{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50556/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50556","id":"gutenberg_50556","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50556","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sociology","Jews"],"text":"Note: Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See\n      https://archive.org/details/jewsbelloc00bellrich\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE JEWS\n\n\n      *      *      *      *      *      *\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_:\n\n\nEUROPE AND THE FAITH\n\n     \"Mr. Belloc has developed a side of history which is a wholesome\n     antidote to self-satisfied Anglicanism; and he has produced a\n     brilliant and burningly sincere historical essay which sweeps his\n     reader along. It is certainly the best book he has written.\"--_The\n     Church Times._\n\n\nTHE OLD ROAD\n\n     With Illustrations by William Hyde, a Map and Route Guides. New\n     Edition.\n\n\nTHE STANE STREET\n\n     A Monograph. With Illustrations by William Hyde, and Maps.\n\n      *      *      *      *      *      *\n\n\nTHE JEWS\n\nby\n\nHILAIRE BELLOC\n\n[Illustration: Hebrew text]\n\n\n\n\n\nConstable & Company, Limited\nLondon      Bombay      Sydney\n\nFirst Published 1922\nSecond Impression 1922\n\n\nTo\n\nMISS RUBY GOLDSMITH\n\nMY SECRETARY FOR MANY YEARS AT KING'S\nLAND AND THE BEST AND MOST INTIMATE OF\nOUR JEWISH FRIENDS, TO WHOM MY\nFAMILY AND I WILL ALWAYS OWE\nA DEEP DEBT OF GRATITUDE\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe object of this book is more modest, I fear, than that of much which\nhas appeared upon that vital political matter, the relation between the\nJews and the nations around them.\n\nIt does not propose any detailed, still less, any positive legal\nsolution to what has become a pressing problem, nor does it pretend to\nany complete solution of it. It is no more than a suggestion that any\nattempt to solve this problem ought to follow certain general lines\nwhich are essentially different from those attempted in Western Europe\nduring the time immediately preceding our own. I suggest that, if the\npresent generation in both parties to the discussion, the Jews and\nourselves, will drop convention and make a principle of discussing the\nproblem in terms of reality, we shall automatically approach a right\nsolution.\n\nWe have but to tell the truth in the place of the falsehoods of the last\ngeneration. Therefore, of the three principles upon which this essay\nreposes, the principle that _concealment_ must come to an end seems to\nme more important than the principle of mutual recognition, or even the\nprinciple of mutual respect. For it may well be that my judgment is at\nfault in the matter of Jewish national consciousness; it may well be\nthat I exaggerate it, and it is certain that one party to a debate\ncannot be possessed of the full knowledge required for its settlement;\nthe other side must be heard. But neither my judgment nor the judgment\nof any man can be at fault on the value of truth and the ultimate evil\nconsequences of trying to build upon a lie.\n\nThe English reader (less, I think, the American) will often find in my\nsentences a note that will seem to him fantastic. The quarrel is already\nacute here in London, but it has not here approached the limits which it\nhas reached long ago elsewhere; and a man accustomed to the quieter air\nin which all public affairs have, until recently, been debated in this\ncountry, may smile at what will seem to him odd and exaggerated fears.\nTo this I would reply that the book has been written not only in the\nlight of English, but of a general, experience. I will bargain that were\nit put into the hands of a jury chosen from the various nationalities of\nEurope and the United States it would be found too moderate in its\nestimate of the peril it postulates. I would further ask the reader, who\nmay not have appreciated how rapidly the peril approaches, to consider\nthe distance traversed in the last few years. It is not very long since\na mere discussion of the Jewish question in England was impossible. It\nis but a few years since the mere admission of it appeared abnormal. The\ntruth is that this question is not one which we open or close at will in\nany European nation. It is imposed successively upon one nation after\nanother by the force of things. It is this force of things, this\nnecessity for national well-being, and for the warding off of disorder,\nwhich has thrust the Jewish question to-day upon a society still\nreluctant to consider it and still hoping it may return to its old\nneglect. It cannot so return.\n\nI will conclude by asking my Jewish, as well as my non-Jewish, readers\nto observe that I have left out every personal allusion and every\nelement of mere recrimination. I have carefully avoided the mention of\nparticular examples in public life of the friction between the Jews and\nourselves and even examples drawn from past history. With these I could\noften have strengthened my argument, and I would certainly have made my\nbook a great deal more readable. I have left out everything of the kind\nbecause, though one can always rouse interest in this way, it excites\nenmity between the opposing parties. Since my object is to reduce that\nenmity, which has already become dangerous, I should be insincere indeed\nif from mere purpose of enlivening this essay I had stooped to\nexasperate feeling.\n\nI could have made the book far stronger as a piece of polemic and\nindefinitely more amusing as a piece of record, but I have not written\nit as a piece of polemic or as a piece of record. I have written it as\nan attempt at justice.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                        PAGE\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE THESIS OF THIS BOOK                                    3\n\nThe Jews are an alien body within the society they\ninhabit--hence irritation and friction--a problem is\npresented by the strains thus set up--the solution of\nthat problem is urgently necessary.\n\nAn alien body in any organism is disposed of in one\nof two ways: elimination and segregation.\n\nElimination may be by destruction, by excretion or\nby absorption--in the case of the Jews the first is abominable\nand, further, has failed--the second means exile:\nit has also failed--the third, absorption, the most probable\nand most moral, has failed throughout the past,\nthough having everything in its favour.\n\nThere remains segregation, which may be of two\nforms: hostile to, or careless of, the alien body, or friendly\nto it and careful of its good--in this latter form it may\nbest be called _Recognition_. The first kind of segregation\nhas often been attempted in history--it has been partially\nsuccessful over long periods--but has always left\nbehind it a sense of injustice and has not really solved\nthe problem--also it has always failed in the end.\n\nThe true solution is in the second kind of segregation,\nthat is, recognition on both sides of a separate Jewish\nnationality.\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE DENIAL OF THE PROBLEM                                 17\n\nIn the immediate past the problem was shirked in\nWestern Europe by a mere denial of its existence--some\nwere honestly ignorant of the existence of a Jewish\nnation--some thought the difference one of religion\nonly--more admitted the existence of a separate nation\nbut thought a convenient fiction, that it did not exist,\nnecessary to the modern state.\n\nThis ignorance or fiction has broken down in our own\ntime--partly through the necessary reaction of truth\nagainst any falsehood--partly through the increasing\nnumbers of the Jews in Western countries--more through\nthe great increase of their power.\n\nYet, though this old \"Liberal\" fiction about the\nJews is dead, having proved unworkable in the face of\nfact, it had something to be said for it--it secured peace\nfor a while--it chose models from the past--and it was\nbased on a certain truth, to wit, that the Jew takes on\nvery rapidly the superficial characters of the nation in\nwhich he happens for the time to be living--moreover it\nwas desired by the Jews themselves--example of the\nold Jewish Peer and his claim \"to be let alone\"--practical\nproof of the failure in his case.\n\nAt any rate the old \"Liberal\" fiction is now quite\nuseless--the problem is admitted and must be solved.\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE PRESENT PHASE OF THE PROBLEM                          43\n\nThe Jewish problem, present throughout history, has\nassumed a particular character to-day--it is the character\nof a sharp reaction against the old pretence that\nJews were identical with the nations in which they\nhappened to live--it first took the form of irritation\nonly--it was suddenly exasperated in a very high degree\nby the Jewish revolution in Russia--but long before\nthis the increasing power of Jews in public life, the anti-Semitic\nwriting on the Continent, the Dreyfus agitation,\nthe South African War, and the Jewish leadership of\nSocialism had prepared the way--The situation on the\noutbreak of the Great War--Bolshevism--a short\ndescription to be expanded in a later chapter--Bolshevism\nis a Jewish movement, _but not a movement of the\nJewish race as a whole_--its particular effect was to\nrelease criticism of Jewish power which had hitherto\nbeen silent from fear of, or sympathy with, Capitalism.\n\nMen hesitated to attack the Jews as financiers because\nthe stability of society and of their own fortunes was\nbound up with finance--but when a body of Jews also\nappeared as the active enemies of existing society and of\nprivate fortune, the restraint was removed--since the\nBolshevist movement open (and hostile) discussion of\nthe Jewish problem has become universal.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE GENERAL CAUSES OF FRICTION                            69\n\nThe strain between Jewry and its hosts in Islam and\nChristendom much older than any modern cause can\naccount for--the true causes are both general and particular--I\ncall those _general_ which are ineradicable and\nproceed from the contrasting natures of the two races,\n_particular_ those which depend upon the will on either\nside and can be modified to the advantage of both.\n\nThe general cause of friction being a contrast in fundamental\ncharacter, we note that the common accusations\nbrought against Jews are false, as are the common praises\ngiven him by those not of the race.--In each case what has\nto be noted is not a series of virtues or vices special to\nthe Jew, but the racial character or tone of each quality.\n\nThese examined--the Jewish courage--examples--the\nJewish generosity--the strength of Jewish patriotism--the\nconsequent indifference to our national feelings--accusations\narising therefrom, especially in time of war--the\nJewish power of concentration--of eloquence--the\nJewish tendency to \"push\" a Jewish success and hide\na Jewish failure or danger--the evil effects of this tendency\nin our mutual relations.\n\nThe poverty of the Jewish people--false effect produced\nby a few great Jewish fortunes--the instability of these--cringing\nof wealthy Europeans to Jewish money-dealers--dependence\nof our politicians on wealthy Jews--evil\neffect of this in the attempt to regulate domestic affairs\nof Eastern Europe.\n\nThe ill effect of the partially Jewish financial monopoly--especially\nwith Parliamentary corruption as pronounced\nas it is to-day.\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE SPECIAL CAUSES OF FRICTION                            99\n\nI have called \"Special\" causes of Friction those\nwhich are remedial at will by either party--they would\nseem to be, on the Jewish side, the habit of secrecy and\nthe habit of expressing a sense of superiority--on our\nside a disingenuousness and unintelligence in our treatment\nof Jews and a lack of charity.\n\nThe deplorable Jewish habit of secrecy--the use of\nfalse names--examples--excuses for same not adequate--a\nregular code of such names which deceive us but can\nbe decoded by fellow Jews.\n\nThe expression of superiority by the Jew--our statesmanship\nhas never sufficiently allowed for it--examples\nof this expression--Jewish interference in our religion--or\nnational quarrels--and other departments which are\nalien to Jewish interests--on the other hand this quality\nhas been a preservation of the race--the Jew should\nnote the corresponding sense of superiority on our side--even\nthe poor hack-writer, if he be of European blood,\nfeels himself superior to the Jewish millionaire.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE CAUSE OF FRICTION UPON OUR SIDE                      123\n\nThis department of our inquiry often neglected\nthrough an error--it is presumed that, because we are\nthe hosts and the Jew alien to us, no responsibility falls\non us--this error forgets that the Jew is permanently\nwith us and that every permanent human relation\ninvolves responsibility.\n\nThe first cause of friction on our side is _disingenuousness_\nin our dealings with the Jew--examples of this--we\nconceal from the Jew our real feelings--we deceive\nhim--the richer classes who intermarry with Jews and\nenter into business partnership with them especially\nto blame--the populace more straightforward--this\ndeceiving of the Jew leaves him troubled when the quarrel\ncomes to a head--he has not heard what is said behind\nhis back.\n\nDisingenuousness in our suppression of the Jewish\nproblem in history--gross examples of it in contemporary\nlife and particularly in the popular press--Jews called\n\"Russians,\" \"Germans,\" anything but what they are.\n\nUnintelligence a second cause of friction--example:\nour treatment of Jewish immigration--we hate it, yet\nallow it because we dare not give it its right name--unintelligent\ntreatment of the Jew in fiction--unintelligence\nin our astonishment at his international position--example\nof the cabinet minister's cousin who got into\ntrouble.\n\nLast cause, lack of charity--people won't put themselves\nin the shoes of the Jew and see how things look\nfrom _his_ side--we do not (as we should) mix with Jews\nof every class and address their societies--Summary--A\nwarning against the idea that the friction between the\nJews and ourselves is unimportant--it has bred catastrophe\nin the past and may in the future.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE ANTI-SEMITE                                          145\n\nError of neglecting to study Anti-Semitism on account\nof its extravagance--it is a most significant thing, however\nill-balanced--character of the Anti-Semite--he does\nnot recognize a Jewish problem to be solved but only a\nJewish race to be hated--this hatred his whole motive--his\nself-contradictions--his delusion--his strength--the\npress still on the whole boycotts the Anti-Semitic movement--but\nit is growing prodigiously--its great power\nof _documentation_--its vast accumulation of evidence--effect\nthis will have when it comes out.\n\nThe Jews met Anti-Semitism by nothing but ridicule--this\nweapon insufficient and bound to fail--their enemies\nhave countered it by accumulating _facts_--the latter a\nmuch stronger weapon so long as the erroneous Jewish\npolicy of secrecy is maintained.\n\nDanger to the Jews of the Anti-Semitic movement--(1)\nbecause of its intensity--(2) because of its formidable\naccumulation of evidence, which cannot be permanently\nsuppressed--(3) and most important, because it is\nallied to a now widespread and more moderate, but very\nhostile, feeling, to which it acts as spear-head.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nBOLSHEVISM                                               167\n\nThe revolution in Russia will be the historical point of\ndeparture whence will date the renewed hostility to the\nJew in Western Europe.\n\nExamination of that revolution--it was (as said in\nChapter III) \"_a_ Jewish movement, _but not a movement\nof the Jewish race_:\" importance of this distinction--unfortunately\nthe two different terms \"Jewish race\"\nand \"a Jewish movement\" are confused in the popular\nmind.\n\nThe Revolution not the result of an accident or of a\nuniversal plot--element of racial revenge--the Jew not\na revolutionary--special character of the Russian situation--Industrial\nCapitalism, the great evil of our time,\nthere recent and weak--therefore open to special attack--an\ninternational evil--the only two international\nforces applicable were the Jews and the Catholic Church--why\nthe Catholic Church cannot _directly_ attack industrial\nCapitalism--why the Jew who happens to be opposed\nto it can and does directly attack it--neither our instinct\nfor property nor our Nationalism an obstacle in his\ncase.\n\nGrave perils to the Jew arise from his identification\nwith Bolshevism--the more reason to meet these perils\nby a sane treatment of the Jewish problem.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE POSITION IN THE WORLD AS A WHOLE                     189\n\nThe Jewish problem varies (1) according to the extent\nto which Jews have acquired control and domination in\nvarious places; (2) according to the tradition of each\ncommunity in approaching the problem; (3) according to\nthe strength in each community of the four international\nforces, which are the Catholic Church, Islam, Industrial\nCapitalism, and the Socialist revolt against this last.\n\nThe individual Jew does not feel that he is in a position\nof control or even that he is interfering with his hosts--yet\nthat is the universal complaint against him--it is a\ncorporate or collective power--more and more resented.\n\nThe position in Russia--repeated--in the Marches of\nRussia and Roumania and Poland--in Central Europe--in\nOccidental Europe--Ireland an exception.\n\nThe position in the United States--Mr. Ford and the\ngreat effect of his action.\n\nThe Western tradition more favourable to the Jews\nthan the Eastern--problem of the Jews and Islam--position\nof the Catholic Church--effect of Industrial\nCapitalism and of its converse, Socialism, upon the\nproblem.\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE POSITION OF THE JEWS IN ENGLAND                      215\n\nEngland has gone to both extremes with the Jew.\nThe Jew in the Roman time and in the Middle Ages--his\nmonopoly of Usury in _early_ Middle Ages--The\nexile of all English Jews under Edward I--their return\nunder Cromwell--followed by a growing alliance between\nthe English State and the Jews--largely due to cosmopolitan\ncommercial interests of Britain--also to common\nhostility towards the Catholic Church--aided by great\nwealth and security of this country--in the later nineteenth\ncentury the Jews, in spite of their small numbers,\ncolour every English institution, especially the Universities\nand the House of Commons--the interests of the\ntwo races began to diverge before the Great War--none\nthe less a formal alliance maintained through the control\nof the politicians by Jewish finance--its culmination in\nthe attempt to form an Anglo-Judaic state in Palestine.\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nZIONISM                                                  231\n\nThe chief interest of the Zionist experiment lies in its\nreaction upon the _international_ position of the Jew--yet\nthat point is not yet discussed--what will be the\neffect of the experiment on the position of Jews _outside_\nPalestine, necessarily the vast majority of the race?--an\ninevitable alternative--either the Jews lose their\ninternational position through loss of the fiction that\nthey are not a nation--or the Zionist experiment breaks\ndown--effect especially in Eastern Europe.\n\nSpecial effect of the experiment on Great Britain--difficulty\nof maintaining sacrifice for purely Jewish\ninterests--which now clash with British--unpopularity\nof such sacrifice inevitable--grave error of first appointment\nto the headship of the New State--unworthiness of\nthe politician chosen for that position.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nOUR DUTY                                                 249\n\nThis but a consequence of the conditions established in\nChapters IV, V and VI--our double duty of mixing with\nthe Jews and of recognizing their separate nationality--necessity\nof _openly_ admitting this separate nationality\nin conversation and social habits--in spite of difficulties\nopposed by convention--in this the wealthier classes\nshould follow the lead of the populace--folly and danger\nof _Fear_ in this matter--the fear of Jewish power a\ndegrading and exasperating thing to the European--delay\nmakes it worse--our plain duty is to recognize\nthis alien nation, to respect it, and to treat it frankly as\nwe do every nationality other than one's own.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHEIR DUTY                                               271\n\nOnly a brief mention--for interference or advice in\ndomestic concerns of Jewry would be an impertinence--but\nit is clear that all specially Jewish institutions favour\nthe right policy for which I plead--those already in\nexistence--schools, newspapers, Jewish societies--all\nincrease of these institutions should be welcome, because\nthey emphasize and make clear the separate nationality\nof the Jew.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nVARIOUS THEORIES                                         277\n\nThis chapter is a digression on the various theories on the\nJewish race and its fortunes which have arisen in history\nand some of which are still present.\n\nThe theory that reconciliation is impossible--its\nattachment to the idea of a special curse or blessing.\n\nThe theory of a mysterious necessary alliance between\nIsrael and Britain--its most extravagant forms.\n\nThe theory that the Jews are the necessary _flux_ of\nEurope, without which our energies would decline--note\non the intellectual independence of the Jew and\non his original effect on our thought--demand for a\nJewish history of Europe and Islam combined.\n\nThe theory that the Jewish problem is domestic only\nand no concern of ours--its error, since the relations are\nmutual.\n\nThe two theories of the Jew as a malignant enemy\nof our innocent selves, and of our malignant enmity\nagainst the innocent and martyred Jew--both erroneous.\n\nThe theory that the Jewish problem is _now_ solving\nitself by absorption--this theory false and due to a\nmisunderstanding of history and a neglect of acute\nmodern and recent differentiation--Mr. Ford's epigram\non \"the melting-pot.\"\n\nFantastic theory that no Jewish national type exists!\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nCONCLUSION. HABIT OR LAW?                                301\n\nGranted that the solution I advance (a full recognition\nof separate nationality) is the just solution, should\nit be expressed in law?--Not, I think, until it has first\nappeared in our morals and social conventions--to begin\nwith laws and regulations on _our_ side would inevitably\nbreed oppression--but the suggestion of separate institutions\ncoming from the Jewish side should be welcomed--urgency\nof a settlement--modern quarrels are growing\nfiercer, not less--but for my part I say, \"Peace to\nIsrael.\"\n\n\nTHE THESIS OF THIS BOOK\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE THESIS OF THIS BOOK\n\n\nIt is the thesis of this book that the continued presence of the Jewish\nnation intermixed with other nations alien to it presents a permanent\nproblem of the gravest character: that the wholly different culture,\ntradition, race and religion of Europe make Europe a permanent\nantagonist to Israel, and that the recent and rapid intensification of\nthat antagonism gives to the discovery of a solution immediate and\nhighly practical importance.\n\nFor if the quarrel is allowed to rise unchecked and to proceed\nunappeased, we shall come, unexpectedly and soon, upon one of these\ntragedies which have marked for centuries the relations between this\npeculiar nation and ourselves.\n\nThe Jewish problem is one to which no true parallel can be found, for\nthe historical and social phenomenon which has produced it is unique. It\nis a problem which cannot be shirked, as the last generation both of\nJews and of their hosts attempted to shirk it. It is a problem which\ncannot be avoided, nor even lessened (as can some social problems), by\nan healing effect of time: for it is increasing before our eyes. It must\nbe met and dealt with openly and now.\n\nThat problem is the problem of reducing or accommodating the strain\nproduced by the presence of an alien body within any organism. The alien\nbody sets up strains, or, to change the metaphor, produces a friction,\nwhich is evil both to itself and to the organism which it inhabits. The\nproblem is, how to relax those strains for good and to set things\npermanently at their ease again.\n\nThere are two ways to such a desirable end.\n\nThe first is by the elimination of what is alien. The second is by its\nsegregation. There is no other way.\n\nThe elimination of an alien body may take three forms. It may take a\nfrankly hostile form--elimination by destruction. It may take a form,\nalso hostile but less hostile--elimination by expulsion. It may take a\nthird form, an amicable one (and that far the most commonly found in the\nnatural process of physical nature and of society)--elimination by\nabsorption; the alien body becomes an indistinguishable part of the\norganism in which it was originally a source of disturbance and is lost\nin it. These three ways sum up the first method, the method of\nelimination.\n\nThe second method, if elimination shall prove impossible or undesirable,\nis that of segregation; and this again may be of two kinds--hostile and\namicable. We may segregate the alien element without regard to its own\nends or desires: the segregation of it being upon a plan framed solely\nfrom the point of view of the organism invaded, and the reduction of the\nstrain or friction it creates effected by the mere cutting of it off\nfrom all avenues through which it can affect its host.\n\nBut we may also segregate the alien irritant by an action which takes\nfull account of the thing segregated as well as of the organism\nsegregating it, and considers the good of both parties. In this second\nand amicable policy the word segregation (which has a bad connotation)\nmay be replaced by the word _recognition_.\n\nThis book has been written under the conception that all solutions of\nthe Jewish problem other than this last are either impracticable, or bad\nin morals, or both.\n\nIt is written to advocate a policy wherein the Jews on their side shall\nopenly recognize their wholly separate nationality and we on ours shall\nequally recognize that separate nationality, treat it without reserve as\nan alien thing, and respect it as a province of society outside our own.\n\nIt is written under the conviction that any attitude which falls short\nof this policy or is very different from it will now soon breed\ndisaster.\n\nThe solution by way of destruction is not only abominable in morals but\nhas proved futile in practice. It has been the constant temptation of\nangry popular masses in the past, when the Jewish problem has come to a\nhead not once but a thousand times in various parts of our civilization\nduring the last twenty centuries. From the pitiless massacres of\nCyrenaica in the second century to the latest murders in the Ukraine\nthat solution has been attempted and has failed. It has invariably left\nbehind it a dreadful inheritance of hatred upon the one side and of\nshame upon the other. It has been condemned by every man whose judgment\nis worth considering and especially by the great moral teachers of\nChristendom. It is, indeed, hardly a policy at all, for it is blind. It\nis a gesture of mere exasperation and not a final gesture at that.\n\nThe second form of elimination--expulsion--though theoretically\nsustainable (for a community has a right to organize its own life and no\naliens therein have a claim to modify that life or to disturb it), is\nnone the less in practice, and as regards this particular problem, only\none degree less odious than the first. It means inevitably a mass of\nindividual injustice, as well as common spoliation and every other\nhardship. It is almost impossible to dissociate it from violence and ill\ndeeds of all kinds. It leaves behind it almost as strong an inheritance,\nif not of shame on the one side, at any rate of rancour upon the other,\nas does the first. And what condemns it finally is that it is not, and\ncannot be, complete.\n\nFor it is in the nature of the Jewish problem that this solution is only\nattempted at moments and in places where the strength of the Jews has\ndeclined; and this invariably means their corresponding strength in some\nother quarter.\n\nA particular society attempting this solution of expulsion may succeed\nfor a time so far as itself is concerned, but that inevitably means the\nreception of the exiled body by another district, and, sooner or later,\nthe return of the force which it was hoped to be rid of. The greatest\nhistorical example of this is, of course, the action of the English. The\nEnglish alone of all Christian nations did adopt this solution in its\nentirety. A strong national kingship, a government highly organized for\nits time, an insular position and a singular unanimity of national\npurpose promoted the expulsion of the Jews from England at the end of\nthe thirteenth century; for more than three and a half centuries that\nexpulsion was maintained, and England alone of the various divisions of\nChristendom was in theory free of the alien element and nearly as free\nin practice as it was in theory.\n\nBut, as we all know, in the long run the experiment broke down. The Jews\nwere readmitted in the middle of the seventeenth century, and nowhere\nhave they come to greater strength than in the very nation which\nattempted this solution of the problem with such drastic thoroughness\nfive hundred years ago. None of the other parallel attempts up and down\nEurope were of the same thoroughness as the English attempt. Their\nfailure came, therefore, more quickly. But such failure would seem in\nany case to be inevitable. Quite apart, therefore, from the moral\nobjection which attaches to it, there is the practical experience that a\nsolution is not to be found upon such lines.\n\nLastly, there is elimination by absorption. This would obviously be the\nmost gentle, as it is the most evident, of all methods. It is further a\nnormal and most usual method of nature herself when a living organism\nhas to deal with disturbance excited by the presence of an alien body.\nSo natural and so obvious is it that it has been taken by many men of\nexcellent judgment upon both sides as a matter of course. It has been\ntaken for granted that if absorption has not taken place in the past it\nhas only been due to an ill-will artificially nourished and maintained\nagainst the Jews on our side, or by the unreasoning exclusiveness of the\nJews on theirs.\n\nEven to-day, in spite of a vast increase during our own generation, both\nin the public appreciation of the problem and in its immediate gravity,\nthere are very many men who still regard absorption as the natural end\nof the affair. These, though dwindling, are still numerous upon the\nnon-Jewish side; upon the other, the Jewish side, they are, I think, a\nvery small body. For I note that even those Jews who think absorption\nwill come, admit it with regret, and certainly the vast majority would\ninsist with pride upon the certain survival of Israel.\n\nBut here again I maintain that we have the index of history against us.\nIn point of fact absorption has not taken place. It has had a better\nchance than any corresponding case can show: ample time in which to\nwork, wide dispersion, constant intermarriage, long periods of tolerant\nfriendship for the Jew, and even at times his ascendancy. If ever there\nwere conditions under which one might imagine that the larger body would\nabsorb the smaller, they were those of Christendom acting intimately for\ncenturies, in relation with Jewry. Nation after nation has absorbed\nlarger, intensely hostile minorities: the Irish, their successive\ninvaders; the British, the pirates of the fifth and eighth centuries and\nthe French of three centuries more; the northern Gauls, their\nauxiliaries; the Italians, the Lombards; the Greeks, the Slav; the\nDacian has absorbed even the Mongol: but the Jew has remained intact.\n\nHowever we explain this--mystically or in whatever other fashion--we\ncannot deny its truth. It is true of the Jews, and of the Jews alone,\nthat they alone have maintained, whether through the special action of\nProvidence or through some general biological or social law of which we\nare ignorant, an unfailing entity and an equally unfailing\ndifferentiation between themselves and the society through which they\nceaselessly move.\n\nIt is not true that conditions in the past differed from present\nconditions sufficiently to account for so strange a story. There have\nbeen generations and even centuries (not co-incident indeed throughout\nthe world, but applying now to one country, now to another) where every\nopportunity for absorption existed; yet that absorption has never taken\nplace. There was every chance in Spain at one moment, in Poland at\nanother, but there was the best chance of all in the short but brilliant\nperiod of Liberal policy which has dominated Western Europe during the\nlast three generations. That policy has had the fullest play: it has\nleft the Jews not only unabsorbed, but more differentiated than ever,\nand the political problem they present more insistent by far than it was\na century ago.\n\nThe thing might have come where there was a chaos of peoples, as in\npagan Alexandria in the four centuries from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D., or in\nmodern New York. It might have come where there was a particularly\nfriendly attitude, as in mediaeval Poland or modern England. It might\neven have come, paradoxically, through the very persecution and strain\nof times and places where the Jews suffered the most hostile treatment:\nfor their absorption might have been achieved under pressure though it\nhad failed to be achieved under attraction. As a fact it has never come.\nIt has never proved possible. The continuous absorption of outlying\nfractions, a process continually going on wherever the Jewish nation is\npresent, has not affected the mass of the problem at all. The body as a\nwhole has remained separate, differentiated, with a strong identity of\nits own under all conditions and in all places, and the _a priori_\nreasoning, by which men come to think this solution reasonable, is\nnullified by an experience apparent throughout history. That experience\nis wholly against any such solution. It cannot be.\n\nThere remains, then, only the solution of segregation; a word which (I\nrepeat) I use in a completely neutral manner though it has unhappily\nobtained in this and other issues a bad connotation.\n\nSegregation, as I have said, may be of two kinds. It may be hostile, a\nsort of static expulsion: a putting aside of the alien body without\nregard to that body's needs, desires or claims; the building of a fence\nround it, as it were, solely with the object of defending the organism\nwhich reacts against invasion, and suffers from the presence within it\nof something different from itself.\n\nOr it may take an amicable form and may be a mutual arrangement: a\nrecognition, with mutual advantage, of a reality which is unavoidable by\neither party.\n\nThe first of these apparent solutions has been attempted over and over\nagain throughout history. It has had long periods of partial success,\nbut never any period of complete success; for it has invariably left\nbehind it a sense of injustice upon the Jewish side and of moral\nill-ease upon the other.\n\nThere remains, I take it, no practical or permanent solution but the\nlast. It is to this conclusion that my essay is meant to lead. If the\nJewish nation comes to express its own pride and patriotism openly, and\n_equally openly to admit the necessary limitations imposed by that\nexpression_; if we on our side frankly accept the presence of this\nnation as a thing utterly different from ourselves, but with just as\ngood a right to existence as we have; if we renounce our pretences in\nthe matter; if we talk of and recognize the Jewish people freely and\nwithout fear as a separate body; if upon both sides the realities of the\nsituation are admitted, with the consequent and necessary definitions\nwhich those realities imply, we shall have peace.\n\nThe advantage both parties--the small but intense Jewish minority, the\ngreat non-Jewish majority in the midst of which that minority\nacts--would discover in such an arrangement is manifest. If it could be\nmaintained--as I think it could be maintained--the problem would be\npermanently solved. At any rate, if it cannot be solved in that way it\ncertainly cannot be solved in any other, and if we do not get peace by\nthis avenue, then we are doomed to the perpetual recurrence of those\npersecutions which have marred the history of Europe since the first\nconsolidation of the Roman Empire.\n\nIt has been a series of cycles invariably following the same steps. The\nJew comes to an alien society, at first in small numbers. He thrives.\nHis presence is not resented. He is rather treated as a friend. Whether\nfrom mere contrast in type--what I have called \"friction\"--or from some\napparent divergence between his objects and those of his hosts, or\nthrough his increasing numbers, he creates (or discovers) a growing\nanimosity. He resents it. He opposes his hosts. They call themselves\nmasters in their own house. The Jew resists their claim. It comes to\nviolence.\n\nIt is always the same miserable sequence. First a welcome; then a\ngrowing, half-conscious ill-ease; next a culmination in acute ill-ease;\nlastly catastrophe and disaster; insult, persecution, even massacre, the\nexiles flying from the place of persecution into a new district where\nthe Jew is hardly known, where the problem has never existed or has been\nforgotten. He meets again with the largest hospitality. There follows\nhere also, after a period of amicable interfusion, a growing,\nhalf-conscious ill-ease, which next becomes acute and leads to new\nexplosions, and so on, in a fatal round.\n\nIf we are to stop that wheel from its perpetual and tragic turning,\nthere seems to be no method save that for which I plead.\n\nThe opposition to it is diverse and formidable but can everywhere be\nreduced upon analysis to some form of falsehood. This falsehood takes\nthe shape of denying the existence of the problem, of remaining silent\nupon it, or of pretending friendly emotions in public commerce which are\nbelied by every phrase and gesture admitted in private. Or it takes the\nshape of defining the problem in false terms, in proclaiming it\nessentially religious whereas it is essentially national. Worst of all,\nit may be that very modern kind of falsehood, a statement of the truth\naccompanied by a statement of its contradiction, like the precious\nmodern lie that one can be a patriot and at the same time international.\nIn the case of the Jews, this particular modern lie takes the shape of\nadmitting that they are wholly alien to us and different from us, of\ntalking of them as such and even writing of them as such, and yet, in\nanother connection, talking and writing of them as though no such\nviolent contrast were present. That pretence of reconciling\ncontradictions is the lie in the soul. Its punishment is immediate, for\nthose who indulge it are blinded.\n\nAll opposition that ever I have met to the solution here proposed is an\nopposition sprung from the spirit of untruth; and if there were no other\nargument in favour of an honest and moral settlement of the dispute, the\none argument based on Truth would, I think, be sufficient. It is a\nsocial truth that there is a Jewish nation, alien to us and therefore\nirritant. It is a moral truth that expulsion and worse are remedies to\nbe avoided. It is an historical truth that those solutions have always\nultimately failed; the recognition of those three truths alone will set\nus right.\n\nSuch is the main thesis of this book, but it needs an addition if its\nfull spirit is to be apprehended, and that addition I have attempted to\nexpress in the last chapter.\n\nIf the solution I propose be the right solution, it yet remains to be\ndetermined whether it should first take the form of new laws from which\na new spirit may be expected to grow, or first take the form of a new\nspirit and practice from which new laws shall spring. The order is of\nessential importance; for to mistake it, to reverse the true sequence of\ncause and effect, is the prime cause of failure in all social reform.\n\nAs will be seen by those who have the patience to read to the end of my\nbook, I have, in its last pages, pleaded strongly for the _second_\npolicy. It would be impossible to frame in our society, and in face of\nthe rapidly rising tide of antagonism against the Jews, new laws that\nwould not lead to injustice. But if it be possible to create an\natmosphere wherein the Jews are spoken of openly, and they in their turn\nadmit, define, and accept the consequences of a separate nationality in\nour midst, _then_, such a spirit once established, laws and regulations\nconsonant to it will naturally follow.\n\nBut I am convinced that the reversing of this process would only lead\nfirst to confusion and next to disaster, both for Israel and for\nourselves.\n\n\nTHE DENIAL OF THE PROBLEM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE DENIAL OF THE PROBLEM\n\n\nI have stated the Problem. There is friction between the two races--the\nJews in their dispersion and those among whom they live. This friction\nis growing acute. It has led invariably in the past (and consequently\nmay lead now) to the most fearful consequences, terrible for the Jew but\nevil also for us. Therefore that the problem is immediate, practical and\ngrave. Therefore a solution is imperative.\n\nBut I may be--and indeed I shall be--met at the outset by the denial\nthat any such problem exists. Such was the attitude of all our immediate\npast; such is the attitude of many of the best men to-day on both sides\nof the gulf which separates Israel from our world.\n\nI must meet this objection before going further, for if it be sound, if\nindeed there is no problem (save what may be created by ignorance or\nmalice), then no solution is demanded. All we have to do is to enlighten\nthe ignorant and to repress the malicious: the ignorant, who imagine\nthere is an alien Jewish nation among them, the malicious, who treat as\nthough they were alien, men who are, in fact, exactly like ourselves and\nnormal fellow-citizens.\n\nI do not here allude to the great mass of convention, hypocrisy and fear\nwhich pretends ignorance of a truth it well knows. I am speaking of the\nsincere conviction, still present in many--particularly those of the\nolder generation--that no Jewish problem exists.\n\nIt is honestly denied by a certain type of mind that there is any such\nthing as a Jewish nation; there can therefore be no friction between it\nand its hosts: the thing is a delusion. Let us examine that mind and see\nwhether the illusion is on our side or no.\n\nIt was the attitude familiar to the nineteenth century, and agreeable to\nthat one of its political moods in which it found itself best satisfied:\nthe negative attitude of leaving the Jewish nation unrecognized; of\ncreating a fiction of single citizenship to replace the reality of dual\nallegiance; of calling a Jew a full member of whatever society he\nhappened to inhabit during whatever space of time he happened to sojourn\nthere in his wanderings across the earth. That was the attitude\nagreeable on the political side to everything which called itself\n\"modern thought.\" Such was the doctrine proposed by the great men of the\nFrench Revolution. Such was the attitude accepted almost\nenthusiastically by Liberal England, that is, by all the dominant public\nlife of England during the Victorian period. Such was the policy which\nonce obtained universal favour throughout the whole of our Western\ncivilization. That was the attitude which the West actually attempted to\nimpose upon Eastern States, and the last effect of its rapidly-declining\ncredit is to be found in certain clauses of the Treaty of Versailles:\nfor that attitude is still the official attitude of all our governments.\n\nIn the Treaty of Versailles and the other treaties following the Great\nWar the Jews of Eastern Europe were put under a sort of special\nprotection, but not in a straightforward and positive fashion. The word\n\"Jew\" was never blurted out--it was replaced by the word \"minority\"--but\nthe intention was obvious. The underlying implication was: \"We, the\nWestern governments, say there is no Jewish problem. The idea of a\nJewish nation is a delusion and the conception of the Jew as something\ndifferent from a Pole or a Rumanian is a mania. If you in the East are\nstill benighted in this matter, at any rate we will prevent your\nignorance or obsession from leading you to persecution.\" The same men\nwho made these declarations proceeded to erect a brand-new\nhighly-distinct Jewish state in Palestine, with the threat behind it of\nruthlessly suppressing a _majority_ by the use of Western arms.\n\nBoth actions were the consequence of that confused position I have just\ndefined (history will call it the _last_ example), which, though much\nweakened in public opinion, was still honestly taken for granted by\n_some_ of the Parliamentarians who framed the Treaty, and was certainly\nfelt to be of personal advantage to _all_: the position that there is no\nJewish nation when the admission of it may inconvenience the Jew, but\nvery much of a Jewish nation when it can advantage him.\n\nThose who defended this position did so from various standpoints; but\nthese may all be regarded as so many degrees in a certain way of looking\nat the Jewish people. It was till lately the attitude of the majority of\neducated Frenchmen, Englishmen and Italians. It was, so to speak, the\n_official_ political attitude of Western Europe with its parliamentary\ngovernments and other corresponding institutions.\n\nThe most extreme form of this opinion was to be found in people who\nspoke of the Jew as nothing other than a citizen with a particular\nreligion. A state would be dominantly Catholic or Protestant, but it\nwould contain smaller religious bodies, eager minorities, for which a\nplace had to be found, side by side with the more or less indifferent\nmajority. Catholic France had a five per cent and wealthy Huguenot\nminority. Protestant England had a seven per cent and poor Catholic\nminority. Protestant Holland had a large minority--more than a third--of\nCatholics, and so forth. It had become odious to nineteenth century\nthought that religious differences (which it regarded as nothing more\nthan shades of doubtfully-held private opinion) should be the concern of\nthe State. A large number of people thought of the Jews, not as a race,\nbut only as a religion; and regarding all religion thus, they concluded\nthat it could involve no diminution of citizenship.\n\nAt the other end of the scale you had public men who fully appreciated\nthe ultimate difficulties which would certainly arise from this\ninconclusive settlement of the matter. These regarded the Jews as a\nquite distinct nationality, and even as a nationality likely to clash\nwith the national needs of its hosts; they would even (in private)\nexpress their hostility towards that nationality. None the less, they\nthought it must be treated in public life as though it did not exist.\nThese men were most emphatic in their private letters and\nconversation--that the Jewish problem was _not_ a religious but a\nnational one. Nevertheless (they said) it was necessary _to-day_ to mask\nthat problem by a fiction and to _pretend_ that the Jew was just like\neverybody else save for his religion. All other solutions (they said)\ndemanded a knowledge of history and of Europe not to be expected of the\npublic at large; again, the Jews were so powerful that if _they_ desired\nthe fiction to be supported they must be humoured. At any rate, recourse\nmust be had, in our time at least, to this make-believe.\n\nTo the new and already antagonistic attitude towards the Jews now rising\nso strongly everywhere throughout Western Europe (which is in part a\nreaction from the nineteenth century position), this old-fashioned way\nof denying the Jewish race or ignoring its existence by a fiction\nappears morally odious, and we wonder to-day why it commanded universal\nsupport. It involved a falsehood, of course, often a conscious\nfalsehood; and it was also undignified; for there appears to our\ngeneration something as grotesque in denying the existence of the Jewish\nnation as in denying our own. But that the fiction was maintained\nsincerely, and that the grotesque and undignified side of it went\nunperceived, we can assure ourselves in a few moments' converse with any\none of that older generation which maintained it and still represents it\namong us.\n\nIt might have continued to flourish for yet another generation, at any\nrate among the leading classes of this commercial community, but for two\nnew developments which broke it down, each development the result of so\nlarge a toleration. The first was the growth of numbers, the second of\ninfluence. What made that old falsehood glaring and that old grotesque\napparent was the enormous increase throughout all the West of the Jewish\npoor, accompanied by the enormous increase of the power exercised by the\nJewish rich in public affairs. Men grew angry at finding themselves\npledged to a pretence that Jews were not, when their presence was\neverywhere unavoidable, in the streets, and in the offices of\ngovernment. The fiction was possible when a very few financiers, mixed\nwith and lost in the polite world, were alone concerned. It became\nimpossible in the face of the vast new ghettoes of London, Manchester,\nBradford, Glasgow, and the formidable and growing list of Jewish and\nhalf-Jewish Ministers, Viceroys, ambassadors, dictators of policy.\n\nThis contempt for and irritation with what I have called the nineteenth\ncentury attitude, the Liberal attitude, was already apparent before the\nend of that century. It was muttering during the South African war in\nEngland and the Dreyfus case in France; it became vocal in the first\nyears of this century, especially in connection with parliamentary\nscandals; with the Bolshevist rising in 1917 it became clamorous. It\nwill certainly grow. We already have a formidable minority prepared to\nact against the interest of the Jew. It will in all probability become,\nand that shortly, a majority. It may appear at any moment, on some\ncritical occasion, on some new provocation, as an overwhelming flood of\nexasperated opinion.\n\nAll the more does it behove us to treat the old-fashioned neutrality and\nfiction fairly; to examine it even with a bias in its favour; to set\ndown all that can be said in its defence before we reject it, as I think\nwe must now all reluctantly reject it. I say \"reluctantly\"; for after\nall it was the fixed mood of our fathers, who did great things: we feel\ntheir reproach when we abandon it, and there are still present with us\nvery many of our elders to whom our new anxiety is abhorrent.\n\nWe must remember in the first place that the treating of the Jew in the\nWest as no Jew at all, but a plain citizen like the rest, worked well\nenough for a time. One might almost say that there was no Jewish problem\nconsciously present to the mind of the average educated Englishman or\nFrenchman, Italian, or even western German, between, say, the years 1830\nand 1890. A very small body of Jews in England and France, in Italy and\nthe rest of the West, were vaguely associated with wealth in the popular\nmind; a large proportion of them were distinguished for public work of\nvarious kinds; many of them with beneficence. The presence of such men\ncould not conceivably lead to political difficulties--or at least, so it\nthen seemed. The stories of persecution that came through from Eastern\nEurope, even examples of friction between great bodies of Jews there and\nthe natives of the States where they happened to find themselves, were\nreceived in the West with disgust as the aberrations of imperfectly\ncivilized people.\n\nEven in the valley of the Rhine, where the Jew was more numerous and\nbetter known \"in bulk,\" the convention of the more civilized West was\naccepted. The doctrines, the abstraction of the French Revolution in\nthis matter had prevailed.\n\nHere any reader with an historical sense will at once point out that the\nspace of time I have just quoted--1830 to 1890--is ridiculously short.\nAny treatment of a very great political problem, centuries old, which\nworks for only sixty years and then begins to break down is no\nsettlement at all. But I would reply that this period was especially a\ntime in which historical perspective was lost. Men, even highly educated\nmen, in the nineteenth century, greatly exaggerated the foreground of\nthe historical picture.\n\nYou may note this in any school manual of the period, where all the four\ncenturies of our Roman foundation are compressed into a few sentences,\nthe dark ages into a few pages, the whole vast story of the Middle Ages\nthemselves into a few chapters; where the mass of the work is invariably\ngiven to the last three centuries, while of these the nineteenth is\nregarded as equal in importance to all the rest put together.\n\nThis false historical perspective is apparent in every other department\nof their political thought. For instance, although capitalism, huge\nnational debts, the anonymity of financial action and the rest of it,\ndid not begin to flourish fully until after the first third of the\nnineteenth century, and though anyone might (one would think) have been\nable to discover the exceedingly unstable character of that society, yet\nour fathers took it for granted as an eternal state of things. Your\nVictorian man with \u00a3100,000 in railway stock thought his family\nimmutably secure in a comfortable income, and what he thought about\ncapitalism he thought also about his newly-developed anonymous press,\nhis national frontiers, his tolerance of this, his intolerance of that,\nhis parliaments and all the rest of it. It is no wonder if, under such a\nfalse sense of permanence and security, he lost historical perspective\nin this other and graver matter we are here discussing.\n\nBut apart from the argument that what I have called the nineteenth\ncentury or Liberal attitude towards the Jews worked well for its little\nday (at least, in Western Europe), there is also the fact that under\nspecial circumstances something very like it has worked well for much\nlonger periods in the past. Take, for example, the position of the Jews\nin such a town as Amsterdam. The reception of a Jew as a citizen exactly\nlike others, though he was present in very large numbers, the fiction\ndenying his separate nationality, has held for generations in that\ncommunity and it has procured peace and apparent contentment upon both\nsides. And what is true to this day of Amsterdam has been true in the\npast for long periods in the life of many another commercial and\ncosmopolitan society: that of Venice, notably, and, in a large measure,\nthat of Rome; in that of Frankfort, of Lyons, and of a hundred cities at\nspecial times. It was true of all Poland for generations.\n\nOne might add to the list indefinitely, but always with the\nuncomfortable knowledge, as one wrote, that the experiment invariably\nbroke down in the long run.\n\nAgain, there was to be advanced for this Liberal attitude of the\nnineteenth century the very powerful argument that while to one party in\nthe issue, the Englishman, the Frenchman, the Italian, etc., it seemed\nwell enough and certainly did no harm, it was highly acceptable to the\nother. The Jew as a rule not only accepted but welcomed this particular\nway of dealing with what _he_ at any rate has always known to be a very\ngrave problem indeed. For the Jew has a racial memory beyond all other\nmen. The arrangement seemed to give him all the security of which his\nracial history (a thing of which every Jew is acutely conscious) had\nmade him ardently desirous. I think we should add (though the phrase\nwould be quarrelled with by many modern people) that this fiction\nsatisfied the Jew's sense of _justice_. For it is no small part of the\nproblem we are examining that the Jew does really feel such special\ntreatment to be his due. Without it he feels handicapped. He is, in his\nown view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he\nis thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him\nthis singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he\nhappens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full\ncitizenship in his own nation.\n\nNow, if in any conflict an arrangement seems workable enough to one\nparty and is actually acclaimed by the other, it is not lightly to be\ndisregarded.\n\nIf, for instance, a man and his tenant quarrel about the tenure of a\nfield upon a very long lease, the tenant caring little about nominal\nownership but very much about his inviolable tenure, the landlord quite\nagreeable to a very long lease but keen on retaining the titular\nownership, that quarrel can be easily settled. One could give any name\nto the tenant's position other than the name of \"owner,\" yet satisfy all\nhis practical demands. A rough parallel exists between such a position\nand the attempt at a settlement which marked the nineteenth century.