The Riddle of the Jew's Success
Page 20
One must certainly concede that the Hebrews have acquired to an uncommon degree agility of mind, business circumspection, and a penetrating judgement as regards relations and persons. These capabilities are the inheritance of a race, which, for thousands of years, has not practised anything but trading, usury, espionage and overreaching of honest people.
It was, by no means, the external pressure of his environment, which converted the Hebrew into a usurer and a deceiver; he has never been anything else. This can be seen from his primordial laws and doctrines, which — apart from meaningless stories and forms of ritual, scarcely touch upon anything except how to exploit and befool that part of humanity, which is not Jewish. It must also be taken into consideration that Jewdom, which is for ever on the move, impelled by the lust for roving, and which represents the nomadism of modern times, is enabled, by constant change of relations and surroundings, to develop a keener insight into affairs, than those who never move from the spot where they were born. The Hebrews are intruders everywhere, who were obliged to capture a place for themselves by means of cunning, and who, for that reason, have always practised, in a masterly fashion, the requisite artifices. “New-settlers” as Sombart, not very appropriately, calls them:
“ must keep their eyes open, in order to make themselves quickly at home in their new quarters, must be careful how they proceed, in order that they may, at any rate, make a livelihood under the new conditions.
While the long established inhabitants are resting comfortably in their warm beds, they (the Jews) are standing outside in the chilly morning air, and must first of all endeavour to build themselves a nest! There they stand — regarded by all settled inhabitants as intruders.”
[Page 172]
And the alienage of the people of Juda, as even Sombart allows, is not only of an external but of an internal nature as well. He says: “ Israel, however, was alien amongst the other peoples since time immemorial in quite another — one might almost say psychological social sense, in the sense, of an internal contrariety to the population surrounding them, in the sense of an almost partitioned-off seclusion from the economist nations. They, the Jews, were conscious that they were something out of the ordinary, and were, in turn, regarded as such by the economist nations.”
That, in the last analysis, is the secret which stigmatises Hebrewdom: this alienage and contrariety, which they, as guests in foreign countries, feel and display towards their hosts; and it is the chief defect of our education, that not only are these peculiar relations not made clear to us, but we are actually deceived concerning them! While the Jew never allows himself to forget for one moment that he must regard us as strangers and enemies, whom it is business to exploit and overreach, we are brought up under the false impression that the Hebrew is a harmless member of the human community, just like the members of any other nation. And even more; we actually befriend and favour the most dangerous enemy of our economic and national existence, in consequence of the unlucky associations which Church doctrine has most erroneously derived from the traditions of Jewdom.
The Church ascribes a moral and religious importance to the Jew, which he simply does not possess. Out of this fundamental error on our part, Hebrewdom draws its main strength; our blindness and foolish trust provide him with the most favourable opportunities. Whilst he—certainly with the demeanour of the innocent friend of humanity — lies in wait for each opportunity to overreach us, we advance towards him with open arms, open heart and open pocket, and make his task of exploiting and harming us a very easy one. Viewing the situation, as described above, one may well ask if the Hebrew really is in need of a special intelligence department, and of superior business ability, in order to gain an economic advantage over us, when the secret alliance of his racial companions and our unlimited trustfulness have already made the game so ridiculously easy for him.
[Page 173] We have already seen, in section V, how the Hebrew, in his compartment-like seclusion, recognises no moral obligations of any kind toward us; and how he considers himself entitled to abuse our trustfulness in any and every way.
One must realise that the whole culture of civilised humanity rests on a foundation of mutual trust. The co-operation of a great, civilised community is only rendered possible by each honestly fulfilling his duty, and thereby justifying the reliance and confidence of others in him. The Hebrew knows nothing of fidelity and trust — at least as far as “strangers” are concerned. He knows only of a compact with his own clique, which is more of the nature of a conspiracy, and which is indispensable for the successful issue of his plans for overreaching others.
As regards strangers, however, he considers himself freed from any moral responsibility whatever. Sombart says: “ The mere fact that one had to do with a ‘stranger’ has sufficed in all times, which had not yet been tainted by humanitarian considerations, to relieve the conscience and to loosen the bonds of moral obligation.”
And this is the position taken up by the Hebrew even at the present day; all of us are strangers in his eyes, fit material for exploitation, whom it is his duty to injure, for the greater honour of Israel and of his idol Jahwe. These relations of the Hebrew with the stranger are the antithesis to the attitude and behaviour of the German under like conditions. Overstrained conceptions of humanity prompt us to display especial consideration and obligingness towards those, who are not Germans. We have had to pay dearly for this unpatriotic indulgence in the past; and to nobody more than to the Jews.
3. Semi-Citizenship of the Jews.
The Semi-Citizenship of the Jews, which has already been mentioned, proceeds from their alien nature. They are semi-citizens amongst us, because their allegiance to our national community is only feigned and superficial, for secretly they retain their separate Jewish civil community, and their separate nationality.
