How Jews in the U.S. Conceal Their Strength

------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------

“The distinctive character of the Jew does not arise solely

from his religion. It is true that his race and religion are

indissolubly connected, . . . . but whatever be the cause of

this junction of the race idea with the religion, it is very

certain that the religion alone does not constitute the

people. A believer in the Jewish faith does not by reason of

that fact become a Jew. On the other hand, however, a Jew by

birth remains a Jew, even though he abjures his religion.”

—Leo N. Levi, President of B’nai B’rith 1900-1904.


------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------

How Jews in the U.S. Conceal Their Strength
How many Jews are there in the United States? No Gentile

knows. The figures are the exclusive property of the Jewish

authorities. The government of the United States can provide

statistics on almost every matter pertaining to the

population of the country, but whenever it has attempted in a

systematic way to get information about the Jews who are

constantly entering the country and the number now resident

here, the Jewish lobby at Washington steps in and stops it.

For more than 20 years the fight for the right of the United

States Government to make a complete census of the people has

been going on, and for the same period the Jewish lobby at

the Capitol has been strong enough to win.

The alarming increase in Jewish immigration at the present

time has brought the question to public attention again. For

the first time in the history of the United States a national

conviction is forming upon this subject. From Europe came the

first news which startled this country. The reports told of

vast mobilizations of Jewish people at stated rendezvous in

Europe. Great barracks were built for them. Large bodies of

trained men went from the United States, under orders of

Jewish secret societies here, to expedite “passport work,” as

it is termed among those bodies. Immigration into the United

States became a business—a strictly Jewish business.

Why is that statement made?—“a strictly Jewish business.” For

this reason: there are countries in Europe from which today

no Gentile can be admitted to the United States. From

Germany, from Russia, from Poland, it is with the utmost

difficulty that even one person can be won permission to

enter this country. But Jews from Poland, Germany, and Russia

by the thousands come in most freely, in utter disregard of

the laws, in open contempt of the health regulations—a

strictly Jewish business of getting another million Jews into

the United States. It is like moving an army, which having

done duty in Europe for the subjugation of that continent, is

now being transferred to America.

When the conditions overseas were made known in this country

and it became apparent that Jewish societies in the United

States were the principal aids in this stampede to America,

the newspapers for the first time in American history began

to comment on a Jewish Question in tones of alarm. This in

itself is an indication that the facts are becoming too

challenging to be longer ignored.

Even the ordinary immigration officials, who for years have

watched the human stream as it flowed over Ellis Island, have

this year been startled into attention and action by the

sharp change that has come in the character of the stream.

And what has startled them?

First, it is composed almost entirely of Jews. Real

Ukranians, real Russians, real Germans cannot come in. But

Jews can come from anywhere, and are coming from almost

everywhere. Why this special privilege?—is being asked.

Second, they do not come as refugees, as people fleeing from

hunger and persecution: they come as if they own the country.

They arrive as special guests. As on the other side the

passport business is “arranged,” so on this side the entrance

business is “arranged.” The laws are set aside. Health

regulations are ignored. Why should they not behave as if

they own the United States? They see officials of Jewish

secret societies override officials of the United States

Immigration Bureau. Their first glimpse of life here shows a

Jewish control as potent and complete as it is in Russia. No

wonder then that they literally beat down the walls and gates

with all the éclat of a victorious invasion. Is not this

America—“The Jews’ Country,” as it is called in the smaller

nations of Europe?

Third, there is a perfect organization which overcomes the

numerous objections which arise against admission of known

revolutionary Jews. European Jews are potential

revolutionists. They are the revolutionists of Italy,

Germany, Russia and Poland today. They are the Red and I.W.W.

leaders of the United States today. When one man whose record

is known presents himself at Ellis Island—and of course he is

one in a thousand whose records are not known—he is held up.

Immediately there start across the country telegrams to

Congressmen, editors, state and municipal officials telling

them in peremptory tones to “get busy” in behalf of Mr. So-

and-So who is detained at Ellis Island. And the same day

there start back to Washington telegrams from Congressmen,

editors and others of influence, insisting on the spotless

character of Mr. So-and-So and demanding his immediate

admittance into the United States. Sometimes also the Russian

embassy—so-called—is used in this work.

It is an invasion—nothing but an invasion; and it is helped

by influences within the United States. It is thinly cloaked

with sentiment—“these people are fleeing from persecution.”

It is cleverly assisted by photographs showing groups of

forlorn looking women and children—never by photographs

showing the groups of husky young revolutionists who are just

as ready to despoil the United States as they were to despoil

Russia.

That, however, is the present situation. What this and a

subsequent article propose to do for the reader is to put him

in possession of some of the facts concerning the

government’s fight on this question during the last quarter

century.

