One of the greatest absurdities is that many of our so-called Jewish representatives, racking their brains over the news of the general English-speaking press, draw conclusions - in most cases which ever pays them best - about inclinations of these papers toward Jews. To these self-crowned Jewish leaders, all English-speaking newspapers, and their editors and news reporters, are divided into two camps - the philo-Semites and anti-Semites. They can not understand that the large majority of American journalists consider the Jews as ordinary people. And when treating any matter concerning Jews, it is discussed from the standpoint of the matter itself, and antipathy or sympathy to the entire Jewish nation is disregarded.

There are, among us, professional Jew-baiters and professional Jew-lovers, whose task is to interpret any remark or act by outstanding, non-Jewish newspaper men or organizations from a standpoint remunerative to them. Should any newspaper write about the success of a Jewish farmer's crops, our Jew-lovers become full of ecstasy and sing all sorts of praises to the the noted newspaper which is then regarded as being philo-Semitic. On the following morning our Jew-baiters find, in the same newspaper, an innocent three-line advertisement of a summer resort, specifying that "Jews are not wanted." And a rumpus is created calling that very same paper anti-Semitic, and its entire staff is said to have conspired, as the ancient Haman, Antochius, and Titus, to efface the Jewish name from the surface of the globe.

It is understood that the two parties are, if not demogagues who purport to catch fish in muddy water, simple fools who don't know the difference between right and wrong. They do not know that, just as the office boy 3who accepted the anti-Semitic advertisement did not even bear in mind the Jewish question, likewise the story written about the famous Jewish crop did not come from one whose aim it was to show the world that the Jewish crop must be good because it comes from Jews.

The latest bit of silliness that we have seen about this occurred in a Jewish-English weekly parochial paper in which a reformed rabbi takes the privilege of commenting on a few editorials, which were published in the Chicago Tribune, in which Jewish agriculturalists are lauded. After showering the editors with compliments, he goes on to say:

"We are pleased to comment on the Chicago Tribune's standpoint on account of the erroneous opinion that prevails, viz., that this paper is innoculated with anti-Semitic poison."

According to the opinion of this rabbi, it seems that if the editorial writer of the Tribune did not think so highly of Jewish farmers, we could justly believe that the Tribune were anti-Semitic, although there are many Semites, true sons of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac, who ardently believe that if the world were to depend upon Jewish farming, people would eat old iron instead of potatoes.

It is not only foolish, but it is stupidity itself to think for a minute that the Tribune is anti-Semitic or anti-anything else, though the Jewish masses who are mostly foreigners will not agree with the opinion of the Tribune, which represents the American spirit about whatever concerns foreigners in general. And it is natural: The Tribune does not even agree with the ideas of the true, first Americans - the Indians.