Anti-Jewish Writing

Jewish Troubles with Uppity Rappers

“[Jews] have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes [their] agenda.”
Kanye West, 2022

“The Jews have a grip on America.”
Professor Griff, Public Enemy, 1989.

The narrator of the opening chapter of William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury is Benjy Compson, a 33-year-old man with an intellectual disability who is very much the embarrassment of his disintegrating family. Compson’s diminished mental capacity, and the ‘stream of consciousness’ manner in which his thoughts and perceptions are presented to the reader, make for an extremely challenging read. The result is that relatively few who embark upon the novel outside of a university setting will persevere and finish it. Those who do finish the novel, and better yet those who re-read it, are however rewarded with the understanding that behind the verbal ‘noise’ of Benjy’s apparent nonsense is an astute and unbiased insight into the motivations and behaviors of many of the novel’s other characters. In other words, despite his limitations, Benjy has some important things to say.

Ye’s Sound and Fury

Faulkner’s difficult novel came to mind during this month’s moral panic, and subsequent attempted financial annihilation, over comments made by Kanye West, now known simply as Ye, on the Jews. West’s comments certainly have a Benjy-esque quality to them, jumping from one observation to another without elaboration or logical progression. It’s probably best recounting them, more or less in the order of utterance:

  • Blacks are the 12 lost tribes of Israel, and therefore the real Jews.
  • It is impossible for West to be described as antisemitic because he is a Jew.
  • Jared Kushner only worked on a peace deal between Israel and Arab nations in order to make money.
  • Ye wished his children had learned about Hannukah instead of “a complicated Kwanzaa,” because Hannukah would at least “come with some financial engineering.”
  • “Jewish people have owned the Black voice. Either it’s through us wearing the Ralph Lauren shirt, or it’s all of us being signed to a record label, or having a Jewish manager, or being signed to a Jewish basketball team, or doing a movie on a Jewish platform like Disney.”
  • “Paparazzi taking a photo of you, you ain’t getting no money off of it. You’re used to getting screwed by the Jewish media. And I’m saying, you poked the bear too fucking long.”
  • “They blocked me out. The Jewish media blocked me out.”
  • “This ain’t a game. Imma use you as an example to show the Jewish people that told you to call me that no one can threaten or influence me. I told you this is war. Now gone get you some business.”
  • “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE. The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also. You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.”

While there is a lot of ‘noise’ and nonsense (Blacks as Jews) here, there are also some discernible and perfectly reasonable observations. Through his comments on Kushner and Hannukah, West suggests that Jews have a special relationship with money. Jews have, of course, been at great pains in the many volumes of apologetics and propaganda they have produced for over a century to deny any such relationship. Yet all historical and contemporary sociological data suggest that such a special relationship exists. The fact that Jews worry that widespread understanding of this relationship with money will result in a lowering of their reputation, and possible action to mitigate their success in obtaining and utilizing wealth, does not take away from the truthfulness inherent in the basic fact their privileged position in the West is long-standing, empirically observable, and obvious.

This obviousness is inferred in West’s observation that Jews occupy leading positions in many industries, including the fashion industry, the music industry, sports management and ownership, and the movie industry. West’s claim that “Jewish people have owned the Black voice,” would seem to me not only to refer to Jews profiting from managing Black musicians and seeking their works, but also more subtly to such phenomena as Jews historically taking leading roles in organizations like the NAACP. By far the most glaring comments made by West are those referring to the Jewish power to censor. West talks of “blocking out,” threats and influence against him, and the attempt to “black ball” anyone opposed to Jewish interests.

Whether or not West’s comments are helpful to those wishing for a rise in awareness of these precise issues is a matter for debate. Their presentation in such a ham-fisted and outrageous manner is far from ideal, but this downside may be offset by the fame of people like West (over 31 million followers on Twitter) and, ironically, the fact this kind of communication is relatively well-received and understood by the target audience, the Black population. That being said, few celebrities have come forward to support West. To my knowledge the only person of note is Black comedian Dave Chappelle, who once courted controversy himself for a Netflix special joke about “Space Jews” which jabbed at Jewish brutality against Palestinians. The jury is still out on the utility of West’s comments.

Lessons in Power and Censorship

For me, the biggest takeaway from the Ye outburst and its aftermath is the impressive demonstration of Jewish influence and power, exhibited in the form of censorship. In this regard, it’s important to point out that there have been prior cases of celebrities, and rappers in particular — see the case of Ice Cube, daring to mention the existence of Jewish dominance within the entertainment industry and subsequently being forced into grovelling apologies or, in more extreme cases, into exile. One example worth highlighting, purely because it has so many astonishing parallels with the Ye case, is that of Richard ‘Professor Griff’ Griffin, from the hip hop group Public Enemy, who uttered some controversial remarks in 1989.


In an interview with David Mills of the Washington Times in May 1989, Professor Griff responded to one question by telling Mills he believed “the Jews are wicked,” and that he could prove it. “They have a history of killing black men,” said Griff. “The Jews can come against me. They can send the IRS after me. They can send their faggot little hit men. I mean, that don’t move me. Listen, they have a history of doing this.” Griff supported his comments with references to Henry Ford’s “The International Jew,” and added that he’d obtained his knowledge of Jewish history from the Nation of Islam’s historical research department. Griff, like the other members of Public Enemy, belonged to the Nation of Islam. As the interview with Mills progressed, he further alleged that “The Jews have their hands right around (President) Bush’s throat. He won’t make the wrong move. You understand what I’m saying? The Jews have a grip on America.”

As with Ye’s comments, the emphasis here is on Jewish power and control, over the lives of Black people but more generally over the entire nation. Retribution was swift. Griff was labeled a “stone-cold racist” by Lyor Cohen of Rush Management, perhaps the most influential hip hop manager of the period (Cohen later moved to Warner, but is now YouTube’s Global Head of Music). Although Rush had been founded by Russell Simmons (a Black man whose other ventures involved a close partnership with Jew Rick Rubin), Cohen slowly assumed almost total leadership before handing control of the holding company for all Rush’s entertainment assets to fellow Jew Todd Moscowitz. Cohen’s other protégé within Rush was fellow Jew Julie Greenwald (Cohen was himself the protege of Jewish music moguls Jerry Moss and Herb Alpert). In fact, Cohen was part of a long history of powerful and often exploitative Jewish networking in Black music that has been “whitewashed” in every sense of the term. Take, for example, the following description of Cohen from a 2001 Rolling Stone article:

In these years, he has grown into perhaps the most powerful white executive in an African-American business. The history of rock & roll is, of course, riddled with pioneering white record men who built careers recording and, sometimes, exploiting black artists: Morris Levy, that burly, cigar-smoking product of the Brill Building, allegedly stealing writing credits from Frankie Lyman; Herman Lubinsky, the founder of Savoy Records in Newark, New Jersey, throwing around nickels as if they were manhole covers. But Cohen – Cohen is something different. [emphasis added]

Cohen, Levy, and Lubinsky — just your average “White” guys.

In the immediate aftermath of Professor Griff’s May 1989 comments, Lyor Cohen announced the full disbandment of Public Enemy. A few days later, however, Cohen decided to reinstate the band on condition that Griff be removed. It then fell to another “White” music mogul, Def Jam records publicist Bill Adler, to announce that Griff would be fired from Public Enemy.

Whose body language indicates dominance and submission? Jewish Def Jam Records publicist Bill Adler introduces Rapper Chuck D, left, of Public Enemy, as the latter prepares to bow to pressure and fire bandmate Professor Griff for making anti-Jewish remarks, June 21, 1989.

Not only did band member Chuck D make a grovelling apology on behalf of Professor Griff, but he also made what was presumably a much more acceptable call to arms (at least to his Jewish superiors) when he said that “the problem is the system of white world supremacy.”

In a 2020 interview, Griff explained he felt like he was “thrown under the bus” by Chuck D, and that Chuck D didn’t want him out of Public Enemy but that the heads of Def Jam, in league with “Jewish groups like the ADL,” put pressure on Chuck D to kick him out of the group. Chuck D was reported to have had an angry outburst after the public firing of Griff, and in Public Enemy’s first single after the episode, “Welcome to the Terrordome,” he exorcised his frustrations, drawing more criticism from the ADL, which deemed the lyrics antisemitic: 

Crucifixion ain’t no fiction
So-called chosen frozen
Apology made to whoever pleases
Still they got me like Jesus.

Bill Adler later said of Griff’s comments, “It wasn’t just a PR nightmare. It affected me personally because I’m Jewish and I didn’t like the idea that one of our groups was spouting these anti-Semitic comments. It was upsetting to me.” Adler explained that he called Griff in for a discussion but was dismayed that Griff appealed to “a book written by Henry Ford.” Rather than debunk Ford’s work, Adler began to describe the manner in which Ford had created two Detroit suburbs, one for White workers (Dearborn) and the other (Inkster) for Black workers. In other words, Adler tried to deflect Griff’s animosity away from the Jews, and towards Ford/segregation/Whites, even going so far as to tell Griff “[Ford] would have gladly upholstered his cars with your Black hide as well as my Jewish hide.” Griff replied, “Bill, I can’t help it. It’s in the book.”

Griff’s refusal to bow to Jewish pressure in 1989 led to career annihilation. Public Enemy later quietly attempted to reintroduce him into some form of participation in band activities, but were condemned by then ADL chief Abe Foxman who accused Public Enemy of a “repugnant charade characterized by cynicism and disdain for the public.” Public Enemy responded by releasing a track called “Swindler’s Lust” in 1999 and by forming “Confrontation Camp,” a short-lived spinoff project that put Griff in a starring role. But Griff never fully recovered.

In recent years he’s more or less taken to begging Jews to forgive him. According to an article in The Forward:

Ambassadors from Jewish organizations said in recent interviews that they simply do not think Griff has made the proper admission of guilt required for public forgiveness and re-entry into the world of mass culture. But in a series of conversations over the last several weeks, Griff told me that he is still seeking that cultural passport, and vindication for having his life “destroyed” by being labeled a Jew-hater. He said he would do whatever it takes — but that the Jewish world won’t let him. “I’ll go to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Black Power movement center, the Black Lives Matter, the White House, and I’ll apologize everywhere I need to apologize,” Griff told me. “They will never be fucking satisfied. … You can go fucking do back flips, apologize to until the fucking cows come home. You will always be antisemitic.”

 Jews Fear Black anti-Semitism

While Jews are obviously desirous and capable of snuffing out any and all criticism, they are particularly sensitive to influential examples from the Black population. In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald identifies the key themes of anti-Semitism as including an understanding that, speaking in general terms, Jews

  • represent a separate and clannish foreign group with their own set of interests;
  • are highly adept at resource competition and have a tendency towards economic domination;
  • tend to engage as cultural actors in order to shape non-Jewish culture to suit Jewish interests;
  • form a cohesive political entity that seeks politically dominant roles in non-Jewish societies;
  • possess negative personality traits, including the pursuance of a system of dual ethics in which non-Jews can be treated badly and exploited;
  • are disloyal to the host nation in all fundamental and meaningful ways

Among Black expressions of animosity toward Jews, the same themes can be observed, arising first from more modest economic conflicts and, as such, having something more in common with the complaints of the early modern European peasantries. Horace Mann Bond, in his own 1965 reflections on “Negro Attitudes Toward Jews,” comments on the fact Jews historically appeared in the African-American environment overwhelmingly as pawnbrokers, as monopolists of the liquor trade (“The Jews have a stranglehold on the liquor stores in this town”), as the primary sellers on credit of clothing and other essential items, and, perhaps most crucial of all, as the slumlord and property dealer (“Some Jews have bought up that urban re-development land and are putting up shoddy apartments they call “Nigger housing” on it”).[1]  In 2016, local news website Patch published a list of the 100 worst slumlords in Harlem, with the top ten including seven Jews (Mark Silber, Adam Stryker, Joel Goldstein, Marc Chemtob, Moshe Deutsch, Solomon Gottlieb, and Jason Green), a representation that has remained roughly constant every year, with Jews persistently claiming top ranking for building violations, rodent infestations, lack of maintenance, exploitative rent, mold, and other forms of building decay injurious to health. Indeed, this situation has at times resulted in considerable embarrassment to Jews.

Indeed, it is the sheer dominance and proximity of the Jews as primary exploiters of Blacks that has often caused a quite radical break in the Black imagination between perceiving wholesale “White oppression,” and the more nuanced understanding that Jews are a distinctive class unto themselves. Moreover, the reality of day-to-day interethnic exploitation leaves little room for abstract apologetic theories of anti-Semitism, since the problem is never that Jews arouse hostility merely on account of their religion or identity, but rather that Jews arouse hostility because of their behavior within certain ecological contexts (i.e., as a dominant clique within the rap scene). As Bond explains,

It is my considered view that Negro attitudes and actions towards Jews that are frequently interpreted as “antisemitic” actually lack the sinister thought-content they are sometimes advertised as holding. The occasional riots against small businessmen and landlords in Harlem — persons who may happen to be Jews — do not, in my opinion, actually possess the “classic” emotional load of aggression against a Jewish “race” or “religion,” that has been considered the essence of antisemitism.

One of the most prominent Jewish strategies when discussing Black anti-Semitism is the attempt to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood, and thus preserve the idea of an alliance against an allegedly oppressive White society. So it was hardly surprising for me to hear that Bill Adler’s first approach to Professor Griff involved a quite ludicrous attempt to turn him against the ‘racist’ Henry Ford.


The very existence of a Black anti-Semitism is highly disruptive to established victim narratives which deny the privileged status of Jews as a wealthy and influential elite within Western society. While White anti-Semitism can still be portrayed (thanks to endless propaganda) as a top-down form of oppression directed against Jews, Black anti-Semitism flips the narrative since a received wisdom of modern culture is that Blacks are the most disadvantaged ethnic group in society. When Blacks “punch up” and the target is Jews, the only available solution to Jews is censorship. Blacks who grovel enough, and with enough sincerity (like Nick Cannon and Ice Cube) will be rehabilitated through Holocaust tours and such, and their apologies will be widely broadcast as a form of propaganda literature in its own right.

But those who don’t, like Professor Griff, will have their careers destroyed and they will vanish from the cultural spotlight. It may even be worse than that. In a remarkable incident covered by Tucker Carlson, Jewish trainer Harley Pasternak even threatened to have Kanye West drugged and institutionalised: “You go back to Zombieland forever.” The future of Kanye ‘Ye’ West is currently uncertain, but will undoubtedly be dictated by the extent to which he apologizes to his masters.

Lyor Cohen and Kanye West

[1] H.M. Bond “Negro Attitudes Towards Jews,” Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, Papers and Proceedings of a Conference on Negro-Jewish Relations in the United States (Jan., 1965), 3-9, p.5.

Igor Shafarevich: “Postscript to ‘The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma'”

Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma

Igor Shafarevich


Editor’s note: The following is Rolo Slavski’s translation of Igor Shafarevich’s “Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma.” The original citation is: Igor Shafarevich (2009), “Posleslovie k Trekhtysiacheletnei zagadke.Nash sovremennik, No. 11. Nash sovremennik is a Russian literary magazine. Both footnotes were added by the editor.

