It is worthy of note how the Rabbis in their Talmudic writings concern themselves in a most intimate manner with all kinds of business practices; and again, it is only in accordance with the principles of the Talmud, that warnings should be issued ostensibly against immoral business practices, whilst later on, the prohibitions are withdrawn and the selfsame practices are declared permissible. Rabbi Jehuda speaks thus in one and the same breath:
“ The grocer shall not present the children with cakes and nuts, for, by so doing he attracts them to his shop — the Sages, however, allow it. Further, one must not cut the price — the Sages, however, are of the opinion: the precept is worthy of remembrance (i.e., it would be a praiseworthy habit). Abba Saul has decided that the split beans are not to be picked out — the Sages, on the contrary, allow it.”
Here we find the contradictory and discordant morality of the Talmud expressed in the sleekest manner — apparently without consciousness that it is a doctrine of nonsense and immorality. That is to say: everything is forbidden and everything is allowed; see which suits you best. However, the compilers of the Shulchan aruch, without any attempt at concealment, have made this question perfectly clear; they say in Chochen hammischpat 228,18:
“ The shopkeeper is permitted to make presents of nuts and suchlike to the children who buy from him, in order to attract them to him; he is also in the position to sell more cheaply than the market-price, and the people on the market are unable to raise any objection.”
[Page 198] Unrestricted license in underbidding and competition form the very life-breath of the Jewish existence, everything is permitted, which makes business easy; everything is allowed, which puts the Jew in a position to over-reach and fleece others. For this reason, Sombart says at the conclusion of this chapter:
“ God (i.e., Jahwe — English Jehovah) desires free-trade, God desires freedom of industry! What a motive to make the same effective in the economic life.”
The references of Sombart to the accordance of English Puritanism with Judaism are interesting, and Heine, in his time, made fun of this association by calling the Puritans “pork eating Jews”. A fact, which Sombart lays stress upon, is that the Jews in England, especially among the Puritans, enjoyed during the 17th century a respect and reverence, which are only to be described as fanatical, and many writers of the period vied with one another to prove that the English were direct descendants of the Jews. At all events, certain pietistic circles in England were at great pains to copy the Jews in their mode of living, nomenclature and other externals. This symbolism was carried so far, that the Christian clergy and even the Christian laity studied the Rabbinical literature for preference.
Sombart refers to a “ droll little book”, which appeared in 1608, under the title of the “Calvinistic Mirror of the Jews”, and which, amongst other things, treated of the relations subsisting between Puritanism (Calvinism) and Judaism. The following quotation out of this book is worthy of note:
“the Jews penetrate into every country to cheat the inhabitants.” In the Netherland and German pietistic circles also, (Wupperthal, Swabia etc.) one encounters reminders of the English Puritanism in the form of nomenclature, intense veneration of the Sabbath, and so forth. These form, without doubt, the strongest props of that fateful validity which the Old Testament possesses in the German Protestant Church. There are even Protestant clergy, who are ready to represent the Jews as the pattern of religiousness, and — perhaps unconsciously — to work more for the cause of Jewdom than for that of Christianity.
[Page 199]
-----------------------------------------
XIV.
The Race Problem.
1. In general.
Sombart gives himself great airs in his XIIth chapter, where he treats of Jewish peculiarity when regarded from a racial point of view. He is of opinion — obviously with a side thrust at the wicked AntiSemites — that the racial problem and national psychology have become the plaything of caprice and dilettantism, and that in particular the portrayal of the Jewish entity is:
“undertaken as a kind of political sport by coarse individuals with gross instincts”. It certainly cannot be denied that, in the course of the Anti-Semitic movement, many people and tendencies have started up, whose origins and pretensions will not bear investigation; but, at the present day, even these people, who can never inflict enough pain by the derision, which they cast upon the opinions of others, refuse, in a superior manner, to listen to anything Anti-Semitic. And yet, a very considerable number of leading spirits and estimable characters have belonged, and still belong to the spokesmen of this movement. We do not wish here to dwell upon the fact that great men in all times, that philosophers from Giodarno Bruno and Voltaire to Fichte, Herder, Schopenhauer and Feuerbach, that statesmen like Frederick the Great, Napoleon I and Bismarck, that artists like Richard Wagner and Franz Liszt must be included amongst the opponents of the Jews.*
---------------------* A collection of extracts from the writings of these men is to be found in the “Handbuch der Judenfrage” (Handbook of the Jewish Question) 27 edition, pages 12—117. — The racial question is dealt with exhaustively by the well-known geographer Rich. Andree in “Zur Volkskunde der Juden” (Popular information respecting the Jews) Bielefeld 1881.
