proselytizing; it
isn’t fair,” the non-Jew, who wanted to prove that he is fair and
unprejudiced above all things else (a weakness the Jews know how to
manipulate), said, “Well, then, out goes the Bible!” And it went out.
Very well! What next? “You must abolish Christmas, too.” “You must not
keep Easter—the Jews don’t like it.” “It is anti-Semitic to observe Good
Friday.” In other words, to please the sensitive Jewish natures we must
eradicate from Christian civilization all that is Christian in it.
In the meantime what transpires? Having induced “fair-minded” non-Jews
to do all these things—and every one above enumerated has been done over
and over again at Jewish demand—the Jews then proceeded to sow Judaism
on the fields thus denuded of Christianity. “No religion in the
institutions of the State”—yet in every state university last year there
were, and in every state university this year there probably will be,
courses of lectures delivered by Jewish rabbis—the lectures delivered in
the colleges themselves—propagandizing the youth of the non-Jews with
Judaistic religion, ethics, and economics. That is what the so-called
Jewish “Chautauqua” exists for. It is not a Jewish “Chautauqua”; it is
Jewish propaganda in public educational institutions.
That is the repayment the Jews have made for our “fair-mindedness.”
Their demand for complete secularization is merely their preparation of
the soil for their carefully organized sowing of the seed of Judaism.
And non-Jews permit it to continue, for there is nothing they fear so
much as that their opposition will be regarded as “religious prejudice.”
The Jew glories in religious prejudice, as the American glories in
patriotism. Religious prejudice _is_ the Jews’ chief expression of their
own true patriotism. It is the only well-organized, active and
successful form of religious prejudice in the country because they have
succeeded in pulling off the gigantic trick of making not their own
attitude, but any opposition to it, bear the stigma of “prejudice” and
“persecution.” That is why the Jew uses these terms so frequently. He
wants to label the other fellow first. That is why any investigation of
the Jewish Question is so quickly advertised as anti-Semitism—the Jew
knows the advantage of labeling the other man; wrong labels are most
useful.
This does not by any means exhaust the list of headlines describing the
various avenues in which the expression of virulent Jewish religious
prejudice and persecution is found. But it exhausts the space allotted
to these articles each week. Therefore, the subject will be concluded
next week.
It is not a pleasant subject. Religious prejudice is just as unpleasant
to write about as it is to experience in any other way. It is totally
contrary to the genius of the American and the Anglo-Saxon. We have
always regarded religion as a matter of conscience. To believe as he
will is part of every man’s fundamental liberty. To interfere with force
to change anyone’s belief is exceedingly stupid.
Holding these hereditary principles, one chooses to study that active
stream of influence in American life which is known as the Jewish
stream, and immediately upon doing so, one finds himself classed with
the bigots and torturers of other times.
It is now time to show that the cry of “bigot!” is raised mostly by
bigots. There _is_ a religious prejudice in this country, there _is_,
indeed, a religious persecution, there _is_ a forcible shoving aside of
the religious liberties of a majority of the people, and this prejudice
and persecution and use of force is Jewish and nothing but Jewish.
This is the answer to the cry of “religious persecution,” and we shall
make it so complete and definite that a repetition of the cry against
students of the Jewish Question will automatically mark the criers as
either too ignorant or too vicious for consideration.
XLIV.
Are the Jews Victims or Persecutors?
“Half of Christendom worships a Jew; the other half worships a
Jewess.”—Jewish editorial.
“If the gospel story is correct, Judas was a pretty decent sort of a
fellow. It was only _after he had become a convert to Christianity
that he became that which has made his memory an accursed thing for
nineteen hundred years_.”—Jewish editorial.
“Our land is frequently called a Christian nation. No doubt the
majority of our citizens believe this. No less an authority than
Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court so expressed himself in 1892.
But the statement is clearly false.... _This is not a Christian
nation. In inspiration, at least, it is a Hebrew nation_, for the
Constitution which we now enjoy traces back to the Hebrew
Commonwealth.”—Jewish editorial.
(From the minutes of a meeting of the Committee on Families of the
New York Board of Child Welfare.)
Mr. Hebbard: “That is one of the things I have in mind, that a widow
brings deliberately into her home a nameless child and the
inevitable consequence of that is that her legitimate children are
always thereafter pointed out.”
Miss Sophie Irene Loeb: “As far as nameless children are concerned,
_Christ himself was a nameless child_. Let us get away from nameless
children.”
Dr. Dirvoch: “I think where there are three or four children in a
home and a little stranger enters that home without a father, you
are corrupting the morals of those legitimate children by permitting
them to remain in such surroundings.”
