THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS BOOKS BYJOHN SPARGO THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS"THE GREATEST FAILURE IN ALL HISTORY"RUSSIA AS AN AMERICAN PROBLEMTHE PSYCHOLOGY OF BOLSHEVISMBOLSHEVISMAMERICANISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACYSOCIAL DEMOCRACY EXPLAINED HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK[ESTABLISHED 1817] THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS BY JOHN SPARGO _Author of_ "Bolshevism" "The Psychology of Bolshevism""Russia as an American Problem" "TheGreatest Failure in All History" "SocialDemocracy Explained" Etc. [Illustration] HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERSNEW YORK AND LONDON THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS Copyright, 1921, by Harper & Brothers Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE FOREWORD vii I. A PACIFIST TURNED ANTI-SEMITE 1 II. THE ALLEGED "GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY" 10 III. THE MYSTERY OF THE PROTOCOLS 18 IV. IS SOCIALISM A JEWISH CONSPIRACY? 47 V. THE JEWISH SOCIALISTS AND BOLSHEVISM 59 VI. BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS 83 VII. THE VICIOUS ROLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM 99 VIII. WHAT ANTI-SEMITISM IN AMERICA MEANS 110 IX. WE NEED THE CO-OPERATION OF CHRISTIAN AND JEW 121 X. A FINAL WORD 136 POSTSCRIPT 140 FOREWORD This little book was written without the knowledge of any Jew. It isnot a defense of the Jew. It is not a pro-Jewish argument. It is adefense of American ideals and institutions against anti-Semitism; aplea for Christian civilization. JOHN SPARGO. "NESTLEDOWN, " OLD BENNINGTON, VERMONT. _January, 1921. _ THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS I A PACIFIST TURNED ANTI-SEMITE About five years ago I was honored by an invitation to join with awell-known American capitalist and certain other men and women in anattempt to bring about the termination of the great World War. Themanufacturer in question believed that it was possible to "get theboys out of the trenches by Christmas, " and to that end organized anexpedition which is now remembered chiefly for the bellicosity andbelligerency of many of the "pacifists" who journeyed to Europe uponthe "Peace Ship. " In declining the invitation to associate myself with this expedition, I felt that it was incumbent upon me to explain that, while I doubtedthe wisdom of the undertaking and felt that it might do harm insteadof good, I honored the noble and unselfish motives by which Mr. Fordwas inspired. His hatred of war and blood-shed, and his desire topromote peace and good will among all peoples and races, seemed to meto be both profound and sincere and evoked my heartfelt admiration andsympathy. The more I doubted his political judgment--believing that hewas being used as a dupe and tool in a very dangerous intrigue--themore willing I was to acknowledge those qualities of mind and heartwhich distinguished the famous manufacturer, and which the authors ofthe intrigue sought to exploit and use for sinister ends. On manyoccasions I have given public expression to my belief in Mr. Ford'ssincere and unselfish idealism. If any justification is required for my now associating the name ofHenry Ford with a matter of grave international political importance, I venture to suggest that it can be found in the pre-eminent positionwhich he occupies in one of the great branches of modern industry andin the fact that as recently as two years ago he aspired to a seat inthe United States Senate, being nominated for that position by theDemocratic party in the great state of Michigan. Upon both countsviews expressed by Mr. Ford upon international questions which mayinvolve great and serious national or racial conflicts become thesubject of legitimate public interest, and when in furtherance of suchviews he associates himself with an active policy which deals with oneof the most difficult and dangerous problems confronting civilizedmankind, his views and his acts assume public importance and inviteand compel attention and discussion. Therefore, believing as I do thatMr. Ford is primarily responsible for a propaganda which is subversiveof the best traditions and institutions of this Republic, and whichhas everywhere and at all times resulted in shameful crimes againsthumanity, and in resistance to every progressive and humane movement, I feel that it is my right and duty to utter my solemn remonstranceand protest. I have just returned from a tour through several of the Europeancountries most seriously involved in the late war. On the one hand, Iwas deeply and gratefully impressed while in Europe with the manner inwhich some of the intensest hatreds engendered by the war appear to bedying out. On the other hand, I was deeply and painfully impressed bythe fact that, in country after country, racial hatreds older than anynation in the world were being deliberately and systematically revivedand intensified, threatening brutal and ugly crimes against humanityexceeding in horror the worst and most inhuman violence of the GreatWar which so nearly achieved the ruin of civilization. In Germany, forexample, I found no hatred of America, notwithstanding the fact thatalone among the nations lately fighting against her we were stilltechnically at war with her. On the contrary, there was manifest analmost universal desire for the restoration of friendship between thetwo countries. In Belgium I saw hundreds of little German childrenbeing fed by Belgian agencies, proving that hate was being dissolvedby compassion. Even in France the fierce hatred of Germany wasobviously dying. So much for the bright side of the European situation as I saw it. Unfortunately, to complete the picture, it is necessary to acknowledgethe numerous evidences of a widespread revival of one of the mostdespicable, brutal, and dangerous forms of racial hatred andantagonism known to mankind--anti-Semitism. Even in England, longhitherto so free from Jew-baiting, the land in which the Jew Disraelibecame Prime Minister, I found an extensive, active, and skillfullyorganized campaign directed against Jews, as Jews. It was and is acampaign differing hardly at all from similar campaigns against theJews in Russia under tsarism, in Rumania, in Poland, and, to a lessextent, in Germany under the Hohenzollern. Unless this propaganda ischecked, unless the intelligence and the conscience of England can bemarshaled against it, England will take the place of the Russia of theRomanovs as the land of pogroms, and infamies like the horriblepogroms of Kishinev may occur in British cities. I found in England great nation-wide organizations, obviouslyfinanced, devoted to the sinister purpose of creating anti-Jewishfeeling and sentiment. I found special articles in influentialnewspapers devoted to the same evil purpose. I found at least onejournal, obviously well financed again, exclusively devoted to thefostering of suspicion, fear, and hatred against the Jew. Nothing thatthe Black Hundreds of Russia under the tsars said of the Jews, inorder to inflame the ignorant masses and inspire them to savageattacks upon the Jewish population, could have been worse than much ofthis propaganda. It appealed to every passion, charged the Jews as arace with every crime calculated to rouse the frenzied anger of thenon-Jewish population. And in the bookstores I discovered a wholelibrary of books devoted to the same end. One of the greatest livingstatesmen of England, who is not a Jew, told me that in his judgmentthis systematically propagated anti-Semitism is likely to bringgreater difficulty and shame to England than the Irish question, even. And now, returning to the United States, I find America confronted bythe same peril and shame. Here, too, I find anti-Jewish meetings beingheld. To my great astonishment and regret, I find that the personalinfluence and the vast fortune of the erstwhile pacifist-philanthropistare apparently enlisted in the same cruel and vicious propaganda. The_Dearborn Independent_, which is the personal organ of Mr. Henry Ford, maintained for the promulgation of his personal political andsociological views, has been devoting a large amount of its space tothe creation of anti-Jewish feeling and sentiment. One of the firstpieces of accumulated mail to claim my attention on my return was apamphlet, sent to me by some unknown correspondent, obviously a Jewhater in view of the coarse and brutal comments written upon themargins. This pamphlet contains a reprint of nine articles whichoriginally appeared in the _Dearborn Independent. _ It is, therefore, apparently impossible for Mr. Ford to disclaim personal and directresponsibility for the contents of the pamphlet. If I am wrong in anyof these particulars I shall be very glad to be corrected and toapologize for the error. To find any American engaged in such apropaganda seems to me such a pity and such an outrage against ournational ideals that I should welcome proof that my information andinferences are all wrong and unfounded so far as Mr. Ford isconcerned. In this discussion of the anti-Semitic propaganda, and of the share ofthe _Dearborn Independent_ in that propaganda, I have not theslightest intention of attacking Mr. Ford personally. While I findmyself deeply interested in the psychology of the transformation of anextremely idealistic pacifist into an aggressive propagandist of racehatred, with that I am not here and now concerned. II THE ALLEGED "GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY" Just as in the case of the British anti-Semitic press, the Jew-baitingcampaign in the _Dearborn Independent_ and other newspapers makes muchof the so-called "protocols" of the Wise Men of Zion, first publishedin Russia in 1905, but lately translated into English and published inEngland and the United States. In a sense it is not my business toexpose the dubious origin and history of these documents. That is aJewish task, to which various Jewish scholars have devoted theirattention. In the London _Spectator_ Mr. Lucien Wolff has performed itwith distinction. I am not a Jew, racially or otherwise, and can layno claim to any special ability or knowledge which would impose such atask upon me. There are, however, some things which must be saidconcerning the above-mentioned protocols, things which do not requirespecialized scholarship, and which even the non-Jew can say withconfidence. These protocols are offered as evidence of the existence of aworld-wide conspiracy far more serious and extensive than anythingelse of the kind recorded in history. By comparison, the greatestconspiracy hitherto revealed seems like a kindergarten game. It ischarged, and these documents are submitted as evidence in support ofthe charge, that there, exists, and has existed for centuries, aJewish imperialistic program; that Jews in all lands have been and areunited in a highly organized and subtly directed secret movement tobring about the overthrow of all non-Jewish governments, to substitutetherefor a Jewish world government, to obliterate all nationalboundaries, and to destroy all religions other than Judaism. This, itis alleged, is the concrete form in which the Jews visualize theirdestiny as the Chosen People. In order to attain this grandiose ideal, every means to weaken the non-Jewish elements and institutions incivilization is encouraged by the invisible Jewish government, theleaders of this vast conspiracy. If we are to place credence in these documents, the principal agencythrough which the Jewish conspirators have worked is Freemasonry. TheMasonic orders throughout the world have been the blind dupes andtools of this superimperialism of the Jews, if the statements made inthese protocols are true. Indeed, there can hardly be any question atall that if the truth of these documents can be established, there is, to say the least, quite as much reason for suppressing Masonic lodges, and making them illegal, as there is for suppressing Bolshevist orother conspiratory organizations. I should just as little expect tofind sympathy for Bolshevism in a Masonic lodge as in the College ofCardinals, or in the Union League Club, let us say. When we enter intothe mysteries of this "Jewish conspiracy" we encounter manysurprises. According to the statements made in these protocols, practically allthe revolutionary movements of modern times have been instigated anddirected by Jews. They have caused the assassination of rulers andheads of states, so that behind the murderous fanaticism ofindividuals there has generally been the cold calculation of the mostcunning and unscrupulous intellects of the human race. According tothe same evidence, the wars which have drenched the world with bloodand rent it with passion, including racial wars in Asia and Africa, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Russo-Japanese War, and therecent World War, were all brought about deliberately by Jewishcunning, for the purpose of weakening the fabric of non-Jewish statesand providing the Jews with new sources of strength and power to beused to establish their universal dominion. All this is terrible enough. But there is even worse to follow. Wemust remember that these documents were first published in Russia in1905, and they purport to be the _procès-verbaux_ of a conference heldeight or nine years prior to that time. It is rather startling, therefore, to find outlined therein a program of revolutionary action, to be initiated in Russia and developed throughout the civilizedworld, remarkably like the Bolshevist program, not merely in theprecise measures contained in the program, but also, and especially, in the general conception of policy underlying it. We find in thisalleged Jewish program the same negation of all the acceptedprinciples of law and honor and morality that the Bolshevist policyhas so conspicuously manifested. It is brazenly stated that bribery, deceit, and treachery are to be used (Protocol I). A vast army ofspies and secret agents abundantly supplied with funds is to be reliedon to promote revolt and dissension in all the principal countries(Protocol 2). "Ferments, discords, and hostility" are to bedeliberately created and fostered throughout Europe and, through theinternational relations of the European countries, to the othercontinents also (Protocol 7). Efforts are to be made to compromise thehonor and besmirch the reputations of the most influential statesmenand to use blackmail in order to make these statesmen serve thepurposes of the conspirators (Protocol 10). Revolutionary movements, anarchistic, communistic, and socialistic, are to be fostered for thepurpose of destroying non-Jewish civilization (Protocol 3). In theevent of unfavorable action by any power or group of powers, it is tobe met by resistance in the form of universal war (Protocol 7). Disorganization of the economic life of the world through thedebasement and ruin of the credit and currency systems, of theprincipal nations, and the creation of "a universal economic crisis"are also to be used to the same end (Protocol 3). I have briefly summarized only a few of the more important items inthis monstrous program. There is more of the same general type offiendishness. Concerning the character of the program itself, therecan be no difference of opinion between honest Americans. It is asdiabolical as it is fantastic. What importance we ought to attach toit, however, must necessarily depend upon our judgment concerning itsorigin. If these protocols, and the program contained in them, are tobe seriously accepted for what they pretend to be--namely, adeliberate statement of the purposes and aims of the leaders of theJewish people throughout the world, with practically the entire Jewishrace behind them--then the matter assumes enormous importance. If, onthe other hand, there is no substantial evidence of this--and suchevidence as is available indicates that the protocols are the productof a single diseased and depraved mind--the documents cease to possessany great significance and the terrible injustice and frightfullydangerous consequences of charging them against the Jewish people areobvious. We must, therefore, pay critical attention to the origin ofthe protocols and the circumstances surrounding their publication, aswell as to any internal evidences of their genuineness or otherwise. III THE MYSTERY OF THE PROTOCOLS First of all, then, what do we actually know about the origin of theseprotocols? In the year 1903 a book was published at Solotarevo inRussia, entitled _The Great in Little_. The reputed author of the bookwas one Prof. Sergei Nilus, concerning whom we have no absolutelyreliable information. Author of a book which has made an enormoussensation in many lands and become the subject of furious controversy, he is quite unknown. No responsible person in or out of Russia hasever positively identified Nilus, so far as I have been able todiscover. From what he says of himself it is practically certain thathe was in the service of the infamous Secret Police Agency of the lateTsar Nicholas II. For reasons which will presently appear, I amdisposed to believe that the very un-Russian name Nilus is really apseudonym. In a second edition of his book, published in 1905, Nilus gives abrief autobiographical account of himself. He says that he was born in1862 of Russian parents who held liberal opinions, and that his familywas well known in Moscow, its members being educated people who werefirm in their allegiance to the Tsar and the Greek Church. This ishardly what a Russian of the period would describe as holding "liberalopinions, " but let that pass. Nilus claims to have been graduated fromMoscow University and to have held a number of civil-service posts, all of them, so far as his specifications go, connected with thepolice and judicial systems. He went to the government of Orel, wherehe became a landowner and a sort of petty noble. He entered theTroitsky-Sergevsky Monastery, near Moscow, or so he says. Althoughnumerous efforts have been made in Russia to find this Sergei Nilus, none has succeeded. It is true that a number of persons have testified to the existence ofSergei Nilus, but in each case a different person has been referredto, though Nilus is not a Russian name or commonly