---------------------
[Page 200] The more modern Anti-Semitic movement also includes in its ranks as spokesmen, individuals like Paul de Lagarde, Eugen Dühring and Adolf Wahrmund, whose profound erudition cannot even be approached by any of their opponents however much it may be belittled or ignored by the public press, itself completely under Jewish domination. However, before everything, it must not be forgotten that it was the wicked Anti-Semites, who first tackled the Race-problem and aroused racial consciousness again among the nations. If, at the commencement, it was only the difference between Aryan and Semite, which engaged their attention, it is nevertheless due to their initiative that the whole of the modern racial movement has come into being, and has built itself up upon the fundamental views of the AntiSemites.
If, now and again, objectionable behaviour puts in an appearance in the course of the Anti-Jewish movement, and epithets are applied to the Hebrews, which are not exactly flattering, there is no cause whatever for undue sensitiveness in this respect on the Jewish side. One has only to recall how low-class Jewish wits, in the so-called comic papers, which are founded almost without exception by Hebrews, let themselves go concerning other nations, classes, privileges and political opponents. Scarcely anything is low and foul enough to enable the Hebrew to give full vent to his hatred against those, who differ from him in their opinions, and for this reason there is little or no justification on his side for a display of moral indignation and extreme sensitiveness on hearing an expression of opinion concerning himself, which is often remarkably appropriate.
This assumption of indignation collapses in a ridiculous fashion, if the fact is disputed, from a purely Jewish point of view, — like a certain Friedrich Hertz and others attempt to do — that there are such people as Jews at the present day. This is more than droll. So long as the socalled Jewish religion continues, so long will Judaism, as a compact hostile force, live and operate amongst the other nations. But even if it were possible to extirpate this religion, the racial peculiarity of the Jew, which has acquired an extraordinary tenacity by incessant inbreeding, would long continue to function.
[Page 201] Sombart then honourably takes pains to put an end to those chatterers, who wish to deny the existence of a Jewish race and a Jewish peculiarity. But he himself is certainly not clear in his own mind concerning the racial entity when he says:
“ On the other hand it is senseless to give the name of “Jew” to an Israelite of unmistakable origin, who has succeeded in throwing off the fetters of Esra and Nehemiah, in whose mind there is no longer any thought for the law of Moses, and whose heart no longer feels contempt for other races.”
In the next place it is doubtful if a Jew can ever completely free himself of
the views, derived from his racial peculiarity, which were being prepared and established from the time of Moses to that of Esra and Nehemiah, and which, later on, under the influence of Talmudic Rabbinism, were extended and expanded until they became a gross exaggeration. But even if he is capable of emancipating himself, Jewish instincts will survive and function in his offspring. So long as we have no experience of a Jewish business-man causing his son to become a farmer, a conductor, a carpenter or a sailor, it is certain that no one will seriously believe in the transformation of the people of Judah into genuine human beings. We are in agreement on this point with our own most excellent Fichte, who also did not believe that the Hebrews were capable of being converted, unless:
“all their heads were cut off in one night, and other heads were substituted in which there was not a single Jewish idea.”
These words describe most aptly the indestructibility of the Jewish racial entity. The study of the racial problem has taught us that an indissoluble bond exists between the blood and the mental disposition of mankind. It is said in The Old Testament that “the soul of a man dwells in his blood,” and that means, that the mental nature of man is inseparably united with his blood.
