Aspeds of Jewish Powe in the United States. Volume IV | of The International Jew The World’s Foremost Problem A Fourth Selection of Articles from THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT f 4 a3 18 4 | Published by | & 5D28 ite Dearborn Publishing Co. uM %. v4 Dearborn, Mich, May, 1922. Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States a Volume IV ; of The [International Jew py The World’s Foremost Problem Being a Reprint of a Fourth Selection of Articles from THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2021 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/internationaljew04unse Preface HIS is the fourth volume of reprinted studies in the Jewish Question as they appeared in THe DEARBORN INDEPENDENT. The articles follow the Same general line as the previous volume in showing the various angles of Jewish influence and achieve- ment in the affairs of the people of the United States, but they do not by any means exhaust either the number of the angles nor the depth of the signif- icance in the angles traced. Deliberate public opinion has shown many signs of a new alertness to the movement which was pro- ceeding deftly and unnoticed in the midst of Amer- ica, and many checks have been put in operation. The work of THe DEARBORN INDEPENDENT was undertaken at a disadvantage because of the tre- mendous emphasis of the American mind on racial peace and because of the ease with which racial propagandists can make a purely economic and political matter assume the aspects of a religious controversy. THE DxHARBORN INDEPENDENT opened the Question to public gaze, and was therefore as- sumed to be the attacker. In this country our sense of fairness always leaves the advantage with the attacked, and false accusations quickly fall. The country has seen, however, the truth of the state- ments and has observed the mild and unprejudiced manner in which they were made, so that it may now be said that truth has made its way. Most gratifying are the signs which Jews them- selves have given that certain abuses must be quick- ly stopped. A Jewish leader has appealed for the removal of the exemption which nullifies the Con- stitution of the United States in favor of the Jew 4 PREFACE with reference to the use of liquor. Other Jewish leaders have sought to compel Jewish theatrical controllers to observe elementary decency in their productions. These articles have always held that the cleansing must come from within Judah itself. It is recognized that racial pride might prevent many improvements being attempted under fire, but American Jews cannot afford to be ruled by a false pride in this respect. These are days of judgment for all the corruptive forces of society and the Jews cannot expect to escape responsibility for their part in these things. May, 1922. LXII. ex Uide LXIV. LXV. Ie Vid: LXVIE. EXVITl eXcLx. UXX. LXXI. eX XT: LXXIUL XIV: LXXV. LXXVI. DXXV ET LEP ONG BIE LXXIX. LXXX. Contents How Jews Gained American Liquor Control Gigantic Jewish Liquor Trust and Its Career The Jewish Element in Bootlegging Evil Angles of Jewish Influence in American Life The Jews’ Complaint Against “Americanism” The Jewish Associates of Benedict Arnold Benedict Arnold and Jewish Aid in Shady Deal Arnold and His Jewish Aids at West Point The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names Jewish “Kol Nidre” and “Eli, Eli” Explained Jews as New York Magistrates See Them Jews Are Silent, the National Voice is Heard What Jews Attempted Where They Had Power The Jewish Question in Current Testimony America’s Jewish Enigma—Louis Marshall The Economic Plans of International Jews A Jew Sees His People As Others See Them Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Problem “United, then, by the strongest feelings of solidarity, the Jews can easily hold thew own in this disjointed and anarchic society of ours. If the millions of Christians by whom they are sur- rounded were to substitute the same principle of co-operation for that of indwidual competition, the importance of the Jew would immediately be destroyed. The Christian, however, will not adopt such a course, and the Jew must, inevitably, I will not say dominate (the favorite expression of the anti-Semites) but certainly possess the ad- vantage over others, and exercise the supremacy against which the anti-Semites inveigh without being able to destroy it,”—Lazare, LXIl. How Jews Gained American Liquor Control O those who have been surprised and confounded by the widespread evidence, which even the newspapers have been unable to suppress, that the bulk of the organized bootlegging which is being carried on in this -country is in the hands of Jews, it would have been less of a surprise had they known the liquor history of this country. The claim made for the Jews, that they are a sober people, is undoubtedly true, but that has not pre- vented two facts concerning them, namely, that they usually constitute the liquor dealers of the countries where they live in numbers, and that in the United States they are the only people exempted from the operations of the Prohibition law. : Here as elsewhere the principle holds true that “the Jew is the key.” The demoralization which struck the liquor business, causing its downfall, and the demoralization which has struck Prohibition en- forcement for a time, cannot be understood without a study of the racial elements which contributed to both phenomena. If in what follows the Jews find objectionable elements, they should remember that their own people put them there. It is impossible to doubt that if the organized Jews of the United States were to make one-thousandth of the protest against the illegal liquor activities of their own peo- ple that they make against the perfectly legal and morally justifiable exposures being made in Tur DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, the result would be not only favorable but immediate. There was a time when the term “whisky” had a much more respectable connotation than it has to- day. There was a time when to use whisky and even to make it, were customs sanctioned by the better class of public opinion. 8 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW It is a common explanation of the difference be- tween then and now, that people of the latter period became more sensitive morally than their forbears, that whereas the previous generation guzzled its whisky, innocently oblivious of the evil in it, the lat- ter generation developed a stronger moral discrimi- nation and banned the custom. The truth is this: the people did not become better; the whisky became worse. When the entire story of the people’s justifiable indignation is writ- ten, the competent historian will trace along with the people’s rising disgust, the whisky’s decreasing quality. Attention to this matter will materially assist an understanding of the fact that Jews and bootleg- ging are so continuously and prominently connected in the public prints these days. Readers of the old romances know how proud the master was of his wines. Vintages ripened under certain skies, on certain hills, where certain waters flowed, with cellarage in certain soils, had a faculty of aging gracefully, mellowing to a smoothness and purity and desirableness that made for cheer and health without the alloy of sordid inebriety. The bouquet of wine, the perfected essence of the grape subjected to the further courses of nature, has been a theme of praise for centuries. If it were uttered today the source of the utterance would be suspect- ed, and very probably with good reason, of being in pay of the “wets.” For the vile stuff which civiliza- tion threw out is not at all the wine of popular cus- tom and century-long esteem. Nevertheless, it is not difficult for even a mod- ern to grasp the fact that there was an art in making wine and strong drink, in which art men took pride. That art required time, experience, a love of good quality. It is a little difficult to speak of this art in connec- tion with whisky—wine being a more poetic word— yet it is a matter of knowledge that three places in the world have devoted to the production of whisky the same spirit which France and Portugal devoted HOW JEWS GAINED AMERICAN LIQUOR CONTROL 9 to their wines. These three districts are Glenlivet in Seotland, the region of Dublin in Ireland, and the Blue-Grass region of Kentucky. Why in these three regions? First, because there were men—non-Jews, of course—who were willing to wait ten years to pro- duce a good article. Second, the waters of these re- gions are of a quality which is beautifully adapted to the making of pure goods. Pure whisky, it should be remembered, is a vegetable product matured by natural forces and no other.. Grain, water and time —not even artificial heat added, nor any other thing —completes the best whisky product. In older times in America there were men who were as choice of their whiskies as of their horses or books. There was then such a thing as quality. But there was no such thing as delirium tremens. That came later, with the disappearance of pure whisky. A distiller seldom grew rich—he was too engrossed in maintaining the quality of his product; and it consumed much time. There were certain brands known nationally be- cause of their mildness and purity—purest wine of the choicest grapes, aged in the best adapted cellars, was not more mild or pure. There are names that remain until this day—Pepper, Crow, Taylor, and others—the names of men who took time and pains, whose names became “brands” which guaranteed quality and purity. These men were distillers in the true sense, not manufacturers nor compounders, but distillers in a time when distilling was both a science and an art, and not a mere name to conceal a gigantic fraud on the public. In time to come, when the people’s justifiable moral indignation will permit a study of the steps by which the reputation of whisky came to its pres- ent low degree, they will see how much better it would have been, how much more efficacious and clarifying, if the attack on whisky had included an exposure of the men who had driven whisky out of the country and were selling rank poison as a sub- stitute. The saloon, the brewer, the man who used strong drink were all of them made the target for 10 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW attack; the Jews who demoralized the whole business went on collecting their enormous and illegitimate profits without so much as their identity being re- vealed. Whisky ceased to be whisky and beer grew less like beer; the results upon humanity became appa- rent and deplorable. So society raised the license fee and increased the restrictions. To meet this, the Jewish compounders turned out still cheaper stulf, and still more vicious mixtures. Licenses went up, and quality went down; the Jewish compounders always getting a larger margin of profit. And through the long, long fight, no one, with’one or two notable exceptions, had the ‘sense and the courage to point a finger at the solid racial phalanx lined up behind the whole rotten combination. Distilling is one of the long list of businesses which has been ruined by Jewish monopoly. Those who favor Prohibition will probably thank the Jew for his work in that direction. It may be that the Jew is destiny’s agent to demoralize the business that must pass away. But set against that the fact that it is Jewish influence that demoralizes Prohibi- tion, too, and both “wets” and “drys” have an inter- esting situation to consider. In general, the Jews are on the side of liquor and always have been. They are the steadiest drinkers of all. That is why they were able to secure exemp- tion from the Prohibition laws; their religious cere- monies require them to drink an amount which the law has considered to equal ten gallons a year. And so the Prohibition law of the United States—a part of the Constitution of the United States—is made legally ineffective to the extent of ten gallons a year a Jew. The amount, of course, is very much more; it is always easy to get 100 gallons through a 10-gallon loophole. In fact, thousands of gallons have come through that 10-gallon loophole. It will come to many people as new knowledge that the liquor business of the world has been in the hands of Jews. In the United States the liquor business was almost exclusively in the hands of Jews HOW JEWS GAINED AMERICAN LIQUOR CONTROL lil for 25 years previous to Prohibition, during the pe- riod, in fact, when the liquor trade was giving point and confirmation to Prohibition arguments. ‘This knowledge has an important bearing on the inter- pretation of our times. In the volume, “The Conquering Jew,” published by Funk & Wagnalls Company in 1916, John Foster Fraser writes: “The Jews are masters of the whisky trade in the United States. Eighty per cent of the members of the National Liquor Dealers’ Asso- ciation are Jews. It has been shown that 60 per cent of the business of distilling and whole- sale trade in whisky is in the hands of the Jews. As middlemen they control the wine product of California. Jews visit the tobacco-growing States and buy up nearly all the leaf tobacco, so that the great tobacco companies have to buy the raw product from them. The Jews have a grip on the cigar trade. The American To- bacco Company manufactures about 15 per cent of the cigars smoked in the United States. The Jews provide the rest.” It was also true in Russia, Poland, Rumania. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that “The establishment of the government liquor monopoly (in Russia in 1896) deprived thousands of Jewish families of a livelihood.” They controlled the liquor traffic, the vodka business which undermined Russia. The gov- ernment made the liquor business a national monop- oly in order to abolish it, which was done. Liquor in Russia was Jewish, as the Encyclopedia testifies. Anyone reading carefully the article on Russia, espe- cially pages 527 and 559 in the Jewish Encyclopedia, will be in no doubt as to the fact. In Rumania the whole “Jewish Question” was the liquor question. The land of the peasants came into control of the liquor sellers, and the business of handling liquors was a Strict Jewish monopoly for years. In Poland the same was true. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the United States whisky also became Jewish. 12 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW For convenience in detailing this story, most of the observations made will center in the state of Kentucky. Almost every one of age knows the phrase “fine old Kentucky whiskies.” It was once a phrase that meant something. Kentucky produced, in her limestone regions, the kind of water that served best with the grain ingredients of whisky. The word “Bourbon,” known mostly as a kind of whisky, is really the name of a county in Kentucky where “Bourbon whisky” was first made. How pro- foundly the region in which whisky is manufactured affects the product may be gathered from the fact that a primitive Kentucky distiller named Shields, who became famous for a brand of Bourbon made from the waters of Glen’s Creek, conceived the idea of lowering his costs by transferring his distillery to Illinois, where he would be nearer the rich corn- fields. He was disappointed. Illinois water would not make Bourbon. “The rule of the region” is su- preme. Jamaica rum owes its characteristic to the waters of Jamaica. Port wine is best produced in the region of Duro in Portugal, champagne in the region of Rheims in France, and beer in Bavaria. And so, in Kentucky there was the right combina- tion of elements which made the whisky product of that state world famous. — An alcoholic spirit from grain may be made in any climate and by many methods. Neutral spirits, high wines and alcohol, are not indigenous anywhere. They can be made in any back room or cellar, in very little time. Little care is required. A concoction of drugs and spirits, properly colored and flavored, fraudulently labeled “whisky” and passed out over the bar, is a crime against the art of distilling, against the human, nervous system, and against so- ciety. Readers may recall that in 1904, Dr. Wiley, then chief of the United States Bureau of Chemistry, had a great deal to say about this. But because he did not point out that the evil he was attacking was fos- tered by a single class of men bent on gain at the cost of ruin to an American industry and to count- HOW JEWS GAINED AMERICAN LIQUOR CONTROL 13 less thousands of American citizens, few paid any attention to him. The public supposed that Dr. Wiley was discussing a technical question which in- terested American distillers only. It vastly more interested the American citizen, if he had but known it, if anyone had but had the clear vision and the. courage to expose the great Jewish whisky con- 3piracy. The difference between the non-Jewish and the Jewish method, as illustrated in the history of Amer- ican whisky, is thus described by Dr. Wiley: “The aging of whisky takes years of time. It is expensive. The whisky leaks out. It is allowed to stand for four years at least. The object of this is to permit the oxidation of the alcohols. There is a loss of interest on the value of the whisky while it is aging; hence it is an expenSive process. “But the manufacture of compounded, or artificial whisky has for its purpose the avoiding of this long and expensive process. The makers begin with the pure article of spirits which can be made in a few hours. . . . To this is added enough water to dilute it to the strength of whisky. The next step is to color it. . . . this is done by adding burnt sugar and caramel. The next thing is to supply the flavors. . . . By the way I have described, in two or three hours the compounder can make a ma- terial which looks like, smells like, tastes like, and analyzes like genuine whisky, but it has a different effect on the system. The people who drink this whisky are much more liable to receive injury from it than those who drink the genuine article.” All sorts of practices were resorted to. Drugs and raw “crops” of whisky were bought up and the busi- ness of “rectifying,” as it was called, began the ruin of the natural and wholesome process of dis- tilling. Quick money, regardless of what happened to the customer: that was the motive of the rectify- ing business. This rectifying business was mostly Jewish. Here and there a non-Jew was associated with Jewish partners, but rarely. The way had been found to 14 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW trade on the reputation of the term “whisky” by compounding a liquid which looked and tasted like whisky but the effect of which was harmful. That was the capital fraud—the capture of the name “whisky” for a synthetic poison. There was a con- cealment of the meaning of “rectified spirits,” a de- ceptive use of the word “blend,” and even a most fraudulent misrepresentation concerning aging. If chemical deception could be used to make a whisky taste as if it were nine years old, then it was adver- tised as “Nine Years in the Wood.” Here is a bit of Jewish court testimony : Q. Is your make of whisky nine years old? A. Nine years old, but I want to explain in that respect that the whisky may not have ex- isted nine years before it was put into that bottle. . . . That brand of whisky which we brand as nine years old blended, means that it is equal to nine-year-old whisky in smoothness and quality. Q. How did you arrive at the fact which you put upon this bottle that the whisky was nine years old? A. Because it is comparatively nine years old. Q. How do you arrive at that result? A. By sampling. You take the whisky that is allowed to remain in the original package for nine years and compare it with our nine-year- old blend and you will find them in smoothness the same. Therefore, we class it as nine-year- old whisky. Let the reader form his own judgment on that type of mind. The whisky bore a name resembling a time-honored brand of pure goods, and it flaunted the name Kentucky, when it was not whisky at all, was not a Kentucky product, but was compounded of neutral spirits from Indiana, prune juice from California, rock candy from anywhere, and raw IIli- nois whisky from Peoria to give it flavor. _ Although Louisville, Kentucky; became headquar- ters of whisky men, it was Cincinnati, Ohio, a thor- HOW JEWS GAINED AMERICAN LIQUOR CONTROL 15 oughly Judaized city, which became a greater head- quarters for the pseudo-whisky men, the compound- ers, mixers and rectifiers. The list of Cincinnati liquor dealers reads like a directory of the Warsaw ghetto. In, Louisville the Judaic complexion of the city, as well as society, is very noticeable; indeed, most of the leading Jews in the whisky business are now Kentucky “Colonels.” | The Jewish character of the whisky business since the Civil War may be visualized, by the simple ex- pedient of noting how many of the better known brands have been at various dates under Jewish control: ; There is “Old 66,” owned by Straus, Pritz & Co. “Highland Rye,” owned by Freiberg & Workum. “P, W. Samuel Old Style Sour Mash,” owned by Max Hirsch, the Star Distilling Company. “Bridgewater Sour Mash and Rye Whiskies,” “Rosewood and Westbrook Bourbon Whiskies,” dis- tilled by J. & A. Freiberg. “TT. J. Monarch” and “Davies County Sour Mash Whiskies,” controlled by J. & A. Freiberg. “Louis Hunter 1870,” “Crystal Wedding,” and “Old Jug,” blended by J. & A. Freiberg. “Gannymede 7°76,” put out by Sigmund and Sol H. Freiberg. “Jig-Saw Kentucky Corn Whisky,” ‘Lynndale Whisky,” “Brunswick Rye and Bourbon,” by Hoff- heimer Brothers Company. “Red Top Rye” and “White House Club,” by Ferdinand Westheimer & Sons. “Green River” came into the control of E. La Mon- tague. “Sunnybrook,” a widely advertised brand, on whose advertising matter a man in a United States inspector’s uniform stood behind as if endorsing it, was at the time owned by Rosenfield Brothers & Co. “Mount Vernon,” as from the Hannis Distilling Company, was at the time owned by Angelo Meyer. “Belle of Nelson” came into control of the Jewish trust, which was brought to legal birth by Levy Maver and Alfred Austrian, the latter being the Chi- THE INTERNATIONAL JEW cago attorney whose name will be recalled in connec- tion with the baseball articles in this series. “James EK. Pepper” was owned by James Wolf. “Cedar Brook” was owned by Julius Kessler & Co. It was formerly the old “W. H. McBrayer” brand, but the real W. H. McBrayer, knowing the hew methods that were arising in liquor-making, request- ed in his will that his name should not be used as a brand after he had ceased to see that the product was worthy of his name. In the Pittsburgh and Peoria districts, the same story held true; the alleged whisky made in those districts was controlled, with one exception, by Jews. The Great Western Distillery, in Peoria, is owned by a corporation of Jews. Two of its brands were “Ravenswood Rye” and “Ravenswood Bourbon.” The Woolner Distillery made “Old Grove Whisky” and “Old Ryan Whisky,” and “Bucha Gin.” In the city of Peoria alone there are fifteen great fortunes, all held by Jews, and for the most part made in what passed in Peoria for Whisky. Take the city of Cincinnati alone and note what even an incomplete list reveals as to the names of the men classified as “distillers” : Bernheim, Rexinger & Company; Elias ‘Bloch & Sons; J. & A. Freiberg; Freiberg & Workum; Helf- ferich & Sons; Hoffheimer Brothers Company; Elias Hyman & Sons; Kaufman, Bare & Company; Klein Brothers; A. Loeb & Co.; H. Rosenthal & Sons; Seligman Distilling Company; Straus, Pritz & Com- pany; S. N. Weil & Company, and EF’. Westheimer & Sons; with many other Jews concealed under fancy trade names and corporation designations. It is the same throughout Ohio, which state, incidentally, is one of the most Jew-ridden states in the Union. The lists here given do not by any means begin to indicate the numbers of the Jews who were engaged in the liquor business, they only indicate the com- plexion which the business takes on when a search is made behind the “brands” and the trade names. Any citizen in any city of size will have no trouble in HOW JEWS GAINED AMERICAN LIQUOR CONTROL 17 confirming the statement that most of the rectifiers and wholesalers and brokers in the whisky trade of his city also were Jews. But it is not only the fact that the liquor business was controlled by Jews that assumes importance. That is a fact which no one will deny—not even the Jewish defenders. But it is the additional fact that there was spread over this country the machinery of a vicious system which while it was destined to ruin the liquor business—as perhaps it deserved to be ruined—also ruined hundreds of thousands of citi- zens who trusted that “pure and unadulterated” meant what the words were intended to convey. It would be a separate story to tell of all the manipu- lation of labels, the piracy of brand names, the con- scienceless play upon the words “pure and unadul- terated” of which the un-American ‘compounded liquor” combine was guilty. Of course, the stuff was “pure and unadulterated”—so is carbolic acid—but it was not whisky! There were law violations ga- lore, and it was well enough recognized in the recti- fying business as a regular practice to appropriate annually a certain sum to pay the fines that were bound to be assessed against it. A riot of adultera- tion and chicanery ensued, with whisky being made in many saloon cellars and the dangerous secrets of synthetic booze-making being peddled abroad among the customers of the trust. Presently the saloon men became aware of the fact that they were the goats of the game. Seldom was the Jew engaged in dishing out five-cent beers or ten-cent whiskies; it remained for the “boob Gen- tile’ to do that; the Jew was at the wholesale end where the real profits were made. But it was the sa- loon man who took the brunt of the blame. The Jewish “distillers,” as the compounders and blend- ers of the Louisville and Peoria districts were called, wore silk hats and their respectability was unques- tioned. The saloon men made an eleventh hour ef- fort to save their business, but the stuff they were pouring out had not improved, and Prohibition came, Sweeping the saloon away, but, as the sequel 18 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW will show, not depriving the Jewish compounder of his profits. How much of the liquor business of the United States was in whisky and how much in rectified spirits ? The Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, said: “Most of the distilled liquors consumed as a beverage by the American people pass through rec- tifying houses. The different classes of rectified spirits range from the cheapest concoctions of neu- tral spirits and drugs to the simple blending of young and old whisky.” Twenty years ago statistics showed that 80 per cent of the so-called whisky put up in the United States was imitation whisky. Chief Chemist Wiley, whose concern was not with the quantity but with the quality, gave it as his information “that over half the whisky in this country was compounded whisky. Less than half was genuine; and while they usually mix a little old whisky with it, they often sell it purely and simply as it is, whisky which has no claim to be called whisky under the real meaning of that term.” But all that was only a beginning. The time came when the vision of a great liquor combination rose in certain minds in this country. It was planned to sweep the good brands and the bad brands alike into one common management—whose control the reader will by this time suspect—and thus not only capi- talize the reputation which the old-time American distillers had made through years of honest distill- ing, but use the trade names of pure goods as a mask for a deluge of the dishonest kind of liquor which left a trail of suicide, insanity, crime and social wreckage in its path. This, with independent testimony as to the Jewish direction of it all, will form the subject matter of Separate story, Xssue of December 17, 1921. LXIIl. Gigantic Jewish Liquor Trust and Its Career T has been shown how the American whisky busi- ness became Jewish. The distillers of pure whisky which required years to make, were driven out by the manufacturers of drugged and chemicalized liquors which could be made in three or four hours. The latter, being cheaper and more intoxicating, so completely usurped the market that the public never knew that it was not whisky. It had stolen the name of whisky, and under that name the righteous indignation of the people prohibited it; and under that name still it is being sold by bootleggers at an advance of 1,000 per cent. The use of the fraudu- lent label is not new, it is not a product of Prohibi- tion days; it began with the advent of Jewish capi- tal into the liquor business. Whisky, carefully and scientitically made, purified by long years of repose in the warehouse, was an American product; “red eye,” “forty rod stuff,” “knock ’em dead” and “squir- rel whisky” mixed and sold the same day, were Jew- ish products. The Pure Food Law came into the fight to protect the American industry, but it was flouted at every turn. ‘Bad liquor was in such a deep state of public disgrace that the people paid little attention to Chief Chemist Wiley’s efforts. They thought when he said “whisky” he meant the stuff that they knew as “whisky,” and they disregarded him. The degener- acy of the liquor business became deeper and deeper, to the amazement of both its friends and its foes, and no one had the key to the situation because no one Saw, or seeing, had courage to expose, the Jewish program behind the scenes. To resume the story: Even after the cheap com- pounded liquors which masqueraded as “whisky” had won a commanding place in the market, to the serious detriment of the business in pure brands, the 20 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW Jewish compounders were far from satisfied. There remained a few American brands whose names, by reason of their dependability, topped the list. Their very quality, though of limited quantity, was a con- stant challenge to the vicious mixtures of which the rectifiers produced millions of gallons a year. How to remove those standard American brands, with their honest labels, from the market ?—that was the problem which the leaders of the Jewish compounding business tackled. The first resort was, characteristically, to trickery. Shipments of pure goods would be sidetracked somewhere en route, while the rectifiers drew off half the whisky and refilled the barrels with mixed compounds. People who have been amazed at the stunts of the bootleg- gers—the sidetracking of whisky shipments, the “robbery” of loaded trucks, and so on—would not be so surprised if they knew that every trick was used by the compounders of bad liquor twenty years ago! It was Jewish then, as it is Jewish now, but no one dared say so. Merely to list the tricks would require too much space. It was a nasty business from any point of view. But still the standard brands held their place in publie confidence. The Jew who claims to be the su- perior of the American in skill did not think of making a better whisky and thus winning the mar- ket; he thought to get rid of the better whisky that the vicious, adulterated product might own the field. It was the day of Trusts. Big Business was amal- gamating. It occurred to the leaders of the com- pounding business that if they could sweep all the honest distilleries into a combine with all the back- room rectifying places, put them all under one man- agement and run down the quality of famous brands to the standard of cheap ones—cashing in on the names of the brands, and doubly profiting by de- creasing the cost which quality requires—they could thus accomplish in a financial way what had been formerly tried by less respectable methods. The inception of the idea of a “whisky combine” was legitimate. The Kentucky distillers (who must GIGANTIC JEWISH LIQUOR TRUST AND ITS CAREER 21 at all times be distinguished from compounders and rectifiers) endeavored in 1898 to establish a com- bination that would unite all the legitimate distil- leries in the fight against the flood of counterfeit whisky. It is, however, significant that there was not enough capital in the legitimate whisky business to finance the plan. But when the idea was picked up by the makers of spurious liquor, there were mil- lions of dollars at their command—just as today, with industry suffering, there are millions of Jewish capital at the disposal of the motion picture business! In the Louisville Courier-Journal, February, 1899, the story of the first operations toward a combine is told, the language being inflated, of course, that hesitant distilleries might be stampeded. ‘Absorbed Kentucky Distilleries in a Mammoth Combine. Capi- tal Stock $32,000,000. Some of the Biggest Plants in the State Involved. Sixteen in Louisville. Con- trols 90 per cent of the Product and Nearly All Standard Brands.” “Levy Mayer, of Chicago, has acted as counsel in the drawing up of the papers. He becomes the gen- eral counsel of the new company.” This article contained a list of Kentucky distiller- ies, all of them American—that is, non-Jewish. It was the well-established brands, the names of quali- ty, that were sought. These names were all non- Jewish. “Levy Mayer, the general counsel of the new com- pany, said tonight: ‘The Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company is a reality and will bring pros- perity to the state of Kentucky where depression has prevailed for some years on account of the dis- cord which has existed among the distillers of Bour- bon whisky, who for a generation prior enjoyed a great prosperity.’ ” A most ingenuous statement. But Mr. Mayer is a most ingenuous man. However, there is some truth in his statement: it was true that the legiti- mate distillers had suffered from depression, not be- cause the American people were not consuming 22 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW liquor, however, but because the American people had been turned from pure whisky to “red eye”; and Mr. Mayer’s smooth statement that this depression was “on account of the discord which has existed among the distillers of Bourbon whisky” needs re- vision to “the fight between the non-Jewish makers of real whisky and the Jewish makers of compound- ed liquor.” In the story of the combine a great deal is heard of Mr. Mayer and Alfred Austrian. Mayer is a Chi- cago Jew ‘who is worth a story by himself. He is one of those Jews with whom candidates for the American presidency—mostly those candidates who are in debt—feel it necessary to stay, when he in- vites them. Mr. Austrian is sufficiently well known by his connection with the baseball scandal. He was attorney for Rothstein, the gambler, whose name figured so prominently in that scandal, and who is credited with doing things to the grand jury testi- mony in a way that makes a pretty tale. Austrian also appeared for two St. Louis Jew gamblers, im- plicated in the baseball scandal, who were afterward indicted. Austrian is also credited with being the author of the so-called “Lasker Plan” of baseball reorganization. The services of Mayer and Austrian to the liquor interests of Chicago and Cook County, were and are important. There were Jewish names previously appearing. About 1889 Nathan Hoffheimer had tried to bring all the Kentucky whisky business under one head, and later Morris Greenbaum tried it. It will prob- ably be conceded that both these men are Jews, and it is provable by the records that they were endeav- oring to consolidate the whisky business. But the big stunt was really pulled off under the guidance of the two Chicago Jews, Mayer and Austrian. “The various companies forming the Trust are: “American Spirits Manufacturing Company, $35,- 000,000; Kentucky Distilling and Warehouse Asso- ciation, $32,000,000; The Rye Whisky Distillers As- sociation, $30,000,000; the Standard Distilling Com- GIGANTIC JEWISH LIQUOR TRUST AND ITS CAREER 23 pany, $28,000,000; and the Spirits Distributing Com- pany, $7,500,000. “The forerunner of the gigantic combination of the whisky interests of the country was the organiza- tion of the American Spirits Manufacturing Com- pany upon the ruins of the old whisky trust which was controlled and directed by Joseph Greenhut. “Attorney Levi Mayer, of Chicago, who has been legal adviser of the whisky people from the inception of the American Spirits Manufacturing Association, was called to New York Saturday last to confer over the legal form of the charter and the closing of the negotiations.” The italicized portions indicate the connection, and it was a connection maintained to the end, and may indeed be continued yet. Then, in the current accounts of this merger of the liquor business under Jewish control, another name appears. On March 15, 1899: “Angelo Meyer, a big whisky buyer of New York, is in Louisville trying to buy a big lot of whiskies.” It appears that Mr. Meyers put on a poor mouth and told how hard it was to buy whisky in big lots. And then on March 17, two days later, this ap- peared: “Mr. Angelo Meyer, the wealthy Philadel- phia whisky man, has been appointed one of the gen- eral managers of the business of the Kentucky Dis- tilleries Company, and is engaged in appointing men to take charge of the various departments of the combine’s affairs.” The discrepancy in the above two paragraphs need not be charged to the untruthfulness of the news- paper reporter. Reporters as a rule faithfully re- port what they are told; but sometimes what they are told is not true. “Mr. Meyer has commonly been called the Napol- eon of the whisky trade. He is largely interested in the recently formed combine. “*We intend to make plenty of whisky. No brand will be killed, said Mr. Meyer.” Henceforth the names of Levy Mayer, Alfred Aus:- 24 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW trian and Angelo Meyer appear most frequently in the reports. “Alfred Austrian, who is Levy Mayer’s legal rep- resentative, says that all the distilleries now nego- tiated for will be absorbed in three weeks more.” “In an interview today Mr. Angelo Meyer said, ‘I believe confidently that in the next five years a business calling for 10,000,000 gallons of whisky a year will be built up.’ ” In April, 1899, another Jewish movement ap- peared: “Joseph Wolf, the Chicago whisky dealer, who is said to own more Kentucky whisky, independ- ent of the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company, than any other individual or corporation, is behind the new whisky combine formed in Chicago with a capital stock of $3,000,000. The purpose of the new trust, which it is said will be given the title of the Illinois Distilleries and Warehouse Company, is to fight the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company.” The few remaining Kentucky distillers were wary ; they regarded Wolf, probably with reason, as simu- lating enmity to the other part of the Jew-made Ww hisky trust, in order to sweep into his net the re- maining independents. “Alfred Austrian and C, H. Stoll, attorneys for the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company, will leave Louisville today for .Chicago to confer with Levy D. Mayer, chief counsel for the trust; and in fact, counsel for three big whisky and _ spirits combines.” “Alfred Austrian, of Chicago, left last night for Cincinnati to close the deal for the celebrated Sam Clay distillery of Bourbon County.” Under an exciting headline detailing the depar- ture of the Jew lawyer Austrian to Chicago to see the Jew lawyer Mayer, there is the story of a still greater whisky combine: “The projected combination of all the whisky in- terests of the country will probably be completed in Chicago today. A rye whisky trust is now being formed, and will soon be ready for incorporation GIGANTIC JEWISH LIQUOR TRUST AND ITS CAREER. 25 and presentation to men with capital. . . . It is said that the capitalization of the rye whisky trust will be $60,000,000, and the combined capitalization of the five companies will amount to about $175,000,- 000. . . . Levy Mayer, of Chicago, Alfred Aus- trian, of Chicago, and C. H. Stoll, of New York, are the attorneys for the three trusts, Mr. Mayer being the chief counsel.” And still later, a statement by Levy Mayer: “The new rye distillery combination will be the largest individual whisky amalgamation in the world. It is controlled and is being financed by the same people and the same trust companies of New York and Philadelphia now controlling and financ- ing the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Com- pany, whose capital is $32,000,000; the Standard Distilling and Distributing Company, with a capital of $28,000,000; the American Spirits Manufacturing Company, with a capital of $35,000,000; and the Spirits Distributing Company, with a capitalization of $15,000,000. “Rumor has it,’ and Mr. Mayer smiled as he patted a big bundle of legal documents, “that after the rye consolidation has been perfected all the sepa- rate companies will be merged into one central com- pany, which will have an aggregate capital close to 200,000,000. A whisky combination of that size will certainly hold foremost place among the world’s liquor trusts and organizations.” Another dispatch: “Alfred Austrian today re- turned to Louisville from New York, where he assist- ed in forming the combine of the American Spirits Manufacturing Company (and the three other com- panies). “Mr. Austrian leaves tonight for Chicago, where he expects to close the deal with Elias Bloch & Sons to purchase the Darling distillery in Carroll County, and with Freiberg and Workum to secure their two plants in Boone County.” Here it is possible to see the Jewish agents of Jewish capital hurrying to and fro with every assur- ance of success, working along well-defined lines, 26 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW known to themselves but concealed from the public, building up a colossal structure which public opin- ion was to hurl down in two decades. But two dec- ades were enough for enormous revenues to be de- rived from the criminal debasement of all kinds of liquor, which became more apparent from the time of the giant consolidation. Whisky became so rotten that in Kentucky, the pioneer whisky state, there were only four whole “wet” counties by 1908. The first decade of absolute Jewish control put even the first whisky state in the “dry” column. ; The Jewish compounders did not care how they marketed their goods, so long as they could sell them in quantities. The cheap “barrel house” appeared with its windows full of gleaming bottles and gaudy labels and “cut rate” whisky prices. The compound- ers became saloon owners toward the end of the sa- loon era, and many Jews went into the “barrel house” business for a quick clean-up. The propor- tion of vicious dives increased everywhere, and the moral guardians of society were amazed at “the wave of vice” that was “sweeping over the country” ; but they did not have the key that explained it. The whisky business was riding to a wild finish, but the men at the helm knew exactly what they were doing, every moment of the time. To look back upon that period, with all the facts at hand, makes it more and more apparent how fitting is the term, “boob Gentile.” Why, even Norman Hapgood knew how bad it was, and Collier’s Weekly, under his editorship, was the first journal in the land to print the names of Jews in connection with the liquor debauchery of the country. But those were the good old days, when Hapgood could tell the truth even about Hearst, the man for whom he now writes his grace- less palaver of pro-Jewish propaganda. In Collier’s Weekly, during the year 1908, solid truths appeared, which are in point today as proofs of what was transpiring. There was a specially scathing attack on what was called “nigger gin,” a GIGANTIC JEWISH LIQUOR TRUST AND ITS CAREER 27 peculiarly vile beverage which was compounded to act upon the Negro in a most vicious manner. Will Irwin spoke of this gin as “the king iniquity in the degenerated liquor traffic of these United States.” This author and Collier’s started a new fashion in giving publicity not only to the names of certain brands of liquors, but also the names of the men who made them. It turned out that the maker of a brand of “nigger gin” which had spurred certain Negroes on to the nameless crime, was one Lee Levy. Mr. Irwin wrote: “Because the South is not through with Lee Levy, and because its citizens may at least drive him out of business—if they cannot get him behind the bars— one declaration of the Commercial Appeal is worthy of reply. That paper raises a question of fact—it charges that Levy’s gin, Dreyfuss, Weil & Company’s ein, Bluthenthal & Blickert’s gin, the Old Spring Distilling Company’s gin, do not exist; or that, if they exist, their sales are insignificant. Let me pre- sent my own evidence on that point.” Mr. Irwin then details some of his experiences. The gin which he was discussing was provocative of peculiar lawlessness, its labels bore lascivious sug- gestions and were decorated with highly indecent portraiture of white women. “I bought, for evi- dence, many other brands, some emanating from the big liquor cities and some put up by local people; but I could always get Levy’s. I never saw it in any saloon which bars the Negro. “In Galveston, which prides itself on its clean government, some brand or other was for sale in nearly all the corner grocery ‘drums.’ “In a Negro street of New Orleans I saw five sa- loon shop windows in one block which displayed either Lee Levy’s or Dreyfuss, Weil & Company’s. This latter firm is more clever in its work than the others, much more delicate and subtle in its labeling policy. It takes one who understands the Negro and his slang to appreciate the enigma of their word- ing; it all comes in a ‘caution label’ on the obverse of the bottles, 28 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW « | Such gins were sold everywhere in Bu- mingham . . . . a bottle of the stuff, half emp- ty, had been taken from a Pickens County Negro just after his arrest for the nameless crime. “Levy—so the gossip of the liquor trade has it— grew rich through this department of his business. Dreyfuss, Weil & Company advertise everywhere that theirs is ‘the most widely sold brand in the South.’ And more and more one hears of tragedies that le at the end of this course.” That is a sample—an expurgated sample—of what went on in every part of the country. Newspaper re- porters will remember how the police used to won- der about the change that came over certain foreign communities. ‘They come here nice people,” the ex- perienced police captain would say, “but in a short time they are giving us all sorts of trouble. They don’t do that in their own country.” “It’s the drink,” somebody would suggest. “No, they drink in their own country, they drink all the time there. It’s the kind of drink they get here that does it—the ‘rot-gut,’ that drives them wild.” That was the captain’s diagnosis, made a thousand times, but no one was the wiser. No one saw the key, which was the Jew. In the South a terrible lynching period came and divided the country into pro-lynching and pro-Negro parties, but still no one saw the reason for it all. The race question rose to threatening proportions, the Americans of North and South looked at each other askance, there was a cooling of sympathy be- tween the regions. Northerners were inclined to look at Southerners as unjust and inhuman in their treat- ment of the Negro, and Southerners were inclined to look upon Northerners as temperamentally unsym- pathetic and stupidly ignorant of what the condi- tions were. Behind it all were the products of men like Lee Levy and Dreyfuss, Weil & Company, to use only the names quoted from Collier’s. The ancient Jewish policy of Divide-Conquer-De- stroy was in operation. Jewish policy favors disun- GIGANTIC JEWISH LIQUOR TRUST AND ITS CAREER 29 ion aS a preparation to the kind of union which Jew- ish leaders want. Jewish influence was strong for disunion in the Civil War. Jewish influence is di- rectly behind the present attitude of the Negro to- ward the white man—look at the so-called ‘Negro welfare societies” with their hordes of Jewish of- ficials and patrons! Jewish influence in the South is today active in keeping up the memory of the old divisions. And, with reference to the Negro ques- tion, “nigger gin,” the product of Jewish poisoned liquor factories, was its most provocative element. Trace the appearance of this gin as to date, and you find the period when Negro outbursts and lynch- ing became serious. Trace the localities where this ein was most widely sold and you will find the places where these disorders prevailed. It is extremely simple, so simple that it has been overlooked. The public is being constantly deceived by an appearance of complexity, where there is none. When you find the fever-bearing mosquito, yellow fever is no longer a mystery. The same policy of “Divide-Conquer-Destroy” tells the story of the liquor traffic. Jewish influence di- vided between distilling and compounding, drove out distilling, and in the end destroyed the traffic as a legalized entity. It needs to be said, however, that the destruction is not part of the Jewish intention. “Divide and Conquer” is the formula as the Jewish leaders con- ceive it, as, indeed, it is stated in the Protocols. The “destroy” comes as Nemesis upon Jewish achieve- ments. Russia was divided and conquered, but just as the Jews had conquered it, the canker worm of fate began to consume their conquest. The story is repeated wherever Jewish intrigue has succeeded. Whatever the Jews can succeed in making Jewish, falls! It may be fate. It may be Destiny’s way to the survival of the fittest. That which succumbs to com- plete Judaization, as Jewish leaders conceive it, may deserve to fall. The justification of its destruction may appear in the possibility of its Judaization. 30 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW Anything that can be Judaized is to that extent sen- tenced to oblivion. The story of Jewish control of liquor has now been -arried through two stages, the “Divide and Con- quer” stages. The third stage follows with swift and relentless steps. Blind though the country was to the Jewish character of the liquor business, it was not blind to the ravages of that business upon soct- ety. There came a sentiment that moved ceaselessly through the country, and mounted to stormy power; people could only speak of it as a “wave.” The term became hackneyed by overuse, but it was accurately descriptive. The indignation of the people, the arousal of their just moral resentment was as a flood which rose to cleanse the land. The attack was on liquor, and the attack was just. The attack was on liquor and it came none too soon. The coun- try was drenched in vile concoctions which rapidly undermined large sections of the population. Crime increased and domestic misery was everywhere. The people attacked the only thing they could see—they attacked the stuff and the places that distributed it. They did not see the $200,000,000 Jewish whisky combination, they did not see the sinister devices by which strong drink was made vile and viler with the growth of Jewish control. The people rose and swept away the saloon. They did not sweep away the stocks of liquor. They did not sweep away Jewish interest in liquor. They left the source untouched. And that source is still ex- istent. There remains another chapter of the narrative: the coming of Prohibition and of the illicit traffic in liquor. It remains to be seen whether the same thread carries through the latter phases. Issue of December 24, 1921. LXIV, The Jewish Element in Bootlegging Evil STUDENT of the liquor history of the United States is left wondering, not that Prohibition came, but that the authorities ever allowed matters to go so far as to compel the people to take the issue into their own hands. That is the point where those who believe in “personal liberty” and those who be- lieve in “public safety” ought to meet each other. It cannot be contended that every believer in Pro- hibition is a crank, nor can it be contended that every believer in “personal liberty” is a drunkard or a liquor guzzler; each of them stands for a prin- ciple that is a principle of right. But the Prohibi- tionist has been able to command victory over the “personal liberty” advocate because the stuff that the Prohibitionist is against ought not to be sold nor used under any circumstances, whereas the stuff the “personal liberty” advocate thinks he favors is not the stuff he thinks it is at all. If the element in question were poisoned tooth paste, or opium, or any other concededly dangerous substance, both the Prohibitionist and the “personal liberty” advocate would agree. What the honest “personal liberty” advocate needs to learn is that the liquor which caused the adoption of Prohibition was most dangerous to the individual and society. The question was not one of “liberty” but of safety. It is scarcely to be hoped that all the “personal liberty” groups will come to agree with this, because most of them are formed of the very men who made and profited by the drugged and chemicalized sub- stances which were sold over the bar and in bottles. Liquor men themselves must agree with the facts. Even Bonfort’s Wine and Spirits Circular admitted years ago that “the bulk of spirits sold today in glass under well-known brands is not what it is represent- ed to be.” “The truth of the matter is (we dislike 32 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW to say it) the wine and spirit trade of this country is honeycombed with fraud, and the most radical measure should be applied and applied vigorously.” “Many a dealer prominent socially, morally, reli- viously and in philanthropic circles will take a lot of neutral spirits, only a few days old, flavor them with a little heavy-bodied whisky, and brand them on the label or glass with the name of any state or county desired, and with any age, and this he will do with all smiles and glee and inward delight that is said to characterize the bold buccaneer when he cuts a throat and scuttles a ship.” 7 These excerpts show how near the official publi- cations of the liquor trade could come to describing the practice and indicating the Jew. The last quo- tation was a direct hit at Louisville liquor Jews, one of which compounders furnished a room at the Y. M. C. A. of that city, another of whom adorned the town with public gifts, all of whom are Kentucky “Colonels”; though their ancestry is not exactly Ken- tuckian, nor even American. The wine companies of Ohio, whose vineyards on Kelleys Island and elsewhere had built up a stand- ard business, joined in the protest. They pointed out that counterfeit wines were flowing out of fac- tories in Cleveland and Cincinnati, while the legiti- mate wine districts of Sandusky and Put-in-Bay were being saddled with the stigma of poisoned goods. As all the counterfeit business was in the hands of Jews, the statement is unavoidable that the whole movement of the degradation of liquor was Jewish. Then came Prohibition. The Constitution of the United States was amended, the amendment being ratified by 45 states. The issue had been actively before the nation longer than any other issue except the slavery question, so that the people’s action on it must be regarded as deliberate. And