French socialist thinker Charles Fourier remains one of history’s most daring economic visionaries, a man whose blueprint for human harmony challenged the very foundations of the modern world. Yet, lurking beneath his celebrated theories of labor is a dimension of his thought that modern socialist circles have scrubbed from the record: his uncompromising, foundational antisemitism.

Today, his once-open discourse on this subject has been replaced by the intellectual pollution of Jewish tropes that now dominate the socialist landscape. It is time to peel back the layers of indoctrination and confront the man as he truly was an innovative thinker who saw exactly where the rot in civilization began.

François Marie Charles Fourier was born on April 7, 1772, in Besançon, France, the son of a cloth merchant. He spent much of his working life employed as a traveling salesman and correspondence clerk — in Lyon, Paris, Rouen, Marseille, and Bordeaux — an occupation he despised. He complained bitterly of “serving the knavery of merchants” and channeled that resentment into elaborate schemes for remaking society from the ground up.

Self-educated and enormously prolific, Fourier published his first major work, Théorie des quatre mouvements, in 1808, and spent the remainder of his life — until his death on October 10, 1837 in Paris — elaborating an intricate system for reorganizing human civilization.

Fourier stands alongside Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon as one of the three major “utopian socialists” analyzed by Friedrich Engels. His ideas seeded dozens of experimental communities in France and America.

While Fourier is rightly celebrated as a profound economic visionary whose theories on labor and communal living pushed the boundaries of his age, many modern scholars intentionally obscure the most distinctive pillars of his worldview. In particular, Fourier possessed a sharp, incisive critique of the role of Jewish influence within the financial systems of his day—a facet of his thought that contemporary leftists routinely dismiss to maintain a sanitized, politically correct narrative. By filtering out these foundational insights, today’s movements fail to grasp the full scope of his analysis regarding how Jewish interests disrupt the social order. However, his Wikipedia page has this:

Fourier said Jews were “the leprosy and the ruin of the body politic”.^[29] He criticized the government for being weak and “prostrate” when confronted with what he called a “secret and indissoluble league” of Jews. Post-Medieval antisemitic rhetoric often accused Jews of being unable to assimilate into a unitary national culture (highly valued by the French nationalists). Fourier was one of the writers to argue that Jews were disloyal and would not make good French citizens. Like others, he placed great significance on the religious restrictions prohibiting Jews from eating at the same table as non-Jews:^[30]

he confined himself to sitting down at table and drinking; he refused to eat any of the dishes, because they were prepared by Christians. Christians have to be very patient to tolerate such impertinence. In the Jewish religion it denotes a system of defiance and aversion for other sects. Now, does a sect which wishes to carry its hatred as far as the table of its protectors, deserve to be protected?

It is precisely because Fourier viewed these financial and social dynamics as a corrupting influence that he sought to replace the prevailing chaotic order with a self-regulating architecture of cooperation. This desire to insulate communal life from the distortions of Jewish finance served as the foundation for his most famous social experiment.

Fourier’s central vision was the phalanx, a cooperative community of roughly 1,620 people living and working together in a large building called a phalanstère. These self-contained agricultural and industrial communities would house residents in giant cooperative apartment buildings where work, wealth, and roles would rotate continuously. In his phalansteries, wealth produced by the community would be distributed among capital, labor, and talent in proportions he specified. Private property would not be abolished but would be subordinated to collective purposes. Fourier considered trade, which he associated with Jews, the “source of all evil”, and advocated that Jews be forced to perform farm work in the phalansteries.^[14] 

His concept of “attractive labor” proposed that work could be made pleasurable if matched to people’s natural passions. Tasks would rotate frequently and people would be assigned to roles they naturally enjoyed. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels later credited this as a precursor to their concept of alienated labor.

Fourier developed an elaborate theory of the passions, cataloging 12 fundamental human passions that produced 810 distinct personality types. His phalansteries would be organized around these personality classifications to maximize harmony and productivity.

His ideas inspired real-world experiments. Brook Farm in Massachusetts, the North American Phalanx in New Jersey, La Réunion in Texas, and the Familistère de Guise in France all drew directly from Fourierist principles. Behind these utopian experiments lay a sweeping philosophical indictment of modern civilization. Fourier rejected the competitive individualism unleashed by the French Revolution and the emerging capitalist order. He believed that civilization itself was corrupt and that humanity needed a complete reset.

Beyond his social theories, Fourier held views that would ruffle the feathers of many leftists these days. Notably, he expressed racism toward non-European cultures and held antisemitic beliefs that were not incidental to his thought but central to his entire economic worldview.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica summarizes his position directly: “His dream of a better world went hand in hand with a phobia against foreigners, and above all Jews. For him commerce was ‘the source of all evil’ and Jews were ‘the incarnation of commerce.'” In his earlier writings, the Encyclopaedia Judaica notes, Fourier “leveled every accusation possible against the Jews,” declaring in his 1808 Théorie des quatre mouvements that there had never been “a nation more despicable than the Hebrews.”

Scholars classify his antisemitism as economic and religious rather than the racial antisemitism that emerged later in the 19th century. Edmund Silberner and Jonathan Beecher identify him as one of the originators of a specifically socialist antisemitism, in which hostility toward Jews was expressed in commercial and moral terms rather than biological ones.