\n\nWhat the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an\nEnglishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was\ncompletely indifferent (for his pride lay in being a Jew, his loyalty\nwas to his own, and what is more, he might at any moment fold up his\ntent and go off to another country for good). What the Jew wanted was\nnot the feeling that he was just like the others--that would have been\nodious to him--what he wanted was _security_; it is what every human\nbeing craves for and what he of all men most lacked: the power to feel\nsafe in the place where one happens to be. On the other hand, his hosts\nhad not yet found any practical inconvenience in granting this demand.\nThey did not know the historical argument against it, or they thought it\nworthless, because they thought the past barbarous and no model for\ntheir own action. So a compromise was arrived at, the fiction was\nsolidly established, and the Jew, though remaining a Jew, became a\nGerman in Hamburg, a Frenchman in Paris, an American in New York, as he\nwandered from place to place, and for a long lifetime no one felt\nhimself much the worse for the false convention.\n\nThe next argument in favour of this policy was the fact that it drew\nupon a number of ideas, each one of which at some time or another had\nbeen taken for granted by our ancestors in each one of their numerous\n(but unsuccessful) attempts to deal with the problem after their own\nfashion.\n\nFor instance, a modern objector says: \"What rubbish to treat Jews as\nthough they merely represented a religion! We all know they represent a\n_nation_!\" But all manner of legislation in the past, even in times and\nplaces where the difference between Jews and Europeans was most marked,\nhas perpetually fallen back upon that very point of religion alone.\nOver and over again you find it the test of policy: in early, and again\nin fifteenth century Spain, under Charlemagne's rule in Gaul, in early\nmediaeval England, at Byzantium, and to this day in Eastern parts where\nthe Jew is subject to perpetual interference. Exception was in all these\nmade for the Jew who abandoned his religion. His nation was left\nunmentioned.\n\nIt is pertinent to quote such a simple and recent example as the body of\nPrussian officers, now happily extinct. It was a standing rule in the\nsmarter Prussian regiments (I believe in nearly all) that no Jew could\nget his commission. The Prussian system left the granting of\ncommissions, in practice, to the existing members of the regimental\nstaff; they treated their mess as a Club and they blackballed Jews. But\nthey would admit _baptized_ Jews, and did so in considerable numbers.\nWas the Jew less of a Jew in race through his baptism? Throughout all\nthe centuries that religious criterion, which the modern reformer cries\nout against as a piece of humbug and a mask for the real political\nproblem, has been the criterion taken. It is true that the modern\nsolution did not attempt a religious segregation. On the contrary, the\nLiberal thought of the nineteenth century held all such segregation in\nabhorrence; but it had this in common with the older fashion, that it\nmade religion the point of interest, and to that extent masked the more\nreal point of nationality and allegiance.\n\nLord Palmerston, making his famous speech on the sanctity of a Greek\nJew's bedstead, and insisting that the said Greek Jew was an English\ncitizen; Lord Palmerston carefully avoiding the word \"Jew\" and\npretending throughout his speech that the Greek Jew in question was as\nmuch an Englishman as himself, was in a very different mood from a\nSpanish fifth-century Bishop admitting a Jew to Office on condition of\nhis conversion. Yet the two had this in common, that neither regarded\nthe Jew as the member of another nation, but each (for very different\nreasons) as no more than the member of a religion.\n\nTo Palmerston, this Greek Jew about whose bedstead he made his famous\nspeech, and onto whose bedstead hangs to this day the phrase \"Civus\nRomanus Sum,\" was above all a fellow-citizen. He may have seemed to\nPalmerston a doubtful sort of Englishman because his home was Greece,\nbut he certainly did not seem doubtful because he happened to be a Jew.\nPalmerston would have thought that only a matter of private opinion, and\nwould no more have regarded a Jew as an alien on account of this private\nopinion than he would have regarded as alien a fellow-Member of the\nHouse of Commons who preferred roast mutton to boiled.\n\nTake, again, another aspect of the nineteenth century liberal idea: the\nrecognition of citizenship. You have had that over and over again in the\nattempted solutions of the past. It was the very essence of the Roman\nmethod. For though the Government of the Roman Empire was much too\nconcerned with realities and with enduring work to accept any fiction in\nthe matter, or to pretend in practice that the Jew was not a Jew;\nthough, on the contrary, the Romans recognized at once the gulf between\nthe Jews and themselves, and recognized it not only by their cruelty to\nthe Jew but also by the privileges they granted him; yet it was always\ntheir policy to admit _citizenship_ as the primary distinction. The Jew\nwho could claim that he was a full Roman citizen was, in the eyes of a\nRoman Tribunal, much more important in that capacity than in his social\ncapacity as Jew. His \"point,\" as we should say in our modern slang, was\nhis citizenship, not his Judaism. So, I say, this solution has for a\nfurther argument the fact that in one part or another it is in touch\nwith the various attempts our race has made in the past to solve the\nproblem.\n\nThere is yet another argument strongly in favour of the Liberal fiction\nwhich was attempted in the immediate past, and thought to have been\nsuccessfully established. It is the consonance of that fiction with the\nwhole body of modern custom and law, with the whole mass of modern\neconomic and social habit.\n\nWe travel so much, we mix so much, our economic activities are at once\nso complicated, so interlocked, and (unhappily) for the most part so\nsecret, that any other way of meeting the Jews would have seemed--at any\nrate if it had appeared in the shape of a positive law--a monstrous\nanachronism. A man must meet his friends' friends and treat them as a\nnormal part of the general society in which he moves. As the Jew\npermeated the society of the West everywhere (small though his numbers\nwere in the West), as he everywhere intermarried with Europeans of the\nwealthier class, to insist in his presence upon his separate nationality\nwould have been odious; it would have been like making a guest feel out\nof place in one's home.\n\nWhat is more, to by far the greater part of the wealthier and governing\nclasses of the Western States the difference of race was so far masked\nthat it had almost come to be forgotten. Sometimes a shock would revive\nit. An English squire would find, for instance, that a relation of his\nby marriage, whose Jewish name and descent he had never bothered about,\nwas cousin to, and in close connection with, a person of a totally\ndifferent name--an Oriental name--mixed up in some conspiracy, say,\nagainst the Russian State. Or he would learn with surprise that a\nlearned University man with whom he had recently dined was the uncle of\na socialist agitator in Vienna. But the shock would be a passing one,\nand the old mood of security would return.\n\nWith the growth of plutocracy the anomaly of treating Jews as\nindividuals separate from the rest of the community increased. The most\nimportant men in control of international finance were admittedly\nJewish. The Jew's international position made him always useful and\noften necessary in the vast international economic undertakings of our\ntime. The anonymity which had come to be taken for granted throughout\nmodern capitalism made it seem absurd or impossible, always highly\nunusual, and probably futile, to search for a separate Jewish element in\nany particular undertaking.\n\nThere is one last argument for this Liberal policy, which has a strong\npractical value, though it is exceedingly dangerous to use it in the\ndefence of that policy because it cuts both ways. It is the argument\nthat the Jew ought to be thus treated as a citizen exactly like the rest\nand given no position either of privilege or disability, because he\ndoes, as a fact, mould himself so very rapidly to his environment.\n\nWhen men say--as they are beginning to do--that a Jew is as different\nfrom ourselves as a Chinaman, or a negro, or an Esquimaux, and ought\ntherefore to be treated as belonging to a separate body from our own,\nthe answer is that the Jew is nothing of the kind. Indeed, he becomes,\nafter a short sojourn among Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans or Americans,\nso like his hosts on the surface that he is, to many, indistinguishable\nfrom them; and that is one of the main facts in the problem.\n\nThat is the real reason why to the majority of the middle classes in the\nnineteenth century, in Western countries, the Jewish problem was\nnonexistent. Were you to say it of any other race--negroes, for\ninstance, or Chinamen--it would sound incredible; but we know it in\npractice to be true, that a Jew will pass his life in, say, three\ndifferent communities in turn, _and in each the people who have met him\nwill testify that he seemed just like themselves_.\n\nI have known a case in point which would amuse my non-Jewish readers but\nperhaps offend my Jewish readers were I to present it in detail. I shall\ncite it therefore without names, because I desire throughout this book\nto keep to the rule whereby alone it can be of service, that nothing\noffensive to either party shall be introduced; but it is typical and can\nbe matched in the experience of many.\n\nThe case was that of the father of a man in English public life. He\nbegan life with a German name in Hamburg. He was a patriotic citizen of\nthat free city, highly respected and in every way a Hamburger, and the\nHamburg men of that generation still talk of him as one of themselves.\n\nHe drifted to Paris before the Franco-German War, and, there, was an\nactive Parisian, familiar with the life of the Boulevards and full of\nenergy in every patriotic and characteristically French pursuit; notably\nhe helped to recruit men during the national catastrophe of 1870-71.\nEverybody who met him in this phase of his life thought of him and\ntalked of him as a Frenchman.\n\nDeciding that the future of France was doubtful after such a defeat, he\nmigrated to the United States, and there died. Though a man of some\nyears when he landed, he soon appeared in the eyes of the Americans with\nwhom he associated to be an American just like themselves. He acquired\nthe American accent, the American manner, the freedom and the restraints\nof that manner. In every way he was a characteristic American.\n\nIn Hamburg his German name had been pronounced after the German fashion.\nIn France, where German names are common, he retained it, but had it\npronounced in French fashion. On reaching the United States it was\nchanged to a Scotch name which it distantly resembled, and no doubt if\nhe had gone to Japan the Japanese would be telling us that they had\nknown him as a worthy Japanese gentleman of great activity in national\naffairs and bearing the honoured name of an ancient Samurai family.\n\nThe nineteenth century attitude almost entirely depended upon this\nmarvellous characteristic in the Jews which differentiates them from all\nthe rest of mankind. Had that characteristic power of superficial\nmutation been absent, the nineteenth century policy would have broken\ndown as completely as the corresponding Northern policy towards the\nnegro broke down in the United States. Had the Jew been as conspicuous\namong us, as, say, a white man is among Kaffirs, the fiction would have\nbroken down at once. As it was, all who adopted that policy, honestly or\ndishonestly, were supported by this power of the Jew to conform\nexternally to his temporary surroundings.\n\nThe man who consciously adopted the nineteenth century Liberal policy\ntowards the Jews as a mere political scheme, knowing full well the\ndangers it might develop; the man only half conscious of the existence\nof those dangers; and the man who had never heard of them but took it\nfor granted that the Jew was a citizen just like himself, with an\nexceptional religion--each of those three men had in common, aiding the\nschemes of the one, supporting the illusion of the other, the amazing\nfact that a Jew takes on with inexplicable rapidity the colour of his\nenvironment. That unique characteristic was the support of the Liberal\nattitude and was at the same time its necessary condition.\n\nThe fiction that a man of obviously different type and culture and race\nis the same as ourselves, may be practical for purposes of law and\ngovernment, but cannot be maintained in general opinion. A conspiracy or\nillusion attempting, for instance, to establish the Esquimaux in\nGreenland as indistinguishable from the Danish officials of the\nSettlement, would fail through ridicule. Equally ridiculous would be the\npretence that because they were both subjects of the same Crown an\nEnglishman in the Civil Service of India was exactly the same sort of\nperson as a Sikh soldier. But with the Jews you have the startling truth\nthat, while the fundamental difference goes on the whole time and is\nperhaps deeper than any other of the differences separating mankind into\ngroups; while he is, within, and through all his ultimate character,\nabove all things a Jew; yet in the superficial and most immediately\napparent things he is clothed in the very habit of whatever society he\nfor the moment inhabits.\n\nI say that this might seem to many the last and strongest argument in\nfavour of the old-fashioned Liberal policy, but I repeat that it is a\ndangerous argument, for it cuts both ways. If a food which disagrees\nwith you looks exactly like another kind of food which suits you, you\nmight use the likeness as an argument for eating either sort of food\nindifferently. You might say: \"It is silly to try to distinguish; one\nmust admit, on looking at them, that they are the same thing\"; but it\nwould turn out after dinner a very bad practical policy.\n\nThere is indeed one last argument which to me, personally, and I suppose\nto most of my readers, is stronger than all the rest, for it is the\nargument from morals.\n\nIf the Liberal attitude of the nineteenth century had proved a stable\none, omitting that element in it which is a falsehood and therefore a\nfactor of instability, one could retain the rest; _then_ it would\nsatisfy two appetites common to all men--appetite for justice and the\nappetite for charity.\n\nHere is a man, a neighbour present in the midst of my society. I put him\nto inconvenience if I treat him as an alien. I like him; I regard him as\na friend. To treat such a man as though he were, although a friend,\nsomething separate, not to be admitted to certain functions of my\ncommunity, offends the heart, as it also offends the sense of justice.\nSuch a man may possess a great talent for, say, administration. Like all\nmen possessed of a great talent, he must exercise it. You maim him if\nyou do not allow him to exercise it. A rule forbidding him to take part\nin the administration of the society in which he finds himself, or even\na feeling hindering him in such activities, creates, not only in him,\nbut in those who are his hosts, a sense of injustice; and if it were\npossible to adopt a policy wherein the separate character of the Jew\nshould be always in abeyance, so that he could be at the same time an\nEnglishman and yet not an Englishman, or a Frenchman and yet not a\nFrenchman, then we should have a settlement which all good men ought to\naccept.\n\nUnfortunately that solution is false because, like many appeals to a\nvirtuous instinct, it is sentimental. We call \"sentimental\" a policy or\ntheory which attempts to reconcile contradictions. The sentimental man\nwill equally abhor crime and its necessary punishment; disorder and an\norganized police. He likes to think of human life as though it did not\ncome to an end. He likes to read of the passion of love without its\nconcomitant of sexual conflict. He likes to read and think of great\nfortunes accumulated without avarice, cunning or theft. He likes to\nimagine an impossible world of mutually exclusive things. It makes him\ncomfortable.\n\nNow we commit the fault of the sentimental man (the gravest of practical\nfaults in politics) when we cling at this late date to a continuance of\nthe old policy. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you cannot at\nthe same time have present in the world this ubiquitous fluid, yet\nclosely organized Jewish community, and _at the same time_ each of the\nindividuals composing it treated as though they were _not_ members of\nthe nation which makes them all they are. You cannot at the same time\ntreat a whole as one thing and its component parts as another. If you\ndo, you are building on contradiction and you will, like everybody who\nbuilds on contradiction, run up against disaster.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am minded to give the reader another anecdote (again taking care, I\nhope, to suppress all names and dates to prevent identification, which\nmight irritate my Jewish readers or too greatly interest their\nopponents). As a younger man it was my constant pastime to linger at the\nbar of the House of Lords and listen to what went on there. I shall\nalways remember one occasion when an aged Jew, who had begun life in\nvery humble circumstances, had accumulated a great fortune and had\npurchased his peerage like any other, rose to speak in connection with a\nresolution or with a bill dealing with \"aliens\"--the hypocrisy of the\npolitician, and the popular ferment against the rush of Jewish\nimmigrants into the East End between them gave rise to that\nnon-committal name. This old gentleman very rightly pushed all such\nhumbug aside. He knew perfectly well that the policy was aimed at \"his\npeople\"--and he called them \"my people.\" He knew perfectly well that the\nproposed change would introduce interference with their movement and\nwould subject them to humiliation. He spoke with flaming patriotism,\nand I was enthralled by the intensity, vigour and sincerity of his\nappeal. It was a very fine performance and, incidentally (considering\nwhat the man was!), it illustrated the vast difference between his\npeople and my own. For a life devoted to accumulating wealth, which\nwould have killed nobler instincts in any one of us, had evidently\nseemed to him quite normal and left him with every appetite of justice\nand of love of nation unimpaired. He clinched that fine speech with the\ncry, \"What our people want is to be let alone.\" He said it over and over\nagain. I am sure that in the audience which listened to him, all the\nolder men felt a responsive echo to that appeal. It was the very\ndoctrine in which they had been brought up and the very note of the\ngreat Victorian Liberal era, with its national triumphs in commerce and\nin arms.\n\nWell, within a very few years the younger members of that very man's\nfamily came out in Parliamentary scandal after scandal, appearing all in\nsequence one after the other--a sort of procession. They had been let\nalone right enough! But they had not let _us_ alone. I ask myself,\nsometimes, How would it sound if some years hence any one of those\ndescendants--having by that time been given his peerage (for they are\nrich men and all of them in professional politics)--should return to\nthat cry of his ancestor and ask to be \"let alone\"? There would be no\nresponse _then_ in the breasts of the contemporaries who might hear him.\nManners will so much have changed in this regard that he would be\ninterrupted. But I do not think that my hypothetical descendant of that\nrich old Jew is likely to make any such speech. I think that when the\ntime comes for making it, the whole idea of \"letting alone\" will be\nquite dead.\n\nI have quoted this old man's speech with no invidious intention but only\nas an actual example of the way in which the \"letting alone\" of this\ngreat question breaks down. I am as familiar as any Jewish reader of\nmine with names that have dignified public life in the past, Jewish\nnames, Jewish peers: and I recall in particular the honoured name of\nLord Herschell to the friendship between whose nearest and my own I\npreserve a grateful and sacred memory.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut to return to the failure of the sentimental argument.\n\nThe sentimental argument fails because it involves contradictions--that\nis, incompatibility of fact.\n\nEven if one had not this strictly rational principle to guide one, there\nis the whole of history to guide one. It is true that the pretence of\ncommon citizenship has worked now for a shorter, now for a longer,\nperiod, but never indefinitely. You always come at last to a smash. The\nJew is welcomed in mediaeval Poland; he comes in vast numbers; all goes\nwell. Then the inevitable happens and the Jew and the Pole stand apart\nas enemies, each accusing the other of injustice, the one crying out\nthat he is persecuted, the other that the State is in danger by alien\nactivity within. Spain alternatively pursued this policy, and its\nopposite; the whole history of Spain--the original seat of Jewish\ninfluence in Europe after the general exile--is a history of alternating\nattempts at the sentimental solution and a savage reaction against it:\nthe reaction of the man, who, fighting for his life, strikes out\nviolently in terror of death. That is the history not only of Spain but\nof every other country at one time or another.\n\nIndeed, we have before our very eyes to-day the beginning of exactly\nsuch a reaction in the West of Europe and the United States of America,\nand it is the presence of that reaction which has caused this book to be\nwritten. The attempt at a Liberal solution has already failed in our\nhands; if it had not failed there would be no more to be said, or, at\nany rate, we could postpone the discussion until the actual difficulty\nbegan. But we have only to look around us to see that, after these few\nyears, this one lifetime, during which the experiment has flourished in\nthe highest part of civilization, it is already breaking down.\nEverywhere the old questions are being asked, everywhere the old\ncomplaints are being raised, everywhere the old perils are reappearing.\nWe must seek some solution, for if we fail to find it we know from the\npast what tragedies are in store for us both. There is a problem, a most\ndirect and urgent problem. Once it is recognized, a solution of it is\nnecessarily demanded.\n\nBut it is not enough to show that the mere denial of the existence of\nthat problem--the old nineteenth century Liberal policy--was false and\nbound to break down. It is just as necessary, if we appreciate how\npractical and immediate the problem is, to state it and illustrate it\nfrom contemporary events. It is not enough to show that the attempted\nLiberal policy has failed. One must also, before trying to discover a\nsolution, analyse the nature of the problem as it presents itself at the\nmoment, and that is what I propose to do in the next chapter.\n\n\nTHE PRESENT PHASE OF THE PROBLEM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE PRESENT PHASE OF THE PROBLEM\n\n\nI said in my last that the old solution of ignoring or denying the\nJewish problem was bound to break down and had broken down, and this was\ntantamount to saying that the problem persists. But I said one must go\nfarther and state the full nature of that problem as it stands at this\nmoment before one could attempt a practical solution.\n\nIt is not enough to say that a person who imagines himself immortal and\nimmune from disease is, as a fact, dangerously ill, and that the\nbreak-down of his health has disproved his theory. One must go on to\nfind out exactly what is the matter with him, and, if possible, what the\ncure for the trouble may be.\n\nThe Jewish problem in its larger sense I have defined in the first\nchapter of this book, and that as I think every one defines it,\nincluding all the many Jews who have discussed the matter. It is the\npresence within one political organism of another political organism at\nfriction with it: the strains set up by such an unnatural state of\naffairs; the risk of disaster to the lesser body and of hurt to both if\nit remain unremedied. The true solution therefore is only to be\ndiscovered in some policy which will permanently relieve the strain and\nre-establish normal relations. The end of such a solution should be the\nfunctioning, as far as possible, of both parties, at their ease and\nwithout disturbance one to the other.\n\nBut this general statement of the problem--that it is the presence to\neach party of an alien body and the consequent irritation and friction\non each--is not enough. We must pursue it more closely and develop it in\ngreater detail, describing how the friction and the irritation are\nincreasing: insisting that they have even become a menace. Then only can\nwe set out to discover as far as possible by analysis what exact\ncharacter the disease bears and why it is of this character. Only after\nall this can we explore a remedy.\n\nWhen we look round the modern world, say the last twenty years, we\ndiscover, in widely separate places, and among very different interests,\nand inhabiting the most diverse characters, the presence of what is for\nmany a new political feeling: it runs from irritation to exasperation,\nfrom grumbling to invective; it is everywhere directed against the Jews.\nOne activity after another, in which the Jews are variously in the right\nor in the wrong, or indifferent, has aroused hostility in varying\ndegrees--but increasing--and though the danger-spots are still, as I\nhave said, dissociated in the main, yet they are beginning to coalesce\nand to form large areas inimical to Israel.\n\nIt is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in commerce--where he\nis ubiquitous and powerful out of all proportion to his numbers--that he\nseeks, and has already almost reached, dominion. It is objected that he\nacts everywhere against the interests of his hosts; that these are being\ninterfered with, guided, run against their will; that a power is\npresent which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active\nopposition to what we love. Notably is it said to be indifferent to, or\nin active opposition against, our national feelings, our religious\ntraditions, and the general culture and morals of Christendom which we\nhave inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel.\n\nThese feelings grew as one example after another of the Jewish strength,\nthe Jewish cohesion, arrived to feed them. How violent they were to\nbecome might be seen by taking as a special example their extreme form,\ncalled \"Anti-Semitism.\" When we come, later in this book, to examine\nthat modern phenomenon, we shall find it to be not only a proof of the\ninsistence and gravity of the problem we are trying to solve, but also\nsome explanation of its nature.\n\nUpon a world thus already exasperated, and in some large sections\nexasperated to the point of unreason--for the anti-Semitic drive was,\nand is, full of unreason--there suddenly fell the double effect of the\nBolshevist revolution: a revolution which struck both at the benevolent\nwho would hear no harm of the Jews, and those who had hitherto shielded\nor obeyed them as identified only with the interests of large Capital.\nIt was a blow in flank under which staggered both the supporters of\nJewish neutrality and the dependants upon Jewish finance.\n\nThe old Liberal policy still officially held the field; but when this\nshattering explosion came it compelled attention. Bolshevism stated the\nJewish problem with a violence and an insistence such that it could no\nlonger be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute\nliar.\n\nSuch was, in its largest lines, the recent historical sequence leading\nup to the state of affairs we now find. Let us trace that sequence in\nmore detail and from a little farther back.\n\nA lifetime ago, when the Liberal policy was founded and when conditions\nwere favourable to its establishment, the populace might still nourish\nits traditional antagonism to the Jew, but in the West of Europe his\nnumbers were very limited (only a few thousand in France and England\ncombined, and hardly as many in Italy).\n\nHe belonged for the most part to the classes that did not come into\ndirect competition with the poor of the large towns. From the\ncountrysides he was absent. He had not attempted to govern his hosts as\na politician, nor, in any large measure, to indoctrinate them through\nthe Press. The rapid decline of religion at that time broke down one\nbarrier, and the transformation of the governing classes from the old\nterritorial Lords to the modern plutocracy broke down another. The\nconvention that the Jew was indistinguishable from the citizens of the\ncountry in which he happened to live, or, at any rate, from that in\nwhich he had last lived, was further fostered by the break-up of that\ncosmopolitan aristocratic society which had marked the eighteenth\ncentury, and which could note and register the movements of prominent\nindividuals from nation to nation. The new industrial fortunes and the\nnew international finance both contributed to the same end, while the\nJew also began to compete successfully in every one of the liberal\nprofessions without as yet dominating any of them. No conflicts had\narisen between the Jewish race and the national interests of any\nEuropean people, with the exception perhaps of the Poles; and these were\nsubject and silenced.\n\nThroughout all this time, from the years after Waterloo to the years\nimmediately succeeding the defeat of the French in 1870-71, the weight\nand position of the Jew in Western civilization increased out of all\nknowledge and yet without shock, and almost without attracting\nattention. They entered the Parliaments everywhere, the English Peerage\nas well, and the Universities in very large numbers. A Jew became Prime\nMinister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian\nresurrection; another led the opposition to Napoleon III. They were\npresent in increasing numbers in the chief institutions of every\ncountry. They began to take positions as fellows of every important\nOxford and Cambridge college; they counted heavily in the national\nliteratures; Browning and Arnold families, for instance, in England;\nMazzini in Italy. They came for the first time into European diplomacy.\nThe armies and navies alone were as yet untouched by their influence.\nStrains of them were even present in the reigning families. The\ninstitution of Freemasonry (with which they are so closely allied and\nall the ritual of which is Jewish in character) increased very rapidly\nand very greatly. The growth of an anonymous Press and of an\nincreasingly anonymous commercial system further extended their power.\n\nIt is an illusion to believe that all this great change was Jewish in\norigin. The Jew did not create it, he floated upon it, but it worked\nmanifestly to his advantage, and we find him at the end of it\nrepresented on the governing institutions of Western Europe fifty or one\nhundredfold more than was his due in proportion to his numbers. The Jews\nintermarried everywhere with the leading families and, before any sign\nthat a turn of the tide had taken place, they had already achieved that\nposition in which they are now being assailed and to oust them from\nwhich such strong efforts are preparing.\n\nPerhaps the first event which cut across this unbroken ascent was the\ndefeat of the French in 1870-1. Not that its effects were immediate in\nthis field, but that a nation defeated is the more likely to raise a\ngrievance, real or imaginary; in seeking a cause for social misfortunes\nfollowing on its military disasters, it will naturally fix upon an\ninternational rather than a national one, and blame its alien population\nrather than its own. Moreover, the date of the French defeat was also\nthe date on which was overthrown the temporal power of the Papacy. In\nthis also the Jews had played their part. It gave them the opportunity\nto play a still greater part in the immediate future of the new Italy.\nWithin a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor who supported with all\nhis might the unchristianizing of the city and especially of its\neducational system.\n\nOne small but significant factor in the whole business of these 70's and\nearly 80's--the beginning of the last quarter of the nineteenth\ncentury--was the rise to monopoly of the Jewish international news\nagents, among which Reuters was prominent, and the presence of Jews as\ninternational correspondents of the various great newspapers, the most\nprominent example being Opper, a Bohemian Jew, who concealed his origin\nunder the false name of \"de Blowitz,\" and for years acted as Paris\ncorrespondent for _The Times_, a paper in those days of international\ninfluence.\n\nThe first expression of the reaction that was at hand was to be found in\nsundry definitely anti-Semitic writings appearing in Germany and France,\nmost noticeable in the latter country.\n\nTheir effect was at first slight, though they had the high advantage of\nextensive documentation. The great majority of educated men shrugged\ntheir shoulders and passed such things by as the extravagancies of\nfanatics; but these fanatics none the less laid the foundation of future\naction by the quotation of an immense quantity of facts which could not\nbut remain in the mind even of those who were most contemptuous of the\nnew propaganda. In these books special insistence was laid upon exposing\nwhat the Jews themselves call \"crypto-Judaism\"--that is, the presence\neverywhere throughout Western Europe of men in important public\npositions who passed for English, French or what not, but were really\nJews.\n\nIn many cases (I have already quoted the poet Browning and the\ndistinguished family of Arnold) these people were not hiding their\nreligion but had simply drifted from the original Jewish community of\nwhich their ancestors had been members, but in most others there was\nmore or less present an element of conscious secrecy. It was evidently\nthe object of those who produced the literature I am describing to\nattack that secrecy in particular and to undo its effects; and, as I\nhave said, even where their fanaticism was most ridiculed, the vast\narray of facts which they marshalled could not be without its effect\nupon the memory of their contemporaries.\n\nThere next appeared a series of direct international actions undertaken\nby Jewish finance, the most important of which, of course, was the\ndrawing of Egypt into the European system, and particularly into the\nsystem of Great Britain.\n\nOf more effect upon public opinion was the excitement of the Dreyfus\ncase in France and, immediately afterwards, of the South African War, in\nEngland.\n\nThe characteristic of the Dreyfus case was not the discussion upon the\nguilt or innocence of the unfortunate man from whom it takes its title,\nbut the immense international clamour with which it was surrounded. This\nlocal affair was made an affair of the whole world, and men took as\npassionate an interest in it in the remotest corners of civilization as\nthough they had been the principals actually engaged.\n\nSuch a phenomenon could not but astonish the mass of onlookers who had\nhitherto not given the Jewish question a thought, and when there was\nadded to it the great ordeal of the South African War, openly and\nundeniably provoked and promoted by Jewish interests in South Africa,\nwhen that war was so unexpectedly prolonged and proved so unexpectedly\ncostly in blood and treasure, a second element was added to the growing\nfeeling, not yet, indeed, of antagonism to Jewish power (half cultured\nFrance was Dreyfusard, and much more than half England favoured the Boer\nWar at its origin), but of interest in the Jewish question, of\ncuriosity, on the part of the average citizen, who had not hitherto\nheard of it.\n\nThe original minority which had begun to oppose Jewish power, with\ntheir extreme left wing of Anti-Semites, and their core of men whose\nquarrel was rather with the financial control of the modern world than\nwith any racial problem, tended to grow. As always happens with a\ngrowing movement, events appeared to suit themselves to that growth and\nto promote it.\n\nThe Panama scandals in the French Parliament had already fed the\nmovement in France. The later Parliamentary scandals in England, Marconi\nand the rest, afforded so astonishing a parallel to Panama that the\nsimilarity was of universal comment. They might have passed as isolated\nthings a generation before. They were now connected, often unjustly,\nwith the uneasy sense of a general financial conspiracy. They were, at\nany rate, connected with an atmosphere essentially Jewish in character.\n\nMeanwhile there had already begun one of those great migratory movements\nof the Jews which have diversified history for two thousand years and\nwhich are almost always the prelude to each new disturbance in the\nequilibrium of the Jews and each new resuscitation of the Jewish problem\nin its most acute form.\n\nThe great reservoir of the Jewish race was, of course, that country of\nPoland which had so nobly succoured the Jews during the persecutions of\nthe late Middle Ages. Poland had made itself an asylum for all the Jews\nwho cared to go to it, and was now, after the infamous partition\ninaugurated by Prussia, still the home of something like half the Jews\nof the world. The hatred of the Jews entertained by all classes of\nRussians, the persecutions they suffered from the fact that Russia,\nsince the partition, governed that part of Poland where they were most\nnumerous, started the new exodus. The movement was a westerly one,\nmainly to the United States, but there also arose in connection with it\na novel growth of great ghettoes in the English industrial towns, more\nparticularly in London, while New York was slowly transformed from a\ncity as free of Jewish population as London and Paris had been in the\npast, to one in which a good third or more of its inhabitants became\neither entirely Jewish or partly Jewish.\n\nThis vast immigration, which was in full swing just before the outbreak\nof the great war, and which was adding so active a leaven to the\nincreasing ferment, which had even planted the beginnings of a ghetto in\nParis and which was affecting the whole of the West, was supplemented by\none more factor of the first importance.\n\nModern capitalism, by which the Jew had so largely benefited, but which\nhe did not originate and in which prominent, though few, Jewish names,\nwere so immixed, had for its counterpart and reaction the _socialist_\nmovement. This, again, the Jews did not originate, nor at first direct;\nbut it rapidly fell more and more under their control. The family of\nMordecai (who had assumed the name of Marx) produced in Karl a most\npowerful exponent of that theory. Though he did no more than copy and\nfollow his non-Jewish instructors (especially Louis Blanc, a Franco-Scot\nof genius), he presented in complete form the full theory of Socialism,\neconomic, social, and, by implication, religious; for he postulated\nMaterialism.\n\nAfter Karl Marx came a crowd of his compatriots, who led the industrial\nproletariat in rebellion against the increasing power of the capitalist\nsystem, and began to organize a determined revolt.\n\nBefore the Great War one could say that the whole of the Socialist\nmovement, so far as its staff and direction were concerned, was Jewish;\nand while it took this purely economic form in the West, in the East--in\nthe Russian Empire--it took a political form as well, and the growing\nrevolutionary force in that Empire was equally Jewish in direction and\ndriving power.\n\nSuch was the situation on the eve of the Great War. Men were beginning\nto be thoroughly alive to what was meant by the Jewish problem. The old\nsecurity was dispelled for ever; but as yet only a minority, though now\na large one, was prepared to deal with that problem and to discuss it\nopenly. All that was official, and particularly the Press, with its vast\ninfluence, had as yet refused in any department to face the realities of\nthe position. The convention forbidding public allusion to the Jewish\nquestion was still very strong. On the surface it seemed as though the\nold Liberal policy still stood firm and, indeed, unshakeable. The Jews\nwere in every place of 'vantage: they taught in the Universities of all\nEurope; they were everywhere in the Press; everywhere in finance. They\nwere continually to be found in the highest places of Government and in\nthe chanceries of Christendom they had acquired a dominant power which\nnone could question. But the challenge against this unnatural position\nnecessarily worked against great odds, it remained private and had\ngreat difficulty in finding expression. None the less, it extended, and\nby 1914 had become serious.\n\nThe immeasurable catastrophe of the war--with which the Jews had nothing\nto do and which their more important financial representatives did all\nthey could to prevent--fell upon Europe. It seemed at first as though,\nin the face of that overwhelming tragedy, what had been so rapidly\ngrowing--I mean the debate and conflict upon Jewish claims--would be\nsilenced. The Jews were found fighting gallantly in all the armies.\nTheir services were generously acknowledged, though the cruel ambiguity\nof their situation was hardly realized. Considering that they had no\nnational interest in the fight, it must have seemed to them a mere\ninsanity, crucifying their nation to no purpose. For Zangwill put the\nmatter well indeed when he said that those who eagerly and spontaneously\njoined the first recruiting (and these were numerous) did so \"for the\nhonour of Israel.\" The sacrifice was not without fruit. In its presence\nmany a complaint was silenced and much was revealed which, but for it,\nwould have remained unprobed. The Christian family in its bereavement\nsaw at its side a Jewish neighbour who had lost his son in what was no\nconcern of his race; the Christian priest witnessed the agony of the\nyoung Jewish soldier. The defender of the Western nations saw at his\nside not only the Jewish conscript (who should never have been called)\nbut the Jewish volunteer. Thus, the first to enlist from the United\nStates was a Jew, later promoted, whom I had the pleasure and honour of\nmeeting on Mangin's staff at Mayence. I hope he may see these lines.\n\nIt looked as though in the presence of such a suffering, which the Jews\nshared with us, the growing quarrel between them and ourselves would be\nappeased. Men who had been prominent not only for their discussion of\nthe Jewish problem, but for their direct and open antagonism to Jewish\npower and even to the most legitimate of Jewish claims, were now\ncompelled to silence. Reconciliation was in the air ... when, in the\nvery heat of the struggle, came that factor, incalculably important,\nwhich now rules all the rest; I mean the factor of what is called\n_Bolshevism_.\n\nThis new Jewish movement changed the whole face of things and, coming on\nthe top of the rest, has transformed the problem for all our generation.\n\nHenceforth it was to be discussed quite openly. Henceforth it could only\nbecome, more and more, the chief problem of politics and give rise to\nthat menacing situation upon a solution of which depends the security of\nour future.\n\nFor the Bolshevist movement, or rather explosion, was Jewish.\n\nThat truth may be so easily confused with a falsehood that I must, at\nthe outset, make it exact and clear.\n\nThe Bolshevist Movement was _a_ Jewish movement, but not a movement of\nthe Jewish race as a whole. Most Jews were quite extraneous to it; very\nmany indeed, and those of the most typical, abhor it; many actively\ncombat it. The imputation of its evils to the Jews as a whole is a grave\ninjustice and proceeds from a confusion of thought whereof I, at any\nrate, am free.\n\nWith so much said let me return to the affair.\n\nWhat is called \"Labour,\" that is, the direction of the proletarian\nrevolt against capitalist conditions, had, as we have seen, been\ndirected in the main by the Jew. His energy, his international quality,\nhis devotion to a set scheme, prevailed. All this was not peculiar to\nRussia but present throughout the industrialized areas of the West.\n\nBy the word \"directed\" I do not mean any conscious plan. I mean that the\nJews, with their perpetual movement from country to country, with their\nnatural indifference to national feeling as a force counteracting class\nfeeling, with their lucid thought and their passion for deduction, with\ntheir tenacity and intellectual industry, had naturally become the chief\nexponents and the most able leaders. They formed, above all, the cement\nbinding the movement together throughout the world. It was they, more\nthan any others, who insisted on a clear-cut solution upon the lines\nwhich their compatriot Karl Marx had copied from his greater European\ncontemporaries, and made definite in his famous book on Capital.\n\nBut there was all the difference in the world between this intellectual\nleadership, this organization of socialism by Jews _while Socialism\nstill remained a mere theory_, and the control and actual management of\nit in a great State when it passed from theory to practice.\n\nThe words \"social revolution\" were still but words in 1914 and men did\nnot take them too seriously. But when in 1917 a socialist revolution was\naccomplished suddenly at one blow, in one great State, and when its\nagents, directors and masters were seen to be a close corporation of\nJews with only a few non-Jewish hangers-on (each of these controlled by\nthe Jews through one influence or another), it was quite another\nmatter. The thing had become actual. The menace to national traditions\nand to the whole Christian ethic of property was immediate. More\nimportant than all, so far as the Jewish problem is concerned, many who\nhad remained silent upon it on account of convention, avarice or fear,\nwere now compelled to speak. From that moment, in early '17, it became\nthe chief political problem of our time: coincident with, intimately\nmixed with, but in all its implications superior to, the great economic\nquarrel on to which it was now grafted.\n\nThe story may be briefly told. The Russian State, ill-equipped for\nmodern war, had passed during the end of the year 1916 through a strain\nwhich it had found intolerable. Russian Society, after the mortal losses\nsustained, was upon the eve of dissolution, and the formidable\nrevolutionary movement which had for years left its direction and\norganization in Jewish hands broke out, for the third time in our\ngeneration: but this time successfully.\n\nAfter rapidly accelerating phases it settled into the situation which\nhas endured from the early part of 1918 to the present day. In the towns\nthe freely-elected Parliament was repudiated and a \"Dictatorship of the\nProletariat\" was declared. The workshops were in future to be run by\nCommittees, in the Russian \"Soviets,\" and similar organizations were to\ncontrol agriculture in the villages, where the peasants had already\nseized the land and were streaming back from the dissolved armies to\ntheir homes.\n\nIn practice, of course, what was set up was no proletarian Government,\nstill less anything so impossible and contradictory in terms as a\n\"dictatorship\" of proletarians. The thing was called \"The Republic of\nthe Workmen and Peasants.\" It was, in fact, nothing of the sort. It was\nthe pure despotism of a clique, the leaders of which had been specially\nlaunched upon Russia under German direction in order to break down any\nchance of a revival of Russian military power, and all those leaders,\nwithout exception, were Jews, or held by the Jews through their domestic\nrelations, and all that followed was done directly under the orders of\nJews, the most prominent of whom was one Braunstein, who disguised\nhimself under the assumed name of Trotsky. A terror was set up, under\nwhich were massacred innumerable Russians of the governing classes, so\nthat the whole framework of the Russian State disappeared. Among these,\nof course, must specially be noted great numbers of the clergy, against\nwhom the Jewish revolutionaries had a particular grudge. A clean sweep\nwas made of all the old social organization, and under the despotism of\nthis Jewish clique the old economic order was reversed. Food and all\nnecessities were controlled (in the towns) and rationed, the manual\nlabourer receiving the largest share; and none any share unless he\nworked at the orders of the new masters.\n\nThe agricultural land was in theory nationalized, but in practice the\nJewish Committees of the towns were unable to enforce their rule over\nit, and it reverted to the natural condition of peasant ownership. But\nthe Jewish Committees of the towns were strong enough to raid great\nareas of agricultural production for the support of themselves and their\ntroops and of their dependants in the cities, who had come close to\nstarvation through the breakdown of the social system.\n\nWhat followed later is of common knowledge: the attempts at\ncounter-revolution, led by scattered Russians and other military\nleaders, all failed because the peasants believed that their\nnewly-acquired farms were at stake and eagerly volunteered to defend\nthem, the greatly increased misery of the towns, the slow decline of\nindustrial production (in spite of the most rigid despotism, enforcing\nconscript labour), and the general deliquescence of society.\n\nIf the motives of the men who thus brought the whole of a Christian\nState into ruins within a few weeks were analysed, we should, it is to\nbe presumed, discover something of this sort: their main motive was the\npursuit of the political and economic ideals of which they were the\nspokesmen and which already so many of their compatriots, the Jews,\nthroughout the rest of Europe, had espoused--communism so far as\nproperty was concerned; the Marxian doctrine of socialist production and\ndistribution; the Socialist doctrine imposed by arbitrary and despotic\narrangements, favouring those who had in the past been least favoured.\nIn this economic and political group of motives the leading motive was\nprobably enough, the doctrine of Communism in which these men, for the\nmost part, sincerely believed.\n\nTo this must be added an equally sincere hatred of national feeling,\nsave, of course, where the Jewish nation was concerned. The conception\nof a Russian national feeling seemed to these new leaders ridiculous,\nas, indeed, the conception of a national feeling must seem ridiculous to\ntheir compatriots everywhere; or, if not ridiculous, subsidiary to the\nmore important motives of individual advantage and to the righting of\nsuch immediate wrongs as the individual may feel. The Christian religion\nthey naturally attacked, for it was abhorrent to their social theory.\n\nThey also had a certain crusading, or propagandist, ideal running\nthrough the whole of their action--the desire to spread Communism far\nbeyond the boundaries of what had once been the Russian State. It is\nthis which has led them to intrigue throughout Central, and even in\nWestern, Europe, in favour of revolution.\n\nThough these were the main motives, other motives must also have been\npresent.\n\nIt is impossible that Committees consisting of Jews and suddenly finding\nthemselves thus in control of such new powers, should not have desired\nto benefit their fellows. It is equally impossible that they should have\nforgone a sentiment of revenge against that which had persecuted their\npeople in the past. They cannot but, in the destroying of Russia, have\nmixed with a desire to advantage the individual Russian poor the desire\nto take vengeance upon the national tradition as a whole; it has even\nbeen said--but denied, and I know not where the truth lies--that Jews\nwere among those guilty of the worst incident which we now know in all\nits revolting details--the murder of the Russian Royal family--father,\nmother and girls, and the unfortunate sickly heir, the only boy.\nFurther, it is impossible, with Jewish Committees thus in control of the\nRussian treasury and of Russian means of communication, that they should\nnot have had some sympathy with their compatriots who were so largely\nin control of Western finance. However sincere their detestation of\ncapitalism (for probably in most of them the opinion is held sincerely\nenough), it is in the nature of things that one of their blood and kind\nshould, however misguided they may think him, appeal to them more than\none of ours. And it is this which explains the half alliance which you\nfind throughout the world between the Jewish financiers on the one hand\nand the Jewish control of the Russian revolution on the other. It is\nthis which explains the half-heartedness of the defence against\nBolshevism, the perpetual commercial protest, the continued\nnegotiations, the recognition of the Soviet by our politicians, the\nclamour of \"Labour\" in favour of German Jewish industrialism and against\nPoland: all that has taken place wherever Jewish finance is powerful,\nparticularly at Westminster.\n\nBut, be this as it may, the tremendous explosion which we call\nBolshevism brought the discussion of the Jewish problem to a head. The\ntwo forces which had hitherto held back the discussion of that problem\nwere that Liberal fiction which had ruled for more than a generation,\naccording to which it was indecent even to mention the word Jew, or to\nsuggest that there was any difference between the Jew and those who\nharboured him; and, secondly, the fact that the Jews were erroneously\nregarded by most of the well-to-do people in the West--that is, by most\nof those who had the control of the Press and therefore of all public\nexpression--as so controlling wealth that they were at once the natural\nguardians of property and so placed that an attack upon them jeopardized\nthe wealth of the critic. The man who had gone into the City, or who\nhad his life spent upon the Bourse in Paris, or who was negotiating any\ngreat capitalist enterprise, who had to do in whatever capacity with the\nrunning of the great banks or with the international means of\ncommunication by sea and land, even the man who got his precarious\nliving by writing--each and all had hitherto felt that a public silence\nupon the Jewish problem was necessary to his private welfare.\n\nThose who recognized the gravity of the problem had hitherto been moved\nby fear to be silent upon it, at least in public, though in private they\nwere often voluble enough. Those who recognized it in a lesser degree\nhad also been affected by the same fear. Lastly, you had the large class\nwho were under no necessity for restraint, whether from fear or any\nother cause, but who were quite content to leave things as they were so\nlong as they received their regular salary or dividends, and who were\nprofoundly convinced that any interference with the Jew would imperil\nthose dividends or that salary.\n\nThe Jewish Bolshevist movement put an end to that state of mind. The\npeople who had hitherto been silent through avarice, convention, or\nfear, now found themselves between an upper and a nether millstone.\nHitherto they had at least believed that to keep silence was to secure\nor to advance their economic position. Now they found, suddenly risen\nupon the flank of that position, a new and formidable Jewish force\ndetermined upon the destruction of property. There was no longer any\nreason to keep silent. There was a growing need to speak. And though the\nold habit, the old secrecy, was still strong upon them, the necessity\nfor combating Jewish Bolshevism was stronger still. All over Europe the\nJewish character of the movement became more and more apparent. The\nleaders of Communism everywhere proclaimed that truth by adopting the\nasinine policy of pretending that the revolution was Russian and\nnational; they attempted--far too late--to hide the Jewish origins of\nits creators and directors, and made a childish effort to pretend that\nthe Russian names so innocently put forward were genuine, when the real\nnames were upon every tongue. Yet at the same time they were receiving\nmoney and securities of the victims through Jewish agents, jewels\nstripped from the dead or rifled from the strong boxes of murdered men\nand women. In one specific instance the promise of a subsidy to a\nCommunist paper in London was traced to this source; it was proved that\nthe Englishman involved was a mere puppet and that the Jewish\nconnections of the family through marriage were the true agents in the\ntransaction. In another a Trade Deputation was pompously announced under\nRussian names, which turned out upon inspection to consist, as to its\nfirst member, of a man engaged all his life in the service of a Jewish\nfirm, as to the other, of a Jew who was actually the brother-in-law of\nBraunstein! The diplomatic agent nominated and partially accepted by the\nBritish Government to represent the new authority of the Russian towns\nwas again a Jew, Finkelstein, the nephew by marriage of a prominent Jew\nin this country. He passed under the name of Litvinoff. So it was\nthroughout the whole movement, in every capital and in every great\nindustrial town.\n\nWe must not neglect the very obvious truth that in all this there was\nample fuel for the flame. The industrial proletariat throughout the\nworld was equally disgusted and equally ready for revolt. The leadership\nof the movement may be Jewish but its current was not created by the\nJew. To imagine that is to fall into the most childish errors of the\n\"Anti-Semite.