Sunday, October 16, 2022

1338 Maurice Samuel. Aan de niet joden van deze wereld.

 Skip to main content

Full text of "You Gentiles.pdf (PDFy mirror)"

See other formats


You Gentiles 



By Maurice Samuel 

Author of "The Outsider/' " Whatever Gods." 



New York 



Contents 

PAGE 

The Question 7 

Sport 38 

Gods 64 

Utopia 78 

Loyalty 91 

Discipline . 107 

The Reckoning 124 

But as Moderns . 135 

We, the Destroyers . . . , \ 144 

The Games of Science . . . .156 

The Masses .177 

Solution and Dissolution 188 

The Mechanism of Dissolution . . . . 196 

Is There Any Hope? 210 

A Last Word • .221 



I 



The Question 
i 

These last ten years and more I have been 
asking myself, with increasing urgency, a 
number of questions: 

Is there any special significance in the dis- 
tinction I have so long cherished — the dis- 
tinction of "Jew-gentile" — not to be found 
in the class of distinctions implied in 
"American-Foreigner" or "Englishman-For- 
eigner"? Is there, between us Jews and you 
gentiles, that is between the Jew on the one 
hand and the Englishman, the Frenchman, 
the American on the other hand, that which 
transcends all the differences which exist 
among yourselves, so that, in relation to us, 
you are gentiles first, and afterwards (and 
without particular relevance in this connec- 
tion) Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans? 

7 



■■■■)-^y.: 



You Gentiles 

Or is there nothing more implied in that 
distinction, Jew-gentile, than (in a general 
way) in the distinctions Jew-American, Amer- 
ican-Englishman, Englishman-Frenchman ? 

In other words, are we Jews but part of 
the gentiles, Americans, Englishmen, Jews, 
Frenchmen, or is there a deeper cleavage be- 
tween us? Is this Western world divided pri- 
marily into two parts— you gentiles; we 
Jews? 

From the outset I shall be asked: "Even 
if you suspect the existence of such a primal 
cleavage, beyond the reach of ordinary 
national or racial classifications, what pur- 
pose can you have in urging it upon the at- 
tention of the world? Has it any practical 
application? Does it in any fashion clarify 
the status of the Jew, or give greater cogency 
to such claims of his as are still unsatisfied?" 

This question will be asked of me by many 
Jews— but in particular it will be asked with 
the utmost insistence by those Jews who have 
based our case for national rights, national 

8 



The Question 

equality, precisely on this assumption — that 
we Jews are a people like all other peoples, 
similar in needs and impulses: that we are 
Jews, you are Englishmen, you are Italians, 
you are Americans; that we, the world's races 
or peoples, are all of us similar in our differ- 
ences. 

Leaving on one side those who deny the 
existence of any distinctions at all, those, that 
is, who say that the Jew is either a French- 
man, an American or an Englishman accord- 
ing to the place of his birth, I would answer: 
"For me the ordinary nationalist or racial 
classification has not sufficed. " 

If I have long pondered this question of 
Jew and gentile it is because I suspected from 
the first dawning of Jewish self-consciousness 
that Jew and gentile are two worlds, that 
between you gentiles and us Jews there lies 
an unbridgeable gulf. Side by side with this 
belief grew another, which is related to the 
practical aspect of the distinction. 

I do not believe that, situated as we are 

9 



You Gentiles 

in your midst, scattered among you from one 
end of the Western world to the other, we 
have the right to retain our identity if we 
are but another addition to the gentile peo- 
ples. (Nor, by the way, do I believe that 
we could have retained it so long had this 
been the case.) If we are but one more peo- 
ple added to the long roster of peoples, living 
and dead, we have no claim worth while, 
under these circumstances, to continuity of 
separate consciousness. Such a claim could 
never have arisen had we remained secure, 
segregated on our own soil — it would have 
been our tacit birthright. But as it is, our 
existence is secured at an infinite expense of 
special effort on our part, and of peculiar dis- 
comfort to you. Wherever the Jew is found 
he is a problem, a source of unhappiness to 
himself and to those around him. Ever since 
he has been scattered in your midst he has 
had to maintain a continuous struggle for the 
conservation of his identity. Is it worth 
while, in the face of this double burden, our 
own and yours, to perpetuate what may be, 

10 



The Question 

after all, an addition of one unit to scores 
of similar units? Were these centuries of 
alternate torture and respite not a dispro- 
portionately high price for the right to in- 
crease by one page the already overburdened 
records of the nations? 

Were it my belief, as it is, at least in ex- 
pression, the belief of many fellow- Jews, that 
our right to exist is founded on our similarity 
to other peoples, that where American or 
Belgian or Italian has a right to homeland, 
culture, history, parliament, we Jews have 
the same right, for the same reasons, and 
for no other reasons— were this my belief, I 
could not find the heart to continue the 
struggle or to urge the struggle upon others. 
The effort is too severe; the price is too high: 
the guerdon is insignificant. Were we like 
other peoples we ought to have done what 
other peoples, under similar circumstances, 
would do: a people driven from its homeland, 
a people ground into dust and carried by 
winds of misfortune into every corner of the 
world, has no right to inflict its woes and 

11 



You Gentiles 

longings on others. It should cease to exist, 
it should rid the world of its importunate 
presence. 

Such would be my belief if I saw in our- 
selves only the replica, with the proper vari- 
ations, of the rest of the world. But this is 
not my belief, for I see otherwise. Years 
of observation and thought have given in- 
creasing strength to the belief that we Jews 
stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal 
duality breaks the humanity I know into two 
distinct parts; that this duality is a funda- 
mental, and that all differences among you 
gentiles are trivialities compared with that 
which divides all of you from us. 

I am aware that this is a thesis which can- 
not be supported by diagrams, tables and 
logarithms. It cannot even be urged with 
the apparent half-compulsion of social and 
economic laws. The cogency of what I have 
to say does not depend on reference to ob- 
vious and ineluctable laws, natural processes 
acknowledged and accepted. I am also aware 
that the weight of what is called learned opin- 

12 



The Question 

ion will be thrown against me, that my con- 
tention will meet with the ridicule of facile 
common sense and of scholarship. Neverthe- 
less I set it down clearly that in this Western 
world there are essentially two peoples as 
spiritual forces, only two human sections with 
essential meaning— Jew and gentile. 

But at least what credentials have I to 
offer— since the presentation of credentials 
must always precede the presentation of the 
thesis? What claim have I on the attention 
of the world? I can only answer that this 
book, being a serious book, must carry its 
own credentials, and does not attempt to bor- 
row importance from outside sources. I offer 
myself only as a Jew who has lived, observed 
and thought: my experiences and contacts 
have been somewhat more varied than those 
of most men, but this has little to do with 
my views. The truth which is spread over 
the whole world is also contained in any part 
of it. The laws of gravitation are implied 
as completely in the falling of a pebble to 
earth as in the rush of the sun against the 

13 

i 



You Gentiles 

counter-rush of its companion stars. The law 
of Einstein works no less truly in the crawl- 
ing of a snail than in the dizzy vibration of 
the fastest atomic sub-unit. These laws are 
more easily observed in the one set of cases 
than in the other: that is all. 

If I have touched the truth it has been 
primarily through contact with life — and I 
have regarded books as but a class of living 
things, to be observed and interpreted and 
placed in their setting. Life itself, observa- 
tion of men and women, singly and in masses, 
a knowledge of their works (among which 
books are important), a feeling for their de- 
sires, perception of their intent in cities, 
laws, theaters, games, wars, all this has 
brought me to the conception I shall set forth. 
All scholarship— particularly that scholarship 
which deals with the manifestations of man's 
desires and fears— consists of unauthoritative 
marginal notes, which are of interest chiefly 
as giving us some insight into the nature of 
those who jotted them down. 
It does no harm to know the history that 
14 



The Question 

is in books; but the only authentic history is 
around us. It is made daily in newspapers, 
theaters, meetings, election campaigns. And 
is it less valuable to know what the waiter 
said at the Simplicissimus cabaret in Vienna 
when I was there three years ago than to 
know what Terence reports a slave to have 
said in Rome when he was there two thou- 
sand years ago? What if my neighbor, the 
Professor, reads Greek rather less fluently 
than did a certain thick-witted Athenian citi- 
zen who lived in the time of Pericles and by 
no means as well as I read English? Is that 
proof of wisdom or understanding? And 
supposing my neighbor on the other side, the 
famous professor of History, knows rather 
less about the Peloponnesian war than the 
intelligent college student knows about the 
World War — is that Professor therefore wiser 
than most men, is his opinion on life more 
valuable? And supposing another scholar 
purports to tell us what the ancient Egyp- 
tians believed, and from his account of this 
dead religion pretends to teach the secrets 

15 



You Gentiles 

of faith. Can he tell me what John Doe 
or Isaac Levy believes? Does John Doe be- 
lieve that Christ rose from the dead? Really 
believe that, as a plain truth, as he would be- 
lieve it if his mother, whom he buried five 
years ago, should suddenly come walking 
into his house, rotted away and clad in her 
tattered cerements — believe it as simply- and 
as terribly? And does Isaac Levy believe 
that the waters of the Red Sea were divided, 
as he would believe it if one day, below the 
Williamsburg Bridge, he were to see the 
waters split, rear, and fall again? And if 
neither John Doe nor Isaac Levy believes as 
cogently as this, then what do they really 
believe , if they believe anything at all? And 
if the professor cannot answer these ques- 
tions, what does he mean when he says that 
the Egyptians believed that Osiris rose from 
the dead? And what do his reports matter? 

There is- no test or guarantee of a man's 
wisdom or of his reliability beyond what he 
says about life itself. Life is the touchstone: 
books must be read and understood in order 

16 



The Question 

that we may compare our experience in life 
with the sincere report of the experience of 
others. But such and such a one, who has 
read all the books extant on history and art, 
is of no consequence unless these are to him 
an indirect commentary on what he feels 
around him. 

Hence, if I have drawn chiefly on experi- 
ence and contemplation and little on books — 
which others will discover without my admis- 
sion—this does not affect my competency, 
which must be judged by standards infinitely 
more difficult of application. Life is not so 
simple that you can test a man's nearness 
to truth by giving him a college examination. 
Such examinations are mere games — they 
have no relation to reality. You may desire 
some such easy standard by which you can 
judge whether or not a man is reliable: Does 
he know much history? Much biology? 
Much psychology? If not, he is not worth 
listening to. But it is part of the frivolity 
of our outlook to reduce life to a set of rules, 
and thus save ourselves the agony of con- 

17 



You Gentiles 

stant reference to first principles. No: stand- 
ardized knowledge is no guarantee of truth. 
Put down a simple question — a living ques- 
tion, like this: "Should A. have killed B.?" 
Ask it of ten fools: five will say "Yes," five 
will say "No." Ask it of ten intelligent men: 
five will say "Yes/' five will say "No." 
Ask it of ten scholars: five will say "Yes," 
five will say "No," The fools will have no 
reasons for their decision: the intelligent men 
will have a few reasons for and as many 
against; the scholars will have more reasons 
for and against. But where does the truth 
lie? 

What, then, shall be the criterion of a 
man's reliability? 

There is none. You cannot evade your re- 
sponsibility thus by entrusting your salvation 
into the bands of a priest-specialist. A sim- 
pleton may bring you salvation and a great 
philosopher may confound you. 

And so to life direct, as I have seen it 
working in others and felt it within myself, 
I refer the truth of what I say, And to 

18 



The Question 

books I refer only in so far as they are mani- 
festations of life. 

n 

But another question, more subtle and dis- 
turbing, must be faced. I have said, "There 
are two life-forces in the world I know: Jew- 
ish and gentile, ours and yours." If this be 
a truth, we must not be driven from it if, 
like many other truths, it is overlaid and ob- 
scured by the ir relevancies of life, by the in- 
tersection and confusion of currents. Here 
is the gentile life-force: here is the Jewish 
life-force. What their origin was I cannot 
say. I can only surmise dimly what circum- 
stances, reacting upon what original impulses, 
produced the Jewish life-force and the gentile 
life-force. I can only affirm — to the Jews, 
in the main, belongs the Jewish life-force, a 
consistent and coherent force, a direction in 
human thought and reaction. To you others 
belongs the gentile life-force, a mode of life 
and thought distinct from ours. But the bor- 

19 



You Gentiles 

der line is not clear. Not all of us Jews are 
representative of the Jewish life-force: not 
all of you gentiles are altogether alien to 
it. 

We have lived for many centuries in close 
contiguity, if not in intimacy. Our prophetic 
books, our most characteristic influence, have 
been read to you for many hundreds of years. 
Something in these books has developed here 
and there, among you, a latent individual im- 
pulse to our Jewish way of life and thought. 
Essentially our prophetic books cannot change 
your gentile nature: but in stray, predes- 
tined hearts they bring forth fruit. Your 
outlook on life, your dominant reactions, are 
the same to-day as they were two thousand 
years ago. All that has changed is the in- 
strument of expression. You live the same 
life under different faiths. But something 
clings to you here and there resembling the 
original form of the faith we gave you. Here 
and there our somber earnestness breaks out 
on the dazzling kaleidoscope of your history. 
And we , for all our segregation have caught, 

20 



The Question 

particularly of late, something of your way 
of life. As a few gentiles have spoken in 
Jewish tones, so more than one Jew speaks 
the language of the gentile. Jews live a gen- 
tile life here and there, while gentile lives 
give expression to Jewish emotions. 

Yet the cleavage is there, abysmal and un- 
deniable. In the main, we are forever dis- 
tinct. Ours is one life, yours is another. 
Such accidental confusions as make some 
Northerners darker than Southerners does not 
affect the law that the Southerner is darker- 
skinned. The law holds none the less for 
accidental and contradictory cases. 

You may even have Jews in your midst 
who did not learn their way of life from us, 
and did not inherit it from a Jewish forbear. 
We may have authentic gentiles in our midst: 
these single protests are of no account: they 
are extreme and irrelevant variations. 

And of as little account are the occasional 
transferences of customs and conventions, 
taken over in the mass. We may have cus- 
toms and conventions of yours imposed on 

21 



You Gentiles 



our fundamental way of life — even as you 
have the surface credo of a Jewish faith im- 
posed on your way of life. But in the end 
your true nature works itself into the pattern 
of the borrowed faith, and expresses itself un- 
deniably. So we, borrowing from you, finally 
assimilate the loan and in time make it es- 
sentially ours. 

Beyond all these irrelevancies which hide 
at times but do not change the issue lies that 
clear and fateful division of life — Jewish and 
gentile. Because I have mingled intimately 
with the Jewish world and with the gentile 
world, I know well how easily exceptions ob- 
scure the rule: but I know just as well the 
unsounded abyss between us. What I have 
learned in your midst stands in my mind 
sharply severed from what I have learned in 
the midst of my people. I listen to your life, 
to the brilliant chorus which goes up from 
lands, governments, cities, books, churches, 
moralities: and in my mind I can no more 
confuse it with the tone of Jewish life than 
I could confuse the roaring of a tempest with 

22 



The Question 

the deliberate utterance of the still, small 
voice. I repeat: it is of life I speak, of masses 
of men and women: of the things they say 
and do: of their daily selves, as I have known 
them. It is of life at first hand that I speak: 
of yourselves as you are in masses and singly, 
of my own people as I know them. My con- 
viction came first from this contact, and from 
meditation on its meaning. I learned this 
belief of mine not in books, not in history, but 
in Manchester, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, New 
York. So gentiles, I concluded, have a way 
of living and thinking, wherever they may 
be. So Jews have a way of living and think- 
ing. Had no books ever been written, were 
there no histories to refer to, I would have 
come to this belief. 

I do not believe that this primal difference 
between gentile and Jew is reconciliable. 
You and we may come to an understanding, 
never to a reconciliation. There will be irri- 
tation between us as long as we are in inti- 
mate contact. For nature and constitution 
and vision divide us from all of you forever 

23 



You Gentiles 

■ — not a mere conviction, not a mere lan- 
guage, not a mere difference of national or 
religious allegiance. With the best will on 
both sides, successful adaptation to each 
other will always be insecure and transient. 
Waves of liberality may affect our mutual 
relationship from time to time: we shall de- 
lude ourselves — you and we — with the belief 
that we have bridged the gulf. Many will 
pass their lives in that delusion. But, as has 
come to pass so often, the difference which 
is deeper than will, deeper than conscious- 
ness, will assert itself. There is a limit to 
our moral or mental possibilities. We cannot 
climb out of ourselves. The complete and 
permanent reconciliation of your way of life 
with ours is beyond that limit. 

Of course it is the frequent theme of edi- 
tors, of popular professional optimists and 
of gullible and facile publicists that the path 
to reconciliation between Jew and gentile is 
the path of knowledge — or, rather, of infor- 
mation. The more you know concerning our 
history, our customs, our beliefs, the nearer 

24 



The Question 

you will find us to you, the less you will dis- 
like us. But this is futile (and unreliable) 
amiability. It is by no means even a general 
rule that the best-informed people are the 
least accessible to anti-Semitism, that the 
most backward countries are .the most in- 
fected. Here is a cult, or at least a feeling, 
which sits with equal grace on the grossest 
of your peasantry and the most refined of 
your aristocracy. In the one case it is forti- 
fied by superstition, in the other case by all 
the information that "scientific" research into 
philosophy, history, ethnography and anthro- 
pology can accumulate. Not that, in my 
opinion, the aristocrat knows us better than 
the peasant, the scholar better than the boor. 
But even if you should understand us — and 
I offer you this toward that end — we would 
not find mutual tolerance any easier. 

This book, therefore, cannot be presented 
as an effort to achieve an end which from 
the outset is declared impossible. I do not 
propose to combat anti-Semitism. I only 
wish to present what seems to me its true 

25 



You Gentiles 



explanation in the hope of changing some of 
its manifestations. 

in 

We shall not come to understand the na- 
ture of the primal difference between gentile 
and Jew if we attempt to treat it merely as 
a difference in accepted dogmas and philoso- 
phies. A religion, in its formulated essence, 
is seldom the real religion, the practice and 
belief. Creeds which in their formulated es- 
sence are alien to a people may be accepted 
by the people. But the true nature of the 
people asserts itself. The form and dogma 
of the religion are retained: but the fabric, 
the institutions, the true reactions which 
make the religion what U is outside of its 
sacred books— these are the indices to its ac- 
tual force and significance. There is such 
a thing as conversion of a man's opinions: 
there is no such thing (outside the field of 
long and laborious psychotherapy in individ- 
ual cases) as conversion of a man's nature. 

26 



The Ouestion 

That is beyond the reach of conscious effort, 
certainly beyond the reach of the missionary. 
Change a man's opinions and his nature will 
soon learn to express itself through the new 
medium. 

This I preface to my observations on the 
difference between Jew and gentile because 
I anticipate the commonplace allusion to the 
similarity of our creeds , to the identity of 
source and to the origin of the founder of 
your religion. Christianity (the reality, not 
the credo) is not a variant of Judaism, what- 
ever Christ or his chroniclers may have in- 
tended. Your nature is the same to-day as 
it was before the advent of Christianity. 
Within the framework of another creed your 
instincts would have woven a similar design. 

And if not religious, this difference cer- 
tainly cannot be in the nature of a philoso- 
phy or a Weltanschauung. It is true that a 
man's nature dictates his philosophy and 
Weltanschauung, even as it does his religion. 
But we must also remember that our logic 
is nearly always at variance with our natures: 

27 



You Gentiles 

a man's nature expresses itself only indirectly 
-h never found in the face value of his as- 
sertions. Surely we differ in religion and phi- 
losophy-but only if we consider religion and 
philosophy not as assertions but as the prac- 
tice, or art of life, presented in their name. 
Though you and we were to agree on all fun- 
damental principles, as openly stated, though 
we should agree that there is only one God, 
that war is evil, that universal peace is the 
most desirable of human ideals, yet we should 
remain fundamentally different. The lan- 
guage of our external expression is alike, but 
the language of our internal meaning is dif- 
ferent. You call that line, in that part of 
the spectrum, red; so do we. But who will 
ever know that the sensation c 'red" in you 
is the sensation "red" in us? 

Life is fluid and dogmas are fixed: and life, 
trying to come to terms with dogmas, does 
not easily break with them, but endows them 
with almost infinite plasticity. Under the 
same dogmas a man will kill another or die 
rather than lift his hand to kill. One gen- 

28 



The Question 

eration means one thing in a dogma: another 
generation means another thing. And at last 
even the elasticity of the dogma will not stand 
the strain: a sudden wave of emotion comes 
to reinforce accumulated resentment: there is 
a revolution and a new religion is founded; 
new dogmas are accepted. Perhaps they do 
not answer the need; perhaps they express 
only a passing fashion; perhaps they are no 
nearer than the old dogmas to a reconcilia- 
tion between philosophy and instinct. But 
they may take root. And the process begins 
all over again. Instinct endures for glacial 
ages; religions revolve with civilizations. 

Let us differentiate, then, between a re- 
ligion as a dogma and the same religion as 
a practised art or way of life. We may com- 
pare religion with religion: that is legitimate 
and fruitful. But let us, in so doing, com- 
pare dogma with dogma, practice with prac- 
tice: and even when we treat of dogma let 
us be careful to distinguish between the 
dogma as proclaimed and the dogma as it is 
transmuted by the emotions. 

29 



You Gentiles 

And certainly between the dogmas of your 
religions and ours there is little difference— 
for we gave you the dogmas. It is absurd 
to assert that the sole difference between you 
and us is that you believe the Messiah has 
already come while we believe that he is yet 
to come; or that you believe (even in theory) 
in the doctrine of forgiveness while we be- 
lieve in the doctrine of retaliation. Even in 
theory this difference is trifling in the face 
of the overwhelming bulk of common inspi- 
ration. The difference between us is abys- 
mal: it is not a disagreement about a historic 
fact or about a commandment which neither 
of us observes. In some of these dogmatic 
disagreements we may find the key to our dif- 
ferences: they do not constitute the differ- 
ence. A few of them (those which have not 
been stretched to accommodate your instincts 
but express them readily) were caused by the 
difference between us. They did not cause it. 

That primal difference, which I have 
sensed more and more keenly as I have tasted 
more and more of life, your life and our life, 

30 



The Question 

is a difference in the sum totals of our re- 
spective emotions under the stimulus of the 
external world; it is a difference in the es- 
sential quality or tone of our mental and 
spiritual being. Life is to you one thing — . 
to us another. And according to these two 
essential qualities we make answer to the 
needs and impulses which are common to 
both of us. 

To you life is a game and a gallant ad- 
venture, and all life's enterprises partake of 
the spirit of the adventurous. To us life is 
a serious and sober duty pointed to a definite 
and inescapable task. Your relations to gods 
and men spring from the joy and rhythm of 
the temporary comradeship or enmity of 
spirit. Our relation to God and men is dic- 
tated by a somber subjection to some eternal 
principle. Your way of life, your moralities 
and codes, are the rules of a game — none the 
less severe or exacting for that, but not in- 
spired by a sense of fundamental purposeful- 
ness. Our way of life, our morality and code, 
do not refer to temporary rules which govern 

31 



You Gentiles 

a temporary and trivial pastime: they are in- 
spired by a belief (a true belief, a belief 
which reaches below assertion into instinctive 
reaction) in the eternal quality of human en- 
deavor. To you morality is "the right 
thing/' to us morality is "right" For all the 
changing problems of human relationship 
which rise with changing circumstances you 
lay down the rules and regulations of the 
warrior, the sportsman, the gentleman; we 
refer all problems seriously to eternal law. 
For you certain acts are "unbecoming" to 
the pertinent ideal type — whether he be a 
knight or a "decent fellow." We have no 
such changing systems of reference — only one 
command. 