Because Fourier equated commerce with corruption and cast Jews as the human face of commerce, his entire critique of capitalism leaned on antisemitic observations — what later detractors called “the socialism of fools.” The textual record of Fourier’s antisemitism is extensive and well documented. Drawing on economist Edmund Silberner’s landmark 1946 article “Charles Fourier on the Jewish Question” in Jewish Social Studies — the foundational scholarly survey of Fourier’s antisemitic writings — Fourier had choice words for European Jewry.

In his 1808 work Théorie des quatre mouvements, Fourier declared there had never been “a nation more despicable than the Hebrews.” He identified commerce as “the source of all evil” and the Jews as “the incarnation of commerce.” The Encyclopaedia Judaica summarizes his position: “In his earlier writings, Fourier leveled every accusation possible against the Jews. He believed that their economic activities were parasitic and rapacious.” The Cambridge Core International Review of Social History confirms he attacked Jews as “the incarnation of commerce: parasitical, deceitful, traitorous and unproductive.”

The Encyclopaedia Judaica also notes that Fourier believed the emancipation of slaves and Jews had been “effected too suddenly.” Fourier’s antisemitism was taken up and amplified by his followers — most directly by Alphonse Toussenel, whose 1845 Les Juifs, rois de l’époque extended his teacher’s economic antisemitism into one of the 19th century’s most prominent antisemitic works.

Owing to the French thinker’s voluminous critiques of European Jewry, Silberner identified Fourier as the “father of antisemitic socialism” in his 1962 work Sozialisten zur Judenfrage. He concluded that most prominent 19th-century socialists, except for the Saint-Simonists, viewed Jews as the embodiment of social parasitism.

The Cambridge Core International Review of Social History confirms the pattern across the French socialist milieu: “Charles Fourier saw the Jews as the incarnation of commerce: parasitical, deceitful, traitorous and unproductive.” The article places him alongside Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Toussenel as foundational figures of a left-wing antisemitic tradition.

Fourier’s legacy is a towering testament to the power of contrarianism, showing us that true social progress requires the courage to reject the comfortable lies disseminated by the ruling class. His models for living may have been experimental, but his diagnostic clarity regarding the forces of subversion — of predominantly Jewish extraction — remains his most enduring contribution. If we are to secure the future of our people, we must refuse to settle for his economic insights alone; we must reclaim and build upon his frank, necessary antisemitism, particularly now, when organized Jewry has achieved a total and suffocating hegemony over our entire political order.

Mikhail Bakunin was by no means an isolated voice in the 19th-century anarchist movement when it came to calling out Jewish influence. His contemporary and fellow pioneer of anarchist thought, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, possessed a critique of equal intensity and arguably greater scope

Proudhon is widely celebrated as the “father of anarchism,” a pioneering socialist philosopher whose critiques of property and the state shaped generations of radical thought. Yet buried within his voluminous writings and private notebooks lies a virulent strain of antisemitism so extreme that some scholars have labeled him a harbinger of fascism.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was born on January 15, 1809, in Besançon, France, to a working-class family. His father was a cooper and tavern keeper, and the family lived in dire poverty. Despite his family’s poverty, Proudhon won a scholarship to the college in Besançon and educated himself further through his work as a printer, teaching himself Latin — and later Greek and Hebrew — to better typeset the books he worked on. His hardscrabble peasant origins deeply shaped his worldview. He idealized a society of self-sufficient small craftsmen and farmers free from exploitation.

Proudhon became the first person to publicly identify as an “anarchist” in 1840. His most famous slogan, “Property is theft!,” appeared in his first major work, What Is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government. He was not advocating for total abolition of personal possessions but rather distinguished between illegitimate propriété — private ownership allowing exploitation of others — and legitimate possession, meaning direct use-ownership by workers.

Proudhon’s major contributions to political philosophy included mutualism, an economic system based on workers’ cooperatives, mutual credit, and free exchange that rejected both capitalism and state socialism. He also developed a theory of federalism, envisioning decentralized, self-governing communes in a voluntary federation that would replace both the state and private monopoly.

Proudhon served in the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848 and engaged in famous polemical exchanges with Karl Marx. Proudhon’s The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty appeared in 1846, and Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy in 1847 was a direct rebuttal. This dispute contributed to the historic split between the anarchist and Marxist wings of the labor movement. Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Benjamin Tucker all drew heavily from Proudhon’s ideas.

However, to fully understand the totality of Proudhon’s worldview, one must look beyond his public polemics and into his personal manuscripts. The most notorious statement of Proudhon’s antisemitism comes from his private notebook, dated December 26, 1847, published posthumously as part of his Carnets in 1960 and 1961. The passage reads in full:

Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them deicides. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weill, and others are nothing but secret spies; Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, wicked, bilious, envious, bitter, etc. etc., beings who hate us. The Jew must disappear by steel or by fire or by expulsion. Tolerate the elderly who no longer have children. Work to be done — What the peoples of the Middle Ages hated instinctively, I hate upon reflection and irrevocably. The hatred of the Jew, like the hatred of the English, should be our first article of political faith.