Miss Loeb: “I say to you that this committee, if it takes such an
attitude as that, is one hundred years behind the times.”
Mr. Cunnion: “Anything against purity is immoral.”
Miss Loeb: “_What has that to do with the question of purity? Was
the mother of Christ pure?_”
Mr. Cunnion: “_Certainly._”
Miss Loeb: “_He had no name!_”
Mr. Cunnion: “_You can’t bring that in here. We believe he was
conceived without sin._”
Mr. Menehan (to Miss Loeb): “_That is very wrong to make that
statement._”—Cited in letter of complaint to Mayor Hylan.
“The intimate relation of church and state in the great
non-sectarian United States of America received direct demonstration
on August 12 (1913), when a deputy sergeant-at-arms of the Senate
was hurriedly sent out to get a preacher of any old denomination to
open the Senate with prayer. The session opening an hour earlier
than usual, the regular chaplain was not at hand, but with still two
minutes to spare the deputy returned in an automobile, hurried to
the Vice President’s office and introduced the Rev. Dr. C. Albert
Homas, of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, to Mr. Marshall just in time for
the Vice President to lead the way into the Senate chamber to open
the session at 11 o’clock, and once again the Union was saved. We
shudder to think what might have happened if no preacher had been
captured in time to open the session with prayer!”—Jewish editorial.
“President Wilson in his inaugural address said: ‘The firm basis of
the Government is justice, not pity.’ This is sound Jewish doctrine
as laid down by Moses and the Prophets in contradistinction to the
doctrine of love, as attributed to Jesus. This coming from so good a
churchman as President Wilson might be a little surprising were it
not that it is a well-known fact that whenever our Christian
brethren want to talk to reasoning men they go to the Old Testament
for their inspiration.”—Jewish editorial.
“President Wilson at his inaugural gave another instance of the
well-known fact that in solemn moments when they need comfort and
inspiration, Christians turn to the Old Testament and not to the
New. So President Wilson, when he kissed the bible after taking the
inaugural oath, selected the passage, Psalm 46.”—Jewish editorial.
“Reference has frequently been made in these columns to a number
of addresses made by the late Isaac M. Wise at the celebration in
honor of his 80th birthday anniversary in the course of which he
predicted _that in a quarter of a century from that date (1899)
there would be practically nothing left in Protestant Christianity
of a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ_ or the distinctive
dogmas of Christianity, and that all Protestant Christians by
whatever name they called themselves, _would be substantially Jews
in belief_. To any one who notes the signs of the times it is
apparent that this prophecy is being rapidly fulfilled.... _The
Jesus superstition_ and the _fantastic dogmas built upon his
supposed divine origin_, die but slowly, but that they are dying
is nevertheless apparent.”—Jewish editorial.
The subject of this article is “Religious Prejudice and Persecution—Are
the Jews Victims or Persecutors?” A study of history and of contemporary
Jewish journalism shows that Jewish prejudice and persecution is a
continuous phenomenon wherever the Jews have attained power, and that in
neither action nor word has any disability placed upon the Jew equaled
the disabilities he has placed and still contemplates placing upon
non-Jews. It is a rather startling reversal of all that we have learned
from our Judaized histories, but nevertheless it seems to be the truth.
Attention is once more called to the fact that the Jews themselves are
not raising the cry of “religious persecution” here or elsewhere, but
they are allowing their “Gentile fronts” to do it for them—just as they
have not denied the statements made in this series (among themselves
they freely admit most of them) but let “Gentile fronts” do it for them.
The Jews would not be averse to raising the cry of “religious
persecution” perhaps, (provided they could make it stand) were they not
afraid that it would call attention to their own persecuting activities.
But their “Gentile fronts” have brought that upon them.
There is no Christian church that the Jews have not repeatedly attacked.
_They have attacked the Catholic Church._ This is of special interest
just now when Jewish agents are doing their utmost to arouse Catholic
sentiment in their favor by circulating charges which these agents
personally know to be false. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has perfect
confidence in the information which Catholic leaders may have on the
Jewish Question. On this subject the Catholic priesthood is not misled.
Examples of this attack are numerous. “Half of Christendom worships a
Jewess,” is not a statement but a slur, flung by Jewish men who say in
the ritual of morning prayer: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of
the Universe, _who hast not made me a woman_.” The Talmudists’
discussions of the Virgin Mother are often vile. The Christian
festivals, whose preservation is due to the Catholic custom and
conscience, are all attacked by Jews.