found in Russia. The present writer learned of two men, father and son, each bearingthis very unusual name. First information led to the belief that atlast the mysterious author had been discovered. The father was ofabout the right age and was said to be a writer interested inreligious subjects. Further inquiry elicited the information that thisman had died in 1910, whereas the Nilus we are interested in was aliveas late as 1917. Greatly enlarged editions of his work, with newpersonal matter added, appeared in 1911 and 1917. Obviously, therefore, the man who died in 1910 was not our author. The anonymouseditor of an edition of the protocols issued in New York toward theend of 1920 says that "a returning traveler from Siberia in August, 1919, was positive that Nilus was in Irkutsk in June of that year. " Noclew is given to the identity of the editor who makes this statement. And here let me remark in passing that it is a remarkable fact that_all_ the editors of the numerous editions of the protocols, both hereand abroad, are very shy persons and hide under the mask of anonymity. Nor is any clew given to the identity of the traveler from Siberia. Another report, also by a traveler returned from Siberia, who maypossibly be the same person, makes it appear that the Nilus who was atIrkutsk is the son of the man who died in 1910, and is himself tooyoung to fit the autobiographical sketch of the man born in 1862. Ican only add to the foregoing, which represents all that I have beenable to find out about Nilus, that there was an edition of theprotocols published in Kishinev in 1906, the name of the author of thebook in which they appeared being given as Butmi de Katzman. Now with respect to the protocols. No reference to these documentsappeared in the first edition of the book in 1903. If the reader willkindly bear this fact in mind it will help to an understanding of whatfollows. A second edition of the book, greatly enlarged, appeared atTsarskoye-Selo, near Moscow, in 1905, the added matter being given thetitle, "Antichrist a Near Political Possibility. " This additionalmatter consisted of (1) an introduction written by Nilus himself, (2)twenty-four documents purporting to be disconnected portions of thereport of a secret conclave of an organization of Jews called theElders of Zion, and (3) some commentaries thereon by Nilus. Now, it isvery significant that Nilus himself has given different accounts ofthe history of these documents--accounts which differ so radicallythat they cannot be reconciled. Let us examine these various accounts very briefly. In theintroduction to the edition of 1905 Nilus tells us that in 1901 hecame into possession of the alleged protocols. He says that at theclose of a series of secret meetings of influential leaders of thisconspiracy, held under Masonic auspices, a woman stole from "one ofthe most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry"certain documents which turned out to be disconnected portions of the_procès-verbaux_ of lectures or reports made at the aforesaid meetingsof the Elders of Zion. He says that the protocols were "signed byrepresentatives of Zion of the Thirty-third Degree, " but he does notgive the names of such signatories. This is of itself a suspiciouscircumstance, but a close reading of the text reveals that it is onlyone of several equally suspicious facts. Nilus does not claim to haveseen the actual stolen documents, the original protocols. On thecontrary, he tells us that what he received in 1901 was a documentwhich he was assured was an accurate translation of the stolendocuments. His own words are: "This document came into my possessionsome four years ago (1901) with the positive assurance that it is atrue copy in translation of original documents stolen by a woman fromone of the most influential and the most highly initiated leaders ofFreemasonry. " Nilus has not seen the original manuscript, nor has anyother known person. We have only the word of Professor Nilus thatsomebody gave him assurance that certain manuscripts were true andaccurate translations of stolen documents of great internationalimportance. So far as Nilus himself knew, or cared, apparently, themanuscript given, to him might well have been a forgery. We do not even know the date of the alleged secret meetings of theElders of Zion at which the lectures or reports, or whatever theywere, recorded in these protocols were made and, presumably, considered. We do not know the name of the "most influential and mosthighly initiated" leader of Freemasonry from whom the documents weresaid to have been stolen. Neither do we know the name of the thief. We do not know the name of the author of the alleged protocols, thoughobviously it would make all the difference in the world whether theseare summaries of statements made by a responsible leader of the Jewishpeople or the wild vaporings of such a crank as infests practicallyevery conference and convention. We do not know who translated thealleged protocols, nor in what language they were written. Moreover, not one word of assurance does Professor Nilus give on his own accountthat he knows any of these things. He does not appear to have made anyinvestigation of any kind. In view of the rest of his work we may bequite sure that had he done so he would have told us. He does not eventell us, in this edition of 1905, that the person from whom heacquired the "translation" was known to him as a reliable andtrustworthy person. He does not profess to know anything more than Ihave already quoted from him. No one knows Nilus himself. So much forthe explanation of 1905. Before I pass on to consider a later and different explanation made bythe mysterious Nilus, a few brief observations upon the story nowbefore us may not be out of place, especially since the _DearbornIndependent_ has accepted it and made it the basis of its propaganda. How is it possible for any person possessing anything approaching atrained mind, and especially for one accustomed to historical study, to accept as authentic, and without adequate corroboration, documentswhose origin and history are so clouded with secrecy, mystery, andignorance? And how can men and women who are to all appearancesrational and high-minded bring themselves to indict and condemn awhole race, invoking thereby the perils of world-wide racial conflict, upon the basis of such flimsy, clouded, and tainted testimony? Nodecent and self-respecting judge or jury anywhere in the United Stateswould, I dare believe, convict the humblest individual of even pettycrime upon the basis of such testimony. Serious charges made by acomplainant who does not appear in court and is not known to thecourt, an alleged translation of an alleged original, not produced incourt, alleged to have been stolen by an anonymous thief not producedin court, from an alleged conspirator not named nor produced in court, and not a scintilla of corroborative evidence, direct orcircumstantial--was ever a chain of evidence so flimsy? By comparison, the discovery of the _Book of Mormon_ is a well-attested event. Now let us consider another very different story told by Nilus. InJanuary, 1917--the date is important--another edition of the book, sogreatly enlarged and rewritten as to be almost a new book, appeared inRussia bearing the name of the mysterious and unknown Nilus. The titleof this book is _It Is Near, at the Door_. It was published atSergeiev, near Moscow, at the Monastery of Sergeiev. I have said thatthe date of the appearance of this volume is important, and here isthe reason: The overthrow of tsarism occurred in March, 1917. Towardthe end of 1916 the revolutionary ferment was already apparent. Whatelse could be expected than that the provocative agents of the Tsar'sSecret Police and the Black Hundreds should strive to divert theattention of the people to some other issue? And what more naturalthan that they should conclude that a widespread movement against theJews, great pogroms over a wide area, would best suit their purpose?The first publication of the alleged protocols took place in 1905, also at the beginning of a popular revolution, and it did have theeffect of creating a considerable anti-Jewish agitation which weakenedthe revolutionary movement. The trail of the Secret Police and theBlack Hundreds is plain. And now for the new version of the history ofthe protocols. On page 96 of this new book, which is a violentdiatribe against the Jews, Nilus says: In 1901 I came into possession of a manuscript, and this comparatively small book was destined to cause such a deep change in my entire viewpoint as can only be caused in the heart of man by Divine Power. It was comparable with the miracle of making the blind see. "May Divine acts show on him. " This manuscript was called, "The Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom, " and it was given to me by the now deceased leader of the Tshernigov nobility, who later became Vice-Governor of Stavropol, Alexis Nicholaievich Sukhotin. I had already begun to work with my pen for the glory of the Lord, and I was friendly with Sukhotin because he was a man of my opinion--_i. E. _, extremely conservative, as they are now termed. Sukhotin told me that he in turn had obtained the manuscript from a lady who always lived abroad. This lady was a noblewoman from Tshernigov. He mentioned her by name, but I have forgotten it. He said that she obtained it in some mysterious way, by theft, I believe. Sukhotin also said that one copy of the manuscript was given by this lady to Sipiagin, then Minister of the Interior, upon her return from abroad, and that Sipiagin was subsequently killed. He said other things of the same mysterious character. But when I first became acquainted with the contents of the manuscript I was convinced that its terrible, cruel, and straight-forward truth is witness of its true origin from the "Zionist Men of Wisdom, " and that _no other evidence of its origin would be needed_. Is it necessary, I wonder, to waste words in exposing this piousfraud? His own statement comes pretty close to convicting him ofbeing, as I have suggested above, a hireling of the Secret Police, an_agent provocateur_. Sukhotin, from whom he now claims to havereceived the manuscript, was a notorious anti-Semite and a despot ofthe worst type. Sipiagin, to whom, it is alleged, the manuscript hadbeen previously given, was also a bitter anti-Semite and one of themost infamous of Russian bureaucrats. He was notoriously corrupt andunspeakably cruel while he was Minister of the Interior. He wasassassinated by Stephen Balmashev, in March, 1902. Even if we creditthis revised version of the way in which he came into possession ofthe manuscript, Nilus is closely identified with the secret agenciesof the old regime. Let us take note, however, of other peculiaritiesof the canting hypocrite, Nilus. He names Sukhotin and Sipiagin onlyafter they are dead and denial by them is impossible; he has"forgotten" the name of the "noblewoman from Tshernigov, " the personalleged to have stolen the original documents; he suggests that thedocuments need no other evidence than their own contents. Truly, avery typical criminal is the mysterious, elusive, unknown "Prof. Sergei Nilus"! Now let me call attention to two other very interesting facts inconnection with this story of 1917. The first is that Nilus omits thevery important statement made in the edition of 1905 that the allegedprotocols were "signed by representatives of Zion of the Thirty-thirdDegree, " without offering the slightest explanation of that mostimportant omission. The second fact is even more conclusive asevidence of the man's absolute untrustworthiness. Having told us inthe edition of 1905 that the friend who gave him the protocols assuredhim that they had been "stolen by a woman, " and in 1917 that it wasNicholaievich Sukhotin from whom he received the documents, who notonly told him that they had been stolen by a woman, but told him alsothe name of the thief (which he has forgotten, unfortunately), heproceeds, in the Epilogue of the 1917 edition, to tell a verydifferent story. He says in this Epilogue that the protocols "werestealthily removed from a large book of notes on lectures. _My friend_found them in the safe of the headquarters offices of the Society ofZion, which is situated at present in Paris. " Was ever perjurer more confused? First we have an unknown womanstealing the documents from "one of the most highly initiated leadersof Freemasonry"; next, we have a "noblewoman of Tshernigov" as thethief and Sukhotin as the intermediary through whose hands theyreached his friend Nilus. Now, finally, Nilus says that hisfriend--_i. E. _, _Sukhotin_--was the thief, and not a woman at all!Instead of being stolen from the person of "one of the most highlyinitiated leaders of Freemasonry, " they are "found" in a safe inParis! The woman has disappeared; the highly initiated Freemason hasdisappeared. Now it is Sukhotin who is identified as the thief, and heis pointed out as having robbed a safe in Paris. So much for theperjury of Nilus. I may add that I am assured--though I cannot vouchfor the statement--that Sukhotin was not outside of Russia between1890 and 1905. But it may be argued, as it has been argued in the _DearbornIndependent_ following the suggestion of Nilus--that the authenticityof the protocols, and the reality and seriousness of the Jewishconspiracy, are sufficiently demonstrated by internal evidence. Iconfess that I do not find in the documents any reason for reachingsuch a conclusion, though I have studied them with all the patienceand care I could command, and have read the principal arguments madein their defense. I find not a scrap of evidence to show that thereexists, or ever has existed, such a body of men as "The Elders ofZion, " or "The Men of Wisdom of Zion, " or any similar secret body ofJews. _That such a secret conspiratory body exists has been chargedfrom time to time during more than a century, yet not a particle ofevidence to sustain the charge has ever been produced. _ I am quitewell aware of the capacity of the human mind to believe whateveraccords with preconceived prejudices, suspicions, or impressions, evenin the face of evidence to the contrary, and, correspondingly, toreject the most conclusive evidence when it runs counter to suchprejudices, suspicions, or impressions. Laying upon my own mind thewarning implied by this knowledge, and guarding myself against thedanger of rejecting, or ignoring, or undervaluing unpleasant andunwelcome facts, I am bound to say that those who find in thesealleged protocols a sufficient basis for bringing the Jewish raceunder indictment seem to me to have brought preconceived suspicion andfear of the Jew to their study of the documents themselves. Personally, I can find nothing in them which suggests any highlyorganized intelligence, such as the leaders of the Jewish racerepresent and command in abundance; rather, they seem to me to clearlyindicate the disordered mind and distorted vision of a very commontype of monomaniac, the genus "crank. " I believe that historical study is not one of Mr. Ford's strongpoints, but, even so, he must be aware of the fact that it is one ofthe commonest things in history to encounter charges of conspiracydirected against religious and political sects, supported by more orless plausible arguments and believed by considerable numbers ofpeople. Were it necessary to my purpose, and did time permit, I couldquite easily fill a considerable volume with illustrations of thisfact. For example, there exists a great literature devoted to theobject of proving that the Vatican is the headquarters of such aconspiracy to bring about or to attain world domination. Thousands ofbooks and pamphlets have been written to convict the Jesuits of such aconspiracy, many of them far more convincing than these protocols. Pamphlets aiming to convince the American people that the Knights ofColumbus is an organization aiming at the overthrow of the AmericanRepublic and the establishment of the temporal sovereignty of the Popeover the United States have been circulated by the million. It is amatter of court record that this charge has been supported by thepublication of what purported to be exact copies of oaths pledging themembers of that organization to the end stated. Let me say at oncethat I do not credit these sensational stories and charges. I haveconfined myself to charges made against one of the two great sectionsof Christianity for reasons which seem to me peculiarly cogent. Thecharges made against the Jews have produced the most terrible resultsin the countries where the Roman Catholic Church is strongest, and noleader of the Christian religion has such strong reason for denouncingsuch appeals to prejudice and hatred as the head of that Church. Belief in widespread conspiracies directed against individuals or thestate is probably the commonest form assumed by the human mind when itloses its balance and its sense of proportion. I venture to hazard theopinion that of all the cranks who have pestered Mr. Ford since he hasattained a conspicuous position, those who imagined themselves to bethe victims of conspiracies have outnumbered all the others. Theseprotocols are either preposterous forgeries deliberately wrought forthe purpose of fostering anti-Semitism in Russia, or they are thepitiable ravings of a familiar type of monomaniac. Concerning the authorship of the protocols, there has been muchconjecture, especially on the part of those who have seriouslyregarded them as an authentic expression of Jewish opinion. It hasbeen whispered in those places where the so-called Jewish question isdiscussed, that they are the work of the well-known Zionist leader, Dr. Theodor Herzl. This is the theory which Nilus himself advances inthe introduction to the edition of 1917. He says: ... My book has already reached the fourth edition, but it is only definitely known to me now and in a manner worthy of belief, and that through Jewish sources, that these protocols are nothing other than the strategic plans for the conquest of the world under the heel of Israel, and worked out by the leaders of the Jewish people ... And read to the Councils of Elders by the "Prince of Exile, " Theodor Herzl, during the first Zionist