the liquor business was legally ended. BUT— _ What was the Jewish attitude toward Prohibition while it was being argued before the nation? What THE JEWISH ELEMENT IN BOOTLEGGING EVIL 33 has been the Jewish attitude toward Prohibition since it has been adopted? Both questions can be answered the same way. There are, of course, Kentuckians and others who have convinced themselves that the Jewish com- pounders foresaw Prohibition and welcomed it, be- cause they saw that it would increase their profits 1,000 per cent. But whatever the truth of that may be, there are no available records to support it. The Jews destroyed the business — that is true; but whether intentionally, for greater illegitimate prof- its, we cannot say. There are, however, records of Jewish activity during the reform agitation. The Jews were against Prohibition. Their press and pulpit were against it. Their whole influence in poli- tices and finance were against it. They were the backbone of the entire “wet” propaganda, and are today. The great temperance organizations will tell you that Jews did not contribute to their work. One national Prohibition organization admits a gift of $5 in many years. Will Irwin, investigating the early Prohibition movement in the South for Col- lier’s in 1909, found that The Modern Voice, a Jew- ish religious weekly which is still published, was engaged in carrying the “wet” propaganda into the southern states. The Modern Voice lost more votes than it made for its lack of taste in printing a half- tone picture of Christ endorsing the liquor traffic. J. K. Baer, one of the editors of this Jewish paper, explained his activity in this direction by saying, “We are a Jewish weekly, and the Jews are opposed on moral grounds to prohibition.” A Mr. Rosenthal was associated in the work. This was typical of the Jewish press everywhere. The Jewish stage was en- listed, every man and every girl, just as it is now, to deride those who protested against the destruction of the American people by counterfeit whisky and wine. Jazz music, the movies, fake medical “ex- perts”—every agency under Jewish control was mo- bilized to assist the fight for a continuance of the privilege of drugging the people’s drink. This will scarcely be denied, at least by Jews. 34 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW Some “Gentile fronts” may feel obliged to rush to the defense of the Jews by denying it, but their work is unnecessary. Jews themselves make no bones about it. They did not favor Prohibition, but they did not fear it; they knew that they would be ex- empt, they knew that it would bring certain ille- gitimate commercial advantages; they would be winners either way. Jewish luck! It is not surprising, therefore, that violation and evasion of the Prohibition law has had a deep Jewish complexion from the very beginning. THr DEARBORN INDEPENDENT would be glad to be excused from mak- ing the raw statement that bootlegging is a 95 per cent controled Jewish industry in which a certain class of rabbis have been active; we, therefore, avail ourselves of the report of an address of Rabbi Leo M. Franklin, of Detroit, president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, as given before that body at Washington in April, 1921, confirming the general fact: “In making the recommendation I gave you in my message in regard to this matter, and in going to the extreme in suggesting that we appeal to the gov- ernment to rescind that part of the Prohibition law which gives rabbis permission to issue permits for the purchase and distribution of wine for ritual purposes, I did so after very mature consideration. { am sure that after (his successor) shall have been in the chair of the conference for any length of time, he will come to exactly the same conclusions as I did. “You gentlemen, members of the conference, who have dealt with this situation as a local question have had, here and there, some small question to solve; but when you become president of the con- ference and have letters from every part of the coun- try, almost day by day, asking you as president of the conference to give the necessary authority to all sorts of men in all sorts of conditions, to purchase and distribute wine for ritual purposes, then you will take a different angle on this whole situation. “IT pointed out to one of my colleagues, next to THE JEWISH ELEMENT IN BOOTLEGGING EVIL 35 whom I was just now sitting, that within the past month I have received requests from three different men calling themselves rabbis in their communities, for authorization to purchase and distribute wine. I | know that I am not exaggerating when I say that during this last year I received requests from not less than 150 men in all parts of the country for per- mits to distribute wine... . I had the applicants in- vestigated, and I may say to you that in nine cases out of ten we found those who were attempting to use this conference, through its executive officers, for the obtaining of this authority, were men who had not the slightest right to stand before their com- munities as rabbis. “What were they for the most part? They were men without the slightest pretense at rabbinical training or position who, for the purpose of getting into the wholesale liquor business, if you will, organ- ized congregations. Nothing on God’s earth could prevent them from doing so. They simply gathered around them little companies of men; they called them congregations; and then, under the law as it now exists, they were privileged to purchase and dis- tribute wine to these people. And I call your at- tention to the fact that many of the so-called mem- bers of these congregations were not members of one congregation only! (Laughter.) This is not a laughing matter. They were not only members of one congregation, but members of two, three, four and upward. Why, you don’t know what good Jews many have become since this law has gone into effect! “What is more, gentlemen, perhaps some of you don’t realize what popularity has come to the—ser- mon, and how many Jews have suddenly come to. realize the beauty and the duty of the Kiddush on Friday night. I tell you it is a mighty serious prob- lem, and say what you will, our conference, under present conditions, is being used as a medium by un- scrupulous men, by the dozens and by the hundreds, to carry on a bootlegging business in the name of religion. 36 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW “Now you say there have been just small scandals here and there. A wine company in New York was raided last week and a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of wine was taken away by the au- thorities, supposed to be for ritual purposes. Don't forget that rabbi after rabbi last week in New York, a few of whom I happen to know, and in Rochester, Buffalo, Flint, Michigan, and Port Huron, Michigan —in any number of small towns throughout the country, if you have read your papers carefully, you will find that Rabbi So-and-So has been arrested as a bootlegger.” The discussion of this subject by the other rabbis present was very interesting. There was a request that “personal experiences be debarred,”’ but some crept in. Rabbi Cohen, for example, was quite ex- plicit. “Being one of those who opposed the whole Prohibition law, I am not in sympathy with the whole Prohibition law. . . .-It seems to me that we rabbis ought not to stand in the way of our own members in their legitimate ways of getting wine for their homes. . . . If a member wants the wine, I would like to be in a position that he may have the wine, even though he may not absolutely have to have it.” Rabbi Cohen pronounced the typical Jewish view. If the fool Gentiles want to prohibit themselves from having liquor, let them do it, but if there is a loophole for the Jews such as the rabbinical permit offers, it should be used generously for any “mem- ber,” “even though he may not absolutely have to have ye The pre-Prohibition Jewish liquor business is also the post-Prohibition Jewish liquor business. That fact is established by mountainous evidence. This does not mean, of course, that every bootlegger you meet is a Jew, nor that you will ever meet a Jew serving as an itinerant bootlegger. Unless you live in Chicago, New York or other large cities, an actual meeting with the Jew in this minor capacity will not be frequent. The Jew is the possessor of the whole- sale stocks; he is the director of the underground THE JEWISH ELEMENT IN BOOTLEGGING EVIL 37 * railways that convey the stuff surreptitiously to the public; seldom does he risk his own safety in being the last man to hand the goods to the consumer and to take the money. But notwithstanding all this carefulness, the bulk of the arrests made in the United States have been among Jews. The bulk of the liquor permits— a guess of 95 per cent would not be too high—are in the hands of Jews. More and more the Jews are being appointed as Prohibition enforcement officers at the central points of distribution. It is a fact, as Rabbi Franklin showed, that part of the trouble arises over the abuse of what has been called “rab- binical wine,” but big as it seems by itself, it is really a small part in comparison with the whole. Numbers of lesser rabbis have profited from the sale of liquor, no doubt of that. And not only among their own people, but from any people making the demand. “If you sign a Jewish name you can get it,’ is the watchword. Newspaper offices have been kept “wet” in some cases by “rabbinical wine,” which accounts for the dribble of “wet” propaganda in the so-called humorous and other columns of the evening journals. It happens that “rabbinical wine” is a euphemism for whisky, gin, Scotch, champagne, vermuth, ab- sinthe, or any other kind of hard liquor. The stocks that existed when Prohibition went into force have not only not decreased, but have actually increased, because of the increase in the “doctoring” of the stuff. It has been cheapened, its bulk has been in- creased and it has been made, if anything, more deadly than before. ‘As fatal as bootleg whisky” is i a saying founded on thousands of deaths. The wholesale stocks of compounded liquor re- mained in the hands of the men who owned them, while the retail stocks in stores and saloons had to be disposed of. That was one of the first big mis- takes—that the little fellow was compelled to get rid of his stock, while the big fellow was permitted to keep his. The so-called rabbis, who had advance information of the special privileges which the Jews 38 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW were to enjoy under the Prohibition law, were very active in buying up the smaller stocks and storing them away. Of course, no one could prevent them. Was it not “ritual wine” ?—even though it was any kind of liquor, it -went under the “cover name” of “ritual wine,” and of course, as everybody knows, great scandal resulted. Protests like that of Rabbi Franklin indicate that a part of Jewish public opin- ion resents the policy of exempting Jews from the Prohibition law, but this is minority opinion. What the Central Conference of American Rabbis may think is of little consequence to the mass of Jews in America. The people to scrutinize with regard to this are not the Rabbi Franklins, who are amenable to the significance of American opinion, but those Jews who do not consult with Americanized rabbis, but run the political end of Jewry as they choose. There is no reason why the Jews should be ex- empt from the operation of the Constitution of the United States at all, yet the Constitution is sus- pended in their favor when the Ten-Gallon Permit iS given. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that there is or could be any objection to the Jews’ ritual- istic use of wine, or that the present scandal with regard to law violation rises from that. It is not a religious question at all. It is purely a commercial question. The people who are breaking the Prohibi- tion law are the same people who broke the Pure Food law with regard to the ingredients of whisky. They are essentially a lawbreaking class. The “Gentile boobs” who patronize bootleggers to- day are being sold a liquor which is never what it is represented to be, in spite of names blown in the bottles, in spite of seals and in spite of labels. The most conscienceless fraud is being perpetrated on gullible people at an increase in profit of from 400 to 1,000: per cent. The stuff brought from Havana is Jew whisky shipped there, “doctored” still more and shipped back at increased prices—the “Gentile boobs” fancying they are getting something extra special “just brought in from Havana.” THE JEWISH ELEMENT IN BOOTLEGGING EVIL 39 Twenty years ago Jewish liquor dealers of Chi- cago were using genuine James HK. Pepper bottles refilled with vile ingredients compounded in back rooms. Twenty years ago there were counterfeit whiskies sold in the United States bearing forged Canadian Government stamps. The forgers of the labels were Jewish liquor houses. Twenty years ago there was unlimited faking of liquor labels, a Chi- cago printing house furnishing Jewish liquor houses with clever imitations of any reputable label in use, to be placed on bottles containing doped goods. Foreign, American and Canadian labels were unscru- pulously adopted and brazenly advertised every- where. These abuses did not wait for Prohibition; they were daily Jewish practices twenty years ago. The only difference now is that the stuff which is sold is still worse. The enforcement of the Prohibition law ought to be rigidly complete, for the same reason that the en- forcement of the Pure Food law should have been complete years ago—it is necessary to prevent the wholesale harming of an ignorant public. The maintenance of the idea of drink in the minds of the people is due to Jewish propaganda. There is not a dialog on the stage today that does not drip with whisky patter. As all the plays making much noise’ this year are not only Jew-written, Jew- produced and Jew-controlled, but also Jew-played (the stage swarms with Jewish countenances this year), the drip of whisky patter is constant. If theatergoers were at all observant they would see that most of their money goes to support pro-Jewish propaganda in one form or another, which is, of course, a tribute to Jewish business genius—what other people could embark on a pro-racial propa- ganda and make the opposite race pay for it? This idea of drink will be maintained by means of the Jewish stage, Jewish jazz and the Jewish comics until somebody comes down hard upon it as being incentive of treason to the Constitution. When a Jewish comedian can indulge in a 15-minute 40 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW monologue “panning” the United States, defaming Liberty, heaping contempt upon the Pilgrims, and openly praising a violation of a portion of the Con- _ stitution of the United States—and when choruses sing this sort of thing, and slap-stick artists take it up, “and it becomes evident that the country is being ringed around every week by repeated. attacks upon what the people have established—it is certain not to be very long before a heavy hand will be laid on the whole business. The Department of Justice should pay some atten- tion to the treason nightly spouted on the legiti- mate stage before Americans who pay as high as $5 each in support of the propaganda. First and last, the illicit liquor business in all its phases, both before and after Prohibition, has al- ways been Jewish. Before Prohibition it was mor. ally illicit, after Prohibition it became pore morally and legally illicit. And it is not a cause for shame among the ma- jority of the Jews, sad to say; it is rather a cause for boast. The Yiddish newspapers are fruitful of joc- ular references to the fact, and they even carry large wine company advertisements week after week. As before Prohibition the key to the steady degen- eration of the liquor business was the fact of Jewish domination, so now the key to the organized and law- less rebellion against a recently enacted article of the Constitution is also Jewish. Prohibition en- forcement officers will find a short-cut to successful enforcement along this line. And if law-abiding Jews would help with what they know, the work cuuld be soon accomplished, Issue of December 31, 1921, LXV. Angles of Jewish Influence in American Life ‘THE Jewish Question exists wherever Jews ap- pear, says Theodor Herzl, because they bring it with them. It is not their numbers that create the Question, for there is in almost every country a larger number of other aliens than of Jews. It is not their much-boasted ability, for it is now coming to be understood that, give the Jew an equal start and hold him to the rules of the game, and he is not smarter than anyone else; indeed, in one great class of Jews the zeal is quenched when opportunity for intrigue is removed. The Jewish Question is not in the number of Jews who here reside, not in the American’s jeal- ousy of the Jew’s success, certainly not in any objection to the Jew’s entirely unobjectionable Mosaic religion; it is in something else, and that something else is the fact of Jewish influence on the life of the country where Jews dwell; in the United States it is the Jewish influence on American life. That the Jews exert an influence, they themselves loudly proclaim. One is permitted to think that they really claim a stronger influence than they possess, especially in those higher regions where excellent and determinative influences have been at work. The Jews claim, indeed, that the fundamen- tals of the United States are Jewish and not Chris- tian, and that the entire history of this country should be rewritten to make proper acknowledgment of the prior glory due to Judah. If the question of influence rested entirely on the Jewish claim, there would be no occasion for doubt; they claim it all. But it is kindness to hold them to the facts; it is also more clearly explanatory of conditions in our country. If they insist that they “gave us our Bible” and “gave us our God” and “gave us our religion,” as they do over and over again with nau- 42 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW seating superciliousness throughout all their polemic publications—not a single one of these claims being true—they must not grow impatient and profane while we complete the list of the real influences they have set at work in American life. It is not the Jewish people but the Jewish idea, and the people only as vehicles of the idea, that is the point at issue. As it was Prussianism and not the German people that was the objective in the re- cent war, so in this investigation of the Jewish Question, it is Jewish influence and the Jewish Idea that are being discovered and defined. The Jews are propagandists. This was originally their mission. But they were to propagate the cen- tral tenet of their religion. This they failed to do. By failing in this they, according to their own Scriptures, failed everywhere. They are now with- out a mission of blessing. Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service. The essence of the Jewish Idea in its influence on the labor world is the same as in all other depart- ments—the destruction of real values in favor of fictitious values. The Jewish philosophy of money is not to “make money,” but to “get money.” The distinction between these two is fundamental. That explains Jews being “financiers” instead of “cap- tains of industry.” It is the difference between “vetting” and “making.” The creative, constructive type of mind has an affection for the thing it is doing. The non-Jewish worker formerly chose the work he liked best. He did not change employment easily, because there was a bond between him and the kind of work he had chosen. Nothing else was so attractive to him. He would rather draw a little less money and do what he liked to do, than a little more and do what irked ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE 43 him. The “maker” is always thus influenced by his liking. Not so the “getter.” It doesn’t matter what he does, so long as the income is satisfactory. He has no illusions, sentiments or affections on the side of work. It is the “geld” that counts. He has_no at- tachment for the things he makes, for he doesn’t make any; he deals in the things which other men” make and regards them solely on the side of their money-drawing value. “The joy of creative labor’ is nothing to him, not even an intelligible saying. Now, previous to the advent of Jewish socialistic and subversive ideas, the predominant thought in the labor world was to “make” things and thus “make” money. There was a pride among mechanics. Men who made things were a sturdy, honest race be- cause they dealt with ideas of skill and quality, and their very characters were formed by the satisfac- tion of having performed useful functions in society. They were the Makers. And society was solid as long as they were solid. Men made shoes as ex- hibitions of their skill. Farmers raised crops for the inherent love of crops, not with reference to far- off money-markets. Everywhere The Job was the main thing and the rest was incidental. The only way to break down this strong safe- guard of society—a laboring class of sturdy char- acter—was to sow other ideas among it; and the most dangerous of all the ideas sown was that which substituted “get” for “make.” With the required manipulation of the money and food markets, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the ultimate consumers to give point to the idea of “vet,” and it was not long before the internal rela- tions of American business were totally upset, with Jews at the head of the banking system, and Jews at the head of both the conservative and radical elements of the Labor Movement, AND, most potent of all, the Jewish Idea sowed through the minds of workingmen. What Idea? The old idea of “get” instead of “make.” 44 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW The idea of “get” is a vicious, anti-social and destructive idea when held alone; but when held in company with “make” and as second in importance, it is legitimate and constructive. As soon aS a man or a class is inoculated with the strictly Jewish Idea of “getting”—(“getting mine;” “getting while the getting is good;” “honestly if you can, dishon- estly if you must—but get it”—all of which are notes of this treasonable philosophy), the very cement of society loses its adhesiveness and begins to crumble. The great myth and fiction of Money has been forced into the place of real things, and the second step of the drama can thus be opened up. Jewish influence on the thought of the working- men of the United States, as well as on the thought of business and professional men, has been bad, thoroughly bad. This is not manifested in a divi- sion between “capital” and “labor,” for there are no such separate elements; there is only the executive and operating departments of American business. The real division is between the Jewish idea of “cet” and the Anglo-Saxon idea of “make,” and at the present time the Jewish idea has been successful enough to have caused an upset. All over the United States, in many branches of trade, Communist colleges are maintained, officered and taught by Jews. These so-called colleges exist in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester, Pitts- burgh, New York, Philadelphia and other cities, the whole intent being to put all American labor on a “cet” basis, which must prove the economic dam- nation of the country. And that, apparently, is the end sought, as in Russia. Until Jews can show that the infiltration of foreign Jews and the Jewish Idea into the Ameri- can labor movement has made for the betterment in character and estate, in citizenship and economic statesmanship, of the American workingman, the charge of being an alien, destructive and treasonable influence will have to stand. The last place the uninstructed observer would ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE 45 look for traces of Jewish influence is in the Chris- tian church, yet if he fail to look there he will miss much. If the libraries of our theological seminaries were equipped with complete files of Jewish literary effort in the United States during the past 15 years, and if theological students were required to read these Jewish utterances, there would be less silly talk and fewer “easy marks” for Jewish propaganda in the American pulpit. For the next 25 years every theological seminary should support a chair for the study of Modern Jewish Influence and the Protocols. The fiction, that the Jews are an Old Testament peo- ple faithful to the Mosaic Law, would then be ex- ploded, and timid Christians would no longer super- stitiously hesitate to speak the truth about them because of that sadly misinterpreted text: “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curs- eth thee.” There is a mission for the pulpit to liberate the Church from what the New Testament Scriptures call “the fear of the Jews.” | The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the con- fusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements. The Jews are not “The Chosen People,” though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so. The Jewish tinge of thought has of late years overspread many Christian statements, and the un- instructed clergy have proved more and more ame- nable to Jewish suggestion. The flaccid condition of the Church, so much deplored by spokesmen who had regard for her inner life, was brought about not by “science,” not by “scholarship,” not by the “increase of light and learning’—for none of these things are antagonistic 46 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW even to incomplete statements of truth—but by Jewish-German higher criticism, The defenders of the faith have fought long and valiantly against the inroads made by the so-called Higher Criticism, but were sadly incapacitated in their defense, because they did not see that its ori- gin and purpose were Jewish. It was not Chris- tian; it, was not German; it was Jewish. It is almost wholly discounted today in the practical life of the church, but it still adheres to the darker corners of the colleges, along with the Red Bol- shevism which is taking root there under Jewish influences. Let the Christian minister who wishes to know the source of Jewish influence in the church look over the names of the more notorious “German” Higher Critics of the Bible, and consider their race. Add to them one Frenchman, an atheist and a Jew, and you have modern “liberal” sources very com- plete: Wellhausen Kuehne Strauss Hitzig Ewald Renan It is perfectly in keeping with the Jewish World Program that this destructive influence should be sent out under Jewish auspices, and it is perfectly in keeping with non-Jewish trustfulness to accept the thing without looking at its souree. A great many so-called “liberals” played the Jewish game for a time; they are now coming back to the old citadel which stood in its own strength and without their patronage while the fever of the Higher Criticism raged. The church is now victim of a second attack against her, in the rampant Socialism and Soviet- ism that have been thrust upon her in the name of flabby and unmoral theories of “brotherhood” and in an appeal to her “fairness.” The church has been made to believe that she is a forum for discussion and not a high place for annunciation. She has been turned from a Voice into an echo of jangling cries. Jews have actually invaded, in person and in ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE 47 program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situ- ation that they were met with the inevitable check. Clergymen ought to know that seven-eighths of the economic mush they speak from the pulpit is prepared by Jewish professors of political economy and revolutionary leaders. They should be informed that economic thought has been so completely Judaized by means of a deliberate and masterly plan of camouflaged propaganda, that the, mass- thought of the crowd (which is the thought mostly echoed in “popular” pulpits and editorials) is more Jewish than Jewry itself holds. The Jew has got hold of the church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many pulpits and adult classes. If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made, with the Bible always in hand as the authoritative textbook, it is in the modern church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda. It is not reaction that is counseled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders and Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightfor- ward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah. Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxon are be- ing attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the 48 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths; both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significant of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him in the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able “to sit on the fence and see themselves go by,” and they come back to sanity. They find that “free love” doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family—the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children—is the basis, not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery de- bates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of supermanlikeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress. And, too, they come at length to see that the Stars and Stripes and the Free Republic are better far than the Red Star and Soviet sordidness. When a Supreme Court Justice addressed one of the greater American universities, a student came to him after a lecture and said: “It gave me so much pleasure to hear your lectures, for they were the first kindly words I have heard said about our government since the commencement of my uni- versity career.” For years the secular magazines have been carry- ing articles on the question, “What Is Wrong With the Colleges?” The answer is perfectly clear to those who can discern Jewish influence in American life. The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been de- scrtbed above in connection with the churches. ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE 49 First, Jewish higher criticism in the destruction of young men’s sense of respect for the ancient founda- tions; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol’s program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas. It is idle to attack the “unbelief” of college students, idle to attack their “radicalism’—these are always the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism (‘“radicalism”’ being a very good word very sadly misused) and antagonism to the religious sanctions of the moral law, both come from the same source. Over the fountain of Revolutionism and Anti-Christian belief place the descriptive and definitive term “Jewish,” and let the sons of the Anglo-Saxons learn from what waters they are drinking. That source is not Mosaic, but Jewish—there is a world of difference between them. | The central groups of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a “Gentile frout” in the shape of a deluded professor. Nome of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Social- ist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish in- fluences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing medics and lits and even the Divinity schools, under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda. Inter- collegiate Liberal Leagues are established every- where, the purpose evidently being to give students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a great new movement, comparable to the winning of Independence or the Abolition of Slavery. As stein parties gradually cease as a col- lege diversion, Red conferences will come in; it is part of the effervescence of youth. The revolutionary forces which head up in Jew- ry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia—every- 50 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW one knows what the name “student” eventually came to signify in that country. And as a result, while Sovietists are glorifying the “success” of the Revyo- lution, men like Maxim Gorky are sending out appeals for food to prevent the intelligentsia from starving to death. The Jewish Chautauqua, which works almost exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. And these are ably assisted by pro- fessors and clergymen whose thinking has been dis- located and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology. What to do about it? Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our colleges. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their alle- giance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. Radicalism and religious indifferentism are states of mind. Normal men usually grow out of them in good time. Others are caught and held to the end. But the treatment is not argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influ- ence is to call college students back to a pride of race. We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers were the men of the Anglo-Saxon- Celtic race. The men who came across Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny; the men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove west to California and north to Alaska; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; the men who opened the tropics and subdued the arctics—Anglo-Saxon men, who have given form to every government and ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE 51 a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their reli- gion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their cre- ative genius—they are the Ruling People, Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by Building it ever better and better and not by break- ing it down. - Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of “get,” cast out of every land that gave them hos- pitality, and these people endeavor to tell the sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be. If our sons in college follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our uni- versities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jew- ish thought be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret. The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of procedure is already fully known. And how simple it is: First, you secularize the public schools—“secu- larize” is the precise word the Jews use for the proc- ess. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the Christian landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas. The influence of the common people is driven out of the public schools, where common people’s influ- 52 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW ence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the com- _ mon people’s influence cannot go. Secularize the public schools, and you can then Judaize the universities. This is the “liberalism” which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in church, in university, it has tinctured the principles of work, faith and society. This will not be denied, because the proof of it is too thickly written over Jewish activities and utterances. Indeed, it is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself it is fulfilling its “mission” to the world. The cap- italism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the ortho- doxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society, all of which by their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism. The list could be extended—the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon- Celtic idea of patriotism, on the Anglo- Saxon- Celtic conception of the learned pro- fessions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life. “Well,” one very badly deluded Anglo-Saxon editor, wrapped up in Jewish advertising contracts, was heard to say, “if the Jews can get away with it, then they have a right to.” It is a variant of the “answer” of Jewish origin, which runs thus: “How can a paltry 5,000,000 run the 100,000,000 of the rest of us? Nonsense!” 7 Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is the greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and Anglo- Saxon power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle. It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the public schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo- Saxon idea is kept away from Anglo- Saxons on the plea that it is “sectarian” or “clan- nish” or “obsolete” or something else. It is not a ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE 53 fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as Anglo- Saxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon- Celtic fathers have free course among their Anglo- Saxon-Celtic sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture. | Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promise all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish. That is all that will be necessary. ‘And it is against this that the Jews protest. “You must not identify us,” they say, “You must not use the term ‘Jew.’” Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare pro- claim themselves and their origin. A proper proc- lamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag! Issue of May 21, 1921, LXVI. The Jews’ Complaint Against “Americanism ’’ PeoM the earliest record of the Jews’ contact with other nations, no long period of years has ever passed without the charge arising that the Jews constitute “a people within a people, a nation within a nation.” When this charge is made today it is vehemently denied by men who pose as the de- fenders of their people, and the denial is more or less countenanced by all the Jews of every class. And yet there is nothing more clearly stated in Jewish teaching, nor more clearly indicated in Jew- ish life, than that the charge is true. But whether the truth should be used against the Jews is quite another question. If the Jews are a nation, their nationality founded upon the double ground of race and religion, it is certainly outside the bounds of reason that they should be asked or expected to de- racialize, de-nationalize and de-religionize them- selves; but neither is it to be expected that they should bitterly denounce those who state the facts. It is only upon a basis of facts that a solution of any problem can come. Where blame attaches is here: that the evident facts are denied, as if no one but the Jews themselves knew that there are such facts. If the Jews are to be continuously a nation, as they teach, and if the condition of “a nation within a nation” becomes more and more intolerable, then the solution must come through one of two things: a separation of the “nation” from the rest of the nations, or an exaltation of the “nation” above the rest of the nations. There is a mass of evidence in Jewish writings that the leaders expect both of these conditions to come—a separate nation and a super-nation; indeed the heart of Jewish teaching is, aS quite fully illustrated in the last article, that Jewry is a separate nation now, and on the way to THE JEWS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST “AMERICANISM” | 55 becoming a super-nation. It is only those appoint- ed to address the Gentiles who deny this: the real rabbinate of Israel does not deny. Now, in any investigation of the Jewish Ques- tion, the student is struck over and over again by the fact that what the Jews most complain of, they themselves began. They complain of what they call anti-Semitism; but it must be apparent to the dull- est mind that there could never have been such a thing as anti-Semitism were there not first such a thing as Semitism. And then take the complaint about the Jews having to live in ghettos. The ghetto is a Jewish invention. In the beginning of the invasion of Huropean and ‘American cities the Jews always lived by themselves because they wanted to, because they believed the presence of Gentiles contaminated them. Jewish writers, writing for Jews, freely ad- mit this; but in writing for Gentiles, they refer to the ghetto as a surviving illustration of Gentile cruelty. The idea of contamination originated with the Jews; it spread by suggestion to the Gentiles. And so with this fact of the separate “nation” ; it was the Jews who first recognized it, first insisted upon it and have always sought to realize that sepa- rateness both in thought and action. Nay, more, the true and normal type of Jew to- day believes that the influence of Americanism, or of any civilized Gentile state, is harmful to Juda- ism. That is a serious statement and no amount of Gentile assertion will be sufficient to confirm it. In- deed, it is such a statement as the Gentile mind could not have evolved, because the trend of Gentile feeling is all in the opposite direction, namely, that Americanization is a good thing for the Jew. It is from authoritative Jewish sources that we learn wis fact, that what we call civilizing influences are looked upon as being at enmity with Judaism. It is not the Gentile who says that Jewish ideals, as ideals, are incompatible with life in our country; it is the Jew who says so. It is he who inveighs 56 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW against Americanism, not the American who in- veighs against Judaism. As this article is one with the last, the same method of impassive presentation of the testimony will be followed. Readers of this study of the Jew- ish Question should know that neither rhetoric nor emotion will contribute a single element to the solu- tion of the Question. We prefer to leave rhetoric and emotion to the anti-Semites who call names and to the pro-Semites who are apparently reduced to the same necessitous level. Now, the first thing to know is this: that though Americanism is yet unfinished, Judaism has been complete for centuries; and while no American would think of pointing to any part of the country or to any group as representing the true and final type of Americanism, the Jews quite unhesitatingly point to parts of the world and to certain groups as representing the true type of Judaism. Where is the type to be found which Jewish writ- ers recognize as the true one? The Jew of the ghetto is held up in Jewish trea- tises as the norm of Judaism. The visitor in New York has perhaps seen on Central Park west the massive synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Its famous rabbi was the Rev. Dr. D. de Sola Pool. He is the author of the following words: “In the ghetto the observance of Judaism was natural and almost inevitable. The regimen of -Jew- ish life was the atmosphere that was breathed * * * Not only did public opinion make it possible for men to go bearded, to keep the head covered at all times, to carry the palm branch in the public street, or to walk the street in stockinged feet on fast days, but public opinion made it almost impossible for a Jew to profane the Sabbath or the Passover regula- tions, or openly to transgress any of the main ob- servances”—and, as we shall later see, the learned rabbi considers these conditions more preservative of Judaism than are American conditions. Rev. Dr. M. H. Segal expresses the view that THE JEWS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST “AMERICANISM” 57 Jewry in the more modern portions of Europe and America was really kept alive by the infusions of immigrants from Poland and Lithuania. Asserting, in agreement with other Jewish leaders, that the Jewish center of the world has been, until now, in Russia and Poland, Dr. Segal says: “The war has destroyed the last traces of the declining Jewish society which had dragged out its feeble existence in the semi-medieval ghettos of Poland and Lithuania. With all their growing feebleness, these . communities were yet the last refuge of Judaism in the Dis- persion. In them there had still survived some- thing of the old: Jewish life, some of the old Jewish institutions, practices and traditions. These communities also supplied such vitality as they could afford to the attenuated and atro- phied Judaism in the communities of the more modern states of Hurope and America.” The idea is not at all uncommon—that large in- fusions of “real Jews” from the Old World ghettos are desirable and necessary in order to keep Juda- ism alive in countries like the United States. Israel Friedlaender, whose name just at present is held in peculiar honor by the Jews, and justly so, was a man of most enlightened intellect, and he too recognized the service of the ghetto stream to Ju- daism. In his lecture, “The Problem of Judaism in America,” he speaks about the de-Judaizing ten- ' dency of absolute freedom, such as the Jew has al- ways enjoyed in the United States. This tendency, he says, is corrected in two ways—by anti-Semitic influences and “by the large stream of Jewish emi- gration, on the other hand, which, proceeding from the lands of oppression to the lands of freedom, carries with it, on or under the surface, the pre- serving and reviving influences of the ghetto.” The same authority, in an article entitled “The Americanization of the Jewish Immigrant,” frankly prefers the Jew fresh from the ghetto to the Jew who has been influenced by American life. He says that he “prefers the kaftan-clad, old- 58 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW fashioned Jew, with his unattractive appearance and ungainly manners, whose whole life is dominat- ed by the ideals and mandates of an ancient religion and civilization * * * to that modernized, am- phibious creature, the gaudily attired, slang-using, gum-chewing, movie-visiting, dollar-hunting, vulgar and uncultured, quasi-Americanized ‘dzentleman.’ ” The “kaftan-clad, old-fashioned Jew” of whom Mr. Friedlaender writes, is the Polish Jew, 250,000 of whom are coming to the United States as “a pre- serving and reviving influence” upon Judaism in the United States. Not to use more space, however, on the identity of the normal type of Jew as precisely stated by those who have expressed themselves on this sub- ject, it is possible to preserve the idea and add its logical complement, by quoting some testimony on the Jewish view of Americanization. What now follows is of special interest because it is so generally stated and received throughout Jewish circles, that the center of Jewry has shifted to America. That is the form in which Jewish spokesmen make the statement: they say ““America,” not the United States. A little story—a true one—may be worth while here. It may throw a sidelight on the use of the word “American” as used in the testimony. A cer- tain editor of an American newspaper gave a trifling bit of publicity to this series of articles. Jewish advertising was withdrawn from his columns by the chairman of the Anti-Defamation Committee of the local Lodge of B’nai B’rith, which chairman was also an advertising agent who handled all the Jew- ish advertising in that city. The editor, not being a wise man, yielded to the bulldozing methods used upon him, and in a half-hearted bit of editorial praise for the Jews used the word “Americanism.” The advertising agent toyed with the word in the manner of one who, having a weak Gentile in his power, would make the best of it. “Why did you say, ‘Americanism’? Why did you not say ‘civilization’?” he asked, THE JEWS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST “AMERICANISM” 59 The editor to this day thinks it was a bit of cap- tiousness. It was not. There is meaning in it. To “Americanize”’ means, in our ordinary speech, to bring into sympathy with the traditions and institutions of the United States, but the Jews do not mean only the United States when they say “America.” They mean also South and Central America—where so many revolutions have occurred. There are large numbers of Jews in Argentina, and many are found in other countries. The next place to be extensively colonized will be Mexico. If the people of the United States see a Jewish ambassador sent to represent them in Mexico, they must know that the invasion of that country is about to begin. If the ambassador is not himself a Jew, it will be well -to scrutinize his connections; there may be reasons which will make it necessary to employ a “Gentile front” for a time. Now, it would probably give a wrong twist to the fact to say that the Jewish leaders are anti-Amer- ican, but it is true that they are against the “Amer- icanization” of the Jewish immigrant stream. That is, the trend of “Americanism” is so different from the trend of “Judaism” that the two are in conflict. This does not indicate treason toward American na- tionalism, perhaps, so much as it indicates loyalty toward Jewish nationalism. But the reader must himself be the judge as to how far the difference goes. The testimony which will now be given divided itself into two parts: first, that relating to the American state in partic- ular; second, that relating to any Gentile state. After he had spoken in praise of the old type of Jew, aS seen in the foreign ghettos, Dr. D. de Sola Pool added: “To a large extent the adult Jewish population of the United States has been reared in Jewish com- munities of this type of Jewish inevitableness. To a large extent the young generation is being reared in an atmosphere in which this type of Jewishness is unknown, or at least strange and impossible. Jewish religious observance in the United States is 60 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW becoming increasingly difficult and «iereasingly rare.” Describing the antagonism between the American and the Jewish tendencies, he continues with this reference to the effect of “Americanism” on Jewish modes of worship: “On the platform officiate a cantor and a preach- er, who turn their backs to the ark and address them- selves to their congregation. The tallith and similar externals are un-American, and have consequently been sacrificed. The ‘American’ worships with bare head; therefore the American of Jewish persuasion must also doff his headgear when at worship. He- brew, an Oriental language, is not an American tongue. The American prays in English, which all understand, and accordingly the American of Jew- ish faith has Anglicized his ritual. Such a ritual is not susceptible of being chanted with traditional Jewish Chazzanuth, and the music of the temple has therefore been brought up to date by the introduc- tion of an organ, sacred music borrowed from non- Jewish neighbors, and mixed choirs in which non- Jewish singers are almost the rule * * * The Jewish Sabbath is out of keeping with the environment, and the only way in which it seemed to be possible to save it was by celebrating it with a Friday eve- ning temple service after supper, and resting, and sometimes also attending temple on Sunday.” It is not difficult to detect underneath these words the tone of criticism for such “Americaniza- tion.” It is a criticism which is fully justified by conditions. And it must be remembered that it was not uttered by a “kaftan-clad, old-fashioned Jew,” but by a learned rabbi with a magnificent temple on Central Park west, a man whom our government has seen fit to honor. But that is not all that Dr. de Sola Pool objects to. Nor does he mince words in making his objec- tion known: “If so far, Reform has avoided the logical end of the process and has stopped short of identifying itself with Christianity, it has American- ized Judaism by dropping the elements that are THE JEWS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST “AMERICANISM” 61 characteristically Jewish and un-American, and has thereby created an almost non-sectarian Judaism housed in an almost non-sectarian Temple.” It will. be noticed that the learned doctor uses the word “American” as one accustomed to quite another atmosphere. A further illustration is found in this: “Neglect of the un-American dietary laws is usu- ally the first step that the Americanizing Jew takes in asserting his Americanism.” The “un-American dietary laws” are, of course, the Jewish dietary laws. But if any Gentile writer had so referred to them, he would have been abused as a hostile witness. It is very curious indeed to read the long list of complaints against modern conditions in their power to bring about the “decay of Judaism.” The ghetto, which makes for separateness, is frequently heralded as the true safeguard of Judaism. Intercourse with the world is dangerous. “Americanizing” influences are distrusted. No doubt many and many a Gentile parent in New York, Boston, Louisville, Dallas and other American cities has witnessed the spectacle of Jew- ish teachers and “welfare workers” instructing Gen- tile children in the principles of Americanism, but did anyone ever see a Gentile teacher instructing Jewish children in Americanism ? Recently .when the American Legion asked per- mission of the government to establish Americaniza- tion classes at Ellis Island, where tens of thousands of Polish Jews gain entry into the United States, the reply was a refusal, and the reason was that all the space for charitable institutions was already taken. What charitable institutions? How many of them were Jewish? “The beginning of this decay,” says Israel Fried- laender, referring to the effect of modern life on Judaism, “is obviously coincident with the begin- ning of Jewish emancipation, that is to say, with the moment when the Jews left the ghetto to join the life and culture of the nations around them,” 62 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW Mr. Friedlaender even went so far as to say that pogroms against the Jews were “fortunate” in that they drove the Jews back to their Judaism—*F'ortu- nately, however, Russian Jewry was halted on its downward rush toward national self-annihilation. The process of assimilation was cut short by the pogroms, and ever since then the Jews of Russia have stood firmly their ground * * * ” That may be the reason why some Jewish spokes- men of the Jews in America are trying to make this series of articles appear as a “pogrom.” There is plenty of evidence to indicate that Jewish leaders have regarded “pogroms,” in modern times at least, as very useful in preserving the solidarity of Jewry. However, those who are responsible for the present series of articles, much as they hope to benefit the general situation of the humbler Jews by showing the use which the leading Jews are making of them, must decline to be counted among those who justify “pogroms” on any ground whatsoever. Justice Brandeis, of the United States Supreme Court, is also an exponent of the idea that, released from ghetto influences, the Jew becomes less of a Jew. He says: “We must protect America and ourselves from demoralization, which has to some extent already set in among American Jews. The cause of this de- moralization is clear. It results, in large part, from the fact that in our land of liberty all the restraints by which the Jews were protected in their ghettos were removed and a new generation left without necessary moral and spiritual support.” Justice Brandeis is a Zionist on these very grounds. He wants the land of Palestine because there the Jews, as he says, “may live together and lead a Jewish life.” Not the United States, but Palestine, is Justice Brandeis’ hope for the Jews; he says of Palestine that “there only can Jewish life be fully protected from the forces of disintegration.” Arguing the same question, the Rev. Mr. S. Levy says: “I shall -probably be told that the re-estab- ——— THE JEWS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST “AMERICANISM” 63 lishment of Jews as a nation would mean the re- creation of the ghetto. I am frankly prepared to admit the force of the criticism, but with an im- portant qualification dependent on the interpreta- tion of the word ‘ghetto.’ “In so far as the national center will insure the existence of this Jewish environment, Jewish at- mosphere, and Jewish culture, there will be a re- creation of the ghetto.” (The italics are Mr. Levy’s. ) | “The continuance of Judaism, then, is dependent on the existence of an area with an aggregation of Jews living in a Jewish environment, breathing a Jewish atmosphere and fostering a Jewish culture, and these factors must predominate over all other influences.” It is therefore plain that, however startling and improbable the statement may seem when made by a Gentile, the Jews themselves regard the influences of modern lands as inimical to Judaism. But there is still a further consideration, which is distinctly set forth in Jewish writings, namely, that the trend of the modern State is harmful to all that Judaism holds to be essential to its moral and spiritual welfare. The modern State is changing, and Jewish ob- servers sense the fact more readily than do the rest of the people, because Jews see in the change both an opportunity and a menace. If the State con- tinues to change according to the trend of the gen- eral mind of the world, Jewish ideas of supremacy will find less and less opportunity to be realized— that is the menace. If the change, or the spirit of change, can be seized and twisted to Jewish pur- poses, as was done in Russia, and a Jewish type of State erected on the ruins of the old—that is the opportunity. Readers of these articles know that stimulation of “the spirit of change” is one of the clearest planks in the World Program. As Cyril M. Picciotto points out in his “Concep- tions of the State and the Jewish Question,” there is a tendency to “increase the control of the State 64 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW over the individual.” This, of course, has nowhere been done so thoroughly as in Russia under the Jewish-Bolshevik régime, but it is not of this that Mr. Picciotto speaks, it is of the tendency observed in the Gentile states; and he asks: “In the face of of such a tendency in political development (which it is not rash to assume will be more pronounced in the future than in the past) how does the Jew stand ?” He adds: “The time is not far distant when the development of the State will continue on organic and collectivist lines. The central authority will embrace an ever wider area, and will make such a penetration into the recesses of individual freedom as would have been thought inconceivable thirty or forty years ago. Compulsory military service, com- pulsory education, compulsory insurance are but milestones on the road which logically leads to the adoption of a State morality, a State creed, and of a common way of life. To say this is merely to indi- cate the probable trend, not to approve it.” “How, then, is the State of the future going to deal with a people in its midst which largely pre- serves its separateness of blood, which in its fasts, its festivals, its day of rest, its dietary laws, its marriage ceremony, suggests a distinct historic entity ?” The question is a disturbing one to Jews, as is shown by Rabbi Segal’s words in “The Future of Judaism.” He even says that “the medieval State, with all its tyranny and obscurantism” was more favorable to the Jews than the modern type of State. “Its defective organization permitted both individuals and whole classes to live their life in their own way. Hence the medieval State enabled the Jews to organize themselves on semi-national lines, and, as far as circumstances permitted, to create afresh in their dispersion the national insti- tutions and practices of their ancient common- wealth.” They did this, of course, by establishing the ghetto. THE JEWS’; COMPLAINT: AGAINST ““AMERICANISM” ‘65 “But this has become an absolute impossibility in the modern State,’ continues the rabbi. “The rise of democracy and the transference of the ulti- mate power of government from the oligarchy to the majority involves the practical suppression of weak minorities. The identification of the State with the culture and aspiration of a particular nationality leads inevitably to the crippling of and gradual ex- tinction of those classes who do not share that par- ticular culture and those aspirations. The State, moreover, enforces a system of education which is purposely designed to fashion and to mold all the inhabitants * * * It also maintains a thorough- going organization which embraces all the depart- ments of the public.and private life of all its inhabi- tants, irrespective of class, race or tradition. There is thus no room in the modern State for Jewish culture, for Jewish national life, or for a specifically Jewish society, with its own specific institutions, customs and practices * * * “Therefore, Judaism can live and work only with a specifically Jewish society and within a Jewish national organization. The medieval ghetto, with all its narrowness, with all the unhealthy and ab- normal conditions of its existence, yet contained such a semi-national society; therefore, Judaism flourished in the medieval ghetto. The modern State, on the other hand, has broken up that specif- ically J ewish:-society, *. F °* 7? Now, there are the reactions of leading Jewish minds to conditions in America particularly, and to conditions in the modern Gentile State generally. The statement of the antagonism which exists be- tween the two is clear and complete. The Gentiles do not notice that antagonism, but the Jews are always and everywhere keenly aware of it. This throws a light, a very strong light, on all the revo- lutionary programs to break up the present control of society, by sowing dissensions between capital and labor so-called, by cheapening the dignity of government through corrupt politics, by trivializing the mind of the people through theaters and movies 66 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW and similar agencies, and by weakening the appeal of distinctively Christian religion. A breakdown of Gentile seriousness is the opportunity of the Jew. A colossal war is also his opportunity, as witness his seizure of the United States Government during the recent war. Judaism says that Americanism and Gentile nationalism generally, are harmful to it. Judaism has therefore the alternative of chang- ing and controlling Gentile nationalism, or of con- structing a nationalism of its own in Palestine. It is trying both. This all harks back to what Lord Eustace Percy is quoted in the Jewish press as saying: that the Jew participates in revolutions “not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile na- tionalism or Gentile democracy, but because no ex- isting Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him.” And the same author—“In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties, he (the Jew) has only two possible cities of refuge: he must either pull down the pillars of the whole national state system or he must create a territorial sovereignty of his own. In this perhaps lies the explanation both of Jewish Bolshevism and of Zionism, for at this moment Eastern Jewry seems to hover uncertainly between the two.” . Issue of October 23, 1920. LXVII. The Jewish Associates of Benedict Arnold As the Jewish propagandists in the United States cannot be trusted to give the people all the facts—even though these propagandists have the facts in their possession—it devolves upon some im- partial agency to do so. The Jewish propagandists are accorded the utmost freedom of the newspapers of the United States—by reason of Jewish advertis- ing being more than 75 per cent of all the advertis- ing done in this country—and thus a wide web of false impressions is constantly being woven around the Jewish Question. The most recent is the wide- spread publication of a new “exposure” of the origin of the Protocols. This makes the sixth “final” and “complete” exposure that the Jews have put forth for public consumption. The Jews have still time to repent and tell the truth. Suppose they make the seventh the whole truth with a true repudiation of the Protocols. It is Tue Derarsorn INDEPENDENT’S purpose to open up from time to time new angles of the Jewish Question, so that the candid reader who would be informed of the extensive character of Jewish influ- ence may obtain a general view of it. The part taken by Jews in the wars of the United States has been a subject of considerable boasting by Jewish publicists. It is a most interesting sub- ject. It deserves the fullest possible treatment. It is not THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT’S present purpofe to challenge the Jewish boast; it is, however, our purpose to fill in the omitted parts of the story, and supply the missing links in several of the most in- teresting episodes in American history. This will be done on the basis of unquestioned historical author- ity, mostly of a Jewish character, and solely in the interests of a complete understanding of a matter which Jewish leaders have brought to the front. 68 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW The first subject which will be treated in this series is the part of Jews in the treason of Benedict Arnold. Benedict Arnold, the most conspicuous traitor in American history, has been the subject of consider- able comment of late. Among the commentators have been American Jews who have failed to make known to the American public the information which may be found in Jewish archives concerning Bene- dict Arnold and his associates. To begin with, the propensity of the Jews to en- gage in the business of supplying the needs of armies and to avail themselves as far as possible of war contracts, is of long standing and notice. An authority on this matter, Werner Sombart, says in his “Jews and Modern Capitalism” (pp. 50- D3): “The Jews throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were most influential as army-purveyors and as the moneyed men to whom the princes looked for financial backing . . . we can- not attempt to mention every possible example. We can only point the way; it will be for subsequent re- search to follow. “Although there are numerous cases on record of Jews acting in the capacity of army-contractors in Spain previous to 1492, I shall not refer to this period, because it lies outside the scope of our pres- ent considerations. We shall confine ourselves to the centuries that followed, and begin with England. “In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Jews had already achieved renown as army-purvey- ors. Under the Commonwealth the most famous ar- my contractor was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal, ‘the great Jew,’ who came to London some time between 1650 and 1635, and was very soon accounted among the most prominent traders in the land. In 1649 he was one of the five London merchants intrusted by the council of state with the army contract for corn. It is said that he annually imported into Eng- land silver to the value of £100,000. In the period that ensued, especially in the wars of William ITI, THE JEWISH * ASSOCIATES OF BENEDICT: ARNOLD °: 69 Sir Solomon Medina (‘the Jew Medina’) was ‘the great contractor,’ and for his services he was knight- ed, being the first professing Jew to receive that honor. _ “It was the same in the wars of the Spanish Suc- cession ; here, too, Jews were the principal army-con- tractors. In 1716 the Jews of Strassburg recall the services they rendered the armies of Louis XIV by furnishing information and supplying provisions. In- deed, Louis XIV’s army-contractor-in-chief was a Jew, Jacob Worms by name; and in the eighteenth century Jews gradually took a more and more prom- inent part in this work. In 1727 the Jews of Metz brought into the city in the space of six weeks, 2,000 horses for food and more than 5,000 for remounts. Field Marshal Maurice, of Saxony, the victor of Fon- tenoy, expressed the opinion that his armies were never better served with supplies than when the Jews were the contractors. One of the best-known of the army-contractors in the time of the last two Louises was Cerf Beer, in whose patent of naturali- zation it is recorded that ‘. . . in the wars which raged in Alsace in 1770 and 1771 he found the op- portunity of proving his zeal in our service and in that of the state.’ “Similarly the house of Gradis, of Bordeaux, was an establishment of international repute in the eighteenth century. Abraham Gradis set up large store-houses in Quebec to supply the needs of the French troops there. Under the Revolutionary Gov- ernment, under the Directory, in the Napoleonic wars it was always the Jews who acted as purveyors. In this connection a public notice displayed in the streets of Paris is significant. There was a famine in the city and the Jews were called upon to show their gratitude for the rights bestowed upon them by the Revolution by bringing in corn. ‘They alone,’ says the author of the notice, ‘can successfully ac- complish this enterprise, thanks to their business re- lations, of which their fellow citizens ought to have full benefit.’ A parallel story comes from Dresden. In 1720 the Court Jew, Jonas Meyer, saved the town 70 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW from starvation by supplying it with large quanti- ties of corn. (The Chronicler mentions 40,000 bush- els. ) “All over Germany, the Jews from an early date were found in the ranks of the army-contractors. Let us enumerate a few of them. There was Isaac Meyer in the sixteenth century, who, when admitted by Cardinal Albrecht as a resident of Halberstadt in 1557, was enjoined by him, in view of the danger- ous times, ‘to supply our monastery with good weap- ons and armour.’ There was Joselman von Roshein, who in 1548 received an imperial letter of protection because he had supplied both money and provisions for the army. In 1546 there is a record of Bohemian Jews who provided great-coats and blankets for the army. In the next century another Bohemian Jew, Lazarus by name, received an official declaration that he ‘obtained either in person or at his own ex- pense, valuable information for the imperial troops, and that he made it his business to see that the army had a good supply of ammunition and clothing.’ The Great Elector also had recourse to Jews for his military needs. Leimann Gompertz and Solomon Elias were his contractors for cannon, powder and so forth. There were numerous others: Samuel Jul- ius, remount contractor under the Elector Frederick Augustus of Saxony; the Model family, court-pur- veyors and army-contractors in the Duchy of Aens- bach in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are well known in history. In short, as one writer of the time pithily expresses it, ‘all the contractors are Jews and all the Jews are contractors.’ “Austria does not differ in this respect from Ger- many, France and England. The wealthy Jews, who in the reign of the Emperor Leopold received per- mission to resettle in Vienna (1670)—the Oppen- heimers, Wertheimers, Mayer Herschel and the rest —were all army-contractors. And we find the same thing in all the countries under the Austrian Crown. “Lastly, we must mention the Jewish army-con- tractors who provisioned the American troops in the Revolutionary and Civil wars,” THE JEWISH ASSOCIATES OF BENEDICT ARNOLD 71 Sombart’s record ceases there. He does not go on to mention “the Jewish contractors who provisioned the American troops in the Revolutionary and Civil wars.” That task shall be THe Drarsorn INDEPEN- DENT’S from time to time in the future. It is in the study of Jewish money-making out of war that the clues are found to most of the great abuses of which Jews have been guilty. In the pres- ent instance, it was in the matter of profiteering in war goods, that the Jewish connections of Benedict Arnold were discovered. “Wars are the Jews’ harvests” is an ancient say- ing. Their predilection for the quartermaster’s de- partment has been observed anciently and modernly. Their interest being mostly in- profits and not in national issues; their traditional loyalty being to the Jewish nation, rather than to any other nation; it is only natural that they should be found to be the merchants of goods and information in times of war —that is, the war profiteers and the spies. As the unbroken program is traced through the Revolution- ary War, through the American Civil War, and through the Great War of recent occurrence, the only change observable is the increasing power and profit of the Jews. Although the number of Jews resident in the American colonies was very small, there were enough to make a mark on the Revolutionary War; and while there was no wholesale legislation against Jews as there was in the Civil War, there were actions against individuals for the same causes which in 1861-5 obtained more extensively. The Journals of the Continental Congress contain numerous entries of payments made to Jews, as well as the records of various dealings with them on other seores. For drums, for blankets, for rifles, for pro- visions, for clothing—these are the usual entries. Most of the Jewish commissars were Indian traders (the extent to which the Jews dealt with the Amer- ican Indians has not as yet been made a subject of research it deserves). The Gratz family of Penn- sylvenia carried on a very extensive Indian trade 72 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW and amassed a vast fortune out of it. A most curt ous lot of information concerning the dealings of the Colonies with the Jews is obtainable by a search through the old records. The Jews of Colonial New York were both loyal- ists and rebels, as the tide turned. They profited under loyalism by the contracts which they secured. and by buying in the confiscated property of those who were loyal to the American cause. It is inter- esting to note that some of the purchasers of the ex- tensive Delancey properties were Jews. Delancey was a patriot whom New York City afterward hon- ored by giving his name to an important thorough- fare. That same New York has recently by