I re-read my book on Jewish history (The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma) and the feeling I experienced was one of dissatisfaction. Since the author (myself) has taken a stab at shedding light on such a broad historical phenomenon, I thought, he could have made more specific observations that shed light on the current situation and the possible future of the world. That’s what I want, to some extent, to try to make up for here. In this case, all the facts (including quotes) are taken from my book. Naturally, the conclusions I come to, to some extent, repeat the book (or are a refinement of the thoughts expressed there).

First of all, from all the facts collected in my book, it follows that no matter what peoples the Jews live among, they are always considered by these peoples to be dangerous strangers.

Of course, the relationship between the rich man and his debtor, the landowner and the peasant, etc., cause friction and often lead to ethnic conflicts. But it is striking that, along with the Armenian-Azerbaijani contradictions, friction between Russians and Ukrainians, etc. (throughout the entire period from which we have reliably dated sources), this other nation (or religious group? ) comes up. After all, this tension can be observed for about three thousand years! So it should be the subject of serious historical reflection. In periods of drastic change in the conditions of life, the same nation (or religious group?) often participates with unprecedented energy in these changes, and always as part of the more radical camp. (As could be seen in Germany during the “revolutionary situation” in the 1920s, and as happened in our country three times in the twentieth century: during the revolution of 1917 and its intensification, during the period of collectivization around 1930, and during time of “perestroika” in the 1990s). Moreover, as a result of such radical changes in life in our country, many millions of people died each time: peasants who defended their land, or peasants who no longer resisted, or just people (including children) who had not learned to “play by the new rules.”

The presentation of the facts itself can occur on various levels — from statements that are not substantiated and based on nothing (for example, Diodorus Siculus’s[1] and Manetho’s claim that the Jews are Egyptians infected with some kind of skin disease and expelled from Egypt) to a more correct, competent, albeit very cautious, discussion of a particular situation, like Walt and Mearsheimer’s work, The Israel Lobby, but where the same basic question is implied. The “question” is that a small part of the country’s population determines the most important aspects of its life. Actually, a similar point of view is confirmed by the most ancient (from reliably dated) Jewish religious texts. A wide range of means are being used around the world (at different times) to counter discussion of this “issue”: prisons, courts, executions, journalism and the media are used. The fact that the majority of peoples who have encountered Jewry perceive it as a potential source of danger is explained by the words of a contemporary (and published in Russia) author, D. Furman: “Everywhere, all over the world, the role of Jews in progressive and revolutionary movements has always been completely disproportionate to their share in the population. That is (in accordance with the point of view expressed in my book) fundamental changes in society are carried out according to certain general laws, and Jews cannot be considered their initiators in any way. But when the course of history leads to the breakdown of tradition, to a sharp change in life, then “progressive and revolutionary movements” arise, in which the role of the Jews “has always been completely out of proportion to their proportion in the population.”

As the material collected in my book shows, in the last few centuries the influence of Jews around the world has increased dramatically — this, in recent decades, is associated with a process called “globalization.” It seems that the theses of the German publicist W. Marr, who wrote (in the 19th century) in the book The Victory of Jewry over Germanism: “We are subdued, and besides, we are forbidden to talk about it,” seem to have been proven. How will other peoples of the world exist in such a situation? (After all, from many of the facts given in my book, it is clear that vindictiveness is an essential feature of Jewish psychology and their participation in “progressive and revolutionary movements” was often stimulated by the desire for revenge for obstacles to the transformation they desired.) Therefore, it can be assumed that the victory of that “progressive movement,” which is now led by Jews all over the world, will lead the world to terror, similar to that which raged in our country in the 20s and 30s of the last century. It seems that humanity has no strategy to counter this. But it seems to me that such a way is possible. I wanted to talk about it here — this is the main content of this work.

To assess the whole situation, it is important to note that the “Jewish question” existed, as it is explained in my book, about as long ago as can be traced using written sources. More precisely, in the era in which mankind existed in the form of states. (And we are not going to discuss a broader historical epoch.) Thus, a number of ancient authors refer to the Exodus from Egypt, which the Bible tells us about, as “exile”. In any case, that era can be considered the first manifestation of the “Jewish question” recorded in writing. Since then, it was by no means “resolved”, as evidenced by the entire subsequent history of Jewry. Already in our (at least in my) memory, Hitler spoke more than once about the “final solution of the Jewish question,” but what this “final solution” consisted of, as is often the case when discussing Hitler’s plans, was not clear. After all, most of the Jews were then in America, and Hitler could not influence their fate in any way. This is the historical range of the “Jewish question” — the range in which it manifests itself. From this (and other facts collected in my book) we can conclude that the “question” is in principle unsolvable (at least in the era of peoples existing in states). This thesis is discussed in more detail in my book. That is, at least in the coming centuries, we are doomed by history to live with the Jews, and they with us. In other words, the reasonable way out is to learn to live with this question, which, apparently, cannot be “resolved” in the present historical conditions (just as, for example, it is impossible to completely “eradicate crime”, although it is possible to take measures to so that crime does not ruin our lives. The “question” for us then, is how, in this coexistence, we can preserve our national identity.

A hint of a way of dealing with the problem that could satisfy these conditions is contained in a remark by V.V. Rozanov. In an obvious connection with the same “question,” he draws attention to the fact that a similar situation exists in the animal world. Namely, most animals known to us are either herbivores or carnivores. Moreover, as Rozanov notes, herbivores unite in large herds, and the number of carnivores is somehow kept at a relatively low level. This analogy between non-Jewish herbivores and Jewish carnivores is supported by many arguments.

Firstly, this is the argument of the number, as indicated by Rozanov. Indeed, even during the period of enjoying a dominant position in any society (for example, in our country in the 1920s or now in Israel), the Jews, despite their well-known “fertility,” are kept within strict limits by some unknown force, while the surrounding people continue multiplying, although they are in worse material conditions.

Secondly, the fundamental role of carnivores and herbivores in life is quite similar. Actually, it is plants that ensure the existence of all animals, because they turn sunlight into nutrients. Herbivores eat plants, while carnivores eat herbivores. But still, herbivores are part of the process of nutrition, which is used by carnivores and without which they could not exist. In confirmation of the analogy under consideration, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Jews are active and often useful in their activities, but they are only able, so to speak, “to work on an already plowed field.” For example, Mendelssohn, Mahler and Berg were undoubtedly talented musicians. But they were able to express themselves only when Western music was created — by Gabrielli, Schutz, Bach, Haydn, etc. Or, in Russia, Jews were very active in recent centuries (we will not discuss the difficult question of whether it was for good or to the detriment of the natives), but in any case, this became possible only after the country was plowed up and the Russian state was created. And it is the same with any kind of activity, as detailed in my book. But the main contribution to world culture usually attributed to Jewry is the creation of a monotheistic religion. However, this was the direction in which the thought of all mankind was moving to in those centuries! So, Homer often has the expression “Zeus and Fate decided so.” In Plato, instead of the words “Gods” we often meet — “the higher Deity.” Finally, the most radical step towards monotheism was the reform of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, about 1350 BC. It clearly had a decisive influence on the religious thinking of the entire Near East. So here we meet a manifestation of the same feature.

Yes, finally, I myself have come across this phenomenon. I had many Jewish students. And a number of Jews from whom I studied. They were talented and (what is especially important) hardworking mathematicians. But we must not forget that the very physical and mathematical concept of the world, within which we all worked, was created by the Western European (Romano-Germanic) peoples. And representatives of other nations — Jews, Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. — are only continuers of an already established tradition.

The third argument in favor of the aforementioned analogy is that carnivores (predators, for example, cats) can exist and hunt only if they are hardly noticeable. In particular, they must lick themselves all the time, eliminating the smell (this remark belongs to a friend of mine). This can be related to the hostility of the Jews to the discussion of the “Jewish question.” For example, in my book, V. Toporov’s book Double Bottom is quoted several times. In the preface, the author describes his paradoxical position of being “not among his own” in any national group, which gives his observations a peculiar interest. In particular, speaking of the “Jewish type of behavior,” he writes: “among the identifying signs, one must undoubtedly point out a painful reaction to the very formulation of the Jewish question, which is often inherent in people of non-Jewish origin who are married to a Jew or Jewess, especially if there are children.”

There is a direct connection between these comparisons and the real problems that humanity is now facing (or will face in the next century). Let us pay attention to the fact that the influence of Jews throughout the world (in the development of capitalism, in the socialist movement and in the post-socialist era) has become especially noticeable in recent decades, coinciding with the period of dominance of European (or, as it is sometimes called, Western) civilization in the world. But in several of my works (published for the last 10 years) I have made arguments indicating that this civilization is now on the decline. The current economic crisis is just one of the confirmations of these thoughts. Probably, Western civilization will be able to somehow get out of this crisis, but it is only a rehearsal for its global collapse. One might think that the inevitable (as it seems to me) collapse of the dominance of Western civilization over the whole world will provide an opportunity to build relations between Jewry and other peoples in a new way. Actually, the Jews themselves are also interested in this, since other peoples must first “plow the field,” in which, as noted above, the Jews are able to work. But it is unlikely that they themselves are able to realize it. In their “genetic program” there is firmly embedded the belief that they are called to be “teachers of mankind.”

In other words, (only when this change happens) will a change of attitudes become possible. But whether this actually happens depends on our behavior (and the behavior of our descendants). Here comes to mind the thought expressed by Dostoevsky in a rough draft: “All these parliamentarisms, all the civil theories now professed, all the accumulated wealth, banks, sciences, Jews — all this will collapse in an instant and without a trace — except, perhaps, the Jews, who will adapt; what can be done to put them to work?”. (Sobr. soch. M., 1984. Vol. 26, pp. 167–168[2]). This statement now sounds rude due to the use of the word “zhid,” which is currently abusive. But when Dostoevsky wrote, it was not like that. It is worth replacing this word with any synonym in use now, and we will get a strikingly accurate prediction of what really happened in Russia, formulated forty years before the predicted events.

In such a situation, it is natural to recall the discussed analogy. After all, both herbivores and carnivores have existed on Earth for many millions of years. And, using this analogy, one can notice forms of possible coexistence of Jews and other peoples that do not encroach on the national existence of these “other” peoples. After all, one must believe in the lessons of life!

In particular, herbivores exist by grouping together in large herds. Parallel to this, it can be assumed that the peoples of the Earth are able to ensure their autonomous existence in the form of more or less nationally homogeneous states, which is a phenomenon that has been happening throughout history (modern Russia is an example). Nations, united in such states, must develop in themselves the understanding of the phenomenon of the “predator,” which is dangerous for their national existence. Peoples, following the instinct of self-preservation, should strive to push them out of positions that are essential for the life of the nation. They must protect the nation from the penetration of “foreigners.” I came across an example of such behavior when I once walked around the Moscow region (outside the city) in the company of my dog. The dog clearly reminded the cows of a wolf and fit neatly into their “image of the enemy.” Therefore, when they saw her, the cows united in a herd lowered their heads and, putting out their horns, stepped on the dog. Once, as a shepherd I met told me, they even trampled a small dog. This technique seems to be effective — it allows wild herbivores to protect themselves from predators. For example, as zoologists say, wolves rarely attack a deer inside the herd, otherwise they risk being killed by the horns or hooves of the deer. More often, wolves bully a sick deer that has lagged behind the herd.

Thus, a number of techniques developed long ago by nature serve to maintain the number of the herbivore populations at a constant level. These same methods, with appropriate modifications, can serve (and have long served) a similar goal in the social life of mankind. Of course, changes will take place — after all, Homo sapiens has existed for thousands of years in the more developed state of mankind. A difference between modern nations and a herd of cows must have developed in this time!

[1] From Diodorus, Book 34:

King Antiochus besieged Jerusalem. The Jews withstood the siege for some time; but when all their provisions were used up, they were forced to send ambassadors to him, to seek terms for a truce. Many of his friends urged him to storm the city, and to root out the whole nation of the Jews; for they only of all people hated to mix with any other nations, and treated them all as enemies. They suggested to him that the ancestors of the Jews were driven out of Egypt, as impious and hateful to the gods: for seeing that their bodies were infected with white marks and leprosy, by way of expiation the Egyptians gathered them all together, and expelled them out of their county, as profane and wicked wretches. After they were thus expelled, they settled around Jerusalem, and were afterwards united into one nation, called the nation of the Jews; but their hatred of all other men descended with their blood to their posterity. And therefore they made strange laws, and quite different from other people; they never will eat nor drink with any of other nations, or wish them any prosperity. His friends reminded him that Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, after subduing the Jews, entered into the temple of God, into which none was allowed to enter by their law except the priest. When he found in there the image of a man with a long beard, carved in stone sitting upon an ass, he took it to be Moses, who built Jerusalem and brought the nation together, and who established by law all their wicked customs and practices, abounding in hatred and enmity to all other men. Antiochus therefore, abhorring their antagonism to all other people, tried his utmost to abolish their laws. To that end he sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine’s flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine’s flesh.

When Antiochus’ friends had spoken about all these things, they earnestly advised him to root out the whole nation, or at least to abolish their laws, and compel them to change their former manner of living. But the king, being of a generous spirit and mild disposition, received hostages and pardoned the Jews: but he demolished the walls of Jerusalem, and took the tribute that was due.

[2] This refers to a 1984 Russian edition of the complete works of Dostoevsky.

Paul Lagarde on Jews and Indo-Europeans, Part 3: Jews and Politics

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

There remains one point to be discussed: the participation of the Jews in politics. From the start one should suppose that the members of a nation that lives in the midst of enthusiastic followers of the nationalist principle would have enough sense of honor to raise demands, even for their nationality itself, that Jewry will work for the founding of a state located in Palestine. However, from an ethical point of view, the Jew thinks as little as the parasite that battens on a foreign body ubi bene, ibi patria.[1] One should further think that a nation foregoing a political life for almost two thousand years would decide to remain far from politics that is unaccustomed to them; a Jew who politicizes today, however, offers the spectacle of an eighty-year-old man who, because he once as a boy—and no longer—rode with a sword and went skating, embarks on a sabre duel, romps on a stallion before his beloved, and does a big act on hoar frost. One should, thirdly, suppose that all nations that have behind them an uninterrupted political work of centuries, even if often not enjoyable, would find it especially stupid to allow themselves to be advised on the political work now at hand by those who cannot have, and do not have, insight into politics, who, faced with the tasks of German political life, stand with the ingenuousness of a jackdaw that flies away from a copy of Iphigenia or Antigone lying tattered in a garden or over a score of Grell’s[2] Mass for sixteen voices. But matters have developed differently than they should have according to propriety and reasonableness. The long-dammed stream of Jewish skill pours out like the well-known Wilhelmshöher waterfall; after a long pause, Israel gives birth to politicians, people like Johann Jacoby,[3] Lasker, Ludwig Loewe,[4] Singer, Sabor. “Small Germany” is the battle-cry; they thus appear on the scene with the betrayal of Greater Germany. The Jews of Austria must indeed first be able to eat up Austria in peace before they go on to the harder task of digesting the “new Reich.” Almost all of them appear with [promises of] utopias, the loudest of them with principles which, when one has tried to implement, must give up after a short time, and the most Jewish of them with “No, No, No” against everything that is, even if not the best, still necessary at the moment. And since a Jew “will not prostitute himself before potentates,” Iohann Jacobi says to the King of Prussia who finally plucks up courage against the dirt of the revolution acted out by the Jews, in his house, the great words: “that is the misfortune of kings, that they do not wish to hear the truth,” and Mr. Singer remains seated when the German Reichstag rises in honour of Field Marshal Moltke.[5] If a Pincus Hersch, convicted on account of a serious procuration, should at one time direct an appeal for clemency to the German Kaiser, he will sign “with friendly greetings, Pincus Hersch,” for “wagging his tail” is not his style and he—who is a Republican—tolerates the Kaiser of Germany only according to I Samuel 8.[6]

Why does the German Philistine let himself be led by the Jews by the nose? Because he is a Philistine.

