Cause of World Unrest - Nesta Webster


Those who have studied their history must at times have been astonished at the ease with which popular movements, honest and sincere in themselves, have been manipulated by clever and unscrupulous men to their own personal advantage or to further their own political aspirations. The people have throughout the ages presented a pathetic spectacle. Time and again they have been used with most barefaced effrontery as a means of producing results which they themselves never desired. Indeed, in many cases, they have suffered terribly from their own achievements. Nothing is more pitiful than the persistent betrayal of the people by their leaders and nothing more splendid than the people's refusal to believe it.

In earlier history popular movements were difficult to create and direct unless they were purely local. Kings, princes, governors stood between the masses and their exploiters. Distances, too, were great in the days before railways, and communication was difficult. But, roughly speaking, the people were prevented by established authority from being victimized. Today all that is changed, and we now live in an age which will be known, perhaps, in history as the age of the exploitation of the people.

This exploitation of the people has in later years become something of a fine art. The party machine, which was at first merely the instrument by which a party tried to impress its views on the electors, has in many cases taken charge of the party, so that this machine and not its leaders decides what shall or what shall not form part of the programme. Battle cries, "slogans." phrases, and catchwords, deliberately framed so that they should conceal the truth or create a false impression have now become part of nearly every political campaign. Do our politicians ever ponder over this surprising fact, that the greatest response to a semi-political appeal that England has ever seen took place in 1914-15, when the call was to go out to death? And they have so little knowledge of the people they govern that they are surprised when the most tempting of battle cries, telling the people how much they can have for the mere asking, remain without result. The explanation of this is simple enough and yet it is far too high for the understanding of the mere politician. It consists in this truth, that the people of this country can only be really roused by an appeal to their better nature. That is the strength of England.

We are seeing today how the exploitation of the people can be achieved with comparative ease because the people throughout the civilized world is enfranchised and there is no one to stand between the exploiters and the exploited. If we look back in history, we shall find that the disappearance of this intermediate influence has not been altogether fortuitous. There have been kings who exploited their people just as Lenin is today exploiting the Russian people, but they have mostly paid forfeit with their thrones, as Lenin one day will pay forfeit with his life. But the temptation to get at the people and to use them for ends to which they are indifferent and of which they are ignorant has been great. The pages of this book will trace the threads of a conspiracy engineered by people whose main object has been to destroy utterly anything—kings, governments, or institutions—which might stand between them and the people they would exploit.

Many who read the story of this subterranean scheming as it is unfolded in this book may perhaps be disinclined to admit the correctness of the author's statements because of the startling conclusions to which they lead up. But I would urge the reader to cast aside all prejudices and to judge the facts brought out on their merits as facts and to suggest, if he can, other conclusions. The main outline of the contents of this book is, in brief, that there has been for centuries a hidden conspiracy, chiefly Jewish, whose objects have been and are to produce revolution, communism, and anarchy, by means of which they hope to arrive at the hegemony of the world by establishing some sort of despotic rule.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an edition of which has been published in England, have aroused tremendous interest and a storm of protest. It will be noticed by the reader that the editors of the volume have taken particular care not to assume the authenticity of these protocols. They may or may not be genuine. Their present importance lies in the fact that, while the book which contains them was published in 1905, the Jewish Bolsheviks are today carrying out almost to the letter the programme outlined in the protocols.

I have said that this secret revolutionary movement seems to have been engineered chiefly by Jews. It is about time that somebody spoke out frankly on this subject. I myself have several Jewish friends. One of them I shall always remember with gratitude, for he would give me no peace in the years before the war until he had convinced me of the German danger. At his own expense he despatched a man to visit the various dockyards of Germany and the information thus obtained was found extremely useful. Now this man is as good a patriot as I am, but I say that there are certain bad Jews who have conspired and are conspiring against stable government; I point out that over 80 percent, of the present Bolshevik Government are Jews, and that the Bolshevik movement outside Russia is chiefly directed by Jews.

If I cast doubt upon the political integrity of any Jew, or even if I disagree with his policy, I am dubbed an anti-Semite. This is not just. I accuse the Jews themselves of creating anti-Semitism and I will proceed to give my reasons.