Congress, summoned by him in August, 1897, in Basle. This is the first time Nilus has so much as hinted at the date of thealleged secret conclave of the Elders of Zion, at the close of which, according to the story of 1905 so elaborately contradicted in 1917, the protocols were stolen by a woman. It is perhaps as well to remarkin passing that the first Zionist Congress was held in the open andits proceedings freely reported in the press. Now, Herzl stands amongthe foremost of the intellectual Jews of modern times. All his knownwork is characterized by clear, clean-cut reasoning and direct andforceful statement. All his known writings are characterized by thesequalities. Whatever we may think about Zionism, it must be admittedthat the great Austrian journalist and critic never lacked the courageof his convictions, as may be seen by anybody who will take thetrouble to read his writings or the evidence delivered by him beforethe British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, in 1902. If Herzlwrote these documents he adopted the disguise of the style and methodof a much inferior mentality. Unless we are to believe that he deliberately adopted a style ofwriting and method of reasoning entirely unfamiliar and unlike hispublicly acknowledged work, for the express purpose of hiding hisauthorship of the protocols--which, if we credit the story that theywere presented to a secret conference of the leaders of the allegedconspiracy, is an impossible hypothesis--we are warranted in sayingthat, whoever wrote them, it was not Theodor Herzl. It would be asreasonable to ascribe a Walt Whitman chant to Emerson, or a BernardShaw satire to Jonathan Edwards, as to ascribe these crude, meanderingpages to the crystalline intellect of Theodor Herzl. I do not find inthem any suggestion of the trained mind of a scholar and writer ofHerzl's attainments; rather, they seem to me to belong in about thesame intellectual category as the ordinary propaganda literature ofthe numerous sects, ancient and modern, based upon peculiarinterpretations of Biblical prophecies. Since the outbreak of theWorld War in 1914, and throughout the whole chapter of revolutionaryevents following thereupon, there has been a steady flood of suchliterature. Even the much-discussed forecast of Bolshevism does not inany material respect differ from many similar "prophecies" that haveappeared in recent years. It cannot be denied that Bolshevism actually conforms in a notabledegree to the specifications contained in the protocols, which I havealready summarized in the preceding chapter. Shall we, then, concludethat the charge is proven and declare the case closed, or is itnecessary to examine the evidence further and more critically? I thinkthat a very brief period of honest reflection will convince anyfair-minded and intelligent person of the injustice of the renderingof a verdict holding the Jews responsible for Bolshevism upon thebasis of such evidence. Let me direct the attention of my readers to acoincidence of dates which once more directs suspicion against Prof. Sergei Nilus and against the alleged stolen protocols. I have alreadypointed out that in 1903, in the first edition of his book, Nilus didnot use the alleged protocols, though he claims that they had been inhis possession for two years prior to that time. That this is asuspicious circumstance will, I think, be readily conceded by theopen-minded. In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic party was splitinto two factions, and the word "Bolshevism" came into use as thedesignation of the policy of one of these factions. In 1905 the firstRussian revolution took place. In the period between the split in theSocial Democratic party in 1903 and the outbreak of the revolution in1905 the leaders of the Bolsheviki had been active in formulating andpropagating their theoretical and political views. During therevolution a sharp conflict occurred between the Bolsheviki and otherfactions of the Russian Socialist movement, and the Socialist pressgave much space to the controversy. It will be seen from this brief historical sketch that when Niluspublished a second edition of his book, late in 1905, he could find inthe Russian Socialist press all the materials for such a generaldescription of Bolshevism as that contained in the protocols. Ofcourse, if we believe that the documents are genuine, that they areauthentic translations of documents actually stolen in 1896, deliveredto Nilus in 1901, and by him first made public in 1905, we have simplya coincidence of dates. I submit, however, that there is not a shredof credible evidence that the documents were so obtained by Nilus, orthat they existed in 1896, 1901, 1903, or at any date earlier than1905, the year of their first publication. I submit, furthermore, thatit is highly probable that the passages in the alleged protocols whichare now hailed as conclusive evidence that the Bolshevist policy hadbeen formulated as early as 1896, were in reality written after 1903and in the light of already published accounts of Bolshevist theoriesand tactics. There is not a thing that we know about these documentsand their history which does not point directly to the conclusion thatthey are forgeries. When I was in London in October, 1920, an English journalist ofdistinction, well known and influential on both sides of the Atlantic, with great earnestness and evident conviction sought to impress mewith the serious importance of these alleged _Protocols of the Eldersof Zion_. He was quite convinced that the documents were genuine, andthat they proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a world-wideJewish conspiracy. With great solemnity and manifest sincerity hesought to enlist my co-operation in defense of what he called"Anglo-Saxon civilization, " which he seemed to regard as synonymouswith Christian civilization. He was quite astonished when I directedhis attention to the fact that a well-known French writer, LouisMartin, had published, as far back as 1895, a book in which heattempted to prove the existence of such a world-wide Jewishconspiracy. My friend honestly believed that the existence of thisconspiracy had never been known or suspected prior to the publicationof the work of the mysterious Sergei Nilus. He was still moresurprised when I told him that in his book, _L'Anglais Est-Il unJuif?_, Martin had attempted to prove that the English people are partof the Jewish race, and that the British government is the principaldirecting power of the conspiracy; so that the world-wide Jewishconspiracy must, according to Martin, be understood as a secretcompact between the British government, as a Jewish organization, andthe leaders of Jewry in all other lands. Thus is the theory of aworld-wide Jewish conspiracy reduced to absurdity. I confess that atthat time I was not aware that in the original Russian of the 1905edition of the work of Nilus this absurd theory of Martin had beenreproduced, but carefully omitted from every English translationpublished in this country and in England. The reason for the omissionis obvious; had the passage been given it would have made alaughing-stock of the protocols. I submit, however, that the omissionof such an important passage from the text of Nilus without anyreference to or explanation of the liberty taken with the text, placesthose responsible for the several translations in a very unfavorablelight. In closing this chapter it is perhaps well that some record should bemade of the sinister use which was made of these alleged protocolsduring the World War. Not long after the United States had begunactive participation in the war against Germany, it came to myattention that typewritten manuscripts purporting to prove that thewar was part of a great conspiracy of international Jews were beingcirculated. On at least three different occasions, early in 1918, Iwas asked about this charge. I was told then that the British andAmerican governments were in a special sense the agents of this Jewishconspiracy. In July, 1918, in Paris, a fuller account of the documentswas given to me by a loyal Socialist, to whom they had been shown. There was not then, as there is not now, the slightest doubt in mymind that the pro-German propagandists resorted to this trick in orderto weaken the morale of the principal Allied nations. IV IS SOCIALISM A JEWISH CONSPIRACY? Upon the strength of statements made in this collection of documentsof mysterious and suspicious origin, a number of papers, including the_Dearborn Independent_ and the _London Morning Post_, have attemptedto account for and explain the international Socialist movement aspart of this Jewish imperialistic conspiracy. Neither in the protocolsthemselves nor in the newspapers making this particular charge has anyshred of authentic evidence been adduced in its support. True, a greatdeal has been made of the undeniable fact that Karl Marx, FerdinandLassalle, Wilhelm Liebnecht, and other noted Socialists belonged tothe Jewish race. Against this fact might very well be set the equallyundeniable fact that the foremost opponents of these men, and ofSocialism, were also of the Jewish race. Apparently, therefore, we areto believe that the leaders of this Jewish conspiracy set up theSocialist movement and fostered it, while at the same time theyenlisted their ablest minds to defeat it. Surely for the normal mindthat is not obsessed this is a theory too absurd for belief. Only those who are entirely ignorant of the history of Socialism andSocialist theories can possibly hold this view of its Jewish origin. Long before Karl Marx appeared upon the scene of action Socialism hadalready made an impress upon European thought. Marx was a boy offifteen when the word Socialism first appeared in print as designatingthe doctrines preached by Robert Owen, the Welshman, for almost twentyyears before that time. Was Owen the tool of Jewish conspirators? Ihave read most of the literature relating to Owen's life and teaching, including his own voluminous writings, and the innumerablecontroversies in which he was engaged throughout his life. I have notdiscovered in all this mass of material a single trace of Jewishinfluence. He had no Jewish friends or associates during the formativeyears, the period in which the Socialist ideas and ideals shapedthemselves. His Socialism was the direct outcome of his experience asa successful manufacturer. He was not in any sense a man of books. From time to time he required large sums of money for his enterprises. Surely, if those enterprises, and his life's work as a whole, formedpart of a great Jewish conspiracy which had behind it the vastfinancial resources of Jewry, it would not have been difficult for himto secure the financial support he needed. It is a fact of cardinalimportance, therefore, that Owen never did receive Jewish financialsupport. Those who would have us believe that Socialism originated asa part of the great world-wide conspiracy of Jewish imperialism mustfirst of all explain Robert Owen. Nor does Owen stand alone in the history of Socialism among theAnglo-Saxon peoples. It is a well-known fact, one to which he himselfhas called attention, that the most important of the economic andsociological theories of Marx were held and promulgated before histime by a number of British writers. As Professor Foxwell and othershave shown, the roots of what is called Marxian Socialist theory liedeep in the soil of British political economy. Karl Marx devoted histypically Jewish genius to the exposition of Socialist theories, butthe theories themselves were not of Hebraic origin. William Godwin, Charles Hall, William Thompson, John Gray, and John Francis Bray allpreceded Marx, and not one of them was a Jew, nor can we find in theirwritings any trace of Jewish influence. It is the same with BronterreO'Brien, the first to call himself a Social Democrat. If any or all ofthese men were the agents of such a conspiracy, it is remarkable thatthere should be an entire absence of evidence of that fact. It isquite unbelievable that there was any sort of conspiracy whichaffected them. For the most part they were poor and their books werepublished in pitifully small editions at great sacrifice tothemselves. Incidentally, it is worthy of note, Karl Marx, the Jew, suffered terrible poverty. Certainly, all this does not suggest aninternational conspiracy backed by the Jewish leaders of the financialworld. Because of the prominence of a few individual Jews in the AmericanSocialist movement in recent years, the writer of the anti-Semiticarticles in the _Dearborn Independent_ regards as proven the theorythat American Socialism originated in Jewish conspiracy. It is anotherevidence of his entire ignorance of the subject concerning which hewrites. If there is anything which can be said about Socialism withcertainty, it is that its fundamental theories are mainly ofAnglo-Saxon origin. Karl Marx was a boy of nine years when Robert Owenreprinted in England an American Socialist pamphlet, written by anAmerican workingman and published in America a year or two earlier. Atabout the same time Thomas Cooper, of Columbia, South Carolina, published his book in which the fundamental economic theories ofmodern Socialism were clearly expounded. When Marx was no more thanten years old we find O. A. Brownson, editor of the Boston _QuarterlyReview_, vigorously preaching here in America the theory of the classwar, the abolition of the wage system, and the necessity for a triumphof the proletariat. We find such men as Thomas Skidmore, R. L. Jennings, and L. Byllesby preaching thoroughgoing Socialism. In 1829these men and others were exercising a notable and considerableinfluence upon American thought. In vain shall we search theirwritings and the meager accounts of their lives for any trace orsuggestion of Jewish influence or control. I skip a decade and turn to the Fourierist period of AmericanSocialism. The profound influence of Charles Fourier upon Karl Marxis well known and has been the subject of much learned writing. But ifthe Frenchman inspired the German Jew, so likewise did he inspire manyAmerican non-Jews, the very flower of our race. It was Albert Brisbanewho began the Fourierist agitation here, and soon he had associatedwith him Horace Greeley, Parke Godwin, George Ripley, Charles A. Dana, John S. Dwight, William Henry Channing, Margaret Fuller, John Orvis, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Edmund Clarence Stedman, and many others. Other distinguished Americans who were brought into more or lesssympathetic association with the movement included NathanielHawthorne, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Russell Lowell, and TheodoreParker, among others. Certainly it would be difficult to name a bodyof men and women more truly representative of the highest and best ofAmerican life and genius. To suggest that these were all the agents ofa Jewish conspiracy, either consciously or unconsciously, is to inviteand deserve ridicule. In truth, Socialism is as Anglo-Saxon as MagnaCharta and as American as the Declaration of Independence, and wemight as well attribute either or both of these to Jewish intrigue asSocialism. It is true that the organized Socialist movement in Americahas long spoken with a foreign accent and borne the imprint of analien psychology, but that psychology, as I have elsewhere pointedout, is German and not Hebraic. It would take us too far afield to discuss the origin of FrenchSocialism, even in this sketchy fashion, but I can state with theassurance that is born of intimate knowledge that French Socialismshows as little sign of having been inspired by alien influences, Jewish or other, as British and American Socialism. I stress thispoint not because I would defend the Jews against the charge that theyhave manifested unusual sympathy for Socialism (which, indeed, iftrue, I should hold to be a virtuous distinction), nor to apologizefor or to deny the splendid contributions of individual Jews to theSocialist movement. My concern is to enter protest against the chargethat the Socialist movement of the world originated in the ambitionsof Jewish imperialists and is neither more nor less than part andparcel of a great international Jewish conspiracy. That is a stupidtravesty of history, and a dangerous one. I have spent the greater part of my life in the Socialist movement, inclose and intimate comradeship with both Jews and Gentiles belongingto nearly every civilized nation. I am as proud of the comradeship ofmy Jewish comrades as I am of that of any others. My readers willperhaps understand that I deeply resent the implication that throughall the years of struggle and sacrifice I have been either theunconscious dupe or the willing agent of any kind of selfishconspiracy, Jewish or other. It is, of course, difficult to disprovesuch an accusation brought against a great movement, and, therefore, by implication against the individuals belonging to that movement. IfI should charge that Mr. Henry Ford is engaged in this anti-Semiticpropaganda for purely selfish and mercenary reasons, that he hasbecome the spokesman and agent of great unscrupulous capitalistinterests who seek to destroy their Jewish competitors and to profitthereby, he would find it difficult to establish the contrary bydefinite and concrete proof. As a matter of justice, nothing of thesort should be expected. The burden of proof rests upon the personmaking the accusation. In like fashion, when the _DearbornIndependent_ charges that the international Socialist movement is oneof the agents of a vicious Jewish conspiracy against Christiancivilization, it is in honor bound to submit proofs. This it has notdone, nor has any other paper making the charge. I _know_ that thecharge is a cruel and cowardly falsehood, a libel upon millions ofhonest and honorable men and women, to utter which is an infamy anddegradation. The charge is one that has been leveled against practically everymovement of protest that has been developed in modern times. It wasleveled against the Protestant Reformation; against the FrenchRevolution; against Mazzini and his followers in Italy; against theGerman Revolutionists of 1848; against British Trade-Unionists. I haveno doubt that a little research would reveal the fact that the