The Victory of Judaism over Germanism
Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View
Translation of Wilhelm Marr’s: Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum (1879)
Eighth Edition, Bern, Rudolph Costenoble 1879
Translation Copyright © 2009 Gerhard Rohringer All rights reserved
Foreword by the Translator
In the following pages, the reader will find a translation of an often mentioned but very hard to find pamphlet by Wilhelm Marr, a German journalistandculturalhistorianfromthelate19th centurywiththetitleThe Victory of Judaism over Germanism (Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum).
Wilhelm Marr’s work is highly controversial. As a journalist, he be- came known for his sharply critical attitude towards Judaism’s role in the Western world. Today he is considered one of the most important exponents of modern anti-Semitism. Just how important a role he may have played is described in a book by Prof. Moshe Zimmermann of Hebrew University of Jerusalem with the title Wilhelm Marr, the Patriarch of Anti-Semitism.
In this book, M. Zimmermann devotes a long chapter to The Victory of Judaism over Germanism. He describes Marr’s personal circum- stances at the time this work was created. While much space is de- voted to document the events surrounding its composition, Marr’s own words receive little attention. Instead M. Zimmermann states “I will not expand upon the content of this notorious essay here.” a)
A very brief exposition of some of the actual contents of Marr’s pam- phlet appears in an annotated anthology of modern Jewish history by Prof. Paul Mendes-Flohr and Prof. J. Reinharz. It consists of the translation of several paragraphs selected from chapter 5 of Marr’s pamphlet. b)
The absence of any comprehensive translation of this pamphlet con- fronts the reader, who is interested in Marr’s own words, with a difficult task. He must find a copy of the pamphlet and he must read it in the original German. Finding a printed copy has been difficult. The Libra- ries Worldwide Catalog (World Cat.) at the University of California’s Melvyl library system lists only 29 copies worldwide. Only since the advent of the world wide web an electronic copy of Marr’s pamphlet has become available at www.archive.org/details/texts.
For these reasons I have translated the entire pamphlet and provided annotations for names and concepts which may not be familiar to to- day’s reader. This will enable the researcher to obtain a first hand im- pression of Marr’s historical-cultural view of The Victory of Judaism over Germanism.
a) M. Zimmermann, Wilhelm Marr, the Patriarch of Anti-Semitism, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 79.
b) Paul R. Mendes-Flohr and J. Reinharz, The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 331, 332.
Wilhelm Marr: Victory of Judaism over Germanism
It is a significant fact that Marr never recanted the views he expressed in his pamphlet. However, he later expressed regret for having joined and assisted a certain anti-Semitic movement which he came to recognize as having just been a business, the “business of anti-Semitism”. Details regarding Marr’s later view of his pamphlet and of the type of anti- Semitism which he regretted joining after its publication, can be found in the translation of Marr’s The Testament of an Antisemite prepared by M. Zimmermann and included in his book as a separate chapter. c) M. Zimmermann, ibid., p. 133 to155, particularly pp. 137,138.
Also significant is, that in some of the secondary literature the present pamphlet is quoted as the one in which Marr first coined the expression anti-Semitism. That this is not so is easily verified, since the present pam- phlet does not contain this term
What I intend to accomplish in this pamphlet is less of a polemic against Judaism than it is a statement of facts regarding cultural history.
Whenever circumstances cause me to use controversial speech, this can and must be understood as a “scream of pain” coming from the oppressed.
Resigned pessimism flows from my pen.
Just think: "there always will be queer characters such as this one", but rest assured that nobody will be happier than I, should the facts which I shall touch upon, be shown to be untrue.
Jews and Judaism have been attacked in literature innumerable times. This however has almost always been done from the point of view of our non-Jewish, inflated opinion of ourselves or may I say, in the vainglorious style of retreat such as Gambetta’s1*). Our conceit has not yet permitted us to admit that Israel2 has become a world power of the very first rank. We have managed to understand the Jews, but we have failed to understand ourselves.
Under any circumstance this pamphlet will be able to claim orig- inality. Free of any and all religious bias it will allow you to look into the mirror of historical-cultural facts and it will not be the fault of the "pessimist" if what you view in this mirror are....slaves.
I wish two things for this pamphlet.
1.) That Jewish critics will not hush it up,
2.) that it will not be disposed of with the usual, smug commentary.
I shall announce, loudly and without any attempt to be ironic, that Judaism has triumphed on a worldwide historical basis. I shall bring the news of a lost battle and of the victory of the enemy and all of that I shall do without offering excuses for the defeated army.
I would think that such candor deserves the privilege to be treated with better than the usual, zealous journalistic twaddle.
*) The translator will assist the reader by commenting upon proper names and possibly unfamiliar concepts in the section “Endnotes”. Numerical superscripts refer to these notes.
When one people conquers another, one of the following two things may happen. First it may be that the conquerer merges into the culture of the conquered and thus loses his identity.
This fate for example befell the Tatars, who under Genghis Khan conquered China and then turned into Chinese. The Lombards shared a similar fate when their Germanism ended up to be italianized.
On the other hand, the conquerer may succeed to impress his culture upon the conquered. This is what happened with the Anglo- Saxon race in North America and Anglo influence in Central and South America 3.
As far-reaching as these developments may be in their various ramifications, they do pale in comparison with the cultural history of Judaism. Here we are dealing with a completely new development.
An entire Semitic tribe is repeatedly and forcibly taken away from its native country Palestine, led into captivity and finally “dispersed”.
Those who were taken into “Babylonian captivity” were let go, since the Babylonians seemingly soon tired of their Judaic captives. The majority returned to Palestine. The “bankers” and the wealthy stayed in Babylon in spite of the ire and wrath of the elder Jewish prophets.
We now must point to the fact, that Jews from the very beginning, wherever they appear in history, were hated by all people and that without exception.
This was not a consequence of their religion, because the Jews of antiquity, at least from what their prophets tell, knew perfectly well how to join in the idolatry of other people, while “rigid Judaism” developed only during the time after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The universal hostility against Jews had different roots. First is the loathing Jews demonstrate for real work, second their codified enmity against all non-Jews.
Anybody who has gone to the trouble to even superficially study the Mosaic law of the Bible will admit that a people adhering in war and peace to the codex of Moses will find it hard to elicit international sympathy. The relationship between Jews and Jehovah was unimaginative, calloused, purely contractual, businesslike and rigidly formalistic. In everyday life the most practical realism imaginable prevailed and was of brazen solidity. Even the Jehovah of the Old Testament was a rigid realist. He acknowledged the existence of “other deities” and was motivated by his hate for them.
Titus committed the most foolish act in all of world history, when, after the destruction of Jerusalem, he dragged some of the Jews into Roman captivity and forcibly dispersed the rest. At the time there happened to be freedom of faith in Rome. It was said that “all Gods are welcome in Rome”. But if people caused mischief in the name of deities which had found “salve hospes” (safe haven) in Rome and attempted to ruin Roman temples and committed other such mischief, then of course, the Romans re- established order. What caused the Jews to be hated in Rome as well, was the exclusive attitude, combined with haggling and profiteering which they had brought with them.
The Roman world of the day as well as all of classical antiquity was in the throes of disintegration at the time the Jews were imported. Semitism therefore encountered fertile ground for its realistic approach and already in Constantine’s days the “new-Jews” (Christians) were the power behind the money.
All the nations of antiquity, including the trading Phoenicians and Carthaginians, did not think well of engaging in, what we now call agiotage, profiteering and usury. If in the Middle Ages we encounter a “Mr. Moneybag” he was a Jew. Jews were made use of but despised. This attitude is similar to its modern form, in which traitors are met with contempt while their treason may be welcome.
The abstract realism of Judaism had thus been forcibly imported into western society by the Romans. Times and circumstances proved favorable for Judaism’s development and proliferation. Judaism had turned into the realistic helper in history and encountered a more fertile ground for its indolent and speculative realism in the West than it ever possessed in Palestine.
This, of course, provoked envy among the peoples of the West and since the mob has always preferred to use religion as a cover for its ends, so the spread of Christianity was accompanied by the spread of an (apparent) religious hatred of Jews in the Occident.
