THE RIDDLE OF THE JEW’S SUCCESS : V – The Peculiar Morality of Jewdom

The Riddle of the Jew’s Success

Chapter V

 

F. RODERICH-STOLTHEIM

 

THE RIDDLE

OF

THE JEW’S SUCCESS

Translated from the German by Capel Pownall

HAMMER-VERLAG / LEIPZIG

1927

 

 

---

From Metapedia

[http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Fritsch]

 

Theodor Emil Fritsch (October 28, 1852 near Leipzig – September 8, 1933) was a German antijudaist whose views did much to influence popular opposition to Jewish supremacism in Germany during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

A believer in the absolute superiority of the Aryan race, Fritsch was upset by the changes brought on by rapid industrialization and urbanization, and called for a return to the traditional peasant values and customs of the distant past, which he believed exemplified the essence of the Volk.

 

In 1883 he founded the Hammer Publishing House.

 

One of Fritsch’s major goals was to unite all Jew-resister political parties under a single banner; he wished for opposition to Jewish supremacism to permeate the agenda of every German social and political organization. This effort proved largely to be a failure, as by 1890 there were over 190 various patriotic parties in Germany. He also had a powerful rival for the leadership of the patriots in Otto Böckel, with whom he had a strong personal rivalry.

 

In 1893, Fritsch published his most famous work, The Handbook of the Jewish Question also known as the Anti-Semitic Catechism which criticed the Jews and called upon Germans to refrain from intermingling with them. Vastly popular, the book was read by millions and was in its 49th edition by 1944 (330,000 copies). The ideas espoused by the work greatly influenced Hitler and his party during their rise to power after World War I. Fritsch also founded a journal – the Hammer (in 1902) and this became the basis of a movement, the Reichshammerbund, in 1912.

 

His better known book, The Riddle of the Jew’s Success was published in English in 1927 under the pseudonym F. Roderich-Stoltheim, and dealt with the negative impact that Jewish values and the centralization of the German economy in Jewish hands had on the German people. This book was recently republished by Noontide Press, and was the subject of a media controversy after it was banned by Amazon.com and other online book sellers.

 

Fritsch held the publication rights to the German edition of Henry Ford’s work The International Jew.

 

---

 

 

Contents.

[Note: Clicking on the Chapter heading will take you to that post]

Chapter …………………………………………………………..……………………………………. Page

 

I Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

II Jewish Methods in the Economic Life …………………………………………………. 10

III Particular Business Tactics of the Jew ……………………………………………….. 29

IV The International Connection and Secret League of the Hebrews ………… 39

V The Peculiar Morality of Jewdom ………………………………………………………….. 53

VI An Explanation with Sombart …………………………………………………………….. 68

VII Jewish Successes in Modern Times …………………………………………………… 72

VIII The Stock-Exchange …………………………………………………………………………. 84

IX How Sound Business Methods are Forced Out of the Field by the Jews … 98

X Jewish Trade Specialities ……………………………………………………………………… 111

XI Moral Principles in Trade …………………………………………………………………….. 141

XII The Hebrews as Supporters of Capitalism …………………………………………. 154

XIII Business and Religion ……………………………………………………………………… 183

XIV The Race Problem ………………………………………………………………………….. 200

XV Origin of the Jewish Entity ……………………………………………………………….. 220

XVI The Influence of the Jew Upon Womankind …………………………………….. 242

XVII The Jews and the World-War ………………………………………………………….. 277

Concluding Words ………………………………………………………………………… 283

Errata …………………………………………………………………………………………… 290

 

 

 

 

V.

The peculiar Morality of Jewdom.

 

That the Hebrew is not very particular with regard to his moral obligations towards other people, is fairly well known. One is wont to excuse him much in this respect, and to overlook his lack of conscientiousness with the remark that he had been frequently unjustly persecuted in “olden times”, and thus had been driven, by dire necessity, to the adoption of a lax moral code. In this respect also, many “worthy souls” are inclined, out of ill-considered amiability, to speak disparagingly of their own nation by imputing the responsibility for the moral deficiencies of the Hebrew to their own Christian ancestors.

