Sombart also confirms the fact that Jewish peculiarity did not first develop out of the Diaspora (Dispersion) like biased Jewish historians endeavour to make us believe, but that the Diaspora itself is a production of this peculiarity. Just as invalid is the contention that the Jewish peculiarities are the fruit of the religion, and of the rabbinical doctrines; far rather has the Jewish religion grown out of the fundamental nature of Jewdom, and is the inevitable product of the Jewish mode of thinking. Yes, it is an indispensable expedient for sustaining the Jewish mode of existence. Without this “immoral morality” the Hebrew could not continue. The rabbinical doctrines are merely the undisguised expression of the real thoughts and feelings of the Jew; if these doctrines had been artificially constructed, and had been forced upon the Jews against their inclination, the whole Jewish mass would have revolted against such views of life. But no one has ever heard of anything of the kind. Rather have the Hebrews gladly adopted these senseless doctrines because the latter suit them to a nicety. Sombart is therefore entitled to say that one may, without hesitation, refer back from the peculiarity of the Jewish religion to the national peculiarity of the Jews. Certainly, when he expresses doubt if one is justified in attributing the dishonest behaviour of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph to a fraudulent trait in the Jewish nature, we must leave it to the reader to form his own opinion upon this point.
The legend, which is always cropping up, that the Jews were originally an agricultural people, is to be accounted for by the excusable failure to distinguish between the two tribes, Israel and Judah.
[Page 225] The extensively held opinion — especially amongst theologians — that Israelites and Jews are identical, is an assumption, which must be challenged, for it is refuted by numerous passages in The Old Testament, in which Israel and Judah are mentioned.* Ancient Israel was a people, composed of honest husbandmen and graziers, which eventually came under the yoke of the intruding Hebrews. The real Jew made his appearance in Palestine, just as in other countries, as the financial political usurper; he came with the gold, which he had abstracted from other countries (as in the case of the excursion from Egypt) into the land, and made the honest population tributary to him by money-lending and usury. And thus the honest agricultural Israelites were enslaved by this alien money bourgeoisie, precisely as many other nations are at the present day. But the detestation of the real Israelites for the new money-lords must have been very pronounced when the Israelitish captain, Abner, answered an unworthy imputation with the indignant words: “Am I then a scoundrel like a Jew?” (2. Sam. 3. 8.)**
2. Development of the Jews as a commercial nation.
During the subsequent vicissitudes of the people of Judah, there was opportunity and to spare to devote themselves to agricultural occupations; the Hebrews, however, have never availed themselves of the same. They feel little inclination for this burdensome and downright occupation, for it is impossible to make a fool of nature. And already the wisdom of one Talmudic rabbi has said as much in the following words: he who employs one hundred “Sus” in trading, can enjoy meat and wine every day; but, on the contrary, he who expends one hundred “Sus” on tilling the soil, has to be satisfied with salt and cabbage, must sleep on the ground, and endure all manner of hardships.
---------------------
* Amongst other matters, it is worthy of notice that in the apocryphal story of Susanna and Daniel, a sharp distinction is drawn between Canaan’s stock and not Judah’s on one hand, and the “daughters of Israel” and Susanna as “daughter of Judah”, on the other.
** “ Harosch keleb anoki ascher l’jehuda?” Kautsch translates: “Am I then a Jewish scoundrel?” — Compare “Hammer” No. 259: The History of the origin of the Old Testament.
---------------------
[Page 226]
Thus, there is no lack of historians, even amongst the Jews themselves, who openly admit that the Jews are inclined by their very nature to trade, are devoted to it, and are a nation with a very pronounced commercial tendency. Their most ancient scriptures also bear testimony to this fact. The cuneiform documents from Nippur as well, have provided additional evidence that the Hebrews were already wholesale dealers and bankers in ancient Babylon. They cheerfully resigned the dangerous maritime trade to the Phoenicians, for this branch of commerce called for personal courage, and was inseparable from peril to life.