And all your moral attributes are only va- 
rieties of Queensberry rales. Honor, loyalty, 
purity — these are sets of regulations. The 
best of you will not swerve from them: you 
will die in their defense — like the gallant gen- 
tlemen you are. But you will not brook the 
question whether your system of honor is 
founded on right, whether loyalty has rela- 

32 



The Question 

tion to intelligence, whether purity has rela- 
tion to the state of mind. Honor means but 
one thing — to do the honorable thing, whether 
it be honor in dueling, honor among thieves, 
honor of women; loyalty means the quality 
of being loyal independent of right or wrong; 
purity means the chastity of the body or the 
denial of desire — as such; it is related to the 
game, not to God. 

For us these distinctions do not exist, for 
we are serious in our intentions. We will not 
accept your rules because we do not under- 
stand them. Right and wrong is the only 
distinction we are fitted by our nature to ap- 
preciate. We are puzzled by your punctilios, 
your quaint distinctions, your gentleman's 
comme il fauts. We are amazed when you 
fight for them; we are struck dumb when 
you die for them — a song on your lips. 

Not that we do not know how to die for 
a cause. But we must die for a serious cause, 
for a reason, for right, for God. Not for a 
slogan without meaning, for a symbol for its 
own sake, for a rule for its own sake. We 

33 



You Gentiles 

will die for the right — not for "the right 
thing." 

This difference in behavior and reaction 
springs from something much more earnest 
and significant than a difference in beliefs: it 
springs from a difference in our biologic 
equipment. It does not argue the inferiority 
of the one or the other. It is a difference in 
the taking of life which cannot be argued. 
You have your way of life, we ours. In your 
system of life we are essentially without 
"honor." In our system of life you are essen- 
tially without morality. In your system of 
life we must forever appear graceless; to us 
you must forever appear Godless. 

Seen from beyond both of us, there is 
neither right nor wrong. There is your West- 
ern civilization. If your sense of the imper- 
manence of things, the essential sportiness 
of all effort, the gamesomeness and gameness 
of life, has blossomed in events and laws like 
these I have seen around me, it cannot, from 
an external point of view (neither yours nor 

34 



The Question 

ours) be classified as right or wrong. Wars 
for Helen and for Jenkins 5 ear; duels for 
honor and for gambling debts, death for a 
flag, loyalties, gallant gestures, a world that 
centers round sport and war, with a system 
of virtues related to these; art that springs 
not from God but from the joyousness and 
suffering of the free man, a world of play 
which takes death itself as part of the play, 
to be approached as carelessly and pleasantly 
as any other turn of chance, cities and states 
and mighty enterprises built up on the same 
rush of feeling and energy as carries a football 
team — and in the same ideology — this is the 
efflorescence of the Western world. It has a 
magnificent, evanescent beauty. It is a val- 
iant defiance of the gloom of the universe, 
a warrior's shout into the ghastly void — a 
futile thing to us, beautiful and boyish. For 
all its inconsistencies and failures within it- 
self, it has a charm and rhythm which are 
unknown to us. We could never have built 
a world like yours. 

35 



You Gentiles 

The efflorescence of our life, given free 
room, is profoundly different. We have none 
of this joyous gamesomeness. We fight and 
suffer and die, even as we labor and create, 
not in sport and not under the rules of sport, 
but in the feeling and belief that we are part 
of an eternal process. We cannot have art 
such as you have, a free and careless lyrical 
beauty, songs and epics. Our sense of beauty 
springs from immersion in the universe, from 
a gloomy desire to see justice done in the 
name of God. Morality itself we take simply 
and seriously: we have none of your arbitrary 
regulations, your fine flourishes and disci- 
plined gallantries: we only know right or 
wrong: all the rest seems to us childish irrel- 
evance. When God speaks in us, when his 
overwhelming will drives us to utterance we 
are great: otherwise we are futile. With you 
there cannot be a question of futility. We 
belong to the One mastering God: you belong 
to the republic of playful gods. 

These are two ways of life, each utterly 
alien to the other. Each has its place in the 

36 



The Question 

world — but they cannot flourish in the same 
soil, they cannot remain in contact without 
antagonism. Though to life itself each way 
is a perfect utterance, to each other they are 
enemies. 



37 



II 



Sport 

The most amazing thing in your life, the 
most in contrast with ours, is its sport. By 
this I do not mean simply your fondness for 
physical exercise, your physical exuberance, 
but the psychological and social institutionali- 
zation of sport, its organization, its predomi- 
nant role as the outlet and expression of your 
spiritual energies. 

I will not go into the history of sports 
among you, contrasting it with its absence 
from our records and emotions. But surely 
there is something of extraordinary signifi- 
cance in the predominance of sports in your 
first high civilization, their religious charac- 
ter and their hold on the affection and atten- 
tion of the masses. That the overwhelming 
significance of this manifestation of life has 
been ignored is due essentially to the pom- 
posity of historians, who care for dignity and 

38 



Sport 

"scholarship" more than for truth, and who, 
often lacking the shrewdness, insight, cyni- 
cism, craftiness, vulgarity, affection and live- 
wireness, in brief, the worldliness, to under- 
stand what is going on around them in news- 
papers, politics and movements, think they 
can nevertheless understand history, which 
they seem to regard not as yesterday's acts 
of the people around them to-day, but as a 
detached and peculiar system, inaccessible to 
ordinary and uncultured intelligence. I need 
not go to ancient history. When I read 
"serious" accounts of the history of our own 
times, and see in what a seeming conspiracy 
of stupidity our historians ignore the most 
potent manifestation of modern life — sport, 
football, baseball — and concentrate almost 
exclusively on such trivialities as politics, 
which no one takes seriously, I am filled with 
astonishment and despair. Such men cannot 
write true history. But some records there 
are, and however small the attention which 
"serious" historians have given to this, we 
must feel that the chief free passion, that is, 

39 



You Gentiles 

the chief passion not inevitably aroused by 
the struggle for existence, the chief spiritual 
passion, was sport: witness the elaborate re- 
ligious celebration of sporting events built 
on athletic contests: witness the adulation, 
the love, that was poured out to athletic 
prodigies ; witness the dedication of the high- 
est, most inspired talents, to their glorifica- 
tion: witness the tremendous mass passions 
enlisted in sporting events in Athens, in 
Rome, in Byzantium and elsewhere. 

But in this regard, as in most others, his- 
tory is by far less important than contact with 
life. I need not study history or read books 
to know what sport means to you. I have 
only to feel the emotions around me, read 
your newspapers, watch the records of your 
universities. The most certain, the most con- 
sistent, the most sustained and intense free 
emotion in your life is sport. And when here 
in America (as, indeed, elsewhere too) some 
of your professors and educationalists deplore 
and condemn the preponderating role of sport 
in the schools, they fail to understand your 

40 



Sport 

spirit. Your spirit is sport: particularly your 
young men, who are not yet absorbed in the 
struggle for existence, and whose emotions 
are therefore for the largest part free, must 
find in sport, in games, in contests, the most 
satisfactory expression of their instincts. 

For the most part, of course, both profes- 
sor and public, despite occasional jokes at 
their own expense and at the expense of the 
institution, sympathize with the attitude of 
the young and encourage it not only by their 
energetic interest in organized sport outside, 
but by the passionate attention with which 
they follow the sporting records of the col- 
leges. It is a commonplace that the scholas- 
tic achievements of the universities are both 
unintelligible and uninteresting to the vast 
mass of graduates, and that academic work 
can in no wise compete with athletic achieve- 
ment in taking the heart and interest both of 
these and of the general public. And even 
those who can understand the content of 
scholastic achievement are also drawn more 
powerfully toward sporting achievement, 

41 



You Gentiles 

I do not agree at all with the few critics 
of your universities who see in this state of 
affairs the decline of the spirit of the coun- 
try and of its educators. This state of affairs 
is not decadence, but the full and vigorous 
blossoming of your spirit. This is your way 
of life. 

The contention of the majority of your 
educators, that the moral instinct is trained 
on the football and baseball field, in boxing, 
rowing, wrestling and other contests, is a true 
one, is truer, perhaps, than most of them 
realize. Your ideal morality is a sporting 
morality. The intense discipline of the game, 
the spirit of fair play, the qualities of en- 
durance, of good humor, of conventionalized 
seriousness in effort, of loyalty, of struggle 
without malice or bitterness, of readiness to 
forget like a sport— all these are brought out 
in their sheerest and cleanest starkness in 
well-organized and closely regulated college 
sports. And on the experiences and lessons 
which these sports imply your entire spiritual 
life is inevitably founded. 

42 



Sport 

It is therefore unjust to treat this aspect 
of your life flippantly: you yourselves often 
fail to recognize (except in unacknowledged 
instinct) how deeply it is rooted in your life. 
In having sundered it from the overt and or- 
ganized homage which you pay to spiritual 
values (in the church, that is) you have split 
yourselves. Hence the comparative weak- 
ness of your organized churches, which are 
founded on a misconception. Sport is for 
you a serious spiritual matter. It is the 
proper symbolization, the perfect ritual, 
wherein your spiritual forces, finding expres- 
sion, also find exercise and sustenance. They 
were cleaner-witted who, before the advent 
of Christianity, associated sport intimately 
with your religious life. To-day you are prac- 
tising on a vast scale the troubled hypocrisy 
of unhappy converts who have been con- 
vinced in reason of a new religion, but 
whose proper and healthy instincts drive 
them to surreptitious homage to older gods. 
Were sport given its right place again in 
your acknowledged spiritual institution, the 

43 



You Gentiles 

church, you would be happier, cleaner, 
stronger. 

For, the premise once granted that life it- 
self is but a joyous adventure, a combat, a 
passage-at-arms, you cannot do better than 
symbolize this premise in your athletic con- 
tests, in Olympiads, with local worship con- 
ducted on the village green and in the athletic 
halls and academies of the cities. The rigor 
of the rules (or sacred rites) which attended 
the open association of sport with religion 
testifies to the profound inner compulsion 
which makes the two identical. Indeed, even 
when religion and sport have been sundered, 
there is more moral odium attached to bad 
sportsmanship (cheating in the game, cow- 
ardice, selling out, striking foul and so on) 
than to the contravention of a moral injunc- 
tion bearing no sporting character. You can- 
not, therefore, do better , from your point of 
view, than instil into your young a keen love 
and admiration of right sportsmanship, and 
encourage their participation in sports gov- 
erned by severe regulations. Trained with 

44 



Sport 

sufficient consistency, they will carry into their 
adult life an ever-immanent sense of right 
and wrong according to your lights. And 
no better training could be devised, of course, 
than that which is associated with your most 
powerful educational institutions. 

It is true that the system, even when seen 
from its own point of view, has its potential 
evils. Partisanship may become so keen that 
it thwarts the purpose of the sport institu- 
tion. The desire to win or to be on the 
winning side may become so bitter as to over- 
rule the moral sense; and combats between 
champions (as once between the principals 
of opposing armies) may actually discourage 
individual participation. But every system, 
if it is a living thing, is subject to this dan- 
ger. And even out of the evil side you may 
draw good. If millions watch with breathless 
interest the combat of champions, that com- 
bat, conducted under the truest sporting 
rules, becomes a great influence, and fine, gen- 
tlemanly athletes may become the teachers 
of the nation. 

45 



You Gentiles 

And again, seen within itself, sport-moral- 
ity has as severe a discipline (if not, from 
our point of view, any spiritual sincerity) as 
a God-morality. It is as difficult and as 
exacting to be a gentleman as to be good. 
In many respects, of course, the two concepts 
overlap, though they are differently centered. 
Both call for restraint, for consideration of 
rules. Both are an advance on moral an- 
archy. 

In thus characterizing your ethical con- 
cepts, I have already indicated the essential 
difference which separates them from ours. 
There is no touch of sport morality in our 
way of life, in our problems of human rela- 
tionship. Our life morality cannot be sym- 
bolized in a miniature reproduction. We 
have no play-presentation of life. Our young, 
even like our adults, are referred at once to 
the first source, to the word of God, to the 
word of the prophet or teacher speaking in 
the name of God. Or, to secularize this state- 
ment, our young, like our adults, are imbued 
with a feeling of the absolute in their moral 

46 



Sport 

relations. Our virtues lack the flourish ano 
the charm of the lists: our evils are not miti« 
gated by well-meant and delightful hypocri- 
sies. Murder (except in self-defense) is 
murder, whether committed in a duel, with 
all its gentlemanly rules, or in unrestrained 
rage. When we are set face to face with 
an opponent, and one must kill the other, we 
proceed in the most effective way: we can- 
not understand the idea that rules of con- 
duct govern murder. We cannot understand 
a man who, attacking another, insists that the 
other, in self-defense, shall strike only above 
the belt. That strange character, the gentle- 
man thief, the gallant and appealing des- 
perado, who recurs with such significant fre- 
quency in your fine and popular literature, 
perhaps points my meaning best. The idea 
of a "gentleman thief' 5 is utterly impossible 
to the Jew: it is only you gentiles, with 
your idealization of the sporting qualities, 
who can thus unite in a universally popular 
hero, immorality and Rittersittlichkeit. It is 
probable, of course, that the majority of your 

47 



You Gentiles 

Robin Hoods and Claude Duvals were noth- 
ing but low ruffians, devoid even of chivalry: 
but their significance is not in what they were, 
but in what you make of them in worship. 
The persistence of the types is evident to-day 
as much as ever, when popular fancy is 
charmed and youth tempted into emulation 
by the "Raffles" and "Lupins" of the world 
of books. At no time have we Jews sympa- 
thized with this type. We are insensible to 
the appeal of "the correct" and the graceful 
as a substitute for our morality. Knightly 
or unknightly, courtly or uncourtly, sports- 
manlike or the opposite in our real life mean 
nothing. We only ask: Is it right or is it 
wrong? 

For the rules which you bring into life 
from the athletic field have no relation to 
the ultimate moral value of your acts and 
serve only to give you the moral satisfaction 
of having obeyed some rule or other while 
doing exactly what you want to do. Thus, 
grown and intelligent as you may be, you 
govern the hunting of animals with the most 

48 



Sport 

curious and seriously-taken regulations. You 
must not shoot a pigeon or a rabbit in sport 
unless such and such regulations are obeyed 
— it is "unsportsmanlike." You make a great 
moral to-do about these regulations. But 
what, in God's name, has this to do with the 
right or wrong of killing defenseless animals 
for sport? 

You have attempted to infuse into busi- 
ness, which you have made the stark transla- 
tion into modern social terms of the old kill- 
and-be-killed chaos, an ineffectual gallantry 
which will again give you the sense of "play- 
ing the game" while giving free course to 
your worst instincts. I mean that, apart 
from the necessities of the law, you attempt 
to bring into the field of business the curious 
punctilio of the fencing master — courtesies 
and pretenses, slogans and passwords, which 
mitigate only in appearance the primal sav- 
agery of the struggle. "Service," "the good 
of the public," "a square deal" — all the catch- 
words of the advertising schools which give 
a flavor of gamesome friendliness to a world 

49 



You Gentiles 

that is essentially merciless — this is not in- 
tentional lying, it is not deliberate hypocrisy. 
You believe that homage to these forms con- 
stitutes a morality. It does constitute a 
morality — of a kind. We, on our part, rec- 
ognize no particular system that divides 
business from the rest of life. One is as hon- 
est in business as in anything else. For us 
business has not a specialized idealism or 
court etiquette, a particularized code of 
honor. We are honest and truthful or we 
are not honest and truthful: it has nothing 
to do with our being in "this game" or in 
"that game/' a shopkeeper or a tailor or a 
banker. And because we cannot, by reason 
of our nature, follow you in these playful 
caracoles and curvetings, but drive straight 
to the purpose, using the plain common sense 
and honesty or dishonesty of the occasion, 
you are bound to regard us (as many of you 
do) as lacking in "etiquette" — that is, in 
your morality. 

A similar division in other essential opin- 
ions illustrates the primal difference between 
' 50 



Sport 

us. Your attitude toward combat (duels, 
wars) and all the virtues pertaining to it, is 
one from which we shrink. To you courage 
is an end in itself, to be glorified, worshiped, 
as imparting morality to an act. To us, cour- 
age is merely a means to an end. Hence your 
courage is combative, ours passive, yours of- 
fensive, ours defensive. Heroics play a great 
part in your idealism — none in ours. To fight 
is never a glorious business to us. It is a 
dirty business: we perform it when we must 
(and I suppose there is very little to choose 
between you and us in the matter of courage) , 
but we cannot pretend that the filthy neces- 
sity is a high virtue. "Dulce et decorum est 
pro patria mori" is not a Jewish sentiment: 
for it is not sweet to die for anything: but 
if we must die for it, we will. 

Nor do we glorify the warrior as a warrior, 
despite occasional individual defections of 
ours from that view. If my brother goes 
mad and attacks me, and I must slay him 
in self-defense, how can I be happy over it? 
It is a cruel and miserable business, to be 

51 



You Gentiles 

finished with as soon as possible, to be for- 
gotten as soon as possible. This is essentially 
the Jewish attitude toward war and warriors. 
I do not find in the Bible delight in war and 
warriors. Our exultation in victory was not 
the glorification of the warrior, but only a 
fierce joy at having survived. We fought bit- 
terly, vindictively, in order to kill: and our 
God was a God of war. But however this 
may be, I know with utter certainty concern- 
ing us as we are to-day that the conscious 
Jew, the Jew steeped in Jewish life, despises 
the fighter as such, abhors war: and though 
he can die for his faith as well as any one else, 
refuses to make a joyous ritual of combat. 

For when you gentiles assert that you ab- 
hor war, you deceive yourselves. War is the 
sublimest of the sports and therefore the most 
deeply worshiped. Do you mourn when you 
must fight? Is a nation plunged into gloom 
when a declaration of war arrives? Do you 
search your hearts closely, cruelly, to discover 
whether you yourselves are not to blame that 
this monstrous thing has come to pass? Does 

52 



Sport 

a tremor of terror go through you — "Perhaps 
we are guilty"? Do you clamor for the rec- 
ords of the long complications which have 
ushered in this horror? Do you go to your 
task of defense or offense darkly, grimly, bit- 
terly? No, you hang out your most gorgeous 
banners, you play merry music, your blood 
runs swiftly, happily, your cheeks brighten 
and your eyes sparkle. A glorious accession 
of strength marks the throwing down or the 
acceptance of the gage. From end to end 
of the land the tidings ring out, and every 
man and woman of mettle — every "red- 
blooded" man and woman, itches for a hand 
in it. 

Let me say clearly that I do not think 
all of you are fighting heroes. I have no 
doubt that millions of you, in every country, 
went to war reluctantly. But this does not 
contradict my contention. It only means that 
millions of you are not capable of living up 
to the ideal morality which you cherish. But 
even the greatest coward, even the most un- 
willing conscript toys, in his emotions, with 

53 



You Gentiles 

the adventures and triumphs of war. I 
speak, throughout this book, of the ideals 
to which you aspire and from which you 
draw your moral inspiration. And it is cer- 
tain that war itself, independently of all aims 
and justifications, is a prime necessity to you: 
and a declaration of war is the long-awaited 
signal of release, greeted with extravagant 
and hysterical joy. It is not love of country 
which induces this flood of happiness — it is 
combat, the glory of sport, the game, the 
magnificence of the greatest of all contests. 

Again, they were cleaner-witted, those of 
you who declared openly and frankly that 
war is the natural pursuit of noblemen and 
of kings. The highest and most life-passion- 
ate among you, the most exalted, were to be 
dedicated above all others to your way of life. 
Conversely, the basest among you were ac- 
counted as unworthy of admittance into the 
splendid company of warriors. The scullion 
must not dare to aspire to combative distinc- 
tion. To-day, as of old, you have nothing 
but contempt (revealed in its true intensity 

54 



Sport 

in time of war) for the true pacifist. Your 
nature is to-day what it was a thousand years 
ago. "In the somber obstinacy of the British 
worker still survives the tacit rage of the 
Scandinavian Berserker." And vain and fu- 
tile and foolish are all these efforts to dam 
up and to choke the extremest and most cher- 
ished outlet of your natural instinct. 

But in war, as in all other games of life, 
you satisfy your morality by means of amaz- 
ing punctilios. To kill thus leaves you clean: 
to kill otherwise is ungentlemanly. In a few 
of these fine points in the conduct of war and 
of duels there may lurk some true moral sig- 
nificance. But it amazes us that in the exer- 
cise of this punctilio you find sufficient right- 
eousness to ease your conscience altogether. 

Were you truly concerned with right and 
wrong instead of with the sporting " right 
thing," with honor, what a flood of horror 
and of pity and of prostration would follow 
each of your wars: with what frantic haste 
you would fly to the consolation of each 
other; with what tremors of moral terror 

55 



You Gentiles 

you would examine again and again the catas- 
trophic madness from which you have just 
emerged. Merciful God! You have just 
slain ten thousand, a hundred thousand men, 
fathers and sons: in the red rage of combat 
you have * disemboweled them, suffocated 
them, drowned them, torn them limb from 
limb, blinded them. A million loving parents, 
children, friends have wakened sweating in 
the night out of a terrible vision of last de- 
spairs, of contracted, screaming agonies. And 
now, when it is over, do you run to your 
churches, and with streaming eyes, fling 
yourselves at the foot of priest and altar, 
terrified lest the murder you have committed 
might have been avoided, lest at least some 
of the guilt rest upon your head? For surely 
if even the faintest stain of culpability, the 
minutest blot, a grain, an all but invisible 
fleck, an oversight, momentary impatience, 
pride, carelessness, leave you not utterly, 
utterly, utterly blameless, you have need of 
all the Divine Compassion, all the infinite 
forgiveness of God. 

56 



Sport 

But your wars have never ended, since his- 
tory records them, save with the same out- 
bursts of pride and insolence as began them. 
Was there ever a Te Deum turned into a cry 
of Mea culpa? Was ever a war entered in 
a history book save as a glorious adventure, 
glorious in victory, glorious in disaster? And 
even if, after a hundred years, a historian 
here and there dares tarnish the stainless rec- 
ords of your purposes with a single plausible 
doubt, was there ever an awakening of guilt 
a thousandth part as strong as the awaken- 
ing of pride and happiness which accompanies 
the recalling of the exploits of any war, how- 
ever remote? 

You have just passed through the wildest 
and most universal of all wars. Search your 
memories and your press well. Where was 
the hushed humility, the awe, the shuddering 
amazement which should have fallen on the 
world when the Armistice was declared? Did 
you not straightway send forth emissaries to 
bargain and barter, to accuse and to de- 
nounce? And above all to maintain your 

57 



You Gentiles 

national dignity! What dignity, pray? 
What was left of dignity to a single one of 
you? What was left of decency to any who 
had joined in the furious and blasphemous 
revelries of those five years? 

You hate war? Nonsense; you enjoy it. 
If, in the passing tiredness which follows the 
strenuous exertion, you pause awhile to re- 
flect, you do not dare to think into the root- 
causes and evils lest indeed you make war 
impossible. You tinker with a few regula- 
tions, gas laws, Flammenwerfer rules, armed 
and unarmed ships and similarly futile triv- 
ialities. You call each other "bad sports" — 
and a day later you are prepared, if the occa- 
sion offers, to embark again on the exhilarat- 
ing enterprise. 

Yet, I say, for all this, you can never be 
guilty in your own eyes, not one of you. De- 
nunciation can only come from one who does 
not share your morality. Your conscience 
cannot be seared, for you have done no wrong. 
War is the high-mark of your life, the true 
and triumphant expression of your instincts. 

58 



Sport 

And therefore, whatever church and religion 
may preach in the intervals between actual 
fighting, you remember all your wars with 
wistful and longing pride as the greatest 
events in your existence. The splendor cf 
war, in preparation and in action and in recol- 
lection, in the rhythm of training armies, in 
the frantic excitement of battle, in the glori- 
ous commemoration of monument and song 
and tapestry, is the flower of your civiliza- 
tion, material and spiritual. In nothing are 
you as efficient as in war; in nothing as true 
to yourselves. Strained to the utmost in this 
terrific game your splendid faculties find full 
and vehement exercise. And whosoever from 
under the shadow of God upbraids you and 
discourages you, is your eternal enemy. 

