Anti-Jewish Writing

Karl Radl: An Original Translation: Julius Streicher’s ‘Juden stellen sich vor!’

/12 Comments/in /by

Hitler, Germany, and the Jews: Context Is Everything, Part 1

/21 Comments/in , /by

Before getting into the crux of the matter, it’s important to set the stage by first defining an important term that is often neglected when trying to ascertain facts of the past.

Context

Contextualization is a fundamental ethical and scholarly principle in historical analysis. To understand history, one must analyze events within the moral, intellectual, and social framework of the time. This does not mean endorsing past actions, but rather understanding why intelligent, educated people believed them to be correct. Judging the past exclusively by post-war or today’s standards—a fallacy known as presentism—obscures the reality of how pre-war ideas and events evolved.

In other words, you cannot explore the incendiary topic of Hitler and Germany’s anti-Judaism without first putting the epoch in context and examining the circumstances and situation of the Germans at a time when anti-Judaism became the norm.[1] A complete analysis requires balancing intellectual ideas with the historic, economic, and social pressures that allowed these ideas to flourish.

Confirmation bias

Be careful when you consult anti-German or overtly anti-Jewish sources because they are more likely to be biased for understandable reasons as each one will tend to exaggerate or downplay events according to their interests and core beliefs. Ideally, you must explore neutral sources that don’t have an axe to grind, if that is at all possible, because everybody is influenced in one way or another by their cultural background and experiences.

If you use AI to do research and assess your arguments, you will be turned-off at first by the use of post-war rhetoric that is used to downplay an argument or to demonize Nazis. So, you have to train the AI—if it is truly AI and not just a propaganda prop—you are using to exclude post-war rhetoric or conclusions that are obviously made by people hostile to the Germans and Hitler. Command it to stick to facts and to concentrate on the perspective of the Germans up to the end of the war in 1945. It’s unethical to constantly refer to the Nuremberg trials and post-war rhetoric to judge that period. Which is what the mainstream historians cited herein explicitly do. All their assumptions and pre-suppositions are based on the fallacy of presentism.[2]

Western Context

In the context of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eugenics and racial Darwinism were widely regarded as the cutting edge of progressive science. Leading institutions, universities, and governments in the United States, Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany embraced these ideas. They were seen as the logical application of Charles Darwin’s theories to human society—a way to use science to improve the human race, eliminate disease, and reduce social costs.[3]

The purpose of eugenics was to create a superior Nordic race by applying the same principles used to breed cattle and corn. The movement targeted all mankind and eventually spread to Germany where it caught Hitler’s attention. As Jewish author Edwin Black asserts in his book War Against the Weak, “The Nazi principle of Nordic superiority was not hatched in Germany but on Long Island decades earlier, and then actively transplanted to the Third Reich.”[4]

These ideas are the backdrop of anti-Judaism in Hitler’s Germany. They were championed by respected figures such as H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, E. H. Hariman, and Margaret Sanger. To them, sterilization laws and racial hierarchies were rational, humanitarian policies designed to create a healthier, more efficient society.[5]

United States: By the 1920s, 32 states had enacted forced sterilization laws for the “feeble-minded” and “socially undesirable” resulting in over 60,000 sterilizations. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld these laws in Buck v. Bell (1927), and American eugenicists such as Harry Laughlin and Charles Davenport were honored by German universities for their scientific leadership.[6]

Scandinavia: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland all passed comprehensive sterilization laws between 1923 and 1941, targeting the mentally ill and disabled.  These programs were viewed as progressive social hygiene measures based on the best genetic science of the day. [7]

Jewish Context

In the 19th century, anthropology classified the Jews as a race. They described Jews not just as a religious group, but as a distinct biological race or “people” with immutable characteristics. Jewish intellectuals and leaders accepted the “race science” of the day.[8]

The founders of Zionism such as Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), Max Nordau (1849-1923), and Arthur Ruppin (1876-1943), for example, explicitly utilized racial theories. They shared an ideological framework rooted in late 19th-century race science, Social Darwinism, and the belief in a distinct Jewish racial identity. [9]