\" The stream of influence arose from the sufferings and the\nburning sense of injustice which industrial capitalism had imposed on\nthe dispossessed mass of wage earners. They were (and are) naturally\nindifferent as to whether those whom they hope may be their saviours\ncome from Palestine, Muscovy or Timbuctoo. They are interested in\neconomic freedom: in the doctrine of socialism and in its results, not\nin the personality of those who guide them.\n\nTheir position is comprehensible enough: but my point is, that the\ndirecting minority of Western European capitalism which had hitherto\nbeen silent upon the Jewish problems from the motives I have described\nwere now released; they were free to speak their mind, and began to\nspeak it. The volume of their protest cannot but increase. The cat, as\nthe expression goes, is out of the bag, or, to put it in more dignified\nlanguage, the debate will now never more be silenced. It is admitted\nthat the revolutionary leadership is mainly Jewish. It is recognized as\nclearly now as it has long been recognized that international finance\nwas mainly Jewish; and even those who would tolerate silence upon the\none peril will certainly not tolerate it upon the other.\n\nThe danger is, indeed, not over. The debate will take place--that is no\nperil, but a good; the danger is rather that, as restraint is gradually\nremoved, the natural antagonism to the Jewish race, felt by nearly all\nthose who are not of it and among whom it lives, may take an irrational\nand violent form, and that we may be upon the brink of yet one more of\nthose catastrophes, of those tragedies, of those disasters which have\nmarked the history of Israel in the past.\n\nTo avert this, to discover some solution of the problem while there is\nyet time, to prevent deeds which would bring us to shame and that small\nminority among us to suffering, should be the object of every honest\nman.\n\n\nTHE GENERAL CAUSES OF FRICTION\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE GENERAL CAUSE OF FRICTION\n\n\nThe immediate cause of the new gravity apparent in the Jewish problem is\nthe Revolution in Russia. The completely new feature of open discussion\nnow attaching to it (a thing which would have seemed incredible in\nEngland twenty years ago) is the leadership the Jews have assumed in the\neconomic quarrel of the proletariat against capitalism.\n\nMost people, therefore, on being asked the cause of friction between the\nJews and their hosts at this moment will reply (in England, at least)\nthat it lies in the anti-social propaganda now running loose throughout\nIndustrial Europe. \"Our quarrel with the Jews,\" you will hear from a\nhundred different sources, \"is that they are conspiring against\nChristian civilization, and in particular against our own country, under\nthe form of social revolutionaries.\"\n\nSuch a reply, though it is the almost universal reply of the moment in\nthis country, is most imperfect.\n\nThe friction between the Jews and the nations among which they are\ndispersed is far older, far more profound, far more universal. For a\nwhole generation before the present crisis arose, the comparatively\nsmall number of men who were hammering away steadily at the Jewish\nproblem, trying to provoke its discussion, and insisting on its\nimportance, were mainly concerned with quite another aspect of Jewish\nactivity--the aspect of international finance as controlled by Jews.\nBefore that aspect had assumed its modern gravity the reproach against\nthe Jews was that their international position warred against our racial\ntraditions and our patriotisms. Before that again there had been the\nreproach of a different religion and particularly of their antagonism to\nthe doctrine of the Incarnation and all that flowed from that doctrine.\nAnd there had been even, before that great quarrel, the reproach that\nthey were bad citizens within the pagan Roman Empire, perpetually in\nrebellion against it and guilty of massacring other Roman citizens.\n\nIn another civilization than ours, in that of Islam, another set of\nreproaches had arisen, or rather another species of contempt and\noppression. After long periods of peace there would come, in particular\nregions, the most violent oppression. Within the last few years, for\ninstance, a Jew in Morocco was treated as though he was hardly human. He\nhad to turn his face to the wall when any magnate was passing by. He had\nto dress in a particular manner to mark him off as something degraded\namong his fellow-beings. He might not ride through the gate of a town,\nbut had to dismount. There were twenty actions normal to civic life in\nthe Moroccan city which were forbidden to the Jew.\n\nAll this is as much as to say that the friction between the Jews and\nthose among whom they live is always present, and has always been\npresent, now latent, now rising furiously to the surface, now grumbling\nthrough long periods of uncertain peace, now boiling over in all the\nevils of persecution--which is as much as to say that this friction\nbetween Jew and non-Jew, while finding different excuses for its action\non different occasions, has been a force permanently at work everywhere\nand at all times.\n\nWhat is the cause of it? What is its nature?\n\nThe matter is very difficult to approach, because we are not dealing\nwith things susceptible of positive proof. You can prove from historical\nrecord that the thing has existed. You can show its terrible effects,\nceaselessly recurrent throughout all our history. But it is another\nmatter to analyse the unseen forces which produce it, and any such\nanalysis can be no more than an attempt.\n\nI take it that the causes of this friction, with all its lamentable\nresults, are of two kinds. There are, first, _general_ causes for it, by\nwhich I mean those causes which are always present and are ineradicable.\nTheir effort may be summed up in the truth that the whole texture of the\nJewish nation, their corporate tradition, their social mind, is at issue\nwith the people among whom they live. There are, next, special causes,\nby which I mean social actions and expressions which lead to friction\nand could be modified, the two chief of which are the use of secrecy by\nthe Jews as a method of action and the open expression of superiority\nover his neighbours which the Jew cannot help feeling but is wrong to\nemphasize.\n\nI will deal with these in their order, and first consider the general\ncauses; though I must admit at the outset that a mere summary of them is\nno sufficient explanation of the phenomenon. There would seem to be\nsomething more profound and even more mysterious about it. For it will\nbe universally conceded that, while the closest intimacy and respect is\npossible between individuals of the two opposing races, the moment you\ncome to great groups, and especially to the popular instinct in the\nmatter, the gravest friction is apparent. It is an issue too deep than\nto be accounted for by mere differences of temper. It is as though there\nwere some inward force filling men on either side, not indeed with\nnecessary hostility--it is against any such necessity that all this book\nis written--but certainly with conflicting ends.\n\nIt is first to be noted that most of the accusations made against the\nJews by their enemies and most of the very proper rebuttals of those\naccusations advanced by the Jews and their defenders, miss the mark\nbecause they attempt to put in abstract form what is really something\nhighly concrete. And this is equally true of the praise bestowed upon\nthe Jews, of the special virtues ascribed to them and of the denials of\nthese virtues.\n\nThey miss the mark because they attempt to express in terms of one\ncategory what should be expressed in terms of another. They are doing\nwhat a man does when he compares two pictures by their outline while in\npoint of fact their interest lies in colour, or when he affirms\nsomething of a tune the fundamental point of which something is not the\nair at all but the instruments upon which it is played: as who should\nsay that \"God save the King\" was \"shrill\" because he heard it played on\na penny whistle or \"booming\" because he heard it played on a\nvioloncello. The real point to note is not that the Jews appear to us\n(or we to them) to possess certain abstract qualities and defects, but\nthat in their case each quality or defect has a special character, a\nspecial national _timbre_ which it lacks in ours.\n\nThus you will hear the Jews arraigned by their enemies for three such\nvices as cowardice, avarice and treason--to take three of the commonest\naccusations. You examine their actions and you find innumerable\ninstances of the highest courage, the greatest generosity and the most\ndevoted loyalty: but courage, generosity and loyalty of a Jewish kind,\ndirected to Jewish ends, and stamped with a highly distinctive Jewish\nmark.\n\nThe man who accuses the Jews of cowardice means that they do not enjoy a\nfight of his kind, nor a fight fought after his fashion. All he has\ndiscovered is that the courage is not shown under the same\ncircumstances, nor for the same ends, nor in the same mode. But if the\nword courage means anything, he cannot on reflection deny it to actions\nof which one could make an endless catalogue even from contemporary\nexperience alone. Is it cowardice in a young man to sacrifice his life\ndeliberately for the sake of his own people? Did that young Jew show\ncowardice who killed the Russian Prime Minister, the antagonist of his\npeople, after the first revolution following on the Russo-Japanese war?\nWas it cowardice to walk up in a crowded theatre, surrounded by all the\nenemies of his race, and shoot their chief in their midst? Is it\ncowardice to stand up against the vast alien majority, and to do so over\nand over again, perhaps through a whole lifetime, insisting on things\nthat are grossly unpopular with that majority and running a risk the\nwhole time of physical violence? You find Jews adopting that attitude\nall over Europe. Can one think it is cowardice which has permitted the\nindividuals of this nation to maintain their tradition unbroken through\ntwo thousand years of intermittent torture, spoliation and violent\ndeath? The thing so stated is ridiculous, and it is clear that those who\nmake such an accusation are confounding their own form of courage with\ncourage as a universal attribute.\n\nThey think that because Jews show courage under other circumstances and\nin another way from themselves, corresponding to another appetite, as it\nwere, therefore it is no longer courage: to think like that is to\nconfess yourself very limited.\n\nI can testify, myself, to any number of courageous acts which I have\nseen performed by Jews. I am not alluding to acts of courage in warfare,\nof which there is ample evidence, but to acts of a sort in which our\nrace would not have shown the same quality or _timbre_ of courage. I\nwill cite one case.\n\nRather more than twenty years ago, when feeling on the Dreyfus case was\nat its height and when the feeling of the French Army in particular was\nat white heat, I happened to be in the town of N\u00eemes, through which, at\nthe time, a body of troops was passing. The caf\u00e9 in which I sat was\nfilled with young sergeants. There were hardly any civilians present\nbeside myself. There came into the place an elderly Jew, very short in\nstature, highly marked with the physical characteristics of his race, an\nunmistakable Jew. He was somewhat bent under the weight of his years,\nwith fiery eyes and a singularly vibrating intonation of voice. He was\nselling broadsheets of the most violent kind, all of them insults\nagainst the Army. He came into this caf\u00e9 with the sheets in his hand so\nthat all could see the large capital letters of the headlines, and\nslowly went round the assembly ironically offering them to the lads in\nuniform with their swords at their side, for they were of the cavalry.\n\nEvery one knows the French temper on such occasions--a complete silence\nwhich may at any moment be transformed into something very different.\nOne sergeant after another politely waved him aside and passed him on.\nHe went round the whole lot of them, gazing into their faces with his\npiercing eyes, wearing the whole time an ironical smile of insult,\ndescribing at intervals the nature of his goods, and when he had done\nthat he went out unharmed.\n\nIt was an astonishing sight. I have seen many others as astonishing and\nas vivid, but for courage I have never seen it surpassed. Here was a\nman, old and feeble, the member of a very small minority which he knew\nto be hated, and particularly hated by the people whom he challenged.\nBecause he held one of his own people to be injured, he took this\ntremendous risk and went through this self-imposed task with a sort of\npleasure in that risk. You may call it insolence, offensiveness, what\nyou will: but you cannot deny it the title of courage. It was courage of\nthe very highest quality.\n\nI repeat: you may see evidence of that sort of courage in Jewish action\nthroughout the world and in every age. You have the beginning of it in\nthe Siege of Jerusalem; to-morrow, if the fear which we now all\nentertain should unhappily prove well founded, we shall see it again\nupon the same scale.\n\nTake avarice. When the Jew is accused of avarice by his enemies they\nare reading into him that vice in a form of which _they_ know themselves\ncapable, which _they_ themselves practise, which _they_ fully\nunderstand, but which _he_ never practises in their fashion. The Jew is\nadventurous with his money. He is a speculator, a trader. He is also a\nman who thinks of it in exact terms. He is never romantic about it. But\nhe is almost invariably generous in the use of it. Our race, when it\nyields to the vice of avarice, is close, secretive, uncharitable. He is\npitiless and sly in accumulation. He is vociferous in his insistence\nupon the exact terms of an agreed compact. He is also tenacious in the\npursuit of anything which he has set out on, the accumulation of money\namong the rest. He is almost fanatical in his appetite for success in\nwhatever he has undertaken, the accumulation of money among the rest.\nBut to say that the money, once accumulated, is not generously used, is\nnonsense. There is not one of us who could not cite at once a dozen\nexamples of Jewish generosity upon a scale which makes us ashamed.\n\nNor is it true to say that this generosity has ostentation for its root,\nor, as it is called, \"Ransome,\" either. Though a love of magnificence is\ncertainly a great passion in the Jewish character, it does not account\nfor the most of his generosity. It is a generosity which extends to all\nmanner of private relations, and if you will take the testimony of those\nwho have been in the service of the Jews and are not Jews themselves,\nthat testimony is almost universally in favour of their employers, if\nthose employers be men of large means.\n\nThey will tell you that they felt humiliated in serving a Jew; that the\nrelations were never easy; that there was always distance. But not\noften that they were treated meanly. Just the other way. There has\nusually been present a _spontaneous_ generosity. The same argument\napplies to the cry of \"Ransome.\" It is true that some of the more\nscandalous Jewish fortunes have thrown up defences against public anger\nby the return of a small proportion in the shape of public endowments:\nit is an action and a motive not peculiar to them. But that does not\nexplain the mass of private and unheard benefaction to which we can all\ntestify and which is as common with the middle-class Jew as with the\nwealthy. It is here as in the matter of courage a question of _kind_.\nThose of our people who happen to be generous (they are rare) do not\ncalculate. They often forget or confuse the sums they have made away\nwith, as though it were mere extravagance. The Jew knows the exact\nextent of his sacrifice, its proportion to his total means. Is he then\nless generous? By no means. He is, in scale _more_ generous--but in a\ndifferent fashion.\n\nIt might be argued that this generosity of the Jew is a consequence of\nthe way in which he regards money. It comes and goes with him because he\nis a speculator and a wanderer. It has been said that no great Jewish\nfortune is ever permanent; that none of these millionaires ever founded\na family. This is not quite true; but it is true that considering the\nlong list of great Jewish fortunes which have marked the whole progress\nof our civilization it is astonishing how few have taken root. But\nthough this conception of money may be an element in the generosity of\nthe Jew it does not fully explain it, and at any rate that generosity is\nthere, and contradicts flatly the accusation of avarice. Indeed the\ngeneral accusation of avarice fails: and _that_ is why it is a sort of\nstanding jest permitted even where the Jews are most powerful. It is a\njest they themselves do not resent because they know it to be beside the\nmark.\n\nThe accusation of treason is on the same footing--save that it is even\nmore \"to one side\" than the others quoted. There is no race which has\nproduced so few traitors. It is not treason in the Jew to be\ninternational. It is not treason in the Jew to work now for one interest\namong those who are not of his people, now for another. He can only be\ncharged with treason when he acts against the interests of Israel, and\nthere is no nation nor ever has been one in which the national\nsolidarity was greater or national weakness in the shape of traitors\nless. Indeed, that is the very accusation their enemies make against\nthem; that they are too homogeneous; that they hold too much together\nand are too fierce in self-defence; and you cannot have that accusation\ncoupled with an accusation of treason. What is true is that the Jew\nlends himself to one non-jewish group in its action against another. He\nwill serve France against the Germans, or the Germans against France,\nand he will do so indifferently as a resident in the country he benefits\nor the country he wounds: for he is indifferent to either. The moment\nwar breaks out the intelligence departments of both sides rely upon the\nJew: and they rely upon him not only on account of his indifference to\nnationalism but also on account of his many languages, his travel, the\npresence of his relations in the enemy country. And this is true not\nonly of war but of armed peace.\n\nBut it is clear that in all this there are examples of what _in us_,\nwould be treason. In him such actions are not treasons, for he does not\nbetray Israel. But they all have an atmosphere repellent to us. They are\nthings which if we did them (or when we do them) degrade us. They do not\ndegrade the Jew.\n\nOne might continue the list of such accusations indefinitely, and in\nevery one you would find that the root of the quarrel is not the\npresence of a particular defect but the presence of a difference in\ncircumstances, temperament, character: a different colour and taste in\nthe quality or defect concerned. It is _that_ which offends. It is\n_that_ which causes the misunderstandings and which leads to the\ntragedies.\n\nWhile this is true of the accusations made against the Jewish people it\nis unfortunately equally true of the corresponding qualities which they\nand their defenders advance in the rebuttal. The Jew is essentially\npatriotic: that is true. But not patriotic to our ends or in our way. He\nis essentially self-respecting. But not self-respecting to our ends or\nin our way. A personal obligation which he cannot meet, a personal and\nintimate contract in which he may default, especially to one of his own\npeople, is abhorrent to the Jew; but not in our way. He has not our\nshame of bankruptcy for instance, but much more than our shame of\npersonal borrowing. Drunkenness, a vice most offensive to human dignity,\nis with him the rarest vice: with us the commonest. But our sense of\ndignity in repose he has not, nor does he feel our sense of injured\ndignity in mummery. His tenacity, which all know and all in a sense\nadmire and which is far superior to our own, is also a narrower\ntenacity, or at any rate a tenacity of a different kind. He will follow\none end where we will follow many. His wonderful loyalty to all family\nrelations we know: but we do not appreciate it because it is outside our\nown circle. Even his intellectual gifts, which are less affected by this\nmatter of _timbre_, have something alien to us in them. They are\nundeniable but we feel them to be used for other ends than ours: they\nare coldly used when ours are used enthusiastically: they are used with\nintensity when we use them with carelessness.\n\nIf we leave the controversial field and concern ourselves with an\nappreciation of Jewish qualities, apart from our like or dislike of them\nand apart from their difference in intimate texture, as it were, from\nour own, they may be summarized I think as follows:--\n\nThe Jew concentrates upon one matter. He does not disperse his mind. And\nthis concentration carries with it strength and weakness. It has been\nsaid in connection with it (all such terms are metaphorical) that his\nmind is not elastic. But this is a great element in his success. I have\nnoticed that the Jew having once taken up a particular task shows an\nindifference to other tasks which, from our standpoint, is marvellous.\nHow many instances could not one cite of two Jewish brothers, the one\noccupied in finance, the other in science, or the one in politics, the\nother in music, and how clearly do we see in those instances the\ncomplete indifference of the Jew to things outside the province he has\nundertaken! How remarkable in our eyes is his resistance to any\ntemptation which might lead him away from his end. The Jew who is\ndevoted to science, for instance, remains completely indifferent to its\nopportunities for enrichment. The Jew who is devoted to philosophy (and\nwhat great names he can show in this sphere throughout the centuries!)\nlives in poverty and is perfectly content so to live. The Jew devoted to\nany particular ideal of social change devotes himself entirely to that,\nand ends his task often more powerful, hardly ever more wealthy, nearly\nalways much poorer than when he began it. Above all he refuses to be\ndistracted for a moment from his goal.\n\nAnother character which is affiliated to this first leading character of\nthe Jew would seem to be the lucidity of his thought. The Jew's argument\nis never muddled. That is one of his prime assets not only in all\ndiscussion but in all action. It is also, if a cause of strength, a\ncause of the enmity he arouses: or (to use my milder term) of the\n\"friction.\"\n\nFor an exactly constructed process of reasoning, from which there is no\nescape, has in it (for those less capable of it) something of the bully.\nA man may feel the conclusion to be false: perhaps he _knows_ it to be\nfalse. He lacks the power to express his reasons. He may not know how to\nstate the principles which his adversary has left out of account, or\nwhen to bring them into discussion, and he feels the iron logic offered\nto him like a pistol presented at the head of his better judgment. But\nfor strength and for weakness also, lucidity is the mark of the Jew's\nmind. He carries that lucidity into the smallest details of whatever he\nmay perform.\n\nOne must add to all this a certain intensity of action which is very\nnoticeable and which again is a cause of friction between himself and\nthose about him. Hear a Jew speaking, especially a Jew speaking upon the\nrevolutionary platform, and note the _high voltage_ at which the current\nis working. The energy which he uses is not the energy of a large flame\nbut of a well-directed blow-pipe: a stream of heat. He is wholly\nabsorbed, not in his own expression, but in actively penetrating the\nmind of his hearers. And here again is that difference in quality to\nwhich I have alluded. One might say indifferently that the Jew is never\neloquent or that he is always eloquent when he speaks upon things that\npossess his soul. He is not eloquent in our fashion; but he is at any\nrate astonishingly effective in his own.\n\nThe Jew has this other characteristic which has become increasingly\nnoticeable in our own time, but which is probably as old as the race:\nand that is a corporate capacity for hiding or for advertising at will:\na power of \"pushing\" whatever the whole race desires advanced, or of\nsuppressing what the whole race desires to suppress. And this also,\nhowever legitimately used, is a cause of friction.\n\nMen get the feeling of a swarm in the presence of such action. They also\nget the feeling of being tricked: and it breeds bad blood.\n\nIn the aspect of the deliberate use of secrecy I shall deal with this\ncharacter in my next chapter, for I think in that aspect it is a\nparticular cause of friction which can be eliminated. But the general\ncapacity and instinct of the Jew for corporate action in the \"booming\"\nof what he wants \"boomed\" and the \"soft pedalling\" of what he wants\n\"soft pedalled\" is ineradicable. It will always remain a permanent\nirritant in its effect upon those to whom it is applied. The best proof\nof it is that after the most violent \"boom,\" after the talents of some\nparticular Jew, or the scientific discovery of another, or the\nmisfortunes of another, or the miscarriage of justice against another,\nhas been shouted at us, pointed and iterated until we are all deafened,\nthere comes an inevitable reaction, and the same men who were half\nhypnotized into the desired mood are nauseated with it and refuse a\nrepetition of the dose.\n\nThe converse is true. Men who find that some important matter has been\nsuppressed, some bad scandal in the State or some trick in commerce\nbecause Jewry desired it to be suppressed, are soon on the alert. They\nwill not suffer the operation as quietly the second time as they did the\nfirst. Indeed they tend if anything to grow too suspicious. Anyhow, in\nboth cases this ineradicable racial habit, a cause perhaps of Jewish\nsurvival and certainly an element of Jewish strength, is also a cause of\nacute friction between them and us.\n\nBut a mere category of this kind is, as I have said, useless to explain\nthe fundamental quality, the hidden root, of the ceaseless conflict\nbetween the very soul of the Jew and the soul of the society around him.\nAll these points are but manifestations of some profound, some\nsubterranean power for contrast, the value of which we cannot grasp, but\nthe effects of which are only too apparent. And there remains in the\nminds of those who most rely upon this race and of those who most\nsuspect them the sense of an impassable gulf between them and ourselves.\nIt is the recognition, the admission of such a contrast, the telling of\nthe truth about it, the working upon it as a necessary condition, which\nmust form the foundation for any solution at which we can arrive.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is one feature in the European's attitude towards the Jews which\nmust be specially dealt with, and that is the false impression that the\nfriction between us and them is in the main a quarrel with their wealth.\n\nThat impression has been greatly weakened by the recent revolutionary\nactivity of the Jew surging up from the depths, appearing upon the\nsurface, and producing the great upheaval in Russia, and the attempted\nupheavals elsewhere. But though the new Jewish revolutionary movement\nhas shaken the old insistence on Jewish wealth it is hard to eradicate\nit. It has been present throughout the ages, and will remain at the back\nof people's minds perhaps for ever, because the few Jews who do\nconcentrate on piling up great fortunes concentrate on that task so\nentirely. Yet the impression is false and is the fruitful cause of the\nworst misunderstandings.\n\nFor the Jews are not a rich nation, and the very fact that they stand in\nthe popular mind--and especially in the mind of rich people in times of\ncorruption--for wealth, is an example of the way in which they are\nmisunderstood and of the way in which injustice to the Jew arises.\n\nThe Jews are a poor nation. An enemy would say that they were poor\nbecause they did not work, but this again would be an injustice, because\nthe Jew works exceedingly hard and has often in the past and does still\nin many places work hard, not only in negotiation and commerce but with\nhis hands.\n\nWe see the Jews in the Middle Ages monopolizing important manual\noccupations in some districts--dyeing and shipbuilding, for instance.\nAnd there are many parts of Eastern Europe where they work upon the land\nto-day.\n\nThe Jews are a poor nation because they are an alien nation and because\ntheir activities are for the most part condemned to working against the\ngrain, in a society which is not their own. But that they _are_ a poor\nnation is not only true but abundantly evident to any one who has\ntravelled and watched their various settlements with any sympathy.\n\nNow that they have arrived in such great numbers in the West people are\nbeginning to appreciate this. We have already seen how, a lifetime ago,\nwhen the Jews of the West (I mean especially in France and England and\nAmerica) were a small number of merchants and financiers, the great\nwealth of a very small number among them was not counterbalanced in our\nexperience by the exceeding poverty of the mass. But to-day we can see\nfor ourselves how true it is that, once you get below the exceptional\nfortunes and a comparatively small middle-class, the Jewish nation is no\nmore than millions of exceedingly poor families.\n\nThose who have watched them outside the West, those who have seen them\nin their great eastern communities where the bulk of the race still\nresides, in the Marches of Russia, will abundantly agree. It helps us to\nunderstand the Jewish problem if we grasp the fact that a great part of\nthe Jewish complaint against us is precisely this poverty to which the\nbulk of the Jews are condemned. It is all very well to sneer at the\nJewish complaint of persecution and oppression and to cite ironically,\nwhenever it arises, the immense fortunes of a few families like the\nRothschilds and the Sassoons, the Monds, the Samuels and the rest. From\nthe point of view of the average Jew that is not the way the thing looks\nat all. What he notices, and notices rightly, is that he has no part in\nthat well-distributed, solid, permanent, inherited wealth which is the\nmark of a healthy European community.\n\nFurther (a most important point already touched on in passing), these\ngreat fortunes are ephemeral.\n\nIn the European nations you have a mass of great fortunes far larger in\nnumber, and even in total, than the Jewish financial fortunes. But those\ngreat fortunes have been in the past and are still, wherever our society\nis healthy, permanent. They run through European history in the shape of\nthe great families, in the shape of the _nobility_.\n\nThe great territorial families in this country have been wealthy for\ncenturies and remain in established wealth, and the same is in the main\ntrue of the great Italian families, it is obviously true of the great\nGerman families, and, in spite of the great changes of the last century\nand a half, it is still largely true of the old French families. It is\nnot true of the Jewish families. The vast Jewish fortunes which have\nmarked history rise suddenly and melt again almost as suddenly. A Jew\nwill begin in some very small way--as a pawnbroker in Liverpool, for\ninstance, or a very small bookseller in Frankfort. You will find his son\na great banker, his grandson so wealthy as to command politics for a\ngeneration, and then (if you will watch the process in the past--to\ntake a modern unfinished instance is of course misleading) _at last, and\nsoon, the name disappears again, and disappears for ever_.\n\nWhom have you representing to-day the few great Jewish fortunes of the\nearly Middle Ages in England? They were all ruined before the end of the\nthirteenth century. Whom have you representing the later great Jewish\nfortunes on the Rhine, the fortunes of the sixteenth century and the\nearly seventeenth? They have utterly gone. Who have you left\nrepresenting the considerable Jewish houses of Medieval Venice? of\nGenoa? of Rome?\n\nThe causes of this rapid fluctuation are many. They all attach to the\npeculiar position, as well as to the peculiar character, of the Jew. We\nfind them partly in the passion for speculation which the Jewish\nintelligence naturally harbours. We find them still more, I think, in\nthe instinctive opposition to the Jew which his alien surroundings\nperpetually arouse.\n\nIt is, however, important to remember this last point. From our point of\nview the Jew, when he does get rich, seems to get much too rich and to\nget rich much too quickly, and he exercises far too much power through\nhis wealth; for we think of him the whole time as an alien with no right\nto any position. But the Jew sees it in a very different light. In his\npoint of view his effort to accumulate wealth is always heavily\nhandicapped. When he succeeds he only succeeds through his own tenacity\nand the patriotic co-operation of his fellows, and he always holds his\nnew-found wealth on an insecure tenure. What looks to us like the\nbreakdown of a Jewish fortune through speculation, seems to the Jew the\nfatal recurrent result of unending opposition.\n\nIn connection with the illusion of a wealthy Jewish race, you have, of\ncourse, the matter which I briefly mentioned above, the connection\nbetween our wealthier, and therefore governing classes, and the Jewish\nwealth of the moment. A great part of the illusion, as I have said, is\ndue to the fact that the gentry of every epoch come into contact with\nthe Jew _only_ as a rich man, and it is the capital modern vice of our\nown gentry, their passion for mere wealth and their subservience to it,\nwhich has largely accounted for this dangerous misunderstanding.\n\nLook around you in Western Europe to-day and see what people mean by\nthis story of Jewish wealth. See who the people are that allude\ncontinually to it and spread the idea of it. They are the rich\nEuropeans, who, in their subservience to crude wealth, in their habit of\ngauging everything by that wealth and of submitting to almost any\nindignity for the purpose of obtaining more wealth, marry their\ndaughters to Jews, serve Jewish interests, and, while perpetually\nsneering at the Jew behind his back, call him to his face by his most\nintimate name and make the most of his hospitality. Which of them ever\nknows a middle-class Jew, let alone a poor Jew? Why, most of them are\nactually ignorant of the fact that this mass of poor Jews exists at all!\nThey serve the Jew when he is wealthy and only when he is wealthy. They\nenvy him basely as a wealthy man and only as a wealthy man. They\nprostitute their dignity, they sell their fellow-Europeans, not from any\ngenuine affection for the Jewish race--indeed there is no class in the\ncommunity, closely intermixed with the Jews as they are, which feel the\nfriction more than the gentry--but simply from a thirst for money, which\nthey happen to find held in great masses by a few Jewish families.\n\nIt is most noticeable that other aspects of Jewish activity remain\nunused by the wealthy class, the gentry--and therefore by the State.\nWhether it would be wise to use them or not is another matter. At any\nrate, the motive for leaving them unused is the fact that they are not\nconnected with wealth. The Jewish intelligence which might so often have\nserved the policy of a Statesman is largely left unused. The\ncosmopolitan position of the Jew when it is used is used for little more\nthan spying; and that profound force, the historical memory of the Jew,\nis neglected almost altogether. With this neglect goes a natural and\nevil result, the failure on the part of the European governing classes,\nespecially to-day, to safeguard the community against the troubles which\nare bound to arise from the clashing of interests between the Jews and\nthe people among whom they dwell.\n\nIt may sound paradoxical, but it is true, that if the Statesmen of\nEurope, and the hereditary families of the European nations who still\ntake so much part in the conduct of those nations, had thought less of\nthe Jewish money power and more of the Jews as a whole they would have\nbenefited both parties in a very different fashion. We have seen the\nartificial protection of the Jews of Eastern Europe because individual\nStatesmen have been subservient to the commands of very rich individual\nJewish bankers. But the thing has been done blunderingly. It has served\nonly to anger the independent nationalities of the East, notably the\nPoles, the Roumanians and the Hungarians who have experience of the\ndifficulties inseparable from an alien minority. Our politicians have\ntreated the whole affair externally and mechanically, merely obeying\norders without trying to understand.\n\nThe ultimate result of such interference by our Western politicians is\nunhappily certain. The last state of the Jews in Eastern Europe will be\nworse than the first. Their sufferings will be greater than in the past,\nand that because, instead of acting from attempted comprehension and\nsympathetic comprehension of the Jewish difficulties the politicians,\nwho have acted as the servants of a few wealthy Jews, have merely obeyed\nthe orders of these rich men and have done so with the secret reluctance\nthat always accompanies self-surrender to a wage.\n\nIs it not apparent, as we look through history, that the permanent power\nof the Jew or, at any rate, the celebrity of his nation is utterly\ndistinct from those chance accumulations of wealth which a few\nindividuals owe to the national passion for speculation and a\ncosmopolitan position?\n\nOne after another the striking Jewish names of history are the names of\nJews who have ardently pursued some moral or intellectual thesis; most\nof them--I had nearly said _all_ of them--were poor men, and for the\nmost part men deliberately poor because they preferred, as it is in the\nJewish nature to prefer, the immediate work in hand to any other\nconsideration.\n\nIt is these names that remain and are permanent and are the glory of the\nJewish race.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is one aspect of this Jewish wealth which I hesitate whether to\nput among the general or among the particular causes of the friction\nbetween that nation and its hosts.\n\nIt falls certainly among the general causes in the sense that it is\nconnected with the Jewish character as a whole and not with any special\nmethod in that character's action. It is connected, I mean, with their\nvery nature, and they cannot change that nature. On the other hand, it\nmight be put among the particular causes on account of its quite modern\nand probably ephemeral character: it is, as it were, a particular cause\nof the friction proceeding from the general causes of character just\nenumerated, and this cause of friction is the presence of Jewish\nMONOPOLY.\n\nIt is an exceedingly dangerous point in the present situation. I do not\nthink that the Jews have a sufficient appreciation of the risk they are\nrunning by its development. There is already something like a Jewish\nmonopoly in high finance. There is a growing tendency to Jewish monopoly\nover the stage for instance, the fruit trade in London, and to a great\nextent the tobacco trade. There is the same element of Jewish monopoly\nin the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably\nlead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this\ntendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease. One province after\nanother falls under it and it acts as a most powerful irritant. It will\nperhaps prove the immediate cause of that explosion against the Jews\nwhich we all dread and which the best of us, I hope, are trying to\navert.\n\nIt applies, of course, to a tiny fraction of the Jewish race as a\nwhole. One could put the Jews who control lead, nickel, mercury and the\nrest into one small room: nor would that room contain very pleasant\nspecimens of their race. You could get the great Jewish bankers who\ncontrol international finance round one large dinner table, and I know\ndinner tables which have seen nearly all of them at one time or another.\nThese monopolists, in strategic positions of universal control are an\ninsignificant handful of men out of the millions of Israel, just as the\ngreat fortunes we have been discussing attach to an insignificant\nproportion of that race. Nevertheless, this claim to an exercise of\nmonopoly brings hatred upon the Jews as a whole.\n\nThe thing is deservedly hated because it is exceedingly unnatural and\nexceedingly tyrannical. It would be tyrannical even for one of our own\npeople to hold us up in the supply of things essential to us. It is\nintolerable in a people alien to us. When we come to discuss, in the\nnext chapter, the unfortunate use of secrecy by the Jews (the most\npotent, perhaps, of the particular causes which have lead them into\ntheir present peril) we shall better understand another odious feature\nin this modern monopoly of control, which is the way in which it spreads\nunderground and out of sight leaving the world in general ignorant that\nthis, that and the other individual Jew is its master in the matter of\nsome essential thing which he controls.\n\nTo put it plainly, these monopolies must be put an end to.\n\nBefore the Great War there was only one of which Europe as a whole was\nconscious, and that was the financial monopoly. Yet here the monopoly\nwas far less perfect than in the case of the metals. The Great War\nbrought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public\nduties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had\nnever suspected--the complete control exercised over things absolutely\nnecessary to the nation's survival by half a dozen Jews, who were\ncompletely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive\nfrom the struggle.\n\nIncidentally, the wealth of these few and very wealthy Jews has been\nscandalously increased through the war on this very account. And at the\nmoment in which I write the French press, which has a longer experience\nin the free discussion of the Jewish question than any other, is\nexposing the abominable increase in value of the Rothschild's lead\nmines, an increase mainly due to the use of lead for the killing of men.\n\nBut lead is only one of the monopolies, as I have said. A whole group\nalready exists and the extension of the system is going on as rapidly as\nan epidemic. Not only must it cease before any solution of the Jewish\nquestion can be attempted, but the process must be reversed. If the\nvarious national Cabinets do not interfere to protect these monopolies,\nthen good-bye to any attempt at justice for the Jew. In the legitimate\nanger against a few pitiful dozens among the worst specimens of the\nnation, Israel as a whole will be sacrificed.\n\nThere is in this formation of monopolies, as in the more reputable\nactivities of the nation, even in its more justly famous activities,\neven in its glories, that element of racial character which is never\nabsent from any Jewish action. And that is why I have put the point,\nmodern and ephemeral as it is, among the general causes of trouble.\n\nThe reason these general monopolies are formed by Jews is that the Jew\nis international, tenacious and determined upon reaching the very end of\nhis task. He is not satisfied in any trade until that trade is, as far\nas possible, under his complete control, and he has for the extension of\nthat control the support of his brethren throughout the world. He has at\nthe same time the international knowledge and international indifference\nwhich further aid his efforts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut even were the quite recent monopolies in metal and other trades\ntaken, as they ought to be taken, from these few alien masters of them,\nthere would remain that partial monopoly (it is not at all a complete\nmonopoly) which a few Jews have exercised not only to-day, but\nrecurrently throughout history, over the highest finance: that is, over\nthe credit of the nations, and therefore to-day, as never before, over\nthe whole field of the world's industry.\n\nShould that partial financial monopoly remain uncorrected it will\nproduce a sufficient hostility against the Jews to precipitate, of\nitself, the next general attack upon them.\n\nIt may be argued that this fear is groundless because the control has\nnow lasted for a long time. It has lasted a lifetime even in its present\nhardly complete form: and it is secure because its operations are\nremoved from general observation, and because it is mixed up with the\ninterests of all the wealthier classes.\n\nI am afraid these arguments will not hold. Although the Jewish control\nof finance is not a thing which touches the public at large, yet all\neducated men down to a comparatively low stratum of society are fully\naware of it, and every man who is aware of it resents it. It is resented\nalmost as much by the mass of poor Jews as by the non-Jews, but in a\ndifferent way.\n\nAgain, although this financial monopoly does not directly affect the\neconomic life of the private citizen, he is beginning to understand more\nand more how it indirectly affects it. It affects him, for instance,\nthrough his patriotism. He will not submit to be told that, in order to\nsuit the convenience of these alien bankers, he must forgo the rights of\nvictory and allow some enemy whom he has justly chastised to escape the\nconsequences of that chastisement. Still more urgently will he deny the\nright of the Jewish bankers to interfere with the national reparation\ndue to him for damage wantonly done in the course of hostilities.\n\nAgain, international finance does not live separate from private\nactivities. It touches at last a mass of individual enterprises, and\nthrough those individual enterprises its action is questioned and\nexamined by a host of private citizens.\n\nYet again, the Jews who thus control international finance are at work\nin many other capacities. For instance, some of them stand behind those\ngreat Industrial Insurance schemes which are so detestable to the mass\nof the people. Action against these may arise any moment. If such action\ncomes one may be certain that the individual attacked will be remembered\nin his capacity of international financier quite as much as in his\ncapacity of a battener upon the lapsed premiums of the poor. Sooner or\nlater the character of this monopoly, to which men of a lifetime ago\nwere indifferent through ignorance but of which to-day all the educated\npart of the community is aware and deeply resents, will be appreciated\nand equally resented at a lower level still. When society is\nsufficiently filled with indignation against it, then the explosion will\ncome. If that explosion only affected the rich Jews immediately\nconcerned no one would much regret it. There would be little harm done.\nBut the trouble is that it will almost certainly affect the whole nation\nto which those individuals belong.\n\nI may be told that to put an end to this state of affairs is impossible\nso long as parliamentary government, with its profound corruption,\nendures; that the only force capable of dealing with the plutocratic\nevil of alien monopoly upon this scale is a king; and that a king we\nhave not, among modern nations. To which I answer that the parliamentary\nsystem will not last for ever. It is already in active dissolution among\nourselves, and badly hit elsewhere. The king may not be so far off as\npeople think him to be.\n\nAt any rate, in one way or another the thing will cease, and will\nprobably cease in violence. The danger is that if it ceases in violence\na vast number of innocent will be involved with the guilty.\n\n\nTHE SPECIAL CAUSES OF FRICTION\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE SPECIAL CAUSES OF FRICTION\n\n\nThere are two special forces upon the Jewish side which nourish and\nexasperate the inevitable friction between the Jewish race and its\nhosts. It will be well to deal with these before passing to the\ncorresponding forces upon our side. For to find a remedy it is necessary\nto diagnose the disease.\n\nThe two main Jewish forces which exasperate and maintain the sense of\nfriction between the Jews and their hosts are first of all the Jewish\nreliance upon secrecy, and, secondly, the Jewish expression of\nsuperiority.\n\n\n1. THE JEWISH RELIANCE UPON SECRECY\n\nIt has unfortunately now become a habit for so many generations, that it\nhas almost passed into an instinct throughout the Jewish body, to rely\nupon the weapon of secrecy. Secret societies, a language kept as far as\npossible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret\nmovements, secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body:\nall these and other forms of secrecy have become the national method. It\nis a method to be deplored, not because its indignity and falsehood\ndegrade the Jew--that is not our affair--but rather on account of the\nill-effects this policy produces on our mutual relations. It feeds and\nintensifies the antagonism already excited by racial contrast.\n\nBut before we go further it is essential to be just; for no one\nunderstands anything if he attacks it unjustly.\n\nThe Jewish habit of secrecy--the assumption of false names and the\npretence of non-Jewish origin in individuals, the concealment of\nrelationships and the rest of it--have presumably sprung from the\nexperience of the race. Let a man put himself in the place of the Jew\nand he will see how sound the presumption is. A race scattered,\npersecuted, often despised, always suspected and nearly always hated by\nthose among whom it moves, is constrained by something like physical\nforce to the use of secret methods.\n\nTake the particular trick of false names. It seems to us particularly\nodious. We think when we show our contempt for those who use this\nsubterfuge that we are giving them no more than they deserve. It is a\nmeanness which we associate with criminals and vagabonds; a piece of\ncrawling and sneaking. We suspect its practisers of desiring to hide\nsomething which would bring them into disgrace if it were known, or of\ndesiring to over-reach their fellows in commerce by a form of falsehood.\n\nBut the Jew has other and better motives. As one of their community said\nto me with great force, when I discussed the matter with him many years\nago at a City dinner, \"When we work under our own names you abuse us as\nJews. When we work under _your_ names you abuse us as forgers.\" The Jew\nhas often felt himself so handicapped if he declared himself, that he\nwas half forced, or at any rate grievously tempted, to a piece of\nbaseness which was never a temptation for us. Surely all this carefully\narranged code of assumed patronymics (Stanley for Solomon, Curzon for\nCohen, Sinclair for Slezinger, Montague for Moses, Benson for Benjamin,\netc., etc.) had its root in that.\n\nThe Jew can plead something further in extenuation of this practice.\nFamily names did not grow up naturally with them, as with us, in the\ncourse of the Middle Ages. The Jew retained, as we long retained in the\nmiddle and lower ranks of European society, the simple habit of\npossessing one personal name and differentiating a man from his fellows\nby introducing the name of his father. Thus a Jew in the sixteenth\ncentury was Moses ben Solomon, just as the Cromwells' ancestor of the\nsame generation was Williams ap Williams. He had not what we call a\nsurname or family name. In the same way until varying dates, early in\nFrance and England and other Western countries, much later in Wales,\nBrittany, Poland and the Slav countries of the East, a man was known\nonly by his personal name, distinguished, if that were necessary, by\nmentioning also the name of his father, or, in some cases, of his tribe.\n\nProperly speaking the Jews have no surnames, and they may say with\njustice: \"Since we were compelled to take surnames arbitrarily (which\nwas the case in the Germanies and sometimes elsewhere as well), you\ncannot blame us if we attach no particular sanctity to the custom.\" If a\nJew of plain Jewish name was compelled by alien force to take the fancy\nname of Flowerfield, he is surely free to change that fancy name, for\nwhich he is not responsible, to any other he chooses. There was a good\nreason for the Government to force a name upon him. Only thus could he\nbe registered and his actions traced. But forced it was, and therefore,\non him, not morally binding.\n\nAll this is true, but there remains an element not to be accounted for\non any such pleas. There are in the experience of all of us, an\nexperience repeated indefinitely, men who have no excuse whatsoever for\na false name save that advantage of deceit. Men whose race is\nuniversally known will unblushingly adopt a false name as a mask, and\nafter a year or two pretend to treat it as an insult if their original\nand true name be used in its place. This is particularly the case with\nthe great financial families. Some, indeed, have the pride to maintain\nthe original patronymic and refuse to change it in any of their\ndescendants. But the great mass of them concealed their relations one\nwith another by adopting all manner of fantastic titles, and there can\nbe no object in such a proceeding save the object of deception. I admit\nit is a form of protection, and especially do I admit that in its origin\nit may have mainly derived from a necessity for self-protection. But I\nmaintain that to-day the practice does nothing but harm to the Jew.\nThere are other races which have suffered persecution, many of them, up\nand down the world, and we do not find in them a universal habit of this\nkind.\n\nAgain, who can say that the bearing of a Jewish name to-day, or at any\nrate in the immediate past, is or was a handicap in commerce where\nOccidental nations were concerned? And as for the Eastern nations, the\nJews there are so sharply differentiated that a false name can be of no\nservice merely to hide the racial character of its bearer. There must be\nanother motive present.\n\nThe same arguments apply for and against other forms of secrecy. A man\nmay plead that if secrecy in relationship were not maintained the\ndislike of Jews would lead to false accusations. The Jew is highly\nindividual, especially in intellectual affairs. He takes his own line.\nHe expresses his opinions with singular courage. And such individual\nopinions will often differ violently from those of men with whom he is\nmost closely connected. \"Why,\" I can understand some distinguished\nJewish publicist in England saying, \"should I be compromised by people\nknowing that such-and-such a Bolshevist in Moscow or in New York is my\ncousin or nephew? I am conservative in temperament; I have always served\nfaithfully the state in which I live; I heartily disapprove of these\npeople's views and actions. If their relationship with me were known I\nshould fall under the common ban. That would be unjust. Therefore I keep\nthe relationship secret.\"\n\nThe plea is sound, but it does not cover the ground. It is not\nsufficient to explain, for instance, the habit of hiding relationships\nbetween men equally distinguished and equally approved in the different\nsocieties in which they move. It does not explain why we must be left in\nignorance of the fact that a man whom we are treating as the best of\nfellow-citizens should hide his connection with another man who is\ntreated with equal honour in another country. There are occasions where\nnational conflicts make the thing explicable. A Jew in England with a\nbrother in Germany and a father at Constantinople might well be excused\nin 1915 for calling himself Montmorency. Yet we note that often where\nthere is most need to hide the connection, the connection is not hidden\nat all. On the contrary, it is openly advertised. We all recollect the\nname of one Jewish financier who was most unjustly treated during the\nwar. He had faithfully served this country and the breach of his\nconnection with it was (to my mind at least, and I think to most people\nwho can judge the matter) a very bad thing for Britain in the conflict.\nYet there was here no change of name and no attempt to hide the\nconnection between himself and his brother, who stood, in another\ncapital, for the financial policy of our enemies.\n\nAgain, the Rothschilds, present in the various capitals of Europe, have\nnever pretended to hide their mutual relationships, and no one has\nthought any the worse of them, nor has this open practice in any way\ndiminished their financial power.\n\nThere must be more than necessity at work; I suggest that there is\nsomething like instinct, or, at any rate, an inherited tradition so\nstrong that recourse to it seems natural.\n\nNow it cannot be too forcibly emphasized that secrecy in any of these\nforms--working through secret societies, using false names, hiding of\nrelationships, denying Jewish origin--specially exasperates this, our\nown race, among which the Jews are thrown in their dispersion. It is\ninvariably discovered, sooner or later, and whenever it is discovered\nmen have an angry feeling that they have been duped, even in cases where\nthe practice is most innocent and is no more than the following of\nsomething like a ritual.\n\nI doubt whether the Jews have any idea how strongly this force works\nagainst them. If a man were to say \"my name is so-and-so; my father was\nborn at such-and-such a place in Galicia; my brother is still there in\nsuch-and-such a business\"--if he told us all that, he would not suffer\nupon our appreciating later on that members of his family abroad were\nconnected with movements we disapproved: no, not even with a Government\nin active hostility to our own. Everybody knows the international\nposition of the Jew. Everybody knows that he cannot avoid that position.