These fine folk could easily ascertain from the Bible, that the bad ethics of the Hebrew are as old as that nation, and already existed before there were any Christians. The Hebrews were already decried, far and wide, in ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Syria on account of their questionable morality and business tactics; consequently, the Christians cannot be blamed for the moral shortcomings of the Jewish people.

Already we can learn out of the Old Testament that their law allows the Hebrews to treat the “non-Jew” — “the stranger” — very differently to those of their own faith and blood. In this respect already, the “Chosen People” place themselves in the strongest contrast to all other nations, who are designated as “strangers”. It is continually reiterated that it is permissible to do all kinds of things towards a “stranger”, which it is forbidden to do towards the fellow-Jews. Thus, for example:

“You may practise usury against the ‘stranger’, but not against your brother.” (5. Moses 23, 20).

A sharp distinction is always drawn between the Jews, and the rest of the nations. All the moral commandments of the Hebrews extend only to members of their race; all other races are excepted.

[Page 53]

What is forbidden to be done to Jews, is permitted towards those, who are not Jews. 5. Moses, 15. 3:

“You may put pressure on the stranger, but you must be lenient to him, who is your brother.”

The contempt shown for all those, who are not Jews, goes so far as to regard unclean food and garbage as good enough for the “stranger”.

1. Moses, 14, 21:

“You shall not eat offal; you may give it to the ‘stranger’ in your gate so that he may eat it, or sell it to another ‘stranger’”.

All the commands, made with reference to one’s neighbour, are not comprehended by the Jew as by the Christian, who regards them as referring to all men; he — the Jew — accepts them quite literally, and as referring only to the actual neighbour, the member of the same race, the fellow-Jew. When we read in 3 Moses: 19, 13:

“Thou shalt neither overreach nor rob thy neighbour”,

the Jew considers that he is released from any like duty towards those, who are not Jews.

The writings of the Rabbis express this particular comprehension of the text quite unmistakably.

This peculiar comprehension on the part of the Jews of their particular rights as human beings goes, however, still further back; it rests, in the last analysis, on the fact that the Jews not only separate themselves as a “chosen people” from all other men, but have their own particular god. It is a fatal mistake of our theologians to regard the Jewish God as identical with the Christian. On a closer examination, Jehovah (whom the more modern science calls Jahwe) is found to be the exclusive God of Jewdom, and not, at the same time, that of other men. One can convince one’s self from 1. Moses, Chapter 17, that this Jahwe-Jehovah concluded his formal agreement expressly only with Abraham and his seed (descendants), and that this covenant bears a hostile meaning for all nonJewish peoples. As a sign of the covenant, circumcision is introduced, and Jahwe declares: all who are not circumcised, will incur his vengeance, and will be completely destroyed.

[Page 54]

It is at once clear that this covenant between Jahwe and Abraham’s seed is a warlike covenant, the point of which is directed relentlessly against all non-Jewish nations — the unbelievers, the heathens (Goyim). In the eyes of the Jews, however, heathens are all those, who are not of Abraham’s seed, all who are not circumcised, all who have not entered into the blood-pact with Jahwe. Dominion over all other nations is promised to the Jews, and the possessions of the former will be given to them as a reward if they — the Jews — are true to their pact with Jahwe:

“Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” (Psalms 2. 8. 9)

Yes, open hostility is declared against all non-Jewish nations, and their extirpation and annihilation are to be the life task of the Jews:

5. Moses 7, 16: “Thou wilt devour all nations, which the Lord thy God will give thee. Thou shalt have no mercy on them, and shalt not serve their gods, for to do so will be thy condemnation.” *

The oriental scholar, Adolf Wahrmund, is therefore justified in referring to the journey of the Jews across the earth as an expedition for the capture of the world — certainly not by open force of arms, but by other means, a plentiful store of which, is placed at their disposal by the Talmudic teaching of the Rabbis.

The most important weapon of the Jews against non-Jewish nations is Money; they therefore endeavour to obtain possession of this in every form. For this reason Jews are allowed to practise usury against non-Jews, and the lending of money, and the receiving of interest are recommended as an important means or instrument for dominating other nations.

---

• Consequently it was a fatal blunder of Luther, always to translate the word Jahwe as “Lord God”, and thus to help to obliterate the fundamental difference between the particular god of the Jews, and the “Heavenly Father” of Christ.