How nonsensical the religious aspect of this hatred was becomes obvious, when one considers the fact that Jews were to be held responsible for the crucifixation of Christ; an event, known to have been set in motion by Roman authorities which cowardly followed the clamor of a mob in Jerusalem. This Jewish mob at the time of Christ had not done any more or any less than any mob at any other time and among other nations has done, is now doing and will do in the future. Today they shout “hosannah” and tomorrow they will cry ”crucify ”. Human nature calls upon providence and religion whenever a foolish act or some perfidy is about to be committed. It is rare that there has not been mutual annihilation without one side and the other calling upon the gods or our Lord and to importune them with the honor of an alliance. And this is how God and religion had to serve in each and every persecution of the Jews, while in reality these events were nothing else but the struggle of nations and their response to the very real Judaization of society, that is to a battle for survival.
Yes! If in reality during the Middle Ages some fanatical Jews had, during passover -- “slaughtered Christian children”-- and if such atrocious events had actually taken place, something which has no demonstrable basis in history, then these would represent abominations which are nothing else but crimes and must not be used to justify general religious hatred. The same applies regarding the obscenities uttered by certain pietistic sects against Christianity.
I therefore unconditionally defend Jewry against any and all religious persecution and think that it is hardly possible to express this more clearly than I have done here.
On the other hand, I emphasize the following indisputable truth:
With the Jews, the Romans have forced a tribe upon the West, which as its history shows, was thoroughly hated by all the peoples of the Orient.
So it is that the Jews did not come as conquerers with sword in hand.
The Romans “interned” them as political prisoners into the Occident and they did this in a way that the Jews had the freedom to settle and that in the cities their domicile was subject to control, that is, it was limited to ghettos.
Nothing is more natural than the hatred the Jews must have felt for those who enslaved them and abducted them from their homeland. Nothing is more natural than that this hatred had to grow during the course of oppression and persecution in the Occident over the span of almost two thousand years. Nothing was more natural than the Jews becoming even more spiteful during their banishment and quasi-captivity than they had been in the Orient. Nothing is more natural than that they responded using their inborn gifts of craftiness and cleverness by forming as “captives” a state within a state, a society within a society. The Jewish “state within a state” used guile to continue its war in the Occident, while it had used deadly weapons against the peoples in the Orient, where it had been the stronger party.
This simply was a natural right for the Jews. One must not expect humility instead of defiance from the suppressed and certainly can’t expect meekness from a people whose traditions do not know how to turn the other cheek.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, says Jehovism. If the practice of strict martial law against such a people was justified after the great political error had been made to forcibly introduce it into occidental society, then the tough resistance offered by the Jews was equally justified. By the 19th century the amazing toughness and endurance of the Semites had made them the leading power within occidental society. As a result, and that particularly in Germany, Jewry has not been assimilated into Germanism, but Germanism has been absorbed into Judaism. This development advanced to such an extent that the leading voices of German patriotism, of the “Reichsfreundlichkeit”4, in our parliamentary and even religious strife -- are those of the Jews.
Right at the start of the Jewish dispersion into the Occident a remarkable historical-cultural event occurred: the Jews established themselves in the cities and showed themselves even less desiring to engage in agriculture and colonization than they had shown in Palestine and earlier in Egypt. One must not argue that in some countries Jews might have been prohibited from acquiring land and property. Until deep into the Middle Ages the Occident comprised much uncultivated land. There was no reason to not “squat” on land and to lead a life such as had been led by the cultural pioneers in the woods of North America. Then there was abundant unclaimed land in the Occident. It was however not claimed by the Jews, because they lacked the vigor of the old Anglo-Saxons, who, expelled on
account of their faith, created states out of the wilderness in the Far West. It was not axe and plough, but the tricks and the crafts of the practical spirit of hagglers which were the weapons with which the Jews conquered the Occident and created a New Palestine particularly in Germany.
And, why in Germany of all places?
Romanism, the old Caesarean Rome, had itself turned towards political-cultural realism to such a degree, that the Jews faced a political entity, which could only be fragmented by the idealism of Christianity. With the introduction of the latter as the state religion, with the beginning of the papacy, which had to maintain the juxtaposition of Christ and non-Christ in order to monopolize the world, the Jewish freedom of action in Rome and in Italy found itself to be limited. Jewry dispersed increasingly and retreated before the religionist Christian fanaticism. It diffused en masse to Spain and Portugal and into the Slavic countries, and then emigrated from there in large numbers by way of Holland into Germany, all the while able to continue with less hindrance in its socially undermining activity among the Slavic barbarians. Next to Slavism, Germanism was least prepared to face foreigners. A sense of German nationality, not to speak of German national pride, did not exist in German lands. And it was exactly for this reason that Judaism found it easier to extend its roots in Germany than in other places.
But even here the special character of the foreigners from the Orient caused offense. Within the agricultural Germanic lands the Semitic craftiness and its practical business sense provoked a reaction against the Jews. This foreign tribe and its opportunism contrasted too much with the basic character of Germanism. Its rules, its articles of belief which allowed to view all non-Jews as “unclean”*), provoked anger among the people, while on the other hand the Jews permitted themselves to be used by nobility in financial transactions carried out at the expense of the people.
Highly gifted, with great flair for activities like these, the Jews dominated retail and wholesale trade as early as the Middle Ages and outwitted the hard working common folk.
The common people realized that their own sense of ethics was not shared by the Jews, because these, rather than striving for emancipation
*) In December of 1865 great commotion was caused among the Jewry of Pest 5 by the accusation made by a man with the name of Schor, who was their leader in orthodox prayer. Schor had accused the Chief Rabbi of Pest, Dr. Meisel, to have actually eaten from the food offered at the emperor’s table when he had been invited to dine. An investigation (!) revealed that the two invited Chief Rabbis had taken food from their plates, had been busy (!) using knive and fork, but had not in reality eaten. At this juncture the Jewish congregation removed Schor as their leader in prayer. --- Such events cause one to question with what justification a people which believes to be befouled when participating at a Christian meal, a meal to which they were invited by their sovereign, may demand equal status with Christians. ------------- (Ghillany, Europäische Chronic III, 120.)
preferred to accumulate wealth. Where such accumulation was involved they were ready to tolerate suffering. Openly suppressed from above, they were able to take advantage of those below. The common folk had no chance to grumble about being exploited by their nobles, an activity in which the Jews acted as brokers. For this reason the people used religion as pretext. “The crucifiers of Christ are to exploit us?” they cried. “Hepp! Hepp!”6.
For those at the top of society these occasional persecutions of Jews were not unwelcome. They had the effect of keeping the Jews dependent, willing to continue as brokers and not to think of demanding emancipation for their people as brokerage fee.
There is no way to deny, that the abstract, money-oriented, haggling mind of the Jews has contributed much to the flourishing of commerce and industry in Germany. It is profits and not ideals which build a state and if we liken profit to a person, then the means to an end are rarely pure and noble. Despotic princes in constant struggle with a despotic and predatory nobility, farmers which barely differed from black slaves except by the color of their skin, a middle class which deep into the time of the crusades was poorly developed and lacked self-assurance, that is what German society was like, while in Italy, France and Spain culture flourished.
Into this confused, clumsy Germanic element penetrated a smooth, crafty, pliable Jewry; with all of its gifts of realism, intellectually well qualified as far as the gift of astuteness is concerned, to look down upon the Germans and subduing the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices.
The Jew had no homeland. With each passing day he became more estranged from his former native land and memories of it became merely symbolic. Nature had denied him the gift to blend with other people, to assimilate. He continued to reject their religion, and resisted their customs, traditions and way of life. He was able to deceive his oppressors in everything, but not in his desire to be a Jew and to remain one. His charter was a lasting challenge of and manifestation against the “unclean” among whom he lived. He was a typical foreigner to them and remained one until today; and yes, his exclusive Judaism, as we shall demonstrate in what follows, shows itself even more today after his emancipation, than it did in earlier times.