\nEverybody makes allowances for it. And I conceive that the abandonment\nof this habit of secrecy is not only possible but would be very greatly\nto the advantage of the whole race.\n\nPerhaps its most absurd form (not its most dangerous form) is the\nsecrecy maintained by distinguished men with regard to their Jewish\nancestors. They and their Jewish relations often suppress it altogether\nor, at best, touch on it rarely and obscurely. Why should they act thus?\nTake the case of two men at random out of hundreds whose names are\nuniversally known and by most people respected, the name of Charles\nKingsley, the writer, and the name of Moss-Booth, the founder of the\nSalvation Army. Here are two men who in very different fields played a\ngreat part in English life and who both owed their genius and nearly all\ntheir physical appearance to Jewish mothers. I should have thought it to\nthe advantage of the Jewish race and of the individuals concerned that\nthis fact should be widely known. The literary abilities of Charles\nKingsley, the organizing and other abilities of Booth are not lessened\nin people's eyes, but, if anything, enhanced, by a knowledge of their\ntrue lineage. Yet the mention of that lineage is treated as though it\nwere a sort of insult. I have heard it wrung out in some passionate plea\nfor the Jewish race as a proof that they are not devoid of abilities,\nbut never generally published.\n\nSurely it would be more sensible to emphasize in every possible case the\nJewish or partially Jewish origin of men who distinguished themselves,\nand thus to show under what a debt Europeans stand to the Jewish blood.\nTo treat the matter as a sort of sacred labyrinth, as a mysterious\ntemple into which one may now and then be allowed to peep is ridiculous.\nThe Jews cannot have their cake and eat it too. If it is--surely it must\nbe--in their eyes a matter for pride to belong to blood which they hold\nto be superior and to a tradition of such immense antiquity, then it\ncannot be at the same time a matter of insult. Yet the convention is\ndesperately maintained by the Jews themselves. If a man tells me that he\nhates the English, and in reply I say, \"That's because you are an\nIrishman,\" he does not fly at my throat. He takes it as a matter of\ncourse that the history of the English government in Ireland excuses his\nexpression. So far from being insulted at being called an Irishman he\nwould be insulted if you said he was not an Irishman. And so it is with\nmany another nationality which has suffered oppression and persecution.\nI can find no rational basis for a contrary policy in the case of the\nJews. Moreover the habit does this further harm: it makes men ascribe a\nJewish character to anything they dislike, and thus extends\nundeservedly the odium against the race.\n\nA foreign movement against one's nation, an unpopular public figure, a\ndetested doctrine, are labelled \"Jewish\" and the field of hate, already\nperilously wide, is broadened indefinitely. It is useless to say, \"The\nJews do not admit the connection, the names are not Jewish, there is no\novert Jewish element.\" He answers, \"Jews never do admit such connection;\nJews admittedly hide under false names; Jewish action never _is_ overt.\"\nAnd--as things are, until they change--there is no denying what he says.\nHis judgment may be as wild as you will (I have heard Sinn Feiners\ncalled Jews!), but, so long as this wretched habit of secrecy is\nmaintained, there is no correcting that judgment. A universal suspicion\nis engendered and spreads.\n\nMeanwhile the same vice drags into publicity every ill-sounding Jewish\nact and name and leaves in obscurity the honoured names and useful\npublic actions of Jewry. For a false name, like a forgery, advertises\nitself.\n\nIt is not always recognized in this connection that the Jewish \"booms,\"\nwhich are so fruitful a cause of exasperation, depend on this same\npolicy of concealment and on that account add to the volume of anger as\neach new trick is discovered.\n\nNot that the objects of these world-wide campaigns are unworthy of\nattention. The Jewish actor, or film-star, or writer or scientist\nselected is usually talented; the victim of injustice whose case is\nadvertised on the big drum has often a genuine grievance. But that the\nnotice demanded is out of all proportion and that its dependence on\nJewish organization is always kept hidden.\n\nSo much for the element of secret action. A great deal more might be\nwritten upon it, but there are two reasons against enlarging thereon.\nFirst, a full discussion would take up far too much of my space;\nsecondly, it would tend to add what I particularly wish to avoid in\nthese pages, I mean emphasis upon the errors of the Jew. It would\ncontinue a quarrel, our whole object in which is to find peace.\n\n\n2. THE EXPRESSION OF SUPERIORITY BY THE JEW\n\nThis is a very different matter. The mere _sense_ of superiority is not\nsomething in which any special policy can be recommended, because it is\nthere and cannot be remedied. It is part of the whole position. But it\nis possible to restrain its expression. For that purpose it is of value\nto define it, to put it upon record and to estimate its effect upon our\nissue.\n\nThe Jew individually feels himself superior to his non-Jewish\ncontemporary and neighbour of whatever race, and particularly of our\nrace; the Jew feels his nation immeasurably superior to any other human\ncommunity, and particularly to our modern national communities in\nEurope.\n\nThe frank statement of so simple and fundamental a truth is rarely made.\nIt will sound, I fear, shocking in many ears. To many others it will\nsound not so much shocking as comic, and to many more stupefying.\n\nThe idea that the Jew should think himself our superior is something so\nincomprehensible to us that we forget the existence of the feeling. If\nit be constantly reiterated, for the purpose of dealing with this great\npolitical difficulty, it is perhaps reluctantly admitted, but still\nheld as sort of abnormal, bewildering truth. I contend that the\nforgetfulness of that truth, the attempt to solve the problem without\nthat truth remaining constant and fixed in the mind of the statesman, is\nin a very large measure the cause of our failure in the past; and that\nthe way the Jew openly acts upon it in gesture, tone, manner, social\nassertion, is a very important factor in the quarrel between his race\nand ours.\n\nConsider the attitude of statesmanship in the past towards this vital\nconflict. In every such attitude I think the Jewish conviction of\nsuperiority has been omitted.\n\nFor the attitudes taken up by European statesmen in the past towards the\nalien Jewish element in their midst have always been one of three\nsorts:--\n\n(1) Either they have acted as though there were no Jewish nation, as\nthough the Jew were merely a private citizen like any other who happened\nto have peculiar opinions and customs of his own but who was not\nsubstantially different from the men around him.\n\n(2) Or they have attempted to suppress, or to expel, or to destroy the\nJew with ignominy and violence.\n\n(3) Or, while recognizing the existence of the Jewish nation as\nsomething separate from their own fellow-nationals whom they have to\nadministrate, the statesmen have tried to arrive at equilibrium by a\nsort of pact in which Jewish separateness was recognized, _but under\nconditions of disability_.\n\nNow in all these three methods there is absent all recognition of the\nJewish feeling of superiority.\n\nIn the first it is obviously lacking because the whole idea of a Jewish\nnation is absent. It is equally obviously lacking from the second\nmethod, that of persecution: the persecutor instinctively acts as though\nthe Jew felt himself to be an inferior. In the third method it is also\nabsent, not in theory but in practice. For the statesmen who have acted\nthus in the past have not attempted to give the Jews a _separate_ status\nonly, they have in point of fact nearly always given them an _inferior_\nstatus. By so doing they have exasperated the Jewish national sentiment.\n\nFor instance, certain nations have treated Jews as a separate people, as\naliens, by forbidding them untrammelled residence, and enforcing\nregistration. But when it came to taxation or freedom from military\nservice, _then_ there was no special recognition of the Jew.\n\nThere is indeed a fourth attitude which has occasionally appeared in\nhistory when States have been in active decline or have fallen into the\nhands of base and weak men, and that is the exaggerated flattery and\nsupport of a few powerful wealthy Jews by administrators who were bribed\nor cowed. We are suffering from that to-day. But these exceptional cases\n(they have always led to national disaster) do not form a true category\nof _Statesmanship_ in the matter. Nor is there even in those who thus\nactually advantage a few Jews above their own fellow-citizens, and give\nthem special prominence and power, so much a recognition of the Jewish\nsense of superiority as a secret hatred of their Jewish masters.\n\nBitter as is everywhere the secret attack on the Jews by those who have\nsubjected themselves for gain or publicity, it is nowhere so bitter as\nin the private speech of the politicians.\n\nIt would seem in the presence of so many failures in policy, and all\nthese failures having in common the non-recognition of this Jewish\nfeeling, that success can never be obtained unless we fully allow for\nit. I submit that there will never be peace between any Jewish alien\nminority and the community within which it may happen to reside until\nthose who administrate that community fully accept, and studiously avoid\nthe exasperation of, this state of the Jewish mind.\n\nIn statesmanship, as in every other form of human activity, exact\ndefinition is of the first importance. We must distinguish at the outset\nbetween this Jewish sense of superiority and any real superiority. The\nstatesman is not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of the Jewish\nattitude. It may be a most absurd illusion, or it may be a most profound\nvision. He has nothing to do with that. Having made up his mind that the\nsmall and quite alien minority must be tolerated and must be allowed to\nlive as happily as possible in the midst of a community from which it so\nprofoundly differs, his next duty is to know thoroughly the nature of\nthe material upon which he is acting and with which he has to deal.\n\nHe may smile at the Jewish sense of superiority; he may even be\nprivately indignant; but he must be quite sure that it is a permanent\npart of the nation with which he has to settle. It will never be\nremoved. The Jew in the East End of London, the poorest of the poor,\nfeels himself the superior of the magistrate before whom he is hauled,\nof the policeman who keeps order in the streets, and immensely the\nsuperior of the simple-faced soldiers and sailors, whose trade is the\nmost typical of our own race. He even feels himself the superior of\nthose whom he better understands--the negotiators: the people who live\nby cunning. The expression of our faces, our gesture, our manner; the\nvery fact that our minds, less acute, are also broader, confirms his\nfeeling.\n\nThis fixed idea of superiority which appears in every phrase and\nimplication, is taken for granted by the Jew. It is felt, I say, by the\npoorest and most oppressed, the least rich and the most unfortunate of\nthe Jewish people in our midst. Unfortunately--and this is the crux--it\nproceeds to _unrestrained expression_. It is this which is so violently\nresented. It is this which aggravates the quarrel. It is this which must\nbe kept in control if we are to have peace; not the sense of\nsuperiority, that is ineradicable, but the expression of it. It appears,\nas we all know, with extraordinary emphasis in the action and manner of\nthe few very wealthy Jews with whom the directing classes of the nation\nare better acquainted. But whether he be a rich man suffering only from\nalien and hostile surroundings, or a poor man suffering from all the\nlowering forces of squalor, of destitution and of contempt, the Jew\nfeels himself the potential master of his hosts and shows it. He reposes\nin the same confidence as was felt by Disraeli when he said: \"The Jew\ncannot be absorbed; it is not possible for a superior race to be\nabsorbed by an inferior.\" But unfortunately he does not only repose on\nthat foundation; he also _acts_ upon it, and that is intolerable.\n\nWe must, I say, allow for this feeling in any settlement we make; we\nhave also to study its consequences. Otherwise we shall be baffled by\nphenomena which would seem inexplicable. But we need not allow for--on\nthe contrary, we should actively condemn--an open attitude of Jewish\ncontempt for ourselves.\n\nHere are some consequences of this open expression of\nsuperiority--consequences which we all discover to-day in the relations\nbetween the Jewish people and ourselves and which are leading us into a\nsituation very dangerous for them and for us.\n\nFirst, you have that familiar handling of European things by the Jew,\nwhich is continually stirring the wrath of the European and as\ncontinually leaving the Jew in wonderment what possible harm he can have\ndone. Thus, the Jew will write of our religion, taking for granted that\nit is folly, and will marvel that we are offended. He will appear in our\nnational discussions, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct\npolicy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to\nnational feeling is annoying. He will postulate the Jewish temperament\nas something which, if different from ours, must, whether we like it or\nnot, be thrust upon us.\n\nHe acts in all these things as every one acts instinctively in the\npresence of those whom they take for granted to be inferiors, and when\nmen talk of the \"Jewish insolence,\" or the \"Jewish sneer,\" they imply\nthat attitude. We are wrong if we take these things as calculated\ninsult. The action of the Jew, in so far as it proceeds from this sense\nof superiority, is no more calculated and no more deliberately hostile\nthan are our own actions whenever we find ourselves in relations with\nthose whom we think inferior to ourselves. But we are right to point\nthem out, to resent them, to reprove them, and, if it became necessary,\nto end them.\n\nThe Jewish problem will never be solved unless we make allowances for\nthe sense of superiority, take it for granted as an unavoidable evil,\nand restrain our indignation in its presence; but neither will it be\nsolved if we permit its more and more open expression.\n\nAnother consequence of this attitude: The Jew, on account of it, makes\nno effort to get into touch with the mass of the race in the midst of\nwhich he may happen to be living. He is content to remain separate from\nit, and thinks he cannot help remaining separate from them. And he shows\nit. He consents to associate with the _\u00e9lite_, with those who direct,\nwith those who have some special sort of function, but it seems to him a\nwaste of time to attempt communion with the rest. And he shows it. That\nis what Renan meant when he said that the Jews were the least democratic\nof all people. Renan, who was supported by Jewish money and lived, while\nhe was doing his best work, dependent on a Jewish publisher; Renan, who\nwas so fascinated by the history of Israel, and who decided himself to\nbecome a scholar in all Hebraic things, understood the Jew not at all.\nHis judgments upon them are invariably superficial and to one side of\nthe truth; the judgments of a foreigner--an admiring foreigner but not a\nsympathetic foreigner. And when he said that the Jews were not\ndemocratic he was, instead of passing a judgment upon an intimate\npolitical instinct of the Jewish people, simply noting an external\nphenomenon. For the Jews are, as a fact, strongly democratic--no nation\nmore so--in their national relations among themselves; they only appear\nundemocratic to us because they openly look down on us among whom they\nlive.\n\nAnother form taken by that open expression of the sense of superiority\namong the Jews: It lends to all their actions in our State a certain\nassurance and solidity which vastly strengthens their power of\nresistance, no doubt, but also provokes their misfortunes. The religious\ninterpreter of history might say that they had been specially endowed\nwith this sense by Providence because Providence intended them to\nsurvive as a national unit miraculously, in the face of every\ndisability; to remain themselves for 2,000 years under conditions which\nwould have destroyed any other people in perhaps a century: and yet\nintended to suffer. The rationalist will say that the expression of a\nsense of superiority, and the power of resistance that accompanies it\nare but different names for the same thing; that but for the presence of\nthat expression of superiority the resistance could not have succeeded,\nbut for the resistance there could have been no persecution; that there\nwas no design in the matter, only the chance presence of a particular\nquality which has produced its necessary and logical effect. But\nwhichever be the true explanation, the historical fact remains, that\nthis sense of superiority produced an open and overweening expression of\nit whenever the Jews have been free to give vent to their feelings, and\nthat while it has had, as one great consequence, the strengthening of\nthe identity, permanence, survival of the Jewish people, it has also\nhad, for another great consequence, their recurrent oppression following\non every period of freedom.\n\nThere is one last thing to be said, which it is almost impossible to say\nwithout the danger of giving pain and therefore of confusing the problem\nand making the solution more difficult. But it must be said, because, if\nwe shirk it, the problem is confused the more. It is this: While it is\nundoubtedly true, and will always be true, that a Jew feels himself the\nsuperior of his hosts, it is also true that his hosts feel themselves\nimmeasurably superior to the Jew. We can only arrive at a just and\npeaceable solution of our difficulties by remembering that the Jew, to\nwhom we have given special and alien status in the Commonwealth, is all\nthe while thinking of himself as our superior. But on his side the Jew\nmust recognize, however unpalatable to him the recognition may be, that\nthose among whom he is living and whose inferiority he takes for\ngranted, on _their_ side regard him as something much less than\nthemselves.\n\nThat statement, I know, will be as stupefying to the Jew as its converse\nis stupefying to us. It will seem as extraordinary, as incredible, and\nall the rest of it; but it is true, and it is a permanent truth. Unless\nthe Jews recognize that truth the trouble will go on indefinitely. There\nis no European so mean in fortune or so base in character as not to feel\nhimself altogether the superior of any Jew, however wealthy, however\npowerful, and (I am afraid I must add) however good. True, virtue has a\nsuperiority of its own which cannot be hidden, and the cruel, or the\ntreacherous, or the debauched European cannot but feel himself morally\ninferior to a Jew who is just, self-governed, merciful, generous, and\nthe rest of it. But we know how it is with national feelings. The type\nis stronger for us than the individual; and while we may recognize\ncertain superior characteristics in the individual, we are thinking all\nthe while of the race, of the communal form, and contrasting our own\nwith the alien form to the disadvantage of the latter.\n\nSo difficult is it for the Jew to appreciate this factor in the problem\nthat his lack of appreciation has been almost as great a cause of\ndifficulty in the past as the same lack upon our side. We seem to him\ninsolent when, in our own eyes, we are merely acting normally as\nsuperiors.\n\nWhat emotion does it not create, I wonder, in some Jewish merchant or\nmoney-dealer who has purchased a high directing place in our plutocracy\nwhen he discovers from the gesture, the tone, the expression of some\nchance poor Englishman, perhaps no more than an embarrassed hack writer,\na clear feeling of superiority? Must it not seem to him mere insolence?\n\"What possible claim\" (he will say within himself) \"has this _goy_, and\na poor unsuccessful _goy_ at that, to treat _me_ as though I were less\nthan he! I, who am worth millions, who am ruling and doing what I will\nwith his own national leaders, who dispose of his State very much as I\nchoose, and who belong to that nation which is wholly above all others,\nthe Jewish people?\" Everywhere the Jew discovers the consequences of\nthis feeling, even though that feeling be to him so incomprehensible\nthat he can hardly admit its existence.\n\nWell, whether he likes to admit it or not, it is there. Individual Jews\nmay be flattered for the sake of their wealth or because of the fear of\nthem, in which a commercial community stands. Such Jews as mistake the\ncurrent printed word which they read for the spoken words they never\nhear may fall into the error of thinking that this sense of superiority\non our part did not exist. They must be warned, if ever the problem is\nto be solved, that it _does_.\n\nIn their case, just as in ours, a right solution can only be arrived at\nby the frank admission that the feeling is there and by the fixed\nknowledge that, whether the feeling be an illusion or represent a\nreality, it will not change; but also by a repression of it in our\nmutual relations.\n\nWe may add to our summary of this subtle but profound cause of\ndisturbance the further truth that a paradox of the sort is to be found,\nthough perhaps less emphasized, in every other political problem. The\ndiplomat resident in a foreign capital has to consider not only his own\ncertitude that his hosts are inferior, but their certitude of their own\nsuperiority to him and his. The general in the field may be certain of\nhis mastery over an opponent, but if that opponent is as yet undefeated\nhe will do ill to forget that he is matched by a confidence equal to his\nown. Still more does the negotiator in commerce act upon this principle\nand recognize it, or at least if he fails to do so, he invites disaster.\nFor when the commercial man is occupied in overreaching his neighbour,\nhis chances of success very largely depend upon his treating that\nneighbour as though he really were what he believes himself to be. He\nmay be dealing with a stupid and vain man easily to be overmatched and\nimpoverished, but if he lets it appear that he regards his proposed\nvictim as a vain and stupid man, then he will miss his bargain.\n\nIn general, there is no success over others, nor even (which is much\nmore necessary), any permanent arrangement possible with others, unless\nwe know, allow for, and act upon the self-judgment of others, however\nwrong we may believe that self-judgment to be.\n\nIt is clear that in this conflict between the Jew and, let us say, the\nEuropean (for it is between the Jew and the white Occidental race that\nour present problem lies, though the same problem arises with all other\nraces among whom the Jew may find himself), both parties cannot be\nright. A being superior to the race of man and looking on our petty\nquarrels might be able to decide which of the two opponents were nearer\nreality, and whether we are the better justified in our contempt of the\nJew or the Jew in his contempt of us. But in working out our own\nsolution without the aid of such guidance, there is no rule but for both\nparties to take for granted what each regards as an illusion in the\nother; to restrain its expression for the sake of reaching a settlement;\nand in the settlement they arrive at, to admit as a factor necessarily\nand permanently present what each still secretly regards as a folly, but\nan incurable folly, in the other.\n\nThe alternative to such self-restraint is a falling back into the old\ncircle of submission, consequent anger accompanied by shame and\nviolence, and these followed by remorse.\n\n\nTHE CAUSE OF FRICTION UPON OUR SIDE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE CAUSE OF FRICTION UPON OUR SIDE\n\n\nHaving concluded a brief review of the causes of friction upon the\nJewish side, we must turn to the cause of friction upon our own.\n\nAt first sight it might seem that the task was superfluous. Action and\nreaction are equal and opposite. If you have shown why A irritates B,\nyou have also presumably shown why B irritates A. Or again, if you\nregard an alien minority in a community as an irritant (which it nearly\nalways is and which it certainly is in the case of the Jews), you have,\nit would seem, sufficiently defined the position and need not trouble to\nexamine what part the irritated play in the matter. What is parasitical\nat the worst preys upon the general body, at the best disturbs it. The\ngeneral body would appear passive. It has no part in the business but to\nreact against the cause of the disturbance and if possible get rid of\nit. As that cause is none of its making, one need not seek for any\nresponsibility on its side.\n\nThe house is ours: the Jew is an intruder (an objector may say), and\nthere is an end of it.\n\nBut the situation is not as simple as that. Quite apart from the fact\nthat the Jew will certainly not allow such a description of his\nactivity, there is the obvious truth that where you are dealing with\ntwo _human_ factors, that is, with two factors which have a common\nnature and therefore common duties, you are also dealing with two known\nand analysable organic things. You are also dealing with two sets of\nwills, and these wills we know to be free, in spite of sophists. A man\nand a group of men can do well or ill, both absolutely, and relatively\nto some particular question in hand; and no group of men can escape\nresponsibility in relation to any other group with which it is in\ncontact. It is certain that we play a part ourselves in this quarrel\nbetween us and the Jews. It is a part which is in a measure inevitable,\nbecause it proceeds in a measure from the mere contrast between two\nracial characters. But there is a remaining part which can be remedied\nby the action of the will.\n\nThough we cannot change that element which is inherent in our nature any\nmore than the Jews can change theirs, yet an understanding of it makes\nall the difference; and we can certainly change those elements which are\ninherent in our wills.\n\nThe proof of this is that in the long story of the relations between the\ntwo races, there have been, in various times and places, those\nexceptional chapters of calm to which I have alluded on an earlier page,\nand these could not have been maintained had not the causes of friction\nbeen modified on either side, but especially upon ours.\n\nAll that cause of friction which arises from the mere contrast of\ncharacter may be set down very briefly. It is included in what has just\nbeen said on the general causes, the difference in nature between the\nJews and ourselves. If their form of courage, their form of generosity,\ntheir form of loyalty is, as it is, of a different quality from ours; if\ntheir defects show the same difference of quality or colour; if we\nperpetually feel, as we do feel, the friction caused by this contrast,\nso do they, presumably, feel a corresponding friction in their dealings\nwith us. We shall neither of us be able to change that state of affairs.\nWe must admit it, and we must try to understand its nature.\n\nAbove all, we must not take it for granted that a difference from\nourselves is in itself an evil in another. That is a point to be\ninsisted upon. When we are dealing with inanimate nature, or with\nunintelligent animate nature, we do not ascribe motive, for there is no\nmotive to ascribe. A man does not go about with bitterness in his heart\nagainst wasps, though the purpose of the wasp is very different from the\npurpose of the man and their interests clash. He does not call the wasp\nwicked, nor, save as a relief to his feelings, give it moral names. He\ndoes not condemn the wasp. Still less does he condemn all wasps, or\nanything else in nature around him that works against his interest. But\nwhen he has to deal with other human beings, man at once begins to\nascribe a motive. He must do so, because he knows that motive is the\nspring of all human action, including his own. When that motive differs\nfrom his, contrasts with his and is therefore in any degree inimical to\nhis, he is inclined to ascribe an evil motive. All that is a truism as\nold as the hills.\n\nIf you have not to live with those who thus differ from you there is no\ngreat harm done, but if you have to accept them as part of your life, it\nis a different matter. It is then essential to the order of the State\nthat this illusion of directly antagonistic motive should be watched and\nrestrained.\n\nBut all this concerns rather our duty in the matter than the mere cause\nof friction.\n\nThe first cause of friction is that contrast which is the same whether\nwe describe it from the alien's point of view, as has just been done, or\nfrom our own.\n\nThe causes of friction which lie within the province of the will, and\nwhich are, therefore, directly a matter for reform, are of another kind.\nThe first of them undoubtedly is our _disingenuousness_ in our dealings\nwith the Jew.\n\nThis disingenuousness extends from our daily habit to our treatment of\nhistory. It is more deep-rooted than most people are aware of, more\nwidespread than those who are aware of it like to admit. It affects our\nrelations with the Jews just as much when we are attempting to defend\ntheir position in the State as when we attack them. Indeed, I think it\naffects our relations more when we are trying to defend them than when\nwe attack them. The only two kinds of men who show perfect candour in\ntheir dealings with the Jews are the completely ignorant dupe who can\nhardly tell a Jew when he sees one and who accepts as a reality the old\nfiction of there being no difference except a difference of religion\n(which he has been taught to think unimportant) and the person called an\n\"Anti-Semite.\"\n\nBoth these types certainly say what they think. That is why in their\nheart of hearts the Jews are grateful to both, although both are\nintellectually contemptible. The Jew feels, I think, when he meets\neither of these types, \"At any rate I know where I am.\" But the great\nbulk of men, especially among the more cultivated, are grossly\ndisingenuous in all their dealings with the Jews. It is the great fault\nof our side which corresponds to the fault of secrecy upon theirs. And\nwhen you have allowed for routine, for the necessities of social\nintercourse, for convention and the rest, it remains a deliberately\nconceived moral evil.\n\nA man and his friend meet in the street a Jew whom they know; they\nexchange ordinary civilities with him; they pass on. The moment his back\nis turned each comments to his companion upon the Jewish character of\nthe man they have just left, and almost invariably to his disadvantage.\n\nNow to blame this way of going on does not imply that when you meet your\nJewish acquaintance you are to offend him by saying to his face the kind\nof things you say behind his back; that would be a monstrous piece of\ncynicism and, in practice, insane. We do not act thus in any relation of\nlife. But it does mean that in the attitude, the gesture, the tone of\nthe voice, we play a deliberately false part in our relations with Jews,\nwhich we do not play in our relations with any other people. A peculiar\npretence, a pretence only practised with Jews, is elaborately\nmaintained. There is no allusion to or admission of our real attitude,\nour sense of contrast. We therefore suffer an unnatural strain; and we\nrelieve of the strain immediately afterwards by an exaggeration of the\ncontrast we have pretended to ignore. It is blameworthy in a special\ndegree because it is peculiar to that one case. If we admitted the Jew\nas a Jew, talked to him of the things that were uppermost in his mind\nand in ours, and treated him as we treat any other foreigner in our\nmidst, there would have been no harm done. As it is the lie has done a\ndouble harm--to him and to us. To us by an exasperation which is\nentirely our own fault, to him by deceiving him as to his true position.\n\nThe Jews who mix with the wealthiest classes to-day, especially in\nLondon, have no true idea of their real position in the eyes of their\nguests; and the fault is with their guests.\n\nI have cited an obvious daily example, but it is the least important,\nfor it is passing and shallow. This disingenuousness spreads to\nrelations more permanent. A man goes into business with a Jew, accepts\nhim as a partner, works with him constantly and yet nourishes in his\nheart a disloyalty to that relationship. It is a phenomenon of constant\nrecurrence and it poisons the relations between the two races. If a man\nis prepared to enter into one of these permanent relations with another\nman who differs fundamentally from himself in tradition and human\ncharacter, he must face the consequences. One of those consequences, if\nhe is to remain an honest man, is the acceptation of the position with\nall that it implies. He cannot have the advantage--as he hopes to have\nit--of the Jewish sobriety, the Jewish tenacity, the Jewish lucidity of\nthought, the Jewish international relationships, the Jewish opportunity\nof advancement through the aid of his fellows, and at the same time\nsecretly indulge in a contempt and dislike for his companion, and\nrelieve that suppressed feeling in his absence. Yet that is what men are\ndoing daily throughout the business world.\n\nListen to the conversation of such a man as, having thus engaged in\nintimate commercial relationship with the Jew, falls upon misfortune. He\nspends the rest of his life denouncing the Jews as a race and his own\ncompanion in misfortune in particular. He has no right to do it. It is\nundignified; it is puerile, but, worst of all, it is unjust. He\npresumably knew what he was doing when he entered into what could not\nbut be a difficult relationship. The consequences of that relationship\nhe should accept whether they turn out well for him or ill.\n\nWe find something perhaps even worse to note in the attitude of those\nwho are successful in their business through an alliance with the Jew.\nFor in this case gratitude should be added to justice, and that\ngratitude is very rarely shown. On the contrary, the non-Jewish partner\nis for ever in a mood of complaint about his share. He is perpetually in\na grievance that he has been overreached, or that he has been bullied,\nor that he has been robbed, save in those very rare cases where the\nsuccess is so overwhelming, the fortunes so rapid, that there is no room\nfor a grudge. In almost every other case that I have come across there\nis that element of recrimination--behind the Jew's back--even under\nconditions of success.\n\nI know very well what can be said upon the other side. It can be said\nthat what I have called upon a former page the \"ruthlessness\" of the Jew\nin commercial relations, as well as his tenacity and all the rest, make\nthe contest unequal; that in a partnership between Jew and non-Jew the\nnon-Jew is, as a fact, often overreached and is, as a fact, often left\n(as the pretty vocabulary of modern commerce has it) \"in the cart.\" But\npray why did the non-Jew enter into the alliance at all? Was it not\nprecisely in order that he should benefit, if he could, by those very\nqualities which he later denounces? He expected that those qualities\nwhich make for the success of the Jew in commerce would also benefit\nhimself. He knew that there must always be a certain amount of\ncompetition, even within such an alliance. He backed himself to watch\nhis own interests under conditions which he knew perfectly well when he\nentered into them. He has not a leg to stand upon in quarrelling with\nthe results of the relationship, for in so doing he is merely\nquarrelling with his own judgment and, for the matter of that, his own\nplot.\n\nIf a man cannot tolerate the contrast between the Jewish race and our\nown, or if he regards that race as possessing energies which will\ninvariably defeat him in the competition of commerce, then let him keep\naway from a Jewish alliance altogether. It is the simplest plan. But to\nimmix himself with the Jewish commercial activity and then to grumble at\nthe results is despicable.\n\nAll this is worse, of course, when one is dealing with relations even\ncloser than those of commerce. Those relations are numerous in the\nmodern world, and disingenuousness in them takes the worst possible\nform. Men, especially of the wealthier classes of the gentry, will make\nthe closest friends of Jews with the avowed purpose of personal\nadvantage. They think the friendship will help them to great positions\nin the State, or to the advancement of private fortune, or to fame. In\nthat calculation they are wise. For the Jew has to-day exceptional power\nin all these things. They therefore have the Jew continually at their\ntables, they stay continually under the Jew's roof. In all the\nrelations of life they are as intimate as friends can be. Yet they\nrelieve the strain which such an unnatural situation imposes by a\nstanding sneer at their Jewish friends in their absence. One may say of\nsuch men (and they are to-day an increasing majority among our rich)\nthat the falsity of their situation has got on their nerves. It has\nbecome a sort of disease with them; and I am very certain that when the\nopportunity comes, when the public reaction against Jewish power rises,\nclamorous, insistent and open, they will be among the first to take\ntheir revenge. It is abominable, but it is true.\n\nAnd this truth applies not only to friendships, it even applies to\nmarriages. Marriage between Christian and Jew is, in that rank, an\naffair of interest, and the bitterness the relation breeds is excessive.\n\nThis disingenuousness, then--lack of candour on the part of our race in\nits dealings with the Jew--a vice particularly rife among the wealthy\nand middle classes (far less common among the poor), extends, as I have\nsaid, to history. We dare not, or will not teach in our history books\nthe plain facts of the relations between our own race and the Jews. We\nthrow the story of these relations, which are among the half-dozen\nleading factors of history, right into the background even when we do\nmention it. In what they are taught of history the schoolboy and the\nundergraduate come across no more than a line or two upon those\nrelations. The teacher cannot be quite silent upon the expulsion of the\nJews under Edward I or upon their return under Cromwell. A man cannot\nread the history of the Roman Empire without hearing of the Jewish war.\nA man cannot read the Constitutional History of England without hearing\nof the special economic position of Jews under the Mediaeval Crown. But\nthe vastness of the subject, its permanent and insistent character\nthroughout two thousand years; its great episodes; its general\neffect--all that is deliberately suppressed.\n\nHow many people, for instance, of those who profess a good knowledge of\nthe Roman Empire, even in its details, are aware, let alone have written\nupon the tremendous massacres and counter-massacres of Jews and\nEuropeans, the mass of edicts alternately protecting and persecuting\nJews; the economic position of the Jew, especially in the later empire;\nthe character of the dispersion?\n\nThere took place in Cyprus and in the Libyan cities under Hadrian a\nJewish movement against the surrounding non-Jewish society far exceeding\nin violence the late wreckage of Russia, which to-day fills all our\nthoughts. The massacres were wholesale and so were the reprisals. The\nJews killed a quarter of a million of the people of Cyprus alone, and\nthe Roman authorities answered with a repression which was a pitiless\nwar.\n\nOne might pile up instances indefinitely. The point is, that the average\neducated man has never been allowed to hear of them. What a factor the\nJew was in that Roman State from which we all spring, how he survived\nits violent antagonism to him and his antagonism to it; the special\nprivilege whereby he was excepted from a worship of its gods; his\nhandling of its finances--all the intimate parallel which it affords to\nlater times is left in silence. The average educated man who has been\ntaught, even in some fullness, his Roman History, leaves that study\nwith the impression that the Jews (if he had noticed them at all) are\nbut an insignificant detail in the story.\n\nSo it is with history more recent and even contemporaneous. In the\nhistory of the nineteenth century it is outrageous. The special\ncharacter of the Jew, his actions through the Secret Societies and in\nthe various revolutions of foreign States, his rapid acquisition of\npower through finance, political and social, especially in this\ncountry--all that is left out. It is an exact parallel to the\ndisingenuousness which we note in social relations. The same man who\nshall have written a monograph upon some point of nineteenth century\nhistory and left his readers in ignorance of the Jewish elements in the\nstory will regale you in private with a dozen anecdotes: such-and-such a\nman was a Jew; such-and-such a man was half a Jew; another was\ncontrolled in his policy by a Jewish mistress; the go-between in\nsuch-and-such a negotiation was a Jew; the Jewish blood in such-and-such\na family came in thus and thus--And so forth: but not a word of it on\nthe printed page!\n\nThis deliberate falsehood equally applies to contemporary record. The\nnewspaper reader is deceived--so far as it is still possible to deceive\nhim--with the most shameless lies. \"Abraham Cohen, a Pole\"; \"M.\nMosevitch, a distinguished Roumanian\"; \"Mr. Schiff, and other\nrepresentative Americans\"; \"M. Bergson with his typically French\nlucidity\"; \"Maximilian Harden, always courageous in his criticism of his\n_own_ people\" (his _own_ being the German) ... and the rest of the\nrubbish. It is weakening, I admit, but it has not yet ceased.\n\nNow this form of falsehood corrodes, of course, the souls of those who\nindulge in it. But that does not concern the matter of this book. Where\nit comes in as a cause of friction between the two races, and a\nremovable cause of friction, is in the effect it has upon the Jewish\nconception of their position in our society. It falsifies that\nconception altogether. It produces in the Jew a false sense of security\nand a completely distorted phantasm of the way in which he is really\nreceived in our society. The more this disingenuousness is practised the\nmore the surprise which follows upon its discovery and the more\nlegitimate the bitterness and hatred which that surprise occasions in\nthose of whom we are the hosts. It is not only true of this country; it\nis true of every other country in which the Jew has been harboured and\nfor a time protected. Invariably he has complained that his awakening\nwas rude, that he was bewildered by what seemed to him a novel and\ninexplicable feeling against him; that he had thought he was among\nfriends and found himself suddenly among treacherous enemies. All this\nwould have been saved to others in the past, and will be saved to\nourselves in the near future, if this pestilent habit of falsehood were\neliminated.\n\nDisingenuousness is, on our side, the first main cause of the friction\nbetween the two races.\n\nThe second main cause of friction upon our side is the unintelligence of\nour dealing with the Jews. That unintelligence is allied, of course, to\nthe disingenuousness of which I have spoken; but it is a separate thing\nnone the less, and we can learn from the Jews its opposite, for _their_\ndealings with _us_ are always intelligent. They know what they are\ndriving at in those relations, though they often misunderstand the\nmaterial with which they deal. But we, over and over again, would seem\nnot even to know what we are driving at.\n\nWhat could be more unintelligent, for instance, than the special forms\nof courtesy with which the Jew is treated? I am not talking of the\nelaborate, false friendship which I have just dealt with under the head\nof disingenuousness, but of the genuine attempts at courtesy towards\nthis alien people--the courtesy expressed by those who have no intimate\nrelations with them, and do not desire to have intimate relations with\nthem. It is almost invariably, in those who commonly avoid the Jews, a\ncourtesy which expresses patronage on the surface of it. It may be\ncompared with the courtesy that rich men show to poor men--as offensive\na thing as there is in the world.\n\nAnd how unintelligent is our dealing with any particular Jewish problem;\nfor instance, the problem of Jewish immigration! We mask it under false\nnames, calling it \"the alien question,\" \"Russian immigration,\" \"the\ninflux of undesirables from Eastern and Central Europe,\" and any number\nof other timorous equivalents. The process is one of cowardly falsehood,\nbut the falsehood is not more remarkable than the stupidity, for no one\nis taken in and least of all the Jews themselves.\n\nThis unintelligence extends to many another field. How unintelligent are\nthe efforts of the writers who would, as it were, make amends to the\nJews for former persecution by putting imaginary Jew heroes into their\nbooks. In this particular we offend less than did our fathers of the\nVictorian period. Dickens' offence was grave. He disliked Jews\ninstinctively; when he wrote of a Jew according to his inclination he\nmade him out a criminal. Hearing that he must make amends for this\naction, he introduced a Jew who is like nothing on earth--a sort of\ncompound of an Arab Sheik and a Family Bible picture from the Old\nTestament, and the whole embroidered on an utterly non-Jewish--a purely\nEnglish character.\n\nHow unintelligent are the various defences of the Jew by the non-Jew,\neven with the best intentions! You will hear people tell you solemnly,\nas a sort of revelation, that there are kindly, witty Jews, Jews who are\ngood prize-fighters or good fencers. I well remember one old gentleman\nwho tried hard to convince me (as though I needed convincing) that there\nwere Jews who had taste. He said to me, \"I do not myself go into Jewish\nhouses, but my son does, and he assures me that much of the decoration\nis in good taste.\" How unintelligent is the idea that because a man's\nmotives are not open and because he has not the same reasons for serving\nthe State that you have, _therefore_ he is to be perpetually under\nsuspicion! How still more unintelligent is the conception that, although\nhe is alien, yet you cannot use him in certain special services for the\nState.\n\nThis unintelligence is specially apparent in the treatment of the Jew in\nhis international relations. The Jew is a nomad, the non-Jew a man with\na fixed habitation. The Englishman, the Frenchman and the rest are\nperpetually approaching the Jew as though he also had a fixed\nhabitation. We seem never to be able to get over the shock of surprise\nwhen we learn that a particular Jew abroad is the cousin, or nephew, or\nbrother of another Jew with a different name in England, or with\nanother Jew with yet another name in Pinsk or San Francisco. Yet,\nsurely, this is of the very essence of the Jewish position. We ought to\ntake it for granted that the Jew is thus nomadic, international, spread\nall over the world, migratory, as we take the same thing for granted in\nbirds of passage. To adopt the attitude which we almost invariably do\nand to feel a shock of surprise when we discover what must in the nature\nof things be the most regular feature in the civic situation of the Jew,\nis to fall into that most stupid of all stupid errors, the reading of\noneself into others.\n\nI remember the horror and scandal with which men whispered their\ndiscovery that a man with a German name, who had got into trouble a few\nyears ago, was the first cousin of a Cabinet Minister. Why not? They\nseemed to be struck all of a heap by the dreadful revelation that the\nnames borne by Jews were not always their original names, that rich and\nimportant men often have poor relations, and that poor relations often\nget embarrassed.\n\nIn terms of their own society the thing would have been simple enough.\nThey would have felt no surprise to hear that some man of our own race,\nwho had made a rapid fortune and purchased a political position,\nsuffered from a disreputable relative, also of our own race. But because\nin the case of the Jew there were the two unusual elements of a foreign\nname and distant origin, they were bewildered. They even thought it in\nsome way specially scandalous. They had not appreciated the material\nwith which they were dealing, and that is the mark of unintelligence.\nBut the cream of unintelligence, the form in which unintelligent\ntreatment of him most exasperates the Jew, is undoubtedly that typical,\nthat ceaseless case of the man who is perpetually crying out against\nIsrael, and purposing nothing--the man who nourishes a sterile\ngrievance; who has not even the clarity or vigour to attempt\nsuppression; who would be horrified at persecution, almost equally\nhorrified at any breach of convention, and yet continues to cry out\nagainst a state of affairs which he does nothing to put right and for\nwhich he has not even a theoretic solution.\n\nThe last of the main causes of friction between the Jews and ourselves\nis lack of charity, and that in the simplest form of refusing to go half\nway to meet the Jew, and of refusing to put ourselves in the shoes of\nthe Jew so as to understand his position in our society and his attitude\ntowards it. It is a universal fault just as common in those who daily\nassociate with, live off, and fawn upon Jews as in those who keep aloof\nfrom them. It never seems to occur to anyone on our side who has to deal\nwith the Jewish problem, to make the imaginative effort required. And\nyet we have the parallel ready to our hands. The Jew feels among us,\nonly with far greater intensity, what we feel when we are resident in a\nforeign country--a sense of exile, a sense of irritation against alien\nthings, merely because they are alien; a great desire for companionship\nand for understanding, yet a great indifference to the fate of those\namong whom he finds himself; an added attachment, not, indeed, to his\nterritorial home, for he has none, but to his nation. If we could\nperpetually bear in mind that parallel, the friction on our side would\nbe greatly modified.\n\nThere are many Jewish societies which ask nothing better than to have\noccasional addresses from non-Jews. Those addresses are given, those\nSocieties are visited, but not nearly as much as they should be.\n\nThere is a great Jewish literature--I mean a great mass of books dealing\nspecially with the Jew's position from the Jew's own point of view. It\nis not read or known. I may be told that the fault of all this is\nlargely that of the Jews themselves on account of their use of secrecy.\nI do not think the objection applies. With all his use of secrecy the\nJew is there present among us for us to approach, if we will, and to\nunderstand as best we can. And I say that the approach is not made.\n\nIt is an effort, of course. No one knows it better than I; for on more\nthan one occasion when I have addressed a Jewish audience I have found\nmyself the object of very severe language. But it is an effort which\nevery one ought to make who admits that there is a Jewish problem at\nall, and it is an effort very rarely made. It is not only an effort\nbecause it involves the crossing of a gulf, it is also an effort because\nwe find this alien thing in many ways repugnant to us. Yet people make\nthat effort for the purposes of the State continually where other races\nare concerned. It is far more important that they should make it where\nthe Jews are concerned. For those other alien races, administrated for\nthe moment by officials of our own race, will not permanently be so\nadministered. The relations between them and us are for a brief time,\nand they are relations that constantly change. The Jew is with us\nalways; and the type of contact between his race and ours will remain\nmuch the same through an indefinitely long future as they have through\nso very long a past.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere, then, is the summary, as I see it, of the causes of friction\nbetween the two races.\n\nFirst, a general cause, which lies in the contrasting nature of the two\nand upon the irritant effect of that contrast. This cause is not to be\neliminated, though its effects may be modified. It is a profound\ncontrast and a sharp irritant constant in its activity. The essential is\nto recognize its real nature, not to give to it general terms of faults\nand vices, but to appreciate the difference of _quality_ involved: above\nall, not to tell lies about it and pretend it is not present.\n\nSecondly, as to special causes of friction--I mean causes which on their\nside, as on ours, can be, if not eliminated, at any rate modified--I\nsuggest that the most prominent are: 1. The sense of superiority which,\nthough it cannot be destroyed, can at least be checked in expression and\nwhich, by a pretty irony, is equally strong upon both sides. 2. The use\nof secrecy by the Jews themselves; partly as a weapon of defence, partly\nas a method of action, always to be deplored, and of a nature\nparticularly exasperating to our temperament. 3. Upon our side, a\npersistent disingenuousness in our treatment of this minority.\nUnintelligence in their treatment: the whole made worse by an\nindifference or lack of charity, a refusal to make the effort necessary\nfor meeting and understanding as well as we can the race which must\nalways be with us and which is yet so different from our own.\n\nNow these causes of friction permanently present tend to produce what I\nhave called the tragic cycle: welcome of a Jewish colony, then ill-ease,\nfollowed by acute ill-ease, followed by persecution, exile and even\nmassacre. This followed, naturally, by a reaction and the taking up of\nthe process all over again.\n\nIn our own time we have seen, quite lately, the succession of the second\nto the first of these stages; we have passed from welcome to ill-ease.\nThat passage threatens a further passage from the second to the third;\nfrom the third to the terrible conclusion.\n\nWe feel quite secure to-day from the last extreme of this cycle. We are\ncertain it will never come to persecution: that is still inconceivable.\nBut it is not inconceivable everywhere: and no society is free from\nchange. Some now alive may live to see riots even in this quiet polity\nand worse in newer or less settled states.\n\nSuch a catastrophe is to be avoided by every effort in our power and a\nsolution to the problem presented must imperatively be sought. But in\npassing we should note, for the consideration of those who may doubt the\nacuteness of the problem and the immediate practical necessity for a\nsolution, the presence of a phenomenon which amply proves that it _is_\nacute and that the solution _is_ necessary. That phenomenon is the\npresence to-day of a new type, the Anti-Semite, the man to whom all the\nJews are abhorrent.\n\nIt is a phenomenon which has increased prodigiously; its rate of\nincrease is accelerating, and as a warning of the peril, as a proof of\nits magnitude, I propose to examine that phenomenon closely in my next\nchapter.\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SEMITE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE ANTI-SEMITE\n\n\nTo understand any problem one must study not only its real factors as\nthey appear to a reasonable man who sees the whole affair steadily; one\nmust also understand the insanities and distortions the problem has\nprovoked, for they singularly illustrate its character and force.\n\nIt is not enough to consider only the actual in any difficulty to be\nsolved, it is necessary also to consider the imaginary; because the\nlegend or illusion is a direct product of the truth and shows how the\ntruth has acted on other minds.\n\nThus a caricature brings out what we unconsciously know to be present in\nany personality, emphasizes it, and though false in its exaggeration,\nforbids us to forget it in the future. Thus any extreme, no matter how\nfalse its lack of proportion, is of the highest value to judgment.\n\nIn a practical problem of politics there is another most weighty reason\nfor examining extreme and distorted opinion: which is, that in politics\nwe deal not only with real things but with the liking or disliking of\nthese things by living men: their exaggerated or ill-informed affection\nor repulsion. All statesmanship lies in the apprehension of enthusiasm\nand indifference.\n\nNow there are in this great political problem presented by the Jewish\nrace in our midst two extremes. One we have already studied: it is the\nextreme folly of falsehood, of pretending that the problem is not there.\n\nThat extreme was an almost universal folly in the immediate past,\nespecially in this country. It is now abandoned by all of our generation\nsave a few people of an official sort, and these will not long maintain\nan attitude outworn and already ridiculous.\n\nBut the other extreme remains to be studied. It is, in our society,\nquite a recent phenomenon, though it has gained very great strength in\nrecent years and is increasing alarmingly. It is the extreme of hatred.