---

[Page 55]

1. Moses 15, 6:

“For Jahwe, thy God, has conferred blessings on thee, as he has promised thee, so that thou shalt lend to many nations but shalt not need to borrow thyself, and that thou shalt rule over many nations but that no one shall rule over thee!” —

Truly a wonderful compact with God, which is payable in cash, and which promises domination over other nations by money-power — whilst Christ teaches:

“Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.”

The peculiar Jewish perception of life which results from such doctrines, is made the utmost of in the Talmud. It would take too much time and space to quote even extracts here from the mystical books of the Rabbis; therefore reference is made to the work by Th. Fritsch: “Mein Beweismaterial gegen Jahwe” (My evidence against Jahwe)* in which a strong light is cast upon domains, which we can scarcely glance at.

Thus, the segregation of the Hebrews from all other nations is conscious and deliberate, and is in nowise due to possible dislike on the part of those nations. The devotional books of the Jews furnish us with plenty of proof on that point. Warning is incessant never to make common cause with the foreign nations:

“Give heed that thou makest no treaty with the inhabitants of the land, into which thou comest, so that they may not become a vexation to thee.” 2. Moses 34. 12 and 13.

The boundary-line between the Hebrew and the rest of humanity is everywhere most sharply defined, and the peculiar morals of Jewdom rest on this separation of interests. They were first set out, however, in characteristic form, by the Rabbis, who “laid down” the Jewish system of morals in the “Talmud” (= Doctrine), from the 2nd to the 5th Century after the birth of Christ.

“The Talmud — a comprehensive work, divided into many parts — is the real code of laws for Jewdom since the time of Christ, and is the foundation of its religious and civic arrangements”. (Brockhaus Conv. Lexicon).

And it is precisely in this book, where the perception impresses itself most forcibly upon the reader, that it is only the Hebrew, who is a man in the real sense of the word, and that all the remaining nations stand far beneath him, and are, in fact, comparable to animals.

---

• Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig C 1

---

[Page 56]

“The nations of the world are like the baskets, in which one puts straw and dung. They have a soul, which is only equal to that of the animals.”:

is an example of what is to be found in the “Midrasch schir haschirim”, and a further specimen in the treatise “Baba mezia” is as follows:

“You Israelites are called men, but the nations of the world are called not men, but cattle.”

Jalkut Rubeni expresses himself still more distinctly:

“The Israelites are called men (human beings) because their souls are derived from God, but the souls of those, who are not Jews, are derived from the unclean spirit, and therefore they are named swine.”

But, in case a believing Jew might be of the opinion that those, who are not Jews, are just as good men as the Hebrews, because they possess the same form, Schene-tuchoth-habberith is prepared to give instruction upon this point, for it is stated there:

“A human form is only given to those, who are not Jews, in order that the Jews may not be waited upon by beasts.”

With such a perception it is comprehensible how all intercourse with those, who are not Jews, is most strictly forbidden to all true Hebrews. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Old Testament warns the true Jew, in the most emphatic manner, not to enter into marriage with those, who are not Jews, and the Rabbis of the Talmud repeat and accentuate this commandment on many occasions.

Consequently, when the suggestion is made that a mutual contempt exists between Jews and non-Jews, it is well to remember, first of all, which side started this; it is in consequence of the racial conceit of the real Hebrew that he regards his nation as quite out of the ordinary, and especially chosen, and permitted to look down upon other men with contempt. It is certainly nothing to wonder at, if the other nations, in their turn, pay back this aversion in the same coin, and they are more entitled to do so, as, in their case, it is a counterstroke to a brutal challenge.

[Page 57]

But, whoever regards those, who do not belong to his race, as no better than beasts, cannot possibly recognise that he has any moral obligations towards such inferior creatures. Upon this fundamental perception rests the entire system of morality of the Rabbis; it teaches, with constant repetition, that one has duties only towards one’s neighbour, one’s race, and towards nobody else. The Law states:

“Thou shalt do no wrong to thy neighbour”,

and the discerning Rabbi adds, to make it clearer:

“the other people are excepted”.