Proudhon’s hatred was as personal as it was political, shifting focus in the same December 26, 1847 entry to target specific Jewish individuals. Heinrich Heine, the celebrated German-Jewish poet and writer, and A. Weill, a writer and journalist, were both called “nothing but secret spies.” Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, and Fould were grouped together and collectively condemned as “wicked, bilious, envious, bitter… beings who hate us.” Adolphe Crémieux was a prominent Jewish lawyer who later served as French Minister of Justice. Benoît Fould was a French banker and politician of Jewish origin. Karl Marx, of Jewish descent though baptized Christian, was included in this company.

Calling Heine and Weill “secret spies” had a specific personal context — Proudhon suspected they had informed on his German associate Karl Grün, who had been disseminating Proudhon’s ideas among German intellectuals in Paris, leading to Grün’s expulsion from France. That broader pattern is borne out by the public record. Antisemitic themes recur across his major published works.

In Césarisme et Christianisme from 1860, Proudhon wrote: “The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither farmer nor industrialist, not even a real trader. He is always a fraudulent and parasitic middleman, who operates, in business as in philosophy, by fabrication, counterfeiting, and shady dealing. He knows only the rise and fall, the risks of transport, the uncertainties of the harvest, the hazards of supply and demand. His policy in economics is all negative, it’s the wrong principle. Satan, Ahriman, incarnated in the race of Shem.”

In De la Justice dans la Révolution et dans l’Église from 1858, Proudhon accused Jews of “having rendered the bourgeoisie, high or low, similar to them, all over Europe.” In France et Rhin, published posthumously in 1867, he complained that France was “invaded by the English, Germans, Belgians, Jews,” and other foreigners.

Interestingly, Proudhon’s public posture of hostility towards Jews existed alongside a series of personal encounters that suggest a complex social life. Proudhon and Karl Marx met in Paris between late September 1844 and February 1845, during Marx’s exile there. The two engaged in extended intellectual discussions, which Marx himself described as “lengthy debates often lasting all night.”

Marx wrote Proudhon a letter on May 5, 1846 — by then from Brussels, after his expulsion from France — inviting him to join a correspondence network of socialists, addressing him warmly as a peer. Their relationship later collapsed when Marx savaged Proudhon’s work. Though Marx had Jewish heritage from a rabbinical family on both sides, Proudhon listed him among those he condemned in the 1847 notebook entry.

Proudhon was closely associated with Alphonse Toussenel, a French socialist and disciple of Charles Fourier who authored Les Juifs, Rois de l’Époque — The Jews, Kings of the Era — in 1845, one of the most prominent antisemitic works of 19th-century France. A more explosive second edition appeared in 1847, the same year as Proudhon’s December 26 notebook entry, and scholars have noted the two men’s antisemitism was mutually reinforcing. Adolphe Crémieux, the prominent Jewish lawyer and politician who would later serve as French Minister of Justice, was named and condemned by Proudhon alongside Rothschild in that same entry.

The pattern of these denunciations did not escape later scholarly attention. J. Salwyn Schapiro, a Jewish-American historian writing in the American Historical Review in July 1945, was the most influential early academic to highlight Proudhon’s antisemitic content. In his article “Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism,” he called Proudhon’s antisemitism “the acid test of racialism” and grouped it alongside his other prejudices — misogyny, racism toward Black people, and support for the Confederacy — to argue Proudhon was a proto-fascist.

Frédéric Krier, a historian whose 2009 work Sozialismus für Kleinbürger: Pierre Joseph Proudhon — Wegbereiter des Dritten Reiches remains the most exhaustive scholarly study connecting Proudhon to Nazi ideology, identified Proudhon’s antisemitism as pervasive throughout his thought. Krier drew intellectual-historical continuities between Proudhon’s moralistic critique of “interest” — meaning usury — and the Nazi antisemitic demand for the “breaking of interest slavery.” He also argued Proudhon was a 19th-century variant of the Christian Gnostic heretic Marcion, whose anti-Jewish theological streak ran throughout his anti-theism.

The devolution of modern anarchism into a mere collection of foot soldiers for the Jewish-dominated status quo is a tragic betrayal of its revolutionary heritage. Reverting from the intellectual rigor of Bakunin and Proudhon to the establishment-friendly gatekeeping of contemporary “anarchists” (antifa typically label themselves anarchists) serves only the Jewish masters of the current order. Proudhon’s willingness to place the question of Jewish power at the very center of his political critique serves as a vital blueprint for the contemporary dissident. It is only by discarding the taboos that muzzle inquiry that we can hope to understand and challenge the Jewish forces shaping our world.

 

Hermann Ahlwardt (1846-1914) was a member of the German Reichstag who first belonged, along with Otto Böckel (1859-1923), [1] to the Deutschsoziale Partei of Max Liebermann von Sonnenberg (1848-1911). However, both Ahlwardt and Böckel were later expelled from this party for their extreme anti-Semitism. In 1894, the Deutschsoziale Partei  and the Deutsche Reformpartei — which emerged from Böckel’s Antisemitische Volkspartei of 1890 — merged into the  Deutschsoziale Reformpartei, which championed German nationalist, Christian monarchist programmes that would combat the growing influence of Jewry in Germany. The DSRP adhered to racial anti-Semitism and sought to reverse Jewish emancipation.

