by association with Jews who used the organization as a protection for
their traffic in vice. This was in 1894. The revelations were so
terrible that in any other community they would have led to a complete
abolition of any possible chance of recovery, but as it was never made
plain to the people that the traffic in vice was not a sudden appearance
of rottenness among Americans, but was the normal activity of an alien
racial strain, the moral power of exposure was dissipated. The people
were left staggered by what they were allowed to believe about the
origin of the horror. People said it was Tammany because the press said
it was Tammany, and yet people could not understand how it could be
Tammany, and so in the midst of hesitancy the fire of reform burned out.
It was exactly like these days when we are told that “American business
men” abroad are doing terrible things; yet even while the press declares
them to be “American” we cannot understand how Americans could do such
things—and we never get the key to the matter, nor see the solution,
until we stumble on to the fact that these so-called “Americans” are not
Americans at all, but alien Jews. Over in Canada the name “American” is
becoming a stigma because it is borne by men who are not Americans. What
Canadians point out in the United States as definitely “American” is
mostly Jewish, but how are the Canadians to know? The national name
suffers. The whole cause of evil is camouflaged and a nation pays the
price of a racial group’s misdeeds. There should be some method of
protecting this forging of national names.
Thus Tammany became a synonym for what was not characteristically
Tammany at all, but what was characteristically Jewish.
The exposure of 1894 disclosed that vice was really a thing of cold
blood. Evil that springs from passion and impulse really amounts to far
less than is commonly supposed. It is when passion is deliberately
cultivated and impulse stimulated, that the great bulk of the world’s
social evil occurs. And this stimulation is undertaken in cold blood by
those who make profit out of providing the means of gratification—like
the old-fashioned bar keepers who served very salty free lunches to
stimulate the sale of beer.
This kind of vice is not a thing to be shamed by exposure as can be done
with involuntary vice, as it might be called. This cold-blooded
merchandising of human weakness was merely a matter of profits, and if
business had been interfered with by a Lexow Committee it was rather
unfortunate, but good business required that operations be resumed at
the earliest possible moment. And so, though the investigations of 1894
were successful and the exposure duly made, it was not to be expected
that mere oratory and printer’s ink would suffice to keep the serpent
down.
It was only seven years before scandal flamed again throughout the
length and breadth of New York, and strangely enough—strange enough in
all conscience for “Gentile fronts” of this day and generation to
heed!—it was found again that the traffic in evil and its ramifications
all over the land, and even to foreign countries, was in the hands of
Jews. There was no doubt about it. There was even no accident about it.
The fact was as continuous as it was colossal.
William Travers Jerome, then Justice of the Court of Special Sessions,
made in 1901 a ringing indictment of conditions in the city and used the
full power of his court to punish wrongdoers; he even went so far as to
specify individuals and political connections—but he did not mention the
keyword of it all, which was “Jew.” It was doubtless wise for him that
he did not, else he could not have enjoyed the subsequent political
career which came to him.
Tammany was defeated in the election of 1901. The defeat was due to the
same cause—the stigma of Jew-controlled vice traffic under political
protection.
It was at this time that Richard Croker “abdicated.” He was a rich man.
He sailed for Ireland, where he became a country squire on his Wantage
estate.
Public curiosity was fed the statement that Croker had selected Lewis
Nixon to be his successor, but this turn in Tammany’s career is too
important to be thus misstated. The truth is that _when Croker left he
surrendered Tammany to the Jews_.
Croker could confirm this if he would talk, if he should be permitted to
talk. It is, however, not well to have garrulous old men spilling the
secrets of other days. Croker in his age took a bride who is said to be
of “Indian descent,” and he has not been much in touch with his family
nor the public since.
Lewis Nixon was the convenient and perhaps unconscious “Gentile front.”
The real ruler of Tammany in Croker’s stead was Andrew Freedman,
mentioned in the former article as Croker’s friend and house mate.
(Judging from the habit of individual Jews to room with baseball players
before the baseball scandal, and the result of another Jew’s living with
Croker, it might be just as well to keep an eye on those other men who
are in positions to do favors or influence legislation, whose close
cronies happen to be Jews. Some of these friendships may indeed be
perfectly conceived; but there are numerous instances where the plans of
the “Jewish friend” are very completely matured through the agency of
the “Gentile chum.”)