Sombart must credit us with great simplicity when he tries to represent the notorious robbery of gold and silver by the Jews, on their departure from Egypt, as if these were loans of the Egyptians, which the Hebrews were intercepting. This discloses an astounding lack of any understanding for national psychology. Since the Hebrews, in olden times, scarcely ever carried on any other occupation than those of grain-dealer, cattle dealer, usurer and pawnbroker, it may be taken for granted that they carried on these occupations in Egypt also. I consider it likely that these gold and silver vessels and costly garments, which the Hebrews took with them on the occasion of their exodus from Egypt, were pledges, which the Egyptians had handed over to the Jewish usurers, into whose clutches they had fallen. (Compare Sombart pages 370—372.) To what an extent the Jewish usurer was in demand in olden times, is testified to by the punitive sermon of Nehemiah, and especially by Amos. 8, 4—7.
It is only part and parcel of the Jewish doctrine and view of the world, that the Rabbis, all their lives, have not disdained to participate most actively in all money transactions.
Even Sombart admits, that the Rabbis are, in many cases, the chief money-lenders; there are even passages, which seem to suggest that the Rabbis have a monopoly of usury. Sombart cites an instance out of the Oxford Papyrus, which actually describes a case of Jewish usury on the grand scale, for it is distinctly declared in this document, which is a bond or obligation, that the debt shall be doubled each time that it is not repaid at the appointed term. A true Jewish mode of operation, which we are continually coming across, at all times and in all places. (Compare page 25).
[Page 227] Can it be wondered at that the Hebrews have managed by such practices, throughout the ages, to draw the money of the other nations quickly into their own hands? And thus Sombart remarks, that already in the Hellenic period, and in the time of Imperial Rome, rich Jews were acting as moneylenders to the kings; and much was said in the Roman world concerning Jewish hagglers and usurers. Amongst the Arabs, however, the Hebrew has the reputation of being a born usurer and chafferer. The Jews were likewise the financiers and business-men of the Merovingian kings; and in Spain, where they enjoyed most freedom for their operations, they very soon had the nation in debt to them. Already at the time of the Crusades they were engaged, to an excessive extent, in money transactions, and “bled” the Crusaders mercilessly (compare page 25 et seq.) so that Sombart feels compelled to admit: since we have ascertained something about the Jewish economic life, we see that the loaning of money plays a very prominent part in the same. (Page 375 and following). He adds:
“ It is really about time that the fairy-tale disappeared, that the Jews had first been driven into the money-lending business, during the European Middle Ages, because all other occupations were closed to them.
The history of a Jewish loan-traffic, extending over a period of two thousand years before the Middle Ages, ought really to be sufficient proof of the erroneousness of this historical fabrication.”
And even when the path to other occupations lay open to the Jews, they still turned aside to devote themselves, with preference, to the loaning of money against pledges, like Karl Bücher has pointed out in the case of Frankfurt a. M. Indeed, at certain times, the authorities have even offered premiums to induce the Jews to choose other vocations, but all attempts in this direction proved futile. It is characteristic of the Jewish religion, that the Jewish temples, in olden times, were the centres of the money-traffic, and were, to a certain extent, banking-houses. A large quantity of gold was accumulated in the Temple at Jerusalem.
[Page 228] And this alliance between religion
and money-traffic is not to be excused on the grounds that other Semitic nations, like the Babylonians, are said to have done the same. At any rate the same reproach cannot be levelled at the Christian Churches. And, although the talents of the usurer are occasionally to be found amongst the other nations, the non-Jewish usurer is, generally speaking, more or less of an amateur; the Hebrews alone have brought usury to an art and a science — have exalted it even to a religion. Sombart also admits, that the Jews have developed the technic of loan-agreements to an uncanny perfection. He says:
“ If one reads the fourth and fifth chapters of the Baba Mezia, one gets the impression that one is taking part in a usury-inquisition in Hesse, some twenty or thirty years ago, so multitudinous are the tricks and devices, which are introduced into these loancontracts.”
It is, therefore, not without full justification, that both Jewish wealth and the Jewish usurer have become a by-word.