Jacob Grimm once wrote to his brother Wilhelm that, after his brother, nobody stood closer to his heart than Savigny[7] and Clemens Brentano.[8] This Clemens Brentano is too good to be reproached for the ale-bench; I must nevertheless cite an essay of Brentano’s against the danger of seeing him too drawn into the mire. In the fifth volume of his collected works is printed Brentano’s “jocular essay on the Philistines in and according to history,” which once appeared in Berlin by itself, but became known to me only very recently, even though I have always loved Clemens. Brentano recognises the Jews and the Philistines as the two heads of the old serpent set one against the other; he would agree with me if I said briefly that the Jews and the Philistines (which latter are now called Liberals) have in common that they deny history, that they think that something can be good and lasting that does not appear as the continuation of an already existent good or as the combating of a bad that has already been combated. The strife of the world does not start from today, because God is eternal and his enemy, the Devil, is older than the world of humans.

Moritz Lazarus and Levin Goldschmidt[9] had a sense of the situation when they warned the Jews before the last Reichstag elections to leave the progressive party if they wished to be tolerated in Germany. They acted as Jews when they presented to the Reich Chancellor, no matter in what way, the prospect of the votes of Jewry if he would forbid anti-Semitism:  something would be gained thereby. They did not perceive that the Jews would have to stop being Jews if they—who, in Brentano’s words (1887), wish to make a business of the manna fallen to them from heaven three thousand years ago—wished to recognise for once that one can appease the hunger of 1887 only with the corn grown shortly before 1887. They did not perceive that, in England and Germany, a considerable number of commoners were accepted into the aristocracy but that this aristocracy of recent date could stop being parvenus only because they found an old aristocracy of ancient custom and emulated them, and that, analogously, every member of a foreign nation can become a German but on condition that he acknowledge Germany and indeed acknowledge it as something much higher than one’s own nationality that has to be given up, but that he cannot, and will not, become a German if he prides himself on the uniqueness of his own nationality, if he wishes to become or be a German and, as an entrance courtesy, he undertakes to make the Germans like himself and to master them.[10] Those two have not perceived that every government of Europe that is not anti-Semitic—in my sense—conducts a betrayal of the people whom they serve. They are as little aware that they imagine that there are among us respectable men who are not anti-Semites—in the good sense; I know born Jews who suffer badly under the anti-Semitism of the masses and themselves practise my anti-Semitism as necessary.

And as proof that Jews as Jews never have an understanding of real life when it is not represented through exchange, interest coupons and Deutschmarks, Lazarus and Goldschmidt are ostracized by Jewry. “May he not be remembered any more”[11]—that is how it goes in the old excommunication formula of the synagogue against Lazarus. Lazarus was one of the idols of his people, though an idol the reverence for whom I never understood; now he has fallen and his place is vacant. Perhaps Mr. Abraham Berliner[12] notes (14,15) now that I was not so far removed from the right path when I considered a refutation of Mr. Graetz signed “M.L.” as being written by Moritz Lazarus;  I knew the man well enough to know that the essay “To the German Jews”[13] bothered him a long time.

I have for years been convinced that Jewry nested in the Christian-Germanic-Roman cultural world is, as a result of the above-mentioned characteristics, the cancer of our entire life. Our economy cannot thrive on account of them, our nationality withers, the truth is withheld from us by them, the Church is hostile to them and makes them contemptible instead of helping them to a new life.

Friendship is possible with every individual Jew, but only on condition that he cease to be a Jew. Jewry as such must disappear. And the individual Jews will be glad to experience by themselves what Ludwig Steub,[14] certainly a man of insight and intelligence, wrote to Mr. Isidore Singer in Vienna, thus to a Jew:

There are no more persecutions as soon as there are no more Jews. That is why I greet with joy all measures that can make them disappear, as for example the freedom to marry. I do not believe that tasks are still placed for the Jews that cannot also be solved by Christians and to that extent I see no great loss if they disappear from the screen. They will obtain peace only when they are no longer there.

I have often enough acknowledged that we Europeans, Christians are not what we should be when there are still Jews among us; I have therefore thrown a good part of the blame for the deep decadence of our life on our shoulders. But where there is heaped up such a mass of putrefaction as in the Israel of Europe one achieves one’s goal only through an inner physic after one has removed the collected pus through a surgical procedure. I have therefore taken from the Jews that for whose sake they are Jews and through which they rule, money, thrown out the financial monopoly, and explained it in my Deutsche Schriften 496–498. That I am thereby in the right is shown to me by the rage of Mr. Abraham Berliner (26):

The speech about the methods of taking away wealth and income from the Jews truly deserved to be rewarded with the diploma of a gang of burglars from the remotest recess of Corsica.

Here Mr. Abraham Berliner is apparently not anxious in the choice of his expressions. He clearly does not fear “crossing the boundaries of the penal code” in this sentence. Perhaps he was interested to find out from the front page of the Vossische Zeitung of 25 February 1887 that in the Kreuzzeitung, in the “national” programme of the Conservative Party a high stock-exchange turnover tax, or a “nationalization of the Reich bank” appears. We do not fly, we go step by step.

Europe suffers under a debt burden of 96,000 million Deutschmarks;[15] those men who stand at the top of European affairs do not have enough insight and will to understand that the shedding of these 96 billion is the very first condition for the prosperity of Europe. Much less do these men understand that through these debts of ours the Jews become important.[16] Roughly calculated, through the manipulations made with these debt securities, every year 960 million marks go into the pockets of the Jewry working in financial trade. So that the ten percent—not paid in Germany, far exceeding that in most other countries of Europe—may not be lacking, I do not calculate the debts of the municipalities, from which Israel likewise has its profits, but remark that the supplies for the army in many states lie regularly in the hands of the Semites and I let you consider what is earned from these supplies.

I present here the last statistical notice known to me on the number of Jews. Of the six million, three hundred thousand Jews that there are overall, there live

In Europe 5,400,000
In Asia 300,000
In Africa 350,000
In America 250,000
In Russia 2,552,000
In Poland 768,000
In Austria-Hungary 1,644,000
In Galicia 688,000
In Germany 562,000
In Romania 263,000
In Turkey 105,000
In the Netherlands 82,000
In France 63,000
In Italy 40,000

Whereby one may note that the homeland of the people, Palestine, hosts 25,000 Jews, Prussia has 366,543 of them, and especially Berlin 64,355.

When one divides the number of inhabitants of Europe by five and a half million—the number of Jews of Europe—one will discover what percentage of the population of Europe the Jews constitute. When one then considers that 960 million in expenses that the Jewry of Europe draw from us, one will understand why in 1881 I wrote the sentence:

The Jews remain Jews not only because of our fault but also because of our debts.

It is extremely advantageous to be a Jew. Many Liberals who, in the interest of humanity and justice, speak on behalf of the Jews, and now we, know that the Jews are not sparing with tips—the form of the tip is of no importance—they have funds for this and what they invest in such tips—recommendations, testimonials, contributions, positions on the boards of directors—is advertising capital. But what sort of statesmen, what sort of princes are they who do not put an end to this corruption! Are they really not aware of it?

And the Jews will finally thank us themselves. We shall take from them that which maintains them as Jews: as they will no longer possess money, they will become free of the Old Adam and be forced to become what we are already, Germans.

And now, in conclusion, another observation.

I have for many years been the proponent of the view that the present German Reich and Austria-Hungary should be joined in an indissoluble manner. I have always thought of Central Europe as divided into two but united; numerous students and friends know that I became reserved about a public confession of this view only after the inordinate incapacity of the Austrian statesmen was exposed fully at the Frankfurt Diet of Princes[17] and did not obtain a correction from the Habsburg-Lothringen dynasty.

That the German Reich is not viable is now clear to all: it collapses on account of its position between enemies and unreliable friends, on account of the necessity conditioned by this position of being constantly armed to the teeth, and on account of the financial distress forced by this necessity to live in an armed peace.

That Austria is not viable the representative Knotz said in the Austrian House of Representatives on 5 May 1887. As far as I know regarding the mood of the German Austrians, they all think like Knotz. The Irishman Tahaffey=Taafe[18] has lost all ground among his people: the civil war in Austria—my discussion published almost twelve years ago, in September 1875, can be read in the Complete Edition of my Deutsche Schriften, 134, 135—the civil war stands so clearly recognisable before the gates that indeed the newspaper apparently supported by Count Taafe’s government in which Mr. Güdemann,[19] non sine diis animosus,[20] was able to write the essay printed above on pages 264–268[21]; he had to call his burlesque remarks on Knotz “little dignified,” but the other newspapers (one may read the evening Vossische Zeitung of 7 May 1887) recognised the remarks of the representative for Teschen as essentially justified. The Germans of Austria are the cultural fertilizer—this expression was introduced into the world by me around thirty years ago—with which Czechs, Magyars and other ethnic communities are rendered receptive to the rule of Jewry; our brothers in Austria do not have a right to be Germans any longer, in spite of the declarations made by Kaiser Franz Josef at the Frankfurt Diet of Princes.[22] And Austria is bankrupt.

Everywhere where there is financial distress, especially where there is financial distress as a result of disorganized political conditions, the Jew flourishes on the ruins of nations. For, one may lie about peace or about war, the Jew profits; if Pinkus operates when conditions are bad, Pinkus’s brother Schmul operates when they are good; when there is war, Pinkus and Schmul together undertake the supplies; when thereafter there is peace, they undertake the financing of the necessary loans; the family wins in all cases. Only those served by the family lose.

Financial distress prevails in Germany as in Austria, and indeed as a result of the separation of these two Reichs. From this it follows that the Jews wish to maintain the division of these two Reichs. From this it follows that every patriot of Germany and Austria must wish to remove the division of the Reichs and, for the sake of the unification of the Reichs, the Jews—about individual Jews we can speak.

But the Jews know about more than the financial side of the matter; they know also that every German is not an enemy of individual Jews but an enemy of Israel as Israel. The stronger German life becomes the more certainly Israel will disappear. That is why Israel prevents the rise of a Central European Union. For, in this union there would be no masters but the owners of the land, the Germans. Let Israel exist as an independent nation and establish an independent state; Germany and Austria will live with this nation and state in peaceful concord, and members of this Israelite state will be treated by us as benevolently and politely as the members of any other state will be—as foreigners. That Israel wishes to rule among us, that it allows itself to be praised by Geiger, and Graetz and comrades as the bearers of a cultural mission, since it, in truth, does nothing but exploit Europe financially and praises the grinning grimace of our culture as an ancient family possession of Israel—that we Germans precisely refuse before the other nations because we are younger and more unprotected than the other nations and therefore more sensitive to attacks and diseases.

[1] “The fatherland is where life is good”—a saying that may date back to Marcus Pacuvius, a second-century B.C. Roman poet quoted by Cicero.

[2] Eduard Grell (1800–1886) was a German composer noted for his sacred choral compositions.

[3] Johann Jacoby (1805–1877) was a German Jewish doctor who became a Liberal politician who fought for the emancipation of the Jews.

[4] Ludwig Loewe (1837–1886) was a German Jewish industrialist and member of the Reichstag whose socialist friends included Ferdinand Lassalle and Walther Rathenau.

[5] Helmut von Moltke (1800–1891) was a Prussian Field Marshal who commanded Prussian troops during the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War and was famed for his skills in military organization and strategy.

[6] This refers to section of the first book of Samuel that begins the account of Samuel’s establishment of a monarchy among the Israelites through his appointment of Saul as king.

[7] Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779–1961) was a famous German jurist.

[8] Clemens Brentano (1778–1842) was a German Romantic poet and Catholic who wrote several essays on Christian subjects.

[9] Levin Goldschmidt (1829–1897) was a German Jewish jurist, academic and member of the Reichstag.

[10] Lagarde: Cf. something on Heinrich Heine, one of the most repulsive subjects that have ever been printed on earth—H. Hüffer in J. Rodenberg’s Deutsche Rundschau, 1878—and something which G. V. Albert has discussed in 1886 in the—at the moment, to me, substandard—Revue des deux mondes and which Mr. Graetz has acknowledged as correct—and in a commendatory way—in his monthly journal of 1886, 188, 189.

[11] This is also the opening line of a poem by Heine, “Nicht gedacht soll seiner werden”

[12] Abraham Berliner (1833–1915) was a German Jewish theologian and historian. He also published a pamphlet against Paul de Lagarde, Paul de Lagarde, nach seiner Natur gezeichnet (1887).

[13] Moritz Lazarus, An die deutschen Juden, 1887.

[14] Ludwig Steub (1812–1888) was a German jurist and writer.

[15] Vossische Zeitung (10 March, 1887).

[16] Paul de Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, Complete Edition, 413.

[17] The Frankfurt Diet of Princes took place in August 1863 to discuss reforms of the princely Deutscher Bund that lasted from 1815 to 1866. The Deutscher Bund was an association of 39 predominantly German-speaking sovereign states in Central Europe.

[18] Eduard, Graf von Taafe (1833–1895) was an Irish Austrian statesman who served as minister-president of Cisleithania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[19] Moritz (Moshe) Güdemann (1835–1918) was an Austrian Jewish historian and Chief Rabbi of Vienna.

[20] The line from Horace’s ode “Descende caelo” is “non sine diis animosus infans” (“a spirited child not without the help of the gods”).

[21] The pages referred to in Mittheilungen, II, reproduce an article entitled “Der ‘deutsche Nationalheilige’ Paul de Lagarde” by Güdemann published in the Viennese Freie Presse, 42 (February 12, 1887).

[22] de Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, 507.

Paul de Lagarde on Jews and Indo-Europeans, Part 2: Internationalism, Stock Exchanges, and the Media

Go to Part 1

That which speaks against the Jews, apart from the atavism and racial arrogance that by themselves force one to an unqualified rejection of the Jews, is first of all their internationalism. It is not true that the German, French, English, Russian Jews feel that they are members of the country in which they live; wherever possible they appear on the scene as sons of the Jewish nation and thereby they are the enemies of every European nation. Their declamations that things are different is believed by nobody. They stand on the same platform as the Jesuits and the Social Democrats: they are without a fatherland.

The second thing that speaks against them is their desire to bring in fellow racial comrades wherever possible. Wherever a Jew has set foot there are, in a short time, twenty Jews, and where there are twenty they rule, because members of cultured nations disdain the means used shamelessly by the Jews to acquire influence and because they are too considerate to express themselves freely and do not have the courage to act.