\nIt is the extreme manifested by those who have but one motive in their\naction towards the Jewish race, and that motive a mere desire for its\nelimination. It implies that there is no peace possible between the two\nraces; no reasoned political solution. It relies upon nothing but\nantagonism. It is already very strong, and its adherents believe\nthemselves to be on the eve of a sort of blundering triumph.\n\nEvery one who desires to deal with this grave political matter\npractically, that is, to establish a permanent policy, will be much more\nconcerned with the extreme here examined than with the other extreme,\nwhich ignores the problem altogether. For this new extreme of active\nhatred is flourishing; that other, older extreme no longer functions.\n\nThe near future will have to deal, in practical politics, not only with\nthe problem presented by the Jews as an alien power within the State,\nbut (what will probably prove a more difficult matter) with the hater\nof the Jew, who is claiming, and rapidly achieving, power on his side.\nThe type is as old as the problem; it is two thousand years old. But it\nwaxes and wanes. Its modern name of \"Anti-Semite\" is as ridiculous in\nderivation as it is ludicrous in form. It is partly of German academic\norigin and partly a newspaper name, vulgar as one would expect it to be\nfrom such an origin, and also as falsely pedantic as one would expect,\nbut the exasperated mood of which it is a label is very real.\n\nI say the word \"Anti-Semite\" is vulgar and pedantic: that I think will\nbe universally admitted. It is also nonsensical. The antagonism to the\nJews has nothing to do with any supposed \"Semitic\" race--which probably\ndoes not exist any more than do many other modern hypothetical\nabstractions, and which, anyhow, does not come into the matter. The\nAnti-Semite is not a man who hates the modern Arabs or the ancient\nCarthaginians. He is a man who hates Jews.\n\nHowever, we must accept the word because it has become currency, and go\non to the more essential matter of discovering how those to whom it\napplies are moved, what the result of their action would be if (or when)\nthey could act freely; and, most important of all, of what they are a\nsign.\n\nThe Anti-Semite is a man marked by two main characters. In the first\nplace he hates the Jews _in themselves_. His motive is not a hatred of\ntheir presence in our society. His motive is not the hatred of\nconcealment, falsehood, hypocrisy, corruption and all the other\nincidental evils of that false position. These things, indeed, irritate\nhim, but they are not his leading motive. His leading motive is a\nhatred of the Jewish people. He is in intense reaction against this\nalien thing which he perceives to have acquired so much power in his\nsociety. The way in which it has exercised this power especially\nexasperates him. But he will remain a hater of the Jewish nation when\nthey are despised, insignificant, and neglected, and he will remain a\nhater of it even if there be then attached to its position no accidents\nof secrecy, falsehood and financial corruption. The type increases\nrapidly when Jews have power: it becomes almost universal when they\nbegin to abuse that power. It dwindles as that power declines. But it is\nalways the same and is an index of peril.\n\nThe Anti-Semite is a man who _wants to get rid of the Jews_. He is\nfilled with an instinctive feeling in the matter. He detests the Jew as\na Jew, and would detest him wherever he found him. The evidences of such\na state of mind are familiar to us all. The Anti-Semite admires, for\ninstance, a work of art; on finding its author to be a Jew it becomes\ndistasteful to him though the work remains exactly what it was before.\nThe Anti-Semite will confuse the action of any particular Jew with his\ngeneral odium for the race. He will hardly admit high talents in his\nadversaries, or if he admits them he will always see in their expression\nsomething distorted and unsavoury.\n\nWhen an accusation is made against a Jew he cannot adopt the judicial\nattitude any more than could that other extremist, the humbug who denies\nthe Jewish problem altogether. Just as that other person, now passing\nout of our lives, would not admit a Jew to be guilty under the most\nglaring evidence and was particularly unable to admit guilt in a Jew who\nmight be wealthy; just as he proclaimed the Jews as a whole impeccable,\nso does the Anti-Semite approach every Jew with a presumption of his\nprobable guilt, so does he exaggerate this prejudice when he has to deal\nwith a wealthy Jew, and so does he consider the whole Jewish race in the\nlump as probably guilty of pretty well any charge brought against it.\n\nThe contrast was very well seen in the Dreyfus case, when the old type\nof extremist was still strong. He would not look at the evidence against\nDreyfus, he would not, if he could help it, mention his race. All he\nknew was that Dreyfus was and must in the nature of things be innocent\nand that all the diverse men who testified against him were wicked\nconspirators. The new type of extremist, then but rising and not yet\nmaster, would not listen to the strong evidence in Dreyfus' favour,\nrefused to re-examine the case after the chief witness had been found\nguilty of forgery, made up his mind that Dreyfus was necessarily guilty\nand was convinced that all his supporters were dupes or knaves.\n\nThe mere fact that the Jews exist, let alone that they are powerful,\npoisons life for such a man. He is led by his lop-sided enthusiasm into\nthe most ridiculous errors. In this country every name of German origin\nat once suggests a Jew to him. Every financial operation, especially if\nit be of doubtful morality, must certainly have a Jew behind it;\nwherever a number of partners, Jewish and non-Jewish, are engaged in\nsome bad work (as, for instance, in one of our innumerable Parliamentary\nscandals), a Jew must always for this sort of person be the prime mover\nand the evil genius of the whole.\n\nAs is the case with every other mania, this mania rapidly obscures the\ngeneral vision of its victim. His prejudices soon lose proportion\naltogether. He comes to see the Jew in everything and everywhere, and to\naccept confidently propositions which he would himself see to be\ncontradictory, could he give a moment's quiet thought to the matter.\n\nThus I have heard on all sides in the last few years these strange\nassertions proceeding from the same source, yet obviously incompatible\none with the other: That modern scepticism was Jewish in its origin;\nthat modern superstition, our modern necromancy and crystal gazing and\nall the rest of it, was Jewish in its origin; that the evils of\ndemocracy are all Jewish in their origin; that the evil of tyrannical\ngovernment, in Prussia, for instance, was Jewish in its origin; that the\npagan perversions of bad modern art were Jewish in their origin; that\nthe puerility of bad church furniture was due to Jewish dealers; that\nthe Great War was the product of Jewish armament firms; that the\nanti-patriotic appeals which weakened the allied armies came from Jewish\nsources--and so on. It is indeed true that there is a Jewish quality in\nall these diverse and contradictory things where a Jew mixes in them;\njust as there is a Scotch, or French, or English quality when a Scot, a\nFrenchman, or an Englishman is the agent. But to ascribe the whole\nboiling to the Jew, and to make him the conscious origin of all, is a\ncontradiction in terms.\n\nThe Anti-Semite is a man so absorbed in his subject that he at last\nloses interest in any matter, unless he can give it some association\nwith his delusion, for delusion it is.\n\nIn a sense, of course, this state of mind is a sort of compliment to the\nJewish nation. If such a preoccupation with them be not amicable it is\nat least intense, and those against whom it is directed may well regard\nit as a proof of their importance in the world. But that aspect of the\nphenomenon is not consoling for the future of either of us--the Jew who\nnow nervously awaits attack, and we who desire to forestall and prevent\nsuch attack.\n\nThe Anti-Semite is very much more numerous and very much more powerful\nthan might be imagined from the reading of the daily press; for the\npress is still, for the most part, under the convention of ignoring the\nJewish problem and under the terror of the financial results which might\nfollow from a discussion of it. His universal activity is not yet to be\nread of in the great newspapers; but in conversation and in the practice\nof daily life we hear of it everywhere.\n\nAnd here I may digress upon a modern feature which applies to all\npolitical problems and therefore to this Jewish problem among others.\nThe great movements of our time have never _originated_ in the press of\nthe great cities. They rise and store up their energies in political\ncliques, in popular gatherings, and spoken rumours long before they\nappear in this main instrument for the spreading of news. That is\nbecause the press of our great cities is controlled by very few men,\nwhose object is not the discussion of public affairs, still less the\ngiving of full information to their fellow-citizens, but the piling up\nof private fortune. As these men are not, as a rule, educated men, nor\nparticularly concerned with the fortunes of the State, nor capable of\nunderstanding from the past what the future may be, they will never take\nup a great movement until it is forced upon them. On the contrary, they\nwill waste energy in getting up false excitement upon insignificant\nmatters where they feel safe, and even in using their instruments for\nthe advertisement of their own insignificant lives. In all this, the\nmodern press of our great cities differs very greatly from the press of\na lifetime ago. It was not always owned by educated men, but it was\nconducted by highly educated men, who were given a free hand. It\ntherefore concerned itself with problems of real importance and it\ndebated upon either side real contrasts of opinion upon those matters.\nThis modern press of ours does none of these things; but precisely\nbecause it is so reluctant to express real emotion it does, when the\nemotion is forced upon it, let it out in a flood. Just as it would not\ntell the truth when a thing was growing, so when it reaches an extreme\nit will not exercise restraint. On the contrary, if the \"stunt\" be an\nexciting one, it will push it (once it has made up its mind to talk of\nit at all) in the most extreme form and to the last pitch of violence.\n\nWe have seen that plainly enough in the monstrous expressions of foreign\npolicy during the last ten years, and we have seen it in the abominable\nhounding of individuals to which that same press has lent itself.\n\nNow in the matter of Anti-Semitic feeling we shall have, I think,\nexactly the same phenomenon repeated. That feeling is now ubiquitous. It\nis spreading with an alarming rapidity, and the increase of its\nintensity is even more remarkable than the increase in the numbers of\nits adherents. Sooner or later--and fairly soon, I imagine--the press\nwill give it voice. When it _does_, it will give it voice, we may be\ncertain, in the most extreme, the most passionate, the most irrational\nform; and when that happens, in a field where passion is already so\nwild, God help its victims!\n\nThe Anti-Semitic passion, largely based though it is on imaginary\nthings, has adopted one method of action highly practical. It is a\nmethod of action closely in touch with reality, and productive of\nformidable results. I mean _its compiling of documents_. It has here\nnoted, all over Europe and America, with exactitude, and continues to\nput upon record, everything which can be said to the detriment of its\nvictims.\n\nIt discovered at its origin, presented as a barrier against it, the\nJewish weapon of secrecy. The folly of the Jews in using such a weapon\nwas never better shown, for of all defences it is the easiest to break\ndown. The Anti-Semites countered at once by making every inquiry, by\ncollecting their information, by finding out and exposing the true names\nhidden under the mask of false ones, by detecting and registering the\nrelationships between men who pretended ignorance one of the other; it\nferreted all through the ramifications of anonymous finance and\ninvariably caught the Jew who was behind the great industrial insurance\nschemes, the Jew who was behind such and such a metal monopoly, the Jew\nwho was behind such and such a news agency, the Jew who financed such\nand such a politician. That formidable library of exposure spreads\ndaily, and when the opportunity for general publication is given there\nwill be no answer to it.\n\nIt is the greatest mistake in the world to regard the Anti-Semite in the\nvast numerical strength he has now attained all over our civilization as\nwholly unpractical and therefore negligible, as a man who cannot\nconstruct a formidable plan of action simply because he has lost his\nsense of values. While the movement was growing the method of meeting it\nwas always that of ridicule. It was a false method. The strength of\nAnti-Semitism was and is based not only on intensity of feeling, but\nalso on industry, an industry very accurate in its methods. The\nAnti-Semitic pamphlets, newspapers and books, which the great daily\npress is so careful to boycott, form by now a mass of information upon\nthe whole Jewish problem which is already overwhelming and still\nmounting up: and all of it hostile to the Jews. You will not find in it,\nof course, any material for the Defendant's Brief, but as a _dossier_\nfor the Prosecution it is astonishing in extent and accuracy and\ncorrelation.\n\nNow it is to be remembered in this connection that the human mind is\ninfluenced by documentation in a special manner. The exact citation of\ndemonstrable things with chapter and verse convinces as can no other\nmethod, and the Anti-Semite is ready with such citation on a very large\nscale indeed, at the first moment when a general publicity, now denied,\nshall be granted to it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMoreover, this reliance of the Jew upon the futility of the Anti-Semitic\npropaganda omits one very important feature. The Anti-Semitic group is\nbuilt up of men differing greatly in experience, in judgment and policy.\nAnd it is built up of strata differing greatly in the intensity of their\nhatred. It includes many a man with administrative experience, many a\nman of great business capacity, of acquired fortune, of talent in\naffairs. It includes men with a thorough knowledge of European\ndiplomacy; it includes men (in great numbers) with the literary gift of\nexpression for persuading their fellows. Not only is this true, but, as\nI have said, it includes a large \"right wing\" which, because they are\nmore restrained in expression than the rest, will exercise a greater\nweight; men who are not at all blinded by their hatred, though hatred\nhas become their chief motive; men who retain full capacity for\norganizing a plan of action and for carrying it out. It is true that\nthere is a definite line which divides the Anti-Semite from the rest of\nthose who are attempting to solve the Jewish problem. It is the line\ndividing those whose motive is peace from those whose motive is\nantagonism. It is the line dividing those whose object is action,\nagainst the Jew, and those whose object is a settlement. But on the\nAnti-Semitic side of that line--that is, among those whose determination\nis to suppress and eliminate Jewish influence to the extreme of their\npower--there are now very many more than the original enthusiasts who\ncreated the movement.\n\nThe Jews should further remember that to-day every one outside their own\ncommunity is potentially an Anti-Semite. Not every one, perhaps not even\nyet a majority, at least in the directing and wealthier classes, is\nother than friendly or indifferent to the Jews, but there has grown up\nin every one not a Jew something of reaction against the Jewish power.\nIt requires but an accident to change this from the latent and slight\nthing it is in most men to an angry passion. I have noticed that among\nthe most violent of Anti-Semites are those who had passed some\nconsiderable portion of their early manhood in ignorance of the whole\nproblem. These come across a Jew unexpectedly in some relation hostile\nto them--they lose money through some Jewish financial operation, or\nthey connect, for the first time, in middle age, several misfortunes of\ntheirs with a common element of Jewish action, or they find Jews mixed\nup in some attack on their country: thenceforward they become and remain\nunrepentant Anti-Semites.\n\nThe dupe, when he discovers he has been duped, is dangerous, and there\nis even a considerable category of those who have suffered nothing, even\nby accident, at the hand of the Jew, yet who, when they discover what\nthe Jewish power is, feel they have been played with, and grow angry at\nthe trickery.\n\nIt has been and will be with Anti-Semitism as with all movements. When\nthey begin they are ridiculed. As they grow they come to be feared and\nboycotted; but of those that are successful it may be justly said that\nthe moment of success begins when they turn the corner and from a fad\nbecome a fashion.\n\nIt is still (doubtfully) the fashion to separate oneself from the\nAnti-Semitic movement. You still hear men, when they write or speak upon\nthe Jewish problem, no matter with what hostility to the Jew, excuse\nthemselves as a rule at the beginning of their remarks by saying, \"I am\nno Anti-Semite.\" For some flavour of the old ridicule still attaches to\nthe name. But fashions change rapidly and the new fashion which comes in\nto support a growing thing, when it does arrive, arrives in a flood.\n\nWe can all of us remember the time when the talk of nationalization, the\nold State Socialist talk, was the talk of a few faddists who were\neverywhere ridiculed and despised. To-day it is the fashion; and the\npractice of State control, State support, the universality of State\naction, is such that it is those who oppose it who are now the faddists\nand the cranks.\n\nWe can all of us remember the day when, in the United States, a\nprohibitionist was a faddist, and a very unpopular faddist at that. We\nhave seen fashion catch him up with a vengeance.\n\nWe can all of us remember the day when the supporters of women's\nsuffrage in England were a very small group of faddists indeed: we know\nwhat has happened there!\n\nThe forces driving men towards the Anti-Semitic camp are far stronger\nthan the forces acting upon these old hobbies of women's suffrage, of\nprohibition and the rest. They are personal, intimate forces arising\nfrom the strongest racial instincts and the most bitter individual\nmemories of financial loss, subjection, national dishonour.\n\nFor instance, any German to-day to whom you may talk of his great\ndisaster will answer by telling you that it is due to the Jews: that the\nJews are preying upon the fallen body of the State; that the Jews are\n\"rats in the Reich.\" For one man that blames the old military\nauthorities for the misfortunes following the war, twenty blame the\nJews, though these were the architects of the former German prosperity,\nand among them were found a larger proportion of opponents of the war\nthan in any other section of the Emperor's subjects. That is but one\nexample; you will find it repeated in one form or another in almost\nevery other polity of the modern world.\n\nThe Anti-Semite has become a strong political figure. It is a great and\ndangerous error at this moment to think his policy is futile. It is a\npolicy of action, and a policy which may proceed from plan to execution\nbefore we know it.\n\nThere used to be quoted years ago--and I have myself quoted it with\napproval--a famous question put by a close and reasonable observer of\npublic affairs upon the Continent, to the most prominent of Continental\nAnti-Semites in that day. The question was this: \"If you had unlimited\npower in this matter, what would you do?\" The implied answer was that\nthe Anti-Semite could do nothing. He could not make a law which would\nsegregate the Jews for they could escape that law by mixing with those\naround them. He could not make a law exiling them; for, first, it would\nbe impossible to define them; secondly, even if that were possible,\nthose defined would not be received elsewhere. What could he do? The\nimplication was, I say, that he could do nothing; he was supposed, in\nthe presence of that question, to admit his futility.\n\nUnfortunately we now know that he _can_ do something. The Anti-Semite\ncan persecute, he can attack. With a sufficient force behind him he can\ndestroy. In much of this destruction he would have, in a present state\nof feeling and in most countries, the mass of public opinion behind him.\nHe could begin with a widespread examination of Jewish wealth and its\norigins and an equally widespread confiscation. He could use the dread\nof such confiscation as a weapon for compelling the divulgence of Jewish\norigins where a man desired to conceal them. He could do this not only\nin the case of the wealthy men, but, through the terror of wealthy men,\nover the whole field of the Jewish community. He could introduce\nregistration and with it a segregation of the Jews. Inspired as he would\nbe by no desire for a settlement agreeable to them, but solely for a\nsettlement agreeable to _himself_, he could aim at that harsh\nsettlement, and even though he might not reach his goal, it is not\npleasant to envisage what he might do on his way to it.\n\nBut even though the Anti-Semite fail to acquire full power, there remain\nattached to his great increase in numbers and intensity of feeling the\nprime questions, \"What is the _meaning_ of the thing? Why has it arisen?\nWhy is it spreading? What are the forces nourishing it?\"\n\nThese are the main questions which those who regret the presence of such\na passion in the body politic, which those who are alarmed about it,\nwhich those who, like the Jews themselves, must, if they are to avoid a\ncatastrophe, defend themselves against it, would do well to answer.\nThere has not been as yet sufficient time to answer those questions\nfully or to appreciate this great reaction in its entirety, but we can\nalready judge it in part. The Anti-Semitic movement is essentially a\nreaction against the abnormal growth in Jewish power, and the new\nstrength of Anti-Semitism is largely due to the Jews themselves.\n\nWhen this angry enthusiasm re-arose in its modern form, first in\nGermany, then spreading to France, next appearing, and now rapidly\ngrowing, in England, it was novel and confined to small cliques. The\ntruths which it enunciated were then as unfamiliar as the false values\non which it also reposed. That universal policy of the Jews against\nwhich it is part of my thesis to argue, a policy natural but none the\nless erroneous, the policy of _secrecy_, the policy of _hiding_, at once\ntook advantage of what was absurd in the novelty of Anti-Semitism. The\nJew, in spite of his age-long experience of menace and active\nhostility, in spite of his knowledge of what this sort of spirit had\neffected in the past, did not come out into the open. He did not act\nagainst the new attack with open indignation, still less with open\nargument, as he should have done. He took advantage of its absurdity, at\nits beginnings, in the eyes of the general public. He used all his\nendeavours to make the word \"Anti-Semitic\" a label for something\nhopelessly ridiculous, a subject for mere laughter, a matter which no\nreasonable man should for a moment consider seriously.\n\nFor something between a dozen and twenty years this policy was\nsuccessful. The method though less and less firmly established as time\nwent on, has not yet quite failed. None the less that policy was very\nill-advised. It was used not only to ridicule the Anti-Semite, but what\nwas quite illegitimate, quite irrational (and bound in the long run to\nbe fatal), it was used to prevent all discussion of the Jewish question,\nthough that question was increasing every day in practical importance\nand clamouring to be decided.\n\nIt was the instinctive policy with the mass of the Jewish nation, a\ndeliberate policy with most of its leaders, not only to use ridicule\nagainst Anti-Semitism but to label as \"Anti-Semitic\" any discussion of\nthe Jewish problem at all, or, for that matter, any information even on\nthe Jewish problem. It was used to prevent, through ridicule, any\nstatement of any fact with regard to the Jewish race save a few\nconventional compliments or a few conventional and harmless jests.\n\nIf a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any\nregion--for instance, in India--he was an Anti-Semite. If he interested\nhimself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions,\nespecially in matters concerning religion, he was an Anti-Semite. If the\nemigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast\nmodern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been\norganized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as\nan historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an\nAnti-Semite. If he exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a\nJew, he was an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians\ntaking money from the Jews, he was an Anti-Semite. If he did no more\nthan call a Jew a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite. The laughter which the\nname used to provoke was most foolishly used to support nothing nobler\nor more definitive than this wretched policy of concealment. Anyone with\njudgment could have told the Jews, had the Jews cared to consult such an\none, that their pusillanimous policy was bound to fail. It was but a\npostponement of the evil day.\n\nYou cannot long confuse interest with hatred, the statement of plain and\nimportant truths with mania, the discussion of fundamental questions\nwith silly enthusiasm, for the same reason that you cannot long confuse\ntruth with falsehood. Sooner or later people are bound to remark that\nthe defendant seems curiously anxious to avoid all investigation of his\ncase. The moment that is generally observed, the defence is on the way\nto failure.\n\nI say it was a fatal policy; but it was deliberately undertaken by the\nJews and they are now suffering from its results. As a consequence you\nhave all over Europe a mass of plain men who so far from being scared\noff from discussing the Jewish problem by this false ridicule are more\ndetermined than ever to thrash it out in the open and to get it settled\nupon rational and final lines.\n\nThat would perhaps be no great harm in itself. It would merely mean that\na false policy had failed, and that proper frank and loyal discussion\nwould succeed all this hushing up and boycott. Unfortunately the false\npolicy had other and much worse consequences. It exasperated men who had\nalready begun to interest themselves in the political discussion and who\nwould not tolerate undeserved ridicule. It heaped up a world of\ndetermined opposition to the Jews. It is not exactly that the\nAnti-Semite has already won or even is as yet certainly on his way to\nwinning, but he now has his chance of winning. Whereas, some few years\nago, he had the tide against him, he is now, through the fault of the\nJews themselves, at its turn. He now finds himself on an extreme wing,\nit is true, but _attached_ to a very large body which is already\nstrongly biassed against the Jews, dislikes their presence among us, and\nis determined to act against them, not only where they still have great\npower, but also where that power is visibly declining, and even where\nthey are in danger.\n\nIt must not be forgotten, as we survey this growing menace, that a\npolicy which reaches no finality is not on that account futile. It must\nnot be forgotten that in the minds of many men (one might say in the\nminds of most men) during periods of excitement, a policy of repression,\nthough always failing to reach finality, may still be continuous: it may\nbecome a habit and may endure indefinitely in the vast suffering of its\nvictims. The Jews have seen that happen in many a small nationality\nother than their own. They have seen, no doubt, that continued\nrepression acting in an atmosphere of equally continuous rebellion has\nusually in the long run failed, but they must admit that the maintenance\nof such repression, with all its accompaniments of moral and physical\ntorture, confiscation, exile and all the rest, has often been a policy\nlong drawn out. It has been drawn out in some cases for centuries. It is\nnot true that, because a policy does not aim at a complete settlement,\ntherefore it cannot be undertaken and vigorously pursued. It can. Time\nand again a hostile force has attempted to eliminate opposition, or even\ncontrast, and to eliminate it by every instrument, including massacre\nitself. Sometimes, very rarely, it has succeeded. Usually it has, in the\nlong run, failed. But in the great majority of cases it has at any rate\ncontinued long after its failure was apparent. That is the danger which\nmenaces from the phenomenon I have examined in this chapter. It would be\nmadness in the Jews to neglect that phenomenon. It is now so strong in\nnumbers, intensity of conviction, and passion that it menaces their\nwhole immediate future in our civilization. Its ultimate causes we have\nexplored. Its immediate cause, the cause of its sudden development and\npresent startling growth, we have seen to be the Jewish action in\nRussia, and to this, which I have already touched upon in my third\nchapter, where I sketched the sequence of events leading up to the\npresent situation, I will next turn, in order to make a more detailed\nexamination of it. For undoubtedly it is the sudden appearance of Jewish\n_Bolshevism_ that has brought things to their present crisis.\n\n\nBOLSHEVISM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nBOLSHEVISM\n\n\nThe Bolshevist explosion, which will appear in history I think as the\npoint of departure from which shall date the new attitude of the Western\nnations towards the Jews, is not only a field in which we can study the\nevil effect of secrecy, but one in which we can analyse all the various\nforces which tend to bring Israel into such ceaseless conflict with the\nsociety around it.\n\nIt merits, therefore, a very special examination, both as an opportunity\nfor the study of our subject and as a turning-point of the first moment\nin history.\n\nWhy did a Jewish organization thus attempt to transform society? Why did\nit use the methods which we know it used? Why was that particular venue\nchosen? What aim had the actors in view? What measure of success did\nthey hope to achieve? By what method do they propose to extend their\ninfluence? When we can answer those questions we shall have gone far to\ndiscovering the almost fatal causes of conflict between this peculiar\nnation and those among whom they move.\n\nThe answers usually given to these questions by the avowed enemies of\nthe Jewish race are always inadequate and often false. When they\ncontain an element of truth (which they often do) that truth is quite\ninsufficient to account for the full phenomena. But the accretions of\nfalsehood and exaggeration render the whole thing inexplicable--indeed,\nthese explanations of the Russian revolution are very good specimens of\nthe way in which the European so misunderstands the Jew that he imputes\nto him powers which neither he nor any other poor mortal can ever\nexercise.\n\nThus we are asked to believe that this political upheaval was part of\none highly-organized plot centuries old, the agents of which were\nmillions of human beings all pledged to the destruction of our society\nand acting in complete discipline under a few leaders superhumanly wise!\nThe thing is nonsense on the face of it. Men have no capacity for acting\nin this fashion. They are far too limited, far too diverse.\n\nMoreover, the motive is completely lacking. Why merely destroy and why,\nif your object is merely to destroy, manifest such wide differences in\nyour aims? One may say justly that there is always a tendency to\nreaction against alien surroundings, and in so far as that reaction is\nintense and effective it is destructive of those surroundings. One may\npoint out that such reaction in the case of the Jews, as in the case of\nall other alien bodies, is in the main unconscious and instinctive. All\nthat is true enough; but the conception of a vast age-long plot,\nculminating in the contemporary Russian affair, will not hold water, any\nmore than will the corresponding hallucination which led men to believe\nthat the French revolution (a thing utterly different in kind from the\nRussian) was the mere outward expression of a strictly disciplined\nsecret body. In the case of the French Revolution everything was put\ndown (by the forerunners of to-day's Anti-Semitic enthusiasts) to the\nsecret agency of The Order of Templars acting unweariedly through six\ncenturies, and finally bringing down the French monarchy. In the case,\nof course, of the Bolshevist anarchy a still longer range is given to\nthe final result: for \"Templars\" read \"Jews,\" and for \"600\" read \"2,000\"\nyears. It is all smoke.\n\nMore serious is the statement that this combination of Jews for the\ndestruction of the old Russian society was an act of racial revenge.\nThere is a great element of truth in that. There is no doubt that the\ngreater part of the Jews who took over power in the Russian cities four\nyears ago felt an appetite for revenge against the old Russian State\ncomparable to that felt by any oppressed people against their\noppressors. Probably it was more intense even than any other example\nthat could be quoted. We are all witnesses to the way in which the\nRussian people, religion, and government, and particularly the person\nand office of the Emperor--were attacked and decried by the Jews in\nWestern Europe, of the way in which the Jews ceaselessly conspired\nagainst the Russian State, and of the brutal repression to which they\nwere subject. When you release a force of hatred so violent it may run\nto any length. That sudden release, that sudden opportunity for\nsatisfying the thirst for vengeance, must explain a very large part of\nwhat followed. But even that does not account for the whole. It would\naccount for mere massacre and mere chaos. It would not account for the\nattempts--rather pitiful attempts--at construction and for the\nobviously designed system of direction which has continued on the same\nlines since the Jews first assumed power and is still fully manifest\nafter nearly five years of that power.\n\nStill less is it sufficient to say that the Jew is everywhere the\norganizer and leader of revolution and that we only see him at work in\nRussia with greater vigour and thoroughness because the opportunity is\nthere greater.\n\nThe Jew is not everywhere a revolutionary. He is everywhere discontented\nwith a society alien to him: that is natural and inevitable. But he does\nnot exercise his power invariably, or even ordinarily, towards the\noversetting of an established social order by which, incidentally, he\noften largely benefits.\n\nYou do not find the Jew in history perpetually leading the innumerable\nrevolts which citizens in the mass make against the privileged or the\nsuperior conditions of the minority. He has sometimes benefited by these\nmovements in the past; more often suffered. We often find individual\nJews sympathizing with the revolutionary side, but we also find many\nindividual Jews sympathizing with the other. The Jew is not, in the\nhistory of Europe, the prime agent of revolution: quite the contrary.\nThe great acts of violence, successful and unsuccessful, which have\nmarked our society from the agrarian troubles of pagan Rome to the\nFrench Revolution, the land war in Ireland, the Chartist Movement in\nLondon, or whatever modern movement you will, have appealed much more to\nthe fighting instincts and political traditions of _our_ race than they\nhave to the Jews. They are marked everywhere by an attitude towards\nproperty and patriotism which are the very opposite of the Jews'\ncharacteristics. The Revolutions of the past were for the better\ndistribution of property and for the betterment of the State. Often they\nwere openly undertaken because patriotism had been offended by defeat in\nwar and because the Nation was thought to be betrayed. Usually they were\njingo and always for distribution of wealth.\n\nIt is the unique mark of the Russian revolution and of its attempted\nextension elsewhere that it repudiates patriotism and the division of\nproperty. In that, it differs from all others; and it is markedly,\nobviously, _Jewish_. But why had the Jews a chance of action in Russia\nwhich they lacked elsewhere?\n\nWhat were the special characters in the Russian opportunity which made\nthe Jew the creator of the whole movement?\n\nThere are, I take it, three main factors present in this case peculiarly\nsuitable to the Jewish effort.\n\nIn the first place, this revolution fell upon, and was directed towards,\na particular social phenomenon in which that profound instinct in the\nEuropean, the desire for settled property, had decayed. It fell upon the\nstate of affairs called _Industrial Capitalism_, the chief mark of which\nis the destruction in the mass subjected to it (or, at any rate, the\natrophying) of that essential part of the European soul--ownership. The\nJew is, undoubtedly, unable to sympathize with us in that central core\nof our civic instincts. He has never understood the European sense of\nproperty and I doubt if he ever will.\n\nBut in Russia _Industrial Capitalism_ was quite new. The resentment\nagainst it was keen. The victims were the sons of peasants, or had\nthemselves been born peasants, so that this proletarian mass in the\nRussian towns, though less than a tenth of the whole nation, was\npeculiarly open to propaganda against its masters. And an attack\nsuccessfully conducted, on that weakest point of modern Capitalism,\nmight easily succeed and _then_ spread to neighbouring industrialized\ncentres in Poland, Germany, and so westward.\n\nNow the attack on this international phenomenon, an attack directed\nagainst Industrial Capitalism, required an international force. It\nneeded men who had international experience and were ready with an\ninternational formula.\n\nThere are two, and only two, organized international forces in Europe\nto-day with a soul and identity in them. One is the Catholic Church, and\nthe other is Jewry. But the Catholic Church, for reasons which I will\ndiscuss in a moment, cannot and never will directly attack industrial\ncapitalism. It will undoubtedly attack that system in flank and\nindirectly destroy it in the long run wherever the Faith has a strong\nhold upon masses of people. But it will not and cannot directly attack\nit. The Jew, on the other hand, is free to attack it precisely because\nour sense of property means nothing to him, is to him something strange,\nand even, I think, comic. Further, the Jew was present, he was on the\nspot. The Church was not.\n\nOf the two international forces present, therefore, the Jews alone could\nact.\n\nHere I must digress and say why the other great international force, the\nCatholic Church, has not been able--and will never be able--to attack\nIndustrial Capitalism as a whole and directly, though, as I have said,\nit acts indirectly as a solvent of this evil and will destroy it\nwherever society remains Catholic. The Catholic Church, not only in its\nabstract doctrine, but acting as the expression of our European\ncivilization, is profoundly attached to the conception of private\nproperty. It makes the family the unit of the State and it perceives\nthat the freedom of the family is most secure where the family owns. It\nperceives, as do all Europeans, instinctively or explicitly, that\nproperty is the correlative of freedom, or, at any rate, of that only\nkind of freedom which we Europeans care to have: that it is the\nsafeguard of spiritual health (the mark of which is humour), of breadth\nand diversity in action, of elasticity in the State, of permanence in\ninstitutions. Property, as widely distributed as possible, but sacred as\na principle, is an inevitable social accompaniment of Catholicism.\n\nApart from this, it is also a definite feature of Catholic doctrine to\ndeny that private property is immoral. No Catholic can say that private\nproperty is immoral without cutting himself off from the Communion of\nthe Church, any more than he can say that the authority in the State is\nimmoral. He cannot be a communist, in abstract morals any more than he\ncan be an anarchist.\n\nNow Industrial Capitalism is a disease of property. It is the monstrous\nstate of affairs in which a very few men derive their vast advantage\nfrom the corresponding fact that most men whom they exploit do not own.\n\nBut it remains true that the sheet-anchor of Capitalism is a sense of\nownership in the mass as well as in the privileged few. The only moral\nforce remaining to Industrial Capitalism, the only spiritual tie which\nprevents its dissolution, is this admission by the European mind that\nproperty is a right--even property in a diseased and exaggerated form.\n\nThe whole of the operations of Industrial Capitalism rely upon the\nsanctity of property and the sanctity of contract which develops from\nthe sanctity of property. And whenever society loses this sense,\nindustrial capitalism will fall into chaos. The Church cannot deny that\none moral principle. Its action will always be towards the dissolution\nof the great accumulations promoted by capitalism. It always will work\nindirectly for the establishment of well-divided property, an ideal\ndefined by the voice of its great modern Pope, Leo XIII, who explicitly\nstates it in his _Rerum Novarum_. But the Church can never take the\nshort cut of destroying Industrial Capitalism root and branch and at\nonce, by erecting against it the doctrine of Communism or (as many\npeople call diluted Communism) \"Socialism.\" It never can do so in\ntheory, and still less will it ever do so in practice. A Catholic\nsociety will always tend to be a society of owners: with all the\nelements of co-operation, with the Guild, with masses of corporate\nproperty attached to the State or connected with the city, with the\ncollege, with the corporation. For without such corporate property in a\nState, property is never well founded.\n\nThe Jew has neither that political instinct in his national tradition\nnor a religious doctrine supporting and expressing such an instinct. The\nsame thing in him which makes him a speculator and a nomad blinds him\nto, and makes him actually contemptuous of, the European sense of\nproperty. When therefore we have reached, through Industrial Capitalism,\nor any other social disease, a state of affairs in which the practical\ndenial of property is possible because the mass of men have lost the\ndesire for it, and when the repudiation of property offers an immediate\nsolution for intolerable evils, then the Jew can appear at once as a\nleader.\n\nOne must find in such a movement an international leader because the\ndisease is international, and still more because the proposed cure of\nthat disease, through Communism, _must_ be international if it is to\nsucceed. A Communist society may stand apart from the general society of\nowners in other countries, but if it is to succeed in competition with\nthem it must convert them to its own creed.\n\nThe Jew took international action for granted. He took the narrow and\nfalse economic view of property--that it was a mere institution to be\nmodified indefinitely, and, if necessary, abolished. He had an obvious\nopportunity for leadership accorded to him when international action\nagainst property was demanded. Again, our national sense, patriotism,\nwhich is incomprehensible to the Jew save on the false analogy of his\nown peculiar nomadic and tribal patriotism, is a check upon Communism,\nand, indeed, against revolution of any kind. The process of thought in\nthe patriotic citizen--largely unconscious but none the less\nefficacious--is somewhat as follows:\n\n\"I cannot function save as a citizen of my nation, and, what is more,\nthat nation made me what I am. It is my creator in a sense and so has\nauthority over me. I must even give up my life in its defence if\nnecessary, because but for its existence I and those like me could not\nbe. My happiness, my freedom of individual action, my self-expression\nare all bound up with the existence of the civic unit of which I am a\npart. If something which appears to me good in the abstract, or which\napparently will procure for me a material good, involves danger to that\ncivic unit, I must forego the good, regarding the continued existence\nand strength of my people as a greater good to which the lesser should\nbe sacrificed.\"\n\nThat, I say roughly, is the expression of the patriotic instinct in the\nEuropean man. That is what he has felt for many and many a great State\nin the past and for every polity to which he has ever belonged; that is\nwhat he feels to-day for his country.\n\nThe Jew has the same feeling, of course, for his Israel, but since that\nnation is not a collection of human beings, inhabiting one place and\nliving by traditions rooted in its soil, since it has not a strong,\nvisible, external form, his patriotism is necessarily of a different\ncomplexion. It has different connotations and our patriotism seems\nnegligible to him.\n\nThe implied fallacies current in the modern industrial revolutionary\nformul\u00e6, in such phrases as \"What does it matter to the working man\nwhether he is exploited by a German or an English master?\" or, again,\n\"Why should the individual Tom Smith be sacrificed for an abstraction\ncalled England?\" or again, \"Nationalism is the great obstacle to the\nfull development of humanity\"--all that sort of thing, which we feel by\ninstinct and can, if it is necessary, prove by reason to be nonsense in\nour case, sounds, in Jewish ears, as very good sense indeed. For in his\ncase these things involve no fallacies at all; they apply to _him_\nvividly and exactly. Why should the Jew be sacrificed for England? In\nwhat way is England, or France, or Ireland, or any other nation\nnecessary to _him_? Again, is it not obvious in his eyes that these\nterms, \"France, Ireland, England, Russia,\" are but abstractions? The\n_real_ thing in his eyes when he thinks of us, is the individual and his\ncertain needs, especially his physical and material needs; because upon\nthese there can be no doubt; upon these all are agreed; these are\nvisible and tangible. \"England,\" \"France,\" \"Poland\" are whimsies.\n\nIt is true that if you were to put his special case to the Jew with\nsimilar force and say, \"No Jew should run any risk for Israel,\" \"no Jew\nshould suffer any inconvenience by trying to help a fellow Jew in\ndistress,\" \"the idea of Israel is a vague abstraction--all that counts\nis the individual Jew and especially his physical requirements\"; if you\nsaid that sort of thing you would be offending the most profound\ninstincts of Jewish patriotism and you would, in fact, clash with the\novert and covert action of the Jews throughout the world. But the Jew\nwould answer that, as his was an international polity, the argument\napplying to our national polity did not apply to him; that his feelings,\nthough analogous to ours, were of a different kind, and that, at any\nrate, he cannot sacrifice a fine idea of his like Communism for our\nprovincial and local habit, called by us Europeans \"the love of our\ncountry.\"\n\nThere is more than this in the business. Even those truths which we know\nto be truths have little effect upon us, unless they enter into the\npractice of our lives. There are, no doubt, a number of Jews who would\nadmit at once the truth of any nationalist statement made by a European.\nWhen a Frenchman, or an Englishman, or a Russian says to him, \"My first\nduty is to my people; I must keep them strong as well as in being and I\nmust sacrifice my interests to theirs when it is necessary,\" there are\nmany Jews who would answer: \"You are quite right. The theory is sound.\nMan can only function as a part of a particular society,\" and so forth;\nbut it is one thing to recognize a truth and another thing to experience\nit in one's bones, as it were, and these truths, even where he is\nadmitting them, are truths indifferent to the Jew.\n\nTherefore when, as in the particular case of Russia, a national feeling\nstood in the way of an abstract ideal, it seemed the most natural thing\nin the world to the Jew that the national obstacle should go to the wall\nin order that _his_ ideal of Communism might triumph.\n\nThere lay behind this great change in the Russian towns, and the capture\nof what remains of Russian government by the Jewish Committees, a force\nmost positive. It was the sense of social justice, the indignation\nagainst indefensible evils.\n\nThat sense of social justice, that indignation against indefensible\nmodern evils, we all feel. There may be men among the wealthier classes\nof Western Europe who are so ignorant of the past, or so stupid, that\nthey do honestly believe Industrial Capitalism to be an inevitable and\neven perhaps a good thing. But such men must be very rare. Not only must\nthey be rare, but they cannot have any wide social experience. A man has\nonly got to live the life of the poor in the great industrial cities\nfor a day to see the enormity of the wrong that has to be righted. There\nare, of course, not a few but many thousands of individuals who try to\nfind arguments for Industrial Capitalism, either because they benefit\nthemselves through the system and are the richer by it, or because they\nare the hired servants of those who so benefit--and of this kind are the\nwriters in the capitalist press. But all these, who are hired advocates,\nor advocates with a direct proprietary interest in the continuance of\nthe modern disease, may be neglected; for they are not in good faith.\nThey are not really arguing that the thing is good in itself, they are\nonly trying to find arguments as lawyers do for something which they\nhave to defend and which in their hearts they admit is evil; or to the\nevil of which they are indifferent so long as it gives them a\ndisproportionate share of material enjoyment.\n\nWe must add to these the sincere man who will admit the domination of\nIndustrial Capitalism because he honestly believes that, bad as it is,\nit is _now_ become inevitable and that to tamper with it would bring the\nwhole State into anarchy. \"Such as it is,\" he would say, \"the structure\nof our society now depends upon it. We may palliate its evils, we may\ntry very gradually to transform its worst features. But in its essence\nit must remain as it is, or our last state will be worse than our\nfirst.\"\n\nOf this kind are those who argue that any social experiment antagonistic\nto Industrial Capitalism, if pushed sufficiently far, would result in\nfamine and chaos and even physical evils far worse than the physical\nevils which the mass of men have to suffer in the great towns which\ncapitalism has produced.\n\nApart from these categories, the masses of men, I say, to-day are\nconvinced that Industrial Capitalism is an evil, an evil of the grossest\nsort; an evil of a sort unknown to the greater part of human history and\nunknown to-day in the greater part of the human race; an evil which\nthose peasant societies, or societies of well-divided property\nthroughout Europe, are happy to have escaped; and an evil from which we,\nwho are caught in it, are trying to escape as best we may.\n\nIn that modifying phrase \"as best we may\" lies the crux, for the great\nmass of Europeans feel that any attack on Industrial Capitalism which\ndenies the nation its supreme place, or which impedes the superior task\nof keeping the nation strong and wealthy, is barred; they also feel\ninstinctively that any attack which denies the general right of private\nproperty and the value of that institution to the healthy conduct of our\naffairs is also barred. The great mass of our race, when faced by the\nproblem of Industrial Capitalism, feel that it has to be solved in some\nway that will neither destroy property nor the nation through which the\nindividual alone can function.\n\nBut this, which is true of the great mass of our race, is not true of\nthe Jews. Therefore they were able, in the case of the Russian\nRevolution, to go straight for their object, and that object was (apart\nfrom the obvious object of revenge, of love of power, and the rest) the\ndestruction of an economic inequality.\n\nThese Jews who have destroyed what we knew as Russia were undoubtedly\npossessed of a political ideal: the ideal of Communism. No doubt many\nindividuals among them (all ultimately) would prefer the good of Israel\nto the good of any Russian. No doubt the wreaking of vengeance upon\nformer oppressors was strong, as also the appetite for destroying a\ngeneral and a national sentiment alien to them and even repulsive to\nthem; but there remains, as a positive motive behind the whole affair,\nthe ideal of Communism. The Jews alone of the forces present were\ncapable of heartily entertaining that ideal, and were free of all\nobstacles against the achievement of it--the obstacle of patriotism, the\nobstacle of religion, the obstacle of the sense of property.\n\nThese considerations, I take it, are what explains the Jewish character\nof the upheaval in the East, with its destruction of the Russian nation,\nits enormous experiments in social economy, its inevitable\nimpoverishment of the State as a whole, its enthusiastic support by the\nminority which accepts its doctrine.\n\nThose very few men and women who have been witnesses of the Jewish\nexperiment in Russia (excluding those engaged in propaganda upon one\nside or the other) give us a picture which is much what we should have\nexpected of the situation.\n\nIt seems that the great mass of the nation has affirmed the instinct of\nprivate property with the greatest vigour, and that some nine-tenths of\nthe Russians have settled down upon the land to which they always\nclaimed ownership and in which their sense of ownership is more fierce\nthan ever. In the towns the unnatural system--unnatural because it\nopposes all our instincts as Europeans--works more and more slackly as\nthe original system of terror weakens. For it is clear that Communism\nneeds a despot, and the active rule of a despot is necessarily short: it\nis a system incapable of transition and therefore of duration.\n\nThe perfectly explicable but deplorable exercise of vengeance by the\nJews has been directed against what we euphemistically term the\ngoverning directing classes, who have been massacred wholesale and whose\nremnants are subjected to perpetual persecution.\n\nThe productivity of the industrial masses has naturally sunk to a very\nlow level, because under Communism it can only work through something\nlike military discipline, and work done under those conditions is on a\nmuch lower productive level than free work.\n\nBut the real interest in the Jewish revolution in Russia, to which is\nnow permanently affixed the name of Bolshevist (which is nothing more\nthan the Russian for \"whole-hogger\"), lies in these two points: first,\nthe continued propaganda of Communism throughout the world (which\npropaganda in organization and direction is in the hands of Jewish\nagents); secondly, and much more important, the effect of the Jewish\nrevolution in producing hostility to the Jews throughout the world.\n\nI say this second fact is much more important because it is the more\nreal and the more enduring. You will never make a Communist of the\nhighly-civilized, tenacious, intelligent and humorous Occidental\nEuropean. You will no more make a Communist of him than you will make\nhim walk on all fours or permanently abjure the use of good liquor. You\nmay get middle-class faddists to accept Communism as a mere creed, and\nof course you can easily get exasperated men, ground down by\ncapitalism, to accept _any_ theory, _any_ system, which promises them\nrelief. But you will not get Communism working in men who boast the old\nEuropean blood, in the descendants of those who created our past and its\nmonuments. They will certainly preserve their traditions and their\ncharacter. Though the peril must be combated, and is being successfully\ncombated everywhere, it is not a peril of great magnitude to the West.\n\nThe other effect of the Jewish revolution in Russia--the peril into\nwhich it has put the Jews themselves--_is_ permanent and _is_ of the\nfirst magnitude. I know no way to meet it except to explain why that\nrevolution was almost necessarily a Jewish revolution, to emphasize the\nsincerity of the Jews who have led it, to exculpate them as far as\npossible, and, at any rate, to shield their unfortunate compatriots\nabroad from the consequences of what was certainly a very bad piece of\ntactics so far as the future of this people was concerned.\n\nWe ought, I think, not to nourish a new and special hostility against\nthe Jew on account of what he has done in Russia, but, on the contrary,\nto excuse him, especially because he is a Jew. We ought, as it seems to\nme, to say: \"He had reasons for action and excuse for action which men\nof our race would not have had, and though we must prevent that action\nfrom spreading, we must not allow what seemed quite natural under the\ncircumstances to the Jew to warp our attempted solution of the Jewish\nproblem. We ought to work for its solution as impartially and as soberly\nas though the provocation of Bolshevism had never been given.