On the last day of December, 1955, there died at Miami Beach, Florida, an aged Jew named Ludwig Lewisohn. The event was notable; for by it American Jewry was relieved of its most eloquent spokesman — and most incorrigible beans-spiller. Lewisohn had dedicated his mature years and ripe literary talent unstintingly to the work of rhapsodizing his race; but he never made an effort to camouflage the true Jewish character for the sake of appeasing the Gentiles. The creature he celebrated, and dangled defiantly before the eyes of the world, was the naked, unvarnished article: the Jew as he is.
For Lewisohn, it is the Jews’ glory, never to be concealed, that they are the enemies of Christ (“a teacher neither original nor important”) and of His Church (“a new Paganism with its thousand altars to its hundred gods”). Moreover, in a fever of racial revelation, he presents his people as unshakeable foes of the very culture, the civilization which Christianity has begotten. “We are a different folk,” he blurts out in one book; “we do remain eternally ourselves ... So soon as I express the inmost me — not the economic man or the mere man of knowledge — I come into collision with folk-ways and beliefs and laws ... Civilizations express in their totality an ethos which is definite, however hard to sum up in a formula ... And the ethos which from within outward built Christian civilization is not ours.”
Though many Jews chewed their nails over Lewisohn’s disclosures, a greater number felt it was high time for this frank statement of their position. As a tribute to him, Lewisohn was invited to bellow out his final years as the star of new, Jewish Brandeis University. The general feeling was well-expressed by one rabbi, who said of the book from which the above quotations are taken, “The soul of Israel is revealed in its glorious pages.”
And this brings us to the grim consideration: what will be the result of the ever-growing influence of Jews in the United States? Clearly and inescapably, unless this influence is checked it will mean the end of our society. Our traditions, our standards, our ways are not the Jews’ — who neither approve them nor understand them, and who will destroy them if they can. On this point, too, Lewisohn is emphatic. Example: “The laws of the state of New York are based on the Christian assumption that marriage is a sacrament.” The disgrace of New York Jewry, he continues, is that it has not yet demanded “exemption from laws which have no relation to its instincts, its tradition, or its reason.”
Inasmuch, then, as Jews have had no part in shaping the culture of Christendom, how can they, Lewisohn wonders, become “culturally creative”? And he answers: “Only by being steadfastly themselves and Judaizing the civilizations of their homelands.”
Some random aspects of what this “Judaizing” means, and is going to mean, are indicated in the following paragraphs.
For years the Jews kept hammering at this criterion, and at the Christian belief underlying it: that man has normally the ability to distinguish and choose between a right deed and a wrong one. This concept, the Jews argued, was a medieval hold-over with no place in a modern court of law — where it should be recognized that right and wrong are, at best, relative notions, since “what is right for me may be wrong for you.”
In 1954, in the now-famous “Durham Case,” the Jews got what they wanted. The Durham decision, written by Jewish Federal Judge David Bazelon, finally and flatly rejects the “right-wrong test and puts a new code in its place. From now on, decreed Jewish Judge Bazelon, the question of criminal responsibility will hinge simply on whether or not the “unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
And who is qualified to say if it was so? Why, the Jewish psychiatrist, of course! He is the one who can determine the mental state of the accused and decide whether or not the crime was the “product” of that mental state.
At present, this represents the Jews’ main penetration into our legal structure. But they’re not resting. They are anxious to pursue their present advantage to its logical conclusion. The book Psychiatry and the Law, the Jews’ classic work on the subject, outlines the ultimate goal: “After the defendant has been found guilty ... the decision as to what kind of treatment is needed calls for ... the psychiatrist ... Fixing the sentence should therefore either be taken from the judge entirely and vested in a tribunal of experts ... or ... the sentence should be a wholly indeterminate one, under which the person would be held as long as necessary, whether that be for a few days or for the rest of his life.”
It should be noted that this sentence is to be imposed regardless of the crime committed — so that, at the whim of an anti-Christian quack, a murderer may be turned loose on the public after a week’s confinement, whereas an uncooperative petty thief may be held till he dies, whether of old age or of “treatments.”
Other courtroom activities of the Jews include agitation to abolish capital punishment. Though they have been assisted in this by a number of soft-hearted, soft-headed Catholics, it remains a solidly Jewish venture. Locally, for instance, heading the small but shrill Massachusetts Council for the Abolition of the Death Penalty is Mrs. Herbert Ehrman, wife of the top New England official of the American Jewish Committee. While as far away as England, the recent bill for ending capital punishment in the realm was authored and introduced by one Sydney Silverman, M.P.