What thirdly turns the entire world against them is their usury, the term usury taken in the wider sense. I shall let men speak for me to whom nobody will deny the faculty of judgement, first Napoleon and then an advisor to a Prussian ministry. I became acquainted with Napoleon’s speeches and decrees only very recently but found to my great joy, however, that the man, who was truly perceptive, already in 1806 thought in the same way that any respectable German without exception thinks in 1887, in a radically anti-Semitic manner, in the sense of a double-sided humanity. I wish to help my countrymen through the printing of the speeches and decrees of Napoleon to help them to find the courage to say what they think and to translate it into deeds:

Meeting (of the Council of State) of 30 April 1806.[1]

Legislation is a shield that the government should carry everywhere where the public welfare is attacked. The French government cannot regard with indifference that a nation vilified, degraded, capable of every baseness, possess exclusively the two beautiful administrative departments of ancient Alsace; the Jews must be considered as a nation and not as a sect. It is a nation within the nation; I would like to remove from them, at least for a specific time, the right to take mortgages, for it is too humiliating for the French nation to find itself at the mercy of the vilest nation. Entire villages have been expropriated by the Jews; they have replaced feudalism; they are veritable flocks of crows. We saw them at the battles of Ulm[2] rushing from Strasboug to buy from the marauders what they had pillaged.

One should prevent, by legal means, the arbitrariness which one will find oneself obliged to employ with regard to the Jews; they would risk being massacred one day by the Christians of Alsace, as they have so often been, and almost always by their own fault.

The Jews are not in the same category as the Protestants and the Catholics. They should be judged according to political rights and not civil rights because they are not citizens.

It would be dangerous to let the keys of France—Strasbourg and Alsace—to fall into the hands of a population of spies who are not attached at all to the country. In the past, Jews could not even stay overnight in Strasbourg; it will perhaps be appropriate to decree today that there will not be more than fifty thousand Jews in the upper and lower Rhine; an excess of this number would spread at will into the rest of France.

One could also forbid them commerce based on what they have corrupted of it through usury and cancel their past transactions as tarnished by fraud.

The Christians of Alsace and the prefect of Strasbourg have brought to me many complaints against the Jews during my travel to this land.

Meeting of 7 May 1806

It has been proposed to me that the migrant Jews who do not merit the title of French citizens be expelled and the tribunals be invited to use their discretionary power against usury; but these means would be insufficient. The Jewish nation, since Moses, has been constituted in a usurious and oppressive way; it is not the same with the Christians: usurers are the exception among them and have a bad reputation. It is thus not with metaphysical laws that one will regenerate the Jews; here we need simple laws, laws of exception; one can propose nothing worse to me than to drive out a great number of individuals who are men like others; legislation can become tyrannical through metaphysics as through arbitrariness. Judges do not have discretionary power at all; they are physical machines by means of which the laws are implemented just as the hours are marked by the needles of a watch: driving out the Jews would be a weakness, correcting them would be a strength. One should prohibit commerce to Jews because they abuse it, just as one prohibits his profession to a goldsmith when he makes false gold. Metaphysics has misled the writer of the report to the point of preferring a violent measure of deportation to a more efficacious and gentle remedy. This law needs to be matured; one should assemble the general estates of the Jews, that is, summon fifty or sixty of them to Paris; I wish to have a general synagogue of Jews in Paris on 15 June.[3] I am far from wanting to do anything against my glory and that could be disapproved of by posterity—as they represent me as wanting to do in the report. My entire council gathered together cannot make me adopt a thing that would have this character; but I do not want the welfare of the provinces to be sacrificed to a principle of metaphysics and egoism. I state again that people do not complain of the Protestants or the Catholics the way they do of the Jews; it is that the evil that the Jews commit comes not from individuals but from the constitution of these people themselves; they are caterpillars, locusts that ravage France.

On 30 May 1806 appeared the famous decree through which Napoleon I summoned an assembly of individuals professing the Jewish religion and inhabiting the French territory to Paris; I extract the following from the official Bulletin des lois de l’empire franςais, 4,4 (1806), No.1631:

Based on the account that has been delivered to us that in many northern departments of our empire certain Jews, exercising no other profession but that of usury, have by the accumulation of the most immoderate interests thrown many farmers of these lands into a state of great distress,

We have thought that we should come to the aid of those of our subjects that an unjust cupidity has apparently reduced to these vexing extremities;

These circumstances have made us at the same time learn how urgent it was to reanimate, among those who profess the Jewish religion in the lands subject to our allegiance, the sentiments of civil morality which unfortunately have been weakened among too large a number among them by the state of subjection in which they have languished for long, a state that is certainly not our intention either to maintain or renew;

For the accomplishment of this design we have resolved to unite in an assembly the leaders of the Jews and to have our intentions communicated to them by commissioners who we will nominate to this end and will obtain, at the same time, their vows regarding the means that they estimate the most expedient to encourage among their brothers the exercise of the arts and of useful professions in order to replace by an honest industriousness the shameful resources to which many of them have delivered themselves from father to son for several centuries;

For these reasons,

In connection with the chief justice of the Ministry of Justice and our Minister of the Interior, Our Council of State included

We have decreed and decree the following:

First article:  There is a stay of a year, counting from the date of the present decree, of all executions of judgements or contracts other than through simple protective action against the non-trading farmers of the departments of the Sarre, the Roer, Mont-Tonnerre, the Upper and Lower Rhine, of Rhin-et-Moselle, of the Moselle and the Vosges, when the debts against the farmers have been agreed upon by them in favor of the Jews.

One will find it understandable that this precise knowledge of their character excited the Jews. I point to unimpeachable evidence—of the geographer Karl Ritter—Bericht über die Aufnahme, welche Napoleon als Messias in Frankfurt am Main fand.[4] These Jews did not prostitute themselves before a “foreign potentate” since the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt under a Freiherr von Dalberg belonged at that time to the Rheinbund;[5] they immediately resorted even at that time to [HEBREW TERM], the presumption characteristic of their race—expressed so repugnantly in Heine and the press Jews of our age.

I cannot have the report cited in full which the Senior Privy Councillor Thiel made on “Usury in the provinces” of Prussia in the Farmers’ Club in Berlin on 1 March 1887; the material at the basis of the report will appear in an official publication; for the time being it is sufficient to point to the Vossische Zeitung of 3 March 1887; I deliberately cite a democratic newspaper that is friendly to the Jews. According to Thiel, in Alsace and Lorraine, about whose Jews Napoleon complained already so bitterly, it had become worse than it had been in the previous centuries. I have heard hair-raising things a long time ago—from a very insightful and benevolent party, a very highly-positioned man who was unreservedly candid with me—about the usurious Jews of the two provinces. For the conditions in the administrative district of Cassel it is significant that, in the first electoral district of Hesse, the long-serving Conservative representative was recently ousted by a newcomer who was able to gain the sympathies of the country people through fanatic anti-Semitism. It is a matter, besides, not only of money and credit usury but also of cattle usury, real estate usury, commodities usury. In the Bitburg district there are 91 professional cattle-lenders who have sold 1000 units of cattle to small folk. In Kreisbach district there are 700 loaned cows; the yearly turnover in the cattle loan business amounts to 105,000 Marks, the profit of the lender 35,000 Marks, thus around 34 percent, often 100 percent. The practitioners of usury are everywhere the same; the Senior Privy Councillor describes them, though actually every worldly-wise man knows about them. You may investigate or observe how many percent of these usurers are Jews! Where, in many places, I myself have been asked for help I have constantly found Israelites in my quest: once, at my request, a rich Jew, the father of one of my students, helped me kindly against the Jews.

It would take a heart of the hardness of crocodile skin not to feel compassion for the poor Germans sucked dry and—what is the same thing—not to hate the Jews, not to hate and despise those who—out of humanity!—make a case for these Jews or who are too cowardly to squash this usurious vermin. One does not negotiate with trichinae and bacilli, trichina and bacilli are also not educated, they are destroyed as quickly and fundamentally as possible.

In the summer of 1853, Prince Adam Czartoryski[6] came with his family to London. He was spied on by a Russian Jew whom I helped to expose. Since this Jew is still alive, and is a man of the upper class, I wish to remind him that he lived at that time in Jermyn Street (I think no. 23), that he was introduced by Baron Berg to the Alfred Club, that he had, at a matinée ball of an aristocratic house that he had sneaked into uninvited, insulted Prince Félix Salm-Salm,[7] and that he had disappeared as a result of a conversation that a woman of the English aristocracy conducted with the Russian envoy Baron Brunnow, at a party of the Marchioness of Breadalbane. Since 1853 I have never heard of a spy of the poisonous political sort who was not a Jew; today, when I write this, I am informed from a German capital of two new examples of this vermin.

How the Jews stand in relation to the press I do not need to tell anybody. The whole world knows that the majority of the reviewers of the political press of Europe, like the majority of the impresarios, are Jews. That these Jews do not express and disseminate the views of the peoples of Europe but those of the Jews is doubtless. Their success has become so great that they have been able to praise to the heavens a long series of Jewish and half-Jewish scholars, writers, musicians, actors, politicians but that they have also silenced or thrown dirt upon everything that did not bear la tarla giudiaca [the Jewish woodworm], that through them even the worldview of the educated people of Europe has been transformed from a European and Christian to an Asiatic and heathen one; for, ever since the Old Testament gave way to the New Testament and the Christian Church arose, the Jews are, in spite of the papier-maché monotheism, heathens.

In closest relation to the press stands the stock-exchange. To substantiate this, I refer to two articles of the Vossische Zeitung.

The above-mentioned newspaper wrote on the evening of 27 January 1887 from Paris:

It is an old trick of thieves to shout out the alarm-signal, “Fire!,” in a crowded theatre hall or church in order, in the midst of the frightful confusion that unfailingly ensues, to rake in a rich harvest of wallets and items of jewellery. That in the process dozens, sometimes even hundreds of men, are crushed, trampled upon, killed or made cripples for life is a matter of indifference to the criminals. The chief thing is that they can steal. Now then; it seems that there are nefarious stock-exchange speculators somewhere in the world who imitate this time-tested trick of rogues. At a moment when Europe is already nervous they suddenly shout out the signal “Fire!”; a wild panic seizes all stock-exchanges, the prices tumble like towers in an earthquake, families are thrown to the ground within an hour, assets disappear, bankers shoot a bullet in their head, an entire continent suffers an earthquake from which it cannot recover in weeks and which exercises its after-effects for a long time on the working life of nation; the rascals however who have wrought this calamity rake in millions that a timely discharge of all possible securities has yielded to them and are ready at the next suitable opportunity to repeat the scoundrel’s trick with greater force.

There is no other explanation for the crazy anxiety that gripped all European stock-exchanges yesterday but most of all the local ones. The notorious message of the London Daily News identified the relations between Germany and France as extremely menacing, declared that an imminent outbreak of war was most likely and concluded with the following words: “The first action will apparently come from the German side which will, in a short while, demand explanations from France about the recent troop movements at the German border.” There can be no doubt that this message came from stock-exchange circles and had the sole purpose of conjuring up a stock-exchange panic.

The same newspaper then declared solemnly, in the morning of 2 February 1887, that the belief that the member of the English parliament, Labouchère, had caused the message regarding an imminent war between Germany and France to appear in the Daily News for the sake of a dishonest stock-exchange speculation was erroneous. And, on 15 February 1887, the Vossische Zeitung returns to a similar story with the statements:

The well-known war-like article of the Post against Boulanger[8] supposedly owes its origin to a stock-exchange fiddling and yielded six million for its initiator.

The Deutsche Adelsblatt is supposed to have made this discovery and publicises it in the following manner:

Not only in England and France but also in Germany there are heinous stock-exchange speculators and we are assured by the best sources that the last article on ‘War in sight’ of a local newspaper was initiated and inspired not, as one would like people to believe, by the government or by diplomatic circles but by a local banking house which, one may remark by the way, is supposed to have earned six million thereby. It is the peculiar relationships, both of the intellectual initiators and of the abused—as we wish to assume without further ado—newspaper, that place on all who are named therein the inescapable obligation to delve into the causal connections ruthlessly and to draw the guilty to justice in the sharpest manner.’

In this context we may mention that the Kreuzzeitung explains that it was in no way edified by this, that the ‘stock-exchange rats’ made as if to move to the Conservative party.  It threatens: ‘We will be able to get them off our back once again after 21 February. Court Chaplain Stöcker[9] has stated that on the 11th of this month in the most definite manner and we agree with him.”

In well-informed circles—that is clear from these articles that have not been troubled by any complaints from those affected and are therefore not to be attacked—one considers it possible that in the Daily News and in the Berliner Post, thus not in the gutter press, articles of the character described in the Vossische Zeitung can be slipped in. One who knows the history of the last Berlin Reichstag elections will find the thought process of the Vossische Zeitung in its article from 15 February fully clear: the article names the person without mentioning any name.[10]

I cannot believe that any respectable German can be interested in this way of gaining money and creating values. Only, I must conclude from the writing of the Privy King’s Counsel, Mr. Goldschmidt, full professor of mercantile law at Berlin University, thus certainly an expert, that stock-exchange businesses are conducted on a wide scope in Germany. I thought I knew that already a quarter of a century earlier; now I demonstrate the rightness of this fact with a quote from that Mr. Goldschmidt’s article on the “Reichstag elections,” 56:

All classes whose members wish to become rich without work take part, as is well-known, in the stock-exchange game, as in the at least as dangerous and corrupting house speculations and the like.

Through Bethel Henry Strousberg[11] the ‘speculations’ acknowledged by a professor of mercantile law have come into the highest circles of German society, and through a great host of other Jews—whose strenuously distributed offers, even to railway conductors, are known from hearsay by the whole world—have come among the so-called small folk. When Eduard Lasker, now buried among the pious in the synagogue in Weißensee, poured out a Niagara of outrage in the Prussian state parliament against the initiators, people thought at first that his fury was genuine; it soon emerged that his investigation stopped short of his friends, that the entire melodrama was only the legally authorized form of assassination of political opponents; but the fact that Germans placed in the highest positions in society speculate is also admitted by Lasker, indeed proven. I know a small city in which the Gründerzeit[12] cost the inhabitants around four and a half million Marks and scattered the percentages of this organised robbery to the Jews advising and helping in the enterprises and speculations, who alone gained in the economy, both in the formation and in the dissolution of businesses.

If the reader should not be satisfied with the Privy King’s Counsel Goldschmidt as a witness, I direct him to O.M.—everybody knows who O.M. once was in the National Zeitung—who is heard speaking in the weekly Im neuen Reich, 1876, 2,401–413. A highly positioned official (such is the one who speaks) cannot express himself more roughly than in the sentences written—judging from the style—in wild indignation:

This was precisely one of the most hateful and repulsive aspects of the recent German swindle era that the divide that separates honest folk from commercial criminality was blurred through a thousand golden bridges of profitable stock-exchange manoeuvres. … All shame disappeared; neither rank nor position nor good reputation, deterred one from dancing around the stock-exchange lists arm in arm with the riff-raff of fund speculators, stock-exchange jobbers, con-men.

The stock-exchange is also a curse for nations because it makes it possible for those working in it to gain wealth of previously unimaginable extent that is completely detached from any duty to serve any others than the one who owns it. A manorial lord requires, the greater his property is, the more men to work it; the financier can satisfy himself with heaping interest upon interest without having to give the least to anybody other than his broker. Even when he feasts and squanders he does not give. But he forces a number of men to the foolish desire, and the even more foolish attempt, to imitate the stock-exchange people in gluttony and pretensions, without a stock-exchange, from the yield of a small amount of money or from a salary: in the hearts of the unemployed, who are not yet taken to good colonies in well-arranged trains, such stock-exchange wealth awakens the desire, already often expressed, to kill the Jews. Woe to a nation in which such thoughts occur. We officials have in a way unthinkably high salaries; the stock-exchange causes that, as a consequence of the development of wealth made possible by the speculations of this temple of Baal, even a minister or a commanding general is no longer equal to the demands of society with that which the state provides him. It is, in my eyes, equally shameful—as apparently happened in Berlin 25 years ago—to give a servant maid little pay and declare then that, after 9 p.m., one should make no more demands on her, as to say to a scholar, if he cannot manage with his salary, that he should marry a rich Jewess or speculate in the stock-exchange. Do not act as if it were not so: this is not the place to be abashed.

