Frederick the Great’s Jewish Policy: Between Containment and Profit, Part 2

Voltaire at the court of Frederick the Great.

Go to Part 1.

Frederick, Voltaire, and the Jews

Frederick the Great and the famous French philosopher Voltaire had one of the most celebrated relationships between prince and intellectual of the Enlightenment. Indeed, on this rests some of Frederick’s claims to being an “enlightened despot.” Voltaire himself was a vociferous critic of both the Jewish religion and Jews as a people. He wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary: “It is with regret that I speak about the Jews: this nation is, in many respects, the most detestable which has sullied the earth.” Voltaire’s letters to Frederick have numerous critical comments on Jews. For instance, reacting to Catherine II of Russia’s sending a Jew to Egypt to investigate the situation in the country, he said: “The Jews have always loved Egypt, whatever their impertinent story [Exodus] says.”[1] Voltaire appears to have been much more emphatically anti-Semitic than Frederick.

Frederick and Voltaire fell out for various reasons, one of the most important being displeasure over crooked financial dealings between Voltaire and a Jew, Abraham Hirschel. According to Voltaire’s biographer Wayne Andrews:

On November 23, 1750, [Voltaire] called upon Abraham Hirschel, a Jew known for his talent in making money in forbidden transactions, and requested him to buy up for his account in Dresden a certain amount of Saxon bonds. These were then selling at thirty-five per cent below par, but according to a Prussian-Saxon treaty, could be redeemed at par by Prussians. This was such an easy invitation to attack the Saxon treasury that Frederick, on the eighth of May 1748 agreed that the bonds could no longer be imported. Despite this, Voltaire went ahead. Offering a bill of exchange on Paris for forty-thousand francs and a draft on a Berlin Jew for four thousand shillings, he made Hirschel his agent. As agent, Hirschel turned over certain diamonds as security. But then Voltaire saw fit to cancel the bill of exchange that Hirschel cashed, and a nasty quarrel followed with Hirschel demanding the return of his diamonds. Voltaire lost his temper, snatched a ring off Hirschel’s finger, and the affair had to be settled in court. [. . .]

Frederick was not pleased, and the dignity with which he behaved on this occasion was, for once, kingly. He would not allow Voltaire in his presence until the case was settled. He knew that Voltaire was lying when he claimed he had sent Hirschel to Dresden to buy furs and diamonds and was irritated by his language.[2]

Frederick laconically described the affair: “[concerning] Voltaire’s trial with the Jew: it’s a matter of a scoundrel who tried to hoodwink a crook.”[3] This scandal concerning a Jewish financial speculator and a greedy Frenchman contributed to the brevity of Voltaire’s stay in Berlin.

Peddlers, Spies, and Messengers: Jews in Frederick’s Wars

Jews are perhaps most often referred to in Frederick’s correspondence in the context of the numerous wars he waged. They appear in numerous settings as friend, foe, or background element, but always as something rather distasteful: as currency-manipulating financiers, as wartime merchants, as spies used by both sides, and as the unwanted residents of conquered territories.

Frederick, while generally considering Jews a problem due to their growing population and penchant for usury and scams, was not above employing Jews for their skills (dubious or not) in finance and trade. The Jewish Encyclopedia reports: “Among the king’s Jewish mint-masters (‘Münzjuden’) were Ephraim, 1754; Moses Isaac and Daniel Itzig, 1756; Daniel Itzig and Ephraim, 1758; and Veitel Heine Ephraim, 1773.”[4] The Jewish Virtual Library says: “During the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) Frederick relied on monetary manipulations effected by Daniel Itzig , V.H. Ephraim , and other purveyors to the mint. His armies were provisioned by Jewish military contractors (supplying horses, grain, fodder, wine, etc).”[5]

In his History of the Seven Years’ War (completed in 1763, the last year of the war), the miniature world war in which Frederick doubled the size of his kingdom by conquering Silesia from the Austrians, the king writes that Jews were used by the enemy as wartime merchants:

The duke of Württemberg [an enemy of Frederick, allied with the Austrians] marched towards Saxony with the resolution of plundering friend and foe alike. With this in view, he had himself followed by a whole synagogue of Jews, to sell off his booty. We called this company of Hebrews his Sanhredrin.[6]