We must therefore not be embarassed to admit that right “ab ovo” (from the very beginning) an element had entered our Occidental society which surpassed our ancestors by far in guile and astuteness and fought with these weapons in the Occident, after the fire and sword of fanaticism and hatred against other people in the Orient had been wrenched from its hands. Ever since, Jewry has, using these weapons, continued its struggle in the Occident against all that is not Jewish. It successfully resisted our own ideology and inoculated us from year to year with more of its own by making the line separating right from wrong so elastic, that in the spheres of trade and exchange the border is now found where brutal crime has its beginning and non-sanctioned crime has been turned into habitual practice. The mischievous remark that stock exchange brokers can be divided into “white” and “black” Jews has a ring of truth to it.
All of this demonstrates merely that Germanism did not possess sufficient spiritual endurance to protect itself from Judaization and so Germany turned step by step into the new promised land for Semites which came flooding here from Spain, Portugal and Poland to augment the already resident Jewry.
This tribe, the Jews, possessed throughout its history by a theocratic fervor not found among any other people and whose theocratic code of behavior in war and peace was dreadful, transformed all of its destructive potential into new forms and using these, vanquished the Occident, a victory it could not achieve in the Orient using fire and sword.
Such a historical-cultural event is not a bubble which can be burst with a cheap “Hepp, Hepp”. Such an event is of demonic appearance, in spite of the “grotesque mask” it may show . This tribe, which drew laughter in Caesarean Rome, spread covered with filth heavier than one can see on them today in Russia and Poland, all over Europe. This tribe teased by the educated, abused by the mob and persecuted by religious zealots, these people became “brokers” to the rulers and exacted tribute as early as the Middle Ages. Using the intelligence and flexibility with which it conducted its practical business it exploited the masses, all the while maintaining its theocratic-jehovistic rigidity and fanatically persecuting its own, humanely thinking but unconventional Jews. And so these people conquered the world with their Jewish soul!
This is not the power of the Jewish religious faith. The Jew has no real religion, he has a business contract with Jehovah and pays his god with statutes and formulations and in return is charged with the pleasant task of exterminating all that is not Jewish. It is the powerful expression of a conscious, characteristic realism which we must admit exists in Judaism and which we encounter in its pathos and its satire. As far as the actual modalities of business and trade are concerned, we Germans hardly differ any more from the Jews; what we don’t have is the drive of the Semitic people. On account of our tribal organization we shall never be able to acquire such a drive and because cultural development knows no pause, our outlook is none other than a time when we Germans will live as slaves under the legal and political feudalism of Judaism.
One of our most respected citizens, one of our greatest thinkers, poets and a sharp critical mind, --- Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, demonstrated in his drama “Nathan the Wise”7, what fundamental error Germanism committed, when it viewed or considered the Jewish question as only of religious nature.
The 18th century in which Lessing lived, was the century of phil- osophical emancipation from prejudices of all kinds, in particular from religious ones. It is curious that in that great epoch English as well as French “freethinkers” more or less rejected Judaism. The great deist Voltaire took serious issue with the formalism of Judaism. He and Mylord Bolingbrooke 8 in England did not hide their dislike of Jewish tribalism and emphasized very clearly that the Jews could not lay claim to a true religion. They treated Judaism as a spiritual matter of small import.
In Germany on the other hand, the great Lessing chose with “Nathan the Wise” another, mistaken path. It is peculiar, that this obviously mistaken approach of our immortal idol has encountered so little attention in our age of erosive and merciless literary criticism.
The legend of the “three rings” is the most beautiful creation of poetic composition from the age of tolerance. But who is the character whom Les- sing allows to speak this noble and exalting truth?
It is a Jewish “Rothschild” under sultan Saladin!
Was this choice essential for a drama of such noble purpose?
----- Might Nathan not rather have been a Jewish scholar or a Baruch Spi- noza speaking before his time? ---- Where was the need to invoke the re- volting element of an agent of mammon?
And yet --- adopting the poet’s frame of mind, for him Jew and solicitor of money were subconsciously one and the same. One could not be separated from the other and the poet felt this instinctively. Nathan provides loans to finance the war against the crusaders. By doing so he is financially taking the side of one of the three “rings”. He offers Saladin money, --- right after he told the wondrous story of these rings. Well --- he did it without charging interest, but after all he supports the one “ring”, which is not even the one of Judaism. Though he also supports the “templar”, the impartiality of the “Etre spréme” (Supreme Being) so beautifully illustrated by the legend of the three rings, has now been undermined by Nathan himself. Lessing could not in his subconscious self overcome the identity of Jew and servant of mammon. If a Jew had to be the protagonist of the drama, why then did Lessing not show him apart from precious metal? In this way Lessing glorified an exceptional Jew, who however, as a servant of money, was a real Jew. Nathan is an individual, not a concept. He probably stands with his character above the Jew “Sheva” 9 in the drama by Richard Cumberland. The latter however is portrayed more believably and lifelike; Sheva is taken from life, Nathan is abstract, and enters the most lofty and most ideal poesy of humanism and tolerance as a --- banker.
The Jew Nathan would have represented “monotheism” if Lessing had not portrayed him realistically as a servant of mammon.
This only proves, that even Lessing, against his will, has demon- strated the identity of Jew and the power of money.
All the same, Lessing’s Nathan became the real forerunner for the idea of Jewish emancipation among the Germans. German idealism was captivated by the legend of the ring, but missed that Lessing’s Nathan could only be --- a character from a fable.
If Nathan had been a Christian, there might have been others and not just Paul Lindau10, to commit the act of “literary tactlessness” by putting Lessing on the dialectic dissection table.
It was a sign of the time. Truly: Jew and man of mammon were inseparable even in the eyes of Lessing. The poet was unable to separate the latter attribute of his hero from the former. Only in this way did Nathan become a credible figure for the audience at large. And I don’t wish to prove more with these statements, than that not even our great Lessing was able to picture the “Jew” and “money” as separate. To anticipate Spinoza would have been too much to expect for this drama; this truly great Jewish non-Jew had been cursed by his own tribal associates --- all the way to attempted murderous assault! --- Baruch Spinoza! Philosophical messiah of the 17 t h century, “crucified” by the Jews, just like the Jew Christ had been crucified by the Romans.
Baruch Spinoza! A fashionable Jewish example in the 19 t h century! But woe to the German, who dares to show the Jewish masses who the great Spinoza was and what he stood for!! How despicable is humanity! How can any modern, run of the mill Jew pretend any enthusiasm for Spinoza!
With Lessing’s “Nathan” and Cumberland’s “Jew” the idea of Jewish emancipation began to gain hold among the general public. The theater became its forum and the final theatrical chapter in this endeavor became Mosenthal’s Deborah11, in which Jewish suffering and Jewish fury were shown in equal measure. After Lessing and the Jewish emancipation in France at the time of the first revolution, German Jewish emancipation developed a literature of its own.
Who can hold it against the Jews that they happily welcomed the re- volutions of 1789 and the one of 1848 and actively participated in them? “Jews, Poles and writers” was the battle cry of the conservatives in 1848. Well, of course, three suppressed factions! The happy and content do not rise up in our world. It is understandable that the Jews were the loudest in this bacchanalian freedom frenzy in the press. Who can fault them for it? Finally it again needs to be emphasized, that philosophical selfdeception had resulted in the view that the Jewish question was one of religious freedom. In 1848 however Jewry had long ago gotten to the stage where there was no longer a question of religious prejudice. Jewish “religion” represented nothing else but the constitution of a people, forming a state within a state and this secondary or counter-state demanded certain material advantages for its members.
It was about political equality; because in civic life Jewry had in fact long ago achieved a leading and dominating role; dominating to such an extent that Christian states bestowed baronage upon Jewish bankers, even though these Jewish barons could not be councilmen or hold similar office.
Nobody thought that the Jewish question might be a social-political one. That with which one had deceived oneself for 1800 years, namely that one was dealing with a question of religious freedom and conscience, continued to be the subject of selfdeception and that is how the social- political inroads of Judaism into German society obtained their legal consecration.
An already de facto existing foreign rule was legally recognized. A foreign rule, which to express it in commonplace terms, had gotten so far as to have seized dictatorial control of the state’s financial system, that is of the nervus rerum gerendarum (nerve center of business activity), and had imbued it with the Jewish spirit of arranging and manipulating.