Of Ahlwardt’s work ‘Der Verzweiflungskampf der arischen Völker mit dem Judentum’ (1890) I present here the final chapter – as a sample of the problem faced by Germans with regard to Jewry already in the Kaiserreich — long before the advent of National Socialism. Ahlwardt believes that Germany has been corrupted by the emancipated Jews to such an extent that it is now a matter of urgency that it free itself of their devastating influence. He fears even that Germany’s rival, Russia, may indeed get rid of its Jewish influence earlier than Germany, in which case it will obtain an advantage over Germany socially as well as politically. Though he hopes for an international concord regarding the Jews, he is certain that Germany has a special duty to set an example on account of its central position in Europe. He proposes his own guidelines for dealing with the Jewish Question emphasizing that the Jewish problem is not merely an economic one but also cultural. He places special trust in the Prussian monarchy, which he considers a socialistic one in its concern for the welfare of the entire community. And he urges all the parties of Germany, anti-Semitic or otherwise, to set aside their differences and focus on the main evil confronting the nation, which is Jewry: ‘Therefore, German people, be brave, in the first place remove your deadly enemy whom you have accepted in your midst through falsely understood humanitarianism. Then proceed with determination to prepare for your children the happiness that is possible on this imperfect earth.’

Chapter 24: The way to self-liberation

We should not deceive ourselves about the fact that Germany’s liberation from the Jewish yoke is extremely hard. The German is not equal to the refinement of the Jew. The national wealth of Germany is in large part in Jewish hands. They rule the stock-exchange, trade, the entire credit system, the law, medicine, science and art. In almost all large urban communities they have appropriated the leadership. And the entire budget of such a city becomes a single large means of corruption in the hands of the Jews. The entire administration then becomes an irredeemable rat king, as the story of my life proves sufficiently. But the entire Jewish power is concentrated in the press. This creates everywhere artificial oppositions and confuses the people in all its strata. Entire classes of the population are brought into an opposition with their nationality and denationalised. The Jewish press therefore effects a process of disintegration that in its course must necessarily bring about the end of the fatherland. The Jews make good business first at the establishment of the German Reich and then at its end. At the funeral feast, most of it goes to them. They are the liquidators of the nations damned by them morally and materially. Even in free America one sees this already. Bellamy[2] explains in his Nationalist that America, in its present plunder economics, drifts to its collapse. It is a demon that, since antiquity, drives the Jews to this activity, which must however finally devour them. How can one oppose this enormous Jewish power? They are indeed in the process of taking over even political power and then making the entire state revenue into a single means of corruption, as has happened already in France. Nevertheless, these Orientals entirely lack the gift of state formation and that of state maintenance. They only know presumption and cruelty or cowardly whining. Only the Aryans are founders and preservers of states, and in recent times only the Germanic people.

In the book Rembrandt as Educator,[3] whose publication I consider as a phenomenon of the very first rank, the author says: ‘The German is called to rule Europe as an aristocrat and America as a democrat.’ In order to avoid misunderstanding, I shall remark that here every farmer is considered an aristocrat – and I think fully rightly. Through the Jews the Germanic peoples are in danger of becoming fully corrupt, alienated from their historical calling and conducted to their certain downfall. The inheritors will then unquestionably be the Slavic peoples, for the Latin peoples, in spite of all the veneers of culture, are in decline. It is sad that Germany is so completely blind to the danger that threatens from the East. I am not thinking of the military danger at the moment but of the danger of a nobler culture that could at one time supplant and overcome us. One should not forget that, under all the rubble and dirt, under the corruption of the aristocracy and the high officials and the plague of vodka and Jewry, there lies silent and hidden the ‘ruski mir’,[4] the order of the Russian community. It has maintained itself in accordance with its character in spite of all suppression through the millennia. In fact, it makes every Russian a freer man than all the men of the civilised West are. As a member of a community the Russian has a say on all things pertaining to his immediate horizon, he has to vouch for all and all vouch for him, even the law lies in his hands. Russia, in fact, consists of innumerable small republics in which one does not have a representational system but in which everybody decides for himself. All these republics stand under an all-powerful ruler who decides all political matters as independently as the community decides its own matters. Naturally this great idea is often obscured through the willfulness of the aristocracy and the officials, but it is not dead. Russia is, in its character, socialistic and, accordingly, also — quite logically — also Caesarean. Parliamentarism for Russia is a nonsense and only immature people and Jews strive for it. Pan-Slavism strives for the enormous goal of re-establishing the order of the Russian community in its original purity, to make of Russia, thus, thousands of socialist republics whose common affairs are directed by the Great Father in Petersburg in an absolute and unrestricted manner. If Russia achieves this while the disintegration of Germany by Jewry makes further progress, it will march at the head of culture and head to world-rule without a shot needing to be fired.

In any case I hope that the corruption of the higher bureaucracy, the Jews and vodka will delay the rebirth so long until we ourselves have achieved our liberation and placed ourselves in a position to fulfil our world-mission, for one should not forget that the order of our all-German community, which was however fully destroyed by Roman law, had much in common with the Slavic. When a few days ago the news spread through the world that Russia will get rid of its Jews, a jubilation rang through all anti-Semitic circles. But I was deeply saddened and downcast, for the following sentence has since a long time ago become an unshakeable certainty: That nation which first and most fundamentally gets rid of its Jews and thereby clears the path for its continued development according to its own character is called to be the cultural bearer and consequently also the ruler of the world. Accordingly, for us, the question cannot at all arise whether it is possible that we might get rid of our Jewish rule and Jewish corruption. This must be, and here the question of its difficulty cannot be considered at all.