During that same war, Frederick wrote letters in which he refers to Jewish homes destroyed by his forces (apparently during combat) and orders that the Jews of occupied Bohemia must pay two florins per head to finance military operations.[7]

Jews apparently had a major role in the wars of the region as spies, messengers, and traders. Frederick wrote in anger to a Polish prince in 1759:

It is known that almost all the Jews under your domination have principally served as spies for my enemies, and I do not go into detail here on what grounds many of your Jews are suspected of being the responsible for the torching of Glogau, burning my magazines, at which, unfortunately, they have succeeded at only too well.[8]

Frederick himself however was also happy to employ Jewish messengers and spies, notably a certain Isaak Sabatskt, and advised his subordinates to do the same. Jews apparently knew the region well and had good contacts with the Russians. On one occasion he advised that messages ought to be carried by “beggars, Jews, or other disguised people.”[9] On another occasion, Frederick rejected the offer of a Jew, sent by a Lithuanian nobleman, to send a report on the situation on the Polish-Russian border, saying: “I will never give money to Polish Jews or magnates.”[10]

Frederick in his military campaigns generally considered Jews to be shifty and unreliable. He advised his commander in the conquered city of Glogau: “you have the most justified reason to keep a very vigilant eye on all people, and especially on the Jews,”[11] a comment indicating that he thought Jews no loyalty to either side but would exploit the situation to their advantage. He later wrote to the same commander: “To the city-dwellers, Jews in particular, be very attentive, so that the Russians cannot know through them what is going on in the city.”[12] Probably for the same reason, Frederick ordered that Poles and Jews not be allowed into the city of Glogau, requiring them to trade their wares in the suburbs.[13]

Frederick considered Jews to be distasteful, untrustworthy, and antisocial in their dealings, but he was not above using their abilities in service of the manipulative and deceitful aspects of warfare, namely financial manipulation and espionage.

Later, in 1772, Frederick would mention Jews as a major concern in the lands he had conquered as a result of the First Partition of Poland. He remarks on these Jewish populations as part of his comments on the general scene of an unpromisingly desolate and severely underdeveloped country. Frederick wrote to his younger brother Prince Henry,[14] who had helped secure the partition:

I say to all those who wish to hear that I saw on my way [through the conquered territory] only sand, firs, moors, and Jews. It is true that I have work cut out for me with this portion, because I believe that Canada [which was still overwhelmingly wild] is as civilized as this Pomerelia. There is no order, no development; the towns are in a deplorable state. For example, Culm must contain eight hundred houses, but not one hundred are standing, and those who inhabit them are Jews, or monks, and still these are the most miserable [houses].[15]

Frederick writes proudly in his memoirs of having then worked to develop these conquered territories:

These towns were rebuilt and populated. Culm had a house where five young people from the nobility were raised by masters who gave all their attention to instruct them; one-hundred-and-eighty schoolmasters both Protestant and Catholic were placed in different areas and employed by the government. One did not know what education was in this unfortunate country; also it was without manners as well as knowledge. Finally, we sent back to Poland over four thousand Jews who had been begging or stealing from the peasants.[16]

It is striking that Frederick writes so candidly of expelling Jews he considered parasitic in a passage where he proudly writes of developing and educating the country, in a spirit of religious tolerance between Catholics and Protestants.

Frederick’s Domestic Jewish Policy

As we have seen, Frederick’s domestic Jewish policy was formulated in the wider context of attitudes and policies inherited from his ancestors, mixing population restriction and recognition of certain useful economic roles with a certain knowledge of the Jewish religion through Biblical education, a typical Enlightenment attitude of contempt for organized religions and tolerance for religious minorities, and his own, often unsavory, personal experiences with Jews in both peacetime and war. He essentially upheld and built upon his predecessors’ policies.

The Jewish Encyclopedia’s summary judgment on Frederick is that “he was not friendly to the Jews.”[17] The centerpiece of Frederick’s Jewish policy was the Charter of 1750, officially entitled the “Revised General-Patent and Regulations of April 17, 1750.” The legislation was driven by the troubling exponential growth of Prussia’s Jewish population: doubling in his original realm in a single generation between 1728 and 1750, and increased further by the Jewish population of conquered Silesia.