samecharge was directed against the Abolitionists in this country. Viciousinterests are never very scrupulous in their choice of weapons. Inthose Protestant countries in which the number of Catholics is muchlarger than the number of Jews it is a common practice to charge thatmovements of protest and revolt are instigated and led by the Catholichierarchy. Where the number of Jews is very great the appeal is madeto racial hatred. In Catholic countries, in the same way, accusationis directed against Protestantism or Judaism, according tocircumstance. Wherever and by whosoever made, appeals to racial and religiousprejudices and hatreds in defense of vested interests merit thecondemnation of all honest and righteous men. When made in a countrywhich, like the United States, possesses millions of peoples of manydiverse lands and races not yet welded into national homogeneity, whomust live and work together, such accusations become the mostdangerous form of treason. Whoever propagates in this countryantagonism to any race or creed represented in our citizenship, whether it be against Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, English, ornegroes; or against Judaism, Catholicism, or Protestantism, assailsthe very foundation of our most cherished and characteristic Americaninstitutions. V THE JEWISH SOCIALISTS AND BOLSHEVISM The anti-Semitic press of both hemispheres charges that Bolshevism inRussia and elsewhere is a movement instigated and led by Jews, as partof a great conspiracy to bring about the Jewish domination of theworld. The reasons for making this charge are only too obvious. Bolshevism is repugnant to the great mass of civilized mankind, bywhom it is rightly regarded as a sort of moral leprosy. Whatever maybe thought of the possibility of Sovietism in industry and government, Bolshevism, the spiritual dynamic as distinguished from the mechanicalagent, is the negation of every virtuous principle which mankind holdsin reverence. It frankly bases government upon brute force wielded bythe few, and denies the ideal toward which all nations are striving, the ideal of government based upon the sanction of the governed. Itunites in a terrible synthesis all the worst agencies and methods oftsarism and of militarism. To persuade the people of this or any othercivilized country that Bolshevism is essentially a Jewish movement, part of a conspiracy to reduce civilization to chaos, and so preparethe way for a Jewish supergovernment of the world, would mean therapid organization of the rest of the population against the Jews inevery phase of life--politics, commerce, industry, education, socialintercourse, and so on. In support of this most serious charge not a single shred of credibleevidence has ever been adduced by any anti-Semitic writer or organ. For the universally known fact that there are Jews among the leadersof Bolshevism, in Russia and elsewhere, is not evidence thatBolshevism is _essentially_ or _primarily_ a Jewish movement; neitheris it evidence that Bolshevism is a part of a Jewish conspiracy toobtain world domination. All that it proves is that which needs noproof--that there are Jews among the Bolsheviki. I repeat that insupport of the charge not a shred of credible evidence has ever beenadduced. In that shameful book, _The Cause of World Unrest_, consisting of articles reprinted from the _London Morning Post_, theanonymous author gives a list of fifty names of "persons who eitherare the actual governing powers in Soviet Russia now or wereresponsible for the establishment of the present regime there. " Thereis both guile and cowardice in the latter part of this charge. It iseasy to argue, with a certain plausibility, that every person whohelped in the revolution of March, 1917, must be held "responsible forthe establishment of the present regime. " I have heard many Russiansmake the charge that Kerensky, the anti-Bolshevist, was "responsible"for the establishment of the Bolshevist regime. I have heard otherscharge the same thing against such men as Rodzianko, Prince Lvov, andProfessor Miliukov. What these Russians meant was that the failure ofthese men and others to deal properly with the situation existing atthe time of the March revolution made the triumph of Bolshevismpossible. In that sense, we might as well go back a stage farther andpresent the names of Tsar Nicholas II and all his responsibleMinisters as "persons who ... Were responsible for the establishmentof the present regime. " This, however, is not what the _Morning Post_desires to convey to the mind of the reader. It insinuates, in a mostcowardly fashion, that the fifty persons named by it are Bolshevikiand falsely alleges that of the fifty no less than forty-two are Jews. Concerning this list of names a few observations are necessary. Thecompiler of the list was not honest; he did not intend to place thereader in possession of the truth. This is evidenced by several facts. In the first place, many influential leaders of the Bolsheviki whosenames are familiar to all who have given even ordinary attention tothe subject are conspicuously absent. The reason for the omission isthat these men are non-Jews. _Their inclusion in the list would havedestroyed the author's charge. _ He has suppressed important facts inthe interest of his wretched case. I searched the list in vain for thenames of such prominent leaders of the Bolshevist movement asBucharin, Rakovsky, Miliutin, Raskolnikov, Shliapnikov, Latzis, Rykov, Stalin, Krestinsky, Bonch-Brouyevich, Dybenko, Dzerzhinsky, Krylenko, Gorky, Andreyeva, Nogin, Platakov, Kalinin, Boky, and many others lesswell known. Anyone who is at all familiar with the subject willrecognize in the names I have here given some of the most active andinfluential leaders of the Bolsheviki. Not one of them is a Jew, and Isubmit that to omit them from a list of names which pretends to berepresentative is as dishonest as it is cowardly. The list is thoroughly dishonest, moreover, in that it sets down asJews men who are well known to be Gentiles. For example, Manouilsky, number forty-six on the list, is described as a Jew, whereas it iswell known that he is a Gentile, a Ukrainian. Bogdanov, number ten onthe list, is likewise wrongfully described. His real name is notSilberstein, as alleged, but Malinovsky. Neither is he a Jew, asalleged, but a Gentile, a Russian. These two illustrations will serveto show how little reliance can be placed upon the list. Whether thereare other misrepresentations of the same kind I am unable to say, forthe reason that the list contains many names of persons who do nothold and have not held any important position in Russia, either underthe Bolsheviki or the earlier Provisional Government headed byKerensky. These persons are absolutely unknown to me, even by name, and they are equally unknown to every Russian revolutionary leader towhom I have submitted them. It is quite probable, therefore, thatthese names of alleged Jews hide the identity of men who are not Jewsat all. Not only does this precious list studiously omit many of the principalleaders of the Bolshevist regime simply because they are not Jews, andmisrepresent well-known Gentiles as Jews; quite as bad is the factthat it includes many names of men who are not only not supporters ofthe Bolshevist regime, but actually leaders of the most determinedopposition to it. Here is a list which is submitted in proof of thecharge that "nearly all the Bolshevist leaders are Jews, " and in thatlist I find the names of ten men who are known to me to be among themost active leaders of the struggle against the Bolsheviki, men whohave made heroic sacrifices and risked their lives in that fight. Isay that the list includes the names of ten men known to me to bebitter opponents of Bolshevism; there may be others concerning whom Iam not informed. Included in the list I find the name of Izgoev (forty-three), forinstance. His real name is alleged to be Goldman, when in fact it isLandau. Not only is he not a Bolshevik, but, as everybody familiarwith the Russian movement knows, one of the active publicists of theRussian Constitutional Democratic party. Orthodoks, number thirty-fiveon the list, is not a Bolshevik, but one of the most active members ofthe group of so-called Socialist Patriots, the "Unity" group organizedby the late George Plechanov to support the Allied war aims, anorganization that did much to strengthen Russian morale in the earlystages of the war and which has vigorously and bitterly opposedBolshevism and all its ways. Bounakov, number forty-five on the list, is also a leader of the anti-Bolshevist forces. When I was in Parisrecently he was there actively engaged with other Socialists incarrying on anti-Bolshevist propaganda. Kamkov, number fifteen on thelist, was one of the leaders of the Socialists-Revolutionists party, adetermined opponent of the Bolsheviki. According to the bestinformation at my command, he was one of the men responsible for theassassination of the German ambassador, Count von Mirbach, which wasa protest against the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and was put to death bythe Bolsheviki. Gorev, number eleven on the list, has consistentlyopposed Bolshevism with the rest of his colleagues of the Mensheviki. The same thing is true of Abramovich (twenty-four), of Dan(seventeen), of Martinov (twenty-one), of Martov (four), and ofMeshkovsky (eighteen). The anonymous author of _The Cause of World Unrest_ says of this listthat it is "the result of much labor and the work of several hands. " Ido not need to characterize it, in the light of the foregoinganalysis. The facts to which I have called attention can be veryreadily verified. I submit that most abject apology is due to thereader from everybody concerned in the preparation and circulation ofthis book--from the anonymous author, the compiler of the list, theLondon _Morning Post_, and the publishers. There is nothing morecontemptible than such poisoning of the wells of public information. For the present I have finished with the _Morning Post_. Let us turnnow to Mr. Ford's _Dearborn Independent_. In its issue of May 29, 1920, this organ of American anti-Semitism desperately tries tobolster up the charge that nearly all the leaders of the Bolshevikiare Jews by a clumsy invention of its own. It says: Every commisar in Russia to-day is a Jew. Publicists are accustomed to speak of Russia as if it were in disorder, but the Jewish government of Russia is not. From a mass of underlings, the Jews of Russia came up in a perfect phalanx, a flying wedge through the superinduced disorder, as if every man's place had been previously prepared for him. For these statements there is no justification in fact. They areabsolutely and unqualifiedly untrue, as every person familiar with thefacts must know. It is not true that "every commissar in Russia to-dayis a Jew. " Not even a majority of the members of the Council ofPeople's Commissars are Jews. Lenin, who is at the head of thegovernment, is not a Jew. Tchitcherin, who is in charge of foreignaffairs, is not a Jew. Krassin, who is in charge of the tradenegotiations with the British government, is not a Jew. These threemen wield greater power and influence in Soviet Russia than all theJewish officials combined. Dzerzhinsky, head of the infamousExtraordinary Commissions, is not a Jew. Lunarcharsky, who has chargeof public education, is not a Jew. Rykov, chairman of the EconomicCouncil, is not a Jew. Bonch-Brouyevich, secretary of the Council ofPeople's Commissars, is not a Jew. Kolontai is not a Jewess. There aremany other Gentile Commissars. How completely the London _MorningPost_ and the _Dearborn Independent_ misrepresent the essential factsI have already shown by my analysis of the pretentious list of fiftynames published by the former. I have before me the official list ofthe members of the _Sovnarkom_--that is, the Council of the People'sCommissars of the Soviet government. As is well known, the elaborateand intricate governmental system of Soviet Russia centers ultimateauthority in this Council of People's Commissars, which consists ofseventeen members. A most striking refutation of the statement made bythe _Dearborn Independent_ is found in the fact that of the seventeenmembers of this supreme Bolshevist authority only one, Trotzky, is aJew. The official list speaks for itself. _Official Name_ _Real Name_ _Department_ 1. N. Lenin[1] Oulianov President2. G. Tchitcherin[1] G. Tchitcherin Foreign Affairs3. L. Trotsky[2] Bronstein War4. E. Raskolnikov[1] E. Raskolnikov Navy5. G. Petrovsky[1] G. Petrovsky Interior6. N. Krestinsky[1] N. Krestinsky Finance7. L. Krassin[1] L. Krassin Industry and Commerce and Ways of Communication8. S. Sereda[1] S. Sereda Agriculture9. N. Bruchanov[1] N. Bruchanov Supply10. A. Lunarcharsky[1] A. Lunarcharsky Public Instruction11. V. Stuchka[1] V. Stuchka Justice12. A. Kolontai[1] A. Kolontai Public Welfare13. V. Smidt[1] V. Smidt Labor14. A. Rykov[1] A. Rykov Chairman, Economic Council15. K. Stalin[3] Djugashvili National Affairs16. Dr. N. Semashko[1] Dr. N. Semashko Public Health17. V. Bonch-Brouyevich[1] V. Bonch-Brouyevich Executive secretary of the Council of People's Commissars[1] Russian [2] Jew [3] Georgian Of course there are many Jews holding minor positions in theBolshevist regime. It would be quite impossible to name any part ofthe Russian population to which that statement would not equallyapply. For millions of people, Christians and Jews alike, the onlypossible alternative to starvation and death is to accept serviceunder the Bolsheviki. Even loyal generals of the Tsar's army haveaccepted such service in order to avoid the starvation of themselvesand their loved ones, despite their hatred of Bolshevism and theBolsheviki. It is a fact, however, that there are very few Jewsholding responsible posts in the Bolshevist government of Russia, while there are many Jews prominently identified with theanti-Bolshevist movement. I have followed very closely the accounts ofthe proceedings of the Bolshevist movement and of the Communist party, as reported in the official press, and have paid special attention tothe activity of the Jews. Up to the present my list of Jews holdingprominent positions in either the Soviet government or the Communistparty contains less than twenty names, yet I believe it is fairlycomplete. It includes the names of Trotzky, Steklov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Uritsky, Volodarsky, Sverdlov, Ganetsky, Helfandt (Parvus), Riazanov, Radek, Litvinov, Joffe, and Larin. It will be ratherdifficult, I think, to name any important omissions. As against thismeager list of Jews, a very hastily compiled list of non-Jews who areprominent in the government or in the Communist party containsseventy-five names. In this list I do not include any of the manyformer generals of the Tsar's army now holding important positions inthe Red Army and various departments of the Soviet government. Withentire confidence I submit these incontestable facts to my readers inreply to the _Dearborn Independent_. It is absurdly untrue to say, as the _Dearborn Independent_ does, that"the Jews of Russia came up in a perfect phalanx" after the overthrowof tsarism. Throughout the revolutionary period the Jews in Russiahave presented about the same political divisions as the Russianpopulation in general. Like the overwhelming mass of the Russianpeople, they are anti-Bolshevist. Even if we confine our attention tothe Jewish Socialists, overlooking for the moment the large number ofJews belonging to the Constitutional Democrats and other non-Socialistparties, we shall find absolutely no evidence of anything approachinga united Jewish Socialist support of the Bolsheviki. On the contrary, the most implacable and determined opponents of the Bolsheviki havebeen, and still are, Jewish Socialists. Such Jews as Martov, Dan, Lieber, Abramovich, and others have distinguished themselves by theirrelentless and unremitting opposition to the Bolsheviki. In reply to Mr. William Hard, who called attention to the fact thatJews like Vinaver, Martov, and others have been as active on theanti-Bolshevist side as Trotzky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and others havebeen on the Bolshevist side, the anonymous writer employed by the_Dearborn Independent_ resorts to a more cowardly and despicablecontroversial trick than I have hitherto encountered, even inanti-Semitic literature. Having charged that the Jews were united "ina perfect phalanx" in support of Bolshevism, when confronted by Mr. Hard with the evidence that there are Jews at the head of theanti-Bolshevist forces, he coolly abandons his charge and insinuatesanother. He says: "Look how the Jews control every phase of politicalopinion in Russia! Doesn't there seem to be some ground for thefeeling that they are desirous of ruling everywhere?" Not often, I venture to say, has any American journalist descended tothis low level. I am justified in asking Mr. Ford, who is primarilyresponsible for the _Dearborn Independent_ and for its policy, whetherhe considers it to be compatible with sound American citizenship andwith the traditions of our race to spread broadcast through the landsuch cruelly unjust appeals to prejudice. Surely it is not difficultto see this matter from the viewpoint of the Jew, which in thisinstance is also the viewpoint of every fair-minded non-Jew. For theJew it is a case of being damned either way. When it is noted thatthere are a few Jews holding prominent positions in the Bolshevistregime, the whole race is stigmatized and charged with being engagedin a conspiracy to destroy civilization; but when attention is calledto the fact that other Jews, far more numerous, are engaged infighting Bolshevism and attempting to save civilization, no credit forthat fact is given to the race; it is not admitted as a fact modifyingthe previously formed sweeping judgment, but, on the contrary, is heldto be additional evidence of guilt. Nothing that Bolshevistpropagandists have attempted to do in this country involves anythinglike the peril to our institutions that is involved in this deliberateattempt to silence the anti-Bolshevist Jews by making even theirpropaganda against Bolshevism appear as part of a conspiracy againstthose