Digest of World Press Opinion

The Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia, speaking of the lecture delivered by James W. Gerard which provoked much comment by the Jews throughout the United States, comes to the following conclusion:

The unpleasant experience of the Hon. James W. Gerard in connection with a lecture which he delivered at a synagogue forum in New Jersey, calls attention to the ever-increasing practice of introducing extension lectures and forums by various congregations throughout the land, a valuable aid in extending adult Jewish education, deserving commendation and encouragement.

Planned courses, even though given by such whose names do not occupy many columns in “Who’s Who,” are of greater value than the promiscuous lectures delivered by persons who have become famous for one reason or another and whose names have thus become household words. The sporadic lectures, too, should also have a definite purpose of bringing information and enlightenment and not merely entertainment. There is so much to be learned about Jewish life of the past and of the present that we cannot afford to waste time on matters that are only remotely associated with Jewry, simply because the speaker is likely to draw a crowd because of his reputation in other fields. In many congregations this important principle is recognized and followed to the great advantage of their own membership and of the community. It is a pity, however, that some are still deluded by high sounding names, and have not yet learned to distinguish between the subject and the speaker, thus depriving themselves of the real value of such projects and exposing themselves to many an unpleasantness and to some real dangers.

THE NUMBER OF JEWS IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY

The Jewish Criterion, which is published in Pittsburgh, proves why American Jews can entertain no sympathetic feelings towards Bolshevism. Rabbi Samuel M. Gup, in an article in that paper, writes:

The Jews of America are by nature opposed to Bolshevism. They oppose it because it sets up a dictatorial rule. Under its aegis, a small group arbitrarily determines the life of the masses. No freedom is ever possible under despotism; axiomatically, the two do not go hand in hand. Convinced that the expression of free personalities is man’s highest achievement, the Jew is opposed, with every fiber of his being, to a state which reduces its citizens to the status of automatons.

The Jew is by religion at cross-purposes with Bolshevism. He recognizes that it is the negation of his faith and morals which constitutes the strongest bond among his people. It is equally opposed to all religions; no one can be a member of the Communist party without denying religion. In this denial, he throws over the greatest spiritual force in history, namely, religion. Because Bolshevism is in tolerant both of Christianity and Judaism, and because it destroys the most formidable force motivating the conduct of men and women, the Jew is in conflict with this radical doctrine.

The total population of American Jewish citizens is four and one-half millions. It is a tragic comedy to impute Communistic leanings to them.

The number of Communists in America approximates 40,000. This was about the vote cast by the party for its candidate for President at the last national election held two years ago. If every Communist in America were a Jew, the total number of Jewish Communists would be less than one per cent of our Jewish population here. It is the height of absurdity to think that this is the case. In fact, we know that the greater majority of its leaders, as well as its rank and file, are Gentiles. The imputation that the party comprises Jews is, in the main, therefore, sheer lumber. The truth is that Jews are by intelligence and temperament like the great bulk of American voters, moderate in politics; they vote either the Republican or Democratic tickets, both of which represent the conservative political parties on the American scene.

PHILOSOPHY BASED ON RACE

Prof. Dr. Lothar G. Tirala of Munich writes the following under the title of “Race and One’s Philosophy of Life” in the National socialistischen Monatsheften for October, 1934:

In time past whenever the talk about race, inquiry was made only as to the anatomic characteristics by which the races were differentiated. It was only gradually that people also learned to know spiritual and mental differences as inherited characteristics of single races. The finest and most delicate structure of a race, and simultaneously the crowning perfection of its spiritual force, is its philosophy of life….

Persons of pure race have the philosophy of life which it is proper for them to have; bastards are attracted hither and thither. We must therefore consider the life ideals of racially pure persons and investigate whether a truly racially pure person can adopt the philosophy of life of another race. We must not let ourselves be deceived by the attitude of the bastards or the bastard peoples such as for instance the Jews, whose representatives are to be found in every cam### some of whom attempt to be Kantians, others followers of Spinoza and still others wish to be original and, like H. Bergson, bring in Schopenhauer under a new mask, the fourth brand swear by Karl Marx and become enthusiastic about the Bolshevist theory, the next are Zionists and adhere to the Old Testament and very many, as skeptics, smile at all these attempts.

THE RUNDSCHAU REPLY

The Juedische Rundschau, official organ of the Zionist Federation of Germany, commenting on Professor Tirala’s article, states:

We do not wish to raise the question as to whether the Jews are to be considered bastardized, that is, originating through the admixture of races, to a greater extent than other modern peoples, or whether, quite to the contrary, the Jewish nation has in the course of thousands of years adopted but a comparatively small amount of foreign blood. Independent of the posing of this question, it seems to us misleading to wish to standardize the philosophy of life of individual persons according to the racial purity of each and thus to establish a sort of “regulation” philosophy in contrast to which all disgressing views appear to be bastardization. Such an undertaking should be possible to no people without defaming determining fields of its spiritual contribution. The quite erroneous representation of Zionism in this connection is quite apart from all this!…