Again, one reads in the treatise Sanhedrin:

“An Israelite is permitted to do a wrong to a ‘Goi’”

i.e. non-Jew, because it is written:

“Thou shalt not do wrong to thy neighbour, without however, paying any heed to the Goi.”

It cannot be wondered at then, when the Talmud draws the following conclusion for instance:

“Lost property, which belongs to a Goi, need not be returned.”

But the writings of the Talmud do not confine themselves to such general instructions. Just as business forms, as it were, the soul of the entire Jewish existence, so great importance is given in the Talmud also to all business relations, and all manner of good advice is imparted therein as to how one is to comport one’s self during business developments. For this belongs also to the Jewish religion. When one recollects how little the doctrine of Christ concerns itself with money-matters and business, and how it, to a certain extent, rejects any such thing as Money, relying on the Word: “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon”, one must feel what a contrast exists between the Christian and Jewish perceptions of life, and one, across which no bridge can ever be built. How important, however on the contrary, are all business matters to the Hebrew! Thus, we find in the writings of the Talmud directions, of which the following are examples:

[Page 58]

“If a Goi holds the pledge of an Israelite, and the Goi loses it, and an Israelite finds it, the latter shall return it to the Israelite, but not to the Goi; if, however, the finder desires to return it to the Goi for the sake of the sacred reputation* then, the other (Israelite) shall say to him: ‘If you wish to keep the reputation sacred, do so with what belongs to you.’” (R. Jerucham Seph. mesch. f. 51. 4)

It is also taught:

“It is permissible to take advantage of the mistake of a Goi, when he makes a mistake (to his disadvantage). Thus, if the Goi sends in his bill, and makes a mistake, the Israelite shall say to him: ‘See, I rely upon your bill; I do not know if it really is as you state, nevertheless I give you what you demand.’”

Not only in purely business matters is the Hebrew allowed to treat those, who are not Jews, in a different manner to his own race, but Rabbinism inexorably extends the sharp division between Jew and non-Jew into all remaining domains of life.

The Jew is commanded, when acting as Judge in law-suits, to influence the course of the proceedings in favour of his racial companions. In the book Baba Kamma (= the first door) we find Fol. 113a, paragraph 2:

“When an Israelite and a non-Jew come before you in the Court, you shall, if you can, administer justice to him — the former — according to Jewish law, and say to him: ‘it is so according to our law’. When the law of the worldly nations is favourable to the Jew, you shall administer Justice to him accordingly, and say to him: it is thus according to our law’. But when this is not the case, use cunning.”

The following passage, for instance, bears eloquent testimony to the assertion that the despicable doctrines of the Talmud towards the Canaanites, Edomites and Amalakites, refer, not only to the peoples of antiquity, but also to the present:

“The inhabitants of Germany” says Kinchi (Obadja 1,20) “are Canaanites, for when the Canaanites fled before Jehoschua, they went into the land Alemannia, which is called Germany, and even to the present day the Germans are called Canaanites.”

In more recent times, the Hebrews eagerly assume the appearance of possessing a warlike spirit, boast of their participation in the various campaigns, and endeavour, through their patrons and press, to bring it about that they will even be admitted to the rank of officer. That they, however, prize safety rather than valour is shown by referring to the passage out of the Talmud Pesachim 112b:

---

• A mode of speaking, which frequently occurs, much to this effect:

“In order that our Religion and our God do not incur a bad reputation.”

---

[Page 59]

“If you go to war, go not first but last, in order that you can return home first”.

Also, the extensively held idea, that the Jew was compelled by foreign influence to confine himself to trade, because other vocations were forbidden to him — a matter, which, later on, we will go more deeply into — is shown to be fallacious by the actual writings of the Rabbis. The same prove that the Hebrew has, from the remotest periods, always displayed a preference for trade, because other activities, and especially agriculture, appeared too tedious to him, and brought in too little profit. Thus we read in the Talmud:

Rab Eleazar has said:

“No handicraft is so unprofitable as agriculture for it is said Czech 27. 29 ‘You will come down’ (grow poor)!”

R. Eleazar beheld a field, across which cabbages were planted in beds. He then said:

“Even if cabbages were planted for the whole length of the field, trading would still be the best.”