institutions. I am not here and now concerned to defend the Jews. Even were my giftsmuch greater, I should not presume to arrogate to myself that honor. The defense of the Jewish people against the aspersions cast upon themby this cruel propaganda belongs in the first place to Jewish scholarsand publicists and can be left to them. My concern is the defense ofChristian civilization, of American ideals and institutions, of thenoblest Anglo-Saxon traditions. These things are our greatest wealth;they are the heritage of our children. When, therefore, this hatefulpropaganda imperils these things, it is both my duty and my privilegeto defend them. Anti-Semitism has no place in Christian civilization;its spirit and its language are both alien and hostile to our Republicand to the genius of the race of Milton and Lincoln. It can be demonstrated to the full satisfaction of any open-mindedperson of normal intelligence that Bolshevism is the negation of thefaith and morals which constitute the strongest bond of the Jewishpeople. Trotzky has many times declared that he is no Jew, but a"general proletarian, " and Bela Kun, in a formal statement, declaredhimself to be opposed to all religions and national cultures, theJewish included, and that he stood only for the economic interests ofthe proletariat. I could quote many similar statements by prominentJewish Bolsheviki, were it necessary. The position taken by these menis, of course, entirely logical. Not only is Bolshevism fundamentallyopposed to the Jewish religion; it is equally antagonistic to theprinciple of nationality itself. How, then, can it be possible toregard Bolshevism as typically and essentially Jewish, or as part ofan all-Jewish conspiracy? Is it possible to believe that a greatconspiratory scheme to direct the whole weight and influence of theJewish people to a single political end, conceived and led by theablest leaders of that great people so remarkable for theirintellectual power, would or could rest upon principles diametricallyand irreconcilably opposed to the greatest psychological forcemotivating the conduct of the masses of that people? These questions by themselves shatter the charge we are discussing. There is, however, an immense mass of direct and positive evidenceavailable to all who desire to know the truth, but which is carefullyand studiously ignored by the preachers of anti-Semitism. If such menas Mr. Ford are ignorant of the existence of this evidence, as we mustsuppose them to be, their offense against America and American idealsis not thereby appreciably lessened; their reckless and irresponsibleuse of the wealth and other influential agents at their command addsto the sum of their shame and wrongdoing. The greatest and strongestJewish Socialist organization in Russia and Poland, the "Bund, " hasstood in solid opposition to Bolshevism and the Bolshevist regimefrom the very beginning until now. Not only have leaders of the rightwing, or moderate section of the "Bund, " such as Lieber, foughtBolshevism with their full might, but leaders of the radical leftwing, such as Kossovsky and Medem, have been equally courageous anduncompromising on the same side[1]. A tiny and negligible minoritysplit off from the "Bund" because of its anti-Bolshevist character andformed a new organization, the "Communist Bund. " Similarly, theoverwhelming mass of the Zionist party has consistently opposedBolshevism and all its works, and such men as Doctor Pasmanick, thewell-known Zionist leader of Odessa, have given their full support toevery anti-Bolshevist movement, political and military. I have already referred to the activity of the well-known Jewishleader, Vinaver, in the fight against Bolshevism. Mr. Vinaver is not aSocialist; on the contrary, during many years he has been aconsistent opponent of Socialism and one of the foremost leaders ofthe Constitutional Democratic party, of whose Central Committee hewas, and I believe still is, the chairman. Immediately after the Marchrevolution of 1917, Mr. Vinaver was appointed Senator by the FirstProvisional Government. He was elected to the Constituent Assemblyfrom Petrograd, and later on, after his escape from Petrograd, servedas Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of the Crimea. Thisprominent Jewish anti-Socialist testifies that "not a single JewishSocialist faction has joined the Bolsheviki. " From a report on thissubject cabled to this country by Vinaver in July, 1919, I quote thefollowing paragraphs, which speak for themselves. The entire Russian Jewry struggles against Bolshevism. This is true not only with regard to the bourgeoisie, but to the democratic classes of the Russian Jewry as well. It is sufficient to say that not a single Jewish Socialist faction has joined the Bolsheviki. All political factions of the Russian Jewry are struggling against Bolshevism. The great majority of the Jewish population, including many of the poor, are being classed by the Bolsheviki with the so-called bourgeoisie, and every place where the Bolsheviki rule, the Jewish population, not to speak of very insignificant exceptions, is suffering and starving. The Bolshevist regime has destroyed the industries and the trade, and the Jewish population, which made its living mostly through participation in the industrial and commercial life, is suffering probably more than other nationalities. At the same time, the Bolsheviki are persecuting all religions, and the Jewish religious institutions have suffered from their despotic rule not less than the institutions of the Christian religion. The anti-Semites are making very wide use of the fact that Trotzky is a Jew, but the participation of several Jews among the Bolshevist leaders does not nullify the fact that the Russian Jewry, in its overwhelming majority, struggles actively against Bolshevism. _It is significant that Bolshevism spread mostly in central and eastern Russia where the Jews constitute an insignificant minority. _ It is a significant fact that the only Socialist elected to the UnitedStates Congress in the recent election, Meyer London, a Russian-bornJew, is a vigorous opponent of Bolshevism. In view of such evidence asthe foregoing, it is surely not less than ridiculous to attempt tomake Bolshevism appear as a phase of Jewish Socialism, and a part of aworld-wide Jewish conspiracy, instead of what it is--namely, the wildanarchical outburst of despairing and desperate masses of men. Iventure to say that when the history of this tragic episode in thelife of Russia is authoritatively written, it will be found that Jewshave not been responsible for the most objectionable features ofBolshevism. Not even Trotzky need be excluded from thisgeneralization, for, while it is true that his genius made Bolshevismthe formidable military power it became, the brutal excesses of theRed Terror must be charged against such men as Peters, the Lett, andDzerzhinsky, the Pole. FOOTNOTES: [1] see the articles published in the New York pro-Bolshevist weekly, _Die Neue Welt_, June 27, July 4 and 11, 1919. VI BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS No one who knows how the Jews of Russia, in common with the rest ofthe population, have suffered from Bolshevist misrule will be likelyto give credence to the theory that Bolshevism is part of a Jewishconspiracy. As everybody knows, Jews made up a very considerable partof the commercial class in Russia. The indemnities levied upon thisclass by the Bolshevist commissions in the cities have applied equallyto Jew and Gentile. It is a fact that ordinary Jewish shopkeepers havebeen compelled to pay their full share of the indemnities so levied. Scores of thousands of Jews have had their property confiscated andbeen reduced to abject poverty. Many thousands more have had to flee, leaving everything behind them, thankful only that they could savetheir lives. The _Chresvy-chaikas_ have drawn no distinction betweenJew and Gentile, and the available records, meager as they are, provethat the Jews have contributed their full quota to the long list ofthe victims of these infamous terrorist organizations. Pogroms andother manifestations of anti-Semitism have been too common inBolshevist Russia to permit any suspicion that Bolshevism is apro-Jewish movement. The evidence upon this point is overwhelming. I am quite well aware that the statement that pogroms have been commonin Bolshevist Russia will be challenged and indignantly denied by manyof our American defenders of the Bolsheviki, Jews and Gentiles alike. It is none the less a well-attested fact. I have in my possession amass of evidence which amply proves the truth of the statement. At thesame time, I do not mean to charge that the Soviet government hasdeliberately instigated or authorized pogroms. Indeed, I am quiteready to believe that the Soviet government has honestly desired andattempted to prevent such pogroms. Lenin accepted the presidency of anorganization formed to combat anti-Semitism. The truth seems to bethat just as pogroms have admittedly taken place in the new republicof Poland, despite the efforts of the Polish government to preventthem, and just as pogroms were carried out by Denikin's Volunteer Armydespite General Denikin's attempts to prevent them, and the severepunishments inflicted by him upon the culprits, so regular Bolshevisttroops in southern Russia have plundered and murdered Jews and rapedand mutilated Jewish women and girls. Just as these lines are beingwritten word comes, from sources of unquestionable authority, ofpogroms against the Jews in the Ukraine, in which Bolshevist troopsparticipated. The Pogrom Victims' Relief Committee of the Russian Red Cross Societypublished a report of its investigations of the Jewish pogroms insouthern Russia during the period when General Denikin's forces werefighting the Bolsheviki. The report, based upon evidence ofunquestionable reliability, showed that Jews had been plundered andmurdered not only by disorderly troops of Denikin's Volunteer Army, and by the troops of Petlura and by the robber bands led by "atamans, "like Makhno, _but also by regular Bolshevist troops_. The reportattributes to the latter the destruction of at least thirteen Jewishcommunities in southern Russia and the murder of five hundred Jews. And this is only one report of many. Before me as I write is theaccount given by an eyewitness of the pogrom which opened atNovo-Poltavka on September 1, 1919, and lasted through the whole ofthe week following. _More than one hundred Jews were murdered, numerous women and girls were raped, and the entire colony wasplundered. _ This pogrom was carried on by the guerrilla bands led by"atamans" Makhno and Grigoriev, together with regular Bolshevisttroops. [2] Do you ask me to believe that these pogroms weredeliberately brought about as part of a "Jewish" conspiracy? Under the rule of the Bolsheviki the local organs of Jewish autonomyin the Ukraine were entirely destroyed. [3] The chairman of the JewishCommunity in Kiev, Mr. D. Levenstein, has testified to the brutaltreatment of the Jews in that city during the Bolshevist occupation. Vladimir Kossovsky, one of the foremost leaders of the "Bund, " wellknown in Socialist international circles, in an article published inthe Jewish Socialist monthly, _Die Zukunft_, of New York, says: Jewish pogroms in Bolshevist Russia have occurred with particular intensity during the first half of 1918. I shall point, as an example, to the pogroms in Gulkhov, in the government of Chernigov, where they assumed a particularly brutal form, and in a number of places in the Poliesiye. _All of these pogroms were the work of Bolshevist troops. _ The Glukhov pogrom, which has attained such sad notoriety, started on February 28, 1918, after a Bolshevist detachment had entered the city. The Red Army men, transformed into savage beasts, murdered the arrested Jews who were being taken under guard to the building of the Soviet, _and the street which housed the Soviet was literally sodden with Jewish blood. All Jewish stores and residences were sacked. _ Peasants from the near-by villages soon joined the plunderers of the Red Guard in their work of looting and pillaging. According to newspaper reports, four hundred and fifty Jews were murdered, among these some Jewish soldiers who had been rewarded with "St. George" medals for bravery. Long lists of victims--such as could be identified--were at that time published in the newspapers. _The pogrom was directed exclusively against the Jews, and the Christian population of the city did not suffer in the least. _ Concerning the pogroms in Poliesiye, Kossovsky quotes from theofficial organ of the Menshevist party, the _Novaia Zaria_, of Moscow, June 10, 1918, the following: The large Jewish population of this region (Poliesiye) finds itself in a particularly tragic situation. The "activity" of the Red Army in Novogorod-Sieversk, Seredina-Buda, and Glukhov, where the Soviet detachments massacred the Jewish populations, has found an echo in other cities, and the sword of Damocles hangs at present over the unfortunate Jewish people. In the city of Potchep the Jews saved themselves from a pogrom by collecting in time fifteen thousand rubles, which they handed over to the pogrom-mad Red Army detachment upon its entrance into the city, in addition to giving it a splendid reception and a sumptuous feast. As reward for this reception the bashi-bazouks of the Soviet decided to spare the city. Pogroms and other manifestations of anti-Semitism have been so commonin Bolshevist Russia as to make the "Jewish question" one of extremedifficulty and importance. In numerous Soviets, notably Yaroslavl, Vitebsk, and Smolensk, Jewish members were openly insulted by theBolsheviki; such epithets as "_szhid!_" ("sheeny!") were hurled at theJewish members. Once more I quote from the article by Kossovsky: In the provinces the pogrom mania invaded even the Soviets, not mentioning the Red Army which became more and more infected with it. According to the Kiev _Naiye Zait_, in the Vitebsk Soviet shouts were heard, "Chase the Jews out of the Soviets and its institutions!" In the Yaroslavl Soviet, according to information printed in the Moscow Social-Democratic newspaper, _Vperiod_, there were often heard insulting and shameful cries directed against the Jews. In Smolensk, according to _Svobodnaya Rossia_, members of the Red Army would come to the Soviet and demand that Jews be barred from holding posts as war commissaries and commanders. A lively anti-Semitic propaganda was carried on in Moscow and Petrograd, too, though it never reached the stage of a pogrom. In Petrograd anti-Jewish posters, signed by a "Kamorra of the People's Revenge, " were spread broadcast. As a result of the apprehensiveness aroused, detachments for self-defense were organized by the Jews of Moscow. In Petrograd the Bolshevist authorities did not permit the organization of self-defense bodies, fearing lest the weapons of the self-defense detachments be turned against the Soviet. Upon the initiative of the Petrograd Jewish Community the day of May 23, 1918, was designated as a Jewish National Day of Mourning throughout Russia as a protest against the latter-day Jewish pogroms in Russia. On that day the Jews were to close all their business establishments, not to issue newspapers, etc. , etc. The May 23d issue of the Petrograd Jewish daily, _Unser Tagblat_, appeared in a black border and was full of articles relating to anti-Jewish attacks and pogroms, entitled: "Protest by Mourning, " "Let Jewish Blood Boil, " "The Day of Sorrow, " "The Bloody Roll (Statistics Concerning Jewish Pogroms). " To convey to the reader the substance of these articles I will quote the closing words of the article, "The Bloody Roll": "The old tsarist, bloody Russia, fell, and a new Russia, a radical-Socialist, a communist, Russia came in its place. And still, as before, we stand facing a roster of Jewish pogroms, a roster which is, as yet, far from ended, as each day adds new names, new victims, and new massacres. " Mr. Louis Marshall, who is universally recognized as one of theforemost leaders of the American Jewry and who headed theAmerican-Jewish delegation to the Peace Conference, in an interviewpublished in the New York Jewish daily newspaper, _The Day_, July 27, 1919, categorically denied the assertion that there have been noJewish pogroms under the rule of the Bolsheviki. He declared that suchpogroms took place in the districts of the Ukraine controlled by theBolsheviki as well as in those controlled by the robber bands. "Weknow of such pogroms having occurred, " he said, "and very often theBolsheviki care just as little about the Jews as others who makepogroms. It is possible that some of their pogroms are at timesdifferent, but in substance there were Jewish pogroms in Bolshevistterritory as well. " Mr. Marshall added the following observation:"_All Jewish representatives that I have met in Paris who came fromRussia are strong opponents of Bolshevism. Even to this day the JewishSocialist parties are no less sharp in their condemnation of theBolsheviki than are the bourgeois parties. _" So far as I have been able to discover, there is not a large JewishCommunity in Russia which has not repudiated Bolshevism. Not in asingle instance has the support of the leaders of such a Communitybeen given to the Lenin-Trotzky regime. For example, I have before methe report of the annual general meeting of the Jewish Community ofArchangel, which took place on May 11, 1919. Therein is contained aMemorandum by the Council of the Community on the relation of the Jewsto Bolshevism. The Memorandum points out that, while it is true thatthere are Jews among the leaders of the Bolsheviki, it is also truethat there are many Jews among the leaders of the anti-Bolshevistforces. It names such men as MM. Vinaver, Gotz, Minor, Bliumkin (whoassassinated Count Mirbach), Kannengisser (who shot Uritzki), and DoraKaplan (who attempted to assassinate Lenin and forfeited her ownlife). The Memorandum asks the non-Jewish world to remember that all of theJews connected with the Bolshevist movement in any prominent capacityare apostates, that not one of them ever took the slightest part inthe affairs of Russian Jewry, and that the Jewish people only learnedof their