They argued that Jews possessed a unique biological constitution that had degenerated in the Diaspora and could only be “regenerated” or “normalized” through a return to the land and physical labor in Palestine. They prioritized Ashkenazi Europeans and expressed discriminatory views toward non-European Sephardic Jews, whom they considered less capable. [10]

Jabotinsky, Nordau, and Ruppin were key architects of the Zionist settlement, more important than Theodor Herzl, even though Herzl is considered to this day the primary founder and iconic figure of Zionism.[11]

German Context

Global ideas on race, eugenism, genetic determinism, and anti-Judaism were integrated into state policy as Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene). Leading German scientists (e.g., Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, Ernst Rüdin) were internationally respected. Their work on heredity and race was considered cutting-edge biology.[12]

When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, they adopted these existing scientific concepts into a central state principle. The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (1933) was explicitly modeled on American laws and supported by the German medical establishment.[13]

High level intellectuals such as philosopher Martin Heidegger, jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt, theologian Gerhard Kittel, biologist and future Nobel prize winner (1973) Konrad Lorenz were all enthusiastic adepts of the national socialist ideology on eugenics, race, and genetic determinism.[14]

Within this framework, racism was viewed as a biological necessity. Jews and other races were classified as distinct, alien races, whose presence threatened the genetic health of the Volkskörper (national body). This made their exclusion and removal a matter of public health and national survival in the eyes of the regime and its scientific and intellectual supporters. In the Nazi worldview, behavior of these races was irrelevant to their fate.[15]

Shift from Cultural to Racial nationalism

The shift from cultural to racial nationalism in Germany began in the late 19th century and solidified in the early 20th century. It was driven by the völkisch movement, which emerged in the 1880s–1890s and redefined the German Volk (people) not by shared language or culture, but by “blood and soil” (Blut und Boden), an organic, biologically determined community.

Influenced by thinkers like Paul de Lagarde and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, this ideology rejected Enlightenment values and liberalism, viewing other races as biologically alien and threatening to the racial purity of the Volkskörper (national body). The rise of Social Darwinism and eugenics provided a scientific framework, transforming racism from a religious or cultural prejudice into a biological imperative for national survival. This racial worldview became central to Nazi ideology and state policy after 1933.[16]

With the transition from a cultural-nationalist identity to a biological-racial one (völkisch ideology), other races were no longer welcome in Germany and every excuse was made to push them out. As such, this shift in ideology made it impossible for other races to ever be considered “true” Germans again, regardless of their assimilation or patriotism.

Anti-Judaism in European Countries

Several Western countries exhibited significant anti-Judaism during the 1920s and 1930s.

United States

Widespread anti-Judaism included social exclusion, employment discrimination, and quotas in elite universities. Harvard, Yale, and others imposed informal limits on Jewish enrollment (e.g., Harvard’s president proposed a 15% cap in 1922). Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent propagated the “International Jew” which catalogued Jewish aggressive behavior against White, Christian society. [17]

The United States implemented strict immigration quotas based on national origin, heavily influenced by the eugenics movement. The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act) established a quota system that:

  • Severely restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (countries like Italy, as well as Poland, and Russia, where most Jews lived).
  • Favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe where the Nordic race was prevalent (Britain, Germany, Scandinavia).
  • Used the 1890 census (when fewer Southern/Eastern Europeans were in the U.S.) to set quotas, effectively reducing Jewish immigration from 190,000 in 1920 to 7,000 in 1926. [18]

Immigration quotas were explicitly supported by eugenicists, who believed in a hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races, aiming to preserve a “homogeneous” America. This system remained in place until 1965 when the Hart-Cellar policy on immigration was voted into law and the flooding of the country by Third-World populations initiated.[19]

Poland

The government and far-right National Democrats (Endeks) promoted anti-Judaism. Policies included economic boycotts, restrictions on Jewish businesses and professions, and the implementation of numerus clauses in universities, drastically reducing Jewish enrollment from 25% in 1921 to 8% by 1939.[20]

Romania

Authorities pursued harsh anti-Jewish policies, particularly against Jews in border regions, associating them with Soviet communism. The fascist Iron Guard gained significant support with its platform of removing Jews from power and expelling them.[21]