I cannot undertake, while developing this 
theme, to answer all of the objections which 
occur even to me. In part, of course, some 
of these objections are unanswerable, and are, 
in my opinion, only overborne by counter- 
objections. In part they are futile objec- 

59 



You Gentiles 

tions. But in touching on some of them, I 
may make my viewpoint clearer. I shall be 
reminded that wherever war was declared we 
Jews have responded as readily and as eagerly 
as you gentiles. Statistics (which are quite 
reliable in such rule-of-thumb matters) bear 
this out. But I do not believe that we did 
so from motives that resembled yours. Many 
reasons compelled us. We are everywhere, 
to a large extent, aliens. A sense of inferior- 
ity in status drives us to extremes of sacrifice 
in justifying our claims to equality. More 
than that: we Jews are so frequently and so 
vigorously reminded, in all constitutionally 
governed and liberal countries, that we ought 
to be grateful for permission to live there, 
that we develop a gratitude which is not only 
disproportionate but occasionally grotesque. 
Our children, in schools and elsewhere, are 
taught, year in, year out, to contrast their 
present freedom and equality of opportunity 
with the oppression and bitterness which 
was the lot of their parents elsewhere. Fre- 
quently the contrast, as painted in their 

60 



Sport 

imagination, is not a duplicate of the reality. 
However this may be, these incessant and 
vehement reminders produce their effect. 
The child almost comes to believe that it was 
for the especial benefit of oppressed foreign- 
ers that America became a "free country" 
and, instead of accepting American forms of 
government level-headedly, with the proper 
degree of appreciation and criticism, he de- 
velops a suppressed hysteria of gratitude. 
This is not a healthy and natural feeling. 
Children should not be made to feel such 
tilings. And if it comes to the matter of con- 
tributions to liberty, we Jews have done as 
much for the enfranchisement of man as any 
other people. But the Jew, the oppressed par 
excellence, begins to look upon America's lib- 
erty as a personal favor. No wonder then 
that Jews will rush to fight for America. Yet, 
despite the contradiction of figures there is 
still a strong impression abroad that the Jews 
"failed in their duty," were "slackers." This 
feeling rises from an instinctive appreciation 
of that difference between us. We Jews don't 

61 



You Gentiles 

like fighting. You gentiles do. Moreover, 
because you like fighting, you are much more 
skilful than we in hiding occasional reluctance 
to fight. Indeed, it is obvious that the more 
fearful you are of taking a hand in the com- 
bat, the more you will glorify and idealize it: 
while the Jew who is afraid adds actual and 
overt dislike to his cowardice. 

But apart from this, we must not forget 
that with the schools of the Western world 
open to our children, your view of things is 
gradually being imposed on our alien psy- 
chology. Of the real and apparent successes 
of your effort I write elsewhere in this book. 
But here let me note that the Jewish child 
in your schools is made to feel that not to 
like fighting is a sign of complete inferiority. 
Determined to become your equal, he essays, 
often with success, to become warlike in his 
attitude. But it is an artificial success. He 
does from an imperious sense of duty what 
you do by instinct. He fights by forcing him- 
self to it. He has not your natural gift and 
inclination for it. 

62 



Sport 

Of course I shall be told, in establishing 
this distinction among others, that it is "dan- 
gerous to generalize. 55 It is curious with 
what finality this commonplace is supposed 
to crush the generalizes Suppose it is true 
that it is dangerous to generalize: are not 
many necessary things dangerous — like bear- 
ing children and digging coal? A truth is none 
the less a truth because it is a dangerous truth 
— i.e., open to easy abuse. Nevertheless, the 
most serious truths can only be stated — as 
generalities. And this most serious truth is 
among them, this contrast in attitude toward 
war of Jew and gentile. And as long as the 
contrast exists, it will be stronger than will, 
stronger than reason. As long as we are at 
opposite poles, we shall have to make con- 
tinuous and strenuous efforts to get on side 
by side. 



63 



Ill 



Gods 

This is the essence of our difference: that 
we are serious, you are not. The French 
shading of the word comes nearer my mean- 
ing: vous n'etes pas serieux. Not as a mat- 
ter of intent, but as a matter of constitution. 
This lack of seriousness, thus uttering itself 
in your ethics, and governing the character of 
your relations to each other, must also gov- 
ern your religion, your symbolized relations 
with the universe. And I have always felt, 
in contemplating your religious experiences 
and declarations, the same alienation from 
them as from your morality. Your feeling 
for Godhead partakes of the imaginative and 
lyrical playfulness which is your essential na- 
ture, and whatever may be the formal creed 
in which your feelings are wrapped their true 
nature cannot be hidden, 

64 



Gods 

You gentiles are essentially polytheists 
and to some extent idol worshippers. We 
Jews are essentially monotheists. I would as- 
sert this even if it were not known that we 
have been singled out for centuries by our 
obstinate monotheism. I would assert it on 
the basis of my observations of the worlds I 
have known. 

Monotheism is a desperate and overwhelm- 
ing creed. It can be the expression of none 
but the most serious natures. It is a funda- 
mental creed which engulfs individual and 
mass in an unfathomable sea of unity. In 
monotheism there is no room left for individ- 
ual prides and distinctions, no room for joyful 
assertiveness. Monotheism means infinite 
absolutism, the crushing triumph of the One, 
the crushing annihilation of the ones. 

To the serious nature it is inconceivable 
that this world should be at the changing 
mercy of opposing and uncontrolled forces: 
that gods of varying power and purpose 
should be making a sport of their own with 
us and themselves. But to the sporting na- 

65 



You Gentiles 

ture the ghastly unity of all life and power, 
the grim and sempiternal-settled predestina- 
tion of all effort is, when accessible, an in- 
tolerable thought. 

We Jews are incapable of polytheism. You 
gentiles are incapable of monotheism. 

Given, in the most explicit terms, the defi- 
nition of monotheism, which you have tried 
as sincerely as lies in your power to accept, 
you still fail to make it your own. If life here 
is a sport and an heroic epic, the origins of 
life must be the same. Let the exceptions 
among you proclaim what they will: I know 
that the creeds of your masses, as I have heard 
them expounded from pulpits and in homes, 
as I have read of them in books and in period- 
icals, are polytheistic creeds. Of the three- 
in-one, the three is stressed, the one is the re- 
luctant concession to the dogma. 

For where there is the happy and imagina- 
tive gentile spirit there cannot be the com- 
plete and unconditional prostration of the 
individual. This utter breakdown of self 
which is revealed in our prayers before God, 

66 



Gods 

in our feelings towards him, is an experi- 
ence which you are too proud to share. 
Most of our prayers are helpless repetitions 
of our helplessness, the stammerings of a 
child overwhelmed, overmastered, by con- 
templation of the supreme Unity. You can- 
not pray thus: at no time, even in the pres- 
ence of the gods, do you lose your self-pos- 
session, your dignity. You too pray, but 
your prayers, compared with ours, are re- 
quests. Your offers of service to Christ the 
God are the offers of a vassal to a power- 
ful superior. Our prayers, too, beg some- 
thing, but requests of ours are folded in an 
abasement, a humility which would be revolt- 
ing to you. 

Hence it is that you have never, in these 
many centuries of Christianity, produced ut- 
terances like those of the prophets, of Job 
and of David. Your inspirations come from 
other sources, not from the one source. Your 
gods are essentially gods of the world, not of 
the universe. The universal aspect of divin- 
ity, its attributes of infinity and eternity, its 

67 



You Gentiles 

omnipotence — these find only your formal 
acknowledgment: but emotionally you are 
unfitted to give them the true acknowledg- 
ment of complete and almost incoherent 
abasement, That language is alien to your 
spirit — the terror of the infinite cannot touch 
you, the eternal you know as it were by sym- 
bol and formula — but not by horrified experi- 
ence. Your very professions of humility are 
like proud trumpet-blasts, and all your abase- 
ments of royalty, your Hapsburg burial cere- 
monies and anointings by priests are but ar- 
tistic flourishes which bring into graceful re- 
lief the true soldierliness of your character, 

I do not remember even having met the 
exceptions which must exist among you: I do 
not remember ever having heard a gentile 
pray with that abandonment, that abjectness, 
that (as it must seem to you) fulsomeness of 
homage which characterizes our prayer. 
Only they who (like us) are broken under 
the burden of realization of the infinite can 
pray thus; only they who, in dreams and in 
waking ecstasies and, above all, in instinct, 

68 



Gods 

have been touched with the rage of the Un- 
deniable Power can utter such adoration as 
ours. 

Our very anthropomorphisms reflect the 
difference in our spirit. With our personified 
God we hold speech such as you would never 
hold. When we translate infinite extent into 
infinite individual power, we shadow forth a 
Being, charged with an intensity of existence, 
a concentration of life and force, which you 
are unable to apprehend, being too free in 
spirit to attribute to any outside force such 
untrammeled and unapproachable tyranny. 

So your gods, too, are playthings, higher 
powers in the tempestuous game of life. All 
your mythologies were tales of adventure — 
for your very gods are not serious. And most 
fascinating are the tales of those gods which 
you fashioned when your first brilliant blos- 
soming in Greece started out of your turbu- 
lent soil. Who could conceive the mythology 
of Greece as a product of the Jewish people? 
That grace, that sunny charm, that adventur- 
ousness, that quarrelsomeness — could gods 

69 



You Gentiles 

like these ever have sprung from us? The 
emptiness of life and space and time brought 
forth out of your free and bounding imagina- 
tion a host of beings, which you imaged with 
infinite loveliness in stone. One god for 
heaven and one for the bowels of earth and 
one for the sea, and gods for music and trag- 
edy, gods for commerce and for voyaging — - 
was not this a charming game, a game of 
children? Can any one say that this was a 
serious and desperate attempt to become, 
in concept, one with the universal spirit of 
life? 

Compare with this our own first gropings, 
our own first clumsy expression of the univer- 
sal spirit which sought utterance in us. Even 
as an absolute tribal ruler our God was One, 
was master, a serious God. And out of that 
God-unity which we felt even in our primi- 
tive limitations, grew at last that concept 
which touched with undying ecstasy the lips 
of our prophets and cast over the life of the 
entire people, for all time, the shadow of 
omnipresence and omnipotence. Even when 

70 



Gods 

our God was a jealous God, his jealousy was 
absolute: he would brook no homage but to 
him, no acknowledgment but of him. But the 
jealousies of your gods were only the jealous- 
ies of sport. They did not seek universal 
mastery and exclusiveness — only superiority. 
To be primus inter pares was the ambition of 
your gods, with mastery each in his own do- 
main: but our God sought universal dominion 
in our hearts — such dominion as made all 
other homage inconceivable. 

Your gods gave you loveliness and joy and 
battle. You liked your gods and served them 
with alternating loyalties: you pitted one 
against the other, appealed from one to the 
other, plotted with one against the other. 
Your gods were kings and princelings, might- 
ier than you and more splendid. But no god 
of yours was the King of Kings in your soul. 
Your gods have never grown up, nor any sin- 
gle one among them. Nor have you grown 
into your god, but have always remained ex- 
ternal, proud and warlike and free, paying 
homage as of old, but retaining the mastery 

71 



You Gentiles 

over yourselves. You do not know of a God 
who is ALL, a God in whom you are, a God 
who has reduced you to the dust, to the infin- 
itesimal, in whom you are a breaking foam — 
a bubble on an infinite sea — it breaks: and 
it was born and is gone, for ever and ever. 

And so, despite occasional exceptions, 
which I acknowledge freely, the dedication of 
all life, all being, to God's will and way, is 
alien to you. You are not naturally steeped 
in God. You salute him and bring him hom- 
age. Your relations with your gods are occa- 
sional, even if inevitable: but you cannot 
compare that with the immanence and inti- 
macy of God-head in Jewish life. God is a 
common-place experience in Jewish life. He 
is the tacit continuous miracle of all our days 
and nights, thoughts and experience. 

We cannot conceive of a duality — religion 
and life, the sacred and the secular. A Jew is a 
Jew in everything, not merely in prayers and 
in synagogue. In the eyes of a pietist, a Jew 
who does not follow the rules and regulations 
of the synagogue, who even denies all dogma 

72 



Gods 

is not a non-Jew: he is a bad Jew, a sinful and 
rebellious Jew. 

In the orthodox world of Jewry, every act 
and incident is an acknowledged Jewish phe- 
nomenon: acknowledged, that is, openly, by 
prayer. The whole day is saturated with 
God, or with Jewishness. Our Jewishness 
is not a creed — it is ourself , our totality. 

Indeed, it may be fairly said that the sur- 
est evidence of your lack of seriousness in 
religion is the fact that your religions are not 
national, that you are not compromised and 
dedicated, en masse, to the faith. For what 
value has God for you if you do not surrender 
to him, even formally, all your gifts and facul- 
ties, all your skill and emotion? This is an 
amazing duality of allegiance: one is an Eng- 
lishman first — and then a Christian! An 
American first, and then a Baptist 1 Your 
most generous loyalties, your readiest sacri- 
fices, are inspired by your nationalism. Your 
faculties are national: you claim, "This is 
typically American/ 7 "This is typically Brit- 
ish," "This is typically French." You cut 

73 



You Gentiles 

this off at once from God, and the best of 
yourselves you withhold from him. 

But in the Jew, nation and people and 
faculties and culture and God are all one. 
We do not say: "I am a Jew/' meaning, C T 
am a member of this nationality": the feeling 
in the Jew, even in the free-thinking Jew like 
myself, is that to be one with his people is to 
be thereby admitted to the power of enjoy- 
ing the infinite. I might say, of ourselves: 
"We and God grew up together. " 

To have built up a great nation, millions of 
human beings — schools, armies, art galleries, 
books, legislatures, theaters, immense news- 
papers — is not this the all in all of national 
achievement, the best and strongest in you? 
— to have done this without your god as the 
central ideal Is that taking your religion 
seriously? No: any nation that takes its re- 
ligion seriously is a nation of priests. 

You will tell me that such things have been 
among you, that you have had national re- 
ligions, national gods. I do not believe it: I 
have certainly seen no evidence in any rec- 

74 



Gods 



ord which has come to my attention. For we 
must distinguish between a patron or tutelary 
god and a national god. The first is an espe- 
cially assigned power. The second is the com- 
plete reflex of the people, a god who is born 
with the people, who is its raison d'etre, 
without whom the people would not have come 
into national existence. You have had patron 
or appropriated gods: we have a national God. 
In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew. 
Is your God an Englishman or an American? 

There is no real contradiction between this 
confessed anthropomorphism and my claim 
that we Jews alone understand and feel the 
universality of God. In anthropomorphism 
we merely symbolize God : we reduce the infi- 
nite, temporarily, to tangible proportions: we 
make it accessible "to daily reference. For 
neither we nor you can carry on the business 
of ordinary living on the plane of constant ab- 
straction. It is not because of your anthro- 
pomorphism that I accuse your religious feel- 
ings of being trivial. It is because of the 
manner of your anthropomorphism, it is be- 

75 



You Gentiles 

cause of what your anthropomorphism pro- 
duces. 

And thus, by natural reaction, we in our 
anthropomorphism are all the more personal 
because in our abstraction we are truly ab- 
stract. Because we alone are dedicated to 
the infinite, our God, when anthropomor- 
phized, is our own God. I might say that 
there is no Jew who does not believe in God. 
The free-thinking Jews, the agnostic or athe- 
istic Jew like myself, simply does not anthro- 
pomorphize him. In his religious emotions 
the atheist Jew is as different from the atheist 
gentile as the confessing Jew from the con- 
fessing gentile-Christian. 

For if gods are the rationalized explana- 
tion of religious emotions they differ in ac- 
ceptance and denial even as these emotions 
differ. And of course by "religious" emotions 
we only mean one aspect of all emotions. 
Your emotions, your life-reactions differ 
fundamentally from ours — why, I cannot tell. 
But as in morality you are freer, sporting and 

76 



Gods 

variegated, so your gods are many, varied and 
manly. And our gloomy and merciless mono- 
theism, intolerant in abstraction and in per- 
sonification, is the eternal enemy of your 
gods. 



77 



IV 



Utopia 

The dreams of men concerning the latter 
days are a common index to their ideals of 
life, for no one will think of the future except 
as his own. These dreams, like their close 
kin, the night dream, are extraordinarily diffi- 
cult of interpretation— much more difficult 
than the psychoanalyst would have us be- 
lieve. But on occasions they are presented 
with unmistakable clarity and directness— by 
the prophets. 

The functions of the prophet as a seer and 
a foreseer have been confounded for this rea- 
son. The true prophet sees into the ultimate 
longings of his group— longings which may 
even run counter to the day's desires. These 
ultimate longings are shifted into the far fu- 
ture—beyond the reach of temporal compli- 
cations and compromises: and he that unveils 

78 



Utopia 

a man's inmost longings wins credence as hav- 
ing foreseen the true finality of life. 

I have chosen Plato's Republic and our 
own Hebrew prophets as the basis of contrast 
between your dreams of the latter days and 
ours, between your longings for perfection 
and ours. I have chosen Plato because of all 
the seers who have sprung up in your midst 
he is the most universally accepted, and of all 
Utopias your thinkers refer to his most fre- 
quently: that is to say, he comes nearest to 
your desires. Hence in discussing him, I am 
discussing you. 

I have used the phrase "of all the seers who 
have sprung up in your midst" because it is 
true that you still mention the Hebrew 
prophets more frequently than Plato. But it is 
of singular and final significance that as soon 
as you develop free intelligence and desire 
expression for it, you turn from our prophets 
to your own. The overwhelming bulk of your 
intelligent discussion of life and the end of 
life centers round the free philosophers or 
seers — and among these you have made Plato 

79 



You Gentiles 

preeminent. Plato's analysis of the ideal 
life still approaches your dreams most inti- 
mately. 

Investigating the true nature of morality, 
Plato bodies forth his ideal of a perfect state, 
and, with the license of a dream giving free 
reign to his imagination, unfolds step by step 
his famous Republic. No considerations of 
practicality or of feasibility were there to 
check the career of his fantasy. The Repub- 
lic is to him life as it should be and as he 
would like to see it: the apotheosis of human 
aspiration. 

Contrast this with the visions of his almost 
contemporaries, the Jewish prophets, and in 
this contrast you will find again the key to 
our essential difference. 

The Republic of Plato is an institu- 
tion, organized with infinite ingenuity and 
dedicated to the delights of the body and 
the mind. It draws its inspiration from the 
pure joi de vivre of the ideal man of perfect 
physical and psychic health. You would seek 
in vain that extraneous compulsion of a God 

80 



Utopia 

which the Hebrews called inspiration. There 
is no somber passion driving to creation, no 
intolerant demands impossible of fulfilment. 
It is not God creating man in his mold: it 
is man creating God, or the gods, in his mold: 
gods that are companionable and comprehen- 
sible. 

He sets before you a pretty, intriguing lit- 
tle model ("a city not too big to lose the char- 
acteristics of a city") which, sundered from 
universal humanity, untouched by the univer- 
sal hunger, restricts Supreme Good to the 
possession of a comfortably secluded group. 
It is a city for the prosecution of the 
happy and artistic life; the harmonies and 
symmetries shall be carefully guarded, the 
satisfaction of body and of mind wisely and 
cleverly pursued. Nay, in that supreme hu- 
man product there shall even be — astounding 
triviality — a censor! 

There is a wealth of ingenuity devoted 
to these questions: How shall children be 
initiated into the art of war? How shall 
cowards and heroes be treated? What about 

81 



You Gentiles 

the plundering of the slain, and the perpetua- 
tion of deeds of battle in monuments? "Now, 
is it not of the greatest moment that the work 
of war shall be well done? Or is it so easy 
that any one can succeed in it and be at the 
same time a husbandman or a shoemaker or a 
laborer or any other trade whatever, although 
there is no one in the world who could be- 
come a good draught player or dice player by 
merely taking up the game at unoccupied mo- 
ments, instead of pursuing it as his special 
study from childhood? And will it be enough 
for a man merely to handle a shield or any 
other of the arms and implements of war, to 
be straightway competent to play his part 
well that very day in an engagement of heavy 
troops or in any other military service? . . ." 

"Is it not of the greatest moment that the 
work of war should be well done? . . ." 
This in a vision of human perfection— for it 
never occurs to Plato that perfection in hu- 
manity precludes the possibility of war. 

And treating of God, he says: "Surely God 
is good in reality, and is to be so represented," 

82 



Utopia 

but what can we make of his ultimate good? 
Is not his good merely "a good thing" — as 
right is for you "the right thing"? And what 
can we make of his God when, after talking 
of the goodness and dignity of God, he goes 
on to talk of the gods, and of how the poets 
are to be arraigned for not treating them re- 
spectfully in that they make them laugh or 
portray them in undignified occupations and 
postures I 

Well does he say: "The inquiry we are un- 
dertaking is no trivial one, but demands a 
keen sight." He does not say that it de- 
mands the aid of God, or a loving heart, or 
hunger after righteousness. But the very 
question of God is a trivial one, for, as one 
says in this book: "It is urged neither evasion 
nor violence can succeed with the gods. 
Well, hut if they either do not exist, or do not 
concern themselves with the affairs of men, 
why need we concern ourselves to evade their 
observation?" 

This graceful skepticism, which strikes the 
opening note of the book, sets the tone for the 

83 




You Gentiles 

entire theme. "What is justice?" What in- 
deed? Does any man that loves true justice 
(not the game) ever ask this question? Can 
any one truly believe that the subtlest and 
skilfulest analysis of justice will help one jot 
in creating love of justice, desire for justice? 

A vision of the perfection of mankind and 
children being trained for warl Contrast it 
with this: "In that day there shall be a high- 
way out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyr- 
ian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian 
into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve 
with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel 
be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, 
even a blessing in the midst of the land. 
Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying: 
Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the 
work of my hands and Israel mine inherit- 
ance." Or with the better known passage: 
"And it shall come to pass in the last days 
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall 
be established on the top of the mountains, 
and shall be exalted above the hills, and all 

84 



Utopia 

nations shall flow into it. And many peoples 
shall come and say: Come, let us go up to 
the mountains of the Lord, to the house of the 
God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his 
ways and we will walk in his paths. . . . And 
he shall judge the nations and shall rebuke 
many peoples, and they shall beat their 
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into 
pruning hooks : nation shall not lift up sword 
against nation, neither shall they learn any 
more war." 

A vision of the perfection of mankind, with 
censors and with carefully groomed gods! — 
the limit of his imagination. But this! — 
"And the earth shall be filled with the knowl- 
edge of God as the waters cover the sea." 
And this! — "And it shall come to pass after- 
ward that I will pour out my spirit upon all 
flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophesy: your old men shall dream dreams. 
Your young men shall see visions. And also 
upon the servants and upon the handmaids 
in those days will I pour out my spirit." 

85 



You Gentiles 

And because his world is not God's world, 
but the world of his self-created gods, he 
must sit down and argue anxiously, "What is 
justice?" But he that really loves justice 
asks no questions: he cries instead: "Seek 
good and not evil, that ye may live: and so 
the Lord, the God of Hosts, shall be with 
you, as ye have spoken. Hate evil and love 
the good, and establish judgment in the 
gate." And: "Let judgment run down as wa- 
ters and righteousness as a mighty stream." 

And when, baffled by the inadequacy of his 
human standards, your philosopher refers 
justice to the "categoric imperative," he be- 
trays the triviality of your world. What is 
that "categoric imperative," thkt helpless 
compromise and confession? What man rec- 
ognizes it, will bow to it? That phrase 
itself is its own denial, for he that refers man- 
kind to a "categoric imperative" is himself 
neither categoric nor imperative. But even 
the deaf will hear and tremble when the 
Prophet thunders: "Thus saith the Lord." 
There is the categoric imperative! 