The Jews are justly proud of their race, which, in spite of every sort of difficulty, has not only persisted throughout the ages, but has achieved a position of great power and influence in nearly every civilized country. Persecution and outside pressure have taught them to stand together, and the tradition of unity is as strong, if not stronger, today. They may quarrel among themselves, but they unite instantly and almost unconsciously against any criticism from outside. The result is that a critic of a prominent individual Jew or of a particular Jewish policy, who begins with no sort of prejudice against Jewry, finds arrayed against him the serried and united ranks of Jewry. It is no use his declaring that his objections are not to Jewry, but to a particular Jew or a particular Jewish policy. He is dubbed an anti-Semite, with a consequence that he has to accept the epithet and, in some cases, on the principle of the dog with the bad name, promptly proceeds to justify it.

I will give a concrete instance of this. A few months ago, as a result of the Peace Conference, Great Britain accepted a mandate for Palestine, and, true to her word, proceeded to carry out her promise to provide a home for Jews in that country. At the present moment the population of Pal est i ne consists of 80 percent Arabs and 20 percent Christians, Jews, and other religions. The Arabs are in a highly excited state of mind, because they know of the intention of the British Government to afford Jews a home in Palestine. Naturally they are asking each other what is to become of them if the Jews come into their country in great numbers. They are not ignorant of the fact that there has been started a great Jewish fund of £25,000,000 to aid the immigration of Jews into their country. The situation is a highly delicate one. On the one hand is the declared British policy, on the other the Arab inhabitants, fearful about their fate.

To deal with such a critical state of things tact and, above all, impartiality was required. The British Government for some extraordinary reason appointed Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew, to be High Commissioner for Palestine. In the opinion of the Morning Post it was a dangerous and an improper appointment. Were Sir Herbert Samuel the greatest of men and a very Solomon for wisdom, the appointment would still be a gross mistake, for even the loftiest motives and the most impartial application of justice were bound to be misunderstood. I have never yet met in private conversation a Jew or a Christian who defended the appointment. Yet when the Morning Post protested against it, the Jewish papers came out with bitter attacks, and with the usual accusations of anti-Semitism. Cannot the good Jews see that this is a mistaken policy? It creates, as I said before, anti-Semitism. The objection to Sir Herbert Samuel's appointment was justified on every count. If the British Government had proposed Sir Edward Carson as Viceroy of Ireland, that step would be exactly on all fours with the choice of a Jew as High Commissioner of Palestine. Surely criticism of such an obviously unwise decision might have passed without arousing the stupid cry of anti-Semitism.

The question which every reader of this book will want to have answered is whether there is a Jewish Peril and, if so, what are its ramifications. That there is a Jewish Peril I have no sort of doubt, but we must guard ourselves against generalizations. It is easy to prove that a certain section of the Jews in the world are engaged in a mighty attempt to destroy the established rule in many countries and to bring this world into communistic brotherhood. The thing is taking place before our eyes. But it would be downright wicked to ascribe to Jewry as a whole this mad and dangerous policy. In that direction lies the danger, the hideous danger of a violent and indiscriminate anti-Semitism. It must be averted by the Jews themselves. The honest, patriotic Jews must come forward and denounce and no longer defend the revolutionaries of their race. They should refuse to approve of any policy which tends to undermine the pillars of civilized society, for the time has come when there can be no sitting on the fence; those who are not with us are against us.

The pages of this book will tell the tale of this conspiracy against civilization—for that is really what it amounts to. Perhaps I may be excused if I give a brief summary of the circumstances and the deductions irresistibly proceeding from them which brought one to the conclusion that the causes of the present world's unrest were not fortuitous but the result of a definite plan. When the war broke out, it seemed, and I believe it was, a simple, plain, straightforward struggle between a people whose pride in their warlike achievements had forced them along the direction of a world hegemony and the countries who refused to accept it.

During the war it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that a certain section of the Jews did not desire to see Germany vanquished. The "peace without victory" suggestion had many supporters in international circles where Jews had influence. Again, I must warn the reader that he must not accept this statement as a suggestion that Jewry throughout the war was pro-German. But it is true that there was observable in certain Jewish circles a tenderness for Germany which we could not understand. Then came the Peace Conference in Paris, where this tenderness for Germany became more and more marked. The theory which prevailed at the Armistice that Germany had offended against humanity and therefore had to be punished, just as a man is hanged for murder, was displaced gradually by suggestions that leniency was the best policy. All that the ordinary man could make of it all was that Germany was getting off remarkably lightly.

Later on at the Conference we come to a phase in the proceeding where it is possible to say that Jewish influence did materially affect the policy of the Allies. I refer to Poland, and I do not make this assertion at random, but I base it on the speeches and statements of Jews themselves or Jewish newspapers.

