literature is circulated among Russians and that meetings are held in Russian sections of our cities would seem to indicate a desire to explain to credulous Russians that Bolshevism, too, should be received as part of the circumstance by which the Jews are to obtain world rule. The handbills are headed “The Fifth Universal Kingdom,” and in every meeting reported the speakers have declared that in 1914 the rule of the world was taken away from “us”—that is, the non-Jews who are the so-called “Gentiles”—and was given to God’s Chosen People, who, according to this sect, are the Jews. Thus, acquiescence in Bolshevism and every other form of revolutionary overturning is acquiescence in the will of God.
The teaching that world rule is already in the hand of the Jew is so novel, so unrelated to Biblical sources, as to warrant careful scrutiny for possible pro-Jewish connections.
But Palestine is not yet a fact, and other Bible students see in the present political movement a daring and God-defiant scheme destined to failure. Certainly there are great obstacles in the way—moral obstacles, matters of honor and humanity—which do not promise easily to disappear. The Jews of the world are discovering that they read too much into the Balfour Declaration and that Great Britain is not ready to violate her obligations to the Arabs. Jewish leaders are beginning to feel the weight of realities in the settlement of the land itself. The Jews are not going back. Those who have gone back are, a considerable and influential number of them, tainted with Russian Bolshevism.
The English people themselves are becoming dubious about the situation as is shown by the dispatch of the London correspondent of the Detroit News printed in the August 14 issue of that paper:
“Then there is the scarcity of accurate information from Palestine. The high commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, transmits reports to the British