At present there are three anti-Semitic parties, the Christian Socialist,[5] the German Socialist[6] and the German People’s Party.[7]

The first gets priority. Its leader, the Court Chaplain Adolf Stöcker,[8] founded this party already 70 years ago. It was he who opened the eyes of the largest sections of the population to the Jewish activity. The party is anointed with a very strong drop of socialistic oil. The Court Chaplain Stöcker wishes to build up the new social order on the basis of Christian brotherly love and to preserve for the state in its new social formation its ancient institutions. Naturally he attracted to himself the enormous hatred of all Jews and philo-Semites, and what Jewish hatred means must be fully clear to the reader of my life-story. The man who perhaps concerns himself less with dogmatism than any other of his professional colleagues was decried as an orthodox oaf, sinister, etc. , smeared with filth from all sides and suspected by those in high and low positions. But he stood on such a moral height and was, besides, a public orator to such a degree that already today a quite different spirit would blow over Germany if Prince Bismarck — who for political reasons had granted his protection to capitalism, that is, to Jewry — had not rendered his activity impossible for a while.[9] The fatherland may still hope of great things from him.  Since then, he has shown himself to be more critical regarding the Jewish Question and has, in his plans, ventured sharply only in two cases, those related to education and the legal profession. For this reason he seems to many young anti-Semites not to be sufficiently comprehensive. The party organ of the Christian Socialist Party is Das Volk.

The German Socialist Party has presented its anti-Semitic programme in an elaborate manner since it does not need to observe the caution of a court chaplain. Its programme even has a drop of socialistic oil in it. However, this, the so-called Bochum Programme,[10] has not yet been fully elaborated and I think that in this context much more remains to be done. The party stands on a Christian monarchist foundation. Anti-Semitism is a clear priority in its case and, even if it does not endorse any radical means, the path towards a healthy social progress should be free after the implementation of its programme. Its representative in the parliament is the member of parliament Liebermann von Sonnenberg,[11] former officer of the German Army, who has placed his rich talents, his significant knowledge and his great energy in the service of anti-Semitism. No failure, no persecution, no hardship has been able to make him sway even for a moment. The German aristocracy has found in him an excellent fighter. In a literary way are mainly active for the party Fritsch[12] in Leipzig, König in Witten, Radenhausen[13] in Hamburg and then, especially, also the old master of anti-Semitism, O. Glagau[14] in Berlin, whose writings, especially the book on the Founders,[15] and also German Handicraft and the Historical Bourgeoisie[16] and, finally, the periodically published Kulturkämpfer, must assume the first rank in every anti-Semitic library. The focal point of the party in Berlin remains the so-called Wednesday Club. The party organs are the German Socialist bulletins.

The German People’s Party has its seat in Hessen. At its head stands Dr. Otto Boeckel in Marburg.[17] This is a young, energetic man with much knowledge and a great public speaking gift who, in spite of the greatest tribulations, has removed a large part of Hessen permanently from Jewry. His party at present counts four members of parliament, namely, Dr. Böckel, Zimmermann, Werner and Pickenbach. Its party organ is the Reichs-Herold appearing in Marburg. The party of course is based on a monarchist Christian foundation, but it highly values democratic views and, in contrast the Jewish liberal party, champions protective taxes and the maintenance of our army. Of the outstanding scholars Treitschke[18] and Dühring[19] particularly have appeared decisively against the Jews, though from quite different standpoints. Even Mr. von Hartmann has provided some help, even though quite tame. We cannot go into the other partially very commendable pioneers.  It could not fail to occur that a desire was expressed from many sides that these three anti-Semitic parties might unite into one. This would perhaps be possible since, at the moment, their most important mission, the combatting or removal of Jewry, is indeed their absolute priority. However, every party has also its justified special tasks and therefore the threefold division is not a disadvantage so long as the parties see themselves as parts of a large central army that marches separately but strike together. But mutual promotion and peaceful accommodation are the basic conditions of communal success. Especially the leaders have the sacred duty to come to agreements in a peaceful and friendly manner, to push everything personal into the background and to never let possible differences spoil matters. This seems to me to be especially necessary in the case of the distribution of the electoral districts that are to be won. One must consider together that for every anti-Semite this victory is responsible for his  and sacred matter of the community, which is the future of the fatherland  ̶  and for the numerous troop of martyrs who were driven to death and doom for their convictions.

Besides, an international agreement must be striven for, in spite of all difficulties, and men like Drumont[20] and Schönerer,[21] etc. will perhaps extend their hand to help in that. On this there can be no doubt: like the social question in general, the Jewish question too must be fought out on German soil. On account of its central position, Germany cannot withdraw from this duty but, with the solution of the same, it will also spread happiness and blessings over the entire world. For the time being, I make the following suggestions:

1. Removal of Jews from all official positions, both in the state and in the community, especially also from those of judges and lawyers.
2. Abolition of Jewish emancipation.
3. The placing of Jews under the foreign police, who can at any time search Jewish accounting books and, in cases of irregularities, request immediate deportation.
4. Military exemption for Jews but, in exchange, a sufficient foreigners’ tax and war tax.
5. Nationalisation of the stock-exchange and the Reich bank.
6. Prohibition of futures trading at the stock-exchange.
7. Prohibition of Jews from writing in or owning newspapers that are read by non-Jewish circles.
8. Prohibition of foreigners from possessing land (which law exists also in all of America).
9. Abolition of free enterprise.
10. Prohibition of the naturalisation of baptised Jews.
11. Re-establishment of the religious oath.