The policy of the Allied and Associated Powers was avowedly the creation of a strong Poland. No country can be strong in these days of commerce and industry unless it has an outlet on the sea Therefore, it was obvious from the first that Dantzig must be part of the newly constituted Poland. Again, no country can hope to remain strong unless it has full powers of government over all its inhabitants within its boundaries. From the very outset it was obvious that there was going to be a desperate struggle in Paris to defeat all attempts to create a strong Poland. The Jews openly threw their influence on the anti-Polish side. The Jewish Delegation sat throughout the Conference and strained every nerve to deny Dantzig to the Poles and to create special privileges for the Jews in Poland. In this matter Jewish policy was in opposition to British policy. Our Foreign Office, which has been subjected to a most deliberate and subtle campaign of calumny, declared in Paris that Dantzig was the test of our policy, and that a free and strong Polish Government was essential in British interests. Here our interests and Jewish interests were at variance. We are entitled to ask what was the attitude of British Jews at this crisis. Were they British first and Jews afterwards, or Jews first—British afterwards? Is it a mere accident that at the moment I write the whole force of Bolshevism in this country is being organized to force our Government to allow Russia to occupy Warsaw?

All this time the Jewish Junta in Russia was working with feverish activity to extend its loathsome some propaganda in other countries. With the Armistice came two Bolshevist attempts in our country. Glasgow and Belfast tried to put into practice here the theories of Bolshevism. These attempts were dead failures, and it was obvious that Sovietism would not be carried by a coup de main in this country. So our enemies and the enemies of civilization, the Jew Bolsheviks, determined upon another plan. There was nothing secret in this. The substitution of a slower system of undermining civilization in this country was announced from the housetops, so to speak. Here are the Jew-Bolsheviks' orders to their sympathizers in this country:

"If such elements (Bolsheviks and Spartacists) increase in numbers and strength, everything may get changed. At first it is necessary: (i) The centre of gravity of the struggle must be outside of Parliaments (strikes, revolts, insurrections, etc.); (2) the struggle inside the Parliaments must be closely connected with the struggle outside; (3) the representatives must take part in general organization work; (4) the representatives must act by directions of the Central Committee and be responsible to it; (5) they must not conform to the Parliamentary manners and customs.

"We have to state again that the most vital part of the struggle must be outside of Parliament—on the street. It is clear that the most effective weapons of the workers against Capitalism are: The strike, the revolt, armed insurrection. Comrades have to keep in mind the following: Organization of the Party, instalment of the Party groups in the Trade Unions, leadership of the masses, etc. Parliamentary activities and participation in elections must be used only as a secondary measure—no more." (Call, April 22, 1920.)

It required no very intelligent reading of events to guess at such a plot without this clear and precise declaration of policy. The disastrous results were quite plain and obvious, and a definite plan was revealed to the most careless of observers. From the day of the Armistice until today not a single week has passed without a strike. Industry is thoroughly unsettled and the future is dark indeed. The aim of these wreckers is to produce by the next winter such general unemployment as to ensure a discontented population on which to work. It is a diabolical plan, but, from their point of view, it is by no means a difficult one to achieve.

The exploitation of the people has been brought to a fine art. Every one of these men is an advocate of despotic government, but they work under the flag of extreme democracy, anarchy, or communism. Posing as the friends of the working classes, they impose upon them with an ease which is disturbing. The British working man is one of the most loyal creatures alive, and perhaps the most credulous. He will give generous support to those who can persuade him that they are concerned only for his welfare. He gets daily and weekly evidence of the success of their endeavours. Wages are increased, and with each increase the working man rubs his hands with satisfaction, and blesses the people who have wrung it out of the hated capitalist. He does not see that, without increased production, increased wages will kill the industry from which he draws his wages.

The Jew-Bolshevik policy is to kill that industry so that unemployment, want, and discontent will ensue. Read the old revolutionary maxim, on which they act today:

"Want and opinion are the two agents which make all men act. Cause the want, govern opinions, and you will overturn all the existing systems, however well constituted they may appear."