The Jewish Virtual Library writes:

Frederick II, the Great, enforced his father’s policies even more rigorously. By his conquest of Silesia (1742) his rule extended over a sizable Jewish population; appreciating their economic importance, he exempted them from his otherwise obnoxious Jewish legislation. In 1750 Frederick promulgated his Revidiertes Generalprivilegium und Reglement, prompted by the results of an inquiry which showed the number of privileged Jewish families in Prussia (excluding Silesia) in 1749 at 2,093, almost double the 1728 figure. The preamble stated that the law was intended to help both Christians and Jews, whose livelihood was being threatened by the increasing number of Jews. It created two types of Schutzjuden: an unrestricted number of “extraordinary” ones whose rights could not be inherited, and a restricted number of “ordinary” Schutzjuden who could pass on their rights to one son only. As in 1730, Jews were excluded from almost all professions and expressly prohibited from brewing, innkeeping, and farming. Trade in livestock, wool, leather, and most local produce was prohibited; the permitted occupations were moneylending and dealing in luxury wares and old clothes. The strictures against peddling were made more severe, as were those against beggars.[18]

Frederick took it as self-evident that the Jewish community was so distinct and organized that the question of its presence was a political one. He considered inspection of “the affairs of the Jews” to be a major responsibility for officials and remarks dispassionately on Edward I of the England’s expulsion of the Jews and the Russians’ apparent desire to expel the Jews of Courland.[19] Considering the Jewish community to be problematic as such, Frederick adopted a conservative population policy: recognizing a right to reside for Jews already in Prussia, thus limiting immediate strife, while restricting inheritance of the right of residence to a fixed number, thus ensuring that the Jewish population did not outgrow its economic niche, as had happened in Poland, with the result that there were many impoverished Jews who wished to emigrate to areas such as Prussia.[20]

The Jewish Encyclopedia writes similarly:

His policy was to maintain the proportion between Jews and Christians in Prussia at a definite, fixed ratio. On April 17, 1750, a “neue revidierte General-privilegium und Schutzbrief vor die Judenschaft in Preussen und der Mark Brandenburg” was enacted, but was not promulgated till 1756. It was particularly oppressive. The Berlin community, consisting of 333 families (estimated at 1,945 souls), at this time had the number of its Schutzjuden fixed arbitrarily at 150; and only the eldest sons could succeed to their fathers’ rights. All other Jews were declared to be “extraordinary,” which meant that they were not allowed to transmit their privilege of residence to their children. Throughout the kingdom this law was enforced with much rigor. In Silesia and West Prussia no Jews could live in the open country (“plattes Land”). Jewish servants were not allowed to marry; and Jewish beggars and peddlers were inhibited.[21]

Frederick’s goal was then not to eliminate the Jews but to maintain the demographic balance and status quo between Christians and Jews, and to restrict Jewish settlement in certain areas. The Jewish Encyclopedia further adds that Frederick took tough measures against Jewish usury and criminality, including a doctrine of collective responsibility of the (partially self-governing) Jewish community:

By the rescript of 1750, severe penalties were imposed on those Jews who practised usury. In 1752–53 interest rates were fixed at 12 per cent per annum, and in 1755 at 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Bankrupts were harshly dealt with; and the entire Jewish community of a locality was made responsible for the crimes committed by Jewish thieves (1773). In 1770 the oppressive usury laws were somewhat modified by repeal acts.[22]

The text of Frederick’s 1750 Decree justifies these measures. Frederick asserts that both legal Jews and illegal immigrant Jews had been massively involved in fraud:

We have noticed in our kingdom of Prussia . . . and particularly also in this capital [Berlin] various faults and abuses among the licensed and tolerated Jews, and have particularly observed that the rampant increase of these abuses has caused enormous damage and hardship, not only to the public, particularly to the Christian inhabitants and merchants, but also to Jewry itself. For this reason and because of the surreptitious entry of unlicensed Jews — foreigners and those who are all but without a country — many complaints and difficulties have arisen.[23]

Frederick claims that Jews had turned illegal trading into a systematic enterprise:

It has been noticed that many Jews and Jewish boys from other cities and provinces that are subject to us have tarried in Berlin, year in and year out, and almost daily, constantly coming and going, and, as it were, relieving one another. Through private and public trading, they have done tremendous damage, not only to the entire public, but particularly to the entire Christian and authorized Jewish trade, and have at the same time deceived and duped our treasures through all sorts of fraud and malicious practices.[24]

Frederick asserts that out of a “paternal” feeling, he wished to protect his lawful subjects, both Christian and Jewish. The king sought to balance the interests of his subjects so that “a proportion may be maintained between Christian and Jewish business opportunities and trades, and especially that neither may be injured through a prohibited expansion of Jewish business activity.”[25]

Like his father, Frederick had ordered a meticulous study into the issue before legislating: “For this purpose we have again made an exact investigation of the condition, in our kingdom and in the other above mentioned imperial lands, of all Jewry, of their families, their means of subsistence, and their business activity.”[26]

The Decree was a “regulation and constitution for all Jewry.” No Jews were to be allowed besides those explicitly listed by the State. “A distinction is to be made between Regular Protected-Jews and Special Protected-Jews who are merely tolerated during their lifetime.” Specific positions were prescribed for the Berlin Jewish community. Only Regular Protected-Jews were authorized to settle the country and marry. The number of Jewish families was fixed to the 1749 level. There was to be no increase in the Jewish population in any town nor any settlement in towns and rural districts without government oversight. Jewish immigration was banned, with again an economic exception for wealthy Jews bringing substantial investments:

Foreign Jews are not allowed to settle in our lands at all. However, if one should really have a fortune of ten thousand Reichsthaler, and bring the same into the country and furnish authentic evidence of this fact, then we are to be asked about this and concerning the fee he is to pay.[27]

To prevent fraud and any increase in Jewish families, no Jews were to marry or settle “until a careful investigation has been made by the War and Domains Offices together with the aid of the Treasury.”[28] Jewish servants were not allowed to marry, and if they attempted to do so, they would be deported. If Jews lived away from their home for over a year, their right of residence was lost and would be granted to another Jew. Jewish economic activity was largely trading textiles, metals, trinkets and “Polish wares” (including pelts, potash, and hemp). Jews could only peddle in the city during fairs. Foreign Jews were generally not allowed to do business in Berlin, and if they did, they were required to pay a tithe to the Potsdam Orphan Home. Jewish beggars were not allowed to enter Prussia and if found would be deported.

Frederick did not ban Jewish moneylending outright: “Inasmuch as the money-business is a particular source of Jewish support, Jews are therefore allowed to lend money on pledges now as in the past.”[29] However, he was concerned about the cohesion of the army, and thus loans to non-commissioned officers and other soldiers were not allowed without approval from their company commander.

Frederick also took measures to ensure Jewish traders did not encourage theft: “Furthermore, the Jews must be very sure in all pawning and selling that the pledges were not stolen or secretly removed and then pledged.”[30] He specifically cites the cases of youngsters stealing from their parents and servants from employers to sell to the Jews. Jews found guilty of knowingly selling stolen goods lost the privilege of residence for themselves and their children, “and he and his family shall be removed from the country. Furthermore, no one else is to be settled in the vacancy created by that family.”[31] Hence, Jewish criminal activity was grounds for permanent reduction in the Jewish population.

Frederick embraced the traditional practice, accepted by both Christians and Jews, of treating the Jewish community as an organic and self-regulating whole separate from Christian life. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes: “With the inner life of the Jews Frederick had nothing to do.”[32] In the same vein, Frederick’s Decree made the Jewish community collectively responsible for paying taxes and for repaying for goods stolen by Jews. This was aimed at encouraging self-policing within the community:

For this reason, the Jews must watch one another and pay attention carefully when they find any of their people on the wrong road and immediately report such a person to the proper authorities. Jewry, therefore, and particularly the elders are required to anticipate any annoyance and damage by ridding the country of those receivers of stolen goods and the other rascally crew among them whenever they discover them.[33]

Jews were also excluded from military service but required to make war loans to the government, the latter also a requirement for the Prussian nobility in general.