What Jewry had secured long ago, the domination of Jewish realism at the expense of all idealism, was now not only to be safeguarded but expanded beyond all bounds. To this end Jewry needed equal rights in creating laws and administrating the very same state which it negated on religious grounds.
This and nothing else is the core content of Jewish emancipation, once all catchy phrases have been peeled away. Jewish foreign rule entered the sphere of Germanic statecraft in an absolute way. I am using repeatedly the word “foreign rule”. But is a people, which every year repeats, among other things, the ritual, silly phrase: “See you next year in Jerusalem!” not a foreign people? It bluntly affirms its foreign character, not to speak of its customs and persistent tribal characteristics, which --- neither in spirit nor in substance --- have, except in most exceptional and rare instances, been assimilated --- in an indistiguishable way --- into Germanism over a span of 1800 years. Can the Jews afford or really wish to diminish the image of their own power by faking the attempt not to appear as distinct aliens? The very “glory” of Judaism is precisely that it offered the Occident a most victorious resistance over a span of 1800 years. All other immigration into Germany (f.e. the French colonies) disappeared without a trace within Germanism; Wends and Slavs disappeared in the German element. The Semitic race, stronger and tougher has survived them all. Truly! Were I a Jew, I would look upon this fact with my greatest pride. No victor of antiquity or modern times can pride himself of such spiritual, historical-cultural successes as the most humble Jewish peddlar (Schacherjude), who offers fabric from his cart at a streetcorner. --- Without a stroke of the sword, peacefully, in spite of political persecution over centuries, Judaism is today the political-social dictator in Germany.
In the land of thinkers and philosophers Jewish emancipation dates from 1848. At the same time began the Thirty Years12 war, openly carried on by Jewry using the described armamentarium.
It was difficult to deny them these arms during a period of storm and stress13 and after we had been more than half conquered over the centuries by Jewish intelligence. Concerning elections, Jewry immediately entered a statistical contract with us. To be Jewish helped to gain a mandate with relative ease. In order to garner the Jewish vote, the parties, when setting up lists of candidates, had to grant Jewry concessions and this is what is going on to a greater or lesser extent until today.
Up to 1848 the Jews in Germany were predominantly of “democratic” conviction, or at least pretended to be. Later on, Jewry split into parliamentary parties, principally into “National Liberalism” because there the spirit of Judaization, the concepts of utility and practicality, the lack of principles had progressed the most. So far only the ultramontane14 party has remained free of Judaization. Conservative ruling parties however are teeming with Semitic elements because two thirds of our semiofficial literature are represented by Jews.
The same goal, disintegration of the Germanic state for the benefit of Jewish interests, is consistently pursued everywhere.
The daily press is predominantly in Jewish hands, which have transformed journalism into an object of speculation and industrial production, into a business with public opinion; critique of theater, of art in general --- is to three quarters in the hands of Jews. Writing about politics and even religion is --- in Jewish hands.
Let us think about it for a moment.
Once emancipation had been won, instinct demanded that it be consolidated and reinforced. This could only be achieved by using the press and unionism. Consequently Jewry flooded into both like high tide. It acted like it was extraordinarily intellectual and free of bias. It went as far as engaging in sarcastic irony of self; but while the highly gifted E. Dohm15 offered the most precious jokes about Israel in “Kladdaradatsch”, it turned out that it was not advisable for a non-Jew to do the same. Using the word “Knoblauch”16 sufficed to accuse us Teutons of being religious haters. Well, at least my name protects me from such reproaches *).
*) Not being of any religious denomination has helped me but little. When at the beginning of the sixties, upset about the consequences of Jewish emancipation, I fought in my “Judenspiegel” (Hamburg, Otto Meissner) passionately but impartially against the Judaizing of society, a gale against me arose, as though the band of Jericho had been reenforced by a thousand trumpets. An attempt was made to push me out of “Journalism” and even today I am unable to utter an independent thought on any question whatsoever in the Judaized press. I was put down as a common religious fanatic crying “Hepp-Hepp” even though every line in my “Judenspiegel” demon- strated the opposite. I had stirred up a hornet’s nest.
But -- let’s not speak of myself -- where would Richard Wagner have been without the assistance of the King of Bavaria? Has there ever lived an artist who was more the object of attack by Jewry than Wagner? I am not referring to the musical experts who opposed him, but of the pack of scribblers and theater hounds, who did not forgive him for his views of Judaism, even if these might have been mistaken. And from among the very same people in Israel, who had complained about the “lack of melody” in “Tannhäuser” and “Lohengrin”, a crowd rendered homage to him in Bayreuth -- yes in Bayreuth --, to play even there the first violin, just as it is “the custom in Israel”, after Wagner had, in spite of it all forged his way. -- Even here there were two or three exceptions, Jews who had from the start shown friendly sentiments for the master’s work, but it is the exception which makes the rule.
Dictator of Germany only?
From the very beginning of emancipation Judaism had been declared a subject off-limits for us Germans.
After Jewish hustle and bustle had reduced journalism to a trivial but commercially successful enterprise directed at the mob’s liking of gossip and scandal, it had found the largest possible audience for its attempts at Judaizing. Centuries of a factual predominance of Jewish realism had done its preparatory work. Jewry dictated public opinion in the press.
But let us now look at the non plus ultra of arrogance of the Jewish victor!
The “culture struggle”17 had begun. While we Germans had been banned and outlawed by the press since 1848 if we considered as much as criticism of anything Jewish, Jewry now involved itself in our religious and cultural struggles with Ultramontanism and, it is hard to believe, even did all the talking. While Jewry searched anxiously to find for its satirical journals anything which they might ridicule as a “Jewish witch-hunt”, it unleashed its torrents upon Ultramontanism. --- Well! The latter opposed Judaism in the battle for world domination! Here one may certainly not speak of Judaic tactfulness, which in turn demands from us that we treat it like delicate glass or like a Mimosa pudica.
And indeed, there were important newspapers, in which we Germans were not even permitted to write about the “culture struggle” because, --- because we, in order to criticize the Roman fanaticism had called it an emanation of the Jehovistic fervor of the Old Testament. In books (such as by Johannes Scherr18) on the other hand Jewry could not stand in the way of such political-cultural deductions and analyses; but in its newspapers it even suppressed publications hostile to Ultramontanism, if Israel was touched upon ever so slightly!!
Just try to comment upon Jewish rituals and statutes. You will find that not even the Pope is more infallible and unimpeachable. To comment upon their rituals is “hatred”, but if the Jew takes it upon himself to pro- nounce the last word in our religious and state affairs, than it is quite a different matter.
Jewry is already calling “Vae Victis”, while we are in the midst of our religious and political disputes.
At the beginning of the cultural struggle, I and several of my friends attempted to take part in it by expressing views from a sophisticated, historical-cultural point of view. In vain. We were only allowed to be heard, provided we renounced the use of basic statements of fact and if we were, ex abrupto, willing to be abusive of “clerics”. Not even under letters to the editor did we enjoy hospitality in the Jewish press, even there, where there might have been an opportunity to express opinions contrary to ours. And this is the way Jewry has --- monopolized --- free expression of opinion in the press.
It would be easy to hide our own impotence under cover of an abundant verbiage of Jew hatred. We Germans have officially resigned in favor of Judaism in 1848. Check for yourself: in all aspects of life the way to one’s goal is subject to Jewish mediation. There is no “struggle for existence” without Jewry collecting its commission. Ask yourself, reader, whether I exaggerate!
This is the result of the Thirty Years war which Jewry has officially staged against us since 1848 and which does not even offer us the hope for a poor “Westphalian Peace”19.
There is no standing still. It is forward or back!
Are there any signs that the Jewish twilight of gods is about to close in?
No, there are none.
The social and political dominance of Jewry as well as its religious and ecclesiastic paternalism are still full of youthful vigor and ready to achieve the Jehovist promise (“I shall deliver all the nations to thee, etc”).
A sudden reversal is impossible if only for the reason that the entire social structure, formed by Judaization, would collapse and no concept exists to take its place and turn it into reality.
Neither can we look to the “Christian” state for assistance. For the Jews are the “most perfect” citizens of this modern Christian state, which in turn perfectly matches their interests. They are --- and this is said without a hint of irony --- the best and truest “Reichsfreunde” (Friends of the German Reich), because this Reich is quite ready to advance them to the highest office in the land.