Britain

While not state-sponsored like in Germany, anti-Judaism existed socially and politically, but the English establishment was thoroughly Judaized.[22]

Germany

While racial anti-Judaism (viewing Jews as a distinct, inferior, and dangerous biological race) became dominant in Nazi Germany, it built upon centuries of other forms of anti-Judaism:

  • Religious Anti-Judaism: The origin of intellectual religious anti-Judaism is primarily from a critique of Talmudic law by authors such as Martin Luther in The Jews and Their Lies and Johann Eisenmenger in Judaism Unveiled. Both Martin Luther and Johann Eisenmenger viewed the Talmud as a malicious, anti-Christian corruption of divine law that justified Jewish hostility toward Gentiles. Luther condemned the Talmud as a repository of “idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy,” specifically stating it taught Jews that killing or stealing from non-Jews was a religious duty and that they were superior “masters” while Christians were mere “cattle.” Similarly, Eisenmenger systematically compiled Talmudic passages to argue that Judaism doctrinally mandated deception, the murder of converts, and the testing of poisons on Christians, portraying the text not as holy scripture but as a manual for ethical dualism and a global conspiracy against Christianity. [23]
  • Economic Anti-Judaism: During medieval times, Jews were banned from many professional trade associations and Christians were not allowed to charge interest. Hence, few Jews had “normal” professions, but went into trade and finance instead, leading to stereotypes of Jewish greed and control of money.
  • Political/Nationalist Anti-Judaism: In the 19th century, Jews were accused of being disloyal citizens and a threat to the nation-state, especially as they gained emancipation and entered politics, academia, and the professions. As it is written in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, Jews are loyal to no nation other than their own. The entire political Antisemitismusstreit in Germany in the 1880s and 1890s centered around the immoral Jewish laws contained in these books.

The Nazi ideology fused these older ideas with modern scientific racism, making Jewishness an inescapable biological condition. These ideas radicalized the rejection of Jews, but the roots were multifaceted. And propaganda was not the major influence on the outcome.[24] It did play a role, but as American maverick Eric Hoffer says,

[t]he truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates into minds already open, and rather than instill opinions, it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. He echoes in their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to behave only in what they already “know.”[25]

As such, Joseph Goebbels did not invent racial antisemitism; he amplified it. Indeed, research indicates that indoctrination was particularly effective in regions where antisemitic beliefs were already widespread, suggesting a “confirmation bias” where propaganda intensified latent prejudices rather than creating them from scratch.[26]

Other Targeted Races and Groups in Germany

Jews were not the only ones targeted. From the contemporary perspective of the Nazi state (1933–1945), the focus was also on implementing biological policies on the following races and groups:

Sinti and Roma:

They were categorized as “asocial” and “racially alien,” subject to deportation and sterilization laws similar to Jews. However, as was the case for Jews, the pre-war regime did not describe their removal as “extermination.”

Homosexuals: Homosexuals were not targeted beyond what other nations did to them. Homosexuality was a crime in Germany under certain circumstances, as it was in many countries. It was so until the 1960s. Targeted were pimps, pedophiles, male prostitutes etc., but not homosexuals acting privately.[27]

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refused to serve in the army were imprisoned as was anyone else refusing to serve, so the practice was not directed at them as a group. In the U.S. during the war era, Jehovah’s Witnesses were subjected to severe mob violence including documented incidents of castration, beatings, and being tarred and feathered.[28]

Political Opponents: The first inmates of Dachau, the first concentration camp established in March 1933, were predominantly Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unionists. Their imprisonment in concentration camps was presented as protective custody (Schutzhaft) to safeguard national security, not as systematic persecution based on identity. The Nazi ideology posited that “Judeo-Bolshevism” was an existential threat, leading to the conclusion that a Jewish Bolshevik was not merely a political opponent to be re-educated, but a racial enemy. However, according to contrarian sources, Jewish Bolsheviks were not treated differently than non-Jewish Bolsheviks.[29]