86 



Utopia 

For me, conscious of being Jewish and of 
the meaning of being Jewish, it is impossible 
to write of this contrast without bias, as if 
this book were merely an intellectual exer- 
cise. Because I am Jewish I look with ulti- 
mate aversion on the world which finds su- 
preme and ideal expression in Plato's Repub- 
lic. And though I may repeat that this is no 
question of right and wrong in these two 
worlds, yours and ours, I cannot but feel pro- 
foundly and vehemently that ours is the way 
and the life. 

Yet I would pay what tribute I can to the 
dreams of one like Plato. I have at least 
touched your world closely enough to have 
caught some of the beauty of its freedom. 

There is a Jewish legend which tells that 
when God brought the Law, his Law, to the 
children of Israel assembled at the foot of 
Sinai, after he had offered it to all the other 
peoples, only to have it rejected, he left them 
no choice, but said; Either you take my Law 
or I will lift up this mountain and crush you 
beneath it. I attach no psychological signifi- 

87 



You Gentiles 

cance to the fable (the practice of interpret- 
ing fables psychologically is , as a rule, a dis- 
honest one), but quote it as a handy illustra- 
tion. We are not free to choose and to re- 
ject, to play, to construct, to refine. We are 
a dedicated and enslaved people, predestined 
to an unchangeable relationship. Freedom 
at large was not and is not a Jewish ideal. 
Service, love, consecration, these are ideals 
with us. Freedom means nothing to us: 
freedom to do what? 

Yet in glimpses I understand the charm 
of your life and sometimes lose myself in the 
fascination of your Plato's dream. Such a 
world as he foreshadows, a world of sunlight, 
exercise, singing, fantasy: a world of graceful 
and elastic bodies, of keen, flashing minds, of 
clash and effort, wars and heroes and monu- 
ments, a life wheeling and dashing in splendid 
formations, rejoicing under free and lovely 
skies: a life without brooding and gloom, 
without the intolerable burden of this unre- 
laxing immanence. Man and man's effort, 
man's love and agonies are ends in them- 

88 



Utopia 

selves, to be exploited for themselves: the 
coming and going of men and nations and 
gods are without ultimate significance, a dance 
of atoms, a passing ecstasy without thought 
of the sinister beyond. Beautiful— but not 
for us! While this dance goes on, while na- 
tions and gods enter the game and leave it, 
we continue through all time, an apparition 
almost, a dread reminder of infinity. 

Your dreams of perfection are only of a 
piece with your present life — the transient be- 
come permanent: the skies will be blue for- 
ever, your dance will never end. Your bodies 
will always be strong, your wits keen, your 
battles glorious: the game will reach its limit 
of enjoyment! 

But for us this is not an apotheosis: this is 
not a vision. For us the end is ecstatic unity, 
the identification of man with God. Your 
ideal is eternal youth, ours lifts toward an 
unchanging climax of adult perfection. You 
would like to play with your gods forever: 
we will return to God, to the universe. Yours 
is a sunlit afternoon, with the combatants 

89 



You Gentiles 

swaying forever in a joyous struggle. Ours 
is a whole world, with the spirit of God 
poured through all things. 

Your ideal is Plato's Republic: ours is 
God's kingdom. 



90 



V 



Loyalty 

Whenever friendly tribute has been paid 
to the higher ethical nature of the Jew, it has 
always been made to appear that the Jew 
obeys the laws of a common morality more 
strictly than does the gentile. Jews and 
friends of Jews have wanted to make it ap- 
pear that, if we differ from you ethically, it is 
in that we are more self-sacrificing, more gen- 
erous, more loyal, more honest, etc, I do not 
desire to make it appear so, and in the fore- 
going pages I have tried to avoid any such 
implication. Within our system we need be 
neither better nor worse behaved than you 
within yours. We may transgress as fre- 
quently as you, perhaps more frequently — I 
cannot tell: it is on the nature of the systems 
that I base the distinction. We deny your 
very system, you ours. 

91 



You Gentiles 

So that, casually, we must seem immoral 
to you, you to us. That is why even the low- 
est type of gentile despises the Jew; the low- 
est type of Jew, the gentile. For it is well to 
remember that criminals do not deny a sys- 
tem of ethics: they only transgress it. To the 
criminal the subverter of a system of moral- 
ity is a horrible creature, as (which I have al- 
ready intimated) to the coward the pacifist 
is particularly abhorrent. This must spring 
from the fact that for the professional crim- 
inal it is essential that humanity should be 
moral: his very existence as a criminal would 
otherwise be impossible. Indeed, he has more 
reason than any one else to foster a sense of 
morality in mankind, for the more exceptional 
he is, the better for his trade. Hence his 
greatest enemy is not the policeman (for the 
policeman maintains the social order which is 
his prey) , but the moral anarchist. And since 
the Jew is to the gentile order of conduct a 
moral anarchist, the gentile criminal who has 
come into contact with Jews will be the aptest 
to hate Jews. It is for this reason, I think, 

92 



Loyalty 

that criminality is so closely allied to anti- 
Semitism. 

In the attitude of the public toward liter- 
ary and stage censorship I find the clearest 
illustration of this distinction between the 
breaking of law and the denial of law. A 
play which is "indecent" may be so for one 
of two reasons. Either it deals with sex within 
the frame of morality or it denies the validity 
of this morality. In the first case (which 
covers most successful plays) we have no at- 
tack on current notions of what is right and 
wrong in the sexual relationship. We have, 
indeed, complete acceptances of the current 
principles of sex morality. But with this ac- 
ceptance en principe goes a generous denial 
in practice ; plays of this kind cover countless 
breaches of morality with a knowing wink, a 
tolerant appeal to human weakness. It is lu- 
dicrous to deny that the desire to tickle and 
provoke the sexual appetite, and covertly to 
encourage its promiscuous satisfaction, gov- 
erns these plays ; but it is not made a principle 
at all. It is the breaking of the law, not the 

93 



You Gentiles 

denial of it. Hence such plays (except when 
they become too obvious in their purpose and 
thus become an overt attack en masse) are 
tolerated by the censorship and encouraged 
by the public. 

But the play which has little sex appeal 
yet seriously denies the validity of accepted 
sex morality is dealt with promptly and se- 
verely, and among those who condemn it 
most vigorously will be found those who fre- 
quent assiduously the first type of play. I 
see nothing incongruous in this — nothing 
illogical even. For the first type of play is 
perhaps the safety valve to human nature: 
it remits us our unavoidable allowance of 
licence, without which morality would be- 
come an insufferable imposition. But the 
second type of play breaks up morality com- 
pletely. To the system of law the amoralist 
is more dangerous than the criminal. The 
naked chorus-girl is less dangerous than the 
naked truth. Such a danger — a danger not 
merely of malpractice, but of essential denial 
— is the Jew in your morality. And against 

94 



Loyalty 

the Jew there is a Union Sacree of all classes 
and conditions of men, the prince, the la- 
borer, the professor, the saint, the thief, the 
prostitute, the soldier, the merchant. There 
does not seem to be a single country with a 
history which has not been anti-Semitic at 
one time or another. There is no country to- 
day of which the Jew can say, "In this coun- 
try anti-Semitism will never become trium- 
phant." Your dislike of us finds uneven and 
unequal expression, is lulled into rest for a 
time, at times is overborne by generous im- 
pulses, but it is a quality inherent in the na- 
ture of things, nor is it conceivable to me 
that, as long as there are Jews and gentiles, it 
should ever disappear. 

For your system of morality is no less a 
need to you than ours to us. And the incom- 
patibility of the two systems is not passive. 
You might say: "Well, let us exist side by 
side and tolerate each other. We will not at- 
tack your morality, nor you ours." But the 
misfortune is that the two are not merely 
different. They are opposed in mortal, 

95 



You Gentiles 

though tacit, enmity. No man can accept 
both, or, accepting either, do otherwise than 
despise the other. 

No single attribute or virtue shows our mu- 
tual enmity more clearly than that of loyalty, 
which, among all the attributes contributing 
to your morality, is perhaps the most dearly 
cherished, the most vehemently advocated* 
It is impossible for me, in writing of it, to 
take up a purely analytic attitude; but I be- 
lieve that the preferences and aversions which 
I here express will at least serve to make clear 
the irreconcilable difference between Jewish 
and gentile morality. 

The abstraction, loyalty, is not related to 
good and bad. Loyalty is preached naked, 
as a virtue for itself. It is proper and right 
to be loyal. To do a thing out of loyalty — < 
loyalty to a man, to a group, to an idea — is in 
itself a sort of justification. To develop a 
loyalty is in itself commendable. 

To the Jew, naked loyalty is an incompre- 
hensible, a bewildering thing. That men 
should be called upon to keep a quantity of 

96 



Loyalty 

this virtue on constant tap, to be applied on 
instruction to this or that relationship, is not 
merely irrational to us: it is beyond the ap- 
prehension of our intelligence. 

We can understand love born of a natural 
relationship. But the quality of love differs 
essentially from the quality of loyalty. Loy- 
alty is demanded as an independent quality, 
as a thing in itself; it is cultivated (love 
cannot be "cultivated") ; it is stimulated and 
forced. It is not demanded, essentially, that 
you love: it is demanded that you be loyal. 

Very often, indeed, loyalty is demanded 
where a demand for love would be too obvi- 
ously ludicrous. For the application of loy- 
alty is to you as seemly in the case of an 
association of shoe salesmen as in the case of 
country itself. 

It is expected, in your world, that a man 
should be loyal to his country, to his province, 
to his city, to his section of the city, to his 
college, to his club, to his business associa- 
tions, to his fraternity, to every chance group 
into which events may bring him. In the first 

97 



You Gentiles 

instance, country, the distinction between 
love and loyalty is startlingly clear. Love of 
country is a profound spiritual quality: it may 
go hand in hand with a dangerous and exalted 
morality. But loyalty merely says: "My 
country must triumph in all her undertak- 
ings, whether they be right or wrong" — or, 
rather, "There is no such thing as 'my coun- 
try wrong. 5 " And in loyalty to king, class, 
or church, the same distinction or substitution 
is observed. Loyalty is a rigid code of be- 
havior — not an emotion. 

But the real nature of loyalty is only seen 
in its application to those relationships which 
are much more fortuitous than those of coun- 
try, church, class. In these loyalty is clearly 
revealed as a fictitious and artificial regula- 
tion, with no roots in moral conviction. Let 
us take the case of a young man who is faced 
with a choice of college. He may have pref- 
erences, but there is no compelling associa- 
tion which identifies him with any one insti- 
tution. The choice is decided finally by some 
quite irrelevant influence: he goes to any one 

98 



Loyalty 

college as he might have gone to any other. 
But once he is there loyalty demands that he 
regard this college as the best in the country 
■ — perhaps in no particular, for particulars are 
occasionally too tangible — but at large; the 
best, the finest, the noblest. Of this college 
he must think, and above all speak, with en- 
thusiasm, passion and devotion; he must de- 
fend its name against all aspersions, without 
investigating their foundations: if he even 
stops to consider the plausibility of these as- 
persions before denouncing them, the quality 
of his loyalty is already second-rate. The 
scholastic reputation of his college may be 
less than mediocre; its staff may not number 
a single scholar of note; its alumni may be 
an indistinguishable mob of obscure failures: 
worst of all, its football and baseball teams 
may be the laughing-stock of the locality. 
But his college is the best and noblest in the 
country and the world: the astonishing fea- 
ture of all this being that not only his school- 
mates expect him to say and seem to believe 
so, but that everybody outside the college, 

99 



You Gentiles 

convinced of its worthlessness, also expects 
this of him and considers him rather a cad 
if he acquiesces in what to them may be ob- 
viously true. 

This obligation of loyalty must pursue the 
man to the end of his life. Forty years after 
he has left his college he will be regarded with 
suspicion as something less than a gentleman 
if he should have discovered that his Alma 
Mater was and is an extremely inferior and 
uninteresting institution: "It may be all that, 
you know, but a man's got to be loyal to his 
college." 

What is true of college loyalty is true of 
other loyalties. A man who joins the army 
and is assigned to any regiment must have 
loyalty for his regiment — which means that 
he must seem to lose the faculty of discrim- 
ination and criticism as soon as the regiment 
he was accidentally assigned to is under con- 
sideration. Should he in later life become a 
member of a fraternity, of a business associa- 
tion, of a poker-club, he must be loyal. He 
must be loyal even at large, without an organ- 

100 



Loyalty 

ization to be loyal to. He must be loyal to 
the paper-manufacturing trade, to the clean- 
ers and dyers, to the transport business. And 
if he goes down into a factory to earn, by the 
sweat of his brow and under bitter duress, a 
bare livelihood, he must at once be loyal to 
his employers. 

But the application of loyalty is sometimes 
pushed to extremes which are nothing short 
of grotesque. One finds in surface cars no- 
tices like these: "Be loyal to the Bronx, to 
Bensonhurst, to Wapping, to Pendleton, to 
Charlottenburg, to the Ring, to the Marshal- 
kowska, to Montmartre. . . Sometimes I 
have wondered: "If you live in the Bronx and 
are loyal to your neighborhood grocer, how 
long are you supposed to yearn for him after 
you have moved to Brooklyn: and how soon 
may you with seemliness develop a loyalty 
for your neighborhood grocer in Brooklyn? 
Or are you supposed to leap into your loyal- 
ties at once as into a bath-tub and be im- 
mersed in them without a moment's loss? 
And similarly, how if you attend two or three 

101 



You Gentiles 

colleges in succession, or are attached to a 
number of regiments in succession? Or 
change your business, or your fraternity or 
your poker-club ?" 

It is clear to me that the very quality of 
loyalty and its place in your life again be- 
speaks the sport origin of your morality. The 
success of a football team depends not only 
on the physical aptitude and fitness of its 
members, but also on their spirit, their esprit 
de corps. There must be atmosphere for 
sporting effect: it is as important as physique 
and must be cultivated as assiduously, as 
carefully, as skilfully, as artificially. Which- 
ever team you join, your loyalty is essential to 
its success and your loyalty must be in- 
stantaneous and unconditional, neither cur- 
tailed by delay nor mitigated by reflection. 
Your loyalty has nothing to do with ultimate 
moral values. It is part of the game — and 
life is to you a game, on the football field, in 
the college, in the factory, on the battlefield. 
"The Game 0 alone can make loyalty a trans- 
portable quality of this kind. "The Game" 

102 



Loyalty- 
alone can give birth to the concept of loyalty. 

In our life, the Jewish life, loyalty is un- 
known. There is no equivalent for it among 
our attributes. We understand love, which is 
serious, profound: which must be treated, 
therefore, with due dignity. But we do not 
understand loyalty, which is trivial, gallant, 
gamesome, conventionalized. 

As students, we Jews are accused of lacking 
the right attitude toward the college. It is 
perfectly true that we have not the "loyal" 
attitude — as you have it, or, despite occa- 
sional efforts, to the degree in which you 
have it. We are apt to see the college as an 
institute of learning: we go there to study 
under competent teachers. What has loyalty 
to do with this organization? We may de- 
velop love for the place: it may, in later 
years, become a beloved memory, or it may 
not. But we cannot attach an immediate 
combative value to our connection with the 
college — an instantaneous regimental pride: 
we cannot attach a moral value to the pre- 
scribed set of sporting emotions and thrills 

103 



You Gentiles 
which are supposed to be a proper part of 
college life. We are unquestionably an alien 
spirit in your colleges. For your colleges are 
the most coherent mouthpieces of your moral- 
ity: and that morality is not ours. Your col- 
lege is a miniature world in which you first 
develop the sporting instincts which must ac- 
company you through the real world. We 
(with our proper exceptions) see the college 
only as a center of study, and, incidentally, 
occasionally of valued friendships. The idea 
of a rivalry with other colleges, in which each 
student must defend his own college, seems 
to us childlike. It is not to the purpose at 
all. It is not serious. 

But I have touched on the college only as 
a single illustration of the predominance of 
the virtue of loyalty in your concept of the 
proper human relationship. All your society 
is divided into «teams"-with a fictitious 
morality to correspond. It has little to do 
with direct utilitarianism. One might object, 
saying: "This morality, like any other, is 
merely the adjunct of the economic or biologic 

104 



Loyalty 

struggle. What we call 'morality' is merely 
the assistant illusion in the struggle for exist- 
ence. And in this regard gentile and Jew are 
alike." But this is an irrelevant truth. 
There was a time when, among you gentiles, 
one man would courteously challenge another 
to mortal combat: without real motive, with- 
out enmity, without passion. So it was: when 
no excuse for combat was available you 
dropped even the pretense of an excuse. Do 
not answer that this was a passing phase: for 
I say that when men actually kill each other 
for mere sport it betokens a profound, an al- 
most eternal instinct. That instinct to-day 
finds expression in equally moralless rela- 
tions, equally passionless associations and en- 
mities. You arrange your life in such wise as 
to get the maximum of sport out of it. And, 
for the purpose of sport, it does not matter to 
which team you belong: England or America, 
Harvard or Yale, the Black Watch or the 
Old Guard, the Neighborhood Association of 
Wigan or the Rotarians of Los Angeles, the 
Goodrich Rubber Factory or the Sunlight 

105 



You Gentiles 
Soap Garden City, the Alpha Sigma Mu or 
the '95 Club, the Progressive Republicans or 
the Decorators' Association, the United Cigar- 
makers or the Fascisti. There's good fun in 
all this; it is exciting, jolly, sporty. It puts 
rush and gaiety into life. But we Jews are 
no good at it. Just as we are inaccessible to 
the meaningless exhilaration of college loy- 
alty, so we are bewildered by the fast and 
furious games of your general life. We Jews 
cannot play the game. 

Perhaps you will answer that it is you who 
taking the chance relationships of life as the 
all-m-all of existence, are really serious: that 
it argues seriousness in a man if he gives to 
every passing association all faculties, all his 
emotion. Such an argument would be a quib- 
ble. A woman may take an absorbing interest 
m dress-to the exclusion of everything 
else: one could hardly call her serious. Seri- 
ous absorption in trivialties is not seriousness. 
I hen you may answer me: "But all life is a 
tnviality»-which would reveal clearly the 
difference between your outlook and ours. 

106 



VI 



Discipline 

One of the best illustrations wherewith to 
contrast your adaptability to discipline and 
our lack of it is to be found in the difference 
between your behavior in church and our be- 
havior in our own unmodernized synagogue — ■ 
the orthodox synagogue. 

In church all is order and decorum, rhythm 
and regime. In the synagogue all is chaos. 
In the church leaders and responses are care- 
fully prepared, carefully followed and ob- 
served. It is clean and neat, charming and 
exact. You behave well. You do as you 
are told — in mass. You create esprit de 
corps in the church: there is a suggestive, 
hypnotizing decency in the trained correct- 
ness of your service. In the synagogue all 
is disorder; we talk during service; we an- 
swer out of turn; and. when we answer in 
mass one begins earlier, another ends later; 

107 



You Gentiles 

it is Babel itself; people walk in and out; 
some take longer than others to get through 
a certain prayer — and the ones who read 
more rapidly chat in the interval; part of 
the congregation is standing, part sitting; 
some wear prayer shawls, others do not: and 
the prayer shawls are not all alike; some- 
times there is so much babbling that the voice 
of the cantor or leader cannot be heard. One 
of you at our services would be amazed: our 
own young generation, which has picked up 
your ways, is disgusted: and the last couple 
of generations has seen Reform synagogues 
conducted on your models. 

Taking this illustration (as one fairly may) 
of model discipline and lack of it, we may 
say, as is often said: "You gentiles are dis- 
ciplined; we Jews are not." And it is not in 
church and synagogue alone that we find this 
contrast. It persists, equally clear cut, in all 
branches of organized life. Compare any 
gentile institution with an uncorrupted corre- 
sponding institution in Jewish life and you 
will observe it. At your secular public as- 

108 



Discipline 

semblies the same decency and unified re- 
straint; at ours, the same scrambling irregu- 
larity. Jewish meetings never begin on time, 
never end on time. In your clubs and socie- 
ties—order and harmony; in ours, noise, dis- 
order and wastage. Your programs are ob- 
served with fair strictness; our programs are 
merely points de dSpart. In your homes calm 
and even systematization ; in ours boisterous 
affections, formlessness. 

And despite much effort we cannot intro- 
duce your rhythmic exercise of discipline into 
our life— and retain our individuality. We 
can imitate you-excellently: produce a sub- 
stitute as good as the original. But the insti- 
tution then no longer has Jewish spirit: it is 
a gentile institution artificially maintained by 
Jews-like our Reform Temples-and in 
these the Jew gradually learns to present a 
gentile exterior. But wherever we are un- 
restrainedly Jewish we shock you by our un- 
couthness. We lack social grace— the dis- 
ciplined and distinguished social grace_ ot 
high society, as well as the mean and spint- 

109 



You Gentiles 

less punctiliousness of your middle classes. 
In the colleges, in the street, in the surface 
cars, in the clubs, in the army, we betray our- 
selves. Indeed, your very breaches of disci- 
pline differ from ours by a certain conscious 
rebelliousness which is partly homage: our 
breaches of discipline are off-hand, uncon- 
scious, insolent. 

And carrying this still further, we Jews, the 
most clannish of peoples, are helplessly dis- 
organized—we have never achieved compara- 
tive unity, not even in a single territory — 
much less throughout the world. All our or- 
ganizations are small, but never too small to 
be unwieldy because of dissension and, worse 
than dissension, because of unamenability to 
regular discipline. To those who have 
known the comparative evenness of your or- 
ganizations, political, religious, social, com- 
mercial, we are an unsightly people: and 
every effort to impose this sense of form on 
us only accentuates our formlessness. 

This distinction between us again points to 
the root difference between us— your trivial- 

110 



Discipline 

ity and our seriousness. The fact is, of 
course, that in true discipline, in effectiveness, 
we are by no means your inferiors. No one 
would dream of asserting that our religion is 
not more effective than yours in compelling 
obedience, or in perpetuating itself. The 
mere fact that we have persisted for eighty 
generations in maintaining a racial and spirit- 
ual identity in the face of so much persecu- 
tion (and, more significant, of so much in- 
filtration of blood) bespeaks essential disci- 
pline of amazing rigor and power. Disorgan- 
ized as we are, we have outlived the most 
ably organized nations. We have failed to 
imitate the Roman legion or the Order of 
Jesus: we have survived the first and shall no 
doubt outlive the second. We have not your 
skill, your German, or English, or American 
skill in wheeling perfectly vast masses of 
perfectly subordinated men. Yet I have no 
doubt that when Germany and England and 
America will long have lost their present iden- 
tity or name or purpose, we shall still be 
strong in ours. 

Ill 



You Gentiles 

For true discipline should always be seen 
in relation to a purpose. Your discipline is 
goose-step discipline: it is the hypnotic dis- 
cipline of imposing rhythms, possible only in 
the absence of the individual discipline. 
There is hypnotic charm in your discipline — 
but it is not effective ; as soon as the organiza- 
tion crumbles, the individuals are lost. We 
have never been the victims of organiza- 
tion. 

Your organization-discipline, moreover, is 
a necessary part of your sport life. Games 
cannot be conducted without discipline: dis- 
cipline is the essence of a game: when two 
perfectly disciplined beings are opposed, the 
game is at its best. And the same feeling 
runs through all your manifestations of life : 
the game of nationalisms, the game of society, 
the game of commercial success. 