\"\n\nThat sounds an extreme thing to say, and I fear it will be ridiculed by\nmost of those who (as they tell us) have had their eyes opened by the\nBolshevist explosion and who are now confirmed enemies of the Jewish\npeople. But though it sound fantastic, I am convinced that it is a right\nattitude. To lose one's judgment on a permanent problem through panic or\nheat, to forget the elements of such a problem merely because it has\nbeen presented to us suddenly in an acute form, is the negation of\nreason. As well might a man who is dealing with the problem of fermented\nliquor, and trying to get people to use it rationally, let his judgment\nbe overcome by a case of delirium tremens and rush thereupon into some\nscheme of prohibition. The very test which distinguishes good\nstatesmanship from bad is the power to keep one's head under\nprovocations like these; to maintain a middle course and to aim at\nwhatever solution our reason tells us to be just under _normal_\ncircumstances. We who saw the gravity of the Jewish problem long before\nthe recognition of it was general, and who studied it under calmer\nconditions for many years, have a right to be heard now: now that the\ntide is making against these people and that the fear of anarchy\nthreatens to turn men's heads.\n\nWe were long blamed for attacking the Jews, we are already blamed for\ndefending them. It is a proof that our attitude is well grounded and\nunaffected by fashion.\n\nThe Bolshevist revolution will not last. Its Jewish character was\ninevitable. It had a side to it of Jewish enthusiasm for a sort of\nincorporeal justice, and, in any case, it ought not to be allowed to\ndeflect us from a conclusion which the much larger lines of history and\nall general considerations of reason impose.\n\nOur conclusion, as I have said, is a recognition and protection of the\nJewish nation as something quite different from ourselves and yet\nnecessarily inhabiting our society. Such a full recognition leaves us\nfore-armed against the tendency in the Jew (which we cannot avoid) to\nforget our national feelings and to misconceive our sense of ownership.\nIt would render impossible the conspiracies and the vengeance which have\ndestroyed Russia, and I believe that had the former Russian Government\ntreated the Jews as I say they should be treated, it would be in power\nto-day.\n\n\nTHE POSITION IN THE WORLD AS A WHOLE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE POSITION IN THE WORLD AS A WHOLE\n\n\nThe danger of the Jewish nation in the world to-day may be summed up in\nthis phrase:--\n\n\"The Jews are obtaining control and we will not be controlled by them.\"\n\nThat is the simplest formula, and the one which would be immediately\nsubscribed to by the whole mass of those outside the Jewish community\nwho are alive to the question at all. Being the simplest form of the\ntruth, it needs, when applied to a highly complex situation, detailed\nmodification.\n\nThis modification proceeds from three sources:--\n\nFirst, the extent of the Jewish control and the extent of the resentment\nagainst that control vary very largely from one community to another.\n\nSecondly, the civic tradition of each community in its treatment of the\nJewish question also differs from that of every other, though these\nvarious traditions fall into certain fairly well-defined groups.\n\nThirdly, the position is modified according to the presence, in varying\ndegrees of strength in different communities, of certain international\nforces even more powerful than the Jews themselves. The four principal\nof the international forces are:--\n\n(1) The Catholic Church;\n\n(2) Islam;\n\n(3) The forces of international Capitalism; and\n\n(4) The international reaction against it of the industrial proletariat.\n\nWe must in the first line of this inquiry make an important premise. The\nfact from which we proceed, namely, the uneasy feeling that the Jews are\ngetting control and the determination not to tolerate that control, will\nbe denied by the Jews themselves. It is denied sincerely--I have entered\nupon too many discussions with them and heard too many of their\nprotestations to doubt that; and if the denial were valid, not only the\nparticular survey I propose in this chapter, but the whole of the\nargument of this book, would fail. For if there is a Jewish question\nto-day, and if it is present in the acute form in which we all know it\nto be present, it is not due merely to the contrast and friction between\nthe Jews and their hosts, but especially to this feeling of domination.\n\nBut the Jewish belief in this matter is not valid, sincerely as it is\nheld. To the great majority of Jews it will, of course, seem\ncommon-sense. What has the unfortunate poor Jew in the slums of our\ngreat cities to do with controlling the modern world? How in his eyes\ncan the phrase have any meaning at all? If you pass from him to the\ncomparatively small Jewish middle class, you would hear a denial almost\nequally vigorous. The Jewish scientist will tell you that he is\nconcerned with his researches and laughs at the idea of interfering with\nhis neighbours; the Jewish historian that he is concerned with his\ndocuments, that nothing is further from his thoughts than interfering\nwith people outside his trade; the little Jewish shopkeeper will tell\nyou that he is in active competition with his non-Jewish neighbours and\nby no means always successful in that competition; the Jewish lawyer\nwill tell you that he is concerned with the system of law in which he\nhappens to be immersed--the Napoleonic Code, the English Common Law or\nwhat not--and that any idea of his personally wanting to control the\nvast non-Jewish majority among whom he lives is moonshine: and so it is.\n\nThe great Jewish banker, though he is fully aware of his power, would\ntell you that in his daily business he comes up against forces to which\nhe is subject, and has competitors who are at the best neutral, and more\ncommonly hostile, to Israel; and even the man who is to-day more\npowerful--if that be possible--than the Jewish banker, I mean the Jewish\nmonopolist, and especially the Jewish monopolist in metal, though he\nwould be extremely annoyed to have the extent of his control exposed,\nwill feel that it is due to his superior abilities and in no way\ndesigned for mastery.\n\nAll these individual replies are true; but if you make of them a\ncomposite and general reply, if you put it as a reply of all Israel to\nall the world outside, crying, \"I have no desire for supremacy; I never\nact in such a fashion that my domination can be felt or shall increase;\nthe motive is not present, even subconsciously, among my people\"--then\nthat general reply would be false.\n\nIn point of fact the Jew has _collectively_ a power to-day, in the white\nworld, altogether excessive. It is not only an excessive power, it is\ninevitably a _corporate_ power and, therefore, a semi-organized power.\nIt is not only excessive and in the main organized, it was, until the\nrecent reaction began, a rapidly increasing power--and most people\nbelieve it to be still increasing. To that the whole world outside the\nJewish community will testify.\n\nThe criterion by which we may judge whether any form of power is\nirritant to those whom it affects is not the testimony of those who\nexercise the power, but the testimony of those over whom it is\nexercised. There never was a tyranny in the world, not even one of those\npersonal tyrannies (which have been so much more highly organized and so\nmuch more direct than this power of the Jews), there never has been a\ndespotism in history, which would not tell you that it was accidental,\nor necessary, or, in any case, innocent of any motive of oppression. And\nhistory universally replies: \"To judge _that_, you must ask those who\nfelt the pressure; not those who exercised it.\"\n\nNow those who feel the pressure in the matter we are now examining are\nunanimous. They differ in the degree of their resentment from those to\nwhom the thing is so intolerable that they are already in active revolt\nagainst it, to those who feel it merely as a distant though an\napproaching discomfort. But everybody feels it in some degree. It is a\nuniversal sensation running throughout the nerves of the modern world\nand it is growing too fast in degree and extent to be ignored.\n\nI have already quoted the effect upon those hundreds of educated men\ntaken into the temporary Civil service during the late war, when they\nfound, holding the locked gate of one monopoly after another, the\ninternational Jew. His control of finance needs no discussion. If the\nindividual banker or financier is not aware of it, the most of those\nwho are affected are acutely aware of it. Men exaggerate in giving it a\nsort of conscious personality, but they certainly do not exaggerate when\nthey point to its effects. The Jew must remember, what it may be\ndifficult for him to accept and what is certainly true, that not only is\nhis domination very bitterly resented but that his presence in any\nposition of control whatsoever is odious to the race among which he\nmoves. Everybody feels that about any form of alien control, much more\ndo they feel it about that form which they instinctively know to be most\nalien of all. Every one has noticed this control exercised in the form\nof keeping silence upon what it was to the disadvantage of Israel to\nhave known; in the form of the advertising of what it was to the\nadvantage of Israel to have advertised; in the form of the giving and\nwithholding of credit; in the form of attack in the Press against\nnations with whom Israel had a quarrel and the defence in the Press of\nthose (they have now almost disappeared) upon whom Israel, in the\nimmediate past, relied for defence. And everybody has discovered--what\nis not unjust, indeed, what is inevitable, but what is none the less a\nsource of exasperation--the solidarity of the Jewish race where the\ninterests of any member of it were concerned.[1]\n\nBut if the thing were felt everywhere as acutely and as consciously as\nit is felt in special groups to-day--as it is felt, for instance, in one\nparticular section of English opinion already represented in the Press,\nis felt in a wider section of French opinion, and in a still wider\nsection of Polish opinion--then the matter would be simple. We could\nthen say that an issue of the clearest kind had arisen, and forbid a\nsmall alien minority to decide the destinies of those among whom it\nlives and of whom it is not. The answer would be obvious, and the only\ndifficulty would be how the Jewish control might be lessened without\ngrievous injustice to innocent individuals.\n\nBut the thing is not so felt. It is modified, as I have said, by the\nvarying degrees of intensity in which it is recognized and by the other\ninternational forces which come into play.\n\nIf we consider the varying political traditions and the varying\ninternational forces, if we examine the world's national groups, we\nshall find something like this: In the vast body of Russia a position\nmost paradoxical. For years the Jew was everywhere openly attacked and\nhated in those parts of the Russian Empire where he was allowed to live\nin large numbers. These were nowhere within Russia proper but upon the\nwestern outskirts of that empire, within what was once the old Polish\nkingdom and largely within what is now the restored Republic of Poland.\nBut the Russian traditional antagonism to the Jew changed in a few weeks\nof chaos to something not opposite but novel and different. The Russian\nallowed a prodigious revolution to be made by the Jews, he accepted the\nloot of that revolution which the Jew secured to him; he has submitted\nwholly in the towns, partly in the country, to a tyranny exercised by\nJews ever since that complete reversal of his national history, now four\nyears old.\n\nThe external political power of what was once the Russian Empire has\ndisappeared. The Jews have killed it. But the great mass of Russian\nhumanity remains strongly affected by this curious change. Where popular\ninstinct works untrammelled the old and violent passionate antagonism\nbetween the Russian and the Jew survives. You see it in the hotch potch\nof the Ukraine, the inhabitants of which, in spite of all theories, are\nof Russian race and tradition, and the central town of which is the\nsacred region of Russia as a member of Christendom. There, for all the\nJewish Committees with large towns under their complete control, there\nhave been repeated revolts. But in the greater part of European Russia\nat least, and in much of what was once the Asiatic Empire, the Jews hold\nwhat is left of the Executive government.\n\nSo far as we can judge from the very imperfect accounts which reach us\n(for nowhere is the weapon of secrecy more ruthlessly used), the mass of\nthe Russians, that is, the peasantry, are in two minds. To the action of\nthe Jewish despotism in the town they are indifferent, but to his early\nattempts against themselves they were bitterly opposed. They have\nsuffered at his hands and they thought him a tyrant. But the Jew seems\nto have dropped this interference and the Russian soil to have settled\ndown as a peasant proprietary. On the other hand, it was a revolution\nguided by those same Jewish Committees which secured the peasant in the\npossession of his land. The Russian peasant has always regarded the land\nas his own. He had, I understand, regarded that odd, pedantic measure,\n\"The Liberation of the Serfs,\" as only another name for the robbing him\nof his land; and when the organization of Russian society dissolved in\nthe strain of war, he poured over the great estates and took back what\nhe thought was his own.\n\nFor the strange Jewish conception of Communism, a million miles removed\nfrom our European racial instincts and our high civilized traditions,\nthe Russian peasant could have nothing but a bewildered contempt. None\nthe less he was conscious that the Jewish revolution had permitted him,\nif not to take the land (he did that himself), at least to hold it; and\nthe revolution is indistinguishable from the Jewish control of the\ntowns.\n\nWithin the towns, again (our information is most imperfect and I can\nonly piece together what eye-witnesses have told me), although the Jew\nis, of course, individually hated, yet his control does stand for\ncertain things which the mass of the people still support. He organized\nthe resentment of the poor against the rich. He erected before their\neyes the pleasing spectacle of a social revenge. He carried out, fairly\nconsistently, his Communist programme, one aspect at least of which is\npractical enough; for the man that works with his hands finds that he is\nas well, or better, fed out of the meagre common stock, than those who\nwere once his masters.\n\nIn general I think it true to say that the Jewish control over\nChristians, if, in a way, stronger in what was once the Russian Empire\nthan anywhere else, is also there least resented. I do not say it would\nnot be resented if it were to excite action again against the peasants,\nbut we cannot forget that the peasants were eager to fight for the new\nRussian regime because they identified it with their new property in\nland. The situation is absurd enough. Men in hundreds of thousands\nwilling to fight for Communist masters because by so doing they believe\nthey can secure themselves in an absolute form of property! But that is\nwhat the \"red\" army was.\n\nIn that belt of nations, vague in boundary, which used to constitute the\nMarches of the East and which now stand between what was once the\nRussian Empire and the Germanies, the position would seem to be this.\n\nThere are in these countries everywhere a very large proportion of Jews.\nThe largest by far are in Lithuania and Galicia, where, of whole towns,\nfrom a third to a half and sometimes up to two-thirds, of the population\nare Jewish. Very large also is the proportion within the admitted\nfrontiers of modern Poland; very large in Roumania, and considerable in\nHungary.\n\nIn all these countries the Jewish problem is something quite different\nfrom what it is farther West. The Jews are in these countries admittedly\na separate nation. Even as I write I hear the complaint, sounding\nstrange in our Western ears, proffered by the Polish Jews who have been\nappealing to the West against what they claim to be the oppressive\npractice of writing them down as Poles! In Roumania for two generations\nit has been the fixed principle of the State, now latent, now overt, but\nalways acted upon in social practice, that the Jew is not a Roumanian at\nall and cannot be one. Of course he cannot be one really, any more than\nhe can be an Englishman, or a Frenchman, or an Irishman. (Fancy a Jew an\nIrishman!) But I mean, not even one by fiction or by convention. In\nPoland the greater part of these people have a different language and\nall of them have a different social custom and a different life from the\nworld around them. In Hungary, where the numerical pressure of the Jew\nis less, there is, of course, a most lively memory of the attempted\nrevolution under Cohen in 1918, the massacres of Hungarians, the setting\nup of an ephemeral Bolshevism and the necessity of its suppression. In\nBohemia the pressure is far less and in the Balkan States south of the\nDanube and the Drave. It is only present as a pressure of numbers in the\ngroup of States which lie between the Baltic and the Black Sea South and\nNorth and between the Russian people and the German people East and\nWest.\n\nWhen we come to Occidental Europe, in which must be included, though it\nis hardly a true part of it, Germany beyond the Elbe; when we come to\nthe Scandinavian countries, to France, Britain, Italy, Spain,\nSwitzerland and the Low Countries, the problem changes. The numerical\nproportion of Jews sinks enormously. Fairly large in one or two Dutch\ntowns, it is almost insignificant in Scandinavia, and though we have had\ninto the great English towns and to some extent into the northern French\ntowns (particularly Paris) a considerable recent influx of Jews, yet the\ntotal number of these people in the West remains far, far smaller than\nthe great masses of the East of Europe. The same is still more true of\nItaly, and, in spite of the absorption of a great deal of Jewish blood\nin the past, of Spain.\n\nBut while the numerical proportion of Jews in these western countries is\nmuch smaller, and while therefore the peril of Jewish domination is\nvery different in _form_ from what it is farther East, it is clearly\nmarked. It is exercised primarily through finance; next through the\nsceptical Universities, the anonymous Press and the corrupt Parliaments,\nand, lastly, in a more general form, by the presence of institutions\nwhich greatly favour the rise of the Jew in competition with his hosts;\neach favours international knowledge; each favours anonymity; each still\nfavours the old Liberal nonsense which called itself \"toleration\" and\nwas really an indifference to that most fundamental of all social\nmotives--religion--save, of course, where an exception is made to permit\nattack upon the Catholic Church.\n\nUnder influence of this sort, both sincere and hypocritical, both\ngenerous and mean, the Jew acquired in all the larger communities, and\nespecially in France, Italy, Germany and England, a power out of all\nproportion to his numbers, and I may add, without, I hope, offending any\nJewish reader, out of proportion to his abilities; certainly out of\nproportion to any right of his to interfere in our affairs. It was a Jew\nwho produced the divorce laws in France, the Jew who nourished\nanti-clericalism everywhere in that country and also in Italy; the Jew\nwho called in the forces of Occidental nations to protect his\ncompatriots in the East, and the Jew whose spirit has so largely\npermeated the Universities and the Press.\n\nIreland is an exception. In Ireland the Jew (outside the little\nindustrial corner in the north-east) is nobody. And here it must be\nremarked that the migrations of the Jew which give him numbers here for\na time and afterwards numbers elsewhere, in places where previously he\nhad not been known; which give him influence here for a time, and sees\nit followed by the decline of that influence, do not seem to obey any\nlaw which we can trace, and are certainly not the product of any\nconscious action. It is one of the strangest phenomena in history, this\nodd, spasmodic flood movement of the Jewish race. Is it concerned with\ncommerce? That is one element undoubtedly; that is what explains the\nexploitation of England by Jews after the Conquest, of Spain in the\nlater Middle Ages, of the Valley of the Rhine; but then, why not other\ncommercial centres as an attraction? Venice was not one, though the Jew\nwas well tolerated there; nor was Paris after the early Middle Ages, and\nwhile some of the Dutch towns formed such centres of attraction the\nBelgian towns did not.\n\nWas it asylum? That would account, of course, for the great influx of\nJews into mediaeval Poland, but then why not into eighteenth century\nEngland? Why not until very late in the nineteenth century? England,\nwhich gave the Jews a more complete civic position than he could find\nanywhere else in the world, was not invaded by them. Why these very\nrecent influxes into the United States, which has for now a century and\na half been perfectly open by its Constitution, and was by all its civic\ntradition an ideal asylum for the Jews? Until quite recent times the Jew\nwas hardly known there, and to this day he is not known outside a few\ngreat cities.\n\nNo. There would seem to be no law, or at least no discoverable law, for\nthis mysterious movement, the ebb and flow of Israel--but that is a\ndigression. To return to the national situations.\n\nIf we leave the Old World and turn to the United States, we find a\nnovel condition of affairs still in process of development and very\npuzzling to the foreign observer. I do not pretend to analyse it\ncompletely in a few lines, nor even accurately, for I am dependent upon\nthe observation of others, and the United States are so utterly\ndifferent from us that we have difficulty in following their\ncontemporary history; but something of this sort would seem to be\npassing there.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the United States the Jews were present, till the last few years, in\nnumbers even smaller in proportion to the population than their numbers\nin France, England and Italy, far smaller than their numbers in what was\nformerly the German Empire. In the agricultural part of America, which\nis still, I believe, one half of the population, the Jew was almost\nunknown. You find him here and there, as a lawyer or a storekeeper, but\nthat world was not familiar with him any more than our English\ncountry-sides are familiar with him to-day. With the growth of the great\nindustrial towns, of course, the Jew came, but he was still no \"feature\nin the landscape.\" There was a certain social prejudice against him\namong the wealthier classes in the East, and--this is very\nimportant--_the truth was always told about him_. There was in America\nno convention--the Jew was always recognized as a Jew and there was\nnever any of the nonsense we had over here of pretending that he was\nsomething else.\n\nOf that phenomenon of which the history of Europe is full, which is so\nmarked in the eastern counties to-day and which is beginning to rise in\nthe West, there is nothing traceable in the early and middle nineteenth\ncentury, nor even till the close of it, in the United States.\n\nThen came the change. It is a change which has taken place in the\nlifetime of men much younger than myself. It is a change, I am told,\nmost marked since I last visited the United States more than twenty\nyears ago. A regular and organized Jewish emigration began to pour in,\nespecially from the Baltic. It flooded New York, where it now forms\nprobably a third of the population; it created Ghettoes in most of the\nlarge Northern industrial towns, and all the phenomena we associate in\nEurope with these movements began to show themselves. There was the\ngrowth of the financial monopoly and of monopolies in particular trades.\nThere was the clamour for toleration in the form of \"neutralizing\"\nreligious teaching in schools; there was the appearance of the Jewish\nrevolutionary and of the Jewish critic in every tradition of Christian\nlife. The Jews went also--as they usually do--to the heart of things,\nand the Executive was attacked. The last and apparently the most\nunpopular of the presidents, Mr. Wilson, seems to have been wholly in\ntheir hands. Anonymity in the Press came, of course. A very marked\nexample of it is a journal called _The New Republic_, which, though it\nhas but a small proportion of Jewish writers upon it, and though its\ncapital is (I believe) not Jewish, is yet to all intents and purposes\nthe organ of the Jewish intellectuals, always joins in the boycott of\nany news unfavourable to European Jews, always joins in the clamour for\nanything favourable to them, and in general adheres to the Jewish side,\nlike the _Humanit\u00e9_ in Paris, or, let us say, _The New Statesman_ in\nEngland.\n\nBut the novel presence in the United States of this phenomenon with\nwhich in the west of Europe we have now been familiar for a long time,\nprovides a more direct and a very different kind of reaction from what\nit has among us. This reaction against Jewish powers was not (to use a\nStock Exchange metaphor) \"sticky.\" There was no hesitation; there were\nno uneasy patches of silence. The Jewish question was discussed from the\nmoment it was first felt and to-day it is discussed beyond all others.\nOf political topics I have found it the first in the conversation of the\nAmericans who have visited Europe since the War and with whom I have\ndiscussed the affairs of their country. It ranges, as that reaction\nalways does, from the wildest Anti-Semitism to strong and open defence\nof the Jewish position, not only by Jews but by the very small minority\nof their admirers outside the Jewish community, especially among the\nwealthy. The characteristic of the whole thing in the United States is\nthat it is only just beginning. It is capable of becoming one of those\nsudden growths of which the past history of the Republic has made us\nfamiliar, and indeed it is too early yet to judge, even on the largest\nlines, what forms it may not take. It is enough to say that there is\nbehind the reaction against the Jew in that country a growing intensity\nof feeling with which we, as yet, in Western Europe, for all the advance\nwe have made in the matter, are unfamiliar. If a test be required,\ncontrast the silence about the Jews in '96, during Bryan's great attack\nupon the gold standard, with the work of Mr. Ford and all that he stands\nfor to-day!\n\nThe rest of the world is either of Islam or heathen. In the heathen\nworld, so far, the Jew has little place. He has a strong grip on India,\nof course, but only through the British Raj, not through the native\npopulation; and in China, except as a quasi-European merchant, he has no\npower at all; neither has he over the strong and organized nationality\nof Japan.\n\nSuch are the degrees, very roughly, of the problem; such the differences\nof its quality in the various national groups to-day. Of these the two\nmost interesting states of the problem by far, because they are changing\nwith the greatest rapidity, are found in France, in England and in the\nUnited States.\n\nI have said that the second modifying condition was the difference of\ncivic traditions of the various nations. Here again you have a\ndifferentiation from East to West. But within it a differentiation,\nultimately due to religion, from North to South. In Russia there was\nnever any tradition of keeping silence upon the Jew, or of respecting\nthe Jew at all. He was, until the recent revolution, the national enemy,\nand there was the end of it. Similarly in Poland, Roumania and the\nvaguer populations of their borders, and even in the old Hungary, the\nJew was talked of openly as belonging to a separate nationality and, on\nthe whole, a hostile one.\n\nBut as one got west another spirit emerged, another tradition. It was\n\"the thing\" to treat the Jew as a citizen. This fashion was weaker in\nthe Germanies than in the Low Countries, France, or England; it was\neverywhere present west of the Elbe.\n\nIt was a tradition flowing from two sources: the commercial and\nprotestant England of the seventeenth century, the sceptical France of\nthe eighteenth. The Jew (according to this spirit) merited special\nprotection and special respect. He must be protected and respected even\nin his passion for secrecy; so that at last the mere mention of his\nexistence in the cultivated and directing classes of the west became\nsomething of an oddity.\n\nFrom this spirit proceeded the Liberal fiction or convention which I\ndealt with in the second chapter of this book. It was clinched, it was\ngiven permanent form, by the enthusiasm and severe doctrine of the\nFrench Republicans, which arose at a moment when Israel was regarded as\na religion and its national quality was forgotten. Since all religion\nwas thought to be dying, since, further, an enthusiasm had arisen\nagainst almost any religion which exercised civic power (notably the\nCatholic Church), this Jewish religion, formerly regarded as inimical to\nthe State, or at any rate separate from it, was naturally accorded a\nspecial privilege. That strange system arose, the death of which we are\nnow watching after its brief life of somewhat more than a century,\nwhereby the Jew was permitted to wear the mask of nationalities other\nthan his own, and to function everywhere as though he were a citizen,\nnot of Israel, but of the nation in which he chanced to find himself.\n\nAgainst this attitude arose at last the powerful plea of nationalism. In\nEngland, as we shall see in the next chapter, this plea was less strong\nthan elsewhere, because the interests of international Jewish finance\nand of British commerce were for so long nearly identical. In Italy,\nwhere the Jew was naturally closely connected with the nationalist\nmovement on account of its antagonism to the Papacy, national feeling\nclashed little with the anomaly of the Jew. But in France, especially\nafter the defeat of 1870, the contrast became stronger and stronger,\njust as it is strengthening to-day in Germany after the defeat of 1918.\n\nIt was that clash between the \"city\" of Israel and the other \"cities\" in\nwhich we Europeans function, to which allusion has been made on a former\npage. It would be very convenient, no doubt, to the \"City\" of Israel if\nall other \"cities\" disappeared and left an open field for Jewish\noperations. But they do not propose to disappear; and though our\ndevotion to them may seem inexplicable to the Jew, he must accept it as\na permanent force; for the patriotism of the European will not weaken.\n\nIn the United States this Liberal tradition or convention, this\nconception that the Jew must be treated as a full citizen, was far\nstronger even than it was in the West of Europe. It was in the very soul\nof the Constitution, and, what is more important, in the very soul of\nthe people. For such a spirit was nourished not only in doctrine but in\npractice by the appearance, in vast quantities, of immigrants from many\ndifferent countries, all of whom were absorbed in and merged by the\nAmerican spirit. If ever there was a field in which the false conception\nthat a Jew could be a Jew and at the same time the full citizen of\nanother nation, that field was the United States of America. Yet it is\nthere that the problem is now reaching its most acute form; and the\nreason is that side by side with this strong civic tradition there goes\na complete freedom of speech and a very active public opinion. The\nreality became too much for theory and the Jew was recognized as\nsomething apart. He will never fall into the background again.\n\nThere remain to be considered the international forces which modify this\ngeneral truth that the quarrel with the Jew is a quarrel with his\nincreasing control over our affairs.\n\nThose international forces are Religion--Islam and the Catholic\nChurch--the force of Modern Capitalism, and the Reaction against that\nforce of the Industrial Proletariat, the Reaction summed up in the term\nSocialism. All four are international.\n\nThe position of the Jew in Islam can be simply defined. In Islam he is\ntreated with less method and therefore with less continued oppression\nthan in Christendom, but always and permanently as something base and\ninferior, save in a few rare moments when he has the favour of\nparticular rulers or is necessary to some special society, or is admired\nin a moment of intellectual brilliance.\n\nNormally the Jew in Islam is an outcast. I know very well that the game\nis played of pretending that Islam is in some way kinder to him than we\nare. It is but a game: the playing of one party against another--of\nIslam against Christendom--by Israel, which is of neither. In Islam his\nsuperior position in Christendom is equally famed. History is too strong\nfor such pretences. All the history of Islam, all the social spirit of\nIslam, to which there are countless witnesses to-day, give the same\nverdict about the general treatment of the Jew in that society.\n\nSo it was in independent Islam. But Islam, politically controlled\nto-day by the Western Christian powers, is another matter. Under that\nunstable state of affairs (no one can say how long it will last; the\nconflict between Islam and Christendom seems eternal and the rise and\nfall of that tide is indefinitely successive) the problem takes on quite\nanother shape. France and England appear in Islam as the artificial\nsupporters of the Jew.\n\nUntil quite lately it was the French who bore the worst odium of this in\nthe eyes of the Mohammedans. Under the French the Jews in North Africa\nwere often given a special, a superior position, which was an insult to\nevery Mohammedan and which is still an insult to him. It is the weakest\npoint of the French regime. In Algeria the Ghetto Jew may vote. The Arab\nmay not. Even in Morocco, where things have been done more wisely than\nin Algiers, the difficulty is felt. How are you to treat a Jew\ndifferently in Morocco from the way in which he is treated in France? He\nis common to the two countries. If you treat him as if he were French,\nand therefore a member of the governing power, what of the pride of\nthose lords of the Atlas and of Fez?\n\nIn the vastly larger field of Mohammedan control exercised by Britain,\nwhich, directly and indirectly, is ten times that of France, there was\nuntil lately less of this friction; but the tables have been turned, and\nto-day it is Britain which stands to the Mohammedan as the thruster-in\nof the Jew. It began with the support of Jewish finance in Egypt; it\nwent on with the extended control over Indian commerce by Jews; it\ncontinued in the control of Indian currency by Jews. It has ended in the\ngrotesque appointment to the Indian Viceroyalty and the extraordinary\nexperiment of Palestine.\n\nTo-day, at the moment in which I write, there is no doubt on the matter\nwhatsoever: From Rabat on the Atlantic to the Bay of Bengal, the Western\nPowers are regarded as the agents of a Jewish intrusion which is\nintolerable to Islam. And whereas the chief blame lay, until quite a few\nyears ago, upon the French, to-day it lies upon the British Government.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe r\u00f4le of the Catholic Church in the debate between the Jews and\nChristendom is the most discussed, the worst understood, of any point\nconnected with the general problem. But it is capable of simple\ndefinition. Wherever the Catholic Church is powerful, and in proportion\nas it is powerful, the traditional principles of the civilization of\nwhich it is the soul and guardian will always be upheld. One of these\nprinciples is the sharp distinction between the Jew and ourselves. The\nRationalist would say that this distinction was racial, and that it only\nfound religious expression on account of its racial reality. His\nopponent would say that the origin of the quarrel was mainly religious;\nthat it was a difference in religious tradition which formed the\ncontrast between the Jew and Christendom. The former can cite as\nevidence the violent original contrast between the Roman Empire and the\nJew, the latter the truth that religion, philosophy, is the formative\nforce in every human society.\n\nBut whichever theory you adopt, the fact is there. The Catholic Church\nis the conservator of an age-long European tradition, and that tradition\nwill never compromise with the fiction that a Jew can be other than a\nJew. Wherever the Catholic Church has power, and in proportion to its\npower, the Jewish problem will be recognized to the full.\n\nOn the other hand, there never has been and never will be, or can be,\nadmission by Catholic morals of warfare against the Jew. Those morals\nare plain. That doctrine has been defined over and over again and acted\nupon throughout history. If indirect hostilities are opened against the\nmajority by a minority in its midst, they may be repressed and punished.\nStill more important, insincere and pretended conversion, used as a\ncloak, may be repressed and punished. But though a community has the\nright to determine its own life, and (if it think it possible) even to\neliminate (with justice, not with cruelty, violence or injustice in any\nform) an alien, a hostile minority; yet that minority has its own right\nto live, if not there, then elsewhere. It has its right--once it is\nrooted and traditional--to its own convictions, to its own tradition. If\nyou allow it to live among you, you must allow it to live its own life\nsave where that life threatens yours. The Catholic Church will always\nmaintain reality, including the reality of that sharp distinction\nbetween the Jew and his hosts.\n\nThe opponent of the Catholic Church will tend, other things being equal,\nto support the Jew, because, under that distinction, the Jew may find\nhimself ill at ease. The whole Protestant tradition of the North was for\nmore than 300 years favourable to the Jew, partly indeed on account of\nits reliance upon the Jewish Scriptures, its absorption in the inspired\nJewish folk-lore, but more because the alliance with the Jew was an\nalliance against the Catholic Church. Strong traces of that spirit\nstill remain. What has warred against it has been the sheer necessity\nin every country, Catholic or Protestant, Liberal or anti-Liberal, to\npreserve society against what each began to feel as a disruptive and an\nalien domination.\n\nThere remain the two novel forces--Modern Capitalism, and, protesting\nagainst it, its victim, the Modern Industrial Proletariat.\n\nA few years ago anyone would have said that the opposition to the Jew\nwas an opposition to capitalism alone; the Jew was the representative of\ncapitalism, and Jewish finance was the particular aspect of Jewish power\nin which that power was universally hated. But we have seen all that\nchange. To-day the strongest force against the Jew is on the other side.\nIt is mainly aroused, not by the fear of capitalist forces, but by the\nfear of revolutionary forces.\n\nI make bold to say that when the feeling against the Jew comes to the\npoint of action, the Jew will necessarily, and in self-defence, fall\nback upon the leadership of the proletariat against industrial\ncapitalism. He will--he must, from mere instinct, quite apart from\ncalculation--use the line of cleavage which divides a society hostile to\nhim. He will rely on the line of cleavage driven by the vast modern\nquarrel between the few possessors in the modern industrial world and\ntheir victims, the exploited millions.\n\nSo put, the opportunity of the Jew, if he be driven to extremities to\nraise an army in his defence, seems a great opportunity enough. It would\nseem easy for him to deflect all animosity against himself into\nanimosity against the rich--safeguarding, of course (as he has done in\nRussia), the Jewish rich. But we must remember three formidable\nconditions which weaken that opportunity.\n\nThe first condition is this: The industrial millions are still quite a\nsmall minority and will probably in the future be an even smaller\nminority of the civilized white world. The war dealt them a heavy blow.\nThe fact that the industrial proletariat is a town population, and\ntherefore less and less productive, is another cause of weakness; their\ndecline in health another. The fact that industrial capitalism depends\nupon the machine being kept going, and that its serfs are less and less\nwilling to keep the machine going, is another.\n\nSecondly, the area (and that is important) occupied by industrial\ncapitalism is but a very small area of the surface of the civilized\nworld.\n\nThirdly, the revolt of the Industrial Proletariat, if the Jews provoke\nit, will be short-lived. Either it will be defeated, or after destroying\nits masters it will, under Jewish leadership, destroy its own powers of\nproduction, as in Russia.\n\nWhen the fury is exhausted, in a very short time the Jewish problem will\nreappear.\n\nThe proletarian battle may rage intensely, but it will be far from\nuniversal, and will not be sufficient, I think, to distract mankind from\nthat other cross-problem of Jew and non-Jew, to which his attention is\nbeing more and more steadily directed.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[1] Except, of course, an outlawed member. The case of Dr. Levy turned\nout of this country by his compatriots in the Government for having\nwritten unfavourably of the Moscow Jews will be fresh in every one's\nmemory.\n\n\nTHE POSITION OF THE JEWS IN ENGLAND\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE PRESENT RELATION BETWEEN THE ENGLISH STATE AND THE JEWS\n\n\nThe various nations of Europe have every one of them, in the course of\ntheir long histories, passed through successive phases towards the Jew\nwhich I have called the tragic cycle. Each has in turn welcomed,\ntolerated, persecuted, attempted to exile--often actually\nexiled--welcomed again, and so forth. The two chief examples of extremes\nin action, are, as I have also pointed out in an earlier part of this\nbook, Spain and England. Spaniards, and in particular the Spaniards of\nthe Kingdom of Castile, went through every phase of this cycle in its\nfullest form. England passed through even greater extremes, for England\nwas the only country which absolutely got rid of the Jews for hundreds\nof years, and England is the only country which has, even for a brief\nperiod, entered into something like an alliance with them.\n\nThough it is the present position of the British State--that is, the\nposition of official British politics towards the Jew--with which we are\nconcerned, it may be of service to introduce the matter by a word upon\npast relations.\n\nThe Jewish element in this island, whatever it may have been during the\nRoman occupation, was of small account during the Dark Ages. Things\nchanged at their close in the eleventh century. The Jew is the camp\nfollower of each new economic movement among us and that is why one\nfinds him in the wake of the Norman Conquest. Throughout the economic\ndevelopment which it began appears the secondary r\u00f4le of the Jew. Every\none knows the mediaeval rule of Jewish Status. It was established here\nas everywhere else in Christendom. The Jew was the King's; that is,\nunder the special protection of the State. If he were the subject of\npopular attack, that attack was an attack on the King's peculiar, and\nliable to speedy repression. The individual attacker was punished with\nspecial severity because the danger of mass-movement is always great\nwhere the populace is free to act in masses as it was throughout the\nmiddle ages, and the necessity for preventing individual attacks from\nspreading was correspondingly great. Now and then the popular feeling\ngot out of hand and the monarch had to deal with numbers which he could\nnot control; but as a rule the Jew, especially the rich Jew, enjoyed a\nprivileged position, both in Northern France and throughout England. The\nJew of the early Middle Ages in England was normally a well-to-do man\nand often an exceedingly rich man. Then, as now, a small number of Jews\nwere much the richest men of their time.\n\nHe had most of the finances in his hands, and this immense privilege\n(which he has lost), that he alone was allowed to practise usury. Here\nwe must pause a moment to define usury.\n\nUsury then (as now) signified the receiving of interest upon\nunproductive loans. It is a practice which all moralists and all\nphilosophers have condemned and which the Church in particular condemns.\nIf you lend money to a man for a productive purpose: if, for instance,\nhe is to buy a ship and trade with the money you advance, or to buy a\nfarm and grow produce, then, of course, you are perfectly free to\nstipulate for a portion of the profit. But if you lend the money for a\npurpose not directly productive, as, for instance, to a man in grave\nnecessity, or in lieu of charity, or to build such a building as a\nchurch, which will not produce a rent, or if in any other fashion you\nlend money to one who (to your knowledge) will not spend it in some\nreproductive agency, then it is immoral to demand interest.\n\nNow an exception was made in mediaeval Christendom in favour of the Jew.\nHe was allowed to lend money at interest, even in the most grievous\ncases of necessity, and for services as unproductive as religion or war.\nThe only stipulation was that the moneys saved from this lucrative\npractice returned to the Crown (in theory) upon the death of the\nlicensee. In practice no doubt a very large part remained with the\naccumulator, who during his lifetime was enjoying the income he had\nacquired by usury, who could give it to his heirs while still living,\nand could use opportunities for secret investment, or pass it to the\ncustody of others throughout international Jewry. But liquid sums left\nby him, the product of his usury, returned to the Crown upon his death.\nThis was a great advantage to the Crown, not only in protecting the Jew\nfrom the native hostility of his alien hosts (and particularly of the\npopulace), but in giving him that great privilege--a monopoly.\n\nThe rate of interest was enormous. It varied from nearly 50 per cent to\nover 80 per cent. When Jews lent money on security the King was party to\nthe safe custody of the security, and their privilege extended so far\nthat they were exempt from the common law, and a case between an\nEnglishman and his Jewish creditor could only be tried by a mixed jury\nin which the Jew's own compatriots were present in equal numbers with\nthe English.\n\nAll during the Angevin period Jewish financial domination continued, up\nto the end of the twelfth century and even into the beginning of the\nthirteenth. But with the first half of the thirteenth century, for some\nreason of which I have never seen a sufficient historical analysis and\nof which, perhaps, the full causes have been lost, the Jewish power\nbegan to decline very rapidly, so far as England was concerned.\n\nAnd here it may be noted that the misfortunes of the Jews in any country\nnever begin until their financial position is shaken. As long as they\nare the financial masters of the Government they are protected; but woe\nto them when they begin to lose their financial power! Then there is no\nlonger any reason for supporting them either on the part of the\ngoverning classes in general or of the Executive in particular. Popular\npassion is let loose and disaster follows.\n\nAt any rate, the thirteenth century saw in England a rapid decline of\nJewish financial power and at the same time a rapid rise of official\nanimosity towards them. They got poorer and poorer as the century\nproceeded. Their activities were at the same time more and more\nrestricted. They had lent money largely upon land and yet, in the public\ninterest, were at last forbidden to foreclose upon it. The final step\ncame when their special licence to practise usury was withdrawn by\nEdward I in the earlier part of his reign; and at last, in 1290, after\nincreasing severities, they were all expelled the country under penalty\nof death.\n\nThe unhappy people, already reduced by two generations of falling\nfortune, were hurried out of the country, carrying, by permission, their\nmoney and movables. They were protected, indeed, at the ports by the\nroyal officers, who even paid the passage of the indigent among them;\nbut they were plundered at sea and some even murdered. The murderers\nwere punished, but the memory of the persecution remained in the Jews'\nmind and England became a natural object of their hate. The Jewish\ncommunity expelled by the English was surprisingly small, not 17,000,\nand suggests the historical truth that in the Middle Ages, and indeed\nuntil quite modern times, the Jewish community in Northern France and\nEngland was a community of people in the main well-to-do. It so remained\nuntil quite modern times.\n\nThere followed three and a half centuries and more during which England\nwas the one example in Europe of a State that would not tolerate the\nJews upon any terms whatsoever. There certainly remained throughout this\ntime, or at any rate visited the island, not a few of what the Jews\nthemselves called \"Crypto-Jews,\" that is, Jews who outwardly deny their\nnationality and practise our religion for the purpose of private gain.\nThese, when they could defeat the law successfully, remained within the\nBritish seas. But their effect was slight; and the English people during\nthe whole of their great military advance in France, during the whole\nperiod when their language and culture was forming, during the whole\ngreat national episode of the Tudors and of the Reformation, formed the\none great exception out of all Europe in that the Jew remained unknown\nto them and was rigorously excluded from their Commonwealth.\n\nThey returned, as everybody knows, under Cromwell. Their numbers, and\nstill more their wealth, increased at the end of the seventeenth century\nand concomitantly with this, partly as an effect of it (but here we must\nnot exaggerate), a number of novel financial features appeared in the\nEnglish State each of which shows the increased power of the Jews. The\ninstitution of the Bank, of the National Debt, of speculation in\nExchange and in the fluctuation of stock.\n\nBut the real causes of that alliance between the English and the Jews\nwhich is seen in the late seventeenth century, which quickened\nthroughout the eighteenth and became so very marked in the nineteenth\ncentury, was the cosmopolitan position of England as the leading\ncommercial State. This it was which led to something like identity\nbetween the interests of Israel and the interests of Britain, an\nidentity which has lasted so long that now, when divergence is beginning\nto appear, it still seems odd and novel to the older generation that\nthere should be any Jewish action which is not favourable to England.\nThey cannot understand what the new indifference to Jewish interests,\nlet alone the new hostility to them, can mean.\n\nThere were, of course, many other causes contributory to the peculiar\nposition which the Jew came to enjoy in modern England, a position which\nhe has not yet lost in external circumstance, though it is so badly\nshaken morally. There was the fact that England was the Protestant power\nof the West.\n\nThis religious motive played a great part. Between the Catholic Church\nand the Synagogue there had been hostility from the first century. In so\nfar as it was possible to take sides in that quarrel it was natural for\nthe Protestant power to take sides against the Catholic tradition and\ntherefore in favour of the Jews. Again, the English were not only\nProtestant, their middle classes were steeped in the reading of the Old\nTestament. The Jews seemed to them the heroes of an epic and the shrines\nof a religion. You will find strong relics of this attitude in\nProvincial England to this day. One should add a certain national\ndistaste for violence, which feeling was exasperated by hearing of the\nJewish persecution abroad. One should also further add the pride which\nmodern Englishmen take in the feeling that their country is an asylum\nfor the oppressed.\n\nMeanwhile there was not, until quite lately, any considerable body of\npoor Jews in the country to excite the animosity of the populace. That\nwas an important negative factor in bringing the Jew within the\nboundaries of the English State. But with all these factors fully\nconsidered, it remains true that the main cause of the accidental Jewish\nposition in England was the cosmopolitan character of English commerce\nand the essentially commercial character of the English State. As\nEnglish export and English shipping began to cover the globe, the\nEnglish financial system covered it as well. London became after\nWaterloo the money market and the clearing house of the world. The\ninterests of the Jew as a financial dealer and the interests of this\ngreat commercial polity approximated more and more. One may say that by\nthe last third of the nineteenth century they had become virtually\nidentical.\n\nEvery new economic enterprise of the British State appealed to the\nJewish genius for commerce and especially for negotiation in its most\nabstract form--finance. Conversely, every Jewish enterprise, every new\nconception of the Jew in his cosmopolitan activities (until these became\nrevolutionary) appealed to the English merchant and banker.\n\nThe two things dovetailed one into the other and fitted exactly, and all\nsubsidiary activities fitted in as well. The Jewish news agencies of the\nnineteenth century favoured England in all her policy, political as well\nas commercial; they opposed those of her rivals and especially those of\nher enemies. The Jewish knowledge of the East was at the service of\nEngland. His international penetration of the European governments was\nalso at her service--so was his secret information. With the\nconsolidation of the Indian Empire after the Mutiny the Jews were again\nan ally from their traditional hatred of the Russian people, which\nhatred has led them in our time to wreak so awful a vengeance upon their\nformer oppressors. The Jew might almost be called a British agent upon\nthe Continent of Europe, and still more in the Near and Far East, where\nthe economic power of England extended even more rapidly than her\npolitical power.\n\nAnd the Jew pointed to the English State as that one in which all that\nhis nation required of the _goyim_ was to be found. He here enjoyed a\nsituation the like of which he could not hope to enjoy in any other\ncountry of the world. All antagonism to him had died down. He was\nadmitted to every institution in the State, a prominent member of his\nnation became chief officer of the English Executive, and, an influence\nmore subtle and penetrating, marriages began to take place, wholesale,\nbetween what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this\ncountry and the Jewish commercial fortunes.\n\nAfter two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century\nthose of the great territorial English families in which there was no\nJewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the strain\nmore or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was\nstill an English name and the traditions those of a purely English\nlineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly\nJewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they\ntravelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed\nthis admixture.\n\nSpecially Jewish institutions, such as Freemasonry (which the Jews had\ninaugurated as a sort of bridge between themselves and their hosts in\nthe seventeenth century), were particularly strong in Britain, and there\narose a political tradition, active, and ultimately to prove of great\nimportance, whereby the British State was tacitly accepted by foreign\ngovernments as the official protector of the Jews in other countries. It\nwas Britain which was expected to interfere, within the measure of her\npower, whenever a persecution of the Jews took place in the East of\nChristendom: to support the Jewish financial energies throughout the\nworld, and to receive in return the benefit of that connection.\n\nWe shall have a most imperfect picture of the causes which gradually\nmade the Jews regard this country as their centre of action if we omit\none essential point.\n\nEngland was secure.\n\nDuring the whole period which saw the rise of the Jews to eminence in\nthis island and their ultimate alliance with its political and\ncommercial system, English society enjoyed a profound peace. Save for\nthe petty incidents of the '15 and '45 (the first of no effect south of\nthe border, the second ephemeral and confined to the North), no\nhostilities took place upon English soil between the rebellion of\nMonmouth under James II and the bombarding of London by the Germans from\nthe air during the late war. There has been (save for some quite\ninsignificant local riots) complete security for property and especially\nfor large property. There have been since the middle of the eighteenth\ncentury no confiscations, and of commercial fortunes none since the\nmiddle of the seventeenth: no invasion, no civil war, and therefore no\nloot: no personal danger from violence.\n\nSuch conditions formed an environment ideal for the permanent\nestablishment and rooting of Jewish power, and for the organization of a\nJewish base.