Slavic Peoples: “Subhuman” (Untermenschen) propaganda was directed against Soviet Jews and on rarer occasions against Asians (Mongols). Ethnic replacement in the Warthegau and other Lebensraum policies was not based on inferiority, but on pure imperialism of the moment. Interactions with Ukrainians were extremely close and cordial on all levels. Slavic workers in Germany enjoyed the same worker’s rights as Germans, the most advanced social-welfare system in the world; in 1941–43, Germany invested billions into reviving political, cultural, social and economic life in the East devastated by Soviet scorched-earth politics.[30]

“Common law” criminals: Particularly “habitual” or “professional” offenders, were targeted as threats to the Volksgemeinschaft (national community). The Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals (1933) introduced Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention), allowing for indefinite imprisonment after a sentence was served. The Criminal Police (Kripo) used “preventive arrest” (Vorbeugungshaft) to detain individuals deemed likely to reoffend, often sending them directly to concentration camps without trial. While not targeted for expulsion based on race, they were subject to harsh treatment, forced labor, and sterilization under the regime’s eugenic policies. Preventive detention exists to this day in Germany, but only for violent felonies (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.), and frequently with court review. [31]

All these groups had identification colours and their identification number tattooed on their forearm when they entered a camp:

  • Red: Political prisoners
  • Green: Criminals
  • Purple: Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to serve
  • Pink: Homosexual men
  • Black: “Asocials” (vagrants, paupers, beggars, etc.)
  • Brown: Sinti and Roma (later addition)
  • Blue: Emigrants and foreign forced laborers
  • Yellow: Jews (worn as a Star of David, often combined with another color)

In summary, here are the major points, from a German perspective:

  • All races, including the Jewish race, believed in Darwinism, racial reality, and genetic determinism; it was the norm in all civilized countries.
  • Eugenics at the time was not a pseudoscience. It was pervasive among elites on the left and the right, and was not considered an ethical failure.
  • The Nazi government—and all Western governments for that matter—viewed eugenic policies as rational, scientific, and necessary measures for national health and security;
  • The idea of a Master Nordic Race was not a German invention; it was widespread in all Western countries; the champion of this idea was the United States; it was first promoted by people such as Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
  • Anti-Judaism reflected centuries of anti-Jewish sentiment and was based on actual Jewish behavior.
  • Germans were not the only ones to dislike or hate Jews; all European countries had important laws or social customs targeting Jews; they had been expelled repeatedly from many countries across history.
  • Jews were not the only ones targeted.

GO TO PART 2

[1] Because 90% to 95% of Semites are Arabs, the term “anti-Judaism” is used instead of “anti-Semitism.”

[2] An assumption is a belief accepted as true without proof, often serving as a premise in an argument. A presupposition is a background belief or condition that must be true for a statement or question to even make sense; it is implicitly accepted before the argument begins.

[3] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Dialog Press, 2012. Documents the American institutional roots (foundations, universities, laws) that influenced global eugenics, including Germany. It focuses on institutional responsibility.

[4] Ibid., p. xviii.

[5] Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, 1985. Documents the American institutional roots (foundations, universities, laws) that influenced global eugenics, including Germany. It focuses on institutional responsibility.

[6] Edwin Black, book cited.

[7] Ibid.

[8] John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race. Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin de Siècle Europe, Yale University Press, 1994.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] “Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism,” Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

[12] Claudia Koonz, “Allies in the Academy,” The Nazi Conscience, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Robert N. Proctor, “Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis,” Harvard University Press, 1988.

[16] George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, 1964. Traces the völkisch movement and Romantic nationalism in Germany from the 19th century. It explains how German intellectuals fused Darwinism with folklore and nationalism to create a unique worldview where Jews were seen as an “alien” element disrupting the organic national community.

[17] John Higham, “The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century,” Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925, ‎ Rutgers University Press. 2002 (first published in 1920).

[18] Ibid.

[19] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy,” The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 3rd Edition, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2025, pp. 481-545.

[20] Michael R. Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, 1985.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Anthony M. Ludivici, The Jews, and the Jews in England, Ostara Publications, 2021 (first published in 1938 under the pseudonym “Corbett.”

[23] Information obtained from LEO AI of the BRAVE navigator.