Frederick furthered the policy of tolerating the Jews for economic reasons following the Seven Years’ War (1754–63), according to the Jewish Virtual Library:

After the war he encouraged a newly created, sparse layer of very wealthy Jews to invest their capital in industry and manufacture. Frederick levied onerous and distasteful taxes. In 1766 he introduced the Silberlieferung: 12,000 silver marks to be delivered annually at below face value to the royal mint; the 15,000 marks annual tax (from 1728) was increased to 25,000 in 1768. In 1769 he ordered every Jew to purchase and export a certain quantity of local porcelain (expensive, inferior wares produced by the royal factory) whenever he needed a royal concession or privilege (e.g., for marriage).[34]

The Jewish Encyclopedia details the Jews’ sophisticated and wide-ranging economic role in Frederick’s Prussia:

While the Jews were prohibited from following certain trades and occupations (flax-spinning, 1761; agriculture, 1763; flour and wood industries) because of the jealousy of Christian competitors, they were compelled in 1768 to take charge of the stocking and cap manufactories at Templin and to become absolutely responsible for their financial success. (restricted to certain areas/monopolies/niches)

Payments of protection-money often caused trouble for the Jews in Frederick’s reign. During the Seven Years’ war Frederick would have no Jewish soldiers in his army; a yearly tax was paid instead. The Jews had also to bear a share of the ransom imposed on Berlin by the Russian invaders of 1763. During the war, moreover, the Jews had to lend large sums of money to the king. In 1765 the 438 Jewish families in Berlin had to pay a tax of 25,000 thalers; hitherto an annual tax of but 15,000 thalers had been paid for 250 families. In 1770 the Jews were not allowed to pass buckets at fires; a yearly tax was imposed instead. In 1773 the Jews had to deliver a certain quantity of silver to the royal treasury. Additional edicts were promulgated in 1773, 1777, 1782; and as late as 1785 a law was passed against surreptitious begging by Jews. . . .

There were nineteen factories and mills owned by Jews during Frederick’s reign, among them Daniel Itzig’s lead-factory at Sorge and his oil-mill at Berlin (Geiger, “Geschichte der Juden in Berlin,” ii. 93).[35]

This highlights a contradiction in the Prussian kings’ Jewish policy, including Frederick’s: over the years, Jews’ rising wealth would allow them to increasingly pressure the government break down restrictions on them.

Go to Part 3 of 3.

[1]Ibid., 23/203.

[2] Wayne Andrews, Voltaire (New York: New Directions, 1981), 62-63.

[3]Frederick, Œuvres, 27/1/225.

[4]“Frederick II,” Jewish Encyclopedia:

[5]“Prussia,” JVE:

[6]Frederick, Œuvres, 5/87.

[7]Frederick, PC15/105, 18/15.

[8]Ibid., 18/97.

[9]Frederick, Œuvres, 30/382.

[10]Frederick, PC14/105.

[11]Ibid., 18/570.

[12]Ibid., 19/299.

[13] Ibid., 19/300. These measures recall the situation which led to General Ulysses S. Grant to issue General Order No. 11 in the American Civil War, evicting all Jews from his military district.

[14] Incidentally, Prince Henry was later suggested as a candidate to be king of the United States of America.

[15]Frederick, Œuvres, 26/407.

[16]Ibid., 6/100.

[17]“Frederick II,” JE:

[18]“Prussia,” JVL:

[19]Frederick, Œuvres, 1/279 and 9/23, and Frederick, PC7/321.

[20] Kevin MacDonald, “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” The Occidental Quarterly 3, no. 3 (Fall, 2003): 15–44.

[21]“Frederick II,” JE:


[23]Frederick the Great, Revised General-Patent and Regulations of April 17, 1759 for Jewry of the Kingdom of Prussia.




[27] I note that various measures trading residency for large amounts of cash remain common among Western states to this day, including among those few which are otherwise quite hostile to immigration.





[32]“Frederick II,” JE:

[33]Frederick, General-Patent for Jewry:

[34]“Prussia,” JVL:

[35]“Frederick II,” JE:

16 replies
  1. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    This was wonderful reading, Dr Durocher. Thank you. One must wonder how it was that the apt vigilance of the European monarch became so very relaxed with regard to the Jews. But it did, to the point where the great royal houses of Europe, notably Prussia’s, were brought down, and the reigning kings and their heirs were sent into exile, or murdered, as in Russia. Now Jews are taxing us at the swingeing rate at which they were once taxed, and we dare not protest, for that would be hate speech, and the law would unleash its full fury on us; the ‘antisemitic trope’ is our undoing.