Perhaps the legislation of the future will consider it the greatest humanitarianism if the Jews were settled in a well located, extra-European country and transferred there to a situation of feeding themselves honestly and uprightly through farming whereby they could be endowed richly with all necessities. The surplus of their wealth that can no longer be returned to the hundreds of thousands of their victims — whose bones bleach in all parts of the world — should, in the hands of the state, basically facilitate the solution of the social question and therewith the cultural progress of mankind.

As soon as the Jewish question has been solved, as soon, especially, as the Jews have disappeared from the press, the path to an agreement on the social question is cleared. We shall then no longer smear one another with dirt but evaluate every opinion according to its worth.  At present this is impossible since the Social Democratic Party,[22] spurred by its backers, the Jews, no longer discusses but finds itself already in a latent civil war with the other classes of the population. That we find ourselves at the beginning of an international change can be denied by nobody with insight. We must get out of the age of unlimited production into one of goal-orientated production but one without the abolition of individual freedom. We must reach a point where every productive man receives also the reward for his industry, and the state should be helpful to him in this. One cannot circumvent the fact that the main branches of production are organised and that manual workers will likewise be helped by the state. We see these days, in Rome, all that is possible, with goodwill, for the state or the commune. There the butchers struck work, the commune took the slaughter and sale of meat entirely into its hands and had these performed by soldiers.

Every reform has to go through three stages: first, the dissatisfaction with the existing conditions, second the critique, third the positive production. We find ourselves in the second stage now. The entire Social Democracy is nothing but a big, partly justified, critique. Before we come to the third stage, the Jewish power must first be broken, for the Jews sit, like the robber knights of the Middle Ages, in their fortresses and make their regular sorties from there that make all positive productions impossible. On the nature of the positive new creations the most significant men of our times have expressed fundamental thoughts that should already now be practically realised, naturally after the settlement of the Jewish question. I mention only the academic socialists Schmoller, Wagner, Brentano, Schäffle, and then men like Baron von Broich, von Mosch, Fritz Spielhoff and the German American Dr. Schläger, who publishes his carefully elaborated essays in the most diverse journals, thus in the Kyffhäuser, the Bayreuther Blätter, etc. and forms the bridge that binds us to the great English and American social reformers. His last publication on natural law and historical law must have a groundbreaking effect. I further mention the late Archbishop Ketteler, Chaplain Hitze, von Schorlemer-Alst, von Hüne. I characterised as a phenomenon of the first rank already above the publication of the book, Rembrandt as Educator.

Every sentence of this book falls like a ray of light on dark days and can serve as the chapter heading of a new book.

I cite the following sentences from the book, in order to show what the reader can expect of the entire book:

At the beginning of this century Prussia adopted the principle of offsetting the defeats that had been experienced by a strengthening of the scientific power of the nation. At the end of this century Germany should adopt the principle of justifying the victories that were fought for by a strengthening of the artistic power of the nation.

Art must bring back the naïveté that we have lost through science.

We learn from this book that the social question is in no way, as the Social Democrats assume, a question of food but that, in its case, many other higher interests are dealt with. The social question is, in general, not such that it can be solved by one man and in a short space of time but it must be tackled immediately and indeed in all seriousness, for inertia is downfall. ‘Germany’, said Treitschke, in one of his earliest talks, ‘is like a carriage that drives through a valley on a sharp ledge. It must always remain in motion for, otherwise, it will inevitably fall into the abyss.’ Since the precondition for the successful tackling of social reform is the solution of the Jewish question, I consider the latter overdue and the goal of my book is to point quite urgently to the immediate tackling of the same.

You,  German, may direct your love, your respect, your friendship to all productive nations of the world, for every productive nation climbs, often without knowing it, on the ladder of culture, but the parasitical, culture-destroying Jewish people  ̶̶  which seeks to introduce everywhere moral decay and corruption of the existing conditions because it can harvest only in rottenness — you must combat with full awareness and seek to render harmless.

The misery instituted up to now that is manifest especially in the destruction of our national institutions and the national welfare we must look squarely in the eye. We must step forward energetically to eliminate the old injuries and thereby, at the same time, take a vigorous step forwards on the path of culture.

Above all, we must get out of sentimental cosmopolitanism. Only as a sharply defined nationality can we bring to the world the blessing that it may expect from us.

All the nations of the world were of some significance for culture in general only so long as they constituted a firmly closed nationality.

Our greatest poets have therefore presented the love of the fatherland as the holiest and highest duty from which a noble man cannot withdraw even with the best of intentions.[23]

German brothers! Jewry has attempted to rob you of this joy in the fatherland, this love for the fatherland, wherever it could dare to do so. Do not scold the Jews, do not also defend them, but study them. Study Heine,[24] Börne,[25] etc.  Especially that part of the nation that creates values through the sweat of its brow without even being able to enjoy them – and that seemed to be becoming most dangerous to the Jewish Mammonism in recent times — is systematically trained to consciously hate the fatherland.