The question is not peculiar to America, and it may throw a

sidelight on the American phase to note some of the facts

developed at the hearings of the British Royal Commission on

Alien Immigration which sat in London in 1902, a feature of

whose proceedings was the testimony of Theodor Herzl, the

great propagandist of Zionism.

In his initial statement to the Commission, Herzl made these

statements, among others:

“The fact that there is now for the first time since Cromwell

a perceptible number of our people in England is the true

cause of this Commission being called together. * * * That a

serious pressure exists in England, the fact of your

Commission sitting is full proof.”

Then the examination proceeded until the following was

brought out: (the answers are Herzl’s)

Q. Looking at the question of alien immigration from the

standpoint of the United States for a moment, you have

referred to the fact that America excludes?

A. Yes.

Q. The exclusion is a partial exclusion?

A. Exclusion, as I know, is worked in this way: the immigrant

must show a certain amount of money at the moment of his

landing.

Q. You are aware that the stream of immigration into the

United States is twice as much as the immigration into the

United Kingdom?

A. I know that. New York has now the greatest Jewish

population of all the towns in the world.

Q. And the actual exclusion is the actual exclusion of a

small proportion?

A. Yes; but they go, however, to America. I think it is so

easy to evade such a prohibition. For instance, if they

joined a small company, it would lend the necessary amount to

each immigrant, and the immigrant shows it and comes in, and

sends back by post the amount he has borrowed. There are no

efficacious measures to prevent that.

Q. I took it that your reference to the United States was an

approval of the action of that country as an act of self-

preservation.

A. No.

A little later on in the examination, the question of

immigration to the United States was again brought in. The

answers are still Dr. Herzl’s—remember that the date is still

1902:

Q. Are you aware whether it is the fact or not that the

leading Jews in America have informed their correspondents

here that they cannot receive and distribute any more Jewish

immigrants?

A. I have heard of difficulties of emigration, and that they

are overcrowded with Jews. As to that information I cannot

say.

Q. In your opinion would not the stream of emigration to

America have been much greater if no such law had existed?

A. I think this law did not alter it much. The prohibition

could not change it.

Q. On what grounds do you believe that?

A. It is a question of coasts and harbors. They come in. How

will you prevent a man from coming in?

Q. Do you mean they are smuggled in?

A. No, I do not believe that. But they always find means to

come in.

Now, discussion of immigration in the United States has never

been free. We have talked a great deal about it in general

terms, but not in terms of specific races except the Chinese

and Japanese. However, Herzl seems to have known that

wherever the Jews congregate in noticeable numbers they

become a trouble (his words are: “* * * America, where so

soon as they form a perceptible number they become a trouble

and a burden to the land”) and he also knew that efforts

would be made to meet that condition. But more than that, he

dropped what must be construed as a warning, that such

efforts would be resisted. He said:

“There exists a French proverb, ‘cet animal est tres

impatient; il se defend quand on l’attaque.’ If the Jews are

attacked, they will defend themselves, and you will get

something like internal troubles.”

The time apparently did come in the United States when some

far-seeing official began to wonder what the Jewish invasion

portended. Already it was too strong to be openly attacked.

The Jewish lobby at Washington was powerful even at that

time. So, apparently, this official concluded that the best

way to set about so momentous a task was to collect the

information.

But in order to get the information, Congress had to give its

permission; and to get the permission of Congress, hearings

had to be ordered. Hearings were ordered, and the records of

them, though very scarce, still exist. The reader will be

given important extracts from them presently, and he will see

for himself how certain American statesmen reacted to the

whole matter.

A remark is in order just here, namely, that the Jewish lobby

eventually became more skillful in such matters. It now takes

very good care that no officials shall be appointed who shall

make suggestions which shall precipitate congressional

hearings on the Jewish matter. The time is coming, of course,

when the whole Jewish Question may be threshed out by the

government of the United States, but it will not be because

an official precipitated it; it will be because the people

will demand it.

Officials are now much too wary to meddle with this Question.

They know too well the consequences. During the war many a

secret trail of danger led into Jewish quarters, and the

secret service man who loyally made his reports was often

surprised to find himself lifted completely off that trail.

Why? All Jewish trails in this country were powerfully

protected by hidden influences during the war.

Well, the time came in the United States, when it was

obviously desirable to know what elements were comprising our

population; whether we were an Anglo-Saxon nation, Semitic,

Latin, or what. The situation was this, and was so stated by

government officials at the time:—In the ’80’s, and

previously, it could be safely assumed that an immigrant from

Ireland was Irish, an immigrant from Norway or Sweden was

Scandinavian, an immigrant from Russia was Russian, an

immigrant from Germany was German, and so on.