official action separated the name of Delancey from that thoroughfare, and substituted the name of Jacob H. Schiff, a Jew, native of Frankfort-on-the-Main. We enter immediately into the limits of the Bene- dict Arnold narrative by making mention of the Franks family of Philadelphia, of which family sev- eral members will claim our attention. The Franks were Jews from England who settled - in America, retaining their English connections. They were in the business of public contracts, prin- cipally army contracts. They were holders of the British army contracts for the French and Indian wars, and for the succeeding Revolutionary War. To get the picture, conceive it thus, as it is taken from Jewish sources: Moses Franks lived in England, doing business with the British Government direct. He had the contract for supplying all the British forces in Amer- ica before military trouble between the Colonies and the Home Government was thought of. He was the principal purveyor of the British Army in Que- bec, Montreal, Massachusetts, New York and in the country of the Lllinois Indians. It was all British territory then. Jacob Franks lived in New York. He was Amer- ican representative of Moses Franks of England. He was the American agent of the Franks Army Pur- veyors Syndicate—for that is what it was. THE JEWISH ASSOCIATES OF BENEDICT ARNOLD 73 In Philadelphia was David Franks, son of Jacob, of New York. David was the Franks’ agent for the state or colony of Pennsylvania. He was at the seat of the colonial government, the center of American politics. He was hand in glove with many of the fathers of the American Government. He was an immensely rich man (although but an agent) and carried a high hand at Philadelphia. At Montreal was another Franks—David Soles- bury Franks—also in the business of army contrac- tor. He was a gay young man, described as “a. blooded buck,” who knew all the arts of turning an honest penny out of the needs of armies and the dis- tress of nations. This young man was a grandson or grand nephew of the Moses Franks of England, as he was a nephew of the David Franks of Phila- delphia. Here and there were other, Franks, all intent on business with the non-Jewish government, but the four here mentioned carry along the main parts of the tale. A moment’s digression will give us at once a view of the looseness of the liberalism of some of the Fathers of the Country, and a view of the equanim- ity with which David Franks, of Philadelphia, could pass from one role to another—a facility which cost him dearly when war came on. John Trumbull, an artist of considerable note at the time, whose paintings still adorn the National Capitol, was invited to dine at Thomas Jefferson’s home, among the guests being Senator Giles, from Virginia. Trumbull tells the story: “T was scarcely seated when Giles began to rally me on the Puritanical ancestry and character of New England. I saw there was no other person from New England present, and, therefore, although con- scious that I was in no degree qualified to manage a religious discussion, I felt myself bound to defend my country on this delicate point as well as I could. Whether it had been prearranged that a debate on the Christian religion, in which it should be-power- fully ridiculed on the one side and weakly defended 74 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW on the other, was to be brought forward as promis- ing amusement to a rather free-thinking dinner party, I will not presume to say, but it had that ap- pearance, and Mr. Giles pushed his raillery, to my no small annoyance, if not to my discomfiture, until dinner was announced. “That I hoped would relieve me by giving a new turn to the conversation, but the company was hard- ly seated at table when he renewed the assault with increased asperity, and proceeded so far at last as to ridicule the character, conduct and doctrines of the Divine Founder of our religion; Mr. Jefferson in the meantime smiling and nodding approval on Mr. Giles, while the rest of the-company silently left me and my defense to our fate, until at length my friend David Franks took up the argument on my side. Thinking this a fair opportunity for avoiding further conversation on the subject, I turned to Mr. Jeffer- son and said, ‘Sir, this is a strange situation in which I find myself; in a country professing Christianity and at a table with Christians, as I supposed, I find my religion and myself attacked with severe and al- most irresistible wit and raillery, and not a person to aid in my defense but my friend Mr. Franks, who is himself a Jew.’ ” This episode throws a curious light on the charac- ter of Thomas Jefferson’s “philosophical unbelief,” the unlovely fashion of that day; it also illustrates a certain facility in David Franks. Relations between the Colonies and the Mother Country became strained. Political feelings ran high. The lines of division between “American” and “British” began to appear for the first time. At first there was a degree of agreement among all the pop- ulation, except the government officials, that a pro- test against governmental abuses was justified and that strong representations should be made in behalf of the Colonists. Even loyalists and imperialists agreed with that. It was a question of domestic pol- itics. But when presently the idea of protest began to develop into the idea of rebellion and independ- ence, a cleavage came. It was one thing to correct THE JEWISH ASSOCIATES OF BENEDICT ARNOLD 75 the Empire, another thing to desert it. Here is where the people of the Colonies split. Mr. Jacob Franks in royalist and loyalist New York, was, of course, royalist and loyalist. As army- contractor for the British Government, he had no choice. Mr. David Franks, down in Philadelphia, was a little nearer the heart of the new American senti- ment, and could not be so royal and loyal as was his kinsman north. In fact, David Franks tried to do what is modernly called “the straddle,” attempting to side with the Empire and with the Colonies, too. It was natural. His business was in Philadelphia. He may also have wished to remain as long as pos- sible in the position of a spy,-and send information of the state of public feeling to the royalists. More- over, he was received in good society and his reputa- tion for wealth and shrewdness won him attentions he could not otherwise have commanded. So, in 1765 we find him joining the merchants of Philadelphia in the pact not to import articles from Ingland while the hated Stamp Act was in force. In 1775 he favors the continuance of the colonial cur- rency. He was enjoying his accustomed life in the city— and his acquaintance with the Shippen family into which the dashing young Benedict Arnold married. There is a strange intermingling of all the tragic figures of the play: Benedict Arnold marries the girl for whom Major André wrote a parlor play. Major André, during his period of captivity as an American prisoner of war and before his exchange, was often at the home of David Franks. And David Solesbury Franks, at his post as agent of the Franks syndicate at Montreal, is placed by a strange turn of the wheel of destiny in the military family of Benedict Arnold for a considerable period preceding and including the great treason. So, for the moment let us leave the Jewish family of Franks—all of them still stationed as we first de- scribed them: Moses in England, Jacob at New York, David at Philadelphia, David S. at Montreal—and 76 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW let us scrutinize the young American officer, Bene- dict Arnold. These facts would most of them be lost, had they not been preserved in the Jewish archives, by the American Jewish Historical Society. You will read any history of Benedict Arnold without perceiving the Jews around him. The authors of the accepted histories were blind. The principal defect in Benedict Arnold’s charac- ter wes his love of money. All of the trouble which led up to the situation in which he found himself with reference to the American Government and Ar- my, was due to the suspicion which hung like a cloud over many of his business transactions. There have been attempts to paint Arnold as a dashing martyr, aS one who was discouraged by the unmer- ited slights of the Continental Congress, as a victim of the jealousy of lesser men, as one from whom con- fidence was unjustly withheld. Nothing could be further from the fact. He was a man to whom men were instinctively drawn to be generous, but so gen- eral was the knowledge of his looseness in money matters that, while admiring him, his brother offi- cers acted upon the protective instinct and held aloof from him. He was tainted by a low form of dishonesty before he was tainted with treason, and the chief explanation of his treason was in the hard bargain he drove as to the amount of money he was to receive for his guilty act. Arnold’s own record makes this clear. Let us then take up his career at a certain point and see how the Franks strand and the money strand weave them- selves through it like colored threads. Extraordinary efforts have been made in recent years to extenuate Arnold’s treason by the recital of his daring services. These services need not be minimized. Indeed, it was his great achievement of the winter march to Montreal and Quebec in 1775-6 that seems to begin the chapter of his troubles. To rehearse this feat of courage and endurance would be to tell a tale that has thrilled the American schoolboy. THE JEWISH GASSOCIATES OF BENEDICT ARNOLD Ti It was at Montreal that ‘Benedict Arnold came into contact with the young Jew, David Solesbury Franks, the Canadian agent of the Franks army-pur- veying syndicate. And the next thing known about young Franks is that he returns to the American Colonies in the train of Benedict Arnold as an officer of the American Army. How this change was effected is not explained in any of the records. There is a moment of darkness, as it were, in which the “quick change” was made, which transformed the young Montreal Jew from an army-contractor for the British into an officer of Benedict Arnold’s staff. But as it is impossible for every fact to be sup- pressed, there are here and there indications of what might have been, what indeed most probably was, the basis of the attraction and relation between the two. It was very probably—almost certainly—the oppor- tunities for graft which could be capitalized by a combination of General Arnold’s authority and young Franks’ ability in the handling of goods. From the day they met in Montreal until the hour when General Arnold fled, a traitor, from the fort on the Hudson, young David Solesbury Franks was his companion. In one of the numerous court-martials which tried General Arnold for questionable dealings in matters pertaining to army supplies, Franks, who was aid- de-camp to Arnold, and by rank of major, testified thus: “YT had, by being in the army, injured my private affairs very considerably, and meant to leave it, if a proper opportunity of entering into business should happen. I had several conversations on the subject with General Arnold, who promised me all the as- sistance in his power; he was to participate in the profits of the business I was to enter in.” This testimony was given by Major Franks in 1779; the two men had met in the winter of 1775- 1776, but, as the records will show, Major Franks was always General Arnold’s reliance on getting out of scrapes caused by questionable business methods 78 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW in which Arnold’s military authority was used quite freely. Major Franks admits that he was to enter business and General Arnold was to share the prof- its. On what basis this arrangement could exist, is another point not known. Arnold had no capital. He had no credit. He was a spendthrift, a borrower, notorious for his constant need of money. The only credible inducement for Franks to accept a partner- ship with him was on the understanding that Arnold should use his military authority to throw business to Franks. Or, to state it more bluntly, the “prof- its” which Benedict Arnold was to receive were pay- ments for his misuse of authority for his own gain. A complete opening of the records will show this to be the most reasonable view of the case. It was at Montreal that Benedict Arnold’s name first became attainted with rumors of shady deal- ing in private and public property. General George Washington had laid down the most explicit instruc- tions on these matters, with a view to having the Canadians treated as fellow-Americans and not as enemies. General Washington had cashiered officers and whipped soldiers who had previously disobeyed the order against looting and theft. General Arnold had seized large quantities of goods at Montreal and had hurried them away with- out making proper account of them. This he admits in his letter to General Schuyler: “Our hurry and confusion was so great when the goods were received, it was impossible to take a particular account of them.” This means only that Arnold seized the goods without giving the Canadian citizens proper receipts for them, so that he had in his hands a large amount of wealth for which he was under no compul- sion to account to anybody. This mass of goods he sent to a Colonel Hazen at Chambley, and Colonel Hazen, evidently aware of the conditions under which the goods were taken, refused to receive them. This disobedience of Colonel Hazen to his superior officer, especially in a question relating to goods, made it necessary for Arnold to take some self-pro- tective action, which he did in his letter to General THE JEWISH ASSOCIATES OF; BENEDICT ARNOLD 79 Schuyler. Meantime, a very ugly rumor ran through the American Army that General Benedict Arnold had tried to pull a scurvy trick of graft, but had been held up by the. strict conduct of Colonel Hazen. Moreover, it was rumored (and the fact was admit- ted by Arnold in his letter) that in the transfer the goods were well sorted over so that when they final- ly arrived a great part of them was missing. All the principal facts were admitted by Arnold, who used them, however, to throw blame on Colonel Hazen. He even went so far as to prefer charges against Colonel Hazen, forcing the matter into a court-mar- tial. The court was called and refused to hear the witnesses chosen by General Arnold in his behalf, on the ground that the witnesses were not entitled to credibility. Whereupon General Arnold flouted the court, who ordered him arrested. General Gates, to preserve the useful services of Arnold to the United States Army, dissolved the court-martial, to that ex- tent condoning the conduct of Arnold. Before the court-martial dissolved, however, it informally ac- quitted Colonel Hazen with honor. Here, then, almost immediately, as it would seem, upon his new connection with David Solesbury Franks, Benedict Arnold is involved in a bad tangle concerning property which had come into his pos- session irregularly and which disappeared soon af- ter. His attempt to throw the blame on an officer - whose disobedience was the factor that disclosed the true state of affairs, failed. It was his bold scheme to forestall an exposure which must inevitably have come. | While it is true that on this Montreal case, no ver- dict stands recorded against Benedict Arnold, for the theft of goods, it is also true that the American Army became suspicious of him from that day. Had Benedict Arnold been innocent then and had he kept his hands clean thereafter, the Montreal epi- sode would have been forgotten. But as a matter of fact such affairs came with increasing frequency thereafter, all of them, strangely enough, involving 80 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW also the Jew whom he associated with himself at the time of that first exposure. The story of this Jew’s relations with Benedict Arnold all through the period ending with the great treason, may now be taken up with greater consecu- tiveness, for now their formerly separate courses run together. In another article this relationship and all that it meant will be illustrated from the govern- ment records, Issue of October 8, 1921, U LXVIII. Benedict Arnold and Jewish Aid in ; Shady Deal HILE Benedict Arnold was in Canada and David Solesbury Franks, the Jew of Montreal and a British subject, was serving as quartermaster to the American troops, David Franks, of Philadel- phia, a member of the same Jewish family and of the same Jewish syndicate of army-contractors, was also engaged in an interesting business. It has already been shown that this David Franks, the Philadelphia Jew, had gone part way with the colonists in their protests against British colonial rule. That this was not sincerity on his part, his subsequent actions proved. He first comes into the purview of this narrative in 1775, the year in which Benedict Arnold performed the remarkable feat of marching into Canada, whence he was sending back into the colonies numerous Canadian prisoners. These prisoners were kept in the New England col- onies for a time, but were later collected into Penn- sylvania, some of them being quartered in the city of Philadelphia. How inspired it is impossible now to tell, but pres- ently a committee of the Continental Congress pro- poses that Mr. David Franks be commissioned to feed and otherwise care for these British prisoners, and be allowed to sell his bills for as much money as may be necessary for the purpose. Of course, in ac- cepting this proposal, Franks was only pursuing the course for which he and his numerous relatives had come to America. He was really doing business with and for Moses Franks, the head of the family syndi- cate in London. Shortly afterward we read of David under the mouth-filling title of “Agent to the Con- tractors for Victualing the Troops of the King of Great Britain,” and to check him up, a British of- ficer was allowed to pass the lines once a month and spend a few hours with David. That this was a dan- 82 THE INTERNATIONAL JEW gerous practice may be deduced from his further stery. In the records of the Continental Congress is a re- quest from Franks that he be permitted to go to New York, then the British headquarters; and such was the power of the man that his request was grant- ed on condition that he pledged his word “not to give any intelligence to the enemy” and to return to Phil- adelphia. In January, 1778, six months before Benedict Ar- nold took command of Philadelphia, David Franks got himself into trouble.