This fact we must ultimately learn to accept in all its seriousness. We have long been accustomed to attach value to the blood and stock amongst animals; we do not desire that a poodle should become a sporting-dog, or that a horse from Brabant should develop into a racer. We know that advantages, just like disadvantages and defects, are transmitted with the blood.
[Page 202] We have no intention of conveying the impression that all good and bad characteristics must be transmitted with unchanging fidelity from generation to generation, that the children of a clever father must be, without exception, geniuses, and that the offspring of a criminal is invariably criminal; but we perceive a certain constancy in the transmissibility of average qualities, whereby only those deviations and variations crop up, which Nature allows herself everywhere as a diversion. If the constancy in the transmissibility of qualities is comparatively insignificant as regards the present-day generation, this must be attributed to the excessive intermingling of tribes and races, which has been taking place for centuries — even for thousands of years.
The pure races certainly have almost completely disappeared, and only mongrel descendants surround us. In spite of this, one must not straightway deny that the racial entity has ceased to operate. The frivolous doctrine, that all men are equal, has caused unspeakable disaster and has actually introduced degeneration into the human race. We Germans of today have certainly no reason to boast of our race, for its worth is seriously depreciated, both blood and intellect having been dulled. But this should not restrain us from appreciating to the utmost the importance of the racial entity, and from endeavouring, by means of racial culture, to restore what has been sacrificed by an irresponsible racial lottery.
It is a fact — and it is about the only reputable thing which one can say about Judaism — that racial consciousness is fostered to a greater extent among the Hebrews than among any other nation, whether consciously or unconsciously, by the rigid law which enjoins that everyone, who does not belong to the race, must be regarded with hostility and contempt.
Thus the irrefutable fact remains, that the racial entity amongst the Jews is today of greater validity, both physically and mentally, than amongst all the other races. The Hebrew, almost everywhere, can be recognised amongst other races both by his external appearance and, if anything, still more by his mental cast. And this racial constancy asserts itself, even when mingled with other strains.
[Page 203]
The Jewish Professor Eduard Gans expresses himself as follows: “ Baptism and interbreeding are of no avail; we remain, even in the hundredth generation Jews, as we were 3000 years ago. We never lose the odour of our race — not even by tenfold crossing. And, in every case of cohabitation with every woman, our race dominates: young Jews result.”
Whoever, in face of facts like these, still persists in denying the existence of a Jewish race, cannot have much regard for truth. But we can very well understand why it is so distasteful to the Hebrews to see racial recognition and racial consciousness awakening among other nations. In the moment when this comes to pass, the alienage of the Jew will, for the first time, make itself apparent to all, and this will, in every respect, make the Hebrew’s business more difficult. Up till now, the Jew has been able, in an inimitable manner, to mingle with other nations, and to delude them into believing that he really belonged to them — a circumstance, which rendered his overreaching operations extremely easy to carry out. As soon, however, as the other nations become aware of their own particularity, and of the value of their own especial gifts, both moral and intellectual, they will soon recognise in the Hebrew the disturber of their domestic peace and of their harmonious development, and will endeavour to keep him at a distance.
2. The Psychology of the Jews.
The Hebrew certainly possesses a great adaptability, but it would be erroneous to expect from his external adjustment to the habits and customs of other nations that the Jew is absorbed and disappears. The Jewish peculiarity differs far too much from the nature of all other nations to allow a complete fusion to appear even probable. In the last analysis it is the Jewish view of life, and the Jewish moral law, which do not admit of any permanent association with other nations. Sombart makes a vain attempt to sum up the Hebrew entity in precise ideas. He sees, amongst these, only a few of a disagreeable nature, and is unable to connect the same with fixed characteristics. The distinguishing features of the Jew enumerated by him, appear to me to be insufficient.