May I direct a plea to my readers: please save this pamphlet of mine and provide in your will that it be passed from generation to generation.
It is not a pretentious prophecy of mine, but a statement of my deepest conviction that within less than four generations there will not be a single office in the land, including the highest, which will not have been usurped by the Jews.
Yes, through Jewry Germany will become a world power, an Occiden- tal Palestine.
Not through violent revolutions, but by the voice of the people itself, just as soon as German society will have reached the apogee of social bankruptcy, the apogee of helplessness towa rds which we are drifting.
Let us not reproach the Jews on this account.
Jewry has fought the Occident for 1800 years. It has conquered and subjected it. We are the vanquished and it is quite in order that the victor chants “Vae Victis!”.
Our Germanic element has shown itself to be impotent, to be power- less vis-a-vis foreign domination in a historical-cultural context. This is a fact, a bitter, inexorable fact. The state, the church, Catholicism, Protes- tantism, credo and dogma, must bow before Jewish judgment in the daily press.
But this by far, is not all.
After Germanism, until then a straggler in the Jewish question, had stepped up front to head it, there was no longer any stopping.
Gambetta-Today president of the National Assembly, Simon and Crémieux were the dictators in France in 1870- 1871 during the war and daily drove thousands upon thousands of Frenchmen needlessly to death. After Sedan20 everybody believed peace would come. Not so! Bismarck would have been able to handle the phraseology of a Jules Favre21, but the frivolous, miserable fanaticism of action of the semitic gentlemen in Tours22 required more “Blood and Iron”.
Poor, Judaized France.
In England, a German hater, the Semite d’Israeli comme il faut, (as is proper) keeps the question of war and peace in his “waistcoat pocket”.
Who really gained at the Congress of Berlin23 from the blood shed in the Orient? Jewry did. The “Association israélite” was first in line. Rumania was coerced to officially open floodgates to the corrosive influence of Semitism. As far as Russia is concerned Jewry did not yet dare to make the same demand. This is yet to come.
And in Germany, who carried off the prize of raw, material advantage? Jewry, represented by a handful of Jewish bankers; Semitic brokers. We Germans got the abstract, imaginary result --- to be “Friends of the Reich”, to console us with the “Reich of dreams”.
Who headed in numerically overwhelming fashion the horrid, socially destructive “Gründerthum” 24 after the war? Jewry did.
Stop! Dear reader, don’t gnash your teeth in anger. You have no right to. Foreign rule has been thrust upon us. 1800 years lasted the battle against Jewish domination, which hardly ever strayed from its biblical tradition. The Semitic people suffered unspeakably. You have abused it rudely, but rarely did you fight it spiritually. Starting from modest beginnings, it outgrew you, it corrupted society in all of its aspects, squeezed all idealism out of it, occupies the most controlling influence in trade and daily life, penetrates ever more into public office, controls the theater, forms a social-political front and has left almost nothing for you, except raw labor which it itself has always shunned; it has tranformed talent into shiny virtuosity, pimpish advertising into the godess of public opinion and --- rules you today.
Or should Jewry not take advantage of its victory and triumph?
The German people could --- because it had received permission from ‘Above’25 get rid of French foreign rule 1813 --- 1814. Why has French domination not understood how to have its interests taken to heart by ‘Above’ like Jewish domination has understood to accomplish this for itself?
Of course, highminded individuals such as Schill, Dörnberg, Stein26 had been ostracized by Germanic monarchs, just as we might be ostracized for merely ascertaining the facts regarding Judaization.
Are we willing to sacrifice? Did we succeed in creating even a single, anti-Jewish leaning paper, which manages to be politically neutral? --- Are not even our homemakers and similar associations under patronage of Jewesses, who combine the agreeable with the profitable and corner a little business on the side? Isn’t every nook and cranny of our life subject to the flood of Judaism?
You rest yourself on Germanic bearhide. I marvel in admiration at this Semitic people which put its heel onto the nape of our necks. I gather the last remnant of my strength to die as peacefully as possible in Jewish bondage, but as one who has not surrendered and is not willing to ask for pardon.
Can we deny historical facts?
The historical fact that Judaism has become the leading political- social great power of the 19th century is clearly before our eyes. To de- Judaize ourselves, for that we clearly lack physical and spiritual strength. The raw, brute force but completely subconscious protest against the actual Judaization was Social Democracy, which --- acted with and for the Jews, because Jewry had infiltrated its ranks as well. Just as the founder of German Social Democracy, Lasalle, had been a Semite himself.
Why, therefore, should we now be surprised? We harbor a resilient, tough, intelligent, foreign tribe among us, who knows how to take advantage of every form of abstract reality. It is not the individual Jew, it is Jewish spirit and Jewish awareness which have taken over the world. No longer can we speak of a persecution of Jews, when the howls of German persecution may be heard as soon as a non-Jew dares to rear his head.
These are all historical-cultural facts, so unique in their aspects, so awesome, that it is impossible to dispute them using everyday polemics. The proud Roman Empire has not been able to win such triumphs with all the might of its arms, as has typical Semitism won in the Occident and particularly in Germany.
Among all the European states only Russia is left to still resist the frank foreign invasion. The most recent example of coming action against this last bulwark was set by Jewry in the case of Rumania. As current events and cirumstances indicate the final surrender of Russia is only a question of time.
In this multifaceted, huge state Jewry will find the cardinal point which it needs, to completely unhinge the Western world.
Jewish, resilient, fly-by-night attitude will plunge Russia into a revolution like the world might never have seen before. Social nihilism and abstract individualism will be conjured up in such a way, that the only half civilized Czarist Empire will be unable to resist. The underdeveloped, still in swaddling clothes living or already under Jewish influence corrupted administration will offer a suitable handle. Just look at the multinational Austria to see how solidly and irreversibly she is in Jewish hands today!! –
How and where might these partially primitive national elements in Russia be more resistant than we Germans are and were, when the exemplary well administrated and stalwart Prussia with its honest and modest Hohenzollern, with its disciplined population has already been breached by Jewry.
Are we not witnessing today that under the gentle and humane Czar Alexander, who has abolished serfdom, it is --- nihilism which flourishes?!
And Russia is to offer resistance against the social nihilism which Jewry has imported into the Occident? ---
This is impossible!
With Russia, Jewry will have captured the last strategic position from which it has to fear a possible attack on its rear, but once it has paralyzed Russia, its rear will be perfectly secure. After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The “last hour” of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years, since events develop more rapidly now, than they did in past centuries.
What Russia may expect from Judaism is clear. With exception of two or three platonically neutral Jewish papers, the entire Jewish daily press has frenziedly taken the side of Asia against Russia in the Russian-Turkish war27. Neither the religious aspect of this war --- as secondary in importance as it may have been --- nor --- and this is the important point --- the historical-cultural idea, which stands above all diplomacy, the memory of the centuries, even millenniums of struggle against Asia --- not even the hellenistic tradition, were able to convince the Jewish press to a adopt a more sophisticated attitude.
Certainly! This press would have stood beside Russia, if a Lasker28 or Bamberger29 had played politically the first fiddle on the shores of the river Neva or if Jewry had financially been even more important in Russia than in Turkey. But instead, a howling self-interest emerged from every anti- Russian newspaper article.
Á la guerre come á la guerre (one must take things as they come) ! It was a right for the Jews, because they are aliens and had been forced to wage war against us, and with that I only state a fact --- sine ira et studio. --- “Which side should I be on?” was and can be heard whenever Jews consider partisanship; they are more “toujours en vedette” (always on the lookout) than the entire Occident is.
Just as we fared in the question of the “culture struggle”, we also fared in the Oriental question. Any opinion deviating from the Judaic position found no space in the Jewish dailies, which had almost completely taken sides for Jewish industrial interests. In the German press earnestness and satire blindly took the side of a disintegrating, financially in Jewish clutches languishing Turkey. Securities speculation determined what public opinion should be.
