Our Moltke, who had the opportunity of studying Jewdom thoroughly, during his residence in Poland from 1830 to 1832, sums up his observations in the following words (“Darstellung der inneren Verhältnisse in Polen”) (Description of the internal conditions in Poland, Berlin 1832):
[Page 64] “ In spite of their dispersion the Jews still remain closely united. They are guided consistently by unknown authorities for mutual purposes. As they reject all the attempts of governments to incorporate them in the nations, the Jews form a state within a state, and have become a deep wound in Poland, which has not healed even at the present day. Even now each town has its own Judge, each province its Rabbi, and all are subordinate to an unknown chief, who lives in Asia, and who is bound by their law to travel round continually, from place to place, and whom they call the ‘Prince of Slavery’. — Thus, retaining their religion, their government, their morality, and their language, and obeying their own laws, they know how to evade those of the land they live in, or, at any rate, to nullify the same for all practical purposes: and, closely united amongst themselves, they resist all attempts to fuse them into the rest of the nation, just as much on account of their religious belief as on account of their self-interest.”
* * * It simply does not do then, to complacently ignore, with Christian tolerance and sentimental charity, this singular and firmly organised hostile state of Jewry. This hostile state has declared war on us — war to the knife — for it is attempting to appropriate our material as well as our spiritual values.* It is an error to represent the Jews to one’s self as a harmless “Concession”, which lives peacefully besides us, and is only desirous of serving its God in its own particular way. The most excellent Adolf Wahrmund sees the ancient principle of the nomadic desert robbers, who sweep across the cultivated spots in order to leave the pastures grassless and barren behind them, surviving in our Jews. He says:**
“ According to the view taken from the Talmud, and expressed by the Rabbis, the path of the Jews across the world is a warlike expedition for the conquest of the same — nothing else. They regard themselves as soldiers on the march, hiding themselves in secret camps, or concealing themselves under a false flag — in the midst of the enemy, always waiting for the signal to attack and surprise.”
---------------------
* Dr. Moritz Goldstein stated in the “Kunstwart” 1912, that it could no longer be disputed that the Jews ruled over, not only the material, but even the spiritual values of the German Nation, however much the Germans might deny their capacity to do so.
** Page 41 in the writing under his name.
---------------------
[Page 65] None of these facts are altered in the least, because, now and again, this or that Jew appears to us to be quite a harmless and perhaps even an amiable individual. Without doubt the Jew possesses many human and social virtues, but who will guarantee that this external aspect of his disposition can be regarded as genuine, mixed as the latter quite comprehensibly is with bitterness on account of imagined slights, or imbued with feelings of revenge? The peculiar situation of the Jew, in the midst of a community, which is inwardly foreign to him, compels him to adopt a cautious and discrete attitude. It would be foolish on his part if he openly displayed his pride and his aversion to all men, who are not Jews. How could he thus accomplish his aims? Slyness commands him to adapt himself by mildness and pliancy to his environment, and to present the appearance of entertaining good will and a kindly disposition towards his fellow-citizens, in order to captivate the latter in their artlessness, and to win their confidence. Only thus is he enabled to promote his own business interests, and those other secret aims of Hebrewdom, to the best advantage. One must not then accept the plea that there are also some extremely nice and honest Jews as a proof that they are not dangerous.
Exceptions prove the rule, and amiability and apparent harmlessness are amongst the most deadly weapons, which the Hebrews employ against those who surround them. If, occasionally, a kind heart may prompt a Jew to act unselfishly, and even to display self-sacrifice where others are concerned, (an occurrence which, on account of its rarity, is wont to be trumpeted forth a hundred times as loudly as it would be in the case of anybody, who is not a Jew) the best and most moral Jew still remains a member of a most secret society, which directs its front against us. And, at the moment, when the decision must be made whether to defend Jewish interests against other interests, the noblest and most high-minded Jew will also take the side of his racial comrades, and will treat everyone, who is not a Jew, as an enemy. Luther already summed up the situation correctly when he spoke as follows, concerning the Jews:
[Page 66] “ But if they do anything good, know that it is not done out of love, nor does it happen for your good; but because they must have room to live amongst us, they must of necessity do something. But the heart is, and remains, as I have said.”