So, upon the departure of Croker from these shores, we find Tammany
under the dictatorship of a Jew who was Croker’s chief influence, if not
his absolute master.
But by the time this occurred, it was useless for Tammany to rebel.
Tammany men who had noticed the infiltration of Jews and were alarmed by
it had consoled themselves with the thought that, at least, the higher
offices were immune from Jewish occupation. This consolation served only
to permit the filling of the lower offices by Jews, with less protest
from the membership. By the time the Jews were ready to permit Croker to
“abdicate,” they had permeated every part of the Wigwam and the
assumption of supreme control was thus made a simple matter. Croker
stepped aside; instantly into his place stepped the Jew, Freedman,
operating through Nixon.
It was too late for Tammany to remonstrate. Tammany could not protest
against the Wigwam _becoming_ Jewish, because the Wigwam already _was_
Jewish. To remonstrate then was to ruin Tammany. Becoming reconciled to
what seemed to be inevitable, Tammany leaders saw that their only hope
of survival came through preserving Jewish support.
Presently even Nixon was relegated to the background and Freedman issued
his orders directly. The Jews, however, with great astuteness continued
to make much of Nixon, because he was the last thin veil which concealed
the change which had come over Tammany, and he was valuable to that
extent. He was, unwillingly, perhaps, their puppet, but even puppets
must be accorded their proper dignity. Nixon was tendered a great
reception in 1902, but the influential men on the reception committee
were mostly Jews: Andrew Freedman was chairman; then followed the names
of Oliver H. P. Belmont, Max F. Ihmson, Samuel Untermeyer, Nathan
Straus, Randolph Guggenheimer, Henry M. Goldfogle, Herman Joseph, and
others.
On the executive committee of Tammany Hall at this time were Randolph
Guggenheimer, Isaac Fromme, Nathan Straus, Henry M. Goldfogle, O. H. P.
Belmont, and other Jews.
On the committee on law were Samuel Untermeyer, M. Warlet Platzek,
Abraham Levy, Henry W. Unger, Morris Cukor and Fred B. House.
Andrew Freedman had complete control of the committee on finance that
was nominally headed by Lewis Nixon.
Randolph Guggenheimer was president of the municipal council.
Ferdinand Levy was on the committee on resolutions and correspondence.
Jews had so spread themselves as to constitute a controlling group in
all the assembly districts that were under tribute to Tammany. In the
“Fighting Eighth” district, Martin Engel was leader. His chief aid was
“Manny” Eichner, chairman of the Isidor Cohn Association and of the
Young Men’s Democratic Association. His other assistants, Max J. Porges,
Max Levein, and Moe Levy were floor managers of the dances and balls of
the Florence Sullivan Association.
In the Tenth district, Simon Steingutt, “Mayor of Second Avenue,” was
one of the hardest workers in Tammany affairs.
Edward Mandell was the active Jewish Tammany man in the Twelfth
district.
In the Eighteenth district, Maurice Blumenthal was one of the principal
workers. He devoted his career chiefly to the training of Jewish
speakers for the Wigwam.
The Eighteenth district was known as “the Gashouse district,” notorious
for the Gashouse scandals over padded pay rolls, and here Charley Murphy
ruled, his aides being Julius Simon, Edward E. Slumasky, Joseph
Schlesinger, Leopold Worms, Hugo Siegel, Alfred B. Marx, Nathan
Fernbacher, and other Jews.
And so on through the list. Among the Sachems of the Tammany Society
there were to be found the wealthier and more socially exalted Jews.
However, the Jews made their cyclically recurring mistakes: they carried
things with too high a hand, and rebellion broke out. It is this Jewish
tendency to boast and overdo that has always given the game away.