In addition, Russia stumbled into the war without any spiritual preparation, without having sought even a shadow of public opinion for herself and allowed the idea to take hold, that she was driven by a titillating desire for conquest and not by its mission in the Orient. The thought that implicitly the insolence of the great sea power England might be curbed and that stating this idea would have yielded many friends for Russia, was never expressed and so --- England became the ally of Judaism.
It has always been a misfortune for the Slavs that they ignored the spirit of Germanism and judged it solely on the basis of Jewish newspaper reports. Good God, the German spirit is about to become a stranger even in the German press. It will not even be ten years and one will not be able to find a single journalist in all of Germany who has not been circumcised! At most, clerks for hire will be found rendering service in the industry of the Jewish press.
And even that will be quite in order, because “á la guerre comme á la guerre” and prisoners of war must “dig trenches”.
I am not entitled to and this is hardly the place to criticize the interior policies of Count Bismarck since 1866. Suffice it to say, that since then, His Honor, the Count, is worshipped by Jewry like Constantine and that the national, liberal Jewish “opposition” quite openly pushes for power which the Count should grant it presently. I can’t say that this Jewish expectation is ridiculous; the foundation of our interior politics have, since the war with Austria 30 and even more so since the war with France been such, that the boldest Jewish aspirations can’t be considered ridiculous.
How come! France had within the last 7 years one Jewish dictator and one Jewish triumvirate, --- England one Jewish premier, and Germany, the social El Dorado of Jewry should not be capable to swim with the current? --- It would be rather laughable should Jewry reduce its expectations by even half a tone.
If I as a German and one of the vanquished am not to criticize the interior policies of Count Bismarck, then I would if I were a Jew say: “The Count understands his era as no other statesman before him. He has the clear historical-cultural insight that Germanism is bankrupt and in its last gasps and he is casting about for elements with more vitality”.
How can men be of use to him, men like us, who can no longer be “Reichsfreunde”, because we don’t have a “Reich” and don’t ask the Count for more than approved space for a small and quiet community, which --- has not yet lost all ideals. ---
The 1800 years war with Judaism is nearing its end. Let us admit open- ly and without reserve: Germanism has suffered its Sedan. We have lost our armies and must not fight on like Gambetta wanted to, we must not carry on a war as franctireurs.
We have been vanquished in open battle.
Yes, in open battle; because Jewry has always shown its true face and their little falsehood that we acted like religious fanatics when we offered resistance, must be forgiven.
We are no longer a match for this foreign tribe.
Move on and don’t try to convince me otherwise! With the rude “Hepp, Hepp” of the mob, with the pyre and other similar ruses nothing is accomplished. We never worked on liberating ourselves spiritually from unyielding Jewish realism. Intellectually we accomplished nothing because we were too sluggish and to miserly to battle the Jewish speculative spirit in the press. Don’t complain therefore about a “scandalpress” which is bought, read and supported by your funds. Don’t be disdainful of yourself if you see your image in a mirror. Stop to be loud-mouths when you are the vanquished. The future and life belongs to Judaism, Germany is of the past and will die.
This is the meaning of the historical-cultural development of our German people. There is no way to fight this iron law of world order.
From the very beginning it was not a religious war, it was a battle for survival against the foreign rule of Judaism, of whose character we only now have become clearly aware.
It is too late. We have been so thoroughly submerged in Judaism, that all of modern society would have to be put in question, if we wanted to forcefully emerge again.
In addition, we lack allies which might assist us in the peaceful and deliberate emancipation of Germanism; there are no allies among the nobility, none among the statesmen and none even among the people itself. The historical-cultural bankruptcy of the Occident and of Germanism in particular appears to advance relentlessly. You may call it pessimism which speaks through me. Yet, it is page for page the entire history of culture which I adduce, which has lead us with demonic logic into Judaization.
I repeat and believe that in these days of easy suspicions against those of a different frame of mind, one can’t repeat often enough: I do not harbor the least “hatred of Jews” and I do not hate the Jews for their religion. I have no hatred based on national origin or race. No people can be blamed for its special gifts. Events of world and culture history have hurled Judaism into the Occident. The latter encountered a foreign element in Judaism, just as it itself appeared alien to the newcomer. There started to be friction between the two people and in the process Judaism proved stronger than the Occident and especially stronger than Germanism.
It would be a commendable task for a German scientist, provided he can spare the time, to expand this short but penetrating study of mine into a scientific work and to trace step by step the progress which Judaism has made in historical-political respects in Germany. This might be a work worthy of our greatest cultural historian, Johannes Scherr.
Now! --- I admit that at one time I have fiercely polemicized against the Jews, but I recognize my error. My polemic was in error, it came centuries too late.(Der Judenspiegel, Hamburg, O. Meissner, 5th Edition, 1863.) --- I do not harbor the least animosity towards “the Jews”, provided they don’t harm me and if I harbor such hate, then of course only to personal enemies. That I, just as so many other writers and other fellow humans have suffered on account of the Judaization of my profession, is in the nature of things. It is like war. How can I hate the soldier, whose bullet happens to hit me? --- Does one not offer one’s hand as victor as well as a prisoner of war? Are we to be more barbaric than a soldier in war?
In my eyes it is an honest war which has been going on for 1800 years. Over there and over here we did not want to admit this fact, because we had been doctrinaire on both sides and never grasped the essence of this historical-cultural battle.
The Jew, --- I am speaking in general here!! --- demonstrates quite admirable attributes towards his own. Some --- within his family for example --- allow for more intimacy than one finds among other people. He may be kind and agreeable with us --- superficially.
The fact of an awareness within him of belonging to “the chosen people”, the fact that he hates us or views us as mere objects of exploitation arises from the nature of his tribe and from his history in antiquity. It is understandable that he does not regard us with kindness given the reception he has received in the Occident. He would not or he could not assimilate and so he had to fight. Following his first decisive victory of 1848 he had to --- whether he wanted to or not --- pursue his success further and must now attempt to ruin the Germanic, Occidental world. The destructive mission of Judaism (which already existed in antiquity) will only come to a halt once it has reached its culmination, that is after Jewish Caesarism has been installed.
From which quarters may one expect resistance?
Certainly not from Germanism, because it lies in mortal agony.
Perhaps --- but only conditionally so! --- the Slavs may come to the fore of the stage on which the great “tragic comedy” of world history is being playing out.
It is easier to provide an illustration of what our current generation will likely have to experience. Because, provided not all indications fail us, Jewry will have to face a final, desperate assault particularly by German- ism, before it will achieve authoritarian dominance.
The “Jewish question” is of a political-social nature. The Judaization of the Germanic world has created concepts and theories of individual social “freedom” which can no longer be described as freedom but only as insolence. Its practical consequences have become intolerable to even Ju- daized Germanism.
The opposition against usury is the first, popular expression of the coming clash.
One looks into an abyss of moral corruption, if one sees in the press the daily more numerous offers for investment bargains, invitations extended to people with a little capital to participate in “Lombard deals”31 guaranteed to yield 20 -- 30% per month. Some of these “fund negotiators” may be hidden agents of larger capitalists, others may be enticing lesser capitalists to lead a comfortable life as “rentiers” by turning them into leeches of poverty and misery. This is worse than “graft” because graft exploits only the stupid, while usury, by satanically enticing third parties to join, exploits poverty and misery.
In our parliaments, where the topic of usury is paraded about as of burning importance, one can as usual, only hear --- twaddle. The dogma of “individual freedom”, which really stands for the impertinence and gall of the most unbridled avarice, has become such a basic tenet of society, that our valiant representatives --- what a despicable picture they offer --- attempt to make an omelette without breaking the egg. Why! One might also have to curb the unbridled manipulations of big industry and of big capital and this is the reason why the question of usury remains without practical response and does not advance beyond theoretical resolutions.
The doctrinarism of our Judaized society is an aid in getting around the cliff of usury. The impoverished members of every layer of our society remain victims of usury and of its corrupted German helpers, who with the help of Jews would love to make 20 -- 30% per month from the hardship and misery of the poor! --- (If, in the face of such official toleration, they would at least not importune us to show respect for the “Christian”(!) Germanic state! ---).
“It may be possible, but it won’t work!” That will be the end of the par- liamentary filibuster regarding the problem of usury. ---
In the meantime the cancer of usury spreads ever farther in society. --- The inner bitterness “against Jews” increases from hour to hour (exactly as in the Middle Ages under similar, but less grandiose circumstances) and an explosion is inevitable.