existence at about the same time and in the same way as theRussian people in general became aware of the existence of suchnon-Jewish Bolshevist leaders as Lenin, Lunarcharsky, Tchitcherin, Krylenko, Dybenko, and many others. Attention is called to the factthat prominent Jewish national workers in Russia have been subjectedto the same persecution and maltreatment by the Bolsheviki as thepublic-spirited men and women of other nationalities. The Memorandumcites the imprisonment of Doctor Maze, Rabbi of the Moscow Community, and the confiscation of the buildings belonging to the PetrogradJewish Community, where the cultural and religious institutions of theJews of that city were centered. I commend to the attention of allfair-minded men and women the following paragraph from this document: Aside from this group of Jewish Bolshevist leaders there is the Jewish people, the many millions of the Jewish population of Russia. The unassuming representatives of that Jewish Community of Archangel take the liberty to affirm that neither the Jewish people as a whole, nor any of its socially organized groups, are responsible for the savagery, violence, acts of blasphemy, and mockery of human rights which characterize the Bolshevist regime. The Jewish people are fully familiar with acts of brutality, with the Red Terror, familiar from long-past experience and from present experience in Bolshevist Russia, together with all the other nations inhabiting that unhappy territory. But the hands of the Jewish masses, of all the classes of the Jewish people, are not stained with this blood. We have not heard, and we believe that we shall never hear, of any act of terror committed by any masses of Jews led either by Jews or by non-Jews. Let the Jewish Bolsheviki stand accused and condemned of their guilt like their compatriots of other nationalities, but there must be no room for generalization and wholesale accusation when the people as a whole are guiltless and where millions, permeated by a powerful cohesive force of an ancient culture organically foreign to the spirit of violence and vandalism, stand apart from a few individual persons. Quite similar to the foregoing is a Memorandum addressed by theCouncil of the Vladivostok Jewish Community to the Russian people. Theconcluding paragraphs of this address seem to me to be a complete andcrushing refutation of the monstrous calumny that is being soassiduously spread among our people: In the present historic movement the Council of the Jewish Community of Vladivostok deems it its sacred civil duty to come forward with the following protest. The Council declares that: (1) The many millions of the Russian Jewry reject every responsibility for the crimes committed against Russia by a small group of Jewish renegades who have nothing in common with the Jews and have long since broken off all connections with them, such as Bronstein-Trotzky, Nakhamkes-Steklov, Apfelbaum-Zinoviev, Joffe, Kamenev, and others connected with Bolshevism, just as the Russian, Lettish, Polish, Georgian, Armenian, and other nationalities cannot be held to answer for the deeds and misdeeds of Bolshevist leaders who were born in their midst. (2) The Russian Jewry, as a whole, is warmly and sincerely devoted to the interests of Russia, its motherland, and has struggled and is still struggling for the regeneration of the Russian state, and is heartily interested, together with all the other peoples inhabiting Russia, in the speediest overthrowing of Bolshevism and the reconstruction of orderly life in Russia. The Russian Jews have lost over one hundred thousand of their brothers and sons in killed and wounded in the war with Germany. Thousands of Jews are found at present in the ranks of the armies of Admiral Kolchak and of General Denikin. (3) Bolshevism has ruined hundreds of thousands of Jewish merchants, business men, artisans, and men in various enterprises, and has completely destroyed the entire population of the Northwestern Territories. _Thousands of Jewish families have been deported from Soviet Russia_ and are now dragging out a miserable existence as refugees in Siberia, in the Ural region, and in the border cities. _The Soviet government has shot and is still shooting Jewish public men, lawyers, engineers, physicians, and workmen who have participated in the struggle against the Soviet rule. _ In the near future there will be published documents and irrefutable facts revealing the number of Jewish lives and the billions of Jewish wealth that have perished during the past two years in the struggle with Bolshevism. The Vladivostok Jewish Community protests to the Russian public opinion and to the honest and independent Russian press against the falsehoods, insinuations, and calumnies directed against the Jewish people in such profusion by the enemies of humanity and the state. In view of such facts as these, is it reasonable to suppose thatBolshevism is a pro-Jewish conspiracy? Is it less than ridiculous tosuggest that the system which has reduced hundreds of thousands ofJews to abject poverty, broken up thousands of Jewish homes andfamilies, confiscated billions of Jewish wealth, imprisoned thousandsof prominent Jews, and murdered numerous others, is part of a Jewishconspiracy? Surely, every intelligent person must see that any suchconspiracy must necessarily require, as the first condition of itssuccess, a degree of racial solidarity never yet attained by anypeople at any time in the history of the world. That solidarity couldonly be obtained by assuring to the Jews their complete exemptionfrom the suffering and oppression imposed upon the non-Jewishpopulation. Had there been any thought of securing the solidarity ofthe Jewish people of Russia against the non-Jewish population, itwould have been effectively thwarted by the imposition of such burdensof poverty and suffering upon the Jews, and their resultingresentment. Not the smallest particle of evidence has ever yet beenadduced to show that the Jews in Russia have been exempted from any ofthe oppressive features of Bolshevism. As Mr. Wells reminds us, theBolsheviki have suppressed the Hebrew language, the historic languageof Judaism, to preserve which Jews in all lands and during manycenturies have made such vast sacrifices. Do we need any furtherevidence? FOOTNOTES: [2] The full account of this eyewitness appeared in the _OdesskiyaNovosti_, September 27, 1919. [3] Statement by Dr. M. Zitron, _Dos Yiddishe Volk_, of Warsaw, July11, 1919. VII THE VICIOUS ROLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM Precisely such propaganda as that which the _Dearborn Independent_ hasbeen carrying on is responsible for many of the blackest and mostshameful pages in history. Wherever and whenever there has been anorganized propaganda of anti-Semitism it has invariably been closelyintertwined with every other contemporary reactionary oppressive andcontemptible force. To those who know the history of anti-Semitism inRussia, in Poland, and in Rumania, even in quite recent years, thisstatement will seem so trite as not to require any demonstration. Thisclose association with other forms of reaction and brutal oppressionis not peculiar to anti-Semitism, but is a common characteristic ofevery form of race prejudice and hatred. Among the Turks organizedprejudice and hatred of Armenians has invariably been found to beclosely associated with all the other evil forces in the TurkishEmpire. In our own country, discrimination against and injustice tothe negro goes hand in hand with almost every other form of reactionand oppression. It is quite useless to pretend that such articles as those publishedin the _Dearborn Independent_ and the London _Morning Post_ are notreally anti-Semitic propaganda, but merely a legitimate discussion ofa great and serious problem. Such specious pleading will not deceiveany intelligent, honest person. The only possible object of thearticles is to convince the people who read them that civilizedsociety is threatened by a great world-wide secret conspiracy of theJews; that this virile and highly intelligent people, scatteredthroughout the civilized world, and numbering, it is estimated, aboutsixteen millions, is secretly organized and led by an "invisiblegovernment" composed of some of the ablest and keenest minds in theworld, to the end of bringing all the governments of the earth, together with all industry and commerce, under the absolute rule anddominion of a dynasty to be set up by an aristocratic JewishSanhedrin. Even if we ignore, for the purpose of this discussion, the fact thatto sustain this charge a structure of cruel falsehood has been erectedwith great cunning, it is surely plain enough that the effect of sucha charge upon the minds of such non-Jews as believe it can only be thedevelopment of a spirit of antagonism toward Jews, as Jews. In so faras the _Dearborn Independent_ succeeds in its efforts, it mustinevitably make our Gentile population regard their Jewish neighborswith fear and suspicion. And from such fear and suspicion emanateintolerance and hatred and their brutal progeny. There is no essentialdifference between the articles which have been appearing in Mr. Ford's paper, either in spirit or in text, and those which, in a pastso recent that its horror haunts the memory of men and women of ourgeneration, let loose upon tens of thousands of helpless andinoffensive people the most bestial and fiendish cruelty and hatredever attained by beings called human. I can quite well remember the intense horror with which the Christianworld read of the wave of pogroms against the Jews which swept overRussia in 1891, following the inhuman enforcement of the "May Laws. "Jewish women in travail, forced to flee for their lives, hid incemeteries, and in those "cities of the dead" brought forth theirbabes. Jewish fathers took their daughters to brothels for safehiding. Jewish women and girls were raped. Jewish homes were looted, and whole villages inhabited by Jews were burned down. Even women andchildren were brutally murdered, simply because they were Jews andbecause a newspaper propaganda in all respects like that now beingcarried on in this country and in England had made the Jewish peoplethe object of suspicion and fear and, therefore, of hatred. It wasthen that a Russian statesman declared that the "Jewish question"would be solved only when one third of the Jews had perished, anotherthird emigrated, and the remaining third been converted to theorthodox Church! The frightful massacre of Jews at Kishinev in 1903 likewise resultedfrom a newspaper propaganda very similar to that which is now beingcarried on by the _Dearborn Independent_ and the London _MorningPost. _ On that occasion an unexampled and unprecedented outburst ofhorror thrilled the whole civilized world. John Hay, our thenSecretary of State, said: "No person of ordinary humanity can haveheard without deep emotion the story of the cruel outrages inflictedupon the Jews of Kishinev. These lamentable events have caused theprofoundest impression throughout the world. " President Rooseveltsaid, "I have never in my experience in this country known of a moreimmediate or a deeper expression of the sympathy for the victims andof horror over the appalling calamity that has occurred. " The Kishinev outrages were the direct and logical outcome of thecampaign of calumny and hatred against the Jews waged by the localnewspaper, the _Bessarabetz_, owned and edited by a Moldavian namedKroushevan. Except for the specific charge of "ritual murder, " withwhich I shall presently deal, the campaign of Jew-baiting pursued bythis journal, which produced such disastrous and monstrous results, was the counterpart of that now being carried on by the _DearbornIndependent_. Kroushevan charged that the Jews were conspiring tosecure world dominion; he charged that the economic power of theJewish race in Russia was a peril to the nation; he charged that Jewswere responsible for Socialism and social unrest. The anti-Semiticarticles appearing in this country and in England during the past fewweeks are quite like those which used to appear in the _Bessarabetz_. Of course, the crowning infamy of the campaign of hate waged by theKishinev paper was the charge of "ritual murder. " A Christian boy, named Ribalenko, belonging to the village of Doubossar, midway betweenKishinev and Odessa, was murdered, his body being found in an orchard. The _Bessarabetz_ at once declared that the boy had been killed by theJews for sacrificial purposes, thus reviving one of the most terribleand most infamous libels ever directed against any race or sect--acalumny that has been exposed and refuted again and again. Subsequently, after the mischief had been done, _it was proved thatthe boy was murdered by his uncle and the care-taker of the orchard inwhich the body was found--both of them Russians and Gentiles. _ Themurderers confessed their guilt, the motive for the crime being gain. The horrors of 1891 were repeated and even excelled at Kishinev in1903 as a result of this propaganda. It is not necessary to go intothe gruesome details of the numerous nameless sex mutilations, theawful outrages committed upon young girls and their gray-hairedgrandmothers, the shockingly brutal and bestial murders, thewell-authenticated cases of nails driven through the eyes of a womanand the cutting out of the tongue of a two-year-old child; let thesebrief references suffice. It is all too evident from the most reliableaccounts of the massacre that hatred born of resentment and fear hadmade the Gentile mobs as savage as wild beasts. They were no longerhuman. Thus far neither the _Dearborn Independent_ nor the London _MorningPost_ has reproduced the "ritual murder" lie. Perhaps neither will doit. Probably not. At the same time _both papers have done their utmostto create in the minds of their readers a readiness to believe that orany other infamy when attributed to the Jews_. There is not, and therecannot be, any assurance that in the soil thus prepared by thesepapers, others more ignorant or less scrupulous will not successfullyplant belief in the ancient legend of sacrificial murders committedby Jews. And even if this never happens at all, the fact remains thatin charging that the horrors of Bolshevism were deliberatelyinstigated by Jews, British and American anti-Semites have appealed tothe same unreasoning, instinctive, primal passion. For Bolshevism, primarily a political and economic program though it be, impinges uponreligious faith and religious authority. Thus do the anti-Semites playwith fire in close proximity to the high explosives of human nature. It was not the ancient, insensate hatred inspired by belief that theJews kill Christian children in their Paschal rites which made theKishinev pogrom possible. That added the element of savage fanaticismto the antagonism and resentment already developed by the economicposition of the Jews. The extortions practiced by Jewish money-lendersthe superior business capacity, perseverance, and resourcefulness ofthe Jewish traders and shopkeepers as compared with their Gentilerivals; the intense competition of Jewish artisans, superior to theaverage Russian workman in intelligence, industry, thrift, sobriety, and ambition--all these things resulted in bitter antagonism. Uponthat economic fear and resentment religious fanaticism fastened andflourished. Herein lies the danger of the anti-Semitic propaganda in this countryand in England. It is invoking economic fear and resentment. Thenon-Jew is adjured to contemplate the spectacle of the Jews oustingthe Gentiles from one industry after another, gradually assumingleadership and control of our industry and commerce, thanks in part tosuperior intelligence, skill, and diligence, but in part also to alack of moral scrupulousness. So the Jew is presented as a dangerouseconomic rival to be feared and guarded against. The Gentile is thustaught to look upon Jewish prosperity as a sort of parasitism, and asa menace to the well-being of all non-Jews, even where the withdrawalof Jewish enterprise and activity would mean ruin for Jew and Gentilealike--a condition long recognized in the principal Russian cities. Now, I do not deny that some of the worst aspects of capitalism havebeen developed to a special and notable extent by some Jews. Neitherdo I forget that others have developed the very noblest socialidealism. The point I am now making is that hatred of the Jew, evenwhen it is motivated by economic fear and resentment, will inevitablynurture every other form of anti-Jewish prejudice. If the campaign ofthe anti-Semites succeeds in cultivating that fear and hatred in theminds and hearts of our people, there can be no assurance against theoccurrence of pogroms here. VIII WHAT ANTI-SEMITISM IN AMERICA MEANS In an article published in the _Dearborn Independent_, June 19, 1920, it is argued that, transplanted in American soil, anti-Semitism willchange its character and that it will not, in this country, take theform of mass violence. Not a single fact or historical example iscited in support of this optimistic theory. There are fine phrasesabout "the genius of Americanism" and the "innate justice of theAmerican mind, " but that is all. And these fine phrases can be easilyand adequately disposed of by the simple observation thatanti-Semitism, like all other forms of race hatred, is incompatiblewith "the genius of Americanism" and with "innate justice. " These seem to me to be self-evident truths. Nevertheless, we have hadmany bitter manifestations of race hatred in this country, not a fewof which have been attended by mass violence. When I reflect upon thesavage race riots which have occurred in this country, and thenumerous lynchings of negroes by infuriated mobs, I cannot bringmyself to accept the easy optimism of the anonymous Jew-baiter. Evenas I am writing these lines the morning newspaper comes to hand withthe account of the lynching of three negroes, one of them a woman, inGeorgia. The story is quite familiar in its shocking details. Thethree negroes, who were charged with murder, were in the custody ofthe sheriff of the county, when they were seized by a mob and brutallymurdered. That this was due to the fact that they were negroes, amanifestation of race hatred, is beyond