Superficial observers and writers like John Spargo and Norman Hapgood
have observed the recurrent periods of protest against Jewish
presumption and bumptiousness and have explained them as being recurrent
spasms of a vile poison which is supposed to reside in the blood of the
Gentiles—the vile poison of anti-Semitism. That, of course, is the
conventional Jewish propagandist explanation, and Spargo and Hapgood are
merely retailing it. They say it always breaks out after wars. Why after
wars? Because in wars the world sees more clearly than at other times
the real purpose and personality of the Jew. Thus, it is not
anti-Semitism that breaks out—it is Semitism, gross and exaggerated
Semitism; and the serum that forms in the social body to encist and
control the germ of Semitism, comes in the form of public exposure and
protest. That serum is working now—the serum of publicity, and the
Jewish program cannot endure it. Study the history of all things
whatsoever into which Jews inject themselves, from summer resorts to
empires, and you see the same cycle appearing.
Thus it happened in Tammany Hall—“too much Jew” engendered revolt. Lewis
Nixon became aware of his position. As a gentleman of standing and
responsibility he could not continue in a position whose falsity had
become clear to him. When he accepted the leadership of Tammany Hall, it
was not with a purpose to continue the old order. His understanding was
that he was to be left free to restore Tammany to the plane of its
former serious purpose and respectable character. He discovered that he
was being used as the “respectable Gentile front” behind whose name the
Jews expected to carry on the old game. Therefore, in May, 1902, three
months after the great reception above mentioned, Nixon resigned as
leader of Tammany Hall. Doubtless the reception that was tendered him
was for the purpose of inducing him to love the exaltation of his
position so much that he would sacrifice its moral obligations.
Nixon accompanied his resignation with a speech in which he protested
that ever since he had accepted the leadership of Tammany he had been
hampered in his every action by a group headed by Andrew Freedman; they
dictated the names that were to be placed on the list of Sachems: “When
I rebelled, I found that at every turn I would be opposed by this
coterie of interferers; I found that all my important acts had to be
viséed before they could become effective.” He said he could no longer
retain his position and his self-respect; he had to give up one or the
other.
With this Mr. Nixon vanished from the scene of Tammany politics.
The resignation of Mr. Nixon had a bad effect on the reputation of
Tammany with the public. The plan had been to allow him to serve as long
as ordinarily and then replace him with a Jew by means of the usual
process of selection. But the resignation and the explanation that
accompanied it, showing as it did the Jewish influence in Tammany, made
it seem inadvisable to follow with a Jewish leader. So the district
leaders were obliged to find another “Gentile front,” only this time one
who would prove sufficiently docile. There was enough rankling disfavor
against the Jews in the old organization to warrant this observance of
appearances, at least.
The dictatorship of Freedman was seen to be a failure, much as the
dictatorship of Trotzky is seen to be a failure. A rearrangement of
committees automatically eliminated him from control, at the same time
the name of Croker was dropped. A triumvirate of leaders was chosen, of
whom Charles F. Murphy became and remains the chief. “Boss Murphy” he is
called. Mr. Murphy has been an ideal “front,” not attempting to do
anything, not attempting to interfere with the Jews doing anything,
keeping wisely silent and thereby gaining a reputation for silent
wisdom. Mr. Murphy is a millionaire. Those who do the higher Jewish
leaders’ bidding get their reward that way; there is no other reward
they can hope for; certainly they never have the reward of public
confidence and the people’s gratitude.
That is the status of Tammany Hall at the present time. A few of the Old
Guard are left at their posts, but they are officers in name only.
Tammany is no longer denounced by the public press, but the Jewish
leaders of Tammany live daily to a chorus of praise in the
Jewish-controlled newspapers of New York. Samuel Untermeyer, for
example, receives more publicity in New York than does the President of
the United States, but it is not discriminating publicity; it does not
penetrate to the inner purposes and consequences of his actions.
Those who were the lesser Jewish lieutenants of Tammany a few years ago
have now arrived at posts of influence and affluence. Morris Cukor was
made president of the municipal service commission, to be succeeded by
former State Senator Abraham Kaplan. Fred B. House rose to be a city
magistrate. The city marshals are mostly Jewish. Jews predominate in the
College of the City of New York. Jews control the municipal courts, the
city magistrates’ courts, the city court, the New York state court of
appeals, the New York state supreme court. They rule in the departments
enumerated in the fore part of this article. The New York judiciary has
a distinctly Semitic complexion.