As far as I can observe, the poison has however not yet penetrated to the innermost core of the national soul. If Jewry is removed, the slag will fall by itself.

Indeed, the love for the patriotic institutions, especially the monarchy, is still little shaken. The feeling of piety towards our ruling house under which our forebears lived for centuries happily and contentedly is everywhere much more alive than Jewry already intoxicated with victory supposes. But it is not feeling alone that binds us inextricably to our ruling family but the deepest most logical thought shows us that the social hereditary monarchy alone can lead us to our historical mission. The monarchy forms a sole stable pole in the flux of phenomena. Modern parliamentarism gives us in the best case a momentary photograph of the current mood. Where a parliamentary government rules, the nation is carried away by such momentary impressions to things that could later cause the greatest injuries. This is the great lesson of the period of conflict from 1861-1866.[26] The momentary mood led the fatherland inevitably to its downfall. When the monarchy ordered a halt to this seizure by the momentary mood, it constituted a real rocher der bronze,[27] and saved Prussia — against its own will — from itself. This opposition often emerges in crises, at that time externally as now internally. Even in the crisis existing at the moment, Germany will be saved from itself by the socialist monarchy.

…  Necessity, however, demands that the socialist hereditary monarchy be a free one. If it were dependent on a particular social class, the demands of the latter alone would be satisfied. Since in Europe, capitalism, that is, Jewry, rules many governments, capitalism alone obtains an essential promotion of its interests whereas the other sections of the population have to satisfy themselves with fine words. The necessity of a stable pole has always been acknowledged in all republics. Senates have been established everywhere that however have not shown themselves anywhere to be sufficiently capable of resistance. There have, moreover, been few real, serious republics in the world in which the population as a whole has participated in the government. There the numerically few classes ruled that were distinguished by birth or by wealth and the actually productive population was more oppressed there than anywhere else. The battle between the patricians and the plebeians in Rome was nothing more than a battle between the aristocracy of birth and of wealth. When Athens moved to a real democracy it succumbed to a quick downfall. The socialist monarchy of the Hohenzollerns is something wholly new in the history of the world and has demonstrated its justification through four centuries that it has created out of a semi-wasteland, out of worthless clods of sand, a prosperous state and given to old dying Europe a new centre and new ideas.

Unfortunately the majority of  nations have, even in their patriotic sections, too little understanding of this. Even in the schools this understanding is little aroused, as, for example, all commercial books narrate much about the wars and heroic deeds – which, however, are of second or third rank among most monarchs of the house of Hohenzollern, and even in the case of Frederick the Great — but little of the creative socialist activity of all the princes that indeed constitutes their actual character. Our fatherland will even in the future march at the head of the nations for the benefit of mankind only as a socialist monarchy, otherwise it will sink back into insignificance and misery.

I am convinced that the Hohenzollerns stand, in their significance for the world, is just at the beginning of their career. All that came up to now formed only the prelude.

On you, German people, is the responsibility now to contribute your own part for the attainment of the lofty goal.  With parliamentarism, which will and must sustain you, the determination of your destiny has been placed in your hands. Contribute your share to it so that the great masses in Germany may again feel well and happy and that everybody may find in it again a real homeland.

Actual and great social reforms are necessary; just a few crumbs cannot be thrown out to the productive masses.

Germany is indeed so rich in noble men capable of self-sacrifice and in great talents. Up to now, however, the same have been set one against the other by Jewry, but if Germany proceeds to the quick removal of these exploitative parasites, men from all sides will once again be united.[28]

Should a real and serious understanding not be possible among all these people who indeed sacrifice everything for the welfare of their fellowmen,  and cannot a real social new order be established in the entire German nation on the basis of such characters? Up to now this was impossible because the Jewish press incited every person against the other and sowed mistrust. If it should retain its influence, things will never change. Therefore, German people, be brave, in the first place remove your deadly enemy whom you have accepted in your midst through falsely understood humanitarianism. Then proceed with determination to prepare for your children the happiness that is possible on this imperfect earth. This will be possible to you under the shield of a powerful socialist hereditary monarchy as soon as you are in a position to speak openly and honestly about the removal of the Jewish press piracy.

Every party has its good side, in each we find people who would sacrifice themselves, along with everything that they possess, for the good of the whole. Such people are to be found even among the Social Democrats. Even there there is idealistic striving. That Jewry has distracted them from the latter and directed them to goals that are eternally unreachable is regrettable, but not irreversible.

Men of all parties, who have not been consumed by selfishness, lust for power, ambition, or are able to overcome these ignoble characteristics in yourselves, unite to first remove the evil Jewish parasite, this bacillus of putrefaction, and then vie with one another dispassionately, summoning all your intellectual forces, in the effort to usher in a serious improvement of our situation. Let everybody be aware that on no side can this be realised without serious sacrifices.

---

[1] See my translation of Böckel, ‘The Jews – the Kings of our Age’, Occidental Observer, July 3, 2022.