The most startling and compelling monu- 
ments of your gentile genius are not individ- 
ual productions— but the productions of mass. 
Most of the wonders of the ancient world 
were wonders springing out of great organ- 

112 



Discipline 

ized rhythmic effort and your chief wonders 
to-day, those which dominate your general 
life, are like these. Great buildings; great 
countries; great ships; great wars; the pyra- 
mids, the Olympic, the Colossus of Rhodes, 
the Hanging Gardens, the Eiffel Tower and 
the Woolworth building, the Red Cross, the 
Catholic church, Babylon, New York, the 
Daily Mail — these are the distinctive tri- 
umphs of your civilizations, the final appeal. 
And individual ingenuity is subordinated to 
the production of your mass effects, your dis- 
cipline-monsters. What single individuals 
can alone effect plays a very minor role in 
your way of life. Mass and rhythm and team 
work — the game: this is your ideal. 

It is not ours: and we are impressed only 
superficially and transiently by these produc- 
tions. The individual is our climax, as the 
mass is yours. A hundred thousand men la- 
bored for twenty years to build the great 
pyramid: one man wrote the book of Isaiah. 
You will answer: "One man also wrote 'Ham- 
let' and the 'Critique of Pure Reason' and the 

113 



You Gentiles 

'Republic.' " But I ask: Are Plato and Shake- 
speare and Kant in your life what the Bible, 
the Talmud, the rabbis are in ours? To our 
very masses, the Jewish masses, the wonders 
of the world are Moses, Elijah, the Rambam, 
the Vilna Gaon, the Dubna Maggid, the chas- 
sid in the neighboring village. These actually 
dominate our life, as governments, mass radio 
exploits, armies and Woolworths dominate 
yours. We are the people of the Book. But 
we were the people of the Book before a mil- 
lion copies could be printed in a single day. 

This intractability of ours to your disci- 
plines is one of our chief and (to you) most 
unpleasant characteristics. It is best notice- 
able in our new arrivals in Western countries, 
those who, in Eastern ghettos, have lived a 
more nearly Jewish life: it is much less notice- 
able in our modernized types — though here 
still noticeable; for, despite our clever imita- 
tiveness, we do retain our natural character 
and cannot hide it consistently, but betray 
ourselves at intervals. In the colleges, in the 
army (least here, except during the great war, 

114 



Discipline 

for in peace-time only the Westernized Jews 
join the army), in business associations, we 
irritate and disgust you by our obdurate 
seeming singularity. We don't fit in prop- 
erly. We don't keep a straight line on the 
social or public parade; we don't cheer in 
unison; we don't bow with the waving of the 
wand. We don't play the game. 

This is comprehensibly irritating in the 
highest degree, and in your irritation you 
have ascribed these infractions to our savag- 
ery. You have said we are not fit for civiliza- 
tion. We have not the ability to subordinate 
the individual to the community: or, if we 
have the ability, we have not the desire, not 
having the ethical impulse. With us, you 
have said, it is every man for himself. We 
are too impudent, individually; we cannot be- 
have as gentlemen should— unobtrusively, 
submissive to the code, tacit, unassertive, 
regular. 

This is what you mean, saying we are un- 
disciplined. 

But the fact is that we consciously despise 

115 



You Gentiles 
the code itself. It is not that we recognize its 
validity and refuse to submit to it out of in- 
dividual and selfish reasons: it is rather that 
the whole game disgusts us— and your seri- 
ousness in it, most of all. It is to us a ludi- 
crous, and not an impressive thing, to see ten 
thousand grown-up men, a large proportion 
of them actually fathers, marching in step up 
and down a street or across a field. This blar- 
ing of the trumpets, this beating of the drums, 
this Left-Right-Left-Right, this rhythmic, 
snappy form-fours, this intoxication of united 
mass movement, which sends you gentiles 
frantic with excitement is a laughable exhibi- 
tion to us. "Foolish gentiles!" we say con- 
temptuously. To us ten thousand fools are 
not more impressive than a single fool. 
Where you see the flash of swinging ranks, 
a mighty lifting and falling, power, magnifi- 
cence, we see only ten thousand serious-faced 
men engaged in astonishing antics, with as- 
tonishing skill. 

The drill of your regiments, the drill of 
your colleges, of your social usages, your 

116 



Discipline 

clubs, all impress us alike with their triviality. 
We do not understand it. 

Perhaps you will reply that this contempt 
is merely rationalization. We despise disci- 
pline because we lack it and secretly we aspite 
to acquire it. But in fact it is the most se- 
verely disciplined Jew who most heartily de- 
spises your disciplines. It is the modernized 
Jew, who has thrown off the discipline of or- 
thodox Judaism, who comes nearest your 
spirit. It is the orthodox Jew, the most Jew- 
ish Jew, who least understands you. 

And it is this orthodox Jew, this ghetto 
Jew, whose apparent individualism deprives 
his mass life of all form and discipline, it is 
this orthodox Jew who seems, of all Jews, to 
be least accessible to your orderliness, it is 
this orthodox Jew who nevertheless submits 
to an amazing discipline unknown to most of 
you. I have said that the obstinate mainte- 
nance of our identity and our religion through 
eighty generations of oppression bespeaks a 
rigorous and effective discipline. But what 
that discipline is in practice you do not real- 

117 



You Gentiles 

ize. The orthodox Jew submits to an unre- 
laxing regime which you gentiles would find 
intolerable. It governs him in all his actions, 
from birth to death; it controls and directs, 
with an iron hand, his daily occupations: it 
pervades, with obsessive immanence, every 
moment of his time, every movement, every 
function. The orthodox Jew begins the day 
with long prayer, closes it with long prayer: 
he cannot take a glass of water without a 
prayer, he cannot satisfy his physical needs 
without a prayer. He stops for long inter- 
vals, afternoon and evening, to pray. The 
discipline extends to his relations with his 
wife; it imposes on him the obligation of 
study; it binds him to daily and hourly use 
of a language — Hebrew — artificially main- 
tained; it intersperses his years with numer- 
ous fasts and feasts, each with its enormous 
burden of ritual and tradition. All this over 
and above the fierce discipline of the world's 
enmity and contempt, the discipline of mere 
existence in an alien and unfriendly atmos- 
phere. 

118 



Discipline 

Much of this religious ritual covers even- 
tualities which you would regard as secular; 
dietetic laws, sanitary laws, sex laws, social 
laws: for all life is religion to the Jew, and 
all life, proceeding from God, must be gov- 
erned by him. But when the ritual is re- 
duced to what even you would call the re- 
ligious, it still presents a bdk of tyranny to 
which you would never submit, a discipline 
which you are incapable of suffering: a dis- 
cipline which demands incessant vigilance, 
lest a prayer be omitted, a discipline the de- 
tails of which it takes years to acquire and 
into which one must be trained from child- 
hood. 

And what is most relevant in this connec- 
tion is that this discipline is a corporate dis- 
cipline—it is directed to a common purpose 
outside of the individual, to the perpetuation 
of a people through its religion. In our re- 
ligious ideology the selfish salvation of the 
individual soul is a very minor theme. It is, I 
believe, an acquired dogma, and its irrele- 
vance is proved by its unimportance. Our 

119 



You Gentiles 

prayers are largely common prayers ; we pay 
little attention to the after life — and even 
our dreams of an after-life are associated with 
the Jewish people as a whole. As individuals 
we sometimes pray for personal benefits — but 
so infrequently that we could omit these 
prayers without changing the bulk of our rit- 
ual; most of ouf prayers are prayers of glori- 
fication: they link the people as a whole to 
God. They re-dedicate the people as a whole 
to God's service; they praise God for the bur- 
dens he has placed upon us — and, with pas- 
sionate iteration, they thank him for having 
made us different from you. 

It does not need a Jewish scholar — it needs 
only an intelligent Jew who has lived in an 
orthodox or semi-orthodox environment — to 
appreciate that all this tyranny of discipline 
was bent to one end — to our preservation as 
a distinct and separate people. We feel that 
we are not merely different from you at 
points: it is a totality of difference and of 
separation. We have carried out with us into 

120 



Discipline 

exile the complete atmosphere of our national 
life: our holy festivals are largely national, 
and even in those which are predominantly 
religious there is the continuous, minor theme 
of our separate nationalism. One holiday 
celebrates the liberation of the Jewish people 
from Egypt, another the deliverance of the 
people from the Asiatic-Greek oppressor, an- 
other the confusion of a national enemy, still 
others celebrate the time of the Palestinian 
harvest (the irony and tragedy of it!) with 
appropriate prayers and ceremonies: and even 
in our "pure" religious festivals the memory 
of our national institutions, our Temple, our 
hereditary priesthood, maintains an unbroken 
background of suggestion. 

And with these recurrent climaxes in our 
religious life dominated by the national con- 
sciousness, the general tenor of all our re- 
ligion repeats this theme from day to day. 
The discipline of our religion, of our Jewish- 
ness, is a corporate discipline, the subjection 
of the individual to the mass. I repeat this 

121 



You Gentiles 

to remind you that, contrary to your accusa- 
tion, the intractability of the Jew to your 
forms of discipline does not spring from in- 
dividualism or from lack of a social coi> 
science. We are disciplined more bitterly 
than you, and we bear the discipline without 
the assistance of narcotic rhythms: we bear 
our burden like civilized adults. 

Nor do I see any contradiction between this 
fierce insistence on separate national exist- 
ence and our dedication to a universal ideaL 
We believe and feel that for such an ideal we 
alone, as a people, possess the especial apti- 
tude. The orthodox Jew bases it on divine 
will and choice: others, like myself, know not 
on what to base it (a special racial psychol- 
ogy, the result of inbreeding, the result of 
accident) — but believe it none the less. We 
shall not further that ideal by losing our iden- 
tity; to mingle with you and be lost in you 
would mean to destroy the aptitude, for ever. 
Thus universal ideal and national identity are 
inextricably bound up. To the maintenance 
of this high union we have given, consciously, 

122 



Discipline 

seriously, without kings and courts, without 
medals and reviews and Orders, without 
cheering and without drills, a bitter and ob- 
stinate devotion more exacting than anything 
you have known and, in its deliberate effects, 
more successful. 



123 



VII 



The Reckoning 

I have spoken of Jews and gentiles — in 
mass. Certain of you will assuredly object: 
"You cannot deal with masses as with men. 
'You cannot indict a nation/ " 

The objection is futile — not only has it 
been the universal practice to indict and to 
punish masses as if they had personality and 
to treat nations as such: but you are doing it 
to-day, everywhere. And I believe that fun- 
damentally, the practice is just, despite the 
objections of the few whom I shall answer 
here. Particularly consonant is the practice 
with your gentile philosophy. Here is your 
nation: X, It is composed of militarists and 
pacifists and mobs. The government is mili- 
taristic — whether it represent a minority or 
a majority. And the militaristic government 

124 



The Reckoning 

engages the whole country in its acts: is re- 
sponsible for a war, for oppression. How 
shall we treat that nation? Single out the 
militarists and pacifists? Go into the work- 
ings of it, separate out the constituent ele- 
ments? You cannot. Every member of that 
country is a member of the team, must take 
the good with the bad, must pay the debts 
contracted by the government. It cannot be 
a nation otherwise. 

This from your point of view. And from 
the point of view of the workings of justice 
it happens to be no less defensible. When 
the whole of a nation reaps reward or pun- 
ishment, a rough general justice is executed. 
If it is only the will of a minority which has 
brought on catastrophe, and the majority 
must pay, then it pays for having suffered 
the will of the minority. Had the German 
masses foreseen defeat and its consequences, 
Germany would never have gone to war, mil- 
itarist minority or none. The masses which 
obeyed their masters, readily or sullenly, must 
pay for the obedience which gave their mas- 

125 



You Gentiles 

ters strength. . . . And the same is true of 
every other nation which is guilty. 

All extenuation is irrelevant. How shall the 
majority learn that it must not acquiesce in- 
dolently in the will of the minority? Shall it 
not suffer the consequences of its indolence? 
A slow, almost impossible process. But as- 
suredly a just one. For the impotent or cor- 
rupt acquiescence of the majority made the 
minority effective. 

But if, on the other hand, a nation suffers 
for the will of its majority, and the minority 
suffers with the majority, then very clearly 
effective justice is being wrought, and just as 
clearly is the payment supposed to alter the 
will of the nation. 

As long as there are nations and groups 
these laws must hold. And as soon as these 
laws collapse nations and groups will cease 
to be. 

It is not meaningless to say, "This nation 
is parsimonious, this nation is treacherous, this 
nation is cruel." It is irrelevant to answer, 
"You must judge by the individual, not by 

126 



The Reckoning 

the nation. 55 When we say, "Scotchmen are 
parsimonious, 55 we simply mean that out of a 
thousand Scotchmen a larger number are par- 
simonious than out of a thousand Englishmen. 
A Scotchman whom I do not know has there- 
fore more probability of being parsimonious 
than an Englishman whom I do not know. If 
therefore I have to choose for generosity be- 
tween two men, an Englishman and a Scotch- 
man, both of whom I do not know, I would 
choose the Englishman. I stand a better 
chance of being in the right. Naturally the 
entire assumption may be wrong, and that is 
another matter, but it is ludicrous to deny that 
tendencies or characteristics in nations exist. 
Only the shallow demagogue insists that a 
thousand Englishmen, a thousand Frenchmen, 
a thousand Germans, a thousand Jews, picked 
up at random (or ten thousand or a hundred 
thousand) would react similarly to the same 
stimulus. Assuredly if I have the opportunity 
to check up on the individual I will do it. But 
if I must take him on trust I shall sensibly 
assume him to possess his race characteristics. 

127 



You Gentiles 

As for you gentiles and us Jews, we have 
both acted on the assumption that the mass 
must be treated by a general law. The in- 
stinct of the gentile is to distrust the Jew, of 
the Jew to distrust the gentile. We only make 
exceptions. There is nothing inconsistent in 
the anti-Semite who says: "Some of my best 
friends are Jews." 

I say, therefore, that in the conflict between 
us you have fought us physically, while our 
attack on your world has been in the spiritual 
field. It is the nature of the gentile to fight 
for his honor, in the nature of the Jew to 
suffer for his- Whether because we are so 
inclined by first nature, or whether because 
we have so become through lack of land and 
government and army — this is true: you revel 
in force, we despise it, even where we can and 
do exert it. 

And so, since we have lived among you, you 
have instinctively appealed to brute force in 
combating our influence. When the reckoning 
is drawn up your guilt cries to heaven : what- 
ever have been your relations to each other, 

128 



The Reckoning 

we Jews have at least been the common de- 
nominator of your brutality. Compared with 
each other, you are gentlemen, warriors, de- 
mocracies: set side by side with us, you are 
bullies and cowards and mobs. In vain do 
your quiescent majorities wash their hands; 
their quiescence is their effective guilt — I care 
not that your minorities struck the blow: I 
should not acquit the majority if I could give 
judgment and impose punishment. 

That you are unable to meet us on the 
spiritual level is made evident by the follow- 
ing: We are a disturbing influence in your 
life not through our own fault. First: we 
are not in your midst by our own will, but 
through your action; and second (which is 
more to the point) : we do not attack you 
deliberately. We are unwelcome to you be- 
cause we are what we are. It is our own 
positive way of life which clashes with yours. 
Our attack on you is only incidental to the 
expression of our way of life. You too have 
this field open to you. As surely as we are 
a spiritual discomfort to you, you are a spirit- 

129 



You Gentiles 

ual discomfort to us: as surely as we attack 
you peacefully, so you waste us peacefully 
and weaken our numbers. But you do more 
than this: you bring the attack down to the 
physical plane, where we are defenseless. 
You do with us as your animal whims dictate; 
you rob us, you slay us, you drive us from 
land to land, and while one of you drives us 
forth the other shuts the gate in our faces. 
From the first day of our contact, since the 
first of our communities in exile, you have 
made us the sport of your brutality. There 
is at least one clear note in gentile world- 
history, one consistent theme: the note of our 
agony — the theme of your cruelty. 

Even from your point of view you have 
been guilty. On our side at least the fighting 
has been clean; we have not misrepresented 
you. On your side the fighting has been dirty. 
From the dawn of civilization you have lied 
about us; you have accused us of murder- 
ing children that we might use their blood 
for ritual purposes; you have accused us of 

130 



The Reckoning 

poisoning wells; you have accused us of pre- 
cipitating wars (youl and war is the breath 
of your nostrils!); and you accuse us to-day 
of fomenting a world-wide conspiracy to seize 
the government of the world. Do not answer 
us that a minority does this. Does it matter 
to us that a minority of America preaches in 
the Klan virtual disfranchisement of the Jew, 
that a minority in Germany preaches death 
to the Jew, that a minority in Poland slew 
hundreds of us? I ask an accounting of you 
as you ask it of one another: as the allies ask 
it from Germany, as Germany asked it from 
France — from you as a whole. For this 
minority which spreads these lies there is a 
complacent majority which tolerates or ac- 
cepts them. And it is because, in your oppo- 
sition to our way of life, you stoop to such 
lies that your masses respond with physical 
force. I care not how ignorant a Jew is: you 
will not get him to believe of one of you such 
foul untruths as millions of you believe of 
us; yet we have more cogent reason for hat- 

131 



You Gentiles 

ing you. And as I hold you all responsible 
for these lies, so I hold you all responsible for 
the cruelties in which they issue. 

And I know that soon enough these crimson 
sluices will be opened again , and we shall 
bleed from a thousand wounds as we have 
bled before. In the Ukraine, or in Russia, 
in Poland or in Germany — and who knows 
when the same will not come to pass in Eng- 
land, in America, in France? What guaran- 
tee have we beyond the guarantee of public 
opinion? And from a public opinion which 
tolerates the slaughter of hundreds of negroes, 
how far to the public opinion which will con- 
done the slaughter of Jews? Let a spark but 
carry far enough, down into the recesses of 
your animal natures. How you gloated 
among the Allies over stories of Germans 
blown to pieces, cut to pieces; and in the 
Central Powers over stories of Englishmen, 
Frenchmen done to death. Your comic jour- 
nals made merry over them. (A good joke 
from Life: An Englishman, shaking his head, 
says, "Molly, I don't think this 'ere bayonetll 

132 



The Reckoning 

go through more'n two Germans at a time.") 
Your women applauded them, your children 
screamed for blood: democracy vied in bes- 
tiality with aristocracy and royalty. How 
shall we trust you? 

If we are willing to forget the past, is not 
your past your present? Is not the blood 
libel alive to-day? And its companion viper, 
"the Elders of Zion"? Will poison work 
forever in the blood and never break out? 
Did not hundreds of thousands of English- 
men, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, read 
these legends without protesting, without 
seeking to punish the libelers? Do we not 
know how easily your morality fits your 
mood? "Kill the Jews, the Christ-killers," 
does indeed ring strange these days. But 
does "a damn good dose of lead for the Jew- 
ish Bolsheviks' 3 sound very remote? 

And if, arguing from the individual to the 
mass, your Klans and your Awakening Mag- 
yars, your Chestertons and your Daudets 
shall call us Jews sharks and swindlers, shall 
we not answer with better warrant, by the 

133 



You Gentiles 

millions of our murdered, by the Inquisition 
and the Crusades, by the smoking ruins of 
the Ukraine and the swinging body of Leo 
Frank: Dastards, murderers, and thieves! 



134 



VIII 



But as Moderns 

"Let us have done with recollections and 
recriminations/' you say. "You have spoken 
hitherto of conditions which are vanishing: 
of orthodox Jews mostly, of old customs and 
emotions which are dying out. You yourself 
are not an orthodox Jew; nor are we medieval 
Christians. We see the Jew gradually mod- 
ernizing. He becomes more like us — more 
difficult to recognize as a Jew. Granting 
there are occasional relapses, we are still mov- 
ing toward real tolerance. The present age 
is not like any age before it, and the modern 
Jew is not like any Jew before him. You 
have lasted two thousand years in exile — - 
you will not last for ever. All those cere- 
monials of yours are breaking down: your 
discipline, your defensive mechanisms. At 
least in America, England, France, Germany, 

135 



You Gentiles 

Russia you are changing, becoming like us, 
taking your share in all our activities, sports, 
civic duties, achievements, arts. You have 
spoken hitherto in the terms of a world which 
is fitfully dissolving. You have ignored the 
liberal Jews, the radical Jews, the modernized 
Jews, the agnostic Jews, now becoming the 
dominant element in Jewry, and approaching 
us, mingling with us, solving the problem 
without deliberate effort. 

"Do not your own radicals renounce their 
Jewish connections? Will not your modern- 
ized Jews be the first to denounce the thesis 
of this book?" 

I have already said, anticipating this ob- 
jection, that there is the same difference be- 
tween the Jewish atheist and the gentile athe- 
ist as between the orthodox Jew and the be- 
lieving gentile: I have said or implied that the 
religion itself is but practical expression of 
the difference between us, not the cause of 
it. It is true that the expression of a view 
serves to strengthen it, as the exercise of a 
faculty serves to develop it. But expression 

136 



But as Moderns 

does not create a view nor exercise a fac- 
ulty. Even conscious adherence to the Jew- 
ish people is but partial expression of our 
Jewishness: it was not the conscious desire 
to remain a people which gave us the will to 
endure: it was our unavoidable commonalty 
of feeling which made us and continued us a 
people. 

Repudiation of the Jewish religion or even 
of Jewish racial affiliation does not alter the 
Jew. Some of us Jews may delude ourselves 
as some of you gentiles do. But in effect 
modernization seems to have done nothing to 
decrease the friction between us. The dislike 
continues: and though your masses may not 
know why they dislike us, there must be a 
sufficient reason: it is Germany, the mother 
of the modernized Jew, that gave birth, with 
him, to modern anti-Semitism. Where the 
old ostensible reasons for disliking the Jew 
collapsed, new ones, more self-conscious, were 
substituted. When modernization removed 
the old, superstitious form of expression, the 
professor replaced the priest, science religion. 

137 



You Gentiles 

We are disliked on "scientific" grounds, as 
we were disliked on "religious." But both 
the "scientific" and the "religious" reasons 
were rationalizations. f The true reasons un- 
derlay these analyses. 

Nor can the revulsion of the war, with its 
release of primitive instincts, be blamed for 
this. German anti-Semitism antedates the 
war. The Higher Anti-Semitism has nothing 
to do with either conscious religion or locali- 
zations, like patriotism. It is true modern 
anti-Semitism. It is the old dislike of the 
Jew transvaluated into modern terminology, 
and it has been evoked by the appearance 
of that new phenomenon, the Westernized 
Jew. 

For many Jews were fooled by appear- 
ances. They took the word of the gentile lit- 
erally. The gentile said: "We dislike you 
because you are different from us in religion 
and in usages; you are separate; you are old- 
fashioned." And the Jew, believing these 
charges to mean what they say, abandoned 
his customs and his usages: took to baptism; 

138 



But as Moderns 

became, externally, similar to the gentile, 
thinking thus to evade the issue. It failed. 
For no sooner had he made this change in 
himself than the gentile shifted ground, went 
from the religious to the ethnic. 

What happened in Germany is happening 
elsewhere. As fast as the Jew modernizes, 
so fast does dislike of him adapt itself to the 
new situation and find a new excuse. Where 
the Jew is disliked it is the modern Jew who 
is disliked equally with the old-fashioned. 
The Klan, the Consul, the Dearborn Inde- 
pendent, the Dwa Grosse, the Action Fran- 
chise no longer preach the modernization of 
the Jew as a solution of the Jew problem. 
No Jew, however modern, or radical, is ac- 
ceptable to the anti-Semite. It is now a 
racial question. 

But you still have an answer. You say: 
"These new forms of anti-Semitism are hang- 
overs: we have had anti-Semitism with us 
for a long time. It is hard to get rid of. The 
effects linger long after the cause disappears. 
But in time . . 