[24] Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

[25] Eric Hoffer, The True Believer. Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper & Row, 1951, p. 105.

[26] Information obtained from Leo AI of the Brave Navigator.

[27] Jack Wikoff, “The Myth of the Extermination of Homosexuals by the Third Reich. On the Making of a Propaganda Figure,” Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, June 27, 2023.

[28] Shawn Francis Peters, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution, 2000.

[29] Paul Rassinier, The Drama of European Jewry, Stepping Stones Publications, 1975. A French Communist survivor of the camps, who downplayed racial targeting. Major revisionists such as Arthur Butz, Ernst Zundel, and the Institute for Historical Reviews claim that Jews were treated the same way as any other prisoners.

[30] Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, “Foreign Workers in the Third Reich,” Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, August 1, 2003.

[31] The Institute for Historical Reviews claims that the “green triangle” (criminal) and “black triangle” (asocial) prisoners were treated according to standard penal logic of the time. The distinction between “punishment” and “protection” in Nazi law was similar to modern preventive detention, just applied more broadly due to the wartime emergency. They frequently cited the existence of modern Sicherungsverwahrung to argue that the Nazi laws were not unique or inherently genocidal.

Charles Fourier: The Father of Antisemitic Socialism

/17 Comments/in , /by

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.

Alphonse Toussenel and the Socialist Roots of French Antisemitism

/7 Comments/in , /by

The name of Alphonse Toussenel is conspicuously absent from the modern leftist canon; a silence that serves as a deliberate erasure of a foundational intellectual tradition. While contemporary socialist discourse has been sanitized by decades of Jewish institutional hegemony, the reality remains that the radical origins of Western socialism were deeply intertwined with a sophisticated understanding of Jewish power. To recover the revolutionary potential of the past, one must move beyond the current stifling consensus and revisit the work of thinkers like Toussenel, whose unflinching critique of financial parasitism once united those who recognized the existential threat that organized Jewry posed to their civilization.

Alphonse Toussenel was born on March 17, 1803, in Montreuil-Bellay, near Angers, and died in Paris on April 30, 1885. A devoted disciple of Charles Fourier, the utopian socialist philosopher who envisioned an alternative society organized around cooperative “phalansteries,” Toussenel embedded himself in the most radical currents of early 19th-century French socialism. He settled in Paris in 1836 and the following year became editor-in-chief of the newspaper La Paix — notably a publication firmly on the Right, not a socialist one — before joining the Fourierist movement and co-editing the journal La Phalange from 1839 to 1843. He then co-founded the newspaper La Démocratie pacifique alongside Victor Considerant. In 1841, he took up a post as civil commissioner in Boufarik, Algeria, resigning the following year following a conflict with the military authority.

What makes Toussenel a figure of enduring historical importance was not his editorial career but a single book that poured the intellectual currents of socialist antisemitism into a vessel so potent it would still be poisoning European politics four decades after his death.

It is his 1845 two-volume work Les Juifs, rois de l’époque, subtitled Histoire de la féodalité financière — “The Jews, Kings of the Epoch: A History of Financial Feudalism” — for which Toussenel is remembered. The Encyclopaedia Judaica calls it “one of the most resounding attacks on the Jews published in France” before the appearance of Édouard Drumont’s La France juive, and scholars from Robert Byrnes to Zvi Jonathan Kaplan have identified it as a foundational text of modern antisemitism that directly shaped French antisemitic literature for the 4 decades that followed.

The French Revolution of 1789 had not destroyed feudalism but only changed its form, Toussenel argued as his central thesis. The old aristocracy of birth had been supplanted, in his view, by an aristocracy of money — bankers, speculators, and railway financiers who now effectively controlled the French state, its parliament, its courts, and even its king. He was particularly focused on James de Rothschild — whom he called in the book’s own text “the king of finance, a Jew ennobled by a very Christian king” — whose expected acquisition of the chemin de fer du Nord (the Northern Railway running from Paris to Belgium) Toussenel used as his central exhibit. Railway concessions, state debts, and stock market speculation were, in his telling, all instruments through which Jewish bankers had effectively replaced the French state as the true sovereign over the country’s wealth and labor.