The leadership of the Tammany-controlled districts tells the same story.
In the second, the leader is M. S. Levine; in the Sixth, David Lazarus;
in the Eighth, S. Goldenkranz, F. Bauman and S. Salinger; in the Ninth,
Mrs. P. Lau, in the Seventeenth, Nathan Burkan—and so on.
The Jewish conquest of Tammany, however, is only one phase of the
conquest of New York. The Jewish objective is more than political.
Merely to strive that the lucrative and powerful officers of the city
shall fall to their people, is not the end in view. New York has been
turned into the Red Center of America. There most of the alien treason
carried on against the government of the United States has its source.
The United States Government has been compelled at times to regard New
York as almost alien soil, but even that watchfulness on the part of the
national government is relaxed as Jewish influence becomes more potent
at Washington. Tammany is a convenient cover for ostensible political
activity as the Kehillah is for the more radical racial and
anti-American racial activity. The United States Government could not do
better than to investigate—through a committee of invulnerable
Americans—the Jewish activities of that center. And that there is much
to investigate is indicated by the rush of Jews to Washington when it
was recently proposed in the United States Senate that such a thing be
done.
——
Issue of October 1, 1921.
LV.
B’nai B’rith Leader Discusses the Jews
To the pro-Jewish spokesmen who have filled the air with cries of “lies”
and “slander,” to those self-appointed guardians of “American ideals”
who rule out with rare finality all those who would dare suggest that
possibly there is a hidden side of the Jewish Question, it must come as
something of a jolt to be reminded that in this series there is scarcely
a line that is without high Jewish authority.
The Protocols themselves are written for centuries in Jewish
authoritative teachings and records. All the plans that have been
described from time to time in these articles are written in the
fundamental laws of the Jews. And all that the ancients have taught, the
modern Jews have reaffirmed.
The writer of these articles has had to take constant counsel of
prudence in his selection of material, for the Jews have always counted
confidently on the fact that if the whole truth were told in one
comprehensive utterance, no one would believe it. Thus, bigots and minds
bursting with the discoveries they have made, have never been feared by
the Jews. They counted on the incapacity of the non-Jews to believe or
receive certain knowledge. They know that facts are not accepted on
proof, but only on understanding. Non-Jews cannot understand why human
beings should lend themselves to certain courses. They are, however,
beginning to understand, and the proof is therefore becoming more
significant.
There are yet more important revelations to be made, always following
closely the best Jewish sources, and when these revelations are made, it
will be impossible for the Jewish leaders to keep silent or to deny. The
time is coming for American Jewry to slough off the leadership which has
led it and left it in the bog. Leadership knows that. Indeed, it is
amazing to discover the number of indications that the attempts made to
suppress THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT have been made principally _to prevent
the Jews reading it_. The leaders do not care how many non-Jews read
these articles; but they do not desire their own people to read them.
The Jewish leaders do not desire their people’s eyes to be opened.
Why? Because, just now, only Jews can truly know whether the statements
made in these articles are true or not. Non-Jews may know here and
there, as their observations may confirm the printed statements. But
informed Jews really _know_. And large numbers of the masses of the Jews
really know. When they see the truth in all its relationships in these
articles, the hitherto “led” Jew may not be so tractable. Hence the
effort to keep the non-Jewish point of view away from him.
In support of the statements that these articles have been based on
Jewish authority, we quote today a series of declarations by one of the
most able of the presidents of the B’nai B’rith, Leo N. Levi. Mr. Levi
was American-born and died in 1904. He was a lawyer of distinction and
attained the presidency of the international Jewish order, B’nai B’rith,
in 1900. He took part in the international politics of his people and is
credited with collaborating with Secretary of State John Hay on several
important matters. The utterances here quoted were for the most made
while he was president of B’nai B’rith, but all of them were published
the year after his death under B’nai B’rith auspices. There is therefore
no question of their Jewishness.
Non-Jewish defenders of the Jewish program have pretended to much
indignation because of references that have been made to the Oriental
character of certain Jewish manifestations. The references in these
articles have been two in number, once regarding Oriental sensuality as
it has been introduced to the American stage by Jewish theatrical
panderers, and again in quoting Disraeli, the Jew who became premier of
Britain, to the effect that the Jews—his people—were “Mosaic Arabs.”