On one occasion when the Rab was walking through a wheat field, and observed how the wheat swayed to and fro, he said:

“continue to sway, trade is to be preferred to you”.

— Rab has further said:

“He who expends a hundred Sus in trade, can enjoy meat and wine every day, but he, who expends a hundred Sus on agriculture, has to be content with cabbage and salt, must sleep on the earth, and is exposed to every kind of misery.”

Thus, the preference for Trade, and the contempt for Handicraft and Agriculture are a very ancient legacy of the Jewish race, and no one has ever found it necessary to compel them to turn to trade.

It would be a fatal mistake to imagine that these ancient views and laws in the Talmud do not possess any validity today. On the contrary: the doctrines of the Talmud form, uninterruptedly, an important item in the Jewish religious education, and every young Jew receives instruction according to the views expressed in the Talmud — however much he may assure one, later on in life, that such matters are entirely unknown to him. Moreover, the law, set out in the Talmud, has been modernised by a recent revision — the so-called Schulchan aruch — and the validity of this law is so undisputed, that the Imperial German legal authorities, in law-suits, in which both parties were Jews, have relied upon the precepts of the Schulchan aruch.

[Page 60]

In this more recent law-book of Jewdom is to be found that remarkable prayer, which is said every year on the Day of Atonement, in all synagogues, accompanied by great solemnity, the so-called Kol-Nidre-Prayer. It is as follows:

“All vows (Kol-Nidre) and obligations and conjurations and oaths, which we shall vow, enter into, and swear, from this day of Atonement until the next, we repent of, and the same shall be dissolved, remitted, abolished, destroyed, and shall be of no force and invalid: our vows shall not be vows, and our oaths shall not be oaths”.

The contents of this peculiar prayer have often been used as a reproach to the Jews, who usually argue their way out of it, by maintaining that the vows, declarations and oaths, which are spoken of in this prayer, refer only to religious matters, more especially to vows and oaths, which the Jew makes or takes to himself, or to his God. It is difficult, however, to see why anyone, who regards his oaths to God so lightly, should take a more serious view of his affirmations or vows to his fellow-men. In any case, the praying Hebrew has the right, when reciting the “Kol”, to connect this prayer secretly with his own particular vows and oaths.

There is nothing to wonder at then, if a nation, with such a remarkable system of ethics, obtains a tremendous advantage over men, who possess a more sensitive conscience, and a finer sense of justice, and who not only abide by their oaths and vows, but adhere punctiliously to their ordinary promises and assurances. That ethical perception of the Talmud, which forces the Hebrew to observe his duties towards his racial and religious brethren with almost painful exactitude, but absolves him of his duties towards other men, must introduce a curious kind of discord into our life. The Hebrews are thus united in a strong union, which not only possesses a strong common-interest, but directs itself, at the same time, in silent hostility against all other men.

[Page 61]

And, since the Hebrews are forbidden in addition in the sternest manner according to their laws, to disclose anything of their secret legislation to those, who are not Jews, Jewdom acquires, with such a basis, the nature of a conspiracy which is aimed at all men, who do not happen to be Jews.

The situation is aggravated by the following circumstances: the doctrines and laws of the Rabbis are — with few exceptions — only to be found in the Hebraic language and characters, and are, for that reason, practically unapproachable for the rest of mankind. Besides, the written language of the Hebrews resembles a cryptograph, the reading and explanation of which are taught by tradition in the schools of the Rabbis.

The Jews are consequently in the position to maintain to the uninitiated that the rendering of the latter is incorrect. For, as a matter of fact, those scholars, who are not Jews, but who, having learnt the Hebrew language and examined the writings of the Rabbis, have then proceeded to translate some of the awkward passages, have become the objects of the most violent hostility on the part of the Jews. Only with the help of converted Jews has it been possible, in certain cases, to ascertain the correct reading or version. But for centuries reliable Christian scholars have made translations of the immoral passages, which all agree, so that it is scarcely permissible to entertain any doubt as to the correctness of the version. One need only mention the Heidelberg Professor of Oriental Languages, Johann Eisenmenger, who produced a translation of extracts from the Talmud in the year 1700; the Canonical Professor, August Rohling, of Prague, who published his “Talmudjude” (Jew of the Talmud) in 1878, and since then has been made the object of most odious enmity from the side of the Jews.