question. My faith that we shall be spared the shame and ignominy of pogromsrests upon other and, I believe, more solid foundations. I haveconfidence that the anti-Semitic propaganda will be met by the stoutresistance of the great mass of our citizens of Gentile birth andheritage who will fight and crush anti-Semitism in defense ofChristian civilization and of American ideals, traditions, andinstitutions. That seems to me to be a rational faith; it affords firmanchorage. On the other hand, it is a stupendous and dangerous follyto believe that you can cultivate, as part of our national psychology, anti-Jewish fear and prejudice without reaping in due course a harvestof hatred and violence toward the Jewish people. Racial hatred iseverywhere the same. There is no reason for believing that here in the United States wepossess a special immunity from the worst forms of anti-Semitism. Itwould probably be safer to say that our conditions afford exceptionalopportunities for their development. We have drawn heavily upon theOld World for our population, which reflects the divisions and theantipathies, the hereditary jealousies and suspicions, which forhundreds and, in some instances, thousands of years have troubledmankind. We have not yet welded these diverse elements into anythingapproaching homogeneity; our national consciousness is stillundeveloped and, as a consequence of that fact, we have as yet notdeveloped fully those self-imposed disciplines and restraints whichare attendant upon highly developed national solidarity. Our nationallife, with its alien masses only partially assimilated, is assusceptible to inflaming passion as the wind-blown dry autumn leavesare susceptible to the flame of the torch. Michael Davitt called attention to the fact that in the Kishinevpogrom it was not the rich Jews who were the victims, but Jewishworkingmen and their families. That, I believe, is the universalexperience. The rich Jews can buy immunity or protection. If as aresult of vicious propaganda serious anti-Jewish riots take place inthis country the victims will not be the rich Jewish financiers andbrokers, against whom the _Dearborn Independent_ fulminates, butinnocent and inoffensive, hard-working men and women and theirchildren. And if ever that time comes such men as Henry Ford must bearthe major responsibility and guilt. Let us suppose, for the argument's sake, that anti-Semitism in thiscountry develops, as predicted in Mr. Ford's paper, along less brutallines; that there will be no such orgies of murder and lust andspoliation as some other nations have had to their shame and dishonor. In that case, how will the organized hostility to the Jews bemanifested? Specifically, what is the program of the group ofanti-Semites in this country with which the _Dearborn Independent_ isidentified? Are they prepared to announce that program, and to have itmeasured by the standard of the American ideal? Or is it possible thatthe only "secret conspiracy" is on their side; that the real object ofthis anti-Semitic agitation is to prepare the way for a political andeconomic program which its authors dare not publicly avow? When I was in England recently, [4] I gained a fairly clear andreliable idea of the political and economic program of those bitterJew-haters who are responsible for the organized campaign ofanti-Semitism in that country. In view of the fact that ouranti-Semites, including the _Dearborn Independent_, have so slavishlycopied the propaganda of the British anti-Semites, it is justifiableto assume that they are in general agreement with that program, andthat they would adopt it in this country, subject to whatevermodifications may be made necessary by the differences between theinstitutions of the two countries. At all events, unless and until theactual program of the anti-Semites of this country is set forth withcandor and precision, they have no cause for complaint if it isassumed that their aims are practically identical with those of theBritish anti-Jewish propagandists whose arguments they repeat indetail, including every grotesque stupidity and every clumsydistortion of the truth. The program of the British anti-Semites, adapted to Americanconditions, would involved, as a minimum, the following measures: 1. Disfranchisement of all Jews whose parents and grandparents werenot all native-born American citizens. 2. Denial of the right to hold legislative or administrative office, either elective or appointive, to all Jews other than those whoseparents and grandparents were all born in the United States. 3. Denial of the right of naturalization to Jews on the ground thatthey are not assimilable. 4. Prohibition or very strict limitation of further Jewishimmigration. 5. Exclusion from the legal, medical, and teaching professions of allJews except those entitled to full citizenship. (See 1 and 2. ) 6. Exclusion of all Jews, except those entitled to full citizenship, from certain economic rights and privileges, including the right toacquire and own land, the right to engage in the sale of stocks, bonds, securities, or real estate, or in banking, money-lending, orinsurance. 7. The right of admission to colleges and universities to be solimited as to admit only a small percentage of Jewish students. That this outline of a program will seem to many to be simply afantastic jest I am quite well aware. The fact remains, however, thatit is simply a bald presentation of the program believed in by a greatmany anti-Semites. I have only taken the measures that are seriouslyurged for adoption in England and changed their wording to correspondto American conditions. There is not one item in the program which Idid not hear advocated with evident seriousness when I was in England. I learned of one society organized upon a national scale, all of whosemembers must "prove that their parents and grandparents were ofBritish blood. " This society is very actively engaged in the spread ofanti-Semitic propaganda. Its prospectus states that it was "Founded tosecure the re-enactment of the Act of Settlement, 1700, 1701, whichsecured the government of Britain to Britons and the land of Britainto the ownership of Britons. " The point of the demand for the re-enactment of the Act of Settlementlies in the fact that one of the clauses in that historic instrumentprovides that, "no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (_althoughhe be naturalized_ or made a denizen), except such as were born ofEnglish parents, _shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or amember of either House of Parliament, or enjoy any office or place oftrust, either civil or military_. " It is also stipulated that no suchperson shall be capable "to have any grant of lands, tenements, orhereditaments from the Crown to himself, or to any other or others intrust for him. " In the light of the constitution of this Britishsociety with its large dues-paying membership, and its demand for there-enactment of the above-quoted provisions of the Act of Settlement, the most drastic parts of the suggested program do not seem sofantastic, after all. Here, then, is a program of anti-Semitism which fairly expresses thepolitical and economic aspirations of large groups with whom ourAmerican anti-Semites, led by the _Dearborn Independent_, appear to beworking in close co-operation and harmony. Whether the program fullymeets with their approval or not, it can hardly be questioned that, iftheir anti-Jewish agitation is to have the result of bringing aboutpolitical and economic remedies for the conditions they assail, andnot pogroms, it will be necessary to discriminate between Jews andGentiles in citizenship, in education, in property rights, and ineconomic opportunity. Precisely how these discriminations are to bemade may be open to doubt, but that they must be made is--once theanti-Semitic position is taken--beyond all doubt. Against that reactionary aim I set the American ideal, or whatPresident Roosevelt called "the historic American position of treatingeach man on his merits as a man, without the least reference to hiscreed, his race, or his birthplace. " Anti-Semitism would divide ourcitizenship by racial and religious barriers; the Americanism ofWashington and Lincoln and Lee and Roosevelt would weld all into aunited whole, regardless of race or religion. The way of theanti-Semite is the way of Russia under the tsars, the way of theunspeakable despots who for centuries made the word "Turk" a synonymfor oppression and brutal reaction. I prefer the American way. I amopposed to anti-Semitism, not alone for humanitarian reasons, but as amatter of loyalty to America. Anti-Semitism is treason to the Americanideal. FOOTNOTES: [4] September and October, 1920. IX WE NEED THE CO-OPERATION OF CHRISTIAN AND JEW The greatest nations of the world are just emerging from the strainand agony of the most terrible and disastrous war in the history ofmankind. From a tiny spark of hatred a great conflagration of passionspread over the world, well-nigh destroying the entire fabric ofcivilization. How near we have come to that catastrophe, as a resultof the war and its evil progeny, they best know who have recentlyvisited the countries principally involved and most vitally affected. Even now civilization is not out of danger, but is weak and unsteadylike a man beginning to recover from a terrible fever. Infinite careand patience and wisdom must be exercised by statesmen and peoplesand by the molders of public opinion in every nation in order to makerecovery possible. Never was there a moment when racial or religious antagonism was asdangerous and so much to be feared as in this crisis. Never were thecitizens of all lands so solemnly warned to avoid the poison ofhatred. The passionate hatreds engendered by the war must be crusheddown and they who were foes, seeking to destroy one another, must nowwork together for the preservation of the civilization that is theircommon heritage. With the carnage and wrack and ruin of the war stilloppressing us, and our hearts still lacerated and bruised, a commonperil is compelling us to unite and to seek safety in fellowship andco-operation. Yesterday we relied upon the destructive arts of thewarrior; to-day we must rely upon the conserving arts of the healer. Yesterday we hailed Mars; to-day we hail the Christ in whose touch islife and healing. What perverse and malevolent genius it must be that chooses thismoment to open the flood gates and set free the pent passions ofanti-Semitism! How monstrous a thing it is that from a great historicpulpit of the Christian Church which Beecher glorified by hiscourageous idealism, the brutal and un-Christian appeals ofanti-Semitism should be made now when the world needs, above allthings, to be purged of the poison of hatred and strengthened byfellowship! How great a tragedy it is that men like Mr. Ford and hisassociates can find nothing to inspire them in the vast work ofrestoration and reconstruction; that their energies and resources aredirected to the ignoble and dangerous end of inciting in the minds ofmillions of our people fear and hatred of the Jew, as Jew! I am not insensible of, or indifferent to, the problems incidental tothe presence in this country of more than three million Jews. Neitheram I insensible of, or indifferent to, the problems incidental to ourvast negro population, or to the presence of Europeans and their slowand imperfect assimilation. Recognizing these problems clearly andfully, I am quite certain that racial hatred and antagonism is nosolvent for any one of them. The complete success of the appeals thatare being made against the Jews would not benefit the Gentiles in thiscountry in any particular. There never has been an organizedpropaganda of race antagonism and hatred, anywhere in the world, whichbenefited either race. In Russia and in Rumania--to cite only twoexamples--anti-Semitism has injured the Christians fully as much as ithas injured the Jews. Turkish hatred and persecution of Armenians hasinvariably injured the Turks quite as much as it has injured theirvictims. In opposing the propaganda of anti-Semitism I am defendingequally the interest of Jew and non-Jew. I hold no brief for theJewish "race, " so-called, or for Judaism. The only brief I hold is forthe democratic and humanitarian ideals of America. That brief I holdby reason of my citizenship, voluntarily assumed, and the freeman'soath with which that citizenship was consecrated. The solution of the problems arising out of the massing of so manyJewish people in our large cities requires the unity and co-operationof all men and women of good will, both Jews and Gentiles, inprecisely the same way, and for precisely the same reasons, as thesolution of all our other problems does. There is nothing in ourhistory which justifies the fear that our citizens of Jewish birthwill be less ready than their Christian neighbors to give theirwhole-hearted service to that end. There never has been a call forservice to this nation which found the Jewish citizens less patriotic, less willing to serve the nation, and even to sacrifice for it, thanother sections of our citizenry. From Valley Forge to Château-Thierrythat record is written. I remember well that memorable day in July, 1918, when I heard from the lips of M. Clemenceau the news, justreceived by him, that our American soldiers were victorious atChâteau-Thierry. Later, on the way to Château-Thierry, I passed thelong lines of ambulances bearing away the wounded men, many of whomwere beyond all hope of recovery. Then, still later, in the great, wonderful hospital at Neuilly, I talked with many of those who fellwounded in that terrible fight. There were Jews as well as Gentilesamong those men, but there was no difference in the quality of theirAmericanism, in their patriotism, their fortitude, or their courage. President Roosevelt, who was too decent as a man and too loyal as anAmerican citizen to have any tolerance for anti-Semitism, more thanonce called attention to the fact that citizens of Jewish ancestry andfaith have, in every crisis in the history of the nation which hasshown justice to them, repaid the nation with loyal service. In anaddress to the B'nai B'raith, June 15, 1905, delivered at the WhiteHouse, President Roosevelt said: "One of the most touching poems of our own great poet, Longfellow, is that on the Jewish cemetery in Newport, and anyone who goes through any of the old cemeteries of the cities which preserve the records of Colonial times will see the name of many an American of the Jewish race who, in war or in peace, did his full share in the founding of this nation. From that day to this, from the day when the Jews of Charleston, of Philadelphia, of New York, supported the patriot cause and helped in every way, not only by money, but by arms, Washington and his colleagues, who were founding this Republic--from that day to the present we have had no struggle, military or civil, in which there have not been citizens of Jewish faith who played an eminent part for the honor and credit of the nation. " There is no movement for the advancement of humanitarian ideals inthis country to which American citizens of Jewish ancestry and faithhave not contributed their full share. It is impossible for anyfair-minded man who knows the facts to read without indignation thearticle published in the _Dearborn Independent_, June 5, 1920. Inaddition to charging that "Jewish business methods" are responsiblefor the high prices which have obtained for so long, the articleaccuses Jewish employers of being responsible for conditions ofemployment not known to the Gentile world. Lest I be accused ofmisrepresenting the writer of this libel, I will quote his exactwords: When the susceptible people of the nation commiserated the poor Jews of the New York sweatshops they, for the most part, did not know that the inventors and operators of the "sweatshop" method were themselves Jews. Indeed, while it is the boast of our country that no race or color or creed is persecuted here, but liberty is insured to all, still it is a fact that the only heartless treatment ever accorded the Jew in the United States came from his own people, his overseers and masters.... ... The record of the great Jews in charity is very noble; _their record in industrial reforms is nil_. With commendable sympathy toward their own people they will donate a part of their profits to rectify some of the human need resulting from the method by which they made their profits, but as for reforming the method by which they get their profits in order that the resulting need might be diminished or prevented, apparently it has never occurred to them. _At least, while there are many charitable names among the wealthier Jews, there are no names that stand for an actual, practical humanising of industry, its methods and its returns. _ I respectfully suggest that these statements are intended to convey tothe mind of the reader two impressions, neither of which correspondsto reality. The first impression is that Jewish employers have beenand are more brutal and merciless than Gentile employers. Now, it is afact that the "sweatshop, " using that term in its strictest, technicalsense, developed, in this country, after 1885--that is to say, following the great influx of Polish and Russian Jews and the equallygreat increase in the manufacture of ready-made clothing. But, whilethis is technically true of sweating, we had in this country longbefore the Jews came children's and women's labor under terribleconditions. In 1884 young girls and women worked in the factories ofNew Hampshire from five in the morning until seven at night, with onlyforty-five minutes' intermission, and their wages ranged from a dollarand a quarter to two dollars per week. Until quite recently, in ourSouthern cotton mills, owned and operated by Gentiles, we maintainedconditions as bad as ever existed in the sweatshops of our largecities. It does not require any great amount of research to prove thatGentile employers have in the past been just as indifferent to thewell-being of their employees, just as reactionary, and just asopposed to reform, as Jewish employers. I would remind the reader, inthis connection, that we have never had in this country, not even inthe sweatshops owned and controlled