_The American Israelite_, whose great prestige in American Jewry is due
to its having been founded by Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, _opposed the
establishment of Columbus Day_ and berated Governor Hughes for signing
the law making it a holiday in New York. The act that established it
deserved “the contempt of thinking men.” Why? Is not the discovery of
America a memorable event? Yes, but Columbus was a Catholic! However, in
recent months the Jews are proving him to have been a Jew, so we may
expect some day to see Columbus Day insisted upon with Jewish rites.
The _Catholic Columbian_ made editorial reference to the increasing
Jewish influence on the American press, in these words: “Jewry is
getting its grip on the news of this country as it is on Reuter’s and
the Havas agency in Europe.”—A perfectly polite and true observation.
But the Jewish editorial thunderer came back—“The _Columbian_, in its
sneaking Jesuitical way, does not mention the fact that these (the
Jewish) papers are the very cleanest in the country. The _Columbian_
cannot point to a single daily owned by one of its co-religionists that
begins to compare with the above papers.”
The sweet spirit here evidenced is very significant today when an appeal
is being made to create a strong pro-Jewish Catholic sentiment.
If there is in the world any extra-ecclesiastical undertaking by
Catholics which has won the undivided approval of the Christian world as
_the Passion Play of Oberammergau_ has done, the present writer does not
know what it is. Yet in a volume entitled “_A Rabbi’s Impressions of the
Oberammergau Passion Play_,” Rabbi Joseph Krauskopf, D.D., of
Philadelphia, has stigmatized that notable production as reeking with
falsehoods and vicious anti-Semitism. In the rabbi’s eyes, of course, it
is, for to him the entire Christian tradition is a poisonous lie. The
whole fabric of Christian truth, especially as it concerns the person of
Christ, are “the hallucinations of emotional men and hysterical women.”
“Thus,” says the rabbi (p. 127) “was invented that cruel story, that has
caused more misery, more innocent suffering, than any other work of
fiction in the range of the whole world’s literature.” And thus the
simple peasants of Oberammergau, presenting the Catholic faith in
reverent pageant, are labeled anti-Semites.
These are not isolated instances. Antagonism to the Catholic Church rung
throughout Jewish literature. The Jewish attitude was summed up in an
editorial in the _Jewish Sentinel_ of November 26, 1920, as follows:
“_Our only great historical enemy, our most dangerous enemy, is Rome in
all its shapes and forms, and in all its ramifications. Whenever the sun
of Rome begins to set, that of Jerusalem rises._” These, however, are
matters well known to Catholic leaders.
In their turn the other Christian denominations have been attacked. When
the _Methodist Church_ put on the great pageant entitled “_The
Wayfarer_,” Rabbi Stephen S. Wise played critic and made the solemn and
silly statement that had he been a South Sea Islander (instead of the
itinerant platform performer which he is) his first impulse, after
seeing “The Wayfarer,” would have been to rush out into the street and
kill at least three Jews. It says a great deal, perhaps, for the channel
in which Rabbi Wise’s impulses run, but the tens of thousands of
Methodists who saw “The Wayfarer” will not be inclined to attribute such
a criticism to the spirit of tolerance which Rabbi Wise so zealously
counsels the Christians to observe.
_The Episcopal Church also_ has felt the attack of the Jews. Recently
the Jewish press raised a clamor that the Episcopal Church was not
competent to teach Americanism in our cities because it held that
Christianity and good citizenship were synonymous. And when the
Episcopal Church made provision for mission work among the Jews, the
torrent of abuse that was poured out gave a very vivid picture of what
the Jewish mind naturally turns to when aroused. This abuse is not
reproduced here because of its excessive violence and disrespect. It is
similar to that which is heaped upon all attempts to explain
Christianity to the Jews. “What would the Gentiles do if we sent Jewish
missionaries to them?” ask the violent editors. Any Gentile can answer
that—nay, even the Jews themselves can answer that. In the first place,
the Jews do not want to teach their religion to Gentiles because there
is a Talmudical restriction against it; Talmudically the Gentiles are
not good enough to mingle with the religious matters of the Jews. In the
second place, the Jews do send missionaries everywhere, not to spread
Jewish religious principles, but propaganda favoring the Jews as a race
and people, as is done in our colleges through the so-called “Jewish
Chautauqua.” In the third place, let there be produced one Jewish
missionary, who has ever received anything but a considerate reception
wherever he has appeared.