[Page 204] I believe that I shall meet with but little opposition, when I characterise the average Jew as follows: sharp at business and glib of tongue, greedy for money and of a saving disposition, cunning and addicted to dissimulation, averse to bodily labour, sensual and shameless, vain, cowardly and impudent. There are but few Jews in whom the majority of these characteristics cannot be detected. When Sombart speaks incessantly of their “prominence in intellectuality”, it is clear that he means only the calm, calculating intelligence of the Jew, generally speaking, the mere operation of the cold understanding as opposed to the sensibility of deeper and more emotional natures. This much-praised intellectuality of the Hebrew is, in reality, only the outcome of necessity*. How could otherwise a people, devoid of all capacity for production, maintain their existence unless they unceasingly made use of cunning and deception, and knew how to fool others into furthering their own secret plans? It cannot be denied that Hebrews have occasionally distinguished themselves as clever physicians, scholars and barristers, but only so far, in these professions, as the possession of a coldly-calculating and subtle understanding permitted them to advance. And, in this respect, they have frequently been actually favoured by their own low standard of morality. Moral laxity frequently gives the Hebrew an advantage over other people. Whoever is not particularly scrupulous concerning his moral duty towards mankind, has a much freer hand on many occasions than those, who are restrained by their conscience and consideration.
---------------------* The well-known oriental traveller, H. Vámbéry, (originally Bamberger) confirms this fact, amongst others, in his report concerning the Jews of the Orient, 1879, in which he states that it is a delusion to assume that the Jews in Europe possessed higher intelligence than the nations who acted as their hosts, for, to take Middle Asia as an example, the Jew, when confronted by the Hindoo and the Armenian, invariably came off second best.
---------------------
[Page 205] Just as the Jewish business-man, thanks to his moral laxity, outstrips competitors in commerce, so is it in many other departments of life. For sense of duty, conscience and honour have but little value in the eyes of the Hebrews when compared with intellectual capacity. The Jew is desirous, at all costs, of passing as clever; everything else is a matter of comparative indifference to him. There are a number of Jewish proverbs
, which regard stupidity as being far worse than any other mental or moral defect. All of these are centred on the idea: you may be a rascal if you only show yourself sly. Whilst the civilised and honour-loving nations attach the highest value to moral character, and to the emotional side of human nature, the Hebrew appraises a man merely according to his mental adroitness. Whoever is clever, is therefore worthy of admiration, even if he uses his cleverness to the detriment of others — perhaps, for that reason, all the more to be admired! It is often to be observed in the Jewish Press how the attempt is made to find a certain measure of excuse for grave crimes on the grounds that considerable intellectual capacity has been displayed in committing the same. This confusing and disordering of moral ideas by the introduction of intellectual standards, are to be included amongst the most dangerous means, by which Hebrewdom is seeking to destroy the other nations. Unfortunately, the moral sense in many classes has already been considerably weakened, because its power of discrimination has been injuriously affected by the fact that — thanks to Jewish example — admiration is frequently accorded to the criminal. It thus happens, that when a crime is being discussed, one can often hear good-natured men mitigating their abhorrence somewhat as follows: “But, after all, he showed himself a very sharp fellow!” — Indeed a sign of the Judaization of our mode of thinking.
Sombart characterises the Jewish — and probably at the same time his own — perception with the words: “the highest humanism is supreme intellectualism” — an appraisement, to which we feel ourselves compelled to object. For, measured by this standard, the most accomplished rogue and swindler would, under circumstances, represent humanity’s supreme ideal.
[Page 206] The heroic nations have an assured conviction of another ideal. They seek it in the direction of self-sacrifice of the individual for the general welfare, or, for an idea — for freedom or for honour — but, above all, in the complete subjugation of selfishness. The hero of our dramas, whose fate rivets our attention and affects us deeply, is not a sly customer, who, thanks to his crafty alertness, knows how to dodge all dangers, but is, on the contrary, an upright, inflexible character, who accepts his recognised duty courageously, and who does not turn aside from the path of truth and justice whatever menace may stand in his way. He thinks little of his own advantage, but all the more of duty and honour. A real hero of this type will appear to the eyes of the Jew as no better than a fool; — “better a live dog than a dead lion” is a Semitic proverb. This indicates the deep chasm, which exists between the Jewish and the genuinely human mode of thinking.
The Riddle of the Jew's Success Page 23