Further, the Orientalists, Professor Johann Gildemeister of Bonn († 1890), Dr. Jakob Ecker of Münster, and Professor Georg Behr of Heidelberg, as arbiters in court, have confirmed the correctness of these same translations of the rabbinical writings, when the opportunity presented itself in law-suits, relating to such matters. Since, however, the Jews always renew their denials, there is really a most urgent necessity, in the interests of both sides, that the disputed passages in the Talmud should be examined by impartial experts; all conflict about the matter would then be removed from the world in the simplest manner possible.

[Page 62]

It is, however, a most remarkable fact that the Hebrews oppose any such procedure most emphatically and, strange to say, the state officials have also declined to move in the matter when application has been made to them. When, in the year 1890, a petition was sent from the anti-Jewish camp to a number of Imperial and local authorities, containing the request that a commission of independent savants should be appointed, whose duty would be to examine carefully the passages in dispute, in not a single instance was the request granted. The Prussian Ministry of Culture dismissed any such step as being “impracticable.” If one compares the thoroughness with which the morality of the Jesuits has been and is still discussed in public, one is forced to accept the view, that the zealous friends of truth and opponents of those, who work in an obscure and devious manner, know how to restrain their zeal for enlightenment in a truly remarkable way so far as the Jews are concerned.

The position is thus a very peculiar one. This much is established: The German national representative bodies and governments have given the Jews equal civic rights, and have recognised them as a separate religious community, without making any inquiry whether the moral instruction of the Jews is compatible with the welfare of the state. There is, therefore, no cause for wonder if attacks are constantly being delivered by the National German Party against this untenable position, and if the demand is made upon those, in positions of authority, to undertake, even at this late stage, a thorough examination of the Jewish doctrines.

There will be no end to this dispute until the matter has been made clear beyond any possible doubt. Joh. Ludwig Klüber, the diplomatist and authority on International Law (decd. 1837) calls the Jews plainly;

“a political-religious sect, under the strict, theocratic despotism of the Rabbis”, and “a completely separated society of hereditary conspirators, with certain political principles and commandments for the general life and for commercial intercourse.” (Thus, not merely with religious aims).

[Page 63]

And this is, in concise, sober language, the essence of the matter. For the Jews do not compose, like the Christians for instance, simply a religious community, which depends upon certain moral doctrines, and worships its God according to certain established forms; their — the Jews’ — law extends to all manner of practical affairs in life, and, under the influence of a peculiar morality, concerns itself particularly with the cultivation of trade and usury. They form, in spite of their dispersion amongst other peoples, an absolutely distinct nation, even, as Fichte expresses it, a separate state. And, as they are at the same time intent upon preserving the purity of their blood, and intermarry, as far as it is possible, they form also a self-contained race. Of all the rulers in Germany, no one has recognised this fact more clearly than the greatest of all practical politicians amongst them, Frederick the Great, who considered it necessary, even in his political will of 1752, to impress most strongly upon his successors:

“Moreover, the ruler must keep his eye on the Jews, prevent their interference with wholesale trade; check the growth of their population, and deprive them of their right of sanctuary whenever they commit an act of dishonesty. For nothing is more injurious to the trade of the merchants than the illicit profit which the Jews make.”

The racial peculiarity; however, is visible to the eye, so that the Jew can be recognised immediately and picked out from all the other peoples of the world. And, further, there can be no doubt whatever upon this point: by means of their Talmud and their system of Rabbis, the Hebrews are held together in a rigid caste, which carries on a cooperative war against the remaining nations, chiefly by means of material expropriation and the undermining of morality.