Let us see to it that here in this country they shall not have success. Yet we shall do well to bear in mind Karl Marx's declaration of policy in regard to this country, as quoted by Mrs. Webster. In 1870 he sent the following message to the Internationale at Geneva:

  1. England is the only country in which a real Socialistic revolution can be made.
  2. The English people cannot make this revolution.
  3. Foreigners must make it for them.
  4. The foreign members, therefore, must retain their seats at the London board.
  5. The point to strike at first is Ireland, and in Ireland they are ready to begin their work.

Ten years ago this would have been regarded as midsummer madness. Today the case of Ireland gives to this message the aspect of a prophecy almost fulfilled. We should do well, however, to keep our eyes on conditions in England, Scotland, and Wales. The destruction of our industries is going on apace. Our industrial existence is dependent upon having a large field of exportation. We least of all nations can continue to exist by "taking in each other's washing.". At the present moment we are filling up the huge void in our home market caused by the war. These needs will soon be met, and we shall then have to seek markets for our goods in South America, some parts of Europe, the Far East, and in our own Dominions. In these markets, which are neutral, we shall find rivals and shall have to expect severe competition.

Mr. Smillie and his miners' executive have increased the price of everything into which coal enters as a part of its manufacture, so that our prices are enhanced and foreign merchants will be driven to cheaper markets at our expense. As it is, our manufacturers cannot give firm quotations. They find themselves forced by the disturbed industrial position in this country to insert saving clauses in their contracts. Just at the present moment, with such leeway to make good, foreign and neutral buyers are willing to put up with the inconveniences of varying prices, but this cannot last long. Those of our manufacturers who have a long view are most pessimistic, and there are signs of increasing unemployment in the near future.

This unemployment—the constant dread of the working man—is, in my opinion, deliberately created by the hotheads of Labour. When the war ended, even with the high prices of labour, a prolonged period of industrial progress and prosperity was in sight. Labour could have, and no doubt would have, secured its fair share, but Labour is losing the opportunity, and distress, poverty, and unemployment threaten us. The moderate Labour leader knows the danger, and has fought stoutly for his men. But a wave of mad communism—the work of the Jew-Bolsheviks—has caught up a powerful section of Labour, and there is not even any pretence now of safeguarding the interests of the working man. It is all a political game—nationalization, direct action, and open revolution.

What do they want, these people? A new heaven and a new earth, fashioned after their ideals? They seek the "proletarian dictatorship"—whatever that may mean. Governments and theories of government must always be judged by their result. If the Jew-Bolsheviks had produced a system by which the governed were happier, freer, and more prosperous than the peoples under other systems, there would be every excuse for any attempt to imitate them. But in Russia trades unionism has been stamped out, religion mocked, liberty denied, and the will of the autocracy of the Soviets impressed on everybody. It is a system of rule by terror. Whoever holds an opinion contrary to the Soviet Government is executed or imprisoned. Disease is rampant, and from all accounts which we get from Russia, never was any country in such a desperately unhappy state. And this is what our extremists want for us?

But is it? Communism, anarchy, and the "dictatorship of the people" are words and convey nothing to the student of history and politics. They are mere terms used to describe phrases of political or popular movements. When they are achieved, there still remains a permanent system of government to devise. We must credit the leaders of Bolshevism with the power of seeing further than their noses, as the common phrase goes. Indeed, some of them are gifted with a very high intelligence, though they seem to possess a low moral standard. They have worked it out to the nth degree. Communism cannot in the nature of things be the final end of their hopes and dreams. They know better perhaps than the highest of high old Tories that it is not, and can never be, a permanent system of government. Indeed, in Russia, they have by their acts acknowledged that this is so. As for anarchy, it used to be a favourite subject among the old Russian Nihiquotes, but it has disappeared from all political programmes of the Reds, and does not exist now, even as a political dream.

There remains the "dictatorship of the "people". Luckily for us, it is not necessary to ponder deeply over the meaning of this. Being in actual and active existence in Moscow, we can see exactly what it means, how it works, and the main results. This system of government, so alluring to the working man, and so utterly inimical to his interests, is run by a few men who have usurped authority and have relegated the working classes to a position of serfdom, and are now working with all seriousness for the hegemony of the world. And 80 percent, of them are Jews.