The Jews are bitter against all Christian denominations because of the
conversion of numerous Jews to them. A large number of Jews have become
Catholics; one of the _Knights of Columbus’_ most useful lecturers
against the menace of radical socialism is a converted Jew. It is so
also with the _Presbyterian Church_ which has been the most recent
victim of Jewish vituperation. But only upon the Catholic Church has the
Jew poured more wrath and malediction than he has poured upon _Christian
Science_. The Christian Science church has attracted large numbers of
Jewish converts. Some of them have become very active, devoted members
of that form of faith. Scores of columns and pages have been devoted to
their denunciation in Jewish newspapers, magazines and books. Christian
Science is a peculiar anathema to the Jew.
Where then is the religious prejudice? Search through the publications
of all the churches named, and you cannot find in all their history so
much of the spirit of prejudice and persecution as you can find
expressed in the Jewish press in one single day. Jewry reeks with such
prejudice. In politics, education, social functions, public holidays,
literature and newspapers, they see everywhere traces of “Christological
manifestations” and cry them down.
_No public man has ever given public evidence of his Christian faith
without rebuke from the Jews._ Mr. Bryan, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Taft, Mr.
Wilson, two of them Presidents, one of them Vice President, and the
other Secretary of State, have all been called to task from time to time
for their sins in this respect. Mr. Marshall is a devout man, whose
faith is real to him, and he speaks very naturally about it at times. He
has, therefore, been attacked oftener in the Jewish press than has any
other public man of recent times. Nothing is more ludicrous to the
Jewish press than a Vice President of the United States openly
confessing that he is an “idolater,” that is, a worshipper of the dead
Jewish imposter whom the Christians ignorantly call “Christ.” To Mr.
Marshall’s honor, be it said, he never apologized, he never begged to
withdraw his public statements. Neither did William J. Bryan, whose
lecture “The Prince of Peace” contained statements in honor of Christ
which brought him into conflict with Jewish spokesmen everywhere, and
whose remarks about missions after a trip around the world were savagely
attacked by Jews. Mr. Bryan did not apologize either. Mr. Taft was
promptly called down on several occasions for using forms of the word
“Christian,” which were particularly offensive to the Jewish press
because they had advertised far and wide during the Taft campaign that
Mr. Taft was practically a Jew in his belief in that he had abandoned
all the distinctive Christian doctrines pertaining to Christ. After his
lapses in which he used the term “Christian” approvingly, it was
explained on his behalf (1) that he was accommodating himself to the
audience, and (2) that he used the term as a synonym for civilization!
But isn’t it significant that the name of Christ should be an integral
part of the very name of the highest civilization? Mr. Taft was a true
liberal, liberal enough to tolerate Christian orthodoxy. And that was a
rather weak spot, as far as the Jews’ estimate of him went.
Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His
administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish. As a
Presbyterian elder, Mr. Wilson had occasional lapses into the Christian
mode of thought during his public utterances, and was always checked up
tight by his Jewish censors. In 1914, speaking before the American
University at Washington, he said:
“That is the reason why scholarship has usually been most fruitful
when associated with religion, and _scholarship has never been, so
far as I can at this moment recall, associated with any religion
except the religion of Jesus Christ_.”
That was terrible. So terrible that Herman Bernstein was chosen to
administer the castigation.
And Mr. Wilson made proper reparation:
“My dear Mr. Bernstein: I am sorry that there should have been any
unfair implication in what I said at the opening of the American
University. You may be sure that there was nothing of the kind in my
mind, or very certainly nothing in my thoughts that would
discriminate in the important matter you speak of against Judaism. I
find that one of the risks and penalties of extemporaneous speaking
is that you do not stop to consider the whole field, but address
yourself merely to the matter in hand. With sincere respects and
appreciation,
Cordially yours,
Woodrow Wilson.”
The heading given this notice in the Jewish press was, “He Did Not Mean
It.”
All of the President’s offending took place in 1914. The second offense
he gave was by taking the position of honorary chairman of the
International Lord’s Day Congress, which was to be held the next year in
connection with the Panama Exposition. It was, however, the Christian
Sunday which received the bulk of the abuse on that occasion.
The subject is “religious prejudice.” Where does it exist in this
country in more continuous and virulent character than among the Jews?
Read these items selected at random from Jewish papers:
“District Grand Lodge No. 4, Independent Order B’nai B’rith, voted at
the annual election held in San Francisco, March 2 (1911) to exclude
from the order Jews who join _the Christian Science Church_. The body
after earnest discussion decided that the portals of the order shall be
closed against the Christian Scientist Jews on the ground that such Jews
have abjured Judaism. The vote upon the question was almost unanimous.”