by Jews, anything approaching theterrible conditions which obtained in English factories in the earlydays of the factory system, when, in factories owned by Christians, little children, mere babies in fact, were made to work underconditions of revolting cruelty, whipped by brutal overseers, and notinfrequently driven literally to death from exhaustion. Thus didChristian employers treat Christian children. But, while it is true that in our great cities sweatshops principallydeveloped under Jewish auspices, it is equally true that in the fightto abolish sweating Jews have taken an active and honorable part. ThisI know of a certainty, and the insinuations to the contrary containedin the article under discussion are as cruelly unfair and unjust asthey are untrue. So, too, in the fight against child labor in thecities and factories of the North. It was my privilege to take part inthat fight, and I know that in the very forefront of the long strugglefor remedial legislation, helping with money and with personalservice, side by side with Christians, were many men and women ofJewish ancestry and faith. I know, too, that fighting on the otherside were both Christians and Jews. It is preposterous that anyattempt should be made to so misrepresent the struggle for "thepractical humanizing of industry" as to make it appear that the Jewishpeople in particular were either hostile or indifferent to it. The second impression which the article is intended to convey is thatin those industries which are controlled by Jews no such attempts havebeen made to better the lot of the workers employed in them as havebeen made in those industries which are controlled by non-Jews. Thischarge, likewise, is wholly baseless, as anybody who desires to knowthe truth can readily ascertain. It was my good fortune and privilege, as one of the representatives of the public appointed by PresidentWilson, to serve as a member of the First Industrial Conferenceconvoked by the President in October, 1919. Among the members of thatConference chosen to represent the public were both Christians andJews, and I venture to say that there was not one of the former whofor a single moment doubted the sincerity, the patriotism, or thehumanitarianism of the Jewish members. Moreover, in the course of ourwork there was brought to our attention an astonishing amount ofinformation concerning efforts being made by progressive andhigh-minded employers in all parts of the country to introduce intotheir industries reforms looking to the betterment of the lot of theiremployees, including profit-sharing and participation in shopmanagement and control by the workers. It is neither more nor lessthan the literal truth that these reports were quite as favorable tothe Jewish employers as to their Christian competitors. As a matter offact, in the ready-made-clothing industry, which is very largely inthe hands of Jews, many of the most interesting experiments inindustrial democracy and many of the sincerest efforts to humanizeindustry are being made. These things are known to every student ofthe problem--and they suffice to brand the statements made against theJews in the article under discussion as both untrue and studiouslyunjust. Not only is it true that in the ever-increasing effort to bring about"the practical humanizing of industry" no distinction can honestly andjustly be drawn between Gentile and Jewish employers, just as no suchdistinction can honestly and justly be drawn with respect to theselfishness and ignorance which result in conditions that are inhumanand oppressive; it is equally true, as a study of the records ofCongress and the legislative bodies of the individual states will showbeyond question, that no such distinction between Jew and Gentile canbe honestly and justly drawn with respect to the mass of sociallegislation enacted in recent years. Socially minded men and womenhave supported such legislation, regardless of differences of race andcreed, while men and women who lacked social consciousness, who wereselfish and indifferent to the claims of their fellow human beings, have opposed such legislation, making common cause regardless ofdifferences of race and creed. All this is exactly as it should be, of course, and precisely whatmight be expected to result from our ideals, our institutions, and ourlaws. It would be tragic and disastrous, indeed, if our experiencewere otherwise. The charges made against our Jewish citizens by the_Dearborn Independent_ amount in reality to a terrible verdict offailure against America and the democratic ideal which Americarepresents. The only hope we can have of solving the great problemswhich confront this nation rests, and can only rest, upon theassurance that an enlightened citizenry, united by love of country andof mankind, and undivided by race or creed, will strive withever-increasing strength, vision, and courage toward the goal ofequality of opportunity for all. Thus only shall this nation which welove fulfill the high hopes of its greatest spiritual leaders andstatesmen. To destroy the faith of our sons and daughters in Americandemocratic ideals--which is precisely what anti-Semitism is aiming todo--is a monstrous thing. X A FINAL WORD I have finished with the _Dearborn Independent_ and the flimsy fabricof its ridiculous charges. My self-imposed task is finished, and I amcontent to leave the grotesque legend of the protocols, together withthe monstrous and cruel charge based upon them, to the judgment of myfellow citizens of Gentile birth. Into the motives of Mr. Henry Ford Ido not care to enter. I suspect that they are pathological in theirorigin. Be that how it may, my pity for the man is as profound as mycontempt for the propaganda with which he has chosen to associatehimself. To be capable of deliberately inciting and fostering racehatred at any time is to cease to be capable of enjoying thefellowship of decent and just men and women; to incite such hatrednow, in the midst of such unprecedented suffering and the universalneed of fellowship and healing, is a pitiful self-degradation. This organized propaganda of anti-Semitism has had one wholesomeresult which its organizers neither foresaw nor intended. It hascalled forth a notable protest by men and women of Gentile birth andChristian faith which may well stand as the answer of Americancivilization and democracy to this ancient and hateful evil. All honorto President Wilson for departing from official traditions and placinghis name to that protest. Throughout the civilized world thatdeclaration has gone--America's answer to anti-Semitism. I suppose that so long as the imperfections of human nature endure, solong as there are men and women who are weak, selfish, cruel, vengeful, or ignorant, there will be racial and religious hatreds tobe guarded against and opposed. I suppose, too, that until wars haveceased to be possible, in war's aftermath such hatreds will flourish. Against every form of racial and religious hatred, against sectarianbigotry and intolerance, every loyal American citizen should beprepared to take an uncompromising stand. That obligation, I take it, is implicit in our citizenship. It is for the integrity of thatcitizenship that I am concerned to plead. Anti-Semitism commands ourspecial attention to-day because it is being spread by an elaboratelyorganized propaganda. But the duty of the Christian to defend the Jewagainst persecution is neither greater nor less than the duty of theProtestant to defend the right of the Catholic or of all whitecitizens--Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants--to standsolidly against injustice to the negro and in defense of his rightswhen these are assailed. My plea, is not for pro-Semitism inopposition to anti-Semitism, but for loyalty to American ideals inopposition to any and all attempts to divide our citizenship on racialor religious lines. Because of a reasoned faith in those principles and ideals ofdemocracy which brought this nation into being, and toward therealization of which we have steadily progressed through sunshine andstorm, through peace and war, I am opposed to anti-Semitism and everymanifestation of it. Anti-Semitism and the American ideal can never bereconciled. Far sooner shall men reconcile fire and water, or mix oiland water inseparably, than blend the cruel and hateful passions ofanti-Semitism with the generous spirit of America. For America'ssafety and honor, therefore, I plead for unity against this sinisterfoe lurking within the gates, as against all other foes, no matterunder what flag they may be marshaled. POSTSCRIPT After the foregoing was written I received from the head of a greatAmerican corporation a letter calling my attention to an anti-Semiticpamphlet published in New York City, entitled "Who Rules Russia?" andasking me for information concerning certain statements made therein. The pamphlet is printed in two languages, English and Russian, andbears the imprint of an organization called "Association Unity ofRussia. " Letters to the address given in the pamphlet, ordering copiesof it, brought no response of any kind and it was necessary for me toresort to other methods of obtaining a copy. Incidentally, I causedcertain inquiries to be made concerning the Association Unity ofRussia. Now that I have made a careful examination of the pamphlet, Ido not wonder that my request that copies be sent me was ignored. Certainly the publishers did not intend that it should be circulatedamong persons familiar with the subject and competent to expose itsmisrepresentations. So far as I can learn, the Association Unity of Russia is the name ofa group of Russian _emigrés_ residing in New York. They aremonarchists and reactionaries, their hope being the restoration oftsarism. Like most of their kind, they are bitter Jew-baiters. Theirpamphlet is entirely typical of Russian anti-Semitism, particularly inits reckless disregard of truth. I find here reproduced the chargethat "the Soviet bureaucracy is almost entirely controlled by Jews andJewesses. " Not only so, but it is charged that the non-BolshevistSocialist parties are mainly composed of Jews. The pamphlet ends withthe statement, "the Russian state is actually dominated by the Jewishnation. " There is no argument in the pamphlet, which consists ofalleged lists of officials classified according to nationality andrace. That some of these lists are deliberate inventions of the anonymouscompiler or compilers is quite certain, for the most complete files ofBolshevist publications in this country do not contain either thelists or the data from which it might be possible to compile them. Other lists represent the most reckless lying. For example, on page 5I find what purports to be a list of the members of the Council of thePeople's Commissars. The actual list, copied from Bolshevist officialsources, I have reproduced on an earlier page. This fraudulent listcontains twenty-two names, of which number seventeen are alleged to beJews, three Russians, and two Armenians. Looking over the list, I findthat it omits well-known and important commissars such as thefollowing: Raskolnikov (Navy), Petrovsky (Interior), Krestinsky(Finance), Krassin (Industry and Commerce and Transportation), Sereda(Agriculture), Kolontai (Public Welfare), Rykov (Supreme EconomicCouncil), Bruchanov (Supply), Smidt (Labor), Semashko (Public Health), and Bonch-Brouyevich (Secretary). All these are Russians; there is nota Jew among them. The list contains, on the other hand, the names of anumber of Bolsheviki who are not, and who never have been, members ofthe Council of the People's Commissars. Some of them may holdpositions of minor importance in the Soviet regime or in the Communistparty. The inclusion of their names in this list as members of thecentral government is an impudent imposture. The fact that the pamphlet is printed in Russian and English iscalculated to impress and deceive the reader. No one who knows thesituation will believe that the use of Russian had any other purposeor that it was intended for propaganda among Russians. Such adocument, partly printed in Russian and purporting to be issued byRussians, is relied upon to convince Americans that the compiler orcompilers--who prefer to remain anonymous--know what they are talkingabout. Not many will take the pains to scrutinize the various listsclosely. Consequently, even where one page contradicts another, thefact goes undetected. A few examples will show how stupid theseJew-baiters are. On page 9 Latsis, of the Extraordinary Commission, isaccurately described as a Lett, but on page 23 he becomes a Jew. Fritchie is a Lett on page 10 and a Jew on page 22--and neitherdescription is correct. On page 25 Kerensky is described as a Jew, and it is said that hisreal name is Kirbis. This legend has been published before andthoroughly exposed. The fact is that Kerensky is not a Jew and neverwas known by the name of Kirbis or any other name than Kerensky. Henever participated in the "underground" work of the revolutionarymovement and therefore had no need of an alias. Alexander FedorovichKerensky comes from an old Russian family thoroughly orthodox andrespectable. His history has been completely explored. No. Theanonymous Jew-baiters have simply reproduced a silly legend thatappeared in the reactionary anti-Semitic sheet, _Novoye Vremia_, ofPetrograd, shortly before the revolution of March, 1917, and wasimmediately exposed and ridiculed. In an examination of the various lists of names given I find at leasttwenty-five instances of non-Jews, principally Russians, beingdescribed as Jews. I find, also, many Jewish names purporting to bethe names of Bolshevist officials of some importance, though it issafe to say that they were never heard of by any student ofcontemporary Russian affairs. I do not say that no such persons exist, but I do assert that if they exist they do not hold the positionsattributed to them, and that even their names are not to be found inthe Bolshevist journals from which this pamphlet is said to have beencompiled. Perhaps some of the members of the pathetic little group ofRussian monarchist _emigrés_ who meet weekly in the basement of acertain church to pray for the restoration of tsarism will condescendto tell us how the names were chosen. How stupid these pious humbugs are in their forgeries! Here is a listof names alleged to be a complete list of members of the CentralCommittee of the Social Democratic Party Mensheviki. Of course all areJews. I look over the list and see at once that three of those namedare not even members of that party, let alone of its supremeauthority. Ratner, Rappoport, and Gotz do not belong to that party, but are prominent as leaders in the Socialists-Revolutionists party. Perhaps there are other mistakes in this list--but what is the use ofwasting time in checking it further? Here is another list, even moredefective, which is offered as a list of the members of the CentralCommittee of the party of Socialists-Revolutionists of the Right. Itcontains fifteen names, of which fourteen are Jews and only one, thatof Tchaykovsky, is a Russian. But Tchaykovsky is not a member of thisparty at all and, therefore, not of its Central Committee. He belongsto the party of People's Socialists. In the list I find the names ofLvovitch and Berlinrout, who likewise do not belong to this party andare not members of the committee in question. They are well-knownleaders of the Zionists-Socialists. Abramovitch and Khintchouk areincluded in this utterly worthless list, though they do not belong tothe party of Socialists-Revolutionists of the Right, but to the SocialDemocratic party. I do not suppose that many of my readers will care very much about theparty affiliations of these men or about the factional divisions ofRussian Socialism. The fact that this latest addition to the pamphletliterature of anti-Semitism emanates from Russian sources and isprinted partly in Russian gives it an appearance of authority that iswholly unjustified by its content. It has seemed to me worth while, therefore, to call attention to its clumsy misrepresentations, itsself-contradictions, its stupid blunders, and its stupendouseffrontery. This precious example of Russian monarchistic anti-Semiticliterature is just about fit to be placed alongside the _DearbornIndependent_. THE END JOHN SPARGO'S BOOKS "_THE GREATEST FAILURE IN ALL HISTORY_" From the Soviet's own documents and from the speeches of its leaders, Mr. Spargo shows how Sovietism in its original form has failed to cope with unavoidable human inequalities, and under economic pressure has developed into a high-handed autocracy which is worse than Tsardom and which completely subverts the chief aims of Bolshevism. Crown, 8vo, Cloth. 486 pages _RUSSIA AS AN AMERICAN PROBLEM_ "Even those who may not accept Mr. Spargo's conclusions, or respect his fears, will welcome his book because of the vast amount of information and figures he has brought together relating to the timely subject of trade with Russia. "--N. Y. _Globe_. Crown 8vo. 444 pages _BOLSHEVISM_ A record of the facts, leaders, and policies of Bolshevism, being both an interpretation of its theories and principles and a history of rise to power. The book contains also the best brief history of the whole tragic Russian revolutionary movement. Post 8vo, Cloth. 389 pages _THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BOLSHEVISM_ "Mr. Spargo has not used pen or typewriter in this book, but an X-ray. "--N. Y. _Globe_. Post 8vo, Cloth. 152 pages _SOCIAL DEMOCRACY EXPLAINED_ States in simple, popular, and untechnical language the essentials of the Socialism of the Marxian school--not only of the philosophical and economic theories of Socialism, but of the principles underlying the policies of the Socialist movement. Post 8vo. Cloth. 338 pages _AMERICANISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY_ Written early in 1918, shows that the essentials of a sane, constructive Socialist program have been developed in America; that however alien to our national life and thought certain Socialist theoretical formulations may be, the fundamental essentials are thoroughly American. Post 8 vo. Cloth. 326 pages If not at your booksellers, write to HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK CITY