Therefore, do not forget: we are in a state of war with the Jews. But, if a nation has declared war upon us, and advances with hostile intent into our country, it no longer behoves us to ask: is that particular individual a good or a bad man? — but, from that moment, each of them must be regarded as our enemy, and against whom we must defend ourselves.
[Page 67]
-----------------------------------------
VI.
An Explanation with Sombart.
After we have sketched in outline our own attitude to the question, which lies before us, the task still remains to follow up Sombart’s work,* in order to supplement the same, partly by confirming it, and partly by making another comprehension valid. Sombart, himself, allows that his book is one-sided, and is meant to be. He has, in fact, supplied a written history of the economic method of the Jews, which — although the author obviously has taken pains to keep to the point, and to abstain from all appreciations — has nevertheless been written preponderatingly from the sunny side. Anyone, who did not know anything about the history of the world, would, on reading this book, easily acquire the impression that the Hebrews were the sole moving principle — not only in political economy but chiefly in Culture, that we were indebted to them alone for all great undertakings, and for all progress.
It can scarcely have been the intention of the author to create this impression, and he would simply disclaim any such explanation. But it can be easily understood, that at a time when so many disparaging remarks are made about Hebrews, the wish might arise, for once, at any rate, to muster everything, which could be said in their favour. Sombart still says — although he wishes to refrain from appreciation:
“ Israel traverses Europe like the sun; new life bursts forth where it arrives; on its departure what has hitherto prospered, wastes away.”
It would be scarcely possible to utter a more pretentious appreciation of a people than the above, and it is certainly opportune, for once in a way, to examine in detail how far such a pronouncement is justified or not. Sombart has collected, out of literature, with extraordinary diligence, everything, which could possibly throw a favourable light upon the activity of the Jews.
-------------------
* “Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben” (The Jew and the Economic Life).
-------------------
[Page 68] He acknowledges that other factors have contributed to the buildingup of the modern capitalism — which seems to him to be equivalent to modern Culture — but does not wish to mention the same in his book. He is of opinion that one will search in vain throughout his work, “to discover in any single passage anything approaching an appreciation of the Jews, their affairs, their performances,” and yet, a few lines further on, he says concerning the Jews;
“They, above all other nations, are an eternal nation”. That is a frequently expressed opinion, and yet the ancestors of Jewdom can scarcely date further back than the ancestors of other races, for it is not recognised that the incarnation of the remaining nations only happened within historical time; just as little is the national existence of the Hebrews any older than t
hat of the other nations. It is quite the contrary — for it must not be forgotten that ancient cultures were already known in the history of the world before the Jewish people put in an appearance. And when Sombart goes on to reckon up, amongst the accomplishments of the Jews, the following:
“They have presented us with the one and only God, with Jesus Christ, and consequently with Christianity ”,
this is not only an appreciation, but an extravagant eulogy, which, in the face of our modern knowledge of these matters, may even be called frivolity.
The contention that the Hebrews invented monotheism — the one God doctrine — belongs to the domain of thoughtless phrases, all the more as the most ancient Jewish documents recognise a whole line of gods, such as Elohim, El-Schaddai, El-Elyon, Adonai, Zebaoth, Jahwe etc. It was first of all Luther’s translation — which was frequently extremely free — of these names by the universal designation “God the Lord”, which is responsible for this semblance of Jewish monotheism.