The world owes the cloaca of stock-exchange speculation and of stock-exchange influence to the Jews.

Go to Part 3.

[1] Lagarde: Pelet de la Lozère, Opinions de Napoléon (Didot, 1883), 213–217.

[2] The Battle of Ulm took place in 1805 between the armies of France and Austria. Napoleon succeeded in forcing the latter’s surrender.

[3] The Grand Sanhedrin of Jewish notables convened by Napoleon I took place in Paris between February and April 1807.

[4] Lagarde: “Report on the Reception that Napoleon Found in Frankfurt am Main as a Messiah,” in G. Kramer, Carl Ritter, ein Lebensbild, I (1870), 107; Janssen, Zeit- und Lebensbilder, 20–24. Somewhat later the Jews in Poland “of average salary” served their Messiah as “providers or informers”; Guizot, Revue des deux mondes, 70 (1867).

[5] The Rhenische Bundesstaaten was formed by Napoleon in 1806 as a confederation of protectorate German states that simultaneously left the Holy Roman Empire. It was disbanded in 1813 after the defeat of Napoleon in the Battle of Leipzig.

[6] Prince Adam Czartoryski (1770–1861) was a Polish nobleman who served as foreign minister to Tsar Alexander I when Poland was partitioned by Russia, Prussia and Austria.

[7] Prince Félix Salm-Salm (1828–1870) was a Prussian military officer who served in several armies including the Prussian, Austrian, the Union army in America, and the army of Maximilian I in Mexico.

[8] Georges Boulanger (1837–1891) was a French general whose staunch nationalism helped to foster anti-German sentiment (“revanchism”) in France after the latter’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871.

[9] Adolf Stoecker (1835–1909) was the court chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm I and a leading anti-Semitic agitator of his day. He founded the Christlich-soziale Partei in 1878 to counter the growing influence of the Marxist Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and participated in the international anti-Semitic congress in Dresden in 1882.

[10] LaGarde: That the Post can be mentioned in this connection is so much more regrettable as this newspaper occasionally also issues very important exposés. In it there appeared, on 8 April 1875, the famous article “Is War in Sight?” that one can read in the book of Mr. L. Hahn, Fürst Bismarck, 2, 774–776. In the Post there appeared also, on 10 September 1886 (No.247), the article signed by a retired Prussian officer and doctor of philosophy from Sofia:

Everybody familiar with the local conditions knew that the present Russian military attaché of the consulate general whom Court Chaplain Koch mentioned in his well-known “Dispatch from Lemberg” was the organiser of the conspiracy; I could have conveyed this to the Post even in my first letter to the Post. But since this attaché is an active Russian officer, I did not do this for obvious reasons and mentioned rather the Bulgarian-born lieutenant colonel Kesiakoff discharged from the Imperial Russian military service who in person publicly led the instigation of the masses after the departure of the legitimate prince.

[11] Bethel Henry Strousberg (1823–1884) was a German Jewish industrialist who, already early in his career, embezzled clients’ funds while working as an agent for some societies in Germany. He was convicted and imprisoned for this crime but was later involved again in dubious manipulations of stocks during his career as a major railway entrepreneur in Germany.

[12] Literally, the Period of the Founders, i.e., the period in the last quarter of the nineteenth century during which many new industries were founded in Germany.

Paul de Lagarde on Jews and Indo-Europeans, Part 1 of 3: German Opposition to Judaism and Its Relation to Christianity

Paul de Lagarde on Jews and Indo-Europeans; [extract from Ch. 13: “Juden und Indogermanen” (“Jews and Indo-Europeans”) of Mittheilungen (Cummunications), II (1887).]

Translated by Alexander Jacob

Paul de Lagarde (1827–1891) was a distinguished Orientalist and Biblical scholar who was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages at the University of Göttingen in 1869. He was a prolific author, and many of his books remain in print. Lagarde (who was born Paul Bötticher but adopted Lagarde from his great-aunt’s surname) also contributed to the development of the ideology of the Conservative Party of Prussia, especially in the essays collected in his Deutsche Schriften (1878).[1] As a theologian, he was in favour of a return to an original Christianity that predated the established Church, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, and he encouraged the development of a new religion that would be fully nationalist in form and feeling. His anti-Semitism, displayed in many of his essays, was based on the fact that the Jews always constituted a nation within a nation and one that was deleterious to the host nation. The arguments he presents in this last section of Chapter 13 of his 1887 work, Mittheilungen II, are consequently pivoted on the primary mistake of Jewish emancipation and on the rapid social depredations that Jewry was enabled to undertake as a result of this unfortunate event.

*   *   *

I find that the term ‘anti-Semitism’ requires explanation.

Europe suffers from some peoples who belong to an earlier human epoch and remain from the latter, incapable of development as nations—the gypsies, the Basques, the Irish, the Jews.

Of these, the gypsies can remain outside consideration. They are acknowledged to be a burden on Europe but a burden that can be borne.

The Basques make life difficult for the Spanish: for the Carlists[2] would be impossible if they did not repeatedly find in the Basques the point from which they could plunge the Iberian Peninsula into a civil war.

What the Irish are for Great Britain and—through their influence on the politics of Great Britain incapacitated by them—directly for all of Europe is known to everybody.

That the Jews groan under the hatred, the contempt, the aversion of the people of Europe is a fact so obvious that the Jews themselves will not deny it quite easily; that, however, the people of Europe have more than sufficient reason for those feelings follows naturally from the fact admitted by the Jews.

I speak here of the Basques, the Irish, the Jews as nations, for individual Basques, Irishmen and Jews have at all times been accepted in their midst happily and cordially by the Europeans.

These four nations raise the claim to live in the Europe of the nineteenth century under conditions which this Europe is not in a position to grant. They wish to be foreigners and citizens at the same time, nourish views of long-lost centuries and nevertheless be allowed the full possession of all the rights of modern men.

As a consequence, they are not only foreign to us but also abhorrent. They act on us like antipathetic guests with whom one cannot come to any understanding because one wishes always that they would go away.

We Germans know that we are of Indo-Germanic, Aryan origin. But we do not feel as Indo-Germans or Aryans but as Germans separate from the Romans and Slavs—who likewise belong to the Indo-Germanic family—and separate from even the non-German Teutons.

If we all together, with the exception of the strictly progressive people, reject the Jews not as Jews but as Semites or, in rarer cases, as Phoenicians, there is in this expression at the same time the reason why we do it: the instinct of the people has, without knowing what is happening to it, stamped the term, and the view underlying the term is therefore also right: it has emerged from the psyche of the nation. I recall an expression of similar import: ‘reptile’.[3] We are anti-Semites because Jewry living among us in the nineteenth century and in Germany represent views, customs, and claims that date back to the times after the division of the races close to the time of the Flood and, because they do, seem as strange to us as flint knives and nephrite arrowheads. We are anti-Semites, not anti-Jewish, because in the middle of a Christian world the Jews are Asiatic heathens. Circumcision and the dietary laws of the Jews are atavisms. The monotheism of the Jews stands on the same level as the report of a petty officer commanded to the commissariat who announces the existence of only one copy of any object: one God, two tables, three fathers, four mothers, and the 2307 Passover foods to be found in nature. The belief in the chosenness or, as it is now called, the “world-historical mission” of Israel then crowns the absurdity: a people who through the centuries have not produced anything for history—name one if it really does exist—are able to shout in the face of the Indo-Germans—who have indeed developed everything on which we live—that they are the favourite people of God.

Thousands of Israelites were accepted into the German nation—I limit my observation to it—before 1830, have amalgamated into it and the descendants of those who were first converted have already no inkling any more that they originate from Israelites. This amalgamation, however, proceeded so felicitously only because the people accepting made no bones about the fact that they were the ones giving, the ones drawing others up. Even the Jews leaving the old racial community without clear knowledge knew fully, at that time, that they were improved by the conversion, that they had escaped a fully unsustainable condition, a “heathen religion,” as Goethe had told them in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahren 2,1, that they had been permitted into a nation that could not be mentioned in the same breath as the Jewish nation, one of the earliest in history, that they were able to become men first through the conversion to us. We Germans were, and are, obliged to give individual Jews our best; but it is a betrayal of our best, it is a gross ignorance of our property and our life, if we call this Asiatic famed for intellectual gifts that are not existent equal to ours. We enjoy now the fruits of the tree planted by our liberal and humane grandfathers and fathers. The first condition of achieving peace with the Jews, of benefiting the Jews as well as ourselves, is that of returning—even after the unfortunately declared emancipation—to the standpoint of the time before the emancipation. The Jews will become Germans only if they always hear from us that they are not yet that, and that they, as Jews, present to us nothing but a burden that is for us odious and useless for history by continuing to carry that upon which we squander strength that can be better employed.

But, after the emancipation, the Jews are rather worse than what they were before. We told them that they are equal to us, had the same rights as us: in thanks the Jews tell us that they are better than us and we have to learn from them.

Anyone who matters knows that the modern education of Germany, insofar as there is one, is based on the Germanic character of the people, of which also their monarchical sensibility is a part, next, on the Church, and third on the effect of the spirit of the Greeks. Anybody who matters knows that we Germans are a historic people.

Since they were emancipated, the Jews have done more than just begin to deny all of that, to speak to us about their Asiatic rubbish as our salvation; they are also so insolent as to expect a rejection of our history. In political life they always stand on the side of the progressives standing in the way of all progress who demand that we build a house without foundation, who call it freedom not to become free and tolerance to act like apes.

Mr. Kaufmann explains on p. 45: “I shall not be silent for the sake of Zion.” He speaks in the manner of Deutero-Isaiah 62.1.7,[4] That had been done before him already by K. Lippe, M.D., and Mr. Lippe appears as a protector of our sacred sites, of our immortal ancestral heritage, of the humane law-giving of Zion and the pure civilisation of Jerusalem.

What do Zion and Jerusalem have to do with the fellow countrymen of Siegfried and Hermann? Mr. Delitzsch,[5] as a Protestant and Jew, Mr. Kaufmann and Mr. Lippe, as Jews, are not at all in a position to understand what the circumstance means that Luther has changed—and how!—the ancient Church forms of the names of the Old Testament in his contrary wisdom. HEBREW and HEBREW= Zion and Jerusalem are suitable only for the Jews, and for the Jews as Jews; the Church became acquainted with, and named, those places not through the Jews but through the mediation of the Greek-speaking synagogue and with the sense that these Hellenistic synagogues imparted to the place names translated into Greek; the Church then further placed its interpretation in the tradition dating therefrom, and that is why the Church speaks of Zion and Jerusalem and considers the people speaking of Zion and Jerusalem as ἐθvιxoí [ethnikoi], as heathens. The Church sings the best Psalms, those expressing most fully the regular religious service of the ancient synagogue, the cantica graduum (119–133=120–134),[6] according to the synagogue, but it sings these in its own sense. Zion and Jerusalem are, for Germans who have not sunk into Liberalism and Protestantism, nothing at all, for the Jews as important as the Forum in Rome for the Italians, the Kaaba for the Mohammedans. But even the German born after the heartless and mindless Reformation, still full of the ancient faith, sighs

Jerusalem, thou lofty city,
God will that I were there.

And the theologian who has studied his subject knows very well how he has to deal with the passages in the Letters to the Hebrews, which my readers may wish to consult 12,22,13,14. Zion (rather, Çiyyón), Jerusalem, Ezekiel=Kaskel=Yeḥezqeél, Yirmeyohu or the Jeremiah of Ewald[7] and his five-penny pupils are, for sensitive men all over Europe, not at all existent. One who praises them to us—quickly over the border with them! Our “Lord” arose from the Adonai of the ancient synagogue read as Yahweh; the new synagogue, which has become Jewry, that is, ἔθνος [ethnos], understands neither Adonai nor Yahweh; it must throw aside the significance of these names—which became apparent first to me—for Yahweh and Adonai lead to the Lord of the Church, whom the Protestants do not recognise and the Jews ridicule and malign.

Related to the explanations of Mr. Kaufmann and Mr. Lippe is the answer that Goethe gave in Wilhelm Meister’s Wanderjahre 3, 11:

We tolerate no Jew among us; for, how can we grant him a share in the highest culture, whose origin and convention he denies?

Here nobody objects that Goethe was in his old age a man of a past age who had become childish—one hears now many things. I cite from the Vossische Zeitung, certainly a paper that is not suspicious, from 19 April 1884, the approval of the “golden sentence that should be pondered on” that Alfred Christian Kalischer, a baptised Jew, ventured in a volume on Spinoza published by Franz von Holtzendorff:

It cannot be in the long run acceptable to want to constantly sustain a nationality at the cost of the eternal eradication of that spirit of this nationality that all epochs of creative cultured peoples praise and respect as their most excellent divine spirit.

Much is to be objected to in Kalischer’s sentence: One must acknowledge that the merely reactionary aspect of Jewry, these cinders of an age that has long been burnt out, is judged by him clearly enough.

The view expressed here would long ago have been the universal one if Protestantism had not stood in its way, itself a cinder like Judaism. Mr. Moritz Lazarus[8] has, in his writings to the German Jews, 10,11, cited the statement of a man of “famed Christian piety,” the Privy Church Counsellor, Franz Delitzsch:

On the part of the Christians there enters into the anti-Semitic movement an un-Christian racial hatred that cries out to the heavens and, since the roots of Christianity are the same as those of the Old Testament religion, represents the disgusting conduct of a bird that dirties its own nest

Mr. Delitzsch would perhaps have come out better from this affair since he himself is of Jewish origin, thus an interested party. If that which is propounded in the sentence just quoted, which is ill-considered beyond pardon, should be taken as Protestant theology this theology no longer deserves to be considered as a subdivision of Christian theology.[9]

The Church does not recognise any Judaism and any Christianity but the Old Testament and the New Testament: the form of the latter is the Church. The Church teaches that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and rejects through these formulae every connection of the head of the Church, and therewith of the Church, with Judaism. The Church calls Jesus the Christ, that is, it sees in him the fulfiller not of the old expectations of Judaism but of the old promises of God. The Church calls Jesus Christ the Lord, that is, it finds in him the Yahweh of the Old Testament, not the one belonging to the Semites or one of their race, but to the theologians of Israel, the ones who called forth the promises of God into being. It is not true that the Jews living today adhere to the “religion” of the Old Testament, for one who speaks of the Old Testament recognises therewith a New Testament. It is not true that the canon of the synagogue has been the central point of the life of any Jew after Christ for, although it modelled its expressions after this canon, the synagogue further matured through the Mishna and the Gemara to the Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism of the Middle Ages transmitted by the Arabs to the Jews and, thereafter, through the Deism of the English to Mendelssohn,[10] Geiger,[11] Holdheim,[12] Graetz,[13] Lazarus, Lasker,[14] Sonnemann,[15] Sabor[16] and Singer.[17] In the course of this development, whose direction will not be unclear to anybody, the race remained identical, only the clothes with which the race covered—and covers—its shameful nakedness have changed. But the fourth Gospel [according to John], the most anti-Jewish book of the New Testament, maintains in 1:13 against the Jews that the children of God are not produced by the blood (of Jewish patriarchs) and not out of the flesh and the will of man but by God; this Gospel  recognises, in 4:22,23, that salvation derives from the Jews but it sets the genuine worship of God in spirit and truth in opposition to the Jewish worship; this Gospel announces straightforwardly, in 3:5, that one who is not born from above cannot see the kingdom of God; it therefore denies that which the Bible-believing Royal Saxon Privy Church Counsellor teaches, that a Christian dirties his own nest when he sets forth against the unashamed claims of a nation that once, through its prophets and pious men, stood closer to the Church than the other heathens, through their sibyls and prophets, from which however the light and warmth has disappeared because they were foolish enough to consider the revealed and gifted wealth as the fruit of their own natural development.