    Henry James’s wonderful novel, the Golden Bowl, draws an eloquent tableau of the once-elevated Italian royal who must now live on the largesse of the new master, the American money man, whose dependent he has become. And he has to pretend he likes it.

    I always think of this tableau whenever I hear something about the condition of Britain’s aristocracy. I heard recently, but I am unable to check the information, that 40% of it is Jewish. Come back, Longshanks!

  2. Glenn Bolet
    Glenn Bolet says:

    Regarding the numbers in the last quote there is another interesting claim: Of the forty-six industrial enterprises (mostly silk factories) established in Prussia during Frederick’s reign, thirty-seven are said to have been initiated by Jews. (Albert A. Bruer, Geschichte der Juden in Preussen, 1750–1820, Frankfurt, 1991, p. 76.)

  3. Lindbergh’s Ghost
    Lindbergh’s Ghost says:

    Articles like these on European history aught to be required reading for all American politicians and bureaucrats. Clearly our nation hasn’t learned anything from the European travails in dealing with pluralistic societies.

    • Lindbergh’s Ghost
      Lindbergh’s Ghost says:

      Aught: archaic spelling of “ought”. Yes, I am trapped in distant history!

  4. Jerry
    Jerry says:

    Sophie: Yes, the royal bloodline of Britain has been corrupted by jewish blood for quite a while. Winston Churchill’s mother was a jewess. Franklin Roosevelt was a Sephardic jew from Amsterdam where many jews went after being expelled by Spain in 1492. Dwight Eisenhower was a Sephardic jew from Sweden whose mother was a mulatto. The notion that jews are of unmixed blood in absolutely preposterous. In their international trade they have intermarried with every race on the planet. They also lived amongst the Arabs for many centuries and still do. All arabs and jews are literally cousins and this contrived strife between them is a very recent development instigated by these same jews.

  5. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Bravo to TOO and Mr. Durocher for an interesting and important series on Friedrich.

    As I mentioned before I think Friedrich’s greatest achievement was coming to understand the nature of power. I’ll resist the temptation to elaborate. Maybe some other time.

    Friedrich did what he could do with what he had and transformed Prussia into an economically and socially disciplined people.

    Still, it’s worth keeping two things in mind.

    1. Even the greatest achievements are never perfect and final.

    After all, what did Friedrich’s accomplishments amount to for him in the end? The trivialities of flute playing, writing platitudes in French, and arguing with Voltarie.

    2. Looking at Friendrich historically there is always, looming in the background of his great achievements, The Enlightenment. And what did the Enlightenment lead to? The French Revolution.

    The consequences of both we’re still living with today and not at all comfortably. Even though comfort (a leading Englightenment ideal; or life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) remains the most important objective for the vast majority of people.

    The Enlightenment as a tendency to unleash forces it can’t control. It did it with the French Revolution, it did it with the 60’s, and it’s doing it again.

    It’s a wonder people still cling to its ideals (for the most part without even knowing it). But they do.

    I guess it just goes to show that the hardest thing to let go of is something you thought was real.

    Just as, correspondingly, reality is the hardest thing to accept.

    Ironically, this is something the Plunderers have in common with the Plundered.

    Good to know we’re doing our best to transcend that unhappy state as we come to realize that the root of all evil is turning one’s back on reality.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Enlightenment long dead, replaced by German Romanticism [or German Idealism].

      romanticism was a reaction to the ideas of enlightenment. enlightenment had stressed reason as the chief means for discovering truth. enlightenment was more about religious tolerance and freedom of humans, and romantics were focused on poetry, feelings, emotions, nature and that sort of thing.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        One philosophy based on sense, the other based upon non-sense. . .see the immaterialist philosophy of George Berkeley- that tree you “think” you see out the window- it does not exist. . .your senses are wrong- Kant said the same. . .[critique of pure reason]. . .

        close the drapes! pass the joint around. . .NOW prepare to see True Reality. . .true non-sense!