139 



You Gentiles 

This I deny, for I am convinced that the 
modernized Jew, as long as he retains the 
quality of the Jewish people, that is, as long 
as he inherits predominantly Jewish charac- 
teristics, is as objectionable to you as the or- 
thodox Jew was to your fathers — and for the 
same basic reasons. The effort of the Jews 
to enter your modern life, to become part of 
it, has been essentially ineffective: by which 
I mean that though hundreds of thousands 
of us have taken on your garb, speak like 
you, look like you, share your countries, in- 
stitutions, games, do all we can to avoid fric- 
tion, yet we fail to offer in cross section the 
same significance as any cross section of hun- 
dreds of thousands of you. Our ability to im- 
itate extends only to inessentials, appearances, 
surface desires and ambitions. We fail to be 
gentiles. 

The modernized Jew still stands apart from 
the modern gentile world, and his effective 
contribution to its life is as disastrously dif- 
ferent as if he still put on the phylacteries 
every morning. The old racial seriousness, 

140 



But as Moderns 

somberness, still persists. In a hundred years 
of modernity we, an able race, have given 
little more than mediocrity to your way of 
life. Our best work has been the old, true 
work of our people — fundamental and serious 
examination of the problems of man's rela- 
tion to God and humanity. In the arts we 
have been second-rate, third-rate. While in 
moral effort we have exceeded any living race 
and have produced an overwhelming number 
of revolutionaries and socialists and icono- 
clasts of the true prophetic type, we have, 
in science, belles-lettres and the plastic arts 
been a thoroughly minor people. And even 
if in these last fields we have done compara- 
tively well for our numbers (which I doubt), 
our preponderant contribution of fundamental 
moral effort still makes modern Jewry a sec- 
ularized replica of old religious Jewry. 

The astonishing thing is that this took place 
despite desperate conscious efforts on our part 
to become like you. We joined your armies 
and fought in them beyond our numbers: yet 
Jewish pacifism and Jewish pacifists gave the 

141 



You Gentiles 

tone to the world's pacifism. We have joined 
your capitalistic world in deliberate emula- 
tion and rivalry: yet Jewish socialism and 
Jewish socialists are the banner bearers of 
the world's "armies of liberation." Three or 
four million modernized Jews, a ludicrously 
small number, have given to the world's icon- 
oclastic force its chief impetus and by far 
its largest individual contribution. America 
and England put together, with their almost 
two hundred millions, have not played that 
role in world iconoclasm which a handful of 
Jews have played. Had we produced as vig- 
orously in art and science we should have 
flooded the art galleries and the libraries. 
But in these we have shown no special apti- 
tude: we may have done as well for our num- 
bers as England, as France or Germany — 
though even this I doubt. But it cannot com- 
pare with our role as moralists and prophets. 
We modern Jews of the Western world are 
in this fundamentally different from you. 
The occasional in you (revolution against the 

142 



But as Moderns 

Game) is the dominant in us. Your instinct 
is truer than you know. The dislike of your 
modern world for the modern Jew is as rel- 
evant as the dislike of your old world for the 
orthodox Jew. 



143 



IX 



We, the Destroyers 

If anything, you must learn (and are learn- 
ing) to dislike and fear the modern and "as- 
similated" Jew more than you did the old 
Jew, for he is more dangerous to you. At 
least the old Jew kept apart from you, was 
easily recognizable as an individual, as the 
bearer of the dreaded Jewish world-idea: you 
were afraid of him and loathed him. But 
to a large extent he was insulated. But as 
the Jew assimilates, acquires your languages, 
cultivates a certain intimacy, penetrates into 
your life, begins to handle your instruments, 
you are aware that his nature, once confined 
safely to his own life, now threatens yours. 
You are aware of a new and more than dis- 
concerting character at work in the world 
you have built and are building up, a char- 

144 



We, the Destroyers 

acter which crosses your intentions and 
thwarts your personality. 

The Jew, whose lack of contact with your 
world had made him ineffective, becomes ef- 
fective. The vial is uncorked, the genius is 
out. His enmity to your way of life was tacit 
before. To-day it is manifest and active. 
He cannot help himself: he cannot be differ- 
ent from himself: no more can you. It is 
futile to tell him: "Hands off!" He is not 
his own master, but the servant of his life- 
will. 

For when he brings into your world his 
passionately earnest, sinisterly earnest right- 
eousness, absolute righteousness, and, speak- 
ing in your languages and through your in- 
stitutions, scatters distrust of yourselves 
through the most sensitive of you, he is work- 
ing against your spirit. You gentiles do not 
seek or need or understand social justice as 
an ultimate ideal. This is not your nature. 
Your world must so be fashioned as to give 
you the maximum of play, adventure, laugh- 
ter, animal-lyricism. Your institutions frame 

145 



You Gentiles 

themselves to this end: your countries and 
ideals flourish most gloriously when they serve 
this end most freely. All ideas of social jus- 
tice must be subservient to this consideration: 
the Game first— then ultimate justice only 
as it can serve the Game. 

I do not believe that we Jews are powerful 
enough to threaten your way of life seriously. 
We are only powerful enough to irritate, to 
disturb your conscience, and to break here 
and there the rhythmic rush of your ideas. 
We irritate you as a sardonic and humorless 
adult irritates young people by laughing at 
their play. For the real irritation lies in the 
fact that to our queries regarding your life 
there is no answer on our level: as to yours 
regarding our life there is no answer on yours. 

We Jews are accused of being destroyers: 
whatever you put up, we tear down. It is 
true only in a relative sense. We are not 
iconoclasts deliberately: we are not enemies 
of your institutions simply because of the dis- 
like between us. We are a homeless mass 
seeking satisfaction for our constructive in- 

146 



We, the Destroyers 

stincts. And in your institutions we cannot 
find satisfaction; they are the play institutions 
of the splendid children of man — and not of 
man himself. We try to adapt your institu- 
tions to our needs, because while we live we 
must have expression; and trying to rebuild 
them for our needs, we unbuild them for 
yours. 

Because your chief institution is the social 
structure itself, it is in this that we are most 
manifestly destroyers. We take part in the 
economic struggle for existence : this necessity 
we share with you. But our free spiritual 
energies point away from this struggle, for, 
unlike you, we have no pleasure in it. You 
gentiles fight because you like to fight; we 
fight because we have to — and in order to 
win. It is not in a spirit of hypocrisy that 
you have turned your business world into a 
sporting arena, with joyous flourishes, slo- 
gans, pretenses. It is not in a spirit of hypoc- 
risy that you talk of playing the Game while 
you cut each other's throats in the markets. 
You mean it. Your advertising-propaganda 

147 



You Gentiles 

books, with their sentimental appeals, are not 
lies; they are the true evidence of your spirit. 
It is only when we Jews, too, use these meth- 
ods that there is hypocrisy. For we see 
starkly through your life-illusions : yet we are 
forced to use them in self-defense. But our 
inmost longings turn from this fierce and 
clamorously happy struggle: while your in- 
most longings are part of it. You give your 
best to it, yourselves, your souls. We give 
only our cleverness to it. This is why, in 
spite of the popular delusion to the contrary, 
there are hardly any Jews among the world's 
wealthiest men. The greatest financial insti- 
tutions, as well as the world's greatest busi- 
nesses, are almost exclusively non-Jewish. 

Dislike of the Jew in business springs from 
the feeling that we regard all your play-con- 
ventions with amusement — or even contempt. 
Our abominable seriousness breaks jarringly 
into your life-mood. But you feel our dis- 
ruptive difference most keenly, most resent- 
fully, in our deliberate efforts to change your 
social system. We dream of a world of utter 

148 



We, the Destroyers 

justice and God-spirit, a world which would 
be barren for you, devoid of all nourishment, 
bleak, unfriendly, unsympathetic. You do 
not want such a world: you are unapt for it. 
Seen in the dazzling lights of your desires 
and needs our ideal is repellently morose. 

We do wrong to thrust these ideals upon 
you, who are not for justice or peace, but for 
play-living. But we cannot help ourselves: 
any more than you can help resenting our 
interference. While we live we must give ut- 
terance to our spirit. The most insistent ef- 
fort on our part will fail to change our nature. 

Not that you are untouched by poverty, 
by human degradation: not that you do not 
wish at times that these unhappy things could 
be destroyed. But this is not in the direct 
line of march of your life. If social injustice 
were removed together with the Game, you 
would unquestionably recall both. Life be- 
fore everything, freedom, joy, adventure. 

I talk here of the modern, and not of the 
orthodox Jew. I talk of the Jew as alien 
as you to the forms of our orthodox and con- 

149 



You Gentiles 

sciously Jewish life: this is the Jew who 
forms the backbone both of audience and 
contributor to your radical and revolutionary 
organs, the Jew who is the precipitating cen- 
ter of your spasmodic and. inconsistent efforts 
for justice. This man, in your midst, is not 
to be recognized, on the surface, as a Jew. 
He himself repudiates — and in all sincerity — 
his Jewish affiliations. He is a citizen of the 
world; he is a son of humanity; the progress 
of all humankind, and not of any single group 
of it, is in his particular care. 

It is to this Jew that liberals among you 
will point to refute my thesis. And it is pre- 
cisely this Jew who best illustrates its truth. 
The unbelieving and radical Jew is as differ- 
ent from the radical gentile as the orthodox 
Jew from the reactionary gentile. The cos- 
mopolitanism of the radical Jew springs from 
his feeling (shared by the orthodox Jew) that 
there is no difference between gentile and 
gentile. You are all pretty much alike : then 
why this fussing and fretting and fighting? 
The Jew is not a cosmopolitan in your sense. 

150 



We, the Destroyers 

He is not one who feels keenly the difference 
between national and nation, and overrides 
it. For him, as for the orthodox Jew, a sin- 
gle temper runs through all of you, whatever 
your national divisions. The radical Jew 
(like the orthodox Jew) is a cosmopolitan in 
a sense which must be irritating to you: for 
he does not even understand why you make 
such a fuss about that most obvious of facts 
—that you are all alike. The Jew is alto- 
gether too much of a cosmopolitan— even for 
your internationalists. 

Nor, in the handful of you who, against the 
desires and instincts of the mass of you, pro- 
claim social justice as the life aim, is the Jew 
any more truly at home, at one with his 
milieu, than the old-time Jew in his world. 
Our very radicalism is of a different temper. 
Our spur is a natural instinct. We do not 
have to uproot something in ourselves to be- 
come "radicals," dreamers of social justice. 
We are this by instinct: we do not see it as 
something revolutionary at all. It is tacit 
with us. But with you it is an effort and 

151 



You Gentiles 

a wrench. Your very ancestry cries out 
against it in your blood. . . . And you be- 
come silly and enthusiastic about it, with 
flag-waving, and shouting, and battle-hymns, 
and all the regular game-psychology proper 
to your world and way of life. Even of this 
you make a play. 

But such as these radical and international 
movements are, the modern Jew (the best and 
most thoughtful modern Jew, that is) is 
nearer to them than to anything else in your 
world. He is the only true socialist and cos- 
mopolitan — but in such a true and tacit sense 
that he is completely distinguished from all 
of you. It is one of many vital paradoxes — 
a thing illogical and yet true to life. It is 
our very cosmopolitanism that gives us our 
national character. Because we are the only 
ones who are cosmopolitan by instinct rather 
than by argument we remain forever our- 
selves. 

In everything we are destroyers — even in 
the instruments of destruction to which we 
turn for relief. The very socialism and inter- 

152 



We, the Destroyers 

nationalism through which our choked spirit 
seeks utterance, which seem to threaten your 
way of life, are alien to our spirit's demands 
and needs. Your socialists and international- 
ists are not serious. The charm of these 
movements, the attraction, such as it is, which 
they exercise, is only in their struggle: it is 
the fight which draws your gentile radicals. 
And indeed, it is only as long as there is an 
element of adventure in being a radical that 
the radical movement retains any individual- 
ity. And it is only in the fierce period of 
early combat that you welcome us Jews— as 
allies. You are deluded in this— so are we. 
You go into the movement boldly, adventur- 
ously; we, darkly, tacitly. You make it a 
game; we do it because we cannot help our- 
selves. And sure enough, in the end, the 
split comes again. The liberal and the radi- 
cal are as apt to dislike the Jew as the re- 
actionaries are. The liberal and the radical 
do not use the weapons of the reactionaries: 
but the dislike is there, finds expression in 
anti-Semitic socialist and workers' move- 

153 



You Gentiles 

ments and in the almost involuntary con- 
tempt which springs to the lips of countless 
intellectuals. 

Philosophies do not remold natures. What 
your radicals want is another form of the 
Game, with other rules. Their discontent 
joins hands with Jewish discontent. But it 
is not the same kind of discontent. A little 
distance down the road the ways part for 
ever. The Jewish radical will turn from your 
social movement: he will discover his mis- 
take. He will discover that nothing can 
bridge the gulf between you and us. He will 
discover that the spiritual satisfaction which 
he thought he would find in social revolution 
is not to be purchased from you. I believe 
the movement has already started, the grad- 
ual secession of the Jewish radicals, their re- 
alization that your radicalism is of the same 
essential stuff as your conservatism. The dis- 
illusionment has set in. 

A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews 
access to your world. In that period the great 
attempt was made, by advance guards of rec- 

154 



We, the Destroyers 

onciliation, to bring our two worlds together. 
It was a century of failure. Our Jewish rad- 
icals are beginning to understand it dimly. 

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain 
the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you 
will do will meet our needs and demands. We 
will for ever destroy because we need a world 
of our own, a God-world, which it is not in 
your nature to build. Beyond all temporary 
alliances with this or that faction lies the 
ultimate split in nature and destiny, the en- 
mity between the Game and God. But those 
of us who fail to understand that truth will 
always be found in alliance with your rebel- 
lious factions, until disillusionment comes. 
The wretched fate which scattered us through 
your midst has thrust this unwelcome role 
upon us. 



155 



X 



The Games of Science 

Illusions change the instruments of their 
expression — but they remain the same illu- 
sions. Religions change their gods, but re- 
main the same religions. The atheist gentile 
has made Science his god, but it has not 
changed his religion. 

"In the scientific field," the atheist gentile 
tells me, "we will find world unity. In sci- 
ence there is no room for the subconscious, 
and it is the subconscious which dictates the 
eternal enmities. Place your relations on a 
conscious basis, and you may have differences 
to be adjusted — but not enmities. 

"The solution of the Jewish-gentile prob- 
lem, as of every instinct problem, lies in the 
pursuit of Truth through science. All other 
problems are not really problems, but purely 
technical matters, to be settled by the appli- 

156 



The Games of Science 

cation of mathematics. And as we learn to 
make this distinction between instinct-prob- 
lem and technical task, the greater is the dis- 
credit into which the former falls, the clearer 
is the attention which we bring to the latter. 
The greatest contribution of science to human 
advance has been the opening of paths to our 
free intelligence, so that the unconscious and 
subconscious mind, with its inheritance of the 
beast, might fall into desuetude. The truth 
alone will save us — and in science is truth." 

I do not wish to go into an examination 
of the nature of truth; I do not wish to ques- 
tion the validity of scientific truths. I am 
ready to admit that scientific truths are 
truths in the accepted sense of this word. Or, 
if there are mistakes, if this or that scientific 
theory is wrong, I will not argue that there- 
fore the scientific method is wrong, or that 
science itself does not go nearest to the truth. 
My contention is that science, the examina- 
tion of facts in literal terms, is quite irrelevant 
to the spiritual problems of man. Science is 
accurate, but its accuracy is pointless for 

157 



You Gentiles 

spiritual purposes. The truths which are un- 
veiled by the scientific method, and which it 
is the special aptness of this method to un- 
veil, do not matter to anybody. 

Science teaches us that the earth goes 
around the sun, rather than the sun round 
the earth. Does it really matter which is the 
case? Science teaches us that the occasional 
retrogression effect in the observed motion of 
the planets is not due to "cycle in epicycle, 
orb in orb," but to changes of perspective 
produced along the plane of the ecliptic dur- 
ing the revolutions of the planets round the 
sun. Well, what of it? It has revealed the 
fact that certain diseases are due to the ac- 
tion of minute parasites; that there is a mar- 
velous structural parallel between man and 
the beasts; that forms of energy are inter- 
changeable; that the earth is extremely old; 
that there were other forms of life on the 
planet before us; that we are merely a point 
in space. All this is accurate: but is it of any 
importance? 
I ignore, of course, the obvious advantages 
158 



The Games of Science 

which are supposed to accrue from the appli- 
cation of these facts — "the conquest of na- 
ture 53 as it is bombastically called: though 
even these advantages are vitiated by our in- 
ability to exploit them decently. It is not 
to these advantages that the scientist alludes 
when he talks of the spiritual value of science. 
He means pure science: the perception of 
these truths for their own sake or, more accu- 
rately, for the sake of the change which they 
produce in our attitude toward life, the uni- 
verse, each other. 

But science and revelation of scientific 
truths have no effect on our attitude toward 
life, the universe and each other. The mood 
of the mind of man, the temper of his out- 
look, his essential nature — this totality of 
spiritual reaction — has nothing to do with the 
additional number of facts which science re- 
yeals. It would not alter the effective mood 
of civilized man if it happened that light were 
revealed as the radiation of corpuscles rather 
than as waves in the ether, whatever that may 
mean. There may be eighty-eight elements, 

159 



You Gentiles 

or eight hundred and eighty: the atom may 
be a kind of solar system, or it may be a fig- 
ure of speech: life may be the function of a 
complicated molecular structure or it may be 
an illusion: whichever should turn out to be 
"true/ 5 we should remain the same: our only 
concern is with the exploitation of 1 these 
things for physical advantages, and as far as 
that is concerned it does not matter whether 
we have the truth or have hit on a method 
by conventional hypothesis. The Ptolemaic 
system of astronomy could permit the calcu- 
lation of eclipses as accurately as the Coper- 
nican. "Cycle in epicycle, orb in orb" works 
as effectively, if the figures are closely enough 
watched, as ellipses with the sun at one of 
the foci. 

For science is a game, a particular system- 
atization, which might well be any other 
systematization. Indeed, despite the prodig- 
ious number of facts which science has un- 
veiled, no new type of spiritual outlook has 
been evolved. Is the general consciousness 
or self -consciousness of the modern material- 

160 



The Games of Science 

ist different in effect from that of the civilized 
Stoic of more than two thousand years ago? 
If you substitute "stress in the ether" for the 
Pneuma, if you substitute the laws of gravi- 
tation, or some electro-magnetic formula for 
each other or for "tension," will that alter 
your response to the universe? 

Science is so far a game, indeed, that, self- 
confessedly, it deals with symbols only. 
These are pure abstractions — the ion, X n , the 
theory of relativity. We juggle with figures, 
with symbols, with arrangements; the things 
or truths or facts which are supposedly rep- 
resented are utterly beyond our apprehension. 
To take the simplest illustration: the sun is 
ninety-two million miles from the earth, the 
moon a quarter of a million miles. Neither 
of these distances means anything to any hu- 
man being: a million, or ten million, or a 
thousand billion- — we have no spiritual reac- 
tion to any of these figures. They are sym- 
bols or counters in the game; in themselves 
intelligible to no one. 

Or to take the most significant of new sci- 
161 



You Gentiles 

entific truths — the theory of relativity. Its 
application is only to the game or system. 
No man himself reacts to its implications. 
He uses in it the laboratory, in the observa- 
tory. He cannot bring it out. He cannot 
even lift it off the paper. Indeed, such a 
revolution was wrought in our "conception of 
the universe" by the exposition of the theory 
of relativity that, if scientific truths had any 
spiritual significance, there should have been 
a religious revolution in its wake. Since the 
dawn of science we have been blind to a tre- 
mendous and fundamental truth, an all-inclu- 
sive and inescapable truth — namely, that the 
motion of light rules all our measurements 
of time and space and mass — that the length 
of a line or of a period of time is nothing but 
a function of varying values. A terrific and 
sublime discovery, one might say. Yet not 
only does it fail to make a particle of differ- 
ence to the spiritual attitude of scientists to- 
ward the universe: they cannot even the- 
oretically integrate it with a spiritual system. 
All the effective "spiritual" value of the 
162 



The Games of Science 

theory of relativity is: "Things are not what 
they seem." To this suspicion— which is a 
basic spiritual reaction of man to the uni- 
verse—the theory of relativity adds noth- 
ing. At most the theory of relativity is an 
additional but superfluous illustration. 

But I shall be told by the scientist: "It is 
not any individual scientific revelation which 
matters. What matters is the scientific out- 
look, as such, the conception of the universe 
as an ordered and harmonious process: the 
elimination of the providential and accidental: 
the final and decisive removal of the thauma- 
turgical. Science means neither the theory 
of evolution, nor the discovery of the bacillus, 
nor the theory of relativity. Science means 
the cancellation of the inherited instinct er- 
rors. In brief, science is the substitution of 
reason for superstition." 

But even at that variation I contend that 
"scientific" pursuit of truth has given nothing 
to our knowledge of the ultimate secret of 
things. What the scientist would call the 
"scientific outlook"— in accordance with the 

163 



You Gentiles 

above definition — has nothing to do with 
"scientific study of phenomena." Men are 
by nature unthaumaturgical or thaumaturgi- 
cal in their reaction to the universe. Science 
(in its modern sense) does not make them 
unthaumaturgical. It is one of the basic 
qualities of human thought — this particular 
variety of outlook on the universe. I say 
it existed before the advent of what we de- 
note under the restricted term of science. I 
say it would exist just as strongly in these 
types of men though not a single discovery 
had been added to human knowledge of phe- 
nomena since the time of Aristotle. I say 
that though science should add a million 
startling new revelations to its old ones, it 
would not increase or decrease the number 
of men who have the "unthaumaturgical" 
outlook. 

I referred to the Stoics and said that Stoi- 
cism contained as unthaumaturgical an out- 
look as any that "modern science" claims to 
have inspired. But even if this were not true 
I should not change my opinion, for life at 

164 



The Games of Science 

first hand taught me this view, and what I 
know of history I used only as an illustra- 
tion. Life at first hand has taught me that 
knowledge of science has nothing to do with 
the superstitious or unsuperstitious, with 
the thamaturgical or unthaumaturgical, with 
idealism or materialism. I have known thor- 
oughly "ignorant" men who see life quite 
rationally, apparently untroubled by uncon- 
scious impulses: men who have "the scientific 
outlook" without knowing or needing science. 
I have known thoroughly scientific men who 
are profoundly thaumaturgical, who are sat- 
urated with the spirit of superstition. 

It is not the knowledge of facts which 
changes the man. A man may believe in 
ghosts and yet not be superstitious— he may 
merely be mistaken. Another man may be- 
lieve neither in ghosts nor in an anthropo- 
morphic God and yet be essentially of the su- 
perstitious type. 

It is not even a question of sophistication. 
I have known simple and primitive peasants, 
quite illiterate, who were as clearly rationalist 

165 



You Gentiles 

and scientific in outlook as any professor in- 
spired by a complete knowledge of the re- 
vealed mechanics of the world. I have 
known cultured city dwellers, rotten with so- 
phistication, whose surface cynicism could 
not hide their subjection to the terror of in- 
visible, unrevealable possibilities. 

Scientific genius is only the genius of the 
ingenious. Men who by their nature are 
materialists spend their energies in building 
intensely ingenious schemata wherein the 
known facts of life constitute the sole ma- 
terial. But these ingenious schemata do not 
alter their nature with their shape or with 
the quantity of their material. The mechan- 
ics of the universe might be thus or thus; 
things might work in this way or in that way; 
it might be one formula or another formula. 
But the spirit of the thing is the same. For 
hundreds of years capable minds have 
searched, constructed, reconciled. Their 
knowledge of the mechanism is infinitely 
greater that any man's knowledge a thousand 
years ago. Yet men who know as little of 

166 



The Games of Science 

these mechanics as was known a thousand 
years ago have come to the same conclusion 
regarding the nature of the universe. 