[Page 174] This causes them, however, in another sense to become doublecitizens, for, according to the law, they belong simultaneously to two nationalities and states; amongst us they are, at one and the same time, German and Hebrew; they are amenable to two systems of law, and can claim protection from both; for they have the option of invoking, at one time, the German, and at another, the Jewish code, selecting whichever system appears to be most advantageous. They acquire thereby privileges over all other citizens of the state, and it is only a trait of their ancient mendacity and presumption, when they behave as if they were not treated with full justice in our country. As a matter of fact as double citizens they enjoy double rights — are actually privileged. Fichte has already called attention to this:
“ Through almost every country in Europe a mighty, hostile state is extending itself, and is engaged in constant warfare with all the other states: its oppressive tyranny causes grievous suffering to the citizens of all the other countries, and it is called Jewdom. I do not believe that this fearful state of affairs has come about because Jewdom forms a separate and exceedingly compact community, but because it is founded upon hatred of the whole human race.”*
It has gone so far, in his (Fichte’s) opinion, that: “ In a country where even the King may not, of his own free will, deprive me of the cottage, which I inherited from my father, and where I have my legal rights against the all-powerful minister, the first Jew, nevertheless, who takes it into his head, can plunder me with impunity,” and he then continues:
“ You are all aware of this and cannot deny it, and utter words sweet as sugar about tolerance, the rights of man and civic rights, and the whole time you are inflicting injury on our chief rights as men Cannot you recall in this case the instance of the state within the state?
Does not the intelligible thought ever occur to you that the Jews, who, apart from you, are citizens of a state, which is more firmly founded and more powerful than all of yours, will, if you once give them citizenship in your own countries, tread you, the original citizens, under their feet?”
----------------
* J. G. Fichte: “Urteile über die französische Revolution” (Opi
nions concerning the French Revolution) [1793] Extracts are to be found in the “Handbuch der Judenfrage” (Handbook of the Jewish Question). 26th Edition, Pages 63—65.
----------------
[Page 175] The assertion that, in olden times, the Jews were denied entry into the honourable industries, and consequently were forced to resort to usury, is contradicted in the most emphatic manner by Sombart. He cites, amongst other proofs, an order of the Cabinet, dated 1790, which permitted the protected Jews of Breslau to carry on all kinds of mechanical crafts, and mentions also that, amongst these Jews, besides those who were tolerated, there were privileged and universally privileged ones, who were allowed full exercise of all Christian rights in the ordinary course of life. It is quite certain that some Jews enjoyed special privileges, which were hereditary in their families.* Sombart also lays stress on the fact, that if the Jews neither obtained nor sought for admittance into the corporations and guilds, this was to be attributed mainly to the Christian character of these organisations; the crucifix repelled them. The Jews, moreover, already in the 12th and 13th centuries, were not only on a completely equal footing with the great merchants, the shopkeepers and the leading people as regards freedom of the markets (Freitag: “Bilder a.d. Vergangenheit” II — Pictures out of the past II) but they actually had the privilege over their competitors of being protected, together with clergymen, women and pilgrims, against all action under feudal law (Schröder’s Rechtsgeschichte. I — History of Law. I). In olden times the religiousness of the Christian, and the alienage of the Jew himself, operated to the latter’s advantage, just as German cowardliness and “culture” do, at the present day. Owing to their alienage the Jews possessed one peculiar advantage, namely, that there was no need for them to take part in the quarrels of other nations, and could, on that account, all the more easily derive benefit from political complications — at the expense of the two conflicting powers.
----------------
* “Amongst themselves the Jews lived (during the 10th-12th centuries and later) according to the Mosaic-Talmudic Law, from which, later on, many legal ideas have crept into the common law of the community. In each town the Jews formed a special community by themselves” — that is to say the Ghetto — “under a Jewish bishop, who was appointed by the King at their suggestion, and who exercised judicial powers amongst them in all cases of dispute.”
----------------
[Page 176] Sombart says: “ national conflicts became actually the principal source of Jewish acquisition.” Espionage might also be included (compare page 156). Besides this, one must not forget the farming-out of the privilege to mint money, which the German Emperors, since the 13th century, had made over to the towns and to the large landowners, who, in their turn, had handed it on to single tenants — amongst them many Jews. Up to the middle of the 18th century these people secured enormous profits for themselves from debasement of the coinage alone. “Outwardly good and inwardly bad, outwardly Frederick but inwardly Ephraim”* was the derisive comment of the people of Brandenburg concerning the badly silvered-over groschen, issued during the Seven Years War.
4. Jewish Wealth.
The ancient complaint about the oppression of the Jews in olden times, contradicts itself alone by the fact of their indulgent mode of living, and their display of luxury. We have already mentioned how they inhabited the most magnificent mansions, not only in Holland and London, but also in Paris and Hamburg, and Glckel of Hameln discourses in the same strain concerning the princely splendour displayed at a rich Jewish wedding in Amsterdam.