Our Moltke, who had the opportunity of studying Jewdom thoroughly, during his residence in Poland from 1830 to 1832, sums up his observations in the following words (“Darstellung der inneren Verhältnisse in Polen”) (Description of the internal conditions in Poland, Berlin 1832):

[Page 64]

“In spite of their dispersion the Jews still remain closely united. They are guided consistently by unknown authorities for mutual purposes. As they reject all the attempts of governments to incorporate them in the nations, the Jews form a state within a state, and have become a deep wound in Poland, which has not healed even at the present day. Even now each town has its own Judge, each province its Rabbi, and all are subordinate to an unknown chief, who lives in Asia, and who is bound by their law to travel round continually, from place to place, and whom they call the ‘Prince of Slavery’. — Thus, retaining their religion, their government, their morality, and their language, and obeying their own laws, they know how to evade those of the land they live in, or, at any rate, to nullify the same for all practical purposes: and, closely united amongst themselves, they resist all attempts to fuse them into the rest of the nation, just as much on account of their religious belief as on account of their self-interest.”

***

It simply does not do then, to complacently ignore, with Christian tolerance and sentimental charity, this singular and firmly organised hostile state of Jewry. This hostile state has declared war on us — war to the knife — for it is attempting to appropriate our material as well as our spiritual values.* It is an error to represent the Jews to one’s self as a harmless “Concession”, which lives peacefully besides us, and is only desirous of serving its God in its own particular way. The most excellent Adolf Wahrmund sees the ancient principle of the nomadic desert robbers, who sweep across the cultivated spots in order to leave the pastures grassless and barren behind them, surviving in our Jews. He says:**

“According to the view taken from the Talmud, and expressed by the Rabbis, the path of the Jews across the world is a warlike expedition for the conquest of the same — nothing else. They regard themselves as soldiers on the march, hiding themselves in secret camps, or concealing themselves under a false flag — in the midst of the enemy, always waiting for the signal to attack and surprise.”

---

• Dr. Moritz Goldstein stated in the “Kunstwart” 1912, that it could no longer be disputed that the Jews ruled over, not only the material, but even the spiritual values of the German Nation, however much the Germans might deny their capacity to do so.

** Page 41 in the writing under his name.

---

[Page 65]

None of these facts are altered in the least, because, now and again, this or that Jew appears to us to be quite a harmless and perhaps even an amiable individual. Without doubt the Jew possesses many human and social virtues, but who will guarantee that this external aspect of his disposition can be regarded as genuine, mixed as the latter quite comprehensibly is with bitterness on account of imagined slights, or imbued with feelings of revenge? The peculiar situation of the Jew, in the midst of a community, which is inwardly foreign to him, compels him to adopt a cautious and discrete attitude. It would be foolish on his part if he openly displayed his pride and his aversion to all men, who are not Jews. How could he thus accomplish his aims? Slyness commands him to adapt himself by mildness and pliancy to his environment, and to present the appearance of entertaining good will and a kindly disposition towards his fellow-citizens, in order to captivate the latter in their artlessness, and to win their confidence. Only thus is he enabled to promote his own business interests, and those other secret aims of Hebrewdom, to the best advantage. One must not then accept the plea that there are also some extremely nice and honest Jews as a proof that they are not dangerous.

Exceptions prove the rule, and amiability and apparent harmlessness are amongst the most deadly weapons, which the Hebrews employ against those who surround them. If, occasionally, a kind heart may prompt a Jew to act unselfishly, and even to display self-sacrifice where others are concerned, (an occurrence which, on account of its rarity, is wont to be trumpeted forth a hundred times as loudly as it would be in the case of anybody, who is not a Jew) the best and most moral Jew still remains a member of a most secret society, which directs its front against us. And, at the moment, when the decision must be made whether to defend Jewish interests against other interests, the noblest and most high-minded Jew will also take the side of his racial comrades, and will treat everyone, who is not a Jew, as an enemy. Luther already summed up the situation correctly when he spoke as follows, concerning the Jews:

[Page 66]

“But if they do anything good, know that it is not done out of love, nor does it happen for your good; but because they must have room to live amongst us, they must of necessity do something. But the heart is, and remains, as I have said.”

Therefore, do not forget: we are in a state of war with the Jews. But, if a nation has declared war upon us, and advances with hostile intent into our country, it no longer behoves us to ask: is that particular individual a good or a bad man? — but, from that moment, each of them must be regarded as our enemy, and against whom we must defend ourselves.

[Page 67]

 

Version History

 

Version 4: Jan 4, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 2: Added PDF file – May 12, 2014

 

Version 1: Published May 12, 2014