But it never seemed to have occurred to Leo N. Levi to deny the Oriental
character of his race. Instead, he asserted it. On page 104 of the B’nai
B’rith memorial, he excuses certain social crudities of the Jew on the
ground “that hailing originally from the Orient and having been
compelled for twenty centuries to live in a society of his own, he has
preserved in his tastes much that is characteristically Oriental.” Again
on page 116, he excused the multiplicity of religious rites as being due
to the fact that the Jew “drew upon his Oriental imagination for a
symbolism that appealed to his ideal emotions.” On page 312, he speaks
of the Jews’ “Oriental devotion to their parents.” This easy recognition
of the fact is commended to those bootlicking editors who, out of the
vastness of their ignorance of the Jewish Question, have seen in the
reference to Orientalism an “insult” to the Jews and an unfailing
indication of anti-Semitism.
The Jewish Question! Ah, that is another point which pro-Jewish
spokesmen hasten to deny, but they will be somewhat disturbed by the
candor with which true Jewish spokesmen admit the Question.
In a strong passage on page 101, Mr. Levi says:
“If I have dwelt so long upon this subject, it is because I recognize
that if the Jew has been denied so much that is rightfully his, he often
claims more than is his due. One of these claims, most persistently
urged, is that there is no Jewish Question; that a Jew is a citizen like
any other citizen and that as long as he abides by the law and does not
subject himself to criminal prosecution or civil action, his doings are
beyond legitimate inquiry by the public at large.
“This contention on his part would certainly be well based if he claimed
nothing further than the right to live in peace, but when he demands
social recognition the whole range of his conduct is a legitimate
subject of inquiry against which no technical demurrers can be
interposed ... nor must the Jew be over-sensitive about the inquiry.
“The inconsistencies and the unwisdom exhibited in the consideration of
the Jewish Question are not to be found altogether on the side of those
who are hostile to the Jews.”
“Since then the refugees from Russia, Galicia and Rumania have raised
the Jewish Question to commanding importance. Since then it has dawned
on the world that _we are witnessing another exodus which promises soon
to change the habitat of the Jews to the Western Hemisphere_.” (Page 59)
“The Jewish Question cannot be solved by tolerance. There are thousands
of well-meaning people who take to themselves great credit for
exhibiting a spirit of tolerance toward the Jews.” (Page 98)
Mr. Levi also lays down rules for “the study of the Jewish Question,”
and he says that if they were followed the result “would be startling at
once to the Jews and the general public.” (Page 93) How far present
Jewish leadership has departed from that frank and broad view taken by
Mr. Levi, is everywhere evident.
Not that Mr. Levi was a critic of his people, but he was a lawyer who
was accustomed to weighing facts, and he saw facts that weighed against
his people. But he was pro-Jewish even in his most severe observations.
He could make an attack on the rabbis, taunting them with the saying
that “many of you are ‘rabbis for revenue only,’” but he could also
insist on Jewish solidarity and exclusiveness.
In this connection it may be interesting to see how strongly Mr. Levi
supports the contention of Jewish leaders (as outlined in THE DEARBORN
INDEPENDENT of October 9 and 16, 1920) that the Jews are a _race_ and
not merely a _religion_, a nation and not merely a church, and that the
term “Jew” is biological rather than theological. This is specially
commended to the attention of those dim-minded shouters of “religious
prejudice,” who come into action whenever the Jewish Question is
mentioned. (Of “religious prejudice” there are many examples to give in
future articles.)
“Certain it is that thus far the race and the religion have been so
fused, as it were, that none can say just where the one begins and the
other leaves off.” (Page 116)
Attacking the contention of the “liberals” or “reformed Jews” to the
effect that “Jew” is the name of a member of religious denomination, and
not of a member of a certain race, Mr. Levi says:
“Nothing to my mind is more pregnant with error than this postulate of
unreason. (Page 185) It is not true that the Jews are only Jews because
of their religion.” (Page 189)
“The Jews are not simply an indiscriminate lot of people who hold to a
common belief.” (Page 190)