Toussenel’s critique was as much about semantics as it was about steel rails and high finance. Toussenel made explicit that his use of the word “Jew” was not confined to practitioners of Judaism. “I wish to point out to the reader that this word will generally be used here in the popular sense of Jew: banker, usurer,” he wrote. This rhetorical device allowed Toussenel to claim he was not attacking the Jewish people as such while in practice fusing Jewish identity with finance capital. The effect was to make antisemitism palatable across the political spectrum by positioning it as an anti-capitalist force rather than a form of racial prejudice. Nevertheless, Toussenel issued explicit calls for revolutionary action against organized Jewry, most notoriously declaring: “Power to the strong! Death to parasitism! War on the Jews! That is the motto of the new revolution!”

Toussenel’s hostility extended well beyond Jews. He was a fervent Anglophobe, viewing Britain as the archetypal nation of predatory capitalism, merchants, and “birds of prey.” He declared in a phrase that became notorious: “Who says Jew says Protestant” — lumping England, the Netherlands, and Switzerland into his category of exploitative alien finance. He depicted “Londres-Juda” — London-Judea — as “an insatiable vampire sucking the lifeblood of France,” depicting the English and the Jews as twin external and internal threats to French national identity. Accordingly, the Protestant nations of Europe — the English, the Dutch, and the Swiss — were, like the Jews, “merchants and birds of prey,” in Toussenel’s views.

Toussenel’s impact on subsequent antisemitism was enormous. Drumont, the most influential antisemitic journalist in late 19th-century France and author of La France Juive from 1886, drew on Toussenel’s framework and helped ensure his legacy endured. A second edition of Les Juifs, rois de l’époque appeared in 1847. The book was reprinted in 1886 and 1888, becoming a foundational text for the late 19th-century antisemitic movement. Toussenel’s “embittered antisemitic, anti-foreign, and anti-Protestant tirades,” as the Encyclopaedia Judaica notes, “later provided ample inspiration for the anti-Dreyfusards” — the faction that defended the 1894 treason conviction of Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus, whose decade-long legal ordeal split France. As Zvi Jonathan Kaplan concluded in Jewish History: “Although Toussenel died in 1885, his work helped to legitimize the forces that led to the Dreyfus Affair.”

Toussenel’s death in 1885 did not end his influence. The antisemitic worldview he popularized gained momentum with Drumont’s 1886 publication of La France Juive, then exploded into national crisis during the Dreyfus Affair a decade later.

Toussenel serves as a bridge, inviting us to see past the manufactured illusions of the current political order. His synthesis of social justice and racial survival stands as an indictment of the modern left and a challenge to the timid, controlled right—both ideological strains that have been tarred by Jewish subversion. As we witness the ongoing displacement of Whites across the globe, the need to reintegrate these suppressed, hard-edged truths into our discourse is paramount. Outmaneuvering the Jewish masters of our age requires us to master the lessons of the past. Toussenel recognized the ‘Kings of the Epoch’ for the parasites they are; now, we must sharpen his legacy into a cohesive political strategy to secure the survival and freedom of the West.

Proudhon’s Forbidden Notebook: The Truth About Jewish Power

/16 Comments/in , /by

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.

 

The Man the EU Can’t Silence: Grzegorz Braun’s War on Zionism

/10 Comments/in , /by

Grzegorz Braun may be the most persecuted man in the European Parliament, but his persistent defiance suggests he is something far more dangerous to the establishment: the architect of a rising nationalist movement that no amount of censorship or legal warfare can extinguish.

On March 17, 2026, the Polish Member of the European Parliament addressed a session of the Committee on Foreign Affairs where EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas was answering questions about the ongoing military conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran. What followed was a necessary and long-overdue critique, signaling that European representatives are increasingly unwilling to subordinate their nations to the agendas of organized Jewish globalist networks.

The gun, where is the gun, the weapon? It’s the US Navy and Air Force. Who’s the gun holder? Who’s the perpetrator? The aggressor? It’s the Jews. Israel and Jewish diaspora all over. And you, Madam, you are merely the silencer. The silencer at the end of the gun barrel,” Braun proclaimed.