Go to Part 2.

[1] For my translation of part of this work, see Alexander Jacob, Europa: German Conservative Foreign Policy 1870–1940 (University Press of America, 2002).

[2] Carlism is a legitimist movement that began in Spain around 1830 and sought to establish the dynasty of Don Carlos (1788–1855) on the Spanish throne. It lasted until the Spanish Civil War, when the Carlists allied with General Franco. The movement found regular support in the Basque territories and among the Basque nationalists.

[3] Lagarde: See my Deutsche Schriften, in Vollständige Werke (Complete Works), 448ff.

[4] “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.”

[5] Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890) was a Protestant Hebraist who was assumed by many to be of Jewish descent. He attacked both the anti-Semitic movement in Germany and the attacks on Christianity in the Jewish press.

[6] Bartolomeo Botta’s edition of Psalms, the Cantica graduum was published in Milan in 1563.

[7] Heinrich Ewald (1803–1875) was a German orientalist and Protestant theologian.

[8] Moritz Lazarus (1824–1923) was a German-Jewish philosopher who established “Völkerpsychologie” (national psychology) as a branch of philosophical studies.

[9] LaGarde: Cf. the Complete Edition of my [Lagarde’s]  Deutsche Schriften, 292, 293.

[10] Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) was a philosopher and theologian of the “Haskalah” or Jewish Enlightenment.

[11] Lazarus Geiger (1829–1870) was a philologist and philosopher.

[12] Samuel Holdheim (1806–1860) was a rabbi and a leader of early Reform Judaism.

[13] Heinrich Graetz (1817–1891) was a Jewish historian and apologist who wrote a 11-volume Geschichte der Juden (History of the Jews) (1853–1875).

[14] Eduard Lasker (1829–1884) was a Liberal politician.

[15] Leopold Sonnemann (1831–1909) was editor of the Frankfurter Zeitung and a founding member of the Liberal “Deutsche Volkspartei.”

[16] Adolf Sabor (1841–1907) was a Social Democratic member of the Reichstag.

[17] Paul Singer (1844–1911) was a founding member of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD).

Introduction to Two Treatises on Jews and Freemasonry: Édouard Drumont and Nicolae Paulescu

Jewish Freemasonry: Two Treatises by Éduard Frumont & Nicholae Paulescu
with an Introduction by Alexander Jacob


Introduction  — Alexander Jacob

I. “The Freemasons” (Jewish France, Book VI, Chapter 1) — Édouard Drumont

II. “Freemasonry,” from The Hospital, the Qur’an, the Talmud, the Kahal, and Freemasonry, Ch. V – Nicolae Paulescu


Freemasonry and its goals have been the subject of innumerable studies seeking to investigate, or expose, this secretive and powerful organisation.  The Jesuit priest Abbé Augustin Barruel’s magisterial work Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme (1798), for instance, attempted to uncover the anti-Christian character of  Freemasonry by detailing the conspiratorial role played by the Enlightenment philosophes and the Freemasons and the Illuminati in the genesis and conduct  of the French Revolution.  The aims of the Revolution, according to Barruel, were primarily anti-Christian, anti-monarchical and Anarchical.  Barruel did not focus on the Jews in this work though his curiosity was aroused when he received a letter in 1806 from a certain  Giovanni-Battista Simonini who claimed to have infiltrated the Piedmont Jewish community and learnt from them about the Jewish origins of both  the Freemasons and the Illuminati.[1]

The two extracts presented in this edition shed more light on the Jewish origins and ambitions of the Freemasonic organization. More importantly, both authors place an emphasis on the remarkable contrast between the Jewish character of the Masonic ethos and the social doctrines of  the Catholic Church which it seeks to replace as the prime mover of politics in the West.  Whereas the Catholic Church has an avowed commitment to Christian charity and social harmony, Freemasonry is marked by a contempt of poverty and a singular desire to establish the supremacy of Israel in the world.

Édouard Drumont: “The Freemasons”

Of the two authors presented here, Édouard Drumont (1844–1917) was indeed one of the first to insist that the entire Masonic enterprise was Jewish  in origin even though he based his conviction on Masonic texts that had been available in France from the late eighteenth century. [2] Drumont was a French journalist who wrote many works on the Jews including La France juive: Essai d’histoire contemporain, 2 volumes (1886), Testament d’un antisémite (1891), Les Juifs et l’affaire Dreyfus (1899), La Tyrannie maçonnique (1899), Les Juifs contre la France (1899) and Le Peuple juif (1900).  Drumont also ran a newspaper La libre parole, which was markedly anti-Semitic. In 1899 he founded the ‘Ligue antisémitique de France’ and argued for the exclusion of Jews from society.

The last book of Drumont’s Jewish France contains three chapters devoted to the three Judeocentric groups portrayed to be persecuting Catholic France, the first chapter on the Freemasons, the second on the Protestants and the third on the Jews.  Drumont begins his chapter on Freemasonry by pointing out the peculiarly Jewish nature of Freemasonry.  Freemasonry is not a variety of Freethought since freethinkers like Lord Byron and Delacroix at least “do not attack our citizenship rights, our human rights, and our rights as Frenchmen. “ Rather, it is an essentially Jewish institution and imbued with a specially Jewish character.

The Jewish origin and constitution of the Masonic organization are evident from the various rituals it employs in its meetings and particularly in the dramatic  reenactments of Old Testament scenes depicting the revenge taken by Jews on their oppressors, such as that of Judith on Holofernes.  These rituals are all intended to impress on the candidates and members the principal goal of Masonry, which is to reunite the tribes of  Israel as a nation after their dispersal at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, a destruction that must also be avenged.  The particular focus of the Masonic revenge is Christianity since the great crime of the Christ in the view of the Jews is his usurpation of the supremacy of Jehovah.  The essence of Masonry therefore is, as Drumont puts it, “Sympathy and tenderness for Jerusalem and its representatives; hatred for Christ and Christians: all of Masonry is contained in this.”

The means whereby Masonry seeks to overthrow the Europeans is always a

politics of dissolution: whether it is a matter of financial companies or of secret societies, they are able to give an appearance of order and seriousness to appetites, to collective bad instincts.

The growing influence of Masonry on European politics has resulted in a steady dissolution of traditional European society.  Thus Republicanism is, in the nineteenth century, the culmination of the French Revolution with Napoleon and Bismarck contributing to the process of Jewish bourgeois supremacy.

In their enormous and far-sighted political task, the Jewish Masons have been aided through the centuries by ambitious mediocrities from among the European peoples who were the hosts of the Jews during the diaspora.  The second part of Drumont’s essay on Freemasonry includes several detailed examples of public figures in French Republican life who have duped the public through various nefarious dealings that have been disguised by the false honors that have been bestowed upon them by the Third Republic. [3] The entire Republican ethos is indeed marked not by a desire to liberate the oppressed French populace but rather by a hatred of society.  In fact, one particularly odious characteristic of Freemasonry is its contempt and hatred for the poor, which is in marked contrast to  the importance of charity in the Catholic Church.  And if the Masons seem occasionally to tolerate the social status quo, it is only because they wish to focus their mind more sharply on their inveterate religious enemy, the Christian Church:

Thus, many in Masonry are pseudo-scholars, pseudo-orators, they hate society with a hatred that is not at all the courageous revolt of Spartacus, the bitter anger of Vindex, but like  a venomous envy that smells of the[4] ante-chamber and the office; they do not intend to destroy the social edifice completely because they hope to make a place there through more or less correct procedures, but they attack the Church because it can give them only noble instructions, counsels of respect and devotion that they do not want.

Nicolae Paulescu: Freemasonry

The Jewish nature of Freemasonry and its hatred of Christianity are reinforced in the work of Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931). His chapter on Masonry in his work Philosophic Physiology: The Hospital, the Koran, the Talmud, the Kahal and Freemasonry pivots on the same contrast between the Christian concept of charity — exemplified in Paulescu’s own medical profession by ‘the hospital’ included in the title — and the sheer avarice for material possession and political domination of the Jews who conduct the Masonic organizations.

Paulescu was a Romanian physiologist and professor of medicine, as  well as a political activist.   In 1897 Paulescu graduated with a Doctor of Medicine degree from a medical school in Paris. He was appointed assistant surgeon at the Notre-Dame du Perpetuel-Secours Hospital but in 1900 he returned to Romania, where he remained until his death as Head of the Physiology Department of the University of Bucharest Medical School, as well as Professor of Clinical Medicine at the St Vincent de Paul Hospital in Bucharest. He is well-known for his work in extracting insulin for the treatment of diabetes and petitioned the Nobel Prize committee to object to the award given to two Canadian scientists. From Wikipedia:

Professor Ian Murray was particularly active in working to correct “the historical wrong” against Paulescu. Murray was a professor of physiology at the Anderson College of Medicine in Glasgow, Scotland, the head of the department of Metabolic Diseases at a leading Glasgow hospital, vice-president of the British Association of Diabetes, and a founding member of the International Diabetes Federation. In an article for a 1971 issue of the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Murray wrote:

Insufficient recognition has been given to Paulesco, the distinguished Roumanian scientist, who at the time when the Toronto team were commencing their research had already succeeded in extracting the antidiabetic hormone of the pancreas and proving its efficacy in reducing the hyperglycaemia in diabetic dogs.

In a recent private communication Professor Tiselius, head of the Nobel Institute [and a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1948], has expressed his personal opinion that Paulesco was equally worthy of the award in 1923.

Paulescu was also involved in Romanian political movements and influenced Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the leader of the Iron Guard. In 1922, he partnered with Codreanu’s anti-Semitic friend, Prof. A.C. Cuza, to create a political group called the National Christian Union. In 1925, Paulescu joined Cuza’s later organization, the National Christian Defense League as well.

Nicolae Paulescu’s sociological writings include Philosophical Physiology: Instincts Social — Passions and Conflicts — Moral Remedies (1910), which advocated the regeneration of the population through Christian education.  Paulescu’s most famous book was the second volume of “philosophical physiology” which was entitled Philosophical Physiology: Hospital, Quran, Talmud, Cahal, Franc-Masonry (1913).  He later wrote more works on the Jewish Problem, including Philosophical Physiology: The Synagogue and the Church to the Pacification of Mankind, 2 vols, 1923; The Judeo-Masonic Plot against the Romanian People, 1924; The Degeneration of the Jewish Race, 1928, Jewish Debauchery, 1928; and Interpretation of Revelation, the future fate of the Jews, 1941.

In The Hospital, the Koran, the Talmud, the Kahal and Freemasonry, Paulescu first explains the duties of doctors and relates hospitals to the notion of Christian charity: “Hospitals are an inspiration of Christian charity.”  He then considers the two other religions that claim to cure the illnesses of mankind, Islam and Judaism, both of which he considers as opposed to Christian morality. Islam and Judaism are both characterised by a cruel desire for possessions and dominion but the Muslim Arabs are superior to the Jews in that they possess a real valor whereas the Jews “manifest themselves only through cowardice.”

Paulescu begins his study of Judaism with the principal legal text of the Jews, the Talmud, which uses usury, fraud and perjury to rob and enslave the Gentiles.  The development of the Jewish political ambition is accomplished through the “Kahal,” the Jewish governing body typical of Jewish communities well into the twentieth century. The Kahal conceives of the Jewish nation as one based on “the Talmudic dogma of the chosen people, a doctrine according to which the Jews must not merge with other nations, because God has promised them to possess the whole earth and to rule the world.” He demonstrates the financial and social depredations wrought by Jewish immigration into European lands and discusses Freemasonry too within the context of the resolute war that the Jews have been conducting against Christianity through the ages by means of the various religious heresies and political revolutions that they have fostered in Europe.

Paulescu’s section on Freemasonry, which constitutes the final chapter of his book, relies considerably on Drumont’s work but it is rather more comprehensive than it.  Paulescu here reveals the hatred that informs all of the Jewish involvement in European intellectual and political history.  The source of this hatred is evident most clearly in the Talmud but its enduring effects are manifest in the various Jewish-sponsored heretical movements that have sought to distort Christianity and Catholicism through the ages, beginning with the Ebionites in the first century A.D. and passing through Protestantism to Freemasonry.  The purported goal of the Freemasons to rebuild the Temple of Solomon is, according to Paulescu,  only a watchword that indicates the ambition of Israel to dominate the world.  Regarding the organization of Freemasonry, Paulescu points out that, in spite of its proclaimed philanthropy, the secretive nature of the  whole is a clear indication of its suspect character: “And to think that no one wonders why this society is hidden, when it has purposes  as sublime as the search for the truth.

More carefully than Drumont, Paulescu — relying on the work of Paul Copin-Albancell’s Le drame maçonnique: le pouvoir occulte contre la France  (“The Masonic Drama: The Occult Power against France” ( 1908) — details the hierarchy within the Masonic organization where the lower degrees of Masons are mostly blindfolded followers of an uppermost elite that  is constituted of Jews alone. And the bizarre rituals that mark a Mason’s progress through the organization are all marked by sentiments of hatred and revenge for those responsible for the destruction of the Temple.  Among the various targets of the Masons’ hatred, the chief are undoubtedly the Christians.  Quoting Copin-Albancelli, Paulescu points out that Masons are instructed to the effect that “Freemasonry has one enemy – Christianity, and Catholicism in particular — that you need to hate and fight.”[5]

Further, Masonry constantly spawns various sub-groups that carry out its agenda,  as Copin-Albancelli had noted:

Examples of such tentacles are the Freethinking (Libre-Pensée) Leagues, those of human and civil rights, those of education, houses of schools, studying clubs, library societies, of conferences, of Popular Universities … even of unions.[6]

During the times of the French Revolution, the Masons were aided particularly by the Masonic sub-group that called itself the “Jacobins.”  Of the political effects that resulted from these several organizations, the French Revolution aimed simultaneously at emancipating the Jews and at persecuting the Christians.  Among the Catholics, the chief targets of the Masons are the Jesuits, whom they fear above all Christian orders.  The monasteries of the Jesuits were attacked in Portugal, Spain, France and Austria and the campaign against Jesuitry continued with constant vilifications of Jesuits among  the public so that the common people gradually came to believe that the term Jesuit could be used as a synonym for scoundrel.