\n\nThe political situation reflected itself, as it always does, in\nliterature. The Jew began to appear in English fiction as an exalted\ncharacter, quite specially removed to his advantage from the mass of\nmankind. He is already a hero in Sir Walter Scott, but the full\ndevelopment was much later. You could still have a Jewish villain as\nlate as _Oliver Twist_, but with writers as different as Charles Reade\nand George Eliot we reach a time where the Jew is impeccable. The worst\nany writer dares do at the end of the process is to be silent. The best\nis to flatter the Jewish type out of all knowledge. This singular\ninterlude was in part due to the divorce between literature and popular\nfeeling in the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century; at\nleast, it was permitted by that divorce. But the active cause of it was\nthe reflection of the Jew's political position upon the mind of the\neducated class as expressed in its literary art.\n\nAt the same time a parallel movement appeared on the historical side of\nliterature. A convention arose that in the clash between the Jews and\nthe English of the Middle Ages the Jews were invariably right and the\nEnglish invariably wrong. Where the struggle was between the Jew and the\nnon-Jew abroad, the historian exceeded all bounds. The European hostile\nto the Jew was a senseless monster, and the Jew hostile to the European\nwas a holy victim.\n\nThe whole story of Europe and of this country, in so far as it was\naffected by this very considerable factor, was distorted through\nsuppression, and false emphasis and quite exceptional lying.\n\nThe general reader of history neither knew what part the Jewish\nquestion had played nor the claims that could be advanced for his own\nrace in the conflict. And as historians live by copying one another, the\nlegend was established in every school and college.\n\nAt the end of the process the Jews, in proportion to their numbers, held\na power in this country beyond anything that has been seen in any other\nof the world. Poland at the end of the Middle Ages, when that country\nwas most nearly comparable to Britain for the harbouring and support of\nthe Jewish people, is the only parallel, and that a remote one.\n\nEvery English Government had (and has) its quota of Jews. They had\nentered the diplomatic service and the House of Lords; they swarmed in\nthe House of Commons, in the Universities, in all the Government offices\nsave the Foreign Office (and even there representatives of the Jewish\nnation have recently entered); they were exceedingly powerful in the\nPress: they were all-powerful in the City. No custom unsympathetic to\ntheir race, from the duel to popular clamour, survived. They could boast\nthat England was not only the country where no distinction whatever was\nmade in practice, let alone in law, between the Jew and the native, but\nthat England was the only country where the Jew was always well\nreceived, where his natural defects counted least and where his natural\nabilities had most scope.\n\nSuch a state of affairs could not last. It was not natural. It was not\nconsonant with hidden but deep popular tradition or with popular\nappetites; it corresponded only to the mood of one European community in\nits wealthier classes. A divergence between the cosmopolitan financial\ninterests of the Jew and the particular national interests of Britain\nwas bound to come. War on a large scale, though it did not imperil the\ncountry itself, was a warning of change. It appeared with the South\nAfrican campaign before the end of the century. The position of the Jew\nwas altered. Some dissatisfaction with his power began to stir. It was\nalready muttering and beginning to show itself with the rise of\ncommercial and maritime competition in the new German Empire which, in\nits turn, had become led, upon all its commercial side, by Jews. There\nwas bound, I say, to be a reaction and a permanent one. While it was yet\ntaking place, in the heat of the Great War, before it had reached the\nofficial world, that one of the English politicians who was best fitted\nto speak for the Jews, who was most intimate with them through manifold\nties of friendship and hospitality, Mr. Arthur Balfour, was chosen to\nmake the famous pronouncement in favour of Zionism. It came within a\nmonth of the great crisis of the war. Its object was to divide the\ngeneral influence of the Jews throughout the world, which had hitherto\nbeen upon the whole opposed to the cause of the Allies, because, like\nevery other neutral, the Jews were more and more convinced, as the\ncampaigns dragged on, that the Central Empires were certain of victory.\n\nThough this was the motive, the effect was to tie the British state yet\ncloser to the fortunes of Israel, for here was England pledged to\nsupport, to defend, to act as a special protector over, the peculiar\ninterests of the Jews, just where those interests would most challenge\nthe whole of Christendom and of Islam, just where it would be most\nacutely difficult to confirm Jewish claims.\n\nThe declaration in favour of Zionism, the solemn pledge of the forces of\nthe British State to an exceptional support of the Jew in a matter\nwholly to his benefit and not in any way to that of England, coming\nthough it did after the climax of Jewish power had been reached and\npassed, was the last stage of that long process of alliance between the\nBritish commercial policy and its ruling classes on the one hand and the\nJews upon the other.\n\nAlready, as I have said, that alliance was morally shaken. The great\ninflux of poor Jews had shaken it. The mere effect of time, the\ninevitable revolt of the human conscience against an unnatural pretence\nand an obvious fiction, was bound to come, and was overdue. But although\nthe alliance was already shaken, the English State remained officially\nclosely interlocked with Jewry, and its last action, the demand for the\nestablishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, was, as has so often\nhappened in the story of human development, at once the term and the\nturning-point of a process which had reached its conclusion; for it will\nbe remarked throughout history that any force is most expressive, its\nmanifestation of power most crude and most emphatic, in the perilous\ninterval _after_ its real strength has begun to decline and _before_ its\nfirst open defeat.\n\nBut the problems presented by this experiment in Palestine merit a\nseparate examination. To this I will now turn.\n\n\nZIONISM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nZIONISM\n\n\nThe question of Zionism has been discussed from every possible aspect\nsave one, and that one is the only factor which relates to the thesis of\nthis book.\n\nIt has been argued, as a purely Jewish matter; there has been debate\nupon its justice or injustice among the Jews themselves, as to its\nadvantage or disadvantage to their race; debate among the various\nnon-Jewish forces concerned as to the advantage or disadvantage it would\nbe to them; debate upon the rights and wrongs of the native population\namong which the Jews might find a home; debate as to whether that home\nshould be in Palestine or elsewhere--and so on.\n\nAll these discussions avoid the ultimate issue. Some of them, of course,\nare of evident importance within the Jewish community, but so far as the\nessential problem we are discussing in this book is concerned, they do\nnot apply. The one question which is at issue from the point of view of\nour thesis is this:--\n\n_Whether the Zionist experiment will tend to increase or to relax the\nstrain created by the presence of the Jew in the midst of a non-Jewish\nworld._\n\nThat, and that only, is our concern, and from that point of view we may\nexamine the theory of Zionism which has now emerged into an attempted\npractice.\n\nFirst let us consider its necessary general implications: the\nimplications which Zionism involves, no matter where or how the\nexperiment were tried.\n\nThe Zionist theory is that Israel would benefit if of its many millions\n(some twelve millions, counting those of the partly Jewish fringe, who\nare sufficiently Jewish to make one with the race) a core--say a\ntenth--were to have a fixed territorial \"city,\" a country of their own,\na habitation. This country, wherever it might be chosen, should be, as\nfar as possible, a purely Jewish State: \"as Jewish,\" one of its\nexponents has said, \"as England is English.\"\n\nNow, suppose the place chosen were (to-day we may say \"had been\") an\nempty or almost undeveloped country, and supposing the Jews had found\nthat their own people could bear the expense of reaching that place with\nsufficient capital, and of colonizing it in large numbers. Supposing a\nsmall State of a million to a million and a half inhabitants to be thus\nformed, to be wholly Jewish in character, and independent in the fullest\nsense. The question immediately arises: _Would the Jews throughout the\nworld be:--_\n\n(a) _permitted to regard themselves as citizens of that State?_\n\n(b) _regarded in any case as citizens of that State, whether they willed\nor no, and registered as such, with or without the consent of the\nregistered person?_\n\nIf not, what would be the status of the Jew outside this territorial\nunit, which he had chosen to be much more than a symbol of his national\nunity--its actual seat and establishment?\n\nThat is the question which, so far as I have watched the discussion,\neverybody hesitates to face; yet that is the question which will have to\nbe faced sooner or later as the main political crux of the whole affair.\n\nObserve that there is no question of establishing a State wherein the\nwhole or even the great mass of the Jewish people shall reside. No one\nwould repudiate such an idea more vigorously than the chief pioneers of\nZionism. The great mass of Jews would, of course, ridicule it as\nimpracticable and refuse it as extremely undesirable. They live and they\ndesire to live following their present interests in the nations among\nwhom they are dispersed. They live and they desire to live the\nsemi-nomadic life, the international life, which has become theirs by\nevery tradition, and which one might now almost call instinctive in\nthem. Also the greater part of them desire to pursue those careers which\ngo with such a life, especially the careers of negotiation and of\nintermediary work. They not only feel the advantage of such a position,\nthey also feel a need and appetite for such a condition.\n\nWhatever form Zionism might have taken before it appeared in its present\nexperimental form, whatever was said of the theory in the past, _this\npoint_ was always capital:\n\nThe Jews as a nation would remain as they were, moving among all the\npeoples. The new Zion was to be no more than a fixed rallying point, an\nestablished but small territorial nationhood, which should do no more\nthan proclaim their unity. It follows, therefore, necessarily, that the\ngreat mass of Jews, outside the territorial settlement, would have,\nafter such a settlement had been formed, to obtain a definition of\ntheir political character. What is that definition to be?\n\nI think myself the Jews would answer: \"It is to be precisely what it is\nto-day, or, rather, what it has been in the Occidental nations during\nthe past generation.\" That is, the Jew is to be regarded as the full\nnational in the nation in which he happens to be for the time. Nothing\nshall debar him from any position whatever in that nation. He shall be\nregarded in exactly the same light as all the other citizens, and,\nconversely, he shall obtain no privilege. In countries where there is\nconscription, for instance, he shall be a conscript like anybody else;\nwhere a nation in which he happens to find himself goes to war, he shall\nbe compelled to risk his life for it like any other citizen. If he\nhappens a year or two before the war to have settled in the enemy's\ncountry, then he shall be equally compelled to fight for the enemy\nagainst his former country. He shall in every respect be regarded, by a\nlegal fiction, as identical with the community in which he happens to be\nsettled for the moment, _but at the same time he is to have some special\nrelation with the Jewish State_.\n\nHe and he alone is to be (certainly in practice and, of right, in legal\ndecisions) eligible for admission to that city, for office in it. His\nopinion is to count in the conduct of that State, wherever he may\npersonally be placed in the world. He is to regard himself--indeed that\nis inevitable from the definition of the new State--as personally allied\nto it, if not a member of it. He cannot dissociate himself from its\nfortunes nor be indifferent to its success or failure. He must in effect\nbe _loyal_ to it. He owes it allegiance of a moral kind. He will\nnecessarily be in much the same position as are men of Irish descent in\nthe Colonies, in England, and in the United States, to the surviving and\nnow increasing remnant of their race which has clung to its native land.\nBut in the particular case of the Jew this allegiance will not diminish\nwith time. It will remain ever vivacious. The race, as its individual\ncomponents pass from one country to another, will make one body,\ngeneration after generation, with the fixed polity settled in the New\nZion. That certainly is the ideal, as I hear it expressed on every side\nin conversation and in writing by the Jews who support it.\n\nWell, if the ideal is left in that condition (and it is admitted to be\nin practice in that condition), it will result in a grievous prejudice\nto the Jewish people, and will be a source of more permanent evil to\nthem than any other policy they could have undertaken. It will emphasize\nthat very point of dual allegiance which it must be their object to\nsoften if the Jewish problem is to be solved.\n\nThe existence of a Zionist State will bring into relief the separate\ncharacter of the Jew. The Jewish nation will no longer be able to depend\nfor one of its defences upon the indifference or the ignorance still\nwidely present among its hosts. Whereas before the experiment was\nattempted, many of those hosts could forget the difference between him\nand them, many had no experience of it and many remarked it without its\naffecting their attitude towards the Jew; after the experiment has been\nput in practice there must necessarily be a change.\n\nTo give a concrete instance, no one could in his anger say to a Jew,\n\"You disturb our repose; you are an alien element in our community; you\nmust leave it.\" For if he meant that, he was at the same time condemning\nhis victim to universal exile. But once an established national State\nexists, once you have in the world a considerable number--say a million\nand a half Jews--who are not the nationals of any other nation, but are\nthe citizens of a Jewish nation with a known locality, an organized\nState, _then_ the suggestion of exile changes its meaning. The opponent\nof the Jew is now able to say: \"Go back to your own country,\" and you\nmay be very certain that he _will_ say that unless some other solution\nthan the legal fiction of full citizenship in one country and of moral\nallegiance to another is dropped.\n\nThe presence of the new Zion will do for the Jewish people what a frame\ndoes for a picture. It will not be universal to them; it will not cover\nthe whole field of Jewish activity. It will be but a fraction of the\nwhole. But it will inevitably emphasize the separation, the individual\nand alien character of the whole. It will concentrate attention upon all\nthose things which the nineteenth century--in what I have called \"the\nLiberal solution\"--carefully put in the background and tried to forget.\nIt will militate against an honest solution which would recognize the\ncompletely distinct character of the Jew and yet refuse to subject them\nto any indignity or suffering on that account.\n\nThere is more than this. The various nations, taken as a whole--the\nRoumanians as a whole, the Poles as a whole, the French, the Italians,\nthe English as a whole--take up very different attitudes at any one time\ntoward Israel, and in each the attitude varies from generation to\ngeneration; there is always, at any one time of history, including our\nown time, a certain number of national units which are openly hostile to\nthe Jew, regretting his presence among them, restricting his activities\nand determined, above all, to separate him, by a sharp legal definition\nif possible, at any rate by universal social practice, from the rest of\nthe community.\n\nNow these hostile peoples cannot possibly be prevented from using the\nweapon put into their hands by the existence of a new Zion, with the\nimplications I have just defined. It is difficult enough even now for\nthe countries where Jewish finance controls the politicians (and these\nare still the most powerful countries) to restrain the anti-Jewish\nfeelings in the lesser nations. It is only done by elaborate rules which\nare imperfectly obeyed and which are felt in these smaller nations to be\nimposed by alien interference with their domestic rights. The protection\nby the French, English and American Governments of what are called by a\neuphemism \"national minorities\"--which means, of course, everywhere the\nJews--is a perilous affair, and one which can only be carried out most\nimperfectly even as it is. But the one foundation for that task, the one\nargument which its promoters appeal to, is the fact that the \"national\nminority\"--that is, the Jews present in a hostile community--can plead\nuniversal exile.\n\nIf you turn them out in order to suppress them, they can only leave for\nanother country. They have none of their own to go to. Or again, if your\ntreatment of the Jews is harsher than that of your neighbour, you are\nvirtually directing a Jewish emigration over your neighbour's borders,\nand to that your neighbour has a right to object. But once an\nindependent Jewish seat is established, this argument falls to the\nground. It is no reply _then_ to tell these nations that the new Jewish\nState cannot contain the whole Jewish race. It will answer that it is\nnot concerned with the whole Jewish race but only with its own section\nof that race.\n\nFurther, it will of course always be to the interest of those who desire\nto be rid of the Jewish element in their midst to argue that the Jewish\nState could be more peopled and that there is plenty of room for more\ncitizens. Again, those hostile to the Jews in their midst can say: \"Very\nwell. Since there is no room for the whole mass of our Jews in your new\nState, we will not deal with the whole mass; allow us to suggest that\nsuch and such individuals shall leave our State, where they are not\nwanted, and shall go to their own.\" And they would pick out the Jews\nwhose exile would most weaken the Jewish community in their midst.\n\nIn the present state of affairs, with the Cabinets of Rome, Washington,\nLondon and Paris still heavily influenced by Jewish finance, they have,\nfor the moment, a military force behind them sufficient to impose their\norders in some measure upon the reluctant nations of Eastern Europe and\nin some measure to create an artificial protection for the Jews there.\nEven if this protection were to last another generation (which is\nunlikely), the presence of Zionism, interpreted in the sense I have just\nquoted, would be enough to undermine its work. On any change in the\nsituation, in case of any conflict between these Western powers, or of\nany change by one or more of them in its attitude towards the Jews,\nZionism, thus interpreted, would be the ruin of the Jews in the Centre\nand East of Europe. The danger is of such great practical importance\nthat it ought to be the very first matter for discussion. It is only our\nacquired habit of falsehood and secrecy upon the Jewish problem which\nhas thrust it in the background. In the nature of things it must come to\nthe front, and it would be far better to have the lines of some solution\nlaid down before it becomes insistent.\n\nWhat are those lines to be?\n\nTheir general character is clear enough.\n\nWhether it be of advantage or no to have a purely Jewish State (I mean\nwhether it be of advantage to Israel or no) may be safely left to the\nJews themselves to discuss. But one thing is certain: if they decide in\nfavour of its continuance, then they must decide also in favour of some\nform of recognition for the purely Jewish nationality of the Jews\n_outside_ that State.\n\nThus only will the situation become open and therefore innocuous. If\nthey try under the new conditions to maintain the old fiction that a Jew\nis at the same time a Jew and yet not a Jew, that he can be at the same\ntime a Jew and an Englishman, or a Jew and a Russian, or a Jew and an\nItalian, they will be trying to maintain it under conditions quite other\nthan those of the past, and under conditions where the falsehood will\nbreak down in practice.\n\nSuppose you were to make such recognition partly voluntary, and leave it\nto the Jew wherever he might be to claim or not to claim his nationality\nas a Jew; to be regarded, if he so willed, as a national of the Jewish\nnation in Zion, or as a national of the people among whom he happened\nto be living for the moment. You may say that under this purely\nvoluntary system (which would, I suppose, be more just) very few would\nchoose for Zion. The great majority would like to go on under the old\nfiction. That is certainly true of the West; but would it be true of the\nEast? Would it be true of either East or West in a moment of\npersecution? I think it would not. Even if it be true of the East\nto-day, it certainly would not be true of any body of Jews suffering\nthere, in the future, any degree of molestation.\n\nBut apart from that: Supposing but a small minority availed themselves\nof this voluntary form of recognition, supposing only a small minority\nto claim Jewish nationality as defined in the terms of the Zionist\nState, there would still be the contrast between those who had thus\npublicly proclaimed themselves nationals of Zion and those who hung\nback. In other words, short of a general admitted maintenance of the old\nfiction (of which Zionism more than any other force must accelerate the\nbreakdown), you must have, through Zionism, an accelerated tendency to\ntreating Jews throughout the world as being, whether without the New\nZionist State or within it, a separate people. And they are a separate\npeople, they cannot be other. My whole plea is that this truth should be\nrecognized and acted upon; for if it is shirked or denied it will take\nits revenge. Reality always takes its revenge upon unreal pretence.\n\nThere remains in connection with Zionism another consideration which is\nalso of importance, though of a very different kind. Is the new Jewish\nState to rely upon its own military strength and its own police--though\nperhaps guaranteed (for what that may be worth) by international\nagreement--or is it to be a protected State occupied, defended and\npoliced by the strength and fighting qualities of some other kind of\nmen, not Jews--Englishmen, Frenchmen or what not?\n\nAs we know, the particular solution attempted, the particular Zionism of\nwhich the experiment is now being made in Palestine, plumps for the\n_second_ solution. The protection of Jews from natives is to be\nundertaken by a garrison of Englishmen. It plumps for this solution\nunder conditions as adverse as they well can be. The present experiment\nis, as we noted at the end of the last chapter, not an independent\nJewish State, national, guaranteed, standing in its own strength; but a\n_protected_ State; and that State protected by one nation: Great\nBritain. The new Zion does not depend for its internal peace, for its\nestablishment against highly hostile forces, for the ex-propriation of\nthe local landowners, for the keeping of the peace between local\nelements highly hostile to itself, upon Jewish soldiers and Jewish\ncourage. It depends upon British soldiers, British organization and\nBritish sacrifice. Those who have promoted the Zionist experiment have\ndeliberately chosen the very worst moment for such a folly.\n\nGranted that whoever was to be the Protector he must be a friendly\nProtector, no worse solution could have been devised. A little nation is\nalways morally guaranteed in its independence, if only by the balance of\nthe greater nations. The violation of the neutrality of Belgium offers\nnothing of a rule; on the contrary, it was an odious exception. And an\nexception it would have been just as much if the neutrality had not\nbeen officially guaranteed under Prussia's own hand. The smaller\nnations, of which the modern world is full, will have, we may be very\ncertain, a long lease of life. The larger nations envy but applaud their\nsecurity and happiness. They will not be allowed to disappear. The same,\nI think, would be true of the Jewish national seat, could it be\nestablished, inhabited wholly or mainly by men of the Jewish race,\nreligion and culture; presenting to the world the same aspect as does,\nfor instance, Denmark to-day. But to depend for its establishment upon\nthe superior power, upon the military and financial sacrifice, of\nanother and totally different people, is a challenge and a provocation.\nIt is the building of the pyramid upwards from its apex. It is an\nexperiment in the most unstable of unstable equilibriums.\n\nThe matter is, of course, being discussed everywhere from the point of\nview of Great Britain, and nowhere more eagerly than among those who\nhave to do the policing and the armed protection. But we are not here\nconcerned with the ill effects such a situation must have on Great\nBritain--effects so ill that the experiment as a merely British\nProtectorate is bound to break down--we are rather concerned with the\neffect it may have upon the Jews themselves. No great nation will\nsacrifice its foreign policy, will admit a point of acute weakness,\nsimply to please the Jews. Sooner or later such a nation is bound to\nsay: \"_We_ cannot sacrifice our interests to yours. Look after\nyourselves.\" And that is where the peril to the Jews of this system, a\nprotectorate, comes in.\n\nIf there were any reason to suppose a natural alliance between the\nBritish Army and the Jews; if we could imagine British officers and men\ntaking a natural pleasure in ousting the Arab and making way for the\nJew, it would be another matter. If there were something in the nature\nof things which made that alliance permanent and stable, if the Jews\nwere a fully accepted part of the British Commonwealth as are, for\ninstance, the Scots or the Welsh, some permanent arrangement might be\npossible. But they are nothing of the sort. The position is wholly\nunnatural. It cannot last. And if it cannot last with the British\nconnection, how should it last with any other? How shall the transition\nbe made from a British Protectorate to another protectorate? Or how,\nseeing what violent hatreds have already been roused by the mere\nbeginnings of the experiment, shall the conflict which makes the\nprotectorate necessary be avoided?\n\nSo far the dislike of the position, which is very far-reaching, and\nalready very deep in England, is a passive dislike. No English soldier\nhas yet been killed; there has been but little necessity, as yet, to\nrepress the Arab and create hostility, though even what little necessity\nthere has been was odious to the troops concerned. But things cannot\nremain in that state. The conflict is inevitable. When the conflict\ncomes the feeling which has hitherto been passive will become active.\nPeople will not tolerate the loss of sons and brothers in a quarrel\nwhich is none of theirs, which cannot possibly strengthen the British\nState; which, if anything, must weaken it; which is felt to be\nprecarious and ephemeral, and which will be undertaken against those\nwith whom British sympathy naturally lies, and in favour of those with\nwhom the average soldier and citizen--unlike the professional\npolitician--has no ties and no sympathy.\n\nThe matter can be very plainly put thus:\n\nIf a Zionist experiment is necessary, or advisable, then let it be made\nin such a fashion that it can be dependent upon Jewish police and a\nJewish army alone. Let it not rely upon a foreign protectorate, which\nwill not last long, which is a weakness to the directing power, and\nwhich creates a false position.\n\nIf it be answered that the Jews are not capable of producing such an\narmy or such a police, that they would inevitably be defeated and\noppressed by the hostile and more warlike majority among whom they would\nfind themselves, then let them make the experiment elsewhere. But it is\ncertain that the present form of the new Protectorate is the most\nperilous form which could have been chosen for it, so far as the Jews\nthemselves are concerned. I appeal confidently to the near future to\nconfirm this judgment.\n\nFrom one most poignant aspect of the matter which we all have in mind I\ndeliberately abstain--I mean the effect of the experiment upon Christian\nand Mohammedan feelings throughout the world of an attempt to establish\nJewish control over the Holy Places. I abstain because of the emotions\naroused by it, which are violent and universal, and are of the sort I\nhave deliberately determined, as my Preface has informed the reader, to\nkeep out of this essay. Things indeed are not yet at the point of open\nquarrel in this most perilous of all the results of Zionism. We must\ntrust for a solution before it is too late, but that solution will not\nbe reached if we select for discussion matters upon which there can be\nno agreement, and on which there is now aroused the most passionate\nfeeling.\n\nStill, though I abstain from discussing that point, I would beg the\nJewish readers of this my book to bear it in mind. If they believe the\nreligious emotions to be dead in the modern world, or even to be\nlessening, they may find themselves terribly disillusioned.\n\nI also refrain from making comment here--I have made it strongly enough\nelsewhere--upon the strange selection made by the Jews for their first\nruler of the Arabs and Christians in Palestine. I will do no more than\nto say that a desire to shield the less worthy specimens of one's race\nis natural and even praiseworthy. One may even take a certain glory in\nthat one is able to protect them from outsiders. But to give them too\ngreat a prominence is a mistake, and it is indeed deplorable that of the\nwhole world of Jews--from crowds of Jews eminent in administration, and\npolitical science, known for their upright dealing and blameless\ncareers--Mr. Balfour's Jewish advisers (whoever they were) should have\npitched on the author of the Marconi contract and the spokesman of the\nfamous declaration in the House of Commons that no politician had\ntouched Marconi shares.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nOUR DUTY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nOUR DUTY\n\n\nThe solution which I propose, which I believe could be made stable, and\nwhich I further believe is the only stable one, demands a greater, a\nmore necessary effort upon our side than upon that of our guests.\n\nIt is the average man who must do his duty in the matter, and it is upon\nhim that the responsibility will fall, if we take up once again that\nwretched sequence of ill-ease, persecution, reaction, which has marked\nso many centuries.\n\nWe are the vast majority, we are the organism within which this small\nminority moves. We are, or could be if we chose, the makers of our own\nlaws, and we are certainly the makers of our own political moods.\n\nI know it is the custom to throw all the responsibility upon the other\nside, to be perpetually devising instruments for their guidance which\nsoon become instruments for their oppression, and in general to imagine\na problem wherein the part of the European is purely negative and all\nthe work has to be done by the Jewish stranger.\n\nThat attitude is not only false but grossly undignified. When men accuse\nsome one weaker than themselves of interference with, and even of\nacquiring power over, them they condemn themselves. It is in the main\nour fault if an equilibrium has so rarely been reached in all these\nsixty generations of debate. For however alien, however irritant the\nforeign body be, it is we who have in our hands the solvent of that\nirritant and of relieving the strain which it causes.\n\nHere let me recall at the risk of repetition (for repetition is\nnecessary to lucidity in such arguments) the logical process with which\nI opened this essay. I say that the vast majority, the fixed race\nthrough which in fluid and nomadic form Israel goes moving from century\nto century, is not free to discharge its responsibility by any one of\nthose attempted solutions which I have condemned. No man, I trust, will\nhave the cynicism to say that mere persecution, let alone its horrible\nextreme, is or should be a solution. No man can predict the same of\nexile either. No man can discharge our responsibility by pretending that\nany solution arrived at must be for our good alone and may disregard\nthat of those who live among us.\n\nIt is a statement one hears frequently enough that the masters of house\nhave alone to decide what shall be done under their roof: that the\ninterloper, the alien element, has no standing and no right to complain\nof whatever measures may be taken for the protection of the household.\nThe thing so put sounds plausible. It is essentially false. It is\ncomparable to the argument applied to private property--that because\nprivate property is a right, and that because a man \"may do what he\nlikes with his own,\" therefore he may use it to the manifest hurt of\nothers. Moreover, the analogy is false; for when a man is talking of\n\"the master of the house\" having the right in his household to decide\nits own way of living and of treating its guests, he is considering a\nvery small unit in a great community; his household in the whole nation:\na little body which, if it discharge or in any other way deal with\nsomething alien to itself, will inflict no great injury upon that\nforeign body, since there is all the world for it to turn to outside.\nBut in the relations between the Jew and Christendom, or the Jew and\nIslam, the parallel fails. It is precisely because there is no \"outside\"\nto which the exile can turn that a duty is imposed on us.\n\nIt is true indeed that when a small and alien minority assumes to\ndictate the policy of the rest, to regard its own advantages alone and\nsubordinate to those advantages the life of all, the claim is grotesque\nand must be disallowed. But we should remember upon the other side that\nit is only by exaggerating its claim that a minority can live at all. It\nis only by fierce insistence upon its right to survive that its survival\nis guaranteed. We can arrive at justice in this matter by the process of\nputting ourselves in the shoes of those in relation to whom we propose\nto act.\n\nPut yourself in the shoes of the Jew and ask how this doctrine of \"doing\nwhat one likes with one's own\" and being \"the master of one's own\nhousehold\" would look to you.\n\nA public example which very rightly made a stir a few months before this\nbook was published, may serve as text. A learned and distinguished Jew,\nDr. Oscar Levy, a man who was an asset to any community, was turned out\nof the country under circumstances which many of my readers will recall.\nHe pleaded with perfect justice that as a Jew such an exile left him\nhomeless; that the original country of which he was nominally a citizen\n(under the broken-down fiction that Jews can be Germans, or Austrians,\nor what not, and cease to be themselves) would not have him; that his\ninterests, his livelihood had attached him to this country; he had never\nhidden his true nationality nor changed his name, nor used any of those\nsubterfuges which, even when excusable, are dangerous and contemptible\nin so many of his compatriots. There was no conceivable reason why such\nrigour should be used against this man, save indeed that he was a Jew.\n\nPut yourself in his shoes and see how the thing looks. There is no\nnation to which you could have returned: there is no society to receive\nyou as a member of it. You are not permitted to remain in the atmosphere\nwith which you have grown familiar, in the surroundings which have\nbecome those of your later life, and your consonance with which it is\ntoo late for you to change. Could there be a grosser cruelty or a\ngrosser injustice? It is the very core of the whole problem that\n_somewhere_ the Jew must be harboured, and therefore to some one of us\nthe question must be put, \"Will you harbour him, and if so upon what\nterms?\" If each man answer, \"No, I will not,\" then all collectively\nbecome oppressors. It is no answer to say, \"These men are not of us, and\ntherefore they may conspire against us,\" or \"Their interests are\ndivergent from ours and therefore may and do clash with ours.\" All that\nis granted. That is merely stating the problem, not solving it. What do\nwe say in daily life of men who merely state their grievances, harp upon\nthem, and make no effort to put them right? What do we think of men who\nperpetually complain of something naturally weaker than themselves, make\nno effort to understand its necessities and attempt only to rid\nthemselves of the nuisance without considering reciprocal duty and\nmutual relations? The same should we think of those who so act towards\nthe Jewish community in our midst which, for all its domination and\nexaggerated modern power, is ultimately at our mercy, far weaker than we\nare in numbers and situation. Without further elaboration of what should\nbe an obvious political and moral principle, let us consider our part in\nthe task.\n\nIt consists, I conceive, in two very different determinations: two very\ndifferent but allied lines of conduct to which we must pledge ourselves.\nThe first, until recently the most difficult, is the determination to\nspeak of the Jewish people as openly, as continuously, with as much\ninterest, with as close an examination as we speak of any other foreign\nbody with which we are brought in contact.\n\nThe second, which will perhaps be the more difficult duty to practise in\nthe future, will be to avoid, in the individual public recognition of\nthose with whom we must live, all futile anger and all mere reaction. I\nmean by mere reaction, blind reaction. The instinctive thrusting back\nagainst a thing which presses on us, the uncalculated and animal return\nblow, the consequences of which, either to ourselves or to others, are\nnot weighed when it is delivered; the futile complaint, the futile rage,\nthe futile cruelty.\n\nUnless those two duties are undertaken together, unless the\ndetermination to practise both be of equal weight, the solution I\npropose will fail. To discuss the problem presented by the presence of\nthe Jewish people, to talk of them as one would of any other, openly and\nfrankly, to interest oneself in their history and in their present\ndoings: all this is only to aggravate the trouble if we use that open\ndealing for the purpose of doing them a hurt, or if, in the course of\nit, we allow ourselves (merely from irritation or contrast, from the\nsense which all must have of opposition to things alien) to react\nagainst them without consideration of the immediate and ultimate\nconsequences not only to themselves but to us.\n\nConversely, the determination to regard their interests and to avoid\nevery possible occasion of conflict, to hold a just measure with them,\nis quite useless if we falsify the whole relation by secrecy and false\nconvention.\n\nThe moment that comes in, there comes in with it a secret\ndissatisfaction with oneself and with the whole situation. The position\nis falsified, the seed of animosity greatly stimulated, the danger of\nmutual contempt made inevitable.\n\nNow let us look at these two branches of what we have to do in the\nmatter, and see what difficulties lie in the way.\n\nIn the way of frankly recognizing, examining, taking an open interest in\nthe Jewish minority in our midst there lie three very powerful\nobstacles. First the inherited convention of polite society; secondly,\nand much the most powerful, fear; and thirdly, the very reputable desire\nto avoid offence.\n\nThe first of these, the fear of convention, has many roots--the\nnecessity for harmony in a leisured life, that is, the desire to avoid\nfriction even at the expense of truth, the mere momentum of a quiet\nhabit, the fear of misunderstanding which may come from one side casting\nridicule upon the other, which may offend the person whom we have\nmisunderstood, or make us ridiculous in his eyes and those of our\naudience.\n\nThere is also, of course, as a cause, more powerful than any other, the\nforce which lies behind all convention, the force which makes a man take\noff his hat in a church, which forbids his walking without boots in the\nstreet on the driest day, that is, the pressure of general practice. But\nthe thing to realize is that in this form--I mean as distinct from any\nfeeling of fear or of charity--the thing is a convention and a\nconvention only. Difficult as it is to break with conventions, unless\n_this_ convention is broken once and for all, the Jewish problem remains\nwith us unsolved and growing in acuteness and peril.\n\nYou can meet an Irishman and discuss with him the conditions of his\nnation. You can ask an Italian when he was last in Italy, or\ncongratulate a Frenchman upon his acquisition of your tongue or tell him\nthat it is difficult for him to understand your own customs: but a\nconvention arose under the Liberal fiction--to which I have devoted so\nmuch space in the earlier part of this book--that to do any of these\nvery natural things in the case of a Jew is monstrous. Your audience is\nshocked if you ask some learned Jew at a public table a question upon\nhis national literature or history. It is a solecism to refer to his\nnationality at all, save perhaps now and then in terms of foolish\npraise--in nine times out of ten praise not to the point and not\ndesired by its recipient. And even praise must be approached most\ngingerly. You may not ask a Jew in London, however keen your desire for\ninformation, whether he had cousins in Lithuania or Galicia who have\ntold him of the conditions of those distressed countries. You may not\nask him when his family came to England, nor, if he be a recent arrival,\nwhat he thinks of the country. The whole thing is _taboo_.\n\nMore than this: you must, you are expected (or were until quite recently\nexpected) to emphasize in a most extravagant manner the complete\nidentity of your Jewish guest with the people among whom he lives. I do\nnot take offence if some chance acquaintance, noting my French name,\ntalks to me about France, and is interested in my experience as a\nconscript long ago in that country. Mr. Redmond did not feel himself\ninsulted when those he met in London discussed Irish matters with him,\nfrom the most acute difficulty in politics, to the most general allusion\nto the Abbey Theatre. The editor of an Italian review visiting England\nis not shocked if you ask him when he left Florence, nor are those\naround you horrified at the ill-breeding of your question. But in the\nmatter of the Jew there stands this convention cutting you off from any\nsuch straightforward and simple way of dealing with a fellow-being. That\nconvention, I say, must be broken down if we are to get any results at\nall and to establish a permanent peace.\n\nThe thing was not, of course, entirely irrational in origin. No custom\nis. It was to be excused upon several grounds.\n\nFirst, there was the fact that many people were known to cherish so\nstrong an hostility to Jews that to emphasize the Jewish character of\nanyone present might awaken that hostility.\n\nThen there was the peculiar rapid transition both of Jewish movements\nand of Jewish fortunes. In the case I have suggested, of asking a London\nJew whether he had relatives in Galicia or Lithuania, you might be\nstumbling upon relations much poorer than himself in the East End of\nLondon; or, again, you might seem to be emphasizing the nomadic\ncharacter of the race and thereby also emphasizing the contrast between\nit and our own.\n\nBut much the strongest excuse for the convention was the well-founded\nidea that its exercise pleased the Jews themselves. Men avoided direct\nmention of Jewish nationality because it was felt that such direct\nmention was almost an insult. It was a thing which the Jew in whose\npresence you found yourself desired to have kept in the background; and\nthough we might not understand why he desired it, yet we respected his\ndesire as we do that of anyone with whom we wish to preserve harmonious\nrelations. Most men, for instance, are indifferent upon, say, the matter\nof smoking. Most men are quite at their ease when they are asked whether\nthey smoke or not, and if they do, whether they prefer this or that\nbrand of tobacco. But now and then one comes across a man who, from some\naccident of training (as, for instance, a man whose mother brought him\nup to think smoking a mortal sin), does not like to have it alluded to.\n\nI myself know the case of a man of the highest culture and of\nconsiderable social position to whom you may not say anything about pigs\neither in connection with farming or in connection with food; for his\nsympathies are Mohammedan. In these exceptional cases, when we know of\nour guest's particular desire, we yield to it for the sake of harmony\nand of right living. So is it in this matter of the former convention\nagainst alluding to Jewish nationality or Jewish interests in any form.\nWhether the Jews were wise or not to cherish that convention, as they\nundoubtedly did, does not concern this part of my argument. I am talking\nof our duty and not of theirs. But I say that unless the convention is\nsoftened and at last dissolved, nothing can be done. Both parties should\nknow that it only does harm. It renders stilted and absurd all our\nrelations; it fosters that suspicion of secrecy which I have insisted\nupon as the chief irritant in those relations, and it creates a feeling\nof exception, of oddity, which is the very worst service that could be\nrendered to the Jews themselves.\n\nSome little time ago the convention went so far that even a mention, a\nneutral--nay, a laudatory mention, of anything Jewish in a general\ncompany led to an immediate awkwardness. Men looked over their\nshoulders, women gave downward glances right and left. A sort of hunt\nbegan, to see whether anyone present could possibly in any remote\nconnection be offended by the monstrous deed. If a man said, \"What a\npoet Heine was and how thoroughly Jewish is his irony!\" and said it in a\nroom full of people, the adjective \"Jewish\" acted like a pistol\nshot--could anything be more absurd! Yet so it was.\n\nBut the point I make is not against the absurdity of this convention but\nagainst its peril. It is an obstacle to all right handling of what is\nbecoming daily a more and more insistent and acute difficulty.\n\nIt is obvious that the getting rid of such a convention is not to be\neffected by violent methods, nor immediately. But our duty is to\naccelerate its decline and, within reason, to enlarge every opportunity\nfor treating the Jewish nationality precisely as one treats any other. I\nmean precisely as one treats any other in conversation or in writing. We\nall know the insane type which loves to break convention merely because\nit is a convention, and we shall certainly have to be on our guard\nagainst this sort of person in the near future, as this particular\nconvention begins to break down. But without encouraging such\neccentricities there is ample room for an increasing ease in the\nrecognition of what after all we know to be reality, a reality which\nrequires open discussion for the good of us all. The danger is lest even\nthis merely conventional obstacle should by too long a resistance dam up\nforces which tend to break it down and therefore lest, when it is pulled\ndown, we should admit the other extreme of licence, with its opportunity\nfor insult and damage. That is what has happened in the case of other\nmuch more reasonable Victorian conventions, and we must not have it\nhappen in the case of the convention which for so long forbade us to\nadmit that a Jew was a Jew or to take any open interest, when he was\npresent, in the things which he himself thinks the most interesting of\nall.\n\nAnd if anyone shall answer that convention is necessary, lest on its\ndecline open hostility should follow, I can only say that this is to\ndespair of any equitable solution at all. But my whole thesis in this\nbook is that such a solution need not yet be despaired of.\n\nThere is one more thing to be said in this matter of the old _taboo_.\nHowever long it may linger in the small educated class, it has gone for\never among the populace, and it is the popular instinct we shall have\nmainly to deal with in the difficult times ahead of us.\n\nThe populace in this country talks upon Jewish matters with a frankness\nwhich would astonish the drawing-rooms, and has so talked upon them for\na generation past--ever since the great novel influx of poor Jews began\nto pour into our towns. It not only talks thus openly to and of Jews\nupon its own level, but it is thoroughly alive to the presence and power\nof Jews in government. Those who think that a continuance of the\nconvention can put off the necessity for a solution would be\ndisillusioned if they would spend a few days east of Aldgate, and mix\nwith their fellow-citizens there.\n\nAllied to this obstacle of convention is the very real obstacle of\ncharity.\n\nNow we are here dealing not with a positive charity but with a negative\none and with a form of charity uncommonly like slackness.\n\nThe man who honestly thinks that any allusion to Jewish races in\ncontemporary art, history or letters in the presence of a Jew is\noffensive and therefore to be avoided, from goodness of heart, _and who\nalso practises the same virtue where any other foreigner is concerned_\nis rare indeed. There are such men, for men of exceptional goodness\ncoupled with exceptional stupidity are to be found. But the excuse of\ncharity as it is generally put forward is not wholly ingenuous. Where it\nis ingenuous our reply to-day must be that even at the risk of\noccasional ill-ease, the danger of offence must be risked; for unless we\nrisk it there is increasing peril of a much greater offence against\njustice. For whatever reason open discussion is burked, even for the\nreason of charity, we only put off the evil day, and charity so used may\nbe compared to the charity which refuses to take action in any other\ncritical problem of increasing gravity. The charity which hesitates to\ncontrol the supplies of a spendthrift, or to wage a defensive war in a\njust cause, or to defend an oppressed man at the risk of quarrelling\nwith his oppressor, is a charity misdirected.\n\nBut, as I have said, with much the greater part of men who plead this\nmotive the plea is, if they would only examine their own consciences,\nfound to be false. And the test of its falsity will be apparent when the\nconvention slackens. When it is no longer conventional to avoid all\nmention of Jews, how many will remain silent merely from the love of\ntheir fellow-men? One might go further and say that when the convention\nhas gone, any need for this kind of charity will go with it. There is an\nexception, of course, in the case of the man whose dislike of Jews is so\nviolent that he fears himself if he gives any rein to his tongue. That\nmania is exceptional; but where it is found certainly its victim will do\nwell to keep silence. If a man cannot mention the Hebrew alphabet\nwithout a sneer, or the economics of Ricardo without betraying his ill\nfeeling for Ricardo's lineage, then certainly he had better hold his\ntongue when Jews are there. So, too, a Frenchman who raves against the\nEnglish had far better not discuss the British Constitution or the\ngenius of Newton in any society where an Englishman may be present.\n\nThere remains the chief obstacle--that of fear.\n\nThere is no doubt that the strongest force still restraining an\nexpression of hostility to the Jew is fear.\n\nIn a sense, of course, there is a \"fear\" of breaking convention--but\nthat is fear only in metaphor. I mean not this, but the very real dread\nof consequences: the feeling that an expression of hostility to Jewish\npower may bring definite evils on the individual guilty of it, and a\npanic lest those evils should fall upon him. How strong this feeling is,\nanyone can testify who has explored, as I have, this most insistent of\nmodern political ills; and doubtless the greater part of my non-Jewish\nreaders will recall examples to the point.\n\nIt is a fear of two consequences, social and economic, and even of both\ncombined. Men dread lest hostility to the Jew Domination should bring\nthem into the grip of some unknown but suspected world-wide power--some\nwould call it a conspiracy--which can destroy the individual who shall\nbe so rash as to challenge it. Some perhaps have gone to the length--the\ninsane length--of reading the word \"destroy\" in its literal sense and of\nfearing for their lives. Such an illusion is laughable. But very many\nmore are affected by the reasonable conception that they will have\nagainst them, if they provoke it, an intelligent, combined action which\nthey cannot meet because there is no organization upon their side:\nbecause it is international; because there is behind it a great\nintensity of feeling; because through finance it controls the political\nmachines of all the nations, because it is all-powerful in the\nPress--and so forth.\n\nThey dread, I say, the social consequences. They also (and that with\nmore definition and more sense) dread the economic consequences. They\nrecognize (they also exaggerate) the grip of the Jew over finance. They\nconceive that if they speak they will be dragged down, their enterprises\nruined, their credit dissolved. And that is the most powerful instrument\nwhich can be brought to bear. When supernatural motives disappear the\nstrongest motive remaining after appetite is avarice; and avarice is\nmore universal than appetite and more continuous. Nor is it only avarice\nwhich is at work here, but also the respectable desire for security.\nThere are to-day innumerable men who would express publicly on Jews what\nthey continually express in private, but who conceal their feelings for\nfear that their salaries may be lost or their modest enterprises\nwrecked, their investments lowered, and their position ruined. Above\nthem are a lesser number, equally convinced that their large fortunes\nwould be in peril were they so to act.\n\nThe characteristic of all this feeling is two-fold. In the first place,\nas would seem to be the case with convention, though in a much greater\ndegree, it dams up and enormously increases the latent force of anger\nagainst Jewish power both real and imaginary. It is like the piling up\nof a head of water when a river valley is obstructed, or like the\nintroducing of resistance into an electric current. The suppression of\nresentment, though that suppression is the act of the men who themselves\nfeel the resentment and not directly of their opponents, is a fierce\nirritant and accounts for the high pressure at which attack escapes when\nonce it is loosened.\n\nI speak only of hostility and of attack, for it is in these least\nrational examples that the strength of the thing is to be found. But it\napplies also to mere discussion. There is hardly anyone to-day who does\nnot desire to discuss as an urgent political problem the present\nposition, the present power, the present disabilities, the present\nclaims of Israel. But for one that will openly discuss these things\nthere are ten who, in varying degrees, forbid themselves so plain a\nfreedom of speech in dread of what consequences might follow. It has,\nlike all panic, a ridiculous element. It is informed by the most absurd\nillusions; it suffers from grotesque imaginings and phantasms. In some\nthis dread of the Jewish power has very plainly passed the line which\ndivides the stable from the unstable mind and even the sane from the\ninsane. But it is none the less a formidable element in our problem.\nThis obstacle, much more than that of convention, bears a character of\nrigidity. It works for a certain time, then it breaks down and releases\na flood.\n\nThat is why the first expressions of hostility in our time were so\nexaggerated and ill-proportioned. That is why so many of them were\nplainly mad. This very character of exaggeration, this very wildness in\nproportion, rendered those against whom the attack was delivered more\ncontemptuous of it than they should have been.\n\nThe forerunners of the present movement--I mean, of the movement hostile\nto Israel--were not calculated to excite the respect of their opponent\nor even to carry with them the men on their own side. They lacked that\n\"common\" sense which is the first quality of leadership. For the power\nof leadership implies a soul in common with those who are led. The\nenthusiast can lead permanently, but the extravagant man never for long.\n\nI say that these first attacks were on that account despised: they were\nunduly despised by those whom they menaced.\n\nThere lay in reserve behind all the exaggeration and wildness a great\nbulk of very different opinion; the opinion of men normal in their\nappreciation of values and of proportion, not given to \"seeing things,\"\nfully in touch with reality; men who know that they have hitherto only\nbeen silent through the action of fear, who despise themselves on that\naccount and who are the more ready to act. For the sense of fear not\nonly degrades but angers: at least in our race. The European who admits\nto himself that he has restrained an instinct not from religion, nor\nfrom a general sense of right, but from cowardice, is always angry with\nhimself and awaits the moment when he can take his own revenge upon his\nown past and clear himself of reproach in his own eyes.