But times changed. Previous to 1880, the entry on a man’s

record—“born in Russia”—indicated that he was a Russian. But,

says a statement made by a government official with reference

to the 10 years following 1880—“So many Hebrews have come

from that country to the United States, that ‘born in Russia’

has come in popular opinion to mean a ‘Russian Jew.’” And

then the same official goes on to show that during a 10-year

period when 666,561 Jews came from Russia, there came also

from Russia large numbers of Poles, Finns, Germans and

Lithuanians.

Now, to make a census enumeration of these peoples under the

heading “Russian” was plainly misleading, and not only

misleading but valueless for census purposes. The racial

identity would be lost, and our knowledge of the racial make

-up of the nation very incomplete. Therefore, the census

authorities asked Congress for permission to classify people

by “race” as well as by “country of birth.” It seemed

perfectly reasonable. Of what possible use is it to classify

3,000,000 Jews as “Russians” when there are very few real

Russians in the country, and when the Russian and Jew are so

deeply different one from another?

Senator Simon Guggenheim arose in the committee to object. He

used the common formula in such cases. He said:

“Personally I object to it, not because I am a Hebrew, but

because it is not in place.”

That is the common Jewish formula of objection. The B’nai B’

rith says the same thing when it forces Shakespeare’s

“Merchant of Venice” out of the public schools. That

society’s “anti-defamation circular” always includes the

thought:—“We do not base our request on the embarrassment

which may be caused to the Jewish students in class, nor is

our attitude in this regard based on thin-skinned

sensitiveness. Our objection is made because of the effect

upon the non-Jewish children who subconsciously will

associate in their minds the Jew as Shakespeare portrayed him

with the Jew of today.” So Senator Guggenheim, therefore, was

playing the game according to the rules made and established

in such cases.

At this hearing, Senator LaFollette was chairman. Senator

Guggenheim’s contention was that “Jew” was the name of a

member of a religious denomination, and not of a race.

Chairman LaFollette—“I can see broad ethnological reasons why

some time it would be important to know from what blood and

race the man came.”

Senator Guggenheim—“Why not ask his religion?”

Senators McCumber and Bailey came to the support of Senator

Guggenheim’s contention, that “Jew” is a religious and not a

racial term.

Chairman LaFollette—“I do not just get your objection to

this, Senator Guggenheim. What objection can one have to

having the race to which he belongs correctly entered?”

Senator Guggenheim—“Because it is not correct when stated

that way. The Jews are not a race. * * *”

Later on in the hearing, Senator Cummins entered the

discussion in response to a pro-Jewish remark made by Senator

Bailey:

Senator Bailey—“If I were a Hebrew and I had been born here

and they wanted me to say I was anything but an American, I

would have a difference with the enumerator. I perhaps would

refuse to answer their questions.”

Senator Cummins—“I would not have any hesitancy in stating

from what blood I was.”

Senator Bailey—“No; but in the case that I refer to, it would

be a matter of religion.”

Senator Guggenheim—“That is the point; it is a question of

religion.”

That was in April, 1909. In December, 1909, Simon Wolf was

the chief witness for the pro-Jewish contention. Simon Wolf

is a very interesting character. From before the days of

President Lincoln, he has been lobbyist for the Jews at the

National Capitol, and has been in contact with every

President from Lincoln to Wilson. At the hearing where Mr.

Wolf testified, Senator Dillingham acted as chairman, and the

whole proceeding was enlivened and clarified by the vigorous

part which Senator Lodge took in it. Certain extracts, which

entirely reproduce the spirit and argument of the hearing,

follow:

Mr. Wolf—“The point we make is this: A Jew coming from Russia

is a Russian; from Rumania, a Rumanian; from France, a

Frenchman; from England, an Englishman; and from Germany, a

German; that Hebrew or Jewish is simply a religion.”

Senator Lodge—“Do I understand you to deny that the Jews are

a race?”

Mr. Wolf—“How?”

Senator Lodge—“Do you deny that the word ‘Jew’ is used to

express a race?”

Mr. Wolf—“As the representative of the Union of American

Hebrew Congregations—which I have been for nearly 30 years—I

took up the matter and propounded a series of interrogations

to some of the leading Jews of the United States, among

others * * * Dr. Cyrus Adler, who was librarian of the

Smithsonian * * * and every one of them states that the Jews

are not a race.”

Senator Lodge—“That, I think, is an important point. I have

always supposed they were. I find in the preface of The

Jewish Encyclopedia, which is signed by Cyrus Adler, among

others this statement:

‘An even more delicate problem that presented itself at the

very outset was the attitude to be observed by the

encyclopedia in regard to those Jews who, while born within

the Jewish community, have, for one reason or another,

abandoned it. As the present work deals with the Jews as a

race, it was found impossible to exclude those who were of

that race, whatever their religious affiliations might have

been.’

“In the same encyclopedia is a statement by Joseph Jacobs,

B.A., formerly president of the Jewish Historical Society of

England:

‘Anthropologically considered, the Jews are a race of

markedly uniform type, due either to unity of race or to

similarity of environment.’