One must also keep in mind that Count Bismarck with his custom and tax initiatives has alienated the better part of his most faithful Jews, be- cause the golden International32 knows no fatherland, just as the black and red Internationals don’t. The seven “meager years” which the German Reich has had for us Germans since 1871, threaten Jewry now as well and his Excellency will soon find out, how quickly in matters of money the pa- tience of his Semitic proteges will run short.
The German state is disintegrating in the most rapid fashion and once the explosion which we foresee occurs, then the state will have no good reason to protect the Jews from the “ardor civicum”. How so often before in history, the violent “Hepp, Hepp” will become the safety valve for the state. --- Perhaps the time is not far away, when we the “Jew haters” par excellence, will have to protect the Semitic aliens, who have vanquished us, from the outrage of indignant popular passion.
Such a catastrophy lies ahead, because the indignation against the Ju- daization of society is intensified by the fact that it can’t be ventilated in the press without showing itself as a most abstruse religious hatred, such as it surfaces in the ultramontane and generally in the reactionary press.
We have been silenced to such an extent, that we can’t, even in the press, appeal to the human-ethical sentiment of the Jews. We may rail against Rome and crack jokes about it. The same applies to Protestantism. All of this is received with hospitality in the Judaized press. The cause of humanitarianism vis-a-vis abstract individualism --- must not be presented.
Germanic indolence, Germanic stinginess, convenient Teutonic dis- dainfulness of expression are responsible that the agile and clever Israel now decides, what one shall say and what not.
I ask of you, do not berate the Jews! You vote for their foreign rule in your parliaments, you make them into legislators and judges, you elevate them to become dictators of your state’s finances. You have turned the press over to them, because you find brilliant frivolity more to your liking than moral fortitude, --- what is it that you rather want? The Jewish people thrive because of their talents and you have been vanquished, as you should have been and as you have deserved a thousandfold.
Neither must you say that “the Jews spoil the price”. They seize diz- zyingly large-scale industrial overproduction, sell at “rock-bottom prices”, make money and use it in usury. Is this not entirely in “good order” and in agreement with the dogma of “abstract individualism” which you have accepted with enthusiasm from the hands of Judaism? ---
We are so stuck in Judaization, that nothing will be able to save us and that a violent anti-Jewish explosion will only delay, but not avert the disintegration of Judaized society. You will no longer be able to halt the great Jewish mission. Jewish Caesarism is only --- and I repeat this from deep inner conviction --- a question of time. Only after this Caesarism has reached its apogee may we perhaps be saved by a --- --- “nameless God”, in whose honor the Caesarean Roman empire had built altars, in a semi-ironical, semi-foreboding mood.
I have come to the end of my draft of historical-cultural history.
Those of fair judgment will forgive the expression of pain, which I feel when I face the Judaization of my fatherland and acknowledge at the same time, that I have only adduced facts fairly and truthfully and not have flattered the German people at the expense of Jewry.
Should I have offended “the Jews” by showing them as well where the logic of Judaization has led us and still is about to lead us, let me say that I had no choice. The victor can’t demand from the vanquished that he hum- bly offer incense.
It is exclusively a historical-cultural process of friction which took place beween two different tribes as I have described it. I should think that this one time, the Jewish press ought to make an exception and without loss of face treat a pamphlet, which is not to their liking, fairly.
I am aware that my journalist friends and I stand defenseless before Jewry. We have no patronage among the nobility or the middle class. Our German people are too Judaized to have the will for self-preservation.
It is therefore time to finally state sans phrase (without qualification) the fact, that we are the vanquished and are now subservient.
I make this admission to definitively lift the fog of abstraction and partisanship from the Jewish question. Yes, I am sure that I have said what millions of Jews are quietly thinking.
World power belongs to Semitism.
Speak therefore openly as well, you Jews. Be open and sincere in your thinking. You do have the power to do so! And we shall no longer complain. No hypocrisy between us.
A world-historic “destiny”, that is what I would call it, has placed us like gladiators into the arena of cultural history. The battle had to be fought without hatred against the individual combatant, who was forced into the role of attacker or defender. Tougher and more persistent than we, you became victorious in this battle between people, which you fought without the sword, while we massacred and burned you, but did not muster the moral strength to tell you to live and deal among your own.
In our medieval mentality we thought we could “manipulate” you and --- we were “manipulated” instead.
May be that your realistic view of world and life is the true one. May be that “destiny” intends to make us your helots. We are already on our way. Possibly the spirit which you brought with you to the Occident and to which high and low genuflects socially and politically, is the only true one which will assure Germany hegemony forever.
An individual Teuton can’t answer these questions today with a yes or a no. But you may look down upon us with justifiable pride.
Don’t dare to think of my words as irony! --- I solemnly protest. I have torn the veil from the semitic “image of Sais”33 and I am firmly looking at awesome “Isis” because I don’t deny her power. The unveiled image of- fers no new message.
Admit, that no enemy has more decently, more approvingly treated you than I have done, I who personally have lived a life full of reasons to hate you, as so many, many among you know.
But one no longer hates, if one has become aware. “Beaucoup savoir, c’est beaucoup pardonner” (to know much is to forgive much) says Voltaire and I know that you are the victors.
Am I asking your “clemency”?
No, I am not!
I wish nothing of you, but respect for my convictions.
I may have erred. It might be that Semitism and Germanism will enter a political-social peace. I just don’t believe in such a peace. I only believe what I see: our social, political subjugation by you. But instead of boastfully rattling the chains as is done by many, I admit that we have been fettered “hand and foot”, “heart and soul” --- from palace to hovel.
In place of the passion of battle I have adopted stoic resignation. If you can’t help it, take it out on me the stoic and do it cheaply. But don’t speak of religious or race hate. It is the sorrow of a subjugated people which speaks through my writing, of a people which grieves under your reign just as you have grieved under our reign, a reign which you have abolished step by step with time.
The twilight of the gods has come upon us, you are the masters, we are the slaves.
What is there left to us?
Are we to surrender to Rome?34 Are we to “go to Canossa”35 and put all of our science at the disposal of the papacy? That would mean even greater humiliation than Luther suffered in Worms 36. Are we to ally us with “fawning” Protestants and feign religious hatred on one side or the other? That is out of the question as well.
The “liberal” daily press is also off-limits because you knew how to monopolize it. Yes, holy freedom itself has become a Jewish monopoly! Freedom has to adhere to political-social Jewish dogma.
And I think it is my duty to absolve even my publisher of any moral responsibility for this pamphlet, for this pronouncement of resignation, to save him from the vindictiveness of the Jewish victor.
“A voice in the desert” has been raised and has merely stated facts --- incontrovertible facts.
Let us accept the inescapable, since we can’t change it. It’s name is:
1 Gambetta, Léon (1838-1882) was a French politician whose call to continue military action against Germany after France had lost the Franco-German war, fell on deaf ears. He then retreated in disgust to Spain.
2 Israel: Marr is of course not referring to the state of Israel but uses this word as a syno- nym for Judaism.
3 This statement regarding Anglo influence in Central- and South America is in error. Marr was aware of the Spanish influence in this region since he had previously undertaken two journeys to Central America. He described the first in the book Reise nach Central- Amerika, (Journey to Central America). In this book he speaks of Spanish America and it is therefore certain that Marr erred in proofreading, rather than in fact.
4 Marr uses terms such as “Reichsfreundlichkeit” (Friendship to the Reich) or “Reichs- freunde” (Friends of the Reich) to designate a hypothetical, not formally existing group of Germans in opposition to the “Reichsfeinde” (Enemies of the Reich), which were then a well defined group of nations opposing the Reich. Jews were part of the “Reichsfeinde”.
5 Pest is one of the twin cities forming Budapest, capital of Hungary which was part of Austria-Hungary.
6 “Hepp! Hepp!” was the battle cry of populist anti-Jewish riots, which occurred in many Central European countries in the early 19th century. The meaning of these words is not clear and has been interpreted in different ways.