One immediate effect of getting rid of the death sentence will be to increase sharply the dangers of being a policeman. Many desperate criminals, already facing life terms, would be willing to shoot it out with the police or kill a prison guard in a nothing-to-lose gamble for freedom. And this, too, would seem to fit in quite nicely with Jewish purposes. For American “entertainment” — that most effective instrument of Jewish propaganda — has been ardently engaged of late in portraying our police officers as a collection of clowns, dunderheads, and racketeering brutes whom we would be much better off without. The Jews apparently feel that a police force — the non-U. N. variety — is a hindrance to the Judaizing of our culture.
Undoubtedly, they are right.
Although there have been notable successes for the Jews in other localities, New York City, quite understandably, remains the headquarters for the Jewish anti-Sunday war. All battle plans are there cleared through an organization called the “Joint Committee for a Fair Sabbath Law,” which represents at least 25 Jewish groups. At the strategy-helm of the “Joint Committee” is Mr. Leo Pfeffer, of the ubiquitous trio of Pfeffer, Polier, and Maslow, top lawyers for the American Jewish Congress. It is Pfeffer’s dream that some Sunday in the near future, America’s Jewish-owned Main Streets will be bustling with all the commercial activity of “any ordinary day” — and that “business as usual” will smother all public witness to the sanctity of our Christian day of rest.
That New York’s Cardinal-Archbishop should have been stirred to any kind of defense of Sunday is, of course, a tribute to the extreme effectiveness of the Jewish “Joint Committee.” Unquestionably, one of the occasions of His Eminence’s anxiety was the report which appeared in the New York Sunday News for last April 8.
It seems that one Sol Sacks, a Manhattan Certified Public Accountant, had hit upon the idea of having his staff hired out on Sunday — allowing his clients to have their business affairs checked and put in order, with no interruption in the regular work week. Before long, the city’s police department got wind of Mr. Sack’s scheme, and one Sunday morning as Sol had just unleashed a force of 25 workers at Number 40 Wall Street, a New York patrolman presented him with a summons charging violation of the Sabbath Law.
Sacks, accompanied by his attorney, Jacob Shientag, was brought to trial before a fellow-Jew, Magistrate Charles Solomon, in Lower Manhattan Court. The proceedings were quite brief, and very much to the point — to the Jewish point that “the Sunday Blue Law is a statutory crazy-quilt” (as the News put it). Magistrate Solomon concluded the “trial” with one final Jewish sneer at all that Sunday represents: “Nonsense! Case Dismissed!”
In conjunction with the Israel-can-do-no-wrong propaganda, there has been a determined program to keep Americans unaware of the gross injustices, by our standards, which Israel, with Jewish standards, has perpetrated in the Middle East. When the United Nations, that town meeting of world Jewry, first decided to hand over the Holy Land as an autonomous state for the Jews, there was no time lost in dispossessing and expelling every indigenous Arab who was in the way. So messy did the affair become that even a small group of U. N. people (Gentiles, of course) thought that something should be done for the unfortunate Arab “refugees.” The gentleman who dared propose this plan, Count Bernadotte of Sweden, was promptly shot by the Israelis.
The number of new Arab refugees resulting from the Zionist police state’s latest aggressions, in Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, has not yet been calculated. But we are assured that there will be no Jewish remorse over the situation. Speaking recently in Boston, Russian-born Golda Meir, Israel’s Foreign Ministress, said very plainly that if the decision to invade Egypt were once more hers to make, then, “As I did it before, I would do it again!”
A few days after Mrs. Meir’s speech, Monsignor Peter Tuohy, head of the Pontifical Mission for Palestine, called upon the Christian nations to work immediately for the “repatriation of the Arab refugees and internationalization of Jerusalem.” Although there were few sympathetic ears to hear his plea, Monsignor Tuohy was merely repeating the unswerving position of the Holy See in the matter of Israel: (1) Jerusalem with its Holy Places must not be in the possession of the Jews, and (2) the ousted Arabs, a surprising number of whom are Catholics, must not be left homeless and starving in the deserts beyond the Israeli borders.
To emphasize this position, the Vatican has consistently turned down the bold Jewish proposals that diplomatic relations be maintained between the Holy See and Israel. Taking a lead from this, American Catholics might follow The Point ’s example of severing all relations with Israel’s citizens-in-exile, the Jews of America. Such decisive action could well be the beginning of justice for the victims of Zionism, and protection for the sacred shrines of the Holy Land.