“Do you mean to deny—I want to understand your position—that

the word ‘Jew’ is a racial term?”

Mr. Wolf—“I have made my statement, and my opinions are in

this pamphlet.”

Senator Lodge—“Let me get at it. How would you classify

Benjamin Disraeli? Was he a Jew?”

Mr. Wolf—“He was born a Jew.”

Senator Lodge—“He was baptized as a Christian. He then ceased

to be a Jew?”

Mr. Wolf—“Yes; religiously he ceased to be a Jew.”

Senator Lodge—“Ah! Religiously. He was very proud of the fact

that he was a Jew, and always spoke of himself in that way.

Did the fact that he changed his religion alter his race?”

Mr. Wolf—“It did not change the fact that he was born a Jew;

not at all; and I know the Jewish people throughout the world

have claimed him, Heine, and Borne, and others who were born

of their blood, as being Jews, when they speak of persons who

have accomplished something wonderful in the world. But they

ceased to be Jews from the standpoint of religion—”

Senator Lodge—“Undoubtedly. What I want to get at is whether

the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Hebrew’ is not a correct racial term?”

Mr. Wolf—“If you will pardon me, you will find a letter from

Dr. Cyrus Adler right at the close of the pamphlet, which

perhaps you might read for the benefit of the committee.”

Senator Lodge—(after reading the letter referred to) “I do

not think that answers anything.”

* * *

Senator Lodge—“It never occurred to me until I heard you were

coming here that the classification as made by the

immigration authorities had anything to do with religion. I

supposed it was a race classification. It is important, very

important, to get the race classification as nearly as we

can.”

* * *

Mr. Wolf—“You are aware that the Census Bureau some time ago

attempted to classify in the same manner and it was

prohibited from doing so.”

Senator Lodge—“The word ‘race’ was stricken out of the census

bill. I think it was a great mistake. It makes the returns

almost valueless.”

Mr. Wolf—“I can simply repeat what I have said—that I am

voicing the opinions of those whom I represent—the Union of

American Hebrew Congregations, and the Order of B’nai B’rith.

They are opposed to the classification as made in the last

few years and as contemplated, so far as I am informed, in

the report of the commission.”

The hearings continued, Julian W. Mack later appearing for

the Jewish contention.

From the extracts given in this article, four matters become

very clear:

First, the Jew is opposed to any restrictive legislation

against his entrance into a country.

Second, the Jew is opposed to any racial classification of

himself after he has entered a country.

Third, the Jewish argument to the Gentile authorities is that

the Jew represents religion and not race.

Fourth, that at least one indication has appeared in which

the Jew has one view to present to the Gentiles, and another

which he cherishes among his own people, on this question of

Race.

Another point might be made, as this: when the authorities

disregard as untenable the argument of “religion, not race,”

the Jewish spokesmen fall back on the fact that their

organizations don’t want certain things and won’t have

certain things—argument or no argument, commission or no

commission.

The Jewish lobbyists had their way. There is no enumeration

of Jews in the United States. There are 46 other

classifications, but none for the Jew. The Northern Italians

are distinguished in the records from the Southern Italians;

the Moravians are distinguished from the Bohemians; the

Scotch from the English; the Spanish-American from the

Spanish-European; the West Indians from the Mexicans—but the

Jew is not distinguished at all.

None of the other races made objection. On this point the

report of the commission reads:

“As far as ascertained by the commission, the practice of

classifying the foreign-born by race or people, rather than

by country of birth, is acceptable to the people of the

United States with one exception.

The officials, who were endeavoring to have the Census Report

show with scientific accuracy the actual racial components of

the population of the United States, were compelled to see

their recommendation eliminated.

What is the result? If you ask the government of the United

States how many Frenchmen there are in the country, it can

give you the figures. If you ask for the number of Poles, it

is there. If you ask for the number of Africans, it is known.

On down a long list you may make your inquiries, and you will

find that the government knows.

But ask the government of the United States how many Jews are

in the country—and it cannot tell; there are no records. If

you want information upon that point, you will have to go to

the officials or representatives of the Jewish Government in

the United States.

Of course, if “Jew” is a religious term, like Baptist,

Catholic, Christian Scientist or Quaker, then there is merit

in the argument that religious questions are not proper for

the government to ask unless the religion comes in conflict

with, or is a menace to, the ideals of the Republic. But if

“Jew” is a racial term, or a national term, then the

government is properly interested in making record of all the

inhabitants of this land who bear it.

Like all questions pertaining to the Jews, this can be

settled by their own words. What the Jews teach the Jews on

this matter should be the determining point. In the next

article we shall see what Jews themselves have to say about

“race or religion?”

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 9 October 1920]

------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------