Whilst the priests of other nations have to be the guardians of what is ideal, the Hebrew priests are business-folk to their finger-tips, and even usurers. Sombart says:
“ It is remarkable what a number of rich and very rich men there are amongst the Talmudists. It is not at all difficult to draw up a list of several dozen Rabbis, all of whom enjoy the reputation of being extremely wealthy.”
But Sombart confesses that all his investigations into the faculty of acquisitiveness, possessed by the Jews, do not satisfactorily account for the phenomenon of Jewish wealth. He has actually forgotten the most important factor, viz that confederation of the Jewish business demeanour, the Chawrusse.
The enormous gains of the Jewish capitalists are also only to be accounted for by the existence of the Chawrusse. The characteristic picture in the fourth section (page 47), drawn from the descriptions of the actuary, Thiele, of the criminal court, forms a typical example of the Jewish organisation for acquisition. The Chawrusse continues, at the present moment, on all sides; on the Stock Exchange, amongst the Banks, in the Press, in the “White Slave” traffic, amongst Jewish pickpockets and burglars, and has its ramifications over the whole world.
[Page 229] There is only one satisfactory explanation for this phenomenal enrichment of the Jewish people; it is the organisation in bands, of Trade, of Usury, of Fraud, and of Theft; and all these again are federated with one another — however vague and shadowy such connection may appear to be.* It is exactly as Herder has already stated:
“ The Hebrews are a despicable race of cunning dealers, a race that has never desired honour, home and country. That they can ever have been valiant warriors and honest peasants does not appear credible to us, for the disposition of a nation does not alter so quickly.”
Sombart makes a last attempt to save the honour of the Jewish nation, and to explain away its peculiarities, by representing the Jews as an oriental people that became mixed up with or dispersed amongst Northern nations, and started a system of culture in conjunction with the latter. Certainly one has every right to refer to the fact, that the penetration of a nation with alien racial-elements can impart a tremendous cultural impulse. Gobineau,** as is well known, has attempted to explain the origin of the ancient cultures, as being the consequence of the penetration of Southern Nations by elements of the Northern race, the blond Aryans, whereby the latter assumed the leadership amongst those, who had been subjugated, and by means of their organising power and heroic mode of thinking, sowed the seeds of future great developments. It is unlikely that anyone will attempt to compare the part, which the Hebrew plays amongst us at the present day, with the above example.
Nowhere can the Hebrew be regarded as the bearer of culture and of a new social order; his entire method of working is of too negative a nature.
----------------------
* There is a particular association in Russia for the purpose of business and exploitation, called Kahal or Kagal, which embraces the whole Jewish community. Important disclosures concerning this are to be found in Dr. Rich. Andree’s book: “Information about the Jewish nation,” and the “Handbook of the Jewish Question” also contains extracts. 26 t h edition page 293—297.
** Count Gobineau: “ Disquisition on the dissimilarity of the Human Races.” Stuttgart 1902.
---------------------
[Page 230] When Sombart continuously talks about “ capitalistic culture”, he is only using a euphemism all the time. We learnt already at the beginning of our examination of the subject, that although the capitalistic economic method can certainly effect a prodigious release of latent forces, the only result is a rapid wasting-away of the nations concerned, and in no case is a constructive culture ever produced.
Justifiably apprehensive of the above fact, Sombart occasionally speaks of “the strange blossom of capitalistic culture.” Far more remarkable is his expressed opinion that this oriental race wastes its best faculties in an environment, which, racially and climatically, is antipathetic to it. On the contrary, it seems to us that it wastes the faculties of others. We can agree with him, however, when he calls the Bedouins itinerant cattle breeders and nomads, and then continues:
“ Such a restless and roving tribe of Bedouins were those Hebrews also, who, about the year 1200 B. C., burst into the land of Canaan, pillaging and murdering, in order to compel the native population to work for them.” (Sombart page 405)*
He also admits that the land was subdued, less by martial valour than by financial subjugation, and that the Hebrews had known how to make the greater part of the territory tributary to themselves, and thus to achieve the same result by a loan relationship. He allows — as thoughtful Anti-Semites have always represented — that:
“ Considerable numbers of Hebrews resided in the towns, drawing rent and interest, whilst the enslaved population cultivated the soil as if it were a colony or they were free peasants.”