The^e is in science a certain naivetS: the 
belief that facts differ in their nature; the 
belief that a fact which it is more difficult 
to unearth is therefore profounder than a 
fact which is obvious; the belief that a mi- 
crobe, because it needs a microscope to reveal 
it, touches truth more deeply than the flea, 
which can be seen with the naked eye: yet 
a fact is not more valuable for being difficult 
of access, any more than a thought is more 
profound by having been made obscure. 

In the end it comes to this: science, which 
is the accumulation of literal fact, hopes that 
the accumulation of facts will reveal the na- 
ture of fact. Science seems to believe (if I 
may use these rather clumsy locutions) that 
some facts are of a different order from other 
facts, going nearer to the sources of the na- 
ture of things. This is untrue. All facts 
are on the same plane. Facts are hot ex- 
planatory, but expository, and what they ex- 

167 



You Gentiles 

pose is of the same nature or material as 
that which we know without science. To ex- 
pect facts to reveal the nature of facts is to 
expect the microscope to reveal the nature of 
the microscope, You can examine one mi- 
croscope by means of another: but its nature, 
or secret, is not accessible to this mode of 
examination. It is of a different order. The 
chain of facts is everywhere uniform. When 
you know one inch of this chain, you have 
learned as much as you can learn from a mile. 
If the chain of causes and effects, fact re- 
lated to fact, is infinitely long, any length of 
it is equally insignificant. A thousand years 
is not nearer to eternity than a moment of 
time. 

There is, indeed, a certain vulgarity in the 
appeal to quantity; it is the democratic vul- 
garity, the belief that one million mediocre 
people have more spiritual significance than 
one mediocrity; that size affects quality; that 
one thousand new facts mean more than a 
hundred old facts — there is in all this even 
the vulgarity of provincialism and cockney 

168 



The Games of Science 

fashionableness, the belief that the latest is 
the best. 

But vulgarity is most patent in the common 
assertion, that science is of spiritual value 
because it reveals the wonders of the uni- 
verse. So marvelous a structure, they say, 
rouses our astonishment and our reverence — 
"the glory of God's house" and "the infinite 
wisdom of his ways," "science leads to re- 
ligion because it teaches us both our own in- 
significance and the amazing cleverness of 
creation." 

I hold this view to be patently vulgar be- 
cause it is an appeal to headlines: recourse 
to the stimuli of the advertiser for the benefit 
of a stupid and jaded public. The thinking 
man needs no scientist to teach him the won- 
der of creation: he needs neither a telescope 
nor a microscope in order to see God; nor 
do formulae teach him the nature of God. 
Life itself, being, the staggering wonder of 
mere existence, fills completely, crams beyond 
all possibility of addition, the faculty of as- 
tonishment and bewilderment in the sensitive 

169 



You Gentiles 

man. Those to whom existence has become 
commonplace by familiarity — or who have 
never been smitten prostrate by the riddle of 
existence — need a crescendo succession of 
"shockers" to touch their brutish minds. 
They didn't know the marvel of the universe 
until they learned of electricity; but now that 
electricity is as commonplace as sunlight, they 
need a theory of relativity; and when that is 
played out as an advertising stunt for the 
ingenuity of the Almighty, they will need 
something else. 

Such vulgarity in scientists is not a whit 
different from the vulgarity of city mobs, 
which crow with astonishment when first they 
see an electric light, but afterwards smile 
pityingly at those who manifest astonish- 
ment. The man of the mass mistakes impu- 
dent familiarity for understanding. Because 
he uses the electric car, the telephone and the 
telegraph every day he imagines that he is 
wiser than the barbarian who has never known 
of them. If at all, he is less wise, being too 
impudent to know his own ignorance. The 

170 



The Games of Science 

fool that saith in his heart there is no God 
is the city fool to whom nothing is wonderful 
any more: and those who do not know won- 
der do not know God. 

Is it not significant that the greatest hu- 
man cry of wonder— the Bible— was the ut- 
terance of men who knew nothing concerning 
the pleiseiosaurus, the amoeba, the nebula of 
Orion, Mendeleyeff's tables, Bode's law, the 
theory of quanta? In them the marvel of 
existence shocked like a clash of cymbals: 
the echoes of that first, fresh amazement still 
put to shame the sophisticated stammering of 
this wise age. Have all the revelations of 
science brought just a single utterance like 
that of Job? Though a man should master 
all the ingenuities of science, though he 
should double and treble them, though he 
should know all the workings of his own body 
and of the stellar systems, though earth's 
past and future, the past and future of all 
life, should lie open before him, can he say 
or feel more than this? 

Can science even add anything to skepti- 
171 



You Gentiles 

cism and doubt? Shall he who suspects that 
all life is a phantasm, perception itself the 
shadow of a shadow, and our very whispers 
to ourselves the ten-times-tampered-with in- 
struments of things which are not ourselves: 
shall he that suspects that between himself 
and himself, himself -speaking and himself- 
listening, himself-thinking and himself- 
thought-of, there looms, world without end, 
system within system, aberration within ab- 
erration: shall such a one be rendered more 
doubtful because the sky is not an inverted 
bowl above our heads, because disease is car- 
ried not by demons but by invisible fleas? 
If the whole is insecure, does the double in- 
security of a part make any difference? If 
all is illusory, does it matter that there were 
particular little illusions within the general 
illusion? If we suspect the very instrument 
of our perception, if we doubt our senses and 
our thoughts, if we doubt our very doubts, 
and in the end, from a frantic hunting of pro- 
tean shadows, relapse into utter silence and 
impotence — what additional impotence is to 

172 



The Games of Science 

be derived from the correction of unscientific 
errors? 

The world's wonder, the world's doubt, the 
terror and illusion of life — these things lie 
patent to the naked eye. Life at first hand 
teaches everything. The blind cannot see 
even through a microscope. 

What, then, is science, and wherein lies its 
lure? Why are men drawn to its service, 
why do the best and ablest give up their lives 
to its pursuit? 

Science, which can be of no ultimate value 
in bringing us nearer to the roots of life, to 
Godhead and its secrecies; science is a Game, 
a convention. The charm of science is the 
charm of gentile life. The ultimate does not 
matter: within the system there is the lyric 
grace of rhythm and harmony. 

The scientific development of your Western 
world is an inevitable consequence of your 
nature. It is inevitable that you should wor- 
ship science, because your very skepticism is 
the substitution of one set of illusions for 
another, the adoption of one set of conven- 

173 



You Gentiles 

tions in place of another. You are bound to 
find "spiritual value" in science because you 
do not want ultimate spiritual value— only 
the spiritual value of immediate lyric enjoy- 
ment. You who worship gods instead of God 
must naturally worship science. Science is 
merely idol-worship: for eikons instruments, 
for incantations formulae: the palpable, the 
material, the enjoyable. Science is not a seri- 
ous pursuit: your grave professors of chem- 
istry, astronomy, physics, your Nobel prize- 
winners are but bald or bearded schoolboys 
playing mental football for their own delight 
and the delight of spectators. 

Science, then, is an art, though its technique 
is of so peculiar a nature as to divide it from 
all the other arts: but we most easily recog- 
nize it as an art because the true scientist 
takes an artistic delight in science. 

And because your science is not serious, we 
Jews have never achieved in it any peculiar 
preeminence. We have our few exceptions: 
we can master as well as you the system and 
the scheme, but we lack the spiritual urge, 

174 



The Games of Science 

the driving joy, the illusion that this is the 
all in all. 

We know nothing of science for science's 
sake — as we know nothing of art for art's 
sake. We only know of art for God's sake. 
If there is art or beauty in our supreme 
production, the Bible, it is not because we 
sought either. The type of the artist is alien 
to us, and just as alien is the delight of the 
artist. The artist is one who seeks beauty, 
goes out of his way to find her. But the He- 
brew prophet, who wrought so beautifully, did 
not go out of his way to find God. God pur- 
sued him and caught him; hunted him out 
and tortured him so that he cried out. Un- 
til this day we have no artists in your sense: 
such art as we have created has been the by- 
product of a fierce moral purpose. 

Art and science — this is your gentile world 
a lovely and ingenious world. Kaleidoscopic 
graceful, bewilderingly seductive, a world, ai 
its best, of lovely apparitions, banners, strug 
gles, triumphs, gallantries, noble gestures anc 
conventions. But not our world, not for u: 

175 



You Gentiles 

Jews. For such Field-of-the-Cloth-of-Gold 
delights we lack imagination and inventive- 
ness. We are not touched with this vigor of 
productive playfulness. Under duress we 
take part in the ringing melee, and give an 
indifferently good account of ourselves. But 
we have not the heart for this world of yours. 



176 



XI 



The Masses 

It would be absurd to pretend that the Jew- 
ish masses are distinguished from your masses 
by a conscious appreciation of the difference 
I have described. Indeed, very few even of 
the thinking Jews understand the nature of 
the problem. It is certain that the Western- 
ized masses of Jews are doing their best to 
minimize, or to ignore, the difference between 
Jew and gentile: they and their leaders as- 
sert, frequently and vehemently, that there 
is no difference. Jew and gentile are alike 
except in their opinions regarding certain 
very simple "matters of faith." 

You, too, will assert: "Even if we grant this 
distinction between gentile and Jewish genius, 
are we to understand that it permeates the 
masses, that the strain of seriousness is to 
be found in your hundreds of thousands of 

177 



You Gentiles 

Westernized workers, lawyers, salesmen, mer- 
chants, manufacturers, contrasting' with a 
corresponding levity or lack of seriousness in 
the same classes among us? It is incredible. 
The same language, the same occupations, the 
same sports, the same pursuits are common to 
both of us. Let any intelligent man live first 
for ten years among middle-class gentile fam- 
ilies and then change his milieu completely 
and pass into the environment of middle- 
class, assimilated Jewish families. What will 
there be to give him the impression of an- 
other world? Will he not find the same 
amusements, the same ambitions, the same 
morality, the same taboos, the same abilities 
and the same stupidities? Do not the Jew- 
ish and gentile middle-class families admire 
the same heroes, vote for the same politicians, 
read the same newspapers and magazines, 
frequent the same theaters, weep over the 
same movies, laugh at the same comic strips?" 

But the question cannot be put so simply. 
This world is yours, and you are the ones 
who set the standards. You are the ones 

178 



The Masses 

who supply the material for the reactions. 
And when we Jews want to become part of 
your world, enjoy its privileges and pleasures, 
we must accept your standards, speak, as it 
were, the same language. But just as a word 
can never mean quite the same thing to two 
persons, so a common expression does not 
mean the same emotion. 

The fact is that as long as Jews retain 
their identity there is the same tension be- 
tween your middle classes and ours as between 
your genius and ours. Our middle classes, 
even when thoroughly modernized, retain a 
certain individuality which is repugnant to 
you. And though, if forced to a yes-or-no 
answer to the question above enunciated, I 
should have to answer: "Yes, there is a differ- 
ence, difficult to describe, but felt and re- 
sented none the less." 

Our modernized Jews have done their best 
to take up your life and become part of it, 
but despite outward appearances they have 
failed. There is, first of all, too eager and 
intense a desire to be gentile. What you do 

179 



You Gentiles 

tacitly, and by the grace of God, we do de- 
liberately and in the gracelessness of ambi- 
tion. You grew into this new life of yours. 
We contort ourselves into it. In one or two 
generations we would achieve what it took 
you a hundred generations to reach. We take 
up your life with an anxiousness, a ferocity, 
which is its own undoing. Whatever in you 
can be imitated, we do imitate admirably, but 
though you cannot quite define it, you are 
aware of a deception. Our patriotisms are 
hysterical; our sport pursuits are unnaturally 
eager; our business ambitions artificially 
passionate. We seek the same apparent ends 
as you, but not in the same spirit. Would 
you have us fight and die for country? We'll 
do it as well as you. Would you have us run 
fast, box skilfully? We'll do it. Would you 
have us build up enterprises? We'll do that 
too. But one thing we cannot do. Do it for 
the same reason and in the same spirit. 

Since you insist, we will measure values 
with your standards and register the results. 
But you know, you feel, that the standards 

180 



The Masses 

are not ours. We betray ourselves, singly 
and in mass. We haven't the manner. And 
we haven't the manners — for manners are but 
a manner with you. 

We Jews are lacking in manners because 
manners, as you have evolved them, are a 
spirit, a reflex of your play world. Manners 
cannot be copied: one must have the aptitude 
for this charming triviality. A single note of 
insistence spoils it all And we Jews insist 
too much. 

And just as Jews are without manners, so 
they are without vulgarity. I have observed 
that between the vulgar gentile and the so- 
called vulgar Jew there is a singular and 
dreadful difference. The vulgar type of gen- 
tile is not repellent: there is in him an ani- 
mal grossness which shocks and braces, but 
does not horrify: he carries it off by virtue 
of a natural brutality and brutishness which 
provide a mitigating consistency to his char- 
acter. But the lowest type of Jew is ex- 
traordinarily revolting. There is in him a 
suggestion of deliquescent putrefaction. The 

181 



You Gentiles 

gentile can be naturally, healthily vulgar. 
The Jew corrupts into vulgarity — he has not 
the gift for it. What is vulgarity in the gen- 
tile is obscenity in the Jew. I am able to 
watch; either with amusement or indifference, 
a vulgar performance on the gentile stage. 
On the Jewish stage I find it intolerably loath- 
some. In the company of low and brutish 
gentiles "let loose' 3 I may not feel at home, 
but I can be an unmoved spectator. But 
when Jews try to imitate this behavior I feel 
my innermost decency outraged. Well-man- 
nered gentile society rejects us. So does vul- 
gar gentile society. 

An individual genius cannot be taken as 
the higher type of the people which produced 
him: but in the mass there is an inevitable 
correspondence between the product of the 
geniuses of a people and the people itself. 
Studied actuarially, the people finds utterance 
in the geniuses. There is an undoubted con- 
sistency in all the products of the greatest 
Jewish minds. Whether we take these statis- 
tics laterally, through an age, or vertically, 

182 



The Masses 

through history, we will obtain a similar re- 
sult. Whether we begin with the Bible and 
take the sum total of our work down to Karl 
Marx, or confine ourselves to a single country 
and generation (America to-day, for instance 
— with Untermeyer, Lewisohn, Frank, Hecht) 
we will find the same appeal to fundamentals, 
the same passionate rejection of your sport 
world and its sport morality, the same ulti- 
mate seriousness, the same inability to be 
merely playful, merely romantic, merely lyri- 
cal. 

It is unthinkable that the masses of a peo- 
ple can mean one thing, its geniuses another. 
Were this so the utterances of great minds 
would lose all relevance, would become point- 
less and impotent. If we symbolize a people 
as a single organism, its geniuses may be lik- 
ened to an organ of self-consciousness; and 
the self-consciousness of a man is not an in- 
dependent function, but the instrument of all 
of him: all his body and being thinksr- 
through the brain. 

That which genius illuminates is the life 
183 



You Gentiles 

from which it springs. The amorphous is 
crystallized in it: the confused diffusion is 
brought to a focus, so that the pattern is 
made clear. Our geniuses, in the midst of 
your world, are an alien and destructive ele- 
ment, more clearly revealed as such because 
they are articulate. They are our spokes- 
men; or, better said, ourselves in utterance. 
They, like us, being us, cannot join your 
game. You say, "Because they lack imagina- 
tion." In a sense it is true. We are unimagi- 
native, as old people are unimaginative in the 
presence of young people. We neither play 
with emotions nor with things; we lack ro- 
manticists as we lack inventors — because we 
lack inventiveness. 

Even among the masses, where diffusion 
confuses, an apt instance points to the truth. 
Among our simple people you do not find the 
delight in constructive trifles which is one of 
your characteristics. Your simple people like 
to build things, fix this and that in the house, 
play the handy man; they take pleasure in 
putting up shelves, looking to the plumbing, 

184 



The Masses 

adding and altering. We are devoid of this 
kind of craftsman's pleasure; we do what is 
necessary, only because it is necessary. And 
as a man, engaged happily in such pleasant, 
childlike pursuits, resents the chilling indif- 
ference of an unsympathetic onlooker, so 
your world resents our uncalled-for analysis 
of your acts and occupations. This is your 
life and you enjoy it. Why do we disturb 
you with questions concerning ultimate 
values? 

We lack inventiveness. You will say that 
this springs from our lack of vitality. Men 
are lyrical because life sings in them; they 
are inventive because life is restless in them 
and drives their fingers to activity. I will 
not argue the cause of the difference, but, 
lacking inventiveness, we also lack sympathy 
for it. In your delight you call inventiveness 
the conquest of nature. But the boast is, 
to us, a foolish and a childlike boast. The 
problem with which man is faced cannot be 
answered by scientific inventions. The con- 
quest of nature does not lie in evolving keener 

185 



You Gentiles 

sight, swifter motion, larger strength. This 
is but magnification, which leaves the element 
of the problem untouched. Can you conquer, 
not nature, but the nature of things? 

For it is in the nature of things that the 
bitter problem resides. If science should 
double the span of human life, will the nature 
of life and death be altered? Will we not 
feel as mortal, as insignificant? Will we even 
be aware of living longer? If science should 
bridge the planets and the stars, will the new 
playground be larger than the old to those 
that live in it? You have found a whole 
world since the days of the Greeks : they lived 
on a tiny plot of earth, an ant-hill; and you 
have a gigantic globe to build on. What dif- 
ference has it made? What significant con- 
quest have you achieved? Not things but 
the nature of things baffle us, the dreadful 
circle, the eternal balance, for every gain a 
compensating loss, for every new revelation a 
new deception, for every new extension a loss 
of intensity. 

The nature of things cannot be solved be- 
186 



The Masses 

cause we partake of that nature. We can 
never get round ourselves: we can only turn 
round. Your world spins in a joyous illusion 
of progress; we, untouched by that illusion, 
destructive of your mood, stand aside, static, 
serious. We will be satisfied with nothing but 
the absolute. 

That aloofness speaks clearly or obscurely 
in our masses as well as in our geniuses. 
Dealing with objects, instead of with laws, 
they betray the same unenthusiastic objec- 
tivity in their attitude to your world. 

And as long as they retain their Jewish 
identity, they will, despite denial and effort 
to the contrary, remain the same. 



187 



XII 



Solution and Dissolution 

Does the situation which I have described 
constitute a problem? Or is it merely one 
of the insoluble difficulties of life which, be- 
ing insoluble, should be understood as such 
and suffered tacitly? Death is not a prob- 
lem, being inevitable. Is this struggle be- 
tween our two worlds as inevitable? Shall 
we resign ourselves to the struggle and do 
what we can to mitigate its worst effects, or 
shall we continue the search for a complete 
solution? 

The one solution which is generally offered 
as complete and satisfactory is, quite apart 
from its feasibility, not a solution at all : only 
a dissolution. The disappearance of the Jew- 
ish people by complete submergence in the 
surrounding world would not, in reality, solve 
the problem; any more than one solves a 

188 



Solution and Dissolution 

chess problem by burning chess-board and 
figures. But it would seem to do the next 
best thing: it would apparently destroy the 
situation which creates the problem. The 
problem, without having been solved, would 
at any rate cease to exist. 

And by the dissolution of the Jewish people 
can be meant only one thing — the disappear- 
ance of Jewish identity in individuals or 
masses, the complete obliteration of Jewish 
self-consciousness, down to the very name and 
recollection. When it will be impossible for 
any man to say of himself, "I am a Jew," or 
"My father, or grandfather was a Jew" this 
consummation will have been achieved. 

There is only one instrument to this end: 
free and unrestrained intermarriage. This 
act or fact alone will count. The mere chang- 
ing of names, the substitution of religious 
forms, the so-called "liberalization" and 
"modernization" of Judaism is ineffective: it 
is a matter of common observation that there 
is no inverse ratio between the Westernization 
of the Jew and anti-Semitism. And this very 

189 



You Gentiles 

fact will have to be considered again in its 
relation to the feasibility of this proposal. If 
we talk of the submergence of the Jew we 
must not play with words: words alone can- 
not submerge the Jew. If there is anything 
in what I have said you cannot make a gentile 
of a Jew by arguing with him any more than 
by lynching him. You can make his children 
half gentile, his grandchildren only a quarter 
Jewish — and so on till the balance is perfect. 

And this truth seems to have worked in 
the minds of some Westernizing Jews. Re- 
form Judaism, or modernized Judaism, is the 
halfway house to baptism: or at least to in- 
termarriage. Its very purpose is such, de- 
spite the protestations of Reform Jews. It 
cannot be anything else, for if the desire is 
to become "like the world around us," then 
all barriers must go down, and the real bar- 
rier, the conservator of all distinctions, is our 
practice of endogamy. 

One thing is quite certain: a Jew is never 
baptized for the purpose of becoming a Chris- 
tian; his purpose is to become a gentile. Yet 

190 



Solution and Dissolution 

obviously you do not make a gentile of a Jew 
by baptizing him any more than you would 
make an Aryan of a negro by painting him 
with ocher. The sole (and sufficient) value 
in this direction of baptism is the removal of 
all conscious prohibition against intermar- 
riage. 

Of course even baptism is not a necessary 
preparation. Jews marry gentiles without 
this preliminary formality. The case is some- 
what different here. This is a natural wastage 
or attrition: individual passion, not policy, 
is the cause, though the effect is the same— 
the disappearance of the Jew. And it cer- 
tainly connotes, even if indirectly, the renun- 
ciation first of Judaism and then of Jewish 
affiliation. A Jew married to a gentile may 
remain a Jew ostensibly, as he is in fact. His 
children seldom, if ever, profess Judaism or 
associate themselves with the Jewish people. 

In this case the evasion is even more dis- 
honest than in the first. A man who professes 
to belong to the Jewish faith and the Jewish 
people and who nevertheless gives his chil- 

191 



You Gentiles 

dren to the gentiles is making the best of 
both worlds. He evades the odious name of 
renegade which attaches to the baptized Jew 
(also salving his conscience] and at the same 
time contributes effectively to the dissolution 
of the Jewish people. It is well to note that 
the Westernized or "Reform" Jew may de- 
plore the practice, but will not exclude such a 
man from the Temple. The orthodox Jew 
considers such a man lost to Judaism: the 
view, whatever its ethics, is clearer and 
healthier. 

But I want to consider not the accidental, 
but the deliberate, or politic. Accidental in- 
termarriage, being accidental and therefore 
uncontrollable, is not a policy. Baptism is a 
policy: the weakening of Judaism by the re- 
moval of its "nationalist" implications, and 
by its "modernization," is also a policy — the 
same policy, in fact, but more circumspect 
and less self-confessed. This policy has as 
its objective the solution of the Jewish prob- 
lem by the dissolution of the Jewish people. 

192 



Solution and Dissolution 

I will consider later whether this policy 
can obtain this objective. The question here 
concerns the objective. Will the "dissolution 
of Jewish identity" by free and prolonged in- 
termarriage resolve the struggle of the two 
types? Or will the struggle continue in an- 
other form, less obvious but equally uncom- 
fortable? Will the struggle center round iso- 
lated individuals, recurrent types? Or will 
the final product be homogeneous and, in re- 
lation to this particular struggle, static? 

Both the negative and affirmative answers 
to this question are unsatisfactory. Suppose, 
on the one hand, the struggle continues? Sup- 
pose the Jewish character persists in strains, 
breaks out in individual atavisms, long after 
the Jewish name has perished? The problem 
will be the same: your world will be con- 
fronted with recurrent instances of alien and 
destructive types, all the more dangerous be- 
cause they are not isolated in a recognized, 
repudiated group. Their power of destruc- 
tion will be the greater because they will 

193 



You Gentiks 

work from within. The Cf Jewish" problem 
will have disappeared, but the gentile prob- 
lem would remain as bitter as ever. 