7 “Nathan the Wise” is a famous literary work by the German dramatist Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781). It deals with the question which of the three great religions, Christ- ianity, Judaism and Islam is the true one. Nathan, a Jew, presents the parable of the three rings in which a father leaves one ring to each of his three sons. Two of the rings are copies of the one which bestows upon its wearer the gift to be loved by God and man. The sons unable to decide which one of the three rings is the true one, quarrel with each other and finally ask a judge for his decision. The judge tells them, that since each of them received his ring from a loving father, each should believe that he is the wearer of the true ring. The father, the judge tells them, loved all three of them and so they should love each other. Lessing’s drama contains additional symbolism regarding the equality of the three religions, an appreciation of which will require a reading of the drama.
8 Mylord Bolingbrooke: Marr refers to Henry St. John Bolingbroke (1678-1751), a politician and then widely known philosopher deist who has the reputation of having been an anti- Semite. (Deism refers to certain, unorthodox religious ideas, sometimes also referred to as natural religion, in vogue during the age of enlightenment.)
9 Sheva is the Jewish protagonist in a play with the title “Jew” by the famous English dramatist Richard Cumberland (1732-1811).
10 Lindau, Paul (1839–1919) was a German journalist, dramatist and novelist.
11 Deborah: Mosenthal, Salomon Hermann (1821-1877) was born and educated in Germany and later pursued a career as dramatist in Austria. In “Deborah” he addressed the problem of Jewish life within Christian society and of Jewish emancipation. The action takes place among rustic protagonists living in a small Austrian farm village and Jewish
immigrants, escaping prosecution elsewhere. The play Deborah was a great success among Jewish and Christian audiences.
12 Thirty Years War is an anology used by Marr to describe the then current strife, which had started 30 years earlier in 1848, for full Jewish participation in German political life. The Thirty Years War of history took place between 1618 and 1648 and had, among others, religious roots.
13 Storm and Stress (Sturm und Drang) was a prevalent movement in literature and music in Germany in the later half of 18th century. It emphasized the emotional as opposed to the rational component of artistic expression.
14 Ultramontane refers to Ultramontanism, a tendency to look beyond the Alps to Rome and the papacy for guidance in political and spiritual matters.
15 Dohm, Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst (1819–1883), a converted Jew, was an important contrib- utor to a well known, satirical weekly, known as Kladderadatsch.
16 Knoblauch is the German word for garlic. It was used in a derogatory fashion to refer to Jews, since these had the reputation to smell of garlic.
17 Culture struggle (Kulturkampf) refers to the heated political and ecclesiastical dispute between Protestant and Catholic factions in Germany during Bismarck’s chancellorship.
18 Scherr, Johannes (1817–1886) was a German social democrat who on account of his political activity was obliged to emigrate to Switzerland. There he became a successful historian. An important work of his bears the title Deutsche Kultur- and Sittengeschichte (History of German Culture and Customs).
19 The “Westphalian Peace” concluded the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). Here Marr is again using his analogy to call the Jewish strife for political emancipation since 1848 a Thirty Years War.
20 Sedan was the location of the decisive battle in 1870 during the Franco-German war of 1870-1871. After this battle the French emperor Napoleon III surrendered to the Germans.
21 Favre, Julius (1809-1880) was a French politician and staunch enemy of Germany in the Franco-German war of 1870-1871.
22 Tours was the city in France where a provisional republican government was estab- lished after the battle of Sedan. It continued the Franco-German war unsuccessfully and with great sacrifice until France’s final surrender in early 1871. At its head stood Gam- betta, Simon and Crémieux.
23 The Congress of Berlin stood at the end of the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878.
24 Gründerthum describes the time during the third quarter of the 19th century, when the advent of large scale industry brought about revolutionary changes in society and in the structure of cities.
25 ‘Above’ is the translator’s choice for Marr’s German word ‘Oben’ with the understand- ing that it stands for authority and avoids to state who might be that authority.
26 Schill, Dörnberg, Stein were three German heroes in the resistance against the Napo- leonic occupation of Germany.
27 The Russian-Turkish war has been touched upon earlier in this pamphlet when the Congress of Berlin was mentioned. One of the results of the Russian-Turkish war was the liberation of Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro from Ottoman rule.
28 Lasker, Eduard (1829-1884) was a German-Jewish politician who opposed Bismarck’s policies.
29 Bamberger, Ludwig (1823-1829), a German-Jewish revolutionary in 1848, later became a banker and finally a representative in the German Reichstag. He was a political supporter of Bismarck until 1878, but later opposed him.
30 War with Austria refers to the Austrian-Prussian war of 1866 in which Prussia prevailed.
31 Lombard deals (Lombardgeschäfte) describe the granting of short term credit secured by easily marketable securities, such as precious metals or shares.
32 Golden, black and red International seem to refer to international associations of finan- cial, catholic and socialist interests.
33 The “Image of Sais“ (Das verschleierte Bild zu Sais) is a poem by Friedrich Schiller, German poet (1759-1805). The poem describes a youth, who in search of truth travels to Sais in Egypt. There he finds a giant veiled statue of the godess Isis who is the guardian of truth. He is warned never to remove the veil, but is finally overcome by his desire to see the statue and thus learn the truth. Upon removing the veil he falls lifeless before the statue, then awakens not to speak of what he has seen, forfeits happiness forever and dies an early death.
34 Rome: Marr refers to the ultramontane party, which is looking to the Pope for guidance and leadership in political and spiritual affairs.
35 Canossa was a castle in Italy to which the German Emperor Henry IV had to travel in 1077 to beg forgiveness from his opponent Pope Gregory VII. Bismarck during the culture struggle (see endnote 17) stated that Germany would not go to Canossa again.
36 Worms: Luther in 1521 had to appear before the German Diet (Reichstag) in Worms to defend his theses which were inimical to the papacy. He did not recant his views.
Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View
January 6, 2010
Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) has gone down in history as the first racial anti-Semite. His signature work, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View, expresses Marr’s views on the conflict between Germans and Jews in a strikingly modern manner.
The pamphlet is difficult to obtain, and there have been no English translations. Now the text has been translated by Gerhard Rohringer and is available online in pdf format. The following summarizes Marr’s ideas as presented in this translation of the 8th edition, first published in 1879.
Marr was a journalist, and his pamphlet is expressed in a journalistic style with all the pluses and minuses that that entails. Marr’s pamphlet contains a number of ideas that agree with modern theories and social science research on Jews, as well as some ideas that are less supported but interesting nonetheless. His ideas on future events are fascinating with the 20/20 hindsight of 130 years of history.
Marr describes his writing as “a ‘scream of pain’ coming from the oppressed” (p. 6). Marr sees Germans as having already lost the battle with Jewry: “Judaism has triumphed on a worldwide historical, basis. I shall bring the news of a lost battle and of the victory of the enemy and all of that I shall do without offering excuses for the defeated army.”
In other words, Marr is not blaming the Jews for their predominance in German society, but rather blaming the Germans for allowing this to happen. He sees historical hatred against Jews as due to their occupational profile (“the loathing Jews demonstrate for real work” — a gratuitously negative and overly generalized reference to the Jewish occupational profile) and to “their codified hatred against all non-Jews” (p. 8). Historical anti-Semitism often had a religious veneer, but it was actually motivated by “the struggle of nations and their response to the very real Judaization of society, that is, to a battle for survival…. I therefore unconditionally defend Jewry against any and all religious persecution” (p. 10).
Marr claims that Jews have a justified hatred toward Europeans:
Nothing is more natural than the hatred the Jews must have felt for those who enslaved them and abducted them from their homeland[i.e., the Romans; Marr seems unaware that the Jewish Diaspora predated the failed Jewish rebellions of the 1st and 2nd centuries].Nothing is more natural than that this hatred had to grow during the course of oppression and persecution in the Occident over the span of almost two thousand years. … Nothing is more natural than that they responded using their inborn gifts of craftiness and cleverness by forming as ‘captives’ a state within a state, a society within a society. (p. 11)
Jews used their abilities to obtain power in Germany and other Western societies: “By the 19th century the amazing toughness and endurance of the Semites had made them the leading power within occidental society. As a result, and that particularly in Germany, Jewry has not been assimilated into Germanism, but Germanism