All the idle talk about the Hebrews having been formerly an agricultural people, can, as Sombart also admits, be dismissed as a myth; he says:
“ But the spirit of nomadism must have remained active in all tribes, for if it had been otherwise, if Israel (should be Judah) had been an agricultural people, even merely in an oriental sense, we would never be able to understand the origin and first formation of the Jewish system of religion.”
---------------------
* These ideas of Sombart, however, are not original, for they were already expressed in 1886, in the “Handbook to the JewishQuestion”, which was formerly known as the “Anti-Semitic Catechism” of Theodor Fritsch.
---------------------
[Page 231] As a matter of fact, an agricultural people is not wont to invent a religion of usury and deceit, and to choose a God who ordains that the destruction of countries and their populations is a sacred duty. Whatever suggestion there might be of honest agriculture, in the history of the ancient Jewish people, must surely refer to the original and permanent population, the Israelites, and not to the tribe of usurers, called Hebrews, who migrated into the country at a later date.* That the Israelitish history has become intermingled with the Jewish, and that, now and again, in the Old Testament, glimpses of a loftier conception of divinity occur side by side with the hatebreathing, revengeful destroyer of nations, Jahwe (Jehovah), is to be ascribed to the influence of the non-Jewish Israelites.** Sombart seems to have some hazy notion that such is the case, when he says, that the Pentateuch has been composed to suit the mind of a nomadic people, and when he continues:
“ The God, who maintained his position victoriously against all other false gods, is a god of the wilderness and of the shepherd. And, in the conscious establishment of the cult of Jahwe, all the ancient traditions of nomadism from Esra and Nehemiah are quite distinctly adopted, without any notice having been taken of the intervening agricultural epoch, which, in the case of the Jews themselves perhaps never really happened.”
He then cites Jul. Wellhausen, who corroborates as follows: “ The priestly records reject every reference to settled life in the land of Canaan; they confine
themselves to an exposition of the desert migration, and claim to be, in every sense of the word, desert legislation.”
---------------------
* In number 269 of the “Hammer” W. Scheuermann, in referring to the book of W. Fishberg, an American Jew, traces the legend of agricultural Jews back to the fact, that in olden times, just as at the present day, converts to Judaism from agricultural peoples, were straightway designated Jews.
** Compare Th. Fritsch: “ Der falsche Gott” (The False God) (evidence against Jahwe] Ninth Edition. “Hammer” -Verlag, Leipzig.
---------------------
[Page 232] Sombart is of the opinion, that if nomadic instincts and inclinations had not prevailed to a preponderating extent amongst the broad masses of the Jewish people, this preponderatingly nomadic religion could never have been permanently imposed upon them. And the destiny of the Jewish nation proves that it has remained a nomad- and desert-race throughout thousands of years.
This is my opinion as well. But all this again is nothing more than what discerning Anti-Semites, who, so far as ethnological matters are concerned, are far in advance of their times, have been insisting upon for decades. But, in order to avoid all points of contact with these intelligent racial-psychologists, Sombart finds it necessary to speak about “anti-Semitic pamphleteers”, who have drawn upon these facts, in a most odious fashion, in order to obtain material to carry on their “campaign of abuse”. He can know very little about those concerned, when he includes Eugen Dhring and Adolph Wahrmund amongst writers of this class, for both of these, and more especially the latter, have only written in a most refined and scholarly manner concerning the Jewish problem. Sombart regards all anti-Semitic utterances as “silly and odious”; but what he has to offer us, although presented in another form, does not differ essentially from the conclusions of those farsighted men, who had comprehended the racial problem long before certain loquacious sciolists had formed even an idea on the subject.
The Riddle of the Jew's Success Page 26