[2] Edward Bellamy (1850-1898) was an American author who advocated state ownership of property and the abolition of classes. In the ninetees he published a newspaper called The New Nation and his followers started a magazine called The Nationalist in 1889. His works inspired the creation of several ‘Nationalist’ Clubs (called that since Bellamy did not consider the term ‘Socialism’ suitable for American society) as well as a short-lived Populist Party.

[3] Julius Langbehn (1851-1907) was a German cultural historian; his Rembrandt als Erzieher was published in1890 (see my English edition, Rembrandt as Educator, Wermod and Wermod, 2017; 2^nd ed. Uthwita Press, 2023).

[4] Russian world.

[5] The Christlich-soziale Partei was founded in 1878 by Adolf Stöcker and formed a major element in the so-called Berlin Movement of the 1880s that was anti-capitalist, anti-liberal and anti-Semitic.

[6] The German Socialist Party (Deutschsoziale Partei) was founded in 1889, during the Bochum Congress, by Max Liebermann von Sonnenberg (1848-1911) and the anti-Semitic writer, Theodor Fritsch (1852-1933).

[7] Ahlwardt is referring to the Antisemitische Volkspartei (Anti-Semitic National Party) founded in the early 1890s by Otto Böckel (1859-1923), who in 1893 merged his group with the followers of Oswald Zimmerman (1859-1910) under the name of the German Reform Party (Deutsche Reformpartei).

[8] Adolf Stöcker (1835-1909) was court chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm I. A Lutheran theologian, he formed the Christian Socialist Party in order to oppose the Socialist Democratic Party (SPD). His hatred of the Jews was inextricably linked to his commitment to Christian social ideals.

[9] Stöcker’s attacks on Bismarck’s Jewish banker Gerson von Bleichröder caused Bismarck to withdraw all support for Stöcker in 1881. When Wilhelm I’s son Frederick III became emperor in 1888 (for 99 days) he prohibited Stöcker from speaking publicly on political matters.

[10] The Bochum Programme of 1889 organised by Liebermann von Sonnenberg and Theodor Fritsch sought to combat the influence of international Jewry and reverse Jewish emancipation.

[11] Max Liebermann von Sonnenberg (1848-1911) was an officer of the German Imperial Army who, following the Bochum Congress, established the Deutsch-Soziale Partei that merged in 1894 with Otto Böckel’s Deutsche Reformpartei to form the Deutschsoziale Reformpartei.

[12] Theodor Fritsch (1852-1933) was the author of several anti-Semitic publications including the Handbuch der Judenfrage (1893) and the  Antisemiten Katechismus (1897).

[13] Christian Radenhausen (1813-1897) was a natural philosopher and author of several works including Isis, der Mensch und die Welt (1863) and Christentum ist Heidentum, nicht Jesu Lehre (1881).

[14] Otto Glagau (1834-1892) was a journalist who exposed the fraudulent financial transactions of the Jews in his articles and in Der Börsen- und Gründungsschwindel in Berlin (1876-77).

[15] Der Börsen- und Gründungsschwindel in Berlin (The stock-exchange and factory foundation swindle).

[16] Deutsches Handwerk und Historisches Bürgerthum, 1879.

[17] Otto Böckel (1859-1923) was a German folklorist and anti-Semitic publicist who founded the Antisemitische Volkspartei.

[18] Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896) was a German historian who promoted German nationalism and Prussian authoritarian politics. His works include Politik (1897) and Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (1897).

[19] Eugen Dūhring (1833-1921) was a German professor of political economy and author of a detailed study of the Jewish Question, Die Judenfrage als Racen-, Sitten- und Culturfrage, 1881 (See my English edition, The Jewish Question as a Racial, Moral and Cultural Question, London: Ostara Publications, 2019).

[20] Édouard Drumont (1844-1917) was a French anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic writer who established the Ligue anti-sémitique de France in 1889. His most famous work is La France juive (1886).

[21] Georg von Schönerer (1842-1921) was an Austrian pan-German nationalist. Though he adopted anti-Semitic attitudes in the 1880s, he was opposed to the Catholic Habsburgs as well and supported Bismarck’s Prussian supremacism.

[22] The SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) is a Socialist party founded in 1875 that was instrumental in the establishment of the Weimar Republic. It is still a major political party in Germany and its leaders have included Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt and Olaf Scholz.

[23] Ahlwardt presents here long quotations from Goethe’s Iphigenie auf Tauris, Schiller’s Wilhelm Tell, and Goethe’s Faust.

[24] Heinrich Heine 1797-1856) was a German Jewish poet and journalist noted for his lyric poetry as well as political poems and articles.

[25] Ludwig Börne (1786-1837) was a German Jewish satirist best known for his collection of letters, Briefe aus Paris, 1834.

[26] The period between 1861 and 1866 was marked by the rivalry between Prussia and Austria and the victory of Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.

[27] Bronze rock, a term used by Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia, who wrote in 1716 in response to the Junker opposition to his proposal to raise taxes: ‘Ich … stabiliere die Souveränität und setze die Krone fest wie einen rocher von bronze’ (I stabilize the sovereignty and set the crown firmly like a bronze rock).

[28] There follows here a brief section on four German personalities, a Pastor Knack, the Socialist Fritz Kunert, a Dr. Bertram and a Catholic nurse Sister Bertha, who belonged to different professional and religious denominations but had in common a deep sympathy for their fellowmen.