It would be unfair and un-English to argue from this that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But we may fairly say that the time has come when every country in the world is entitled to ask its Jews what policy they intend to pursue towards this new and alarming danger. Here is a huge country, of enormous resources and illimitable wealth, being run by a company of Jews on a system which can best be described as the denial of democracy. It aims at spreading this abominable theory throughout the world. This is the boast of their own men, not our mere statement. In every country are to be found today representatives of Sovietism, Jew and Gentile, working feverishly and with excellent organization. In England we are seeing daily the results of the propaganda. Bolshevists here openly declare their intentions to have Soviet government, and they possess a paper, the Daily Herald, which is frankly and utterly Bolshevist. The political Jew, who is working for his nation and not for his religion, is active. He is everywhere working with extraordinary activity towards the furtherance of Bolshevist plans. Is it not time to ask those of our Jewish fellow citizens who do not share the views of their fellows to speak out openly and fearlessly?

The attitude of the English Jews is one of surprise that their religion should subject them to suspicion or differential treatment of any kind. They say in effect, "Why are we treated differently from Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, Methodists, Church of England, or any other religious community?" Recently in the Jewish Guardian (March 26, 1920) the attitude of English Jewry was thus described.

"Judaism is a religion, not a nation. It was to Jews as members of a religious body that national rights have been vindicated at the Peace Conference; and it is by Jews as members of a religious body that Judaism will be guarded."

These are admirable sentiments, most of which every tolerant and generous Englishman will endorse. But perhaps he might ask the meaning of the phrase: "It was to Jews as members of a religious body that national rights have been vindicated at the Peace Conference." We presume that the writer intended to convey the idea that the Peace Conference insisted on the Jews of Roumania and Poland having special rights, because they were a religious community and not because they were a separate national entity. But later on in the same article we have a remarkable passage which tends to prove that there are a large number of Jews who desire a distinct nationality for themselves, apart altogether from their religion.

"Now, is this the policy of the Zionists, not to deprive Western Jews of nationality, but to acquire for such Eastern Jews as want it the opportunity of developing a civic sentiment, repressed and held in check where they dwell? If so, we would ask them four questions: (1) How far is this policy modified by the Minority Treaties enacted and to be enacted, and by the just desire to give them a fair trial? (2) How do the Zionist leaders propose to inform their followers and others that Jewish 'Nationalism' outside Palestine is a mistaken term, without foothold in the present, or justification in the past, or security in the future? (3) Are they willing that Palestinians of other races and other creeds should share with Jews the civic sense of Palestine? And (4) how do they propose to conciliate the help and co-operation of the many Jews, in whose behalf we are writing, who, untouched, as they are, by political Zionism, are willing, even anxious, to assist in the restoration of Palestine?"

It is obvious, then, that there is a large and powerful section of Jews who cling to their nationality as much as they do to their religion. Indeed, the whole controversy in this matter boils down to the answer to the question, "Are Jews working as a distinct race or merely as members of a distinct religion?"

Let us try to seek the answer to this question from the Jews themselves. The Jewish Guardian is out and away the ablest Jewish paper published in England. We must bear testimony to its fairness, broad-mindedness, and general excellence. It must be remembered that it was founded only last year as a protest against the curious attitude of the other Jewish papers. In effect it is anti-Zionist and anti-revolutionary. It stands in rare contrast to the narrowness and bitterness of its Jewish rivals. Also the Guardian commands the services of some of the best pens in British Jewry. In a leading article published August 6th of this year it refers to the question of nationality.

"We have never disguised our conviction, unpopular in places though it has been, that Zionism (or, more precisely, Zionist 'hotheads' as Lord Curzon recently described them) brought grist to the mill of those anti-Semites who pretend that Jews are duo-national. The confusion between the philosophic 'nationalism' which Mr. Leon Simon has expounded in a recent book, and the common nationality of the subjects of one ruler such as King George, has been as unfortunate as it is illogical. We still hold that wiser counsels might have avoided it, and that Jewish leaders, jealous for the good name of other adherents to Judaism than the Zionists, should always have been careful to distinguish between the two uses of one word."

Here we see the recognition of the accusation that the Jews are a nation and the attempt to meet it by Mr. Leon Simon. The Jewish Guardian is certainly "up against" the same accusation, and very gallantly, and we believe sincerely, tries to prove that Judaism is a religion pure and simple. But facts are against it, and alas! facts from its own pages.

Some time in June, the Maccabeans honoured Mr. Lucien Wolf at the Holborn Restaurant by inviting him to a banquet. The event is described in the Jewish Guardian of June 11th. Here is the first sentence:

"Honour to whom honour is due, and all honour to Mr. Lucien Wolf, the man who fought for Jewish rights at Versailles last year."