[Page 69] Moreover, it has been sufficiently established for many decades that the Jewish God has nothing in common with the Christian Father-inHeaven, or the universal Father of the Germanic nations. Jahwe, as we have already discussed, is the exclusive tribal God of the Hebrews: he has absolutely no desire to be the God of other peoples, for he persecutes the latter with unappeasable hatred, and assigns to his favourite the task of annihilating the remaining nations, or, as Luther translates: “to devour them.” It is quite clear in this case that we have not to deal with the one and only God of all nations, but with a tribal or separate and national God. Therefore Jewdom can, by no means, lay claim to have presented “the” only God to the rest of the world. The discoveries of the Egyptologists and Assyriologists have furnished sufficient proof that these ancient, civilised nations already worshipped an only God before the Jewish nation was known of.* Our Germanic ancestors also worshipped an only God and universal Father, in the form of their Ziu (Dius), and the Egyptians did likewise with their Ptah, the Indians with their Dyaus Pitar (from which the Roman Jupiter originated), the Greeks with their Zeus, and the Persians with their Ahuramazda (Ormuzd) etc.
The way, in which Sombart misleads his readers with regard to Christ, is still more flagrant. Upon this point also we are at the present day sufficiently well-informed to know that Christ was not of Jewish extraction, but was a heathen Galilean. The enmity of the Jews towards him shows itself in every chapter of the Gospels; the Jews persecute him incessantly so that he must always seek refuge from them “in the land of the Heathen.”
------------------
* Compare Wahrmund: “Babyloniertum, Judentum,
Christentum” (Babylondom, Jewdom, Christendom.) Lagarde: “Deutsche Schriften” (German Writings); Fritsch: “Beweismaterial gegen Jahwe” (Evidence against Jahwe); Further “Hammer” No. 257: “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten Testaments” (The History of the origin of the Old Testament); particularly W. Schmidt: “Ursprung der Gottesidee” 1. (Origin of the idea of God); 1912. A. Lang: “Making of the Religion” (1909). Fritsch endeavours to prove that Jahwe is identical with El-Schaddai, whom he indicates as the “Geist der Finsternis”, (Sprit of Darkness) and as the personification of the Principle of Evil. The philological comparisons upon this point are striking. (Compare “Beweis-Material gegen Jahwe”, 9. Edition, pages 77-86.)
------------------
[Page 70] Their hatred against him is so fanatical, because, out of his teaching a spiritual world, which is strange to them, is speaking. It is the spirit of the other race, which here opposes the Jewish nature, for the teaching of Christ signifies, in all respects, a complete reversal of the Jewish system of morality.
Christ had, accordingly, nothing in common with the Jews, neither outwardly nor inwardly. His teaching is the most pronounced contrast, yes, the most emphatic protest against Jewish morality and the view, which Jews chose to take of the world, and the whole life of Christ was a continual fight against Jewdom. The excellent Lagarde (celebrated both as an orientalist and an authority on the Bible, died 1891) said:
“ No nation crucifies its ideal, and whoever is crucified by a nation certainly does not correspond to the ideal of that particular nation.”
One must read the Gospel of St. John in order to convince one’s self how, on every occasion, the racial contrast between the Galileans and the Jews bursts forth. But, when the Jews boast of being the children of God, Christ calls them the children of the devil (Gospel of St. John 8. 44 — 45). It would scarcely be possible to make a more trivial and thoughtless remark than that the Jews bestowed Christianity upon us, and therefore have a claim to our gratitude. But when this phrase is heard from the mouths of the Jews themselves, the very summit of senselessness is reached, and a piece of bluff is produced calculated only to deceive those, who are utterly incapable of judgement. It is only necessary to ask in return: If the Jews assign merit to themselves on account of Christianity — why are they content to pass on ungrudgingly to others, what can be proved to be a great advance in moral perception and in the ennoblement of mankind, instead of also enriching themselves therewith? And finally, above all, if the Jews of today, who still harbour the utmost contempt and enmity towards Christ and his teaching, claim merit for themselves by reason of the Christian doctrine, will they not also take over part of the responsibility for the torturing and martyring of Christ?
[Page 71]
-----------------------------------------
VII.
Jewish Successes In Modern Times.