Let us examine the negative answer. Sup- 
pose there are no "reversions to type." Sup- 
pose the Jew is so completely absorbed as to 
be lost beyond possibility of detection in the 
surrounding world. Such a consummation, if 
possible, calls for one inevitable condition; 
that is, the proportionate Judaization of your 
world. It is unthinkable that so vivid an ele- 
ment as the Jewish people should be absorbed 
into your world without producing an appre- 
ciable alteration in its constitution. A world 
that has absorbed the Jews will to that extent 
be a Jewish world. 

And this is precisely the condition which 
you refuse to admit. You want no tamper- 
ing with your identity; you want to remain 
what you are. You have no intention of 
meeting us at the point of balance. You do 
not want a world tinged with Jewish blood. 
You want us to be absorbed in you without 
leaving a trace. And with the best intentions 

194 



Solution and Dissolution 
in the world we cannot oblige. We can, in 
that sense, no more destroy ourselves than 
we can destroy a single particle of matter. 

But I shall show in the following pages 
that all this talk of dissolution is academic. 
Even if you should tolerate in prospect both 
of these alternatives, there are insuperable 
obstacles which make it highly improbable 
that you will ever be faced with either. 



195 



XIII 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

This would be an ideal condition, presum- 
ably — the merging together of Jew and gen- 
tile, for the production of a world neither 
wholly gentile nor yet dual with Jew and gen- 
tile — but composed of both in certain propor- 
tions fixed by our numbers and the laws of 
heredity. That is, at least, the best solution 
within view, and if we are to be reasonable — ■ 
on paper at least — it would be the only one 
to be considered. 

But we must remember that this ideal can- 
not be realized in one generation or in two, 
or in five. If we were to assume (the as- 
sumption is an absurd one) that within .this 
generation the Jewish world could be won 
over to this point of view, it would still need 
four or five generations (probably more) to 
obliterate our identity. At that it would call 

196 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

for forcible inter-marriage, for even when we 
cease to believe in endogamy, we will prac- 
tise it because our affections so incline us. 
It would have to become a sort of principle — • 
that in the name of the great ideal of a solu- 
tion of the Jewish problem, the Jew shall be 
forbidden (morally, at least) to marry among 
his own. But it is clear that even if inten- 
sive propaganda were to break down (it could 
not, for reasons I shall return to) our pro- 
hibitions against inter-marriage, it would have 
to work progressively. It would take many 
generations to carry the change successively 
through all the strongholds of Jewish life. 
And when we add to the time thus needed 
the time needed for actual absorption by in- 
termarriage, we are faced with a task for 
centuries. 

But I will deal with ideal conditions. I will 
deal with a single large group of Jews deter- 
mined to abandon their identity and to lose 
themselves and their children in the surround- 
ing gentile world. We know well that their 
children will not yet be assimilated in the full 

197 



You Gentiles 

sense of the word: children of mixed Jewish- 
gentile percentage still carry the Jewish 
stigma. The child of a half- Jew and com- 
plete gentile is in better plight; and a Jewish 
great-grandfather is hardly any handicap at 
all- The third generation, as the saying is, 
produces the gentleman. 

It needs at least these three generations of 
intermediary stage — probably more. It 
would be absurd to expect absorption in a 
single generation: it never happens. There 
is needed a transition period and it is this 
transition period which you gentiles will not 
tolerate. Even if you believe (as most of 
you do) that the best thing that could happen 
to the Jew would be his complete absorption 
by inter-marriage, you oppose, tacitly, but 
not the less obstinately, his steps in that di- 
rection. You want us to inter-marry — but 
you don't want to inter-marry. You want us 
to produce gentile offspring without having 
taken your sons and daughters as mates. 

In other words, you want an end without 
permitting the means. The prospect of a 

198 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

Jew-less world is charming indeed, but who 
will enjoy the actuality? Your grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren. And who will have 
to pay the price of the first embarrassing con- 
tact, the first difficult intimacy, Jewish sons- 
and daughters-in-law, Jewish fathers and 
mothers-in-law? You yourselves. The pros- 
pect is too distant, too hypothetical, to exert 
any influence. It is much too much like the 
promise of heaven and the threat of hell. 

I have alluded more than once to the fact 
that Westernization of the Jew is nowhere 
a guarantee against anti-Semitism. Indeed, 
conscious modern anti-Semitism, the formu- 
lated fear of the Jew as the racial bearer of 
alien and dangerous ideas, is the result of 
Westernization. Far from encouraging or 
tolerating our inter-marriage with you, you do 
not even relish the results of our Westerniza- 
tion or gentilization. It is an amazing and 
terrifying paradox: you would like us to be 
absorbed, but you shrink from the process. 
The inoculation is painful, even revolting. 
You are uneasy and unhappy when we swarm 

199 



You Gentiles 

into your universities, your professions: the 
nearer we come to you, the more you dislike 
us. You dislike us because we are different, 
and when we make efforts to overcome the 
difference we are forced into a proximity 
which rouses your inmost resentment. The 
Ku Klux Klan, the Awakening Magyars, the 
Consul, no longer warn you against the re- 
ligious and secluded Jew, the Ghetto and the 
Talmud. They warn you against the baptiz- 
ing Jew, against the assimilating Jew, against 
the inter-marrying Jew. They warn you, in- 
deed, against that part of the Jewish people 
which is apparently in the process of realiza- 
tion of that ultimate ideal — the disappear- 
ance of the Jewish people. 

Another aspect of the mechanics of dis- 
solution makes clear a difficulty somewhat 
more subtle but even more effective. The 
death of a people or of a type can be natural 
only. Race suicide as an ideal is a contradic- 
tion, for an ideal is a manifestation of life. 
Deliberate] * to set before ourselves the ob- 
jective of s< f-elimination would be as absurd 

200 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

as a man insisting on watching himself fall 
asleep. It can be done tacitly only. It can 
happen, but it cannot be propagated. We 
might drift out of consciousness, but every 
effort to accelerate the pace would retard the 
process. To appeal to Jews to cease to be 
Jews because they are Jews is to accentuate 
their Jewishness. 

Of course the effort has been made, but 
with those grotesque and unnatural results 
which are in part responsible for your aver- 
sion to the process. There is nothing more 
ludicrous and pitiful than the Jew who has 
made his gentilization a deliberate ideal His 
anxious self-repression, his self-disclaimers, 
his demand to be considered a gentile, his un- 
easy sense of inferiority, his impotent resent- 
ment of all that reminds him of his origin, 
make him an object of scorn alike to you and 
to us. There are "assimilated" Jews who 
hate with an ignoble and consuming hatred 
the "unassimilated" part of the Jewish peo- 
ple; Jews, who, rousing your secret contempt 
as renegades and your resentment as intrud- 

201 



You Gentiles 

ers, attribute their discomfort, falsely, to 
those Jews who are most obviously Jewish. 
For the gentilizing Jew is reluctant to admit 
that his very gentilization accentuates his 
Jewishness to you. His only recourse to save 
the last remnant of his self-respect is to blame 
the unassimilating Jew: in eager self-vindica- 
tion he points at the object-lesson of the suf- 
ferings of orthodox and national Jewries and 
associates his own severer sufferings with the 
same cause. He deliberately ignores the fact 
that the cradle of the newer anti-Semitism is 
the country which witnessed the first efforts 
of the Jew to make a high ideal of assimila- 
tion. Germany, which in the nineteenth cen- 
tury offered the classic example of Jewish as- 
similation, both internal (in adaptation of 
our own life) and external (in baptism and 
inter-marriage) also became the country of 
classic anti-Semitism. Terrified at the infil- 
tration of Jewish blood, the German gentile 
recast his formulae of Jew-hatred in such 
wise as to arrest the process. 

When we examine the mechanism of disso- 
202 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

lution in detail and come down to an exam- 
ination of its working on the individual, we 
understand better the revolting character of 
at least its first effects. It is one thing to say 
that a people in the first stages of dissolution 
is as horrible a spectacle as a body in the first 
stages of putrefaction: but this sounds some- 
what academic—perhaps even metaphysical. 
Even so there is little conveyed in the state- 
ment that a country is starving: we realize 
the import of the statement only when we 
speak of hungry men and women. When we 
examine the personal reactions of the deliber- 
ately assimilating Jew we see more clearly 
why he is not a pleasant spectacle either to 
Jew or to gentile. 

A Jew who has made the repression of his 
Jewishness an ideal must be prepared to suf- 
fer and to seem to ignore every slight, every 
rebuff which he encounters. He must not 
permit an open sneer to sting him into Jew- 
ish self-consciousness: such a "weakness" 
would undo his purpose. He must seem to 
be unaware of the occasional coolness which 

203 



You Gentiles 

follows the accidental revelation of his ori- 
gin. He must bear silently with those count- 
less unspoken snubs, half-snubs, unuttered 
queries, faint Ah-yes astonishments, which 
will be his lot until the day of his death. He 
must not feel himself implicated in a general 
slander of the Jews : he may only protest in a 
generous, disinterested sort of way, as a fair- 
minded "gentile." An angry retort or repudi- 
ation might be the ruin of him — he would 
suddenly realize the intolerable nature of his 
position. ... It is not an easy thing to kill 
one's self by degrees. 

Such a Jew has the whole way to go. He 
is not entering a world already made easier 
for him by an admixture of Jewish blood. He 
does not move forward to a partly prepared 
position. All is alien around him. His 
claims have no precedent. There is some- 
thing pitifully impotent in his demand: "But 
I am an Englishman, like you; an American, 
like you. I have no affiliations outside of this 
country except those general human affilia- 
tions which I share with you. I feel for my 

204 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

co-religionists abroad nothing more nor less 
than you feel for your fellow-Christians 
among the Turks. Between me and my fel- 
low-Jews in this country there is nothing more 
than between Protestant and Protestant, 
Catholic and Catholic." (Or, if he is baptized, 
this incriminating confession may presumably 
be omitted.) "I am part and parcel of your 
country. Our forefathers came later, but our 
posterity will stay as long. There is no dif- 
ference between you and me except a very 
slight difference of faith — nothing really worth 
mentioning. In all else we are utterly alike. 
Do not let yourself be misled by the apparent 
contrast between me and my unassimilated 
co-religionists. It is merely a matter of ex- 
ternals. In a little while, in a generation or 
two, they will be like me — indistinguishable 
from you. They will be Americans (or Eng- 
lishmen or Frenchmen) in every respect. 
Your destiny and ours, your outlook and ours, 
your hopes and ours, are identical." 

But his plea falls on skeptical ears. There 
is that in the very name of Jew which invali- 

205 



You Gentiles 

dates his protestations. And the more vehe- 
mently he urges his case, the more suspicious 
and uneasy you become. For he is urging as 
an accomplished fact that which is nothing 
but a hopeless personal aspiration. Your de- 
mand is not connected with behavior or with 
views: neither of these makes the American 
or the Englishman. It is a question of iden- 
tity. You want us to be Anglo-Saxons, or 
Teutons, if you are to call us Englishmen or 
Germans. And we cannot be that — at best 
our great-grandchildren can be as nearly that 
as matters. But we cannot remarry our 
great-grandparents. 

We cannot but exasperate you by such 
importunate assumptions. That strangers, 
aliens to your blood, should come to dwell in 
your midst, is one thing. That they should 
claim, after a sojourn of a generation or two, 
complete identity with you, is as absurd as it 
is insolent. And even if they should dwell in 
your midst a thousand years, yet should keep 
apart, neither giving nor taking in marriage, 
they are not identical with you. In those 

206 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

words, "our ancestry," "our forefathers/' 
there are implied the dearest and tenderest of 
human associations* The love of his forbears 
and of his posterity is all that man has of 
earthly immortality; the pride and affection 
which are the natural counterparts of these 
concepts are as narrow and as broad, as po- 
tent for good and evil, as sexual love, as life 
itself. Shall we come to you and share your 
ancestry? Shall we intrude on these exalted 
recollections, with a "we too"? 

You cannot help resenting these claims. 
They savor at once of ingratiating humility 
and arrogant blasphemy. Try as you will 
you cannot make the concession. You are 
trapped by a vital paradox. 

You may ask: What difference is there be- 
tween a Jew claiming to be an American and 
an Italian claiming to be one? Is it more hu- 
miliating for one than for the other? Is the 
Italian of our ancestry more than you? 

There is some similarity in the plight of all 
foreigners: and we Jews suffer all that for- 
eigners suffer. But our case is unique because 

207 



You Gentiles 

we are unique. If there is anything in what 
I have said, the cleft between you, Americans 
and Italians, Frenchmen and Germans, is but 
a wide jump as compared with the chasm be- 
tween us and any one of you. What is true 
of the gentile foreigner in this regard is ten 
times true of us. 

For our very record testifies against us. 
The older the past from which we attempt to 
flee, the closer it pursues us. To you, who 
share with us the human attribute of pride of 
ancestry, it seems incredible that, having re- 
tained our identity for a hundred generations, 
we should abandon it in one. It is suspicious 
— and odious. For you suspect (rightly) that 
in this tenacity of identity, which has outlived 
so many nations and civilizations, there is im- 
plied a kernel of individuality which is as sin- 
gular in its nature as in its history. 

Among yourselves assimilation is problem 
enough. The birth and death of nations is 
attended by wars, pains, humiliations. But 
what you have done a dozen times over in 

208 



The Mechanism of Dissolution 

the last four thousand years we have not 
done once. 

We cannot assimilate: it is so humiliating 
to us that we become contemptible in submit- 
ting to the process: it is so exasperating to 
you that, even if we were willing to submit, 
it would avail us nothing. 



209 



XIV 



Is There Any Hope? 

There is little more to be said. I would 
only like to set down, before concluding, a 
few considerations which might help to clarify 
the issue between us. For I cannot believe 
that the contest between our two ways of 
life will come to an end within measurable 
time, and I cannot believe that while the con- 
test continues it will ever be lifted to purely 
spiritual levels. I will not confound eschatol- 
ogy with daily experience: if ever the dream 
of the prophet should come true, if ever men 
should live at peace with each other, express- 
ing their antagonisms without enmity — why, 
they will no longer be men, but another spe- 
cies, and talk of Jew and gentile will be as 
irrelevant then as it might have been twenty 
thousand years ago. The world is getting 
better, no doubt, but the improvement is not 

210 



Is There Any Hope? 

to be measured in generations or centuries, 
and what will come to pass ten thousand years 
from now does not concern me in connection 
with this problem. Certainly I have no pa- 
tience with those who bid us wait dumbly for 
the apotheosis of mankind, as though the 
millennium were round the corner, as though 
every year registered a perceptible and even 
considerable improvement. If ever, within 
the span tif one generation, mankind could 
suffer visible improvement, it should have 
been now, within the generation which wit- 
nessed the war. But only the fool and the 
professional optimist will assert that our way 
of life to-day, our utterances, our emotions, 
our ambitions, are at all cleaner than they 
were ten years ago, when the war started. 
,The same handful of sensitive men and 
women struggle hopelessly against the pas- 
sions of humanity: the same ugliness and 
meanness, the same selfishness and lying, the 
same lust for bloody adventure, the same de- 
light in physical triumph, the same wilful self- 
deception and abuse of lovely phrases have us 

211 



You Gentiles 

In thrall. The race is still to the swift and 
the battle to the strong, and the goal and the 
prize are what they were ten years ago. What 
I say, then, is not prompted by the hope that 
words of mine — or of any one else — can give 
a new complexion to the general struggle be- 
tween Jew and gentile: but only by the desire 
to clarify, for the encouragement of a few, 
the nature of this struggle, convincing them, 
perhaps, that behind the sordid stupidity 
which seems to govern our Jew-gentile rela- 
tionship there may be found a compensating 
grain of eternal principle. And my conclud- 
ing words are addressed less to practical ex- 
pectations than to the desire for complete- 
ness. 

What are we Jews prepared to give you 
which, in my opinion, you should consider suf- 
ficient? Obedience to the laws of the State 
and readiness to defend it (even if against 
our inmost belief) in time of danger. This 
constitutes a full payment for the privilege of 
citizenship and the protection of the laws. 

But this offer on the part of the Jew be- 
212 



Is There Any Hope 6 ? 

comes inadequate when the State begins to 
assume functions which seem to me totally 
beyond its capacity. What was intended only 
for the regulation of the external actions of 
a given group is becoming a growing tyranny 
against the inmost values of man, an at- 
tempted violation of our most inaccessible 
privileges. And this despite the professions 
of your statesmen and political thinkers. 

It is acknowledged, in principle, that a 
man's religion is beyond the reach of law, and 
his God need neither pay taxes nor take out 
citizenship papers. But the acknowledgment 
of this principle is gradually becoming mean- 
ingless (perhaps it never had any meaning) 
in the light of the growing spiritual tyranny 
of the State. Perhaps nothing that you have 
ever feared from the economic tyranny of 
Socialism approaches the oppressive spiritual 
tyranny of your great democracies. These 
seek to control not only the acts, but the emo- 
tions of the individual. They would compel 
us to love and hate, to admire and despise, 
as part of our civic duty and, not content with 

213 



You Gentiles 

that part of us which alone affects the well- 
being of government, would also conquer and 
control that part of us which belongs to no 
one but to each man and God. 

They would control our culture, as though 
culture were controllable — except for the 
purpose of destruction — tell us in which lan- 
guage to create, as though they could fructify 
us, and direct our ecstasies, as though these 
were run along wires and commanded by 
switches. Our obedience, our tribute, our 
bodies, will not do: they would have the. very 
secrets of the heart torn out of us and deliv- 
ered to Washington or Berlin or London. In 
the terror of Socialism they depict the intoler- 
able misery of the man who can claim nothing 
for himself, but must yield up the fruit of his 
labor, down to the last husk, to the disposi- 
tion of the State. But they have instituted a 
spiritual Socialism infinitely more hideous, 
and for economic equality they have substi- 
tuted a spiritual homogeneity which the com- 
munist can never hope to parallel in the phys- 
ical field. And woe to him who dares to 

214 



Is There Any Hope? 

practise private initiative in the spiritual- 
Socialistic State! His punishment is not only 
spiritual, but physical too. And we Jews, the 
most obstinate and most enduring sinners in 
this respect, are the best measure of the vin- 
dictive fury with which this tyranny is armed. 

If, then 3 the struggle between us is ever to 
be lifted beyond the physical , your democra- 
cies will have to alter their demands for racial, 
spiritual and cultural homogeneity within the 
State. But it would be foolish to regard this 
as a possibility, for the tendency of this civili- 
zation is in the opposite direction. There is 
a steady approach toward the identification 
of government with race, instead of with the 
political State: and since this is largely be- 
yond your conscious control, it is perhaps as 
foolish as it is futile to expect a change. The 
best fighting unit is a nation which is homo- 
geneous in blood and emotions no less than 
in political allegiance, and since the chief 
function of the State is to fight (witness the 
proportion of your taxes spent in payment 
and in preparation for wars) you will inevi- 

215 



You Gentiles 

tably demand the subordination of all human 
functions to that end. 

The demand for racial homogeneity within 
the State has led, in America — still the 
most unexploited country in the whole world 
— to the exclusion of the immigrant, and par- 
ticularly of the immigrant who will not lend 
himself to the type of assimilation — or self- 
destruction — which you demand. Without 
for a moment admitting that any kind of ex- 
clusion is justifiable in a world which God 
created before the nations appeared to dis- 
figure it, I submit the case of the Jew as an 
exception. The Jew has no homeland of his 
own. When the Jew migrates from one coun- 
try to another, it is almost invariably under 
the pressure of persecution. To close the 
gate against the Jew is not the same, then, 
as closing it against the Italian or the Pole. 
In the latter cases you insist that certain 
races stay in their own homes — whether or 
not the land will support them. But the Jew 
is not being forced to stay at home: while 
one part of the gentile world persecutes him, 

216 



Is There Any Hope? 

the other part refuses him a chance to escape. 
For very shame— if you were capable of it— 
you should give the Jew free immigration 
everywhere. The irony, of it is, of course, 
that it is chiefly against the Jew that anti- 
immigration laws are passed here in America 
as in England and Germany. And the liberal 
countries which could make room for the 
hunted Jew, cooperate, despite a few gallant 
and unsustained gestures, with the most illib- 
eral in the persecution of their common vic- 
tim. He that refuses asylum to a victim 
fleeing from a murderer is, before God, a free 
and willing accomplice in the crime. 

And to me it is infinitely strange that, even 
from your point of view, the sporting point of 
view, you should be able to reconcile your 
morality with your acts. If there is anything 
at all in your professions, you should be filled 
with admiration and astonishment at the in- 
credible pluckiness of a small people which, 
In the face of infinite discouragement, has 
clung with such tenacity to its identity and 
cult. Without understanding us at all, you 

217 



You Gentiles 

might have paid the homage of warriors to 
the courage of an unconquerable enemy. 

That you watch us with vicious irritation 
rather than with respect, that you load us 
with contumely when so much in your own 
instinct should have given us a peculiar place 
in your regard, makes me feel that nothing 
which can be urged upon your conscience will 
avail to lighten the burden of our destiny. 
We have just witnessed, in America, the repe- 
tition, in the peculiar form adapted to this 
country, of the evil farce to which the experi- 
ence of many centuries has not yet quite ac- 
customed us. If America had any meaning at 
all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above 
the trend of our present civilization — the 
identification of race with State. In the old 
world the evil had taken root in the course of 
centuries: its hideous fruit was therefore in- 
evitable. But America seemed to offer the 
hope of a change: whatever other evils 
America had inherited, at least this one she 
had avoided. America was therefore the New 
World in this vital respect — that the State 

218 



Is There Any Hope? 

was purely an ideal, and nationality was 
identical only with acceptance of the ideal. 
But it seems now that the entire point of view 
was a mistaken one, that America was incapa- 
ble of rising above her origins, and the sem- 
blance of an ideal-nationalism was only a 
stage in the proper development of the uni- 
versal gentile spirit. The ideal which for a 
time constituted American nationality disap- 
pears now, and in its place emerges again, 
with atavistic certainty, the race. 

It is true that even while the ideal flour- 
ished, triumphant over race, the seeds of our 
enmity lay securely imbedded in our natures. 
But the passing generosity kept the seeds in 
slumber. It is not the first time that gentile 
nations, forgetting themselves for a brief per- 
iod, have offered us friendship and even affec- 
tion. But the strange and unnatural exalta- 
tion passed, and bitter sobriety succeeded. 
To-day, with race triumphant over ideal, anti- 
Semitism uncovers its fangs, and to the heart- 
less refusal of the most elementary human 
right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly 

219 



You Gentiles 

insult. We are not only excluded, but we are 
told, in the unmistakable language of the im- 
migration laws, that we are an "inferior" peo- 
ple. Without the moral courage to stand up 
squarely to its evil instincts, the country pre- 
pared itself, through its journalists, by a long 
draught of vilification of the Jew, and, when 
sufficiently inspired by the popular and "scien- 
tific" potions, committed the act. 

How, then, shall I delude myself into the 
belief that the considerations covered in this 
chapter will produce any effect? Have we 
Jews not known this evil long enough? 
Should we not have known better, by this 
time, than to repose hope in any of the na- 
tions? Perhaps we were foolish in our over- 
confidence, but our credulousness does us less 
dishonor than your cruelty does you. And if 
it savors again of foolish simplicity to make 
this plea to you, I am willing to take the risk. 



220 



A LAST WORD 



It would have been a happier task for me if 
I had been able to write this book, with sin- 
cerity, in another tone; if I had been able to 
record a struggle of two ideals and types 
which was never compromised and obscured 
by physical lusts and cruelties. But rather 
than utter the old, untruthful courtesies, tem- 
pering resentment with caution and tact, it 
would have been better not to write at all, 
and I was driven to write. I believe that 
though I may have erred here and there, I 
have been mainly right: and I console myself 
with the thought that if this book offends by 
its assertiveness, God knows that the infinite 
tactfulness of thousands of other Jews seems 
to have offended no less. Whatever we do we 
are damned — and I would rather be damned 
standing up than lying down. 



221 


No comments:

Post a Comment