According to Paulescu, The Jewish support of the revolutionaries was intended to bolster the third estate of the bourgeoisie, which at first supported Napoleon in spite of his imperialistic ambitions.  When the Masons found that Napoleon’s tyranny was becoming dangerous to their plans, they worked to bring him down.  All through this period they benefited from their gradual emancipation in several European states.  But their ultimate aim of total revolution was not manifest until the Revolution of 1848, which sought to impose bourgeois capitalist Liberalism as a major political movement that would lead to the institution of a socialist republic.  The latter goal was achieved after the Paris Commune of 1871 when the Third Republic was established, and French society was henceforth marked by the separation of Church and State.

The real aims of all Masonic republics were to destroy monarchies, abolish Christianity from the education of the public, and to convert the people into a proletariat that could easily be made to serve the ambitions of Judah.  Based on Bernard Lazare’s work L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes (Anti-Semitism: Its History and Its Causes) (1894), the religious subversion of the Masons is related by Paulescu also to the  Kulturkampf that Bismarck conducted against the Roman Catholic Church between 1872 and 1878 and to the Jules Ferry laws of 1882 that mandated secular education in France.

At the same time, Paulescu claims that “Jewish Socialism” works towards the dispossession of private property by a state that is essentially Jewish in its composition  and interests.  These false socialist movements were crystallized in the doctrines of the Jew Karl Marx. And they were bolstered in their subversive agenda by the Anarchists, who constituted the more murderous and iconoclastic elements of the several revolutions that sprang up in Europe from 1848 onwards.

Paulescu then goes on to examine the subversive socialist role of Masonry in various European countries such as their support of the Templars in Romania and the Young Turks in Turkey.  In France, they focused on the destruction of Christianity in the nation by eliminating it from public education and the military establishment.  This anti-clericalism was especially strong in the regime of the Jew Léon Gambetta, President of the Council of Ministers[7] between 1881 and 1882, who declared “Le cléricalisme, voilà l’ennem” (Clericalism is the  enemy).  Thus the attacks on the clergy were regularized and Christian education was replaced by a secular education which was made free and compulsory in the nation.  This in turn fostered atheistic doctrines, such as those of Darwin, and a general contempt for the Christian Church.  Even  the Latin language was deposed as a language of learning since it had been the language of the Church.

By positing a world constituted of matter and energy alone the Masonic-Marxist revolutions succeeded in repudiating the notions of the soul and of God on which Christian civilization had been based. As Drumont had already pointed out, whereas Christianity stresses love and charity, Masonry has a distinctive contempt for, and hatred of, poverty.  Thus, Paulescu is arguing that by steadily obliterating the Christian doctrines of compassion and charity and enlarging the worldly possessions and power of the Jews, Masonry has finally accomplished in post-Revolutionary Europe what the Talmud has striven to achieve from the very first centuries of the Christian era.

[1] See, for example, C. Oberhauser, ‘Simonini’s Letter or the Roots of the Alleged Jewish-Masonic World Conspiracy’, Jews in Central Europe, 2012, pp. 10-17.

[2] For instance, in pointing to the Judaic character of the Masonic rituals, he quotes from  The Most mysterious mysteries of the high ranks of Masonry revealed or the true Rosicrucian, which was published in 1766.

[3] He cites particularly the example of the shallow Charles Cousin (1822–1894), who was the administrator of the Northern Railway and president of the Council of the Grand Orient of France until 1885.

[4] The Gaulish leader who led a revolt against the Roman Emperor Nero in 68 A.D. He was defeated by the military legate Lucius Rufus and committed suicide.

[5] CherryAlbancelli, The drama maçonnique, I. p. 3132.

[6] Ibid., II, 195.

[7] Léon Gambetta was thus the Prime Minister.

“The Jews — The Kings of Our Age,” by Dr. Otto Böckel

“The Jews — The Kings of Our Age”[1]
Dr. Otto Böckel
Translated by Alexander Jacob

Otto Böckel (1859–1923) was a German anti-Semitic politician who was moved by the plight of the German peasants of Hesse to enter politics in 1887 as an independent member of the Reichstag. Like Eugen Dühring — who published a seminal work on the Jewish Question in 1881, Die Judenfrage[2] — Böckel was against all exploitative groups, Jewish or Junker and championed the peasants against their capitalist oppressors. Like Dühring too, Böckel considered the Jews distinct from the Germans in race rather than in religion and maintained that the Jewish Question was an existential question on which hinged the survival of one or the other race.  In the nineties, he formed an anti-Semitic party called Antisemitische Volkspartei, which later merged with Oswald Zimmerman’s Deutsche Reformpartei, in 1893. However, opposition from other anti-Semitic factions, including that of the Lutheran theologian Adolf Stoecker and his Christlich-soziale Partei, led to a weakening of his parliamentary position and he eventually left politics in 1912.

*   *   *

Respected attendees!

In my last talk, which I held on 28 December of last year here in the Bockbrauerei, I explained that the Jewish Question is an existential question for the German nation, that it was about whether the German nation would remain free, prosperous and happy in the future or whether Jewry would, bit by bit, in a slow but certain progression, undermine our national welfare and therewith the foundational pillars of our national existence. The Jewish Question stands above the political parties; it is a national question which affects every German regardless of religion or party affiliation. Whether conservative, liberal, progressive or ultramontane, all are threatened by the Jews. It was a great mistake of the anti-Semitic movement that it allowed itself to be dragged down to the swamp of parties; the decline of the anti-Semitic movement — so often stressed by the Jews — dates from the day that anti-Semitism got roped in by the Conservatives. This mistake we should rectify today, we must preach anti-Semitism free of any party orientation; every German has an interest in the Jewish Question, and only through the cooperation of men of all parties can it be solved in a legitimate manner.

How a solution of the Jewish Question is to be imagined has been the subject of much debate. Of course, such burning questions are not solved in one stroke. But the way to the solution is, nevertheless, quite discoverable. Every solution of the Jewish Question must begin with the fact that it should be recognised legally in the constitution that:

There are in Germany two different nations: Germans and Jews. The former are the masters of the land, the latter are guests, who may indeed possess a right to hospitality but never a right to be masters.

Who then made Germany arable, who cleared the primeval forests, who drove out the bears and wolves? Did our forefathers, the ancient Germans, not do that? If the Jews had had to cut down the primeval forests and shoot the wolves, the primeval forests would still have been standing in Germany and the wolves would have still dwelt in packs in our forests.

What our people developed through the sweat of their brow should also remain their own and no foreign tribe may drive the German from his native soil. Germany for the Germans, that is the slogan of anti-Semitism. We do not want any hatred of Jews but protection of Germans; never should the property of the Germans be expropriated by Jews, never should entire streets, entire cities and villages fall victim to the Jews, as is the case, for example, in Hesse, Alsace, and even here in Berlin. If the land registers — these silent proofs of Jewish power — could speak, they would utter a loud declaration of the Judaization of German land. The exploitation of our rural people has already reached a fabulous height.

Some examples: In the district courts of Gelnhausen and Meerholz, 227 forced auctions of housing properties were pending from 1 January 1880 to the present date. If one adds to this also the public auctions of the district courts of Wächtersbach, Birstein, Bieber and Orb, there must have been, in the Gelnhausen district alone, in this time-period, the really hair-raising number of 450 public auctions. The prosecuting party consisted 99% of Jews, while 1% was made up of public commercial treasuries and German money-lenders. Furthermore, in the Frankenberg district in Hesse, from 1877 to 1882, in 17 communities, 36 auctions have been noted. Of the auctioneers 17 were Jews and only 3 Germans. In addition, it must be observed that, given such a progress of property butchering, in around 15 years in the Frankenberg district there will be only a very small number of peasants left who are not financial slaves of the Jewish butchering of property. So, we have come so far already in the highly civilized nineteenth century that slavery — which has been repealed in Africa and America with streams of blood — can be quite freely introduced again into the middle of the German fatherland by Jews. Is that not a slap in the face of our much-praised civilization? When will the Germans have some of the tolerance that they have had twelve times for the foreign Jews for their own flesh and blood, for the German peasant class ruined by the Jews?

But do not think that it looks pathetic only In Hesse. It looks more or less similar everywhere in Germany. None other than the officious Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung wrote the following in 1880 about the Jews in Posen:

Just as in a factory, the public auction machine works throughout the year allocating the personal possessions of the rural folk to the Jews.

Yes, such an admission on the part of a newspaper that in its time made a stand against the anti-Semites is doubly valuable. In Upper Silesia, the Jews, according to the report of the liberal Kölnische Zeitung of May 1886, rule the entire trade to such an extent that in some places it is very difficult to do any shopping on Saturdays. The Jews have all the liquor bars in their hands there. Under such circumstances one can well understand that hunger typhus and delirium tremens is rampant in Upper Silesia. The Jews are also to blame for the hunger typhus and the misery that are to be found in Spessart, as Father Frank publicly proclaimed in the Bavarian chamber in 1880. How great the debt has grown in the Saar emerges from the well-established fact that a single Jewish firm, the H. Brothers in Saarlouis, as a consequence of the law “On the sale and mortgaging of property within the Rhine law,” in the period from 1 July 1885 to the present date in 1886, earned over 2,000,000 marks purchase price privileges. Consider, gentlemen, that that was done by a single ordinary Jewish firm, and now calculate the debt of our peasant class in relation to thousands of similar Jewish firms!

In the area around Trier, the Jews have already become exuberant to such an extent that they could openly boast that they were killing the Peasants’ Union founded for the protection of the peasants. In West Prussia, the Jews are, as the Secretary General Dr. Demmler testifies, already prevalent, extraordinarily strong, and have become the “fundamental malady of the peasant class.” Faced with such conditions, who does not recall the saying of Prince Bismarck, who in 1847 said in the state parliament during the discussion of the Jewish emancipation:

I know a place where the Jewish population is very numerous in the country, where there are peasants who call nothing on their entire property their own; from their bed to their oven-fork all furniture belongs to the Jew and the peasant pays a daily rent for every single thing. The corn in the field and in the barn belongs to the Jew and the Jew sells bread, seeds, and fodder to the peasant with razor sharpness. Of a similar Christian usury I have never heard, at least in my experience.

Another example, of how it is in southern Germany. In 1835, the Jews in Hohenzollern petitioned for their civil rights. The provincial deputies deliberated on it. In the course of the debate a speaker expressed the following: “The haggling business of the Jews weighs in a corrupting manner on the province. In the village, in the huts of the poor and the simple folk, the work-instrument and cow, the field and the pasture, the pan and the pot, the hood and the jacket, often belong to the Jew and he does not stop making the peasant with his house and field, harrow and plough, wife and child subject to him through interest.” If the Jews are emancipated, said another speaker, “then in a short time the entire princely house of the Hohenzollerns would belong to the Chosen People and the poor goyim be their slaves.” These are sad images of the Judaization of land in Germany.

Where will it end if it continues in this way? From where will the defense troops come to defend the fatherland when our peasant sinks more and more into a day-labourer or emigrates in order to escape from the Jew? The peasantry are the foundational pillar of a healthy state structure; woe to the state that leaves its peasants defenceless to exploitation by the Jews! It is infuriating when one must watch how the Jew, who just 20 years ago peddled goatskins as a poor panhandler, today, as a rich haggler, holds on a Sunday morning a day of hearing for his indebted peasants in order to inform them whether he will just auction them off or whether he will still be merciful. It is infuriating when such scenes occur in the middle of the German fatherland!

Yes, gentlemen, if you would see how the poor victims of the Jew come to the day of hearing of this person, how they bow down their heads, how the Jew shouts at them, how many of them depart therefrom in tears, then your heart will beat in shame and rage at how deep already the German people have sunk into misery. If you wish to study the Jewish Question, you must go to the court house into which the Jew leads his peasants; how often I have seen the poor victims creep to the local court with lowered head next to the grimacing Jew.

Yes, gentlemen, this sight made me an anti-Semite, I then said to myself: ‘How low, how low indeed, our people have fallen! Is there then nobody, nobody who has the courage to intervene on behalf of the poor people who have fallen to the Jew?’ I looked around myself and saw nobody. Some perhaps made fists in their pockets, but the Jews are too powerful, they are feared. Cowardice is a widespread vice.

Then I jumped into the movement, without any consideration of career or future. It was in autumn 1883 when I became acquainted, in a really drastic case, with the misery that the Jews bring upon our people. A formerly well-off peasant was fully impoverished by a Jew; a few days after the auctioning of the peasant’s possessions, the Jew was found murdered. The peasant was brought before the jury in Marburg but acquitted. The proceedings uncovered a frightful image of Jewish usury. I followed the trial with great excitement; on the day on which the verdict was uttered I too was among the expectant crowd. I shall never forget the moment when the acquitted victim of the Jew emerged from the door of the court building. A hundred “Bravos” shook the air, the mass of people were beside themselves with joy. Then, in this thrilling hour, I swore to myself: “This cannot go on further; you must intervene against the activities of the Jews with your whole life. The people are panting for a liberator:” From this moment onwards I have been an anti-Semitic agitator, the image of the poor peasant robbed by the Jew impels me forward; whether the enemy be numerous, whether the dirt and the hatred be so great, I must fight and will fight to the last drop of my blood, to my last breath.

We want to fight, but only on an honest, legal path; we abjure every brutal violence and dissociate ourselves expressly from anyone who undertakes to solve the Jewish Question in an illegal manner. We know only too well that nothing hurts our cause more than illegal riots. That is precisely what the Jews want so that they may obtain a certain semblance of truth for the old meaningless phrase “Jew baiting.” Who knows how many of those abhorrent riots against the possessions of the Jews originated directly or indirectly from paid agents provocateurs of the Jews themselves. We cannot emphasize too often the legality of our agitation.

Equally as often must we emphasize that we seek to solve the Jewish Question totally only as a racial question, never as a religious question. The Jewish Question has nothing to do with the religion of the Jews; what the Jew believes is a matter of indifference; whether he is a Reform Jew, Orthodox or baptised Jew, that is a matter of complete indifference for us anti-Semites. The Jews are a tenacious, ancient race distant from ours that cannot be extirpated from the world either through baptism or miscegenation. Baptism is for the Jew only a passport to enter into the higher classes in order to be able to work so much more energetically for the interests of his race. Through baptism the Jew becomes only more dangerous.

What the Jews themselves think of baptism they express very openly; so, for example, the Jew Singer in Vienna clearly says in his work Should the Jews become Christians?,[3] “The Jew who lets himself be converted is a hypocrite.” More characteristically does the orthodox Israelit appearing in Mainz illustrate the view of the Jews regarding baptism: At the time of the Napoleonic campaign a German Jew came as a soldier to Spain; now, there are in Spain, where the Jewish religion is not tolerated in public, many secret Jews (they are called novos christianos)[4] who say outwardly that they are Christian but secretly celebrate the Jewish rituals, are circumcised, etc. Our Jewish soldier now came accidentally to such a secret Jew in his cantonment. The host was very ill and was dying. They called for a priest. Suddenly, when the priest entered the barrack room with a raised crucifix, the dying man cried out: “Stay away, I am a Jew.” The priest then threw the cross onto the ground and cried out: “I am also a Jew.”  And the Jewish German soldier embraced both his racial comrades and cried out: “I am also a Jew.” And the three Jews (two dishonest and one honest) embraced one another and were glad that they had found one another in such a miraculous way.