Now what precisely do the words "Jewish rights" mean? If Judaism is a religion was there any need to fight for its rights, since no country in the world offers any obstacle to the exercise of his religion by any one of its nationals? So we conclude that the "rights" were political and we see the Jewish nation at work. If Mr. Lucien Wolf receives the thanks of Jewry for fighting for Jewish rights at Versailles, then Sir Herbert Samuel will, no doubt, do his best to deserve the same thanks for his fight for Jewish rights in Palestine.

Later on in the same account we come across another significant passage. Here it is:

"The second (message) was a letter from Mr. Israel Zangwill, pungent and self-reminiscent, but with truth at the bottom of it, as usual. 'The Minority Treaties were the touchstone of the League of Nations, that essentially Jewish aspiration. And the man behind the Minority Treaties was Lucien Wolf'."

I have italicized the description of the League of Nations as being "that essentially Jewish aspiration." Was the establishment of the League of Nations a religious or a political question? Surely, by no stretch of imagination or sophistry, can the League of Nations be regarded as a religious matter. It was political, and again we see the Jewish nation at work.

In returning thanks for the many kind things said of him at the banquet, Mr. Lucien Wolf's reply is thus described:

"Then came the sharing of the praise, first to the Alliance Israelite, then to the Americans, then to the statesmanship and goodwill of the Conference itself. The Anglo-Jewish members of the Delegation might claim that the first detailed plan of the Minority Treaties was their own. They discussed it with members of the Commission on New States, but the governing principle had first been accepted from them (my italics) by the Allied and Associated Powers and by the League of Nations. Though in the excitement of hearing the Main Treaties all else might be well lost for the moment, he would remind them that the principle laid down in the preamble to the Labour Convention, which secured the rights of the working classes and guaranteed them the protection of the League of Nations, recognized that the rights of minority populations were on exactly the same plane."

Here is the political Jew at work for the Jewish nation. There is nothing deserving of blame in this. If political and intensely national Jews care to combine to secure privileges and rights for their co-nationals throughout Europe, they deserve well of Jewry, but the Jewish Guardian must not talk nonsense of Judaism being only a religion. It may be that, but in addition it is a strong, active political force, pulling strings in every country for the good of Jewry.

It is here we join issue with those Jews who do not concern themselves with the political and national aims and aspirations of their co-religionists. We want to know how we are to distinguish between the good citizen Jew and the politically minded Jew who works for Jewry, right or wrong. In this country there are many Jews holding important political offices. We want to know for certain that if at any time British interests and Jewish interests clash he will be British first and Jewish afterwards. How are we to know this? I have shown and this book will show much more amply the great political activity of the Jews. Cannot the good Jews see that it is difficult for us to tolerate this uncertainty, especially with the world in its present state of unrest? We are gradually being forced to deny to Jews political office, unless we can be quite sure that it will be exercised on behalf of our country and Empire and not on behalf of the Jewish race throughout the world.

We have seen at the Peace Conference the extraordinary and most successful workings of the Jews among the delegates, and this book will prove that their efforts were almost entirely directed towards safeguarding purely Jewish interests. It is impossible not to be amused at the assertion of Mr. Lucien Wolf that the principle laid down in the preamble to the Labour Convention, which secured the rights of the working classes and guaranteed them the protection of the League of Nations, recognized that the rights of minority populations were on exactly the same plane. Taken to pieces this means that in order to secure privilege for the minorities {i.e., the Jews) it was found best to camouflage this step under the guise of "securing the rights of the working classes" and guaranteeing them "the protection of the League of Nations"—that essentially Jewish aspiration. Fancy our working men needing the protection of the League of Nations, or the working classes in any other country!

This is the Jewish Peril, that a great number of Jews, owning various nationalities and in some cases rising to great political power, are working for the rights of the Jewish nation. If there should come occasions to such a Jew when the safety, honour, and welfare of the country of which he is a national are opposed to the safety, honour, and welfare of the Jewish nation, on which side will he throw the weight of his influence and power? That uncertainty is not lessened by the spectacle of a Jew-Bolshevik Government or by the remembrance of Jewish national activity in Paris and elsewhere. If by giving expression to this policy of alarm and suspicion that is felt by many of my fellow citizens, I am to be dubbed "anti-Semite" by the Jewish Press, then I suppose I must put up with the epithet. But as long as I see a possibility of the interests of this country and Empire being risked by uncertain allegiance, so long will I continue to denounce it.

Morning Post Office, August, 1920.