\n\nHerein lies the peril to Israel of such a state of affairs. But with\nthat I am not here concerned. I am only concerned with its effect upon\nourselves. So long as we degrade ourselves, so long as we humiliate\nourselves by our own cowardice, so long as we shirk all reasonable\ndiscussion, let alone all expression of hostility because we dread the\nconsequences at the hands of our opponents, so long there are present in\nrising intensity two evil things: first, the postponement of the right\nsolution; secondly, the turning of a reasoned policy into mere hatred\nwith all the consequences that flow from such evil emotion.\n\nThe longer we maintain whatever remains of that barrier to free speech\n(happily it is already crumbling) the longer do we produce the two fatal\nresults of postponing justice and of creating enmity. The destruction of\nthat barrier, the ridding of ourselves of fear in the matter, is, as is\nalways the case in the exercising of this unmanly thing, a matter for\nindividual effort. As the proverb goes, \"Some one must bell the cat,\"\nwhich is another way of saying that if each man waits upon his\nneighbour, things will only grow worse and worse.\n\nIt is for each in his place, before it is too late, to approach the\nJewish problem and to discuss it openly; to preface that discussion by a\nfrank interest and a general expression upon all those things in the\nminority which directly concern its relations with the majority; to deal\nwith the Jewish nation exactly as one would with any other.\n\nIt used to be a dictum in those who pleaded a lifetime ago for the open\ncriticism of Scripture, that \"the Bible should be approached like any\nother book.\"[2] The result is not of good augury to my present argument\nand I rather dread the parallel; but since the phrase is well known I\nwill use it as a model. It is time, I say, to be rid of treating the\nJewish nation as something closed, mysterious and secret. Let us treat\nit \"like any other nation.\" It is no wonder if men, moved by nothing but\na blind hatred, feel some hesitation upon the consequence of that\nhatred. But I am convinced that if we on our side get rid of this absurd\nmodern fear, take the Jew in his right proportions, rid our mind of\nexaggeration in his regard--especially of the conception of some inhuman\nability capable of conducting a plot of diabolical ingenuity and\nmagnitude--we shall be met from the other side.\n\nThe Jews are not the only force which is international nor the only\ninternational force the dread of which has disturbed men's judgments.\nThey are not the only international force which has some degree of\norganization and cohesion. If you desire to vent your active dislike of\nthe Scotch or of the Irish you must be prepared for a certain amount of\nScotch or Irish hostility. You will come across something of an\norganization and suffer accordingly; but if you cherish the conception\nof a vast subterranean force, Scotch or Irish, watching you with a\nmalignant power and capable of your destruction, you are, I think, out\nof the real world.\n\nIf you desire to vent your active dislike of the Catholic Church you\nwill find ubiquitous opposition. But if you conclude from this that you\nare at grips with a monster then you are out of touch with reality.\n\nSo it is, surely, with this dread of the Jewish power, which has sullied\nso many men's minds, postponed the right discussion of the problem and\nnourished ill-ease everywhere. If we simply act as though that dread\nwere despicable like any other dread, and turned to perfectly open\ndiscussion of the whole affair, even to an open expression of hostility\nwhere hostility is deserved, we shall be the better for it. In any case\nit is our duty to ourselves as well as to the State to get rid of fear\nin the business, for until we are rid of it no advance towards a\nsolution can be made.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[2] I beg leave to introduce an anecdote. An undergraduate once said to\nDr. Jowett, the Master of Balliol, \"I take up the Gospels and treat them\nas an ordinary book.\" The Master answered: \"Did you not find them a very\nextraordinary book?\" So it will prove, I think, with the fascination of\nIsrael.\n\n\nTHEIR DUTY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHEIR DUTY\n\n\nWhere positive causes have been found for an evil it is obvious that the\ncure of that evil consists in the removal of the causes, in so far as\nthey can be removed.\n\nIn the particular case of the friction between the Jewish community and\ntheir hosts the causes of that friction are the foolish and dangerous\nhabit of secrecy and the irritating expression of superiority. The\ncauses the Jew can remove if he will. The matter is in his own hands: we\ncan do nothing: he can do everything.\n\nBut beyond this negative duty which is incumbent upon the Jews if they\nwould achieve a peaceful issue of the perils which menace their future,\nthere is a positive action also incumbent upon them. They must foster,\nthey must even propose, institutions which will the better mark them off\nfrom a society not their own and restore to them the dignity of a\nnation. I shall in the last chapter of this book contend that the policy\nleading to a solution must repose not upon direct laws of our own\nimagining, not upon reactions which will almost certainly prove\noppressive, and almost certainly be evaded, but upon a general spirit\nrecognizing the separate nationality of the Jews. But though this is\ntrue of every Christian Western State in which they find themselves, it\nis not true of their own nation. They on their side may well come\nforward with propositions which they have the capacity for making,\nbecause they will know how to frame them (as we cannot) after a fashion\nconsistent with their own dignity and their own tradition. There is a\nbeginning of such things already present in the Jewish schools, the\nJewish guardians and the considerable separate organization which the\nJews have openly set up for their community in this country. These\nbeginnings have but to be extended.\n\nThose who are openly hostile to Jews will say that any proposals coming\nfrom their side will conceal a trap. \"This people\" (they say) \"will\nalways suggest things which will seem innocent enough and apparently do\nno more than define their position plainly for the future; but we shall\nfind ourselves caught in an obligation and the Jews more our masters\nthan ever. They will,\" say these objectors, \"remain as they are to-day,\nand while they claim every privilege as a separate community, they will\nalso insist upon the full citizenship which is incompatible with this\nattitude. We shall find that, whatever institutions we ask them to\nframe, those institutions will work not only in their favour but also\nheavily against us.\"\n\nI doubt it. The special Jewish institutions already at work have no such\neffect. On the contrary, they already relieve the strain. One of those\ninstitutions, for instance, is the Jewish press: the newspapers\nspecially devoted to Jewish interests and acting as spokesmen for Jewish\nideas. They are not always as polite as they might be. I have had myself\nat times to lodge a complaint against the way in which they have\ntreated sincere efforts for the settlement of our difficulties and an\nhonest attempt at finding a way out. They have left a handle to their\nenemies sometimes by too insistent or, as those enemies would call it,\ntoo arrogant a claim, and they do write now and then as though we, the\nvast majority, had no rights and the only thing worth considering was\nthe advancement of their own people.\n\nBut, after all, it would be absurd to expect anything else. A small\nminority vigorously fighting its own hand must exaggerate its claim; an\norganism defending itself against very heavy pressure from without\ncannot but appear aggressive, and I shall always maintain that the\npresence of an openly Jewish institution speaking for Jewish interests,\nno matter how insistently, is an excellent thing. It presents a healthy\ncontrast with the converse attempt to present Jewish arguments under the\ncover of neutrality, and to spread Jewish ideas anonymously through what\nare very far from being neutral agents.\n\nIf I be asked what institutions I have in mind I can only repeat that it\nis for the Jews themselves to make the first proposal, but I suggest an\nextension of the system, which is already present in embryo, whereby\ndisputes between Jews shall be arbitrated before a Jewish tribunal. Not\nonly its extension but its confirmation at the request of the Jews\nthemselves, might be a good thing. It would also not be a bad thing\nif--some time hence when things were ripe for the change--disputes\nbetween Jews and non-Jews could be tried in Courts where the special\ncharacter of such disputes, the distinctive difference between them and\ndisputes between the fellow-citizens of the country in which they live,\nshould come before tribunals of a mixed character. To attempt this\nto-day would, of course, be a very new departure in procedure, indeed a\nrevolutionary one; and there is no prospect of it for a long while; but\nwith the growing number among us, and the growing influence, of Jews it\nwill, I think, when it does come at last, be of advantage to both\nparties. It would be fatal if it were imposed upon them. It would not be\naccepted. It would not work. But if it were suggested by the Jewish\ncommunity spontaneously, and started and developed by them, it would\nsucceed. And it would add a great deal to the relief already experienced\nfor the functioning of the other institutions I have mentioned.\n\nThere is little more to be said under this head. Apart from the duty of\nopen dealing and this specific policy of fostering separate institutions\nwe have no claim to press.\n\nAll the main part of the mutual Duty is on _our_ side. Therefore have I\ngiven it the space it seems to deserve and confined to no more than\nthese few lines correlative suggestions for those who, after all, are\nnot responsible to us for their actions and may properly resent the\nairing of _our_ views on the domestic details of their alien\norganization.\n\n\nVARIOUS THEORIES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nVARIOUS THEORIES\n\n\nBefore approaching my conclusion it may be well to review certain\nsubsidiary theories which I have not hitherto touched in my discussion,\nbecause they stand apart from its argument.\n\nThere is a whole group of historical and other theories upon the\nposition of the Jews which either imply that there is no problem, or if\nthere is one that it cannot be solved, or even that if there is a\nproblem it is of a sort that does not need solution, because that\nsolution would be of no practical value.\n\nThere come in the first place those theories upon the international\nposition of the Jews which are frankly non-rational, and which vary from\nthose which may be defended with some show of reason from the history of\nthe past, to those which are wholly imaginary. None of these, even\nthough some one of them should be true, can find much place here because\nnone lends itself to discussion.\n\nThus there is the conception of a curse; the conception that Israel\nmust, until its conversion, suffer a perpetual pilgrimage and perpetual\nhostility. It is a statement bound up with that other popular prophecy\nthat in the last days Israel will be reconciled with the Universal\nChurch. Those who have these ideas at the back of their minds (they are\nmore numerous than modern thought would like to admit), at heart despair\nof any solution, and would not attempt to urge it with any hope of\nsuccess. They say, \"The thing is fated and must continue.\" But even\nthey, I think, must admit that just as philosophy admits a paradox of\ndetermination and free will, so political effort must admit a paradox of\nforeseen failures and our duty, in spite of them, to aim at a political\ngood.\n\nWhether it be indeed true or not, that reconciliation is impossible and\nthat in the long run the quarrel must drag itself out, it is certainly\nprofoundly immoral to look on at the spectacle with no attempt to\nameliorate its evils.\n\nThere is again the theory (which I mention in passing and leave to its\nadherents) that the British and the Jews are in some way mysteriously\nallied by Providence, so that any solution which does not give the\nfullest satisfaction to Israel (no matter at what cost to poor Japhet)\nis treason. These people mystically regard Britain as the handmaid of\nJewry, and there is a section of them who further regard their\nfellow-countrymen as the ten lost tribes. I have in my library some\nspecimens of their literature.\n\nThere is an opposite and, to me, detestable theory (but I must mention\nit because it exists), that the antagonism hitherto found perpetually,\nwhether latent or active, between this people and the world about them\nis the use of the one as a necessary and divine oppressor of the other.\nTo those who hold such a theory I can only reply that two can play at\nthat game, and it certainly absolves those whom they would oppress from\nany obligation whatever of seeking a solution on their side. If a man\nthinks he can do harm to Israel wantonly, without suffering the\nreproaches of his own conscience, he is in error; and I confess that\nwere I free (as I am not in a book of discussion and argument) to\nindulge in mere affirmation I should be inclined to say that those who\nset out with this remarkable object in view will catch a Tartar.\n\nThere is the opposite theory that a special and Divine protection is\nstill exercised, not only for the preservation of the Jews but for\njudgment upon their enemies. _That_ theory, I think, lies at the back of\nmany a Jewish action in history and of much Jewish policy to-day.\nNon-rational, religious in origin, it is, I fancy, to very many of the\nrace which has suffered so much, a consolation and a support.\n\nNow all these non-rational theories (I use the word without any bad\nconnotation: the non-rational--what is often inaccurately called the\nmystical--attitude towards any problem may well be more practical than\nthe rational approach to it) I leave on one side as improper to rational\ndiscussion.\n\nI have heard it maintained, again, by both parties to this debate, that\nthe presence of an alien force, migratory, intense, full of tradition,\nexperience and cohesion, was essential to the height and the activity of\nour own civilization.\n\nThese are not content to discover individual instances of Jewish\nexcellence in the mass around them, or to extend the renown of\nindividual Jewish genius. They are rather concerned with the general\nproposition that _some_ such flux is necessary to the full action of a\nhigh and diverse culture. They tell us that but for the Jew the\ncivilization of Europe would have grown torpid, would have settled into\na fixed groove, incapable of change and of creative progress. The Jew,\nby this theory, is regarded as a sort of activating principle, who,\nwhether as an irritant at the worst, or an inspiration at the best,\nkeeps all our European life agog, and is necessary to its continuous\nbusiness. These also incline to see the Jew at the origin of every great\nmovement in European thought. They see him indirectly producing the vast\ntransformation of the Roman Empire from a pagan, not indeed to a Jew but\nto a Christian, that is (in their eyes) to an Oriental mood. They see\nthe Jew at the root of the great revolutionary philosophy which springs\nfrom the eleventh century and reaches its culmination in the great\nscholastics of the thirteenth. They insist upon the name of Averro\u00ebs\n(Ibn Roshd), the philosopher of the twelfth century, the Kadi of\nCordova: the exponent of Aristotle, the expositor--whom the Jews\npreserved: upon the great Moses ben Maimon, our Maimonides. These also\nput Nicolas de Lyra at the root of the Reformation: \"_Si Lyra non\nlyrasset Luther non saltasset._\" But I may remind them that the Jewish\ncharacter of this man is at least doubtful, that he was of the religious\nOrders of Christendom.\n\nThese also will certainly and with some reason ascribe to Jewish\ninfluence the great economic revolution of the seventeenth century,\nwhich has been followed by so vast an extension of wealth and of\npopulation, though hardly of human happiness.\n\nNow for all this there is certainly something to be said as an aspect of\nhistorical truth. How far it may be extended to cover, as its exponents\nwould make it cover, the whole historical field, may be debated, but I\nwould ask my readers to consider what change we should have seen in the\ndevelopment of Europe if by some magical instrument Jewish influence\nhad been upon some one date removed. It is a theory fascinating, in a\nway applicable, and arresting. It is, at any rate, not nonsense.\n\nIt is particularly true that something in the continuous exercise of\nanalysis by the Jewish intelligence perpetually moves European\nintelligence to action--The great disputations of the Early Middle Ages\nwere, largely, either directly disputations with Jews or disputations\nprovoked by the intellectual attitude of the Jew; and the Jew, in the\nfamous name of Spinoza, stands at the origin of that merely natural,\nthat Lucretian interpretation of the world which continued through\nDescartes to its great expansion in the present day. You find that\nelement in economics as you do in philosophy, in political science as\nyou do in economics; and, talking of economics, it must not be forgotten\nthat the greatest name at the foundation of modern economic science is\nthe name of a Jew, Ricardo, while the most prominent name in the\ndevelopment of its most prominent direct application is also a Jewish\nname--the name of Karl Marx.\n\nIt is not without significance that any one of these names recalls, side\nby side with its Jewish origin, an aloofness from the general community\nof the Jews. That community, I think it is fair to say, abandoned\nSpinoza; Ricardo and, I believe, Karl Marx were alien to the national\nreligion, and the latter married out of his people and exercised his\nenormous influence extraneously to the blood from which his family\nsprang. For though it is true that the _direction_, the _staff_ of\nCommunism is Jewish, yet its convinced adherents are in the mass of our\nblood.\n\nAnd in that connection I am reminded of another theory or fact\nattaching to the history of Israel, which is that the intellectual\nindependence of the Jew has been as marked throughout the ages as his\nsolidarity. There are many, I know, of that nation who regard such\nexceptions as vagaries and almost condemn them as traitors; yet they are\nno small asset to the reputation of their people and their names,\nhowever much they may be repudiated by their compatriots, shed lustre\nupon the whole body from which they sprang. These include (let it be\nremembered) not only the \"sceptical\" philosophers, not only the\nmaterialists, but also those extraordinary exceptions who have lent the\nvigour, the tenacity and the lustre of the Jewish intellect to the\nservice of the Catholic Church. I make bold to say that in no one of the\nFaith has there been more devotion than in those who, like Ratisbonne\n(and he was but one among many), have put such qualities at the service\nof what they have discovered to be alone divine. A cynic might add St.\nPaul, but, for that matter, the whole origin of the Church was\nintermixed with the intense individual efforts of such men.\n\nIn this connection also every wise man will admit that there is no\ngreater error than to exaggerate the consciousness of Jewish action\nwhether the error proceed from those who admire or who detest it. To\nhear their modern opponents talk one might imagine that the Jewish\npeople formed a small club of which every member knew every other while\neach worked in the unison of a disciplined body. That aberration I have\ndealt with more than once upon former pages. The truth is that no nation\non earth presents so many surprising exceptions to its general action\nas does this nation, and that no nation on earth, when it moves in one\ngeneral direction, as it often does, is actuated by a common motive less\nconscious. We who stand outside the Jewish body may mark its cohesion,\nand will mark it, I hope, to its honour; but its own members complain\nrather of its lack of cohesion. I have heard them complain--I know not\nhow often--of the way in which the wealthier Jews left their society for\nthat of an alien body, sneered at the general body of Israel, and\nremained indifferent to the common cry of the race. It is this\nunconsciousness in action, this frequent replacement of motive by\ninstinct which accounts for what all observers have noticed, especially\nin times of persecution. I mean the bewilderment of the oppressed at the\naction of their oppressors.\n\nI remember once listening to a most eloquent speech delivered in the\ncourse of a debate in which, with that long recollection which is\ncharacteristic of his people, an Israelite passionately declaimed the\ngratitude of that people to St. Bernard who saved their remnant upon the\nRhine from the popular fury. I remember also how another in a debate\n(for I have attended many such up and down the country and have heard\nfrom as many aspects as possible what the Jewish attitude towards us is)\nstated simply, in reply to my description of the Jewish financial\nposition in this country after the Conquest: \"Your cathedral and your\nabbeys and even your castles were built with _our_ money.\" The phrase\nwas significant of the way in which what the English community of the\ntime regarded as a tolerated abuse, those fortunes which _they_ never\nthought of as Jewish at all, but as moneys temporarily unjustly wrung\nfrom the people at large, were regarded in contemporary Jewry as private\nproperty legitimately acquired, held in full possession.\n\nI could wish in this connection that some learned Jew would produce a\nHistory of Europe from the point of view of his people: a short\ntextbook, I mean, intended for our consumption; to show us ourselves\nfrom a standpoint very different from our own. It may be that such a\nbook exists. I am certain it would be more useful than those indirect\nattacks (for they are attacks) upon the Christian tradition which\npretend to a spirit of impartiality but are none the less hostile to\nthat tradition in every line. I would much rather read the story of\nEurope as it was seen by a practising Jewish scholar than a so-called\nimpartial and agnostic account which grotesquely represents the Church\nas something external to the body of Europe and even inimical to it.\n\nIn this connection also we should have (what now we lack), and that is a\nconspectus of the Jewish action over Christendom and Islam combined. We\nare aware of the tolerance, or rather favour, displayed to their Jewish\nsubjects by the Mohammedans of Spain. It was neither universal nor\ncontinuous. What we do not sufficiently hear, what we have to piece\ntogether from chance allusions, is the connection between the Moorish\nJews, before and during the Reconquista, and their fellows to the north.\n\nBefore I leave these cursory and sporadic notes on what I have called\nthe \"theories\" upon our problem, I should mention one which would\nunhappily seem to have acquired widespread support to-day and which is\nsurely the least satisfactory of all--even less satisfactory than the\nnow dying fiction which pretended that the Jewish nation was not present\nin our midst, but consisted only of a mass of individuals already\nabsorbed by their alien surroundings. I mean the theory that it is\npossible to continue in a sort of simmering atmosphere of partial\nrepression, with the Jew treated as something alien and hostile, yet his\npresence unceasingly tolerated. That would seem to be the imperfect\nconclusion implied, if not stated, in a hundred modern pamphlets and\ndiscussions, the authors of which repudiate the name of Anti-Semite\nthough they sympathize apparently with action even less logical than the\npolitics of the Anti-Semite. There is no such equilibrium possible, even\nif its establishment were as moral as it is in fact immoral. If a frank\nsolution be not found, nothing firm can be established. All we shall be\nestablishing will be a violent and successive fluctuation. It is\nimpossible to maintain an attitude permanently hostile to one's\nneighbour, yet count on that hostility remaining permanently repressed.\nYou fall inevitably along the slope of such a tendency into those\nexcesses which it should be our whole object to condemn, to foresee and\nto prevent.\n\nYou cannot continue, as so many modern men seem, from their\nconversation, to wish, with political equality on the one side and a\nliving spirit of enmity upon the other. You cannot get peace by giving a\nmere legal definition to the status of a minority, which is also\nnecessarily your neighbour, and refusing a social action consonant with\nthe legal definition. If you try to do that you are trying to do two\nthings, one of which will destroy the other. No one can doubt which\nwill be victorious in a conflict between a living sentient motive and a\nmere definition in public law.\n\nOne attitude towards the question which I have heard fairly often in the\nmouths of Jews and seen in their writings is something like this: \"Our\naffairs have nothing to do with people outside our nation. This\ndiscussion of what you call 'the Jewish problem' is an impertinence upon\nyour part. There is a Jewish problem indeed, but it is a domestic\nproblem, and we request you (with some asperity) to mind your own\nbusiness.\"\n\nIf this attitude were sound, the search for what I have called a\nsolution, though it might satisfy the intelligence, would be a breach of\ncivic morals. In the same way it would be a breach of civic morals for\nme to work out a solution for the quarrel between Mr. Jones and his\nmother-in-law, neither of whom I have ever met and with whom I have no\nrelations, and then to press this solution upon the contending parties.\nBut the flaw in this attitude is that the problem is essentially one\ninvolving two parties, the Jews and the non-Jews. The problem we are\nattempting to solve is a problem expressed in terms of both. Some would\neven say that there is hardly a domestic question within the Jewish\nnation which does not have its reaction upon society outside it, and\nwhich it is not the business of that society outside to inquire into.\nThat would be pressing things rather far. But the main problem is\nintimately concerned with both parties and as much with the one as with\nthe other. It is true, indeed, that the consequences of a false\nsolution, or of shirking the solution altogether, would be more acute\nfor the Jew than for us; but we should both suffer, and even on our\nside the suffering would be grievous.\n\nEven if there were no question of suffering in the ordinary sense of the\nterm, there would still be the question of justice. The Jews who resent\na statement of the problem and an attempt at solving it are not doing\ntheir own people any good and are at the same time denying us the right\nof putting our own affairs in order, which denial is, of course,\nintolerable: for the position of the Jews in our great States and in\nIslamic society is something which those States and that society have to\ndetermine. They cannot leave it in the air. To some conclusion they\n_must_ come, and soon, and on the nature of that conclusion depends\ntheir peace.\n\nTwo theories, proceeding from very different states of mind, the\nopposite each of the other, but each exclusive of any solution, spring\nfrom the root idea that there is something inexorably malignant in the\nrelations between the Jew and his surroundings. In the one form this\ntakes the shape of affirming that the unfortunate Jew is invariably\nill-treated by his wicked hosts and always will be so ill-treated. In\nthe other it takes the form of saying that the wicked Jew will always be\nconspiring and trying to hurt his good, kind hosts and always will be so\nconspiring. In either case it is no good trying to find a solution, for\nit is affirmed that the quarrel is in the nature of things. People will\nsay to one, \"Why attempt to change something which cannot be changed?\nWhy talk of your material as something other than what it is? Cats will\nalways quarrel with dogs, and if you want to avoid a quarrel the only\nthing to do is to keep the dogs and cats of your household apart.\"\n\nIt is precisely because I do not believe either form of this idea to be\ntrue that I have sought for a solution. I do not believe either form of\ndoctrine to be true because the evidence is against it. That evidence is\nto my hand and can be examined by my own unaided powers, as it can be\nexamined by any other person in our modern society. I cannot recollect\none single case in all the hundreds of Jews I have come across--not one\nin the score whom I can count as intimates--who showed any sign of this\nmalignant hatred. I have heard many outbursts of exasperation which,\nwhen we think of the past, are natural enough; but of some persistent\nand evil desire to hurt those among whom they live, some instinctive\ndesire unconnected with past suffering, and acting as a sort of\ninstinct, I have seen no trace. If such were to be discovered in some\nexceptional Jew out of a large acquaintance I should conclude that it\nmight be true of a small minority, but common sense and common\nexperience are sufficient to show that it does not affect the mass.\n\nOf the causes of friction, even of acute friction, which I have\nenumerated in former pages, there is the habit of secrecy, there is the\nmutual contempt, arising in each from a sense of superiority over the\nother; there is the quarrel between what is national and what is\ninternational, between what is of us and what is alien. There are, in a\nword, plenty of elements suggesting accidental antagonism, but of\nintrinsic antagonism there is no evidence--there is no evidence, I mean,\nthat the Jews would still desire to destroy a society in which they\nfound themselves at their ease.\n\nAnd, if we examine ourselves, we shall be equally convinced that there\nis no corresponding desire upon our side to do a wrong to the Jew. We\nalso are exasperated by the memory of insult in moments of quarrel, of\ninternational action opposing our national interests and of friction\nbetween what is native and what is alien; but that is a very different\nthing from permanent and necessary antagonism. I know very well what is\ncalled \"modern thought\" gives to the unconscious part of man a large\nplace and reduces, as much as it can, the field of reason. I cannot\nagree with it. It seems to me that man is essentially rational; and his\npolitical relations can be arranged consonantly with his conscious\nmorals and his conscious logic.\n\nAt any rate, if they cannot, there is an end of all statesmanship and of\nall useful political action even in details.\n\nNext, there are the two converse attitudes towards the question which\ncertainly are affecting, the one an increasing audience upon our side\nand the other perhaps an interested though but secret audience upon the\nother; I mean those two converse theories whereby, on the one side,\nthere is the Messianic idea of the Jew ultimately controlling the world,\non the other an extreme dread of that idea and a belief that it is being\nactively pursued to the destruction of our institutions and religion.\n\nI can understand that, with the traditions of his race behind him and\nwith the tone of their sacred writings in his ears, a Jew should lean in\nsome degree to such a conception, or at any rate that some Jews should\nlean towards it. Certainly in face of the ridiculously exaggerated power\nof the Jews in recent times (it is now declining, for secrecy was of its\nessence and it has now been brought into the arena of open discussion)\nit was natural that men should fall into the exaggeration of panic. They\nsaw the Jew, a tiny fraction of most communities, not more than a\ntwentieth of any community, exercising a power quite out of proportion\nto his numbers or, indeed, to his ability; and they saw that power\ndirected towards ends which were Jewish ends and therefore hostile or\nindifferent to the rest of mankind. But my reason for rejecting not only\nexaggerations of this idea but its fundamental implication is that it\nseems to me practically impossible. It connotes abilities upon the\nJewish side, a continuous will upon the Jewish side, both of which are\nobviously absent. And you have only to look at history to see that long\nbefore things come to anything like a struggle for supremacy it is the\nJew who suffers most from the suspicion of holding such a design, not\nwe. Indeed, that is one of the important elements in the dangerous\nsituation which has been created to-day.\n\nThat large and greatly increasing body of men who so fear Jewish\ndomination, and are vigorously reacting against the Jews under the\ninfluence of that fear, are much more likely to end with injustice to\nthe Jew than with subservience to him. It is from this atmosphere that\nthe great misfortunes of the past have arisen. It is of the essence of\nany solution that this mood should be exorcised upon the one side as\nupon the other.\n\nThere is another theory which I have read of in more than one learned\nJewish treatise and which has been repeated (after Jewish authors\nthemselves had launched it) by many non-Jewish societies and historians,\nto the effect that the very survival of the Jews, their very existence\nas a separate community, was due to conditions common in the past, now\ndisappeared, and that therefore the present difficulties can safely be\nleft to time.\n\nThis is, of course, to make the general assertion that the Jewish race\ncan be absorbed, and that absorption is the solution. That conclusion I\nsummarily rejected in the earlier pages of this book on the historical\nground that it has had the most favourable circumstances for success and\nyet has always failed. But in the particular case stated it has an\nargument of its own and one needing very special examination: it is\nthis:--\n\nThose who defend this theory tell us that however favourable the\nopportunities for absorption were in the past they are nothing to the\nopportunities of the present and the future, and that therefore the\nargument from history fails. In the past (they tell us) the Jews were\nexclusive and even made of their exclusiveness a religion. They on their\nside mixed as little as possible with the world around them and we on\nour side maintained that exclusion by an equal insistence upon the\ndifference between ourselves and them. We had in those days, it is\nmaintained, a religion based upon the Incarnation and therefore\nabhorrent to the Jew; that religion is dead or dying, and with it the\ntendency to exclusion from outside has disappeared; while on the Jewish\nside there is also a great weakening of the old religious bond, less of\nthe old Messianic dogma, and on both sides the enormous melting-pot[3]\nthat makes for absorption with an intensity and rapidity quite unknown\nin the past. It was one thing to absorb the Jew when it took a month to\ngo as an ordinary traveller from London to Rome, it is another thing\nwhen it takes three days. It was one thing to absorb the Jew when in the\ngreater part of cases there was a bar to the mixing of the races, based\nupon the nerves of religion, it is quite another thing to absorb the Jew\nwhen those most powerful of emotional forces have disappeared--and so\nforth.\n\nNow the reasons which bring me to reject this theory are two-fold.\n\nIn the first place, I think it exaggerates the contrast between the past\nand the present. In the second place, I know that in the actual world\nbefore me and precisely under those conditions where the fusion, the\naction of the \"melting-pot,\" ought to be most complete, the most violent\nreaction against absorption is to be observed.\n\nAs to the contrast between the past and the present, I think it is based\nupon an imperfect apprehension of what our past has been. It comes of\nthat \"telescoping up\" of history to which I alluded in another\nconnection in my second chapter.\n\nThe long story of our race between the Roman occupation of Jud\u00e6a and the\nmodern local and ephemeral industrial phase of the great modern towns is\nnot divided into two chapters, the strange past and the comprehensible\npresent. It is much of a muchness. The constant developments which\nastonish us to-day in physical science, for instance, are not more\nremarkable than the vast new developments in architecture and philosophy\nwhich marked the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The disturbance of\nthought which may be called \"modern scepticism\" is not anything like so\nimportant a spiritual change as that tremendous revolution which we call\nthe conversion of the Roman Empire. The area of scepticism is not larger\nto-day than it has been in many special periods of the past. The feeling\nof strong religious emotion which forbids this or that action is still\npresent among us, sometimes attached to its older objects, sometimes (as\nin the craze for prohibition) to some novel object. The indifference\nwhich you will find to the particular religious barrier between Jew and\nnon-Jew is not peculiar to our times. It has come and gone in the past;\nafter a wave of such indifference you have had a wave of the most acute\nreaction, and I think you are observing a wave of such reaction to-day.\n\nNor do I see how the rapidity of mere physical communications affects\nthe matter, nor even how the volume of emigration affects the matter.\nYou can get a million Jews from Lithuania to New York--a distance of\n5,000 miles--in less time than you could get a million Jews from the\nValley of the Rhine into Poland some centuries ago; but the million Jews\nseem to remain Jews just the same under modern conditions as they did in\nthe past. Indeed, the toleration of Jews, the friendly reception of\nthem, and therefore the opportunities for their absorption were\nindefinitely greater in mediaeval Poland than they are in modern\nAmerica. It seems to me that the whole of this part of the argument is\nbased upon that prevalent view of history which comes from reading our\nlittle modern text-books: and our little modern text-books are very\nrubbishy. It is a view which comes from that absurd emphasis upon\nwhatever is contemporary. The modern advance of physical science is\nregarded as having totally changed the world inwardly as well as\noutwardly. We have only to look at the modern world and to compare it\nwith any _two_ distant, special periods we know, to discover that the\ndifference between any pair of these three is equally striking. In many\nways the modern world is much more like the world of the Antonines than\nit is like the world of Innocent the Great. In many ways the world of\nInnocent the Great is much more like the Roman Empire than the modern\nworld. In many ways the world of Innocent the Great and our world have\nmore in common than either has with the pagan Roman Empire. The general\nlesson is, therefore, that our time, with all its remarkable\nspecialities, is but one specimen out of a great number equally\nindividual, and certainly there is nothing in it either of religious\nscepticism breaking down old religious barriers or of rapidity of\ncommunication, or of any other fundamental factor, which specially\nsuggests the absorption of the Jew.\n\nFor instance, the Jews mixed much more readily, on a much more equal\nfooting and with far less friction among the Mohammedans at particular\nperiods during the Islamic occupation of Spain than they do even in\nEngland to-day. Yet they were not absorbed there, any more than they\nwere absorbed in Poland. They were not absorbed into that older,\ntolerant, very denationalized pagan Roman world where they so often had\nfull civic rights and where they even manipulated, as they manipulate\nto-day, the finances of the community.\n\nAs for the decay of exclusiveness on their part, I see no sign of it.\nFor this exclusiveness proceeds not so much from a particular\nobservance which may relax at one period and tighten up at another, as\nfrom an invariable national tradition which fluctuates in intensity but\nnever sinks so low as to jeopardize the continuance of the people.\n\nIf we turn from argument to observation, the falsity of the theory\nstares us in the face. We have but to take one point, where the metaphor\nof the \"melting-pot\" most applies (and to which it was originally\napplied), the city of New York. What has been the effect of this great\ninflux of Jews into New York, this turning of New York into a city a\nthird Jewish under our eyes and in so short a space of time? As we all\nknow, the effect has been the uprising, in that once indifferent\natmosphere, of such a feeling against the Jews as would appal us did we\nsee it in the Old World. It is red hot. It is an intense reaction\nexpressing itself with greater and greater violence every day; and the\nspirit of that reaction cannot be better expressed than in a phrase\nwhich we owe, I think, to Mr. Ford and his famous propaganda against the\nJews, through his paper the \"Dearborn Independent.\" \"It is all very well\nto talk of the melting-pot,\" says he, \"but so far from the Jews melting\nin that pot, _it looks as though they wanted to melt the pot itself_.\"\n\nThere you have, in New York, if anywhere, an opportunity for the theory\nof absorption to prove itself. You have present in the field a score of\ndifferent races, including great masses of a race so utterly different\nfrom ours as the negro. You have a certain small proportion of Chinamen\nand you have of European stocks an indefinite variety--most of them in\nlarge numbers. You have not only in local establishments or even only\nin civic theory, but in actual practice--in enthusiastic practice--a\ncomplete equality and a positive pride in the reception of no matter\nwhat elements of immigration, in the certitude that all can rapidly be\nmoulded into the American form. Most of these elements were absorbed,\nand absorbed rapidly; where they were not absorbed there was at least\npeace between them. Then arrives the Jew and a totally new situation at\nonce appears. A situation of challenge, of provocation, of admitted\nexclusion, of violent debate and even of clamour: but no sign of\nabsorption. In presence of all the elements that should make for\nabsorption, difference and hatred between Jew and non-Jew is growing in\nNew York with the vitality of a tropical plant.\n\nThere is yet another theory which, if it were not widely held and if it\nhad not been advanced by so many Jews themselves, I should leave aside\nas something comic, something unfit for serious discussion. But it has\nbeen advanced and it must be met. It is no less than the theory that\nthere are no such people as the Jews, that the whole thing is illusion.\n\nThis monstrous affirmation is based, I need hardly say, upon what is\ncalled a \"scientific\" examination of the affair: for that word\n\"scientific\" has come to be associated with every kind of unreason. Men,\nespecially Jewish men, have been found to affirm most solemnly that they\nhad measured skulls, taken sections of hair, catalogued the colours of\neyes, established facial angles, analysed blood, and applied I know not\nhow many other tricks, with the result that no Jewish type could be\ndiscovered! People who can reason thus do not seem to appreciate the\nfundamental quarrel between nominalism and realism, or to have heard of\nthe old philosophic joke on the definition of \"a thing.\"\n\nWe know a horse to be a horse, an apple to be an apple, a Chinaman to be\na Chinaman, or a Jew to be a Jew by some process on which philosophers\ncan debate, but upon the virtue of which no sane man doubts and upon the\nright action of which we base all our lives. The chemist may tell me\nthat the chemical analysis of a lump of coal gives the same result as\nthe chemical analysis of a diamond, to which any man capable of using\nhis reason at all will reply that upon a very large number of other\nlines of analysis, colour, touch, combustibility, hardness and softness,\neconomic value, prevalence (and so on indefinitely), the two are _not_\nthe same. No analysis is complete, and if we had made no conscious\nanalysis at all, we could still perceive at once that a lump of coal is\nnot a diamond.\n\nIt is just the same with these pseudo-scientific attempts to disprove\nobvious truth. They pullulate and they are all equally ridiculous\nbecause they deduce from insufficient data. The existence and\ndifferentiation of the Jewish people as a race ethnically and as a\nnation politically is as much a fact as the existence of coal or\ndiamonds. They are a nation politically because they act as a nation,\nbecause their individual members feel and exercise a corporate function.\nWe know them to be a separate race because we can see that they are.\nWhen you meet a Jew, whether you are his enemy or his friend, you meet a\nJew. He has a certain expression, a certain manner, certain physical\ncharacteristics which you may not be able to analyse at the moment you\nsee him, but which give you the impression and the certitude that you\nare dealing with a particular thing, to wit, the Jewish race. It is\ntrue, of course, that the type, like all general types, fades off at the\nedges, and there will always be cases where you may be in doubt of\nwhether you are dealing with a Jew or with a non-Jew, but there is a\nmarked central type round which the Jewish racial type is built up. That\nis as certain as that there is a Mongolian type, or a negroid type, and\nso forth.\n\nI do not take the objection very seriously. I only note it because it\n_has_ been made, and may crop up in the course of any discussion on this\ngrave political issue.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[3] I borrow the metaphor from Mr. Zangwill, who applied it to New York\nparticularly. I apply it to the whole modern industrial world.\n\n\nHABIT OR LAW?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nHABIT OR LAW?\n\n\nIf it be true that the friction between the Jew and the civilization in\nwhich he lives is aggravated by his habit of secrecy and by our\ndisingenuousness, by his expression of a sense of superiority which\ngalls us, and on our side by a lack of charity and of intelligence in\ndealing with him, it would follow that no solution can be more than\napproximate: that whatever arrangement be come to the contrast will\nremain, and with it a certain latent friction, which always accompanies\ncontrast.\n\nBut there is between a simmering of that kind and the active boiling of\nthe question to-day (with the threat of its boiling _over_) all the\ndifference in the world. But even though the solution be imperfect, it\nmight be reasonably stable: we might at least have peace, though not\nfriendship. It further follows from the elements of the problem that the\nsolution lies along the lines of either party modifying whatever in its\naction is an irritant to the other; whatever, that is, can be modified\nby the will, and is not mixed up with something ineradicable.\n\nThe Jew cannot help feeling superior, but he can help the expression of\nthat superiority--at any rate he can modify such expression. He can\ncertainly, though it be at a great expense of tradition and habit, get\nrid of that pestilent pseudo-defence of secrecy which poisons all the\nrelations between him and ourselves. We on our side can drop what is the\nconverse of that secrecy, the disingenuousness, the lack of candour,\ninto which we are fallen in our relations with the Jew. That cannot but\nmean a great breach with our tradition and with habit also, but the\nadvantage is worth the sacrifice. We can (it must be the work of each\nindividual, it cannot be a corporate work) approach the Jew with more\nrespect and yet with more frequency. We can, I think, advance by many\ndegrees from the lack of charity we now show, even if we despair of\nliving in real intimacy with a people so different in their deepest\nqualities from ourselves.\n\nPersonally, I am not sure that such closer intimacy might not be\nestablished; I have never found any difficulty in reaching and retaining\nintimate acquaintance with the Jews of my own circle--but I may have\nbeen fortunate. I know that with most of my fellows it is not so, and\nperhaps the Jew will always remain to the mass of those about him\nsomething strange and unapproachable, and I fear, repulsive. But there\nis no reason, why we should mix with that hesitation in our relations an\nelement of indifference, still less of contempt, still less, again, of\ncruelty.\n\nI repeat the formula for a solution: it is recognition and respect.\n\nRecognition is here no more than the telling of the truth: there is a\nJewish nation. Jews are citizens of that nation; and recognition means\nnot only the telling of this truth on special occasions but the use of\nit as a regular habit in our relations on both sides.\n\nThis statement is, upon any just analysis of the Jewish question, so\nobvious and so simple, that it needs neither insistence upon it nor\ndevelopment. Its plain statement is sufficient. But there attaches to a\nsolution so determined a much more active and complicated question, upon\nthe uncertainty of which not only this reform but many another has made\nshipwreck. The question must be answered rightly, because, if we answer\nit wrongly, the whole scheme fails.\n\nThe question is this: Should the social habit, the general method in\nwriting and speaking and in all relations, precede in this case the\ninstitutional action, legal changes, constitutional definitions? Or\nshould the legal changes, the new institutions, the constitutional\ndefinitions come first?\n\nTo decide rightly is of great moment, for this reason, that a wrong\ndecision may destroy all the effect of goodwill.\n\nIn my judgment the wrong decision would be that which would give\nprecedence to legal change, to new definitions, to new institutions, and\nattempt out of them to build a new spirit. I take it that this reversal\nof the true order would make all stable peace impossible.\n\nIt must be admitted, of course, that changes suggested by the Jews\nthemselves, the development of their own institutions, a voluntary\nsegregation of their community in other fields than those in which they\nhave already effected that segregation, stand in another category. These\nnew and definitely Jewish institutions we should always welcome. But the\nattempt at framing public regulations, which are to defend the community\nas a whole against an alien minority, when that minority must live with\none permanently and as a regular feature of the life of the community,\ninvariably tends to oppression, if such regulations are made the first\nsteps in a settlement instead of being left, as they should be, to the\nlast. Any separatist legislation should arise naturally out of a long\npractice and full recognition of the Jews as a separate people and of\nthe accompaniment of that recognition with respect. If the advance is\nmade on our side, the Jew may refuse any such bargain. He may dig his\nheels in and insist, as many another privileged class has insisted\nbefore him, that he will continue to enjoy all that he has ever enjoyed,\nthat he will continue his demand for a dual allegiance, that he will\ninsist on the very fullest recognition as a Jew, and at the same time on\nwhat is fatal to such recognition, the fullest recognition as a member\nof our own community.\n\nIf he does _that_ (and there are those who tell us he will certainly do\nso, and will refuse all reform), then the community will be compelled to\nlegislate in spite of him. It will be perilous for him and for us; it\nmay even be the beginning of grievous trouble for both, but it will be\ninevitable. It will appear in a mass of legislation all over Europe,\nwhich will affect this country with the rest.\n\nThe present situation cannot last indefinitely. It is already uncertain\neven here, in England; it has reached further stages on the road to ruin\nelsewhere. But if the Jew sees the peril in time, and appreciates the\nnature of that change, the beginnings of which we have all seen and\nwhich is proceeding at so great a pace, then relations can be\nestablished out of which (later) formal rules, acceptable to both\nparties, should proceed. And in that case it would be, I repeat, the\ngravest of errors to initiate new positive laws and a new status before\na foundation had been prepared by the re-establishment of honest\nrelations; and that can only be done by a frank admission of reality, by\nthe open and continual admission everywhere that Israel is a nation\napart, is not, and cannot be, of us, and shall not be confounded with\nourselves.\n\nThere is great temptation to delay, because the acuteness of the problem\nis not felt here as yet, among the well-to-do, and still more because it\ndiffers in different communities. The peril seems still far distant from\nus, though it may be at the very door of our neighbours. Routine, the\ninheritance of the immediate past, the false security produced by the\nconventions of that past, may well tempt those who dislike the effort of\na change to shirk that change. But I would ask any intelligent and\nthoughtful Jew who still thinks he can rely upon the false position of\nthe nineteenth century whether the same forces are there to support him\nto-day as were present then?\n\nTake a particular example. In Poland and in Roumania the old fiction has\nbeen temporarily imposed by force. The Jew, who in both these countries\nis felt to be more alien than any other foreign European could be, is\nimposed upon the Government and society of each country by the Western\nGovernments as a full citizen. The strain here is immensely aggravated\nbecause it arose not from the nature of society but from the action of\noutsiders; the English, the French, the American Governments (but\nparticularly the American and the English) have erected in Eastern\nEurope this unstable, unjust and artificial state of affairs. It cannot\nlast, for it is unreal.\n\nThe communities in question may make no laws which recognize the Jew;\nalternatively, the door is open for oppression: and the moment the hated\nforeign interference weakens, oppression will come.\n\nWell, when under the pressure of a real social difficulty and a crucial\none, the unreal settlement is torn up, by the passing of new laws\nrecognizing the Jew (but harshly, and under no agreement with him) or by\nactual hostility, does the Jew in his heart of hearts think that he\nwould have the same support from the West now as he would have had\nthirty years ago? He knows very well he would not.\n\nThirty years ago you would have got from all the traditional Liberalism\nof France, from the great bulk of its governing class and the whole of\nits academic organization, from what was then the solid and still\nrespected body of old Republicans, an immediate answer to the Jewish\nappeal. In England that answer would have been unanimous and\nenthusiastic. You would have had torrents of leading articles, great\npublic meetings, Cabinet Ministers speechifying all over the place in\nthe sacred cause of toleration. Every one knows that to-day the appeal\nof the Eastern Jews, though it might still be supported officially,\nwould be received by the public with indifference. Ten years hence it\nmay be received with derision.\n\nOr take another example. Let us suppose--it is highly probable--that the\nZionist experiment breaks down, that Englishmen refuse to have their\nsoldiers' lives risked in a quarrel which is not their own and refuse to\nsupport out of their inordinate taxation a top-heavy colony which gives\nthem no advantage and concerns them not at all. On the breakdown of that\nexperiment, should it come soon, would there still be the support for\nits re-establishment that you would have had even ten years ago? There\ncertainly would not. Ten years hence it is probable enough that you\nwould get, not indifference to such re-establishment, but the most\nactive hostility. All over the world the stream has turned in the same\ndirection.\n\nUnfortunately the effect of that change has been to excite hatred rather\nthan a desire for a settlement and to move men towards blind action\nrather than towards a reasoned examination of the difficulty. That is\nwhy the thing seems to me urgent, although there are still large areas\nof Western society in which its urgency is masked and half forgotten.\n\nWhen I say \"_urgent_\" I mean that this my essay, which is to-day still\nto the point, and the solution recommended in which is still feasible,\nmay very well, within the lifetime of its writer, become old-fashioned\nout of all recognition. The peaceful settlement here proposed with\ndeliberate vagueness and softness of outline may seem in a few years as\nout of date, as unreal through the intervening change, as do to-day the\nold tags about the purity of parliamentary life and the seriousness of\nparty politics.\n\nMy solution may appear at the end of this generation as mildly\ninapplicable to the acute situation _then_ arisen between the Jews and\nourselves as appear to-day the old debates on the very tentative demand\nfor Home Rule in the '80's. Let us act as soon as possible and settle\nthe thing while there is yet time. For in the swirl and rapids of the\nmodern world, which grow not less as towards a calm, but more intense as\ntowards a cataract, every great debate takes on with every year a\nstronger form, a nearer approach to conflict; and none more than the\nimmemorial debate, still unconcluded, between Islam and Christendom and\nthe Beni-Israel.\n\nBut for my part, I say, \"Peace be to Israel.\"\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by_ Butler & Tanner, _Frome and London_.","title":"The Jews","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":79536}