Committee chairman David McAllister of Germany cut off Braun’s microphone. “On behalf of this committee, I completely reject your antisemitic remarks you’ve just made. You will not repeat this in this committee.” When Braun continued, McAllister told him bluntly, “Mr. Braun, you don’t have the floor. Shut up.” The room erupted in applause.

Braun was born on March 11, 1967, in Toruń, Poland. He holds a degree in Polish philology from the University of Wrocław and worked as a documentary filmmaker before entering politics. He ran for President of Poland in 2015 as an independent, forming a campaign committee called “God Bless You!” though he received just 0.83% of the vote. In 2019, Braun founded the Confederation of the Polish Crown, a monarchist and traditionalist Catholic party that joined the broader Confederation alliance. He won a seat in the Polish parliament in 2019 and was elected to the European Parliament in June 2024.

Braun advocates for immediate Polish withdrawal from the EU, what he calls a “well-prepared Polexit.” In May 2025, he tore down, wiped his shoes on, and burned an EU flag at the Ministry of Industry building in Katowice, declaring “This is not Brussels, this is Poland!”

On immigration, Braun has long railed against what he calls the “Ukrainisation of Poland” that has come about as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian war—an initiative fueled by the strategic machinations of Jewish neoconservative policymakers such as Victoria Nuland. During a 2025 campaign rally in Biała Podlaska, his supporters tore a Ukrainian flag from the city hall building, where it had been hanging since 2022 in solidarity with Ukraine.

Ever the consummate bomb-thrower, Braun has not shied away from ruffling the feathers of the organized Jewish community. Braun used a fire extinguisher to douse a lit Hanukkah menorah in the parliamentary halls. He declared he was “restoring a state of normality by putting an end to acts of satanic, racist triumphalism” and said, “The people participating in the Satanic cult should be ashamed.” He later adopted the fire extinguisher as his presidential campaign symbol and rallying slogan for what he called his “broad fire-extinguisher front.”

In January 2025, at the European Parliament session marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 80th anniversary of the arrival of Soviet forces at Auschwitz, Braun interrupted a minute of silence to shout, “Let’s pray for the victims of the Jewish genocide in Gaza.” The European Jewish Congress condemned it as “a vile display of antisemitism in the heart of European democracy.”

July 2025, Braun stated in an interview on Poland’s Wnet radio that “ritual murder is a fact, and such a thing as Auschwitz with its gas chambers is unfortunately a fake.” The interviewer immediately ended the broadcast, saying there “are limits to political cynicism and sensationalism.” Polish prosecutors launched a criminal investigation into whether Braun’s statements constituted denial of Nazi crimes.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum’s director condemned the remarks as Holocaust denial under Polish law. In November 2025, outside the Auschwitz memorial itself, Braun declared, “Jews want to be super-humans in Poland, entitled to a better status, and the Polish police dance to their tune.”

The European Parliament has stripped Braun of immunity twice to face charges including inciting religious hatred against Jews, assaulting a gynecologist, attacking the Hanukkah ceremony, disrupting a Holocaust lecture, and vandalizing an LGBT exhibition, with further requests still pending. In February 2026, Poland’s justice minister asked the Parliament to strip his immunity yet again to charge him with Holocaust denial.

Yet Braun finished fourth with 6.3% in the first round of Poland’s 2025 presidential election, a result that shocked observers given his lack of institutional support. While the current political establishment treats him as a pariah, Grzegorz Braun has shattered the psychological barriers that once rendered certain truths about Jewish power unspeakable in European chambers. By enduring repeated legal attacks and institutional censorship, he is not merely acting as a solitary dissenter but is effectively walking so that a new generation of nationalist and anti-Zionist leaders in the Old Continent might one day fly.

The strategic vulnerability of the current political order is being exposed, and as citizens across the West begin to see through the orchestrated narratives, a profound and necessary reckoning with the Jewish architects of their dispossession is now looming on both sides of the Atlantic.

Hermann Ahlwardt – The desperate battle of the Aryan peoples with Jewry

/4 Comments/in , /by

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; 2nd 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.