        The idea that the senses are [partially] wrong gave us the 60s, more than anything else. . .remember what the dormouse said. . .feed your head, feed your head

        The German Idealisms were accepted by the Frankfurt School as its philosophical base [found this out only 3 years ago]. . .German non-sense accepted by the (((Communists))). ., .total weirdness- go ask Alice.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Dialectical Idealism of [German philosopher] Hegel became the Dialectical Materialism of (((Marx))).

          [Kant]- the eyes see the phenomenal world. There is another world- the “noumenal”- which cannot be accessed through the senses. It can be accessed by feelings, by hearing voices of the spirit world, intuition, meditation, and drugs. . .true reality.

          These views allowed [rationalized] a vacation from regular reality, which was “transcended” [evaded, ignored]. The result is the Great Society [The Great Society was a 1960s San Francisco rock band that existed from 1965 to 1966, and was closely associated with the burgeoning Bay Area acid rock scene. Best known as the original group of model-turned-singer Grace Slick, the . . .] which we now enjoy. . .we’ve gone from Pussy Galore to Non-sense Galore].

          We are now living in the True Reality of George Berkeley, Grace Slick, Timothy Leary and Lyndon Johnson.

          San Francsico. . .very close to Berkeley. . .now turned to shit

          • Richard B
            Richard B says:

            I’ve been a TOO reader and commenter for a long time and can count on one hand the number of reaction comments I’ve made. But I feel compelled to make one now.

            Your comments on Romanticism are embarrassingly [redacted].


            (Mod. Note: “Richard”, please feel free to offer a comment on an article, and even a civilized comment on another commenter’s comment. Please DON’T feel free to call other commenters derogatory names.)

  6. Gast
    Gast says:

    Mister Durocher, thank you for this interesting article.

    The relationship between Frederick and the jews show how fragile the position of these supposedly powerful kings in reality was. Frederick needed the jews as financiers and spies to have a fighting chance in the war because his enemies used jews as financiers and spies as well.

    But when you use jews in important positions they can easily stab you in the back when it pleases them. The jews will spy on you and give the information to their leadership who might give the information to the jews working for you enemy. And since the jews working for you have a greater bond with the jews working for your enemy than with you they will have no big problems if their leadership decides that you have to go.

    Frederick was lucky that the top jews at his times (whoever they were, their identities might be still unknown to us today) could live with a fairly powerful Prussia (which was quite minor compared to the jew run British Empire) for the time being.. Otherwise they could have easily have overthrown Frederick at any time.

    I doubt that Frederick knew how fragile he was. But history has shown that “mighty” Prussia was only a fragile country in the sad history of world which seems to end with the undisputed tyranny of the jews. And many countries will follow the sad example by Prussia in the future.

  7. Gast
    Gast says:

    One aspect Mister Durocher has omitted was the fact that Frederick was a freemason. It seems Frederick profited from masonic schemes. That the Russian Empress Elizabeth suddenly died when his fortunes were desperate during the war and she was followed by a Tzar who was friendly towards him seems to me to be a typical Masonic plot.

    For me freemasonry today is a tool of jewry and I have no time for people who say otherwise and I am not willing to excuse freemasons for their traitorous deeds even if they proclaim they didn’t know they were doing them for the jews.

    There are various theories which try to answer the question whether freemasonry was at the beginning not a jewish tool and why it could be turned around by jews. I side with General von Ludendorff who declared in his sadly neglected works on freemasonry that all this proclaimed patriotism by some lodges (he specifically named the “Altpreussischen Großlogen”) was always a silly charade and they were essentially auxiliary troops for jewry from the beginning.

    Ludendorff said that Frederick was only a dupe of freemasonry and didn’t know its traitorous essence. But he offers very little arguments for this assessments and his patriotic feelings toward Frederick might have gotten the better of him.

    All in all, I am willing to give Frederick some benefit of the doubt but wouldn’t call him “great” either. A “great” politician would see the essence of the jewish problem: The jews are our mortal enemy and if you ally or even compromise with them you put the well-being of future generations at stake. With this definition of greatness in mind I am not sure that there have been great politicians in the past. Sure, you might excuse Frederick that he had not other choices because the jews were already too powerful at his times, but hindsight must surely play a role too when we assess the stature of Frederick.

Comments are closed.