That is a little piece that may show us what one may think of the baptism of the Jews. Woe to the people who think that they can get rid of the Jewish Question through baptism; it can then easily happen as in Portugal, where the entire national character has been corrupted and enervated by the creeping Jewry. The Portuguese, once a warlike and seafaring nation, have, in the judgement of competent travellers like Willkomm,[5] etc., become roguish and Jewish, their national character has been corrupted by the admixed Jewry. How far things have gone in Portugal is demonstrated by an anecdote that the elder D’Israeli, [6] the English Jew, narrates in his work Geist des Judenthums (Stuttgart, 1836, 218): The Portuguese nation is seventy five percent made up of Jews. Under the government of Pombal,[7] King Joseph was persuaded to renew that badge of the Jews, the yellow hat, to designate the many novos christianos among his subjects. The edict was prepared; the next morning the minister appeared before His Majesty with three yellow hats, one he offered to the king, the second he gave the Great Inquisitor and the third he intended for his own head. “I follow the orders of His Majesty,” he said, “and give this badge to those whose blood has been stained with Jewish blood.”

That is what happens in countries where one deals with the Jewish Question from a religious standpoint. The Jews are a race, and indeed a very ancient one. On the Egyptian pyramids we find portrayed, among other labourers, also some Jews (the Jews, as is well-known, had to work as laborers in Egypt) and these Jews on the thousand-year old pyramids look exactly like our present-day Jews in Germany. That is perhaps the best proof of the persistence of the Jewish race.

It is a fact recognised by many medical authorities that the bodily structure of the Jews is different from that of the Germans. Dr. G. Schulz, curator of the anatomical museum in St. Petersburg, compiled a report on the measurements of individuals from different nations for the determination of the proportions of the human body. In St. Petersburg, the focal point of the most extensive monarchy on earth, he had excellent opportunity for comparative bodily measurements: he accurately measured Russians, Jews, Circassians,[8] Latvians, negroes and Chuvashians.[9] The result showed, that among these different nations, the Jews represented not just a deviation and distinctiveness in individual proportions, but that they stand at the extreme limit in the chief proportions of height and width, the proportion of the trunk to the limbs, of the head and neck to the rest of the body, and represented an exceptional distinctiveness. Even Professor Virchow,[10] the famous natural scientific researcher, spoke at the grave of Ludwig Löwe of a Jewish race and therewith provided the most valuable endorsement for us anti-Semites.

The key to the Jewish Question lies in the circumstance that the Jews are a foreign race that thinks differently, feels differently, acts differently than us and consequently must quite naturally be placed in another legal category. We cannot confound the concept of race with “humanity”: blood is not water, nations and statesmen who do not deal with the racial conditions rooted in Nature are destroyed by this failure of understanding.

One such failure of understanding was the Jewish emancipation. People thought that they would be able to silently assume that a Jew was, or could become, a German. Statesmanly cleverness and foresight were subordinated to more general observations and created in this way pathetic conditions which a clever politician could have foreseen. Even the very free-thinking tribune Hecker[11] was an opponent of Jewish emancipation and he called it nonsense! Today we have to suffer badly on account of the mistake of the Jewish emancipation. The consequence of that liberal enthusiasm for the Jews plagues the German nation like a rheumatism and it is high time to take care that it does not become a gout. The number of Jews increases in a really abnormal manner. In 1774, in Berlin, there were altogether 3953 Jews, in 1813 there existed there still only 2825, in 1858 there were already 15,491 and in the census of 1 December 1880, 53,949 Jews were counted, that is, 4.81 percent. Today, in 1886, we may suppose around 60,000. The number of Jews has thus increased roughly seventeen times from 1780 to 1880. Consider that, if the present-day Berlin Jewry increases again seventeen times in a century, this would give, in Berlin alone, for 1980, the total sum of 923,132 Jews, thus almost one million Jews in Berlin in 1980. In Köln there were, according to an article of the liberal Kölner Zeitung, in 1833, 60,000 Germans and 356 Jews; fifty years later, in 1882, the civilian population of Köln amounted to 138,614 Germans and Jews; the Christians thus increased in 50 years around twofold, the Jews around fifteen times. We may calculate further on the basis of these figures. If Köln increases further under the same conditions, its population will amount in 50 years to 300,000 Germans and 80,000 Jews and, 50 years after, to 700,000 Germans and 1,200,000 Jews.

Do you perhaps understand now that the Jewish Question is an existential question for us Germans? The Kölner Volkszeitung recently wrote the following: “I am not an anti-Semite and would gladly let every Jew live; but if the influence of the Jews increases in the same way as in the last ninety years, I don’t know what will become of Köln.”

In Hesse there are cities and towns which have 10–20 percent Jews, for example, Niedenstein (Fritzlar district) with 21.71 percent Jews, Felsberg (Melsungen district) with 17.50 percent Jews, Schlüchtern with 13.98 percent Jews, etc. As striking is the multiplicative capacity of the Jews abroad. Thus the Jewish population of Vienna has, in comparison to the Christian, increased similarly strongly, 7 times in eleven years, and in Prague 8 times. In Bucharest, the Romanian population was represented in terms of births up to 20 percent, the Catholic up to 16 percent, and the Jewish 47 percent.

Parallel to the capacity of physical multiplication of the Jews runs the rapid growth of Jewish wealth. So we have, for example, according to the official tax registers in Frankfurt am Rhein, a city in which, among 150,000 inhabitants there are around 16,000 Jews, altogether 53 Jewish millionaires and only 48 German millionaires.

In the hands of the Jewish millionaires there are 235 million marks, whereas the Germans represent only 88 million. Given such figures, perhaps nobody asks any more, “Where has our money gone?” but “Whence do those Jewish millions come if not from the sweat of the German people?” They were not earned by the sweat of the hands, no Jewish millionaire saved his millions as a manual labourer or acquired them as a peasant with a plough; all this infinite wealth was taken from the mouths of the working German people. Everybody knows about the wealth of Rothschild. Rothschild possesses in Bohemia alone seven times as much land as the entire imperial family. All sixty aristocratic families of Bohemia taken together have only four times as much land in Bohemia as Rothschild alone, and all that only since 37 years ago. If one adds to that the possessions of Rothschild in Lower Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Hungary, etc., and, further, those in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, America, etc., then one must ask oneself: “Are the Jew not the kings of our age?”

The Ferrières Castle in France, which belongs to Rothschild, and excels in splendour and opulence all royal castles in the world, is surrounded by a complex of 100,000 joch, all of which belongs to Rothschild. The entire lands belonging to this single castle of Rothschild are twice as much as the entire land possessions of all the religious orders of all of France. But, apart from Rothschild, there are further, in France, a number of Jewish bankers each of whom possesses more than 50,000 joch of land. Similarly, all the significant vineyards of France belong to Rothschild. Alongside Rothschild, Baron Hirsch, especially, shines in Paris as a financial magnate. This financier became a millionaire especially through the lotteries. The high society of Paris frequent this Croesus. When Baron Hirsch once stood at the top of his famous stairway and saw the counts, princes and marquis climbing up, he said to his son: “Look at all these people, in twenty years they will all be our sons-in-law, or our gatekeepers.”

The wealth of the Jews constantly increases. In Hungary, where not a single Jew possessed land before 1862, half of the Nyitra County belongs to the Jew Popper, and the former owners of this land have mostly emigrated. This Popper, who began as a poor Jew, died as the patron of 54 Catholic churches. Recently, a Jew called Deutsch bought near Fünfkirchen an estate of 200,000 joch. The other big Jews, Königswarter, Wodianer, Springer, Tedesko, etc., have in the 27 years in which they have been allowed to acquire landed property, bought up so much land in Hungary that they have a quarter of the electorate in their lands. In Galicia, 80 percent of the entire land, thus 4/5, belongs to the Jews and only a fifth to the local people. In Romania, 2/3 of the land is in debt to the Jews; the Jews there are just waiting for their emancipation to take possession of the entire land in a short time. So far have they already come, the poor “persecuted Jews.” Informed people claim that the wealth of the Rothschild house is 20,000 million [marks]; at 5 percent interest this produces in interest in one year of 1,000,000,000 guilders, in one day more than 2,500,000 guilders. So, if Rothschild wishes to consume just the interests, he has every day 2,500,000 guilders to spend.

A bureaucrat who has a yearly salary of 1000 florins must therefore live and work 2500 years long if he wished to earn as much salary as the Rothschild house has to consume daily just in interest. The wealth of the Rothschilds grows rapidly. Each of the two Frankfurt Rothschilds has a yearly income of around 10 million; of this each spends 11/2 million and sets aside thus 81/2 million again as capital. Where should such a hoarding of Jewish millions lead? Shouldn’t universal impoverishment be the natural consequence?

The financial power of the Rotschilds is assertive. When, recently, bankrupt Egypt took a loan from Rothschild, 6 great powers had to vouch for bankrupt Egypt; among these powers was also Germany! Out of this Egyptian loan the Rothschild house soon, as may be proven, earned within a short time 6,100,000 marks, thus a net gain of at least 3 million marks. The power of this Jewish international house already makes itself felt in world history. The Parisian Rothschilds are, as is well-known, the closest friends of the Orléans; the Baroness Alphonse de Rothschild held as recently as 2 July 1886 a glamorous dinner in honour of the Duke of Chartres. It is an open secret that the Parisian Rothschild protects the Orléans. But the Orléans are, for Germany, war. But there are Rothschilds not only in Paris, they have seats also in London and Vienna. The imperial Austrian state is in debt to the Rothschild house. Now imagine the political constellations in the case of a war between France and Russia on the one side and Germany and Austria on the other. The result is therefore very simple; the Finanz und Handelsblatt, certainly a competent, non-partisan organ, describes the consequences in this way:

Supposing the case that France were to find that the time had come to declare war against Germany, then it lies in the powerful hands of the Rothschilds to drive the Austrian state allied with us immediately into bankruptcy and to destroy it financially if it did not comply with the political dictates of the Rothschilds. Nothing else is required for such a catastrophe than to quickly place on the market the Rothschilds’ possession of Austrian credit stocks, bring them down from 500 to half or less, and add to it a couple of hundred million Austrian and Hungarian annuities. Now imagine the effect of such an operation, which is simple in itself. For, even the unpaid billions in other annuities and other funds, industrial shares, bonds, etc. follow forthwith thereupon, and the howling and the fury of the all-shattering countermine will take care of the rest. This business with these credit shares and their all-powerful influence has already been allowed to go too far. We have already long ago pointed to this quite uniquely forged Rothschild weapon and it is apparent, rather late, to everybody’s eyes upon what a dangerous mine Europe stands and who has the fuse for its ignition in his hands.

Now, who has the fuse in his hands? The Jew Rothschild has in his hands the fuse for the ignition of the mine dug under the ground of Europe by the stock-exchange Jews!

Yes, gentlemen, that is how serious the Jewish Question is. These innocent persecuted Jews vilely hounded by us anti-Semites, they rule world-history, they have the fate of entire nations already in their hands. Is it not touching when these Jews who have entire states in their hands play out the old farce of Tolerance against anti-Semitism? We poor anti-Semites “hound” the Jewish people, to whom it is a matter of indifference to smash entire states through stock-exchange manoeuvres. If it should come to war with France and Russia and Germany is isolated through the Rothschilds’ maneuver and squeezed between two buffers, then we will indeed see if the Berlin stock-exchange Jews will be as patriotic as in 1870 when they received the North German war loan with contemptuous laughter. Then perhaps the damage that the Jewish foundations have effected on our national well-being will make itself felt and only then will the German people notice what a hole the Jewish butchers have made in their defensive power.

In 1862, the French Jew Crémieux[12] — the same man who set a price on the head of the German Kaiser in 1870 and whose death was honoured by the Jews of Berlin in the big synagogue — issued an appeal for the founding of the Alliance Israélite.[13] In this appeal it says:

Our nationality is the religion of our fathers; we recognize no other.
The Jewish doctrine must one day fill the entire world.
The work is great and sacred, success is certain.
Catholicism, our hundred-year old enemy, is defeated, struck on the head.
The net that Israel throws over the earth will extend every day and the sublime prophecies of our holy books will be fulfilled.
The day approaches when Jerusalem will become the house of prayer for our united peoples, where the flag of Jewish monotheism blows on the most distance coasts.
Let us use all opportunities. Our power is great, let us learn to use it. What do we have to fear? The day is not far off when the wealth of the earth will belong exclusively to the Jews.

This Jewish union, which was founded with this appeal, numbers today 30,000 members, it has at its disposal every year over hundred thousand marks. Here in Berlin walk thousands of members of that union that seeks to use every opportunity. Yes, we have thrown out the Jesuits, but the Jewish Jesuits, who are thousand times worse, they grow and prosper among us like sands on the shore. Where should that lead to if a stop is not put to it finally? If I go through the most populated streets of Berlin, for example, Friedrichstraße, Leipzigstraße, etc., where almost 90% of all houses have fallen to the Jews, if I see entire stretches of land and villages in the province in bondage to the Jews, if I glance at our influential press, our literature, under the Jewish influence, if I see our grammar schools overflowing with Jews, if I consider the enormous influence of Jewish money on the stock-exchange, I can say only one thing: Germany is to be saved from the Jews either today or never. Consider, Germans, that you stand in the eleventh hour; confronted with the Jewish Question, all party discord must cease. Men of all parties must coalesce into a large German national party, as we have done in Hesse, especially in order to enter parliament.

In parliament, the Jewish Question must be discussed repeatedly until the German people learn to view the repeal of the Jewish emancipation no longer as “intolerance,” as “persecution delirium,” but as a pressing necessity for our own rescue. We in Hesse will show the way, in the parliamentary elections of autumn 1887 we will place pure and genuine anti-Semites in seven electoral districts. We must, and shall, break through in some districts. Support us in Berlin in this difficult battle for the whole of Germany. When we have won in Hesse, then the liberation of Berlin from the Jewish yoke will follow. In conclusion, let me shout out to you the assurance that we will not falter in Hesse and will hold the flag high. You too must stand united in Berlin, our cause is not yet lost, just be united, united, united!

[1] Talk held at the public meeting of the German Anti-Semitic Union in the Bockbrauerei, Berlin, on 4 October 1886.

[2] See my English edition of this work, Eugen Dühring, The Jewish Question as a racial, moral and cultural question, with a world-historical answer, London: Ostara Publications, 2017.

[3] Isidore Singer, Sollen die Juden Christen werden? (Hansebooks, 2016; orig. pub.: 1884). [All footnotes are by the translator.]

[4] New Christians

[5] Heinz Moritz Willkomm (1821–1895) was a German botanist who wrote a work on his travels in Iberia, Zwei Jahre in Spanien und Portugal, 1847.

[6] Isaac D’Israeli (1766–1848) was a writer and father of Benjamin Disraeli. His book Genius of Judaism was published in 1833.

[7] Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, Marquis of Pombal (1699–1782) was a Portuguese liberal statesman who served as the powerful chief minister of King Joseph I.

[8] People of the region of Circassia, in the North Caucasus.

[9] A Turkic ethnic group of Russia.

[10] Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902) was a celebrated German physician and pathologist.

[11] Friedrich Hecker (1811–1881) was a German lawyer and one of the principal Liberal agitators during the 1848 Revolution.

[12] Adolphe Crémieux (1796–1880) was a French Jewish lawyer and politician who served as Minister of Justice during the Second Republic and the Third Republic. He was a Freemason and fervent defender of the Jews. He served as president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle from 1863 to 1867 and from 1868 to 1880.

[13] The Alliance Israélite Universelle was established in Paris in 1860 as an international organization for the promotion of the rights and welfare of Jews around the world.