Sombart points out that when the migration of the Jews took place in the 16th century, a remarkable displacement of the economic centre of Europe became perceptible. The Hebrews, who had been turned out of Spain, migrated, for the most part, (some authorities say 90,000) to European and Asiatic Turkey, where they are known to the present day as “Spanioles.” Another large multitude (25,000) migrated to Holland, Hamburg, and England. The remainder, about 50,000, dispersed themselves amongst the various countries of Europe and America. It is not disputed that, from that time, the economic life of Spain suffered from a severe set-back, whilst, in those places, to which the Jews had directed their foot-steps, there was a sudden access of trade. There is, however, nothing extraordinary in this, and the same thing could have happened if people of another nationality and race had been concerned in these migrations instead of the Hebrews. The immigrations of the Huguenots, for instance, are a distinct proof of this. Every extensive emigration is bound to produce a set-back in the economic life of a country, whilst, on the other hand, every considerable influx of population, irrespective of whatever elements it may be composed, will always enliven the economic life. We experience this, on a small scale, almost every day — the removal of a factory, of a garrison etc —.
In our case it must be taken into consideration that the Hebrews, for the most part, brought capital with them and brought it to countries, which were developing, and thus it would be doubly beneficial from an economic point of view. We have already recognised, earlier in this work, the kind of enlivenment, which the Jew introduces into the economic life. It is the mobilisation of all values and forces, by which he imparts a tremendous stimulus to political economy.
[Page 72] But we have also seen how this inflated economic life, which is, at the same time, highly artificial, acts, in its final phases, devastatingly and destructively upon the nations.
Still, for the time being, the glory of enlivening trade and international intercourse may be conceded to the Jews. But, at the same time, one must not forget that they do not stimulate trade out of love for their fellowmen, but in order to make profit for themselves. They produce, in all directions, traffic and exchange, in order to derive the utmost benefits for themselves thereby.
It is enough to take away one’s breath when Sombart endeavours to convince us that modern colonial affairs owe their development chiefly to the Hebrews. Certainly the Jews went out also to the newly opened-up colonies, just as they go anywhere where
business prosperity entices them. And, for this reason also, they were certainly amongst the first in the newly opened-up America. Sombart serves up, for our edification, the unproved legend that a number of Jews were present in the ship of Columbus (but scarcely on the original voyage of discovery), and that the first European, to step upon American soil, was the Jew Luis de Torres. Yes, he even maintains that the expeditions of Columbus were fitted out exclusively with Jewish money, and that we have, accordingly, to thank the Jews especially for the discovery of America.
Still more audacious is the conjecture that Columbus himself may have been a Jew, simply because some Columbus-investigator claims to have discovered a family “Colon,” into which a Jewess married. This half-Jewish family Colon is therefore asserted to be identical with the family Colombo.
A genealogical feat, which is not made any the more probable by the fact that the Christian name Christobal occurs in both families.
One can thus see how ready many people are, to assign everything remarkable in the world to the Jews: and Sombart surpasses himself, whilst calling attention to the fact that already in the period 1820— 1830 there were numerous Jewish firms in America, by the audacious utterance: “America is, in all respects, a Jewish country.”
[Page 73] He mentions with satisfaction that, at the present moment, New York contains nearly a million Jews, of whom the majority certainly have not yet begun their capitalistic careers; and since all Hebrews, according to his opinion, carry a passport for the territory of the millionaires in their pockets, his exaggerated fancy sees in the America of the future a land where there will only be Slavs and Negroes to act as servants, and Hebrews to lord it as rulers. With the fantastic imagination of an oriental, he calls the Jews, “the golden thread, which runs through the texture of American political economy.”
He utters the following remarkable words with respect to the colonies in general: “ Their economic body must have bled to death, if it had not been fed from outside with a constant blood-stream in the form of precious metal. Jewish commerce, however, directed this bloodstream into the colonies.”*
The Riddle of the Jew's Success Page 8