Sombart furnishes long lists of the names of rich Jews in England, Hamburg and Frankfurt, during the 17th and 18th centuries, and the amounts — stated in figures — of the fortunes of these people are a sufficient refutation of the ancient fable about the “poor, oppressed Jew.” He says:
“ The peculiar and interesting fact, that the Jews were always the richest people, has continued unaltered for centuries, and remains as true today as it was two or three hundred years ago. It anything, it is still more pronounced and universal at the present time than formerly.”**
-----------------* The Jew Ephraim (Itzig & O) was the head of the mintage-farmers, of whose services Frederic the Great was compelled to avail himself when surrounded with difficulties.
** Sombart’s book is especially recommended to the notice of Social Democrats, in order that they may learn who are the originators of the capitalistic system, which they pretend to hate so much, and who are the real oppressors of the people. Perhaps then they will begin to reflect whether they are justified in selecting their leaders and advisers out of this particular circle.
-----------------
[Page 177] We possess sufficient explanation of this mystery, when we have once become acquainted with the means, by which Jewdom acquires its riches. Only we must once more oppose the erroneous idea, that the riches of the Jews, who live in our midst, are part and parcel of the national wealth. The Hebrews, of their own accord, place themselves outside the pale of the nation; their riches, therefore, are not to be included in our national wealth. On the contrary, the Jewish riches are the sum of what is lost to us in prosperity. These riches, at the present moment, are in the possession of a foreign and hostile nation, which is using them in order to oppress us. All the mighty banking foundations and gigantic Stock Exchange speculations of the Hebrews are, in reality, consummated mainly with our money. In the case of all Jewish activity there is no suggestion of the creation of sound economic values, but only of a crafty shifting of ownership. An honest Hebrew, one Conrad Alberti (Sittenfeld), acknowledged as much when he wrote as follows in the “Gesellschaft” of 1889 No. 12:
“ No one can dispute that Jewdom takes a leading part in polluting and corrupting all relations. A characteristic of the Jew is the stubborn endeavour to produce values without work, and this being a matter of impossibility, it simply means that these values are artificially produced by swindling and corruption, by manoeuvres on the Stock Exchange in conjunction with the Press in order to spread false rumours, and by other and similar methods. These artificial and fictitious values are then acquired, unloaded and exchanged for genuine values, produced by real work, only to melt away and vanish in the hands of their new owners like Helen in the arms of Faust. The representatives of corruption on the Exchange, in the Press and in the Theatre in my novel ‘The Old and Young’, representatives of that class who strive to enrich themselves without working, are therefore Jews.”
When Sombart says: “ Capitalism is born from the money loan”, I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan; for, under the expression “Capital” in the narrower sense, I understand only Loan-Capital, that is to say the kind of capital which is utilised, not to generate productive activity, but solely to win interest. It cannot be disputed that the dangerous capitalism of the present day arises solely from the loaning of money, for the productive fortunes of our great industrialists must not be compared in this respect with the usury-capital of the Rothschilds and their associates.
[Page 178] The productive capital of industry consists, like that of the large landowners, preponderatingly of landed property, buildings and industrial investments, and only gives a return when inventive intelligence, organising power and hard work are also brought into active operation. The distinguishing feature, however, of loan-capital — “speculative capital” — is to bring in a return without doing any work for it. Productive capital gives opportunity for work and wages simultaneously to hundreds and thousands, but loan-capital is only a steady drain on the return earned by others, taking often the lion’s share; for it makes sure of its percentage whatever happens, even when adverse circumstances or the failure of the harvest wipe out all profit.
When certain people make the simple masses believe that the farmer and the large land-owner — the hated “Agrarian” — are the real oppressors and plunderers of the people, they omit to mention that very frequently this “Agrarian”
himself is grievously oppressed, and is on the rack from year’s end to year’s end, to raise the money to pay the interest on the mortgages. The workman in industrial service, or in possession of a handicraft, always remains a free man, who receives an honest wage for honest work, and who can, if he chooses, give notice and change his employer. But whoever finds himself in the bondage of Loan-capital and doomed to pay interest, is seldom, if ever, able to shake off the fetters. The landowner, burdened with mortgages, is far less free and far less of a master than the youngest proletarian from the factory.
All his life long he, and often his children and grandchildren as well, are chained to the same piece of soil, which claims all their labour in order to raise interest for Loan-capital. How crazy it is then, to direct the envy and hatred of the town bred proletariat against these supposed tyrants! In reality, many of these so-called owners — even the large landed proprietors — are themselves “owned” by the Loancapitalists.
[Page 179] A new kind of secret serfdom has come into being, which is invisible to the ordinary public, and which consists in allowing the slave to retain the outward appearance of lord and master, whilst it condemns the much-envied owner to a kind of bondage.
This bondage is rooted finally in our wrong arrangement of our interest system. It is opposed to common sense, in the case of a sum of money lent on interest once only, to make, not only the recipient of the loan, but his children and children’s children liable to pay interest for all time. This “eternal interest” is, on the one side, the curse of the productive classes, and on the other, the fertile soil in which are rooted the power and dominancy of that oppressor of the nations — Judah. The interest system invests the moneylender with a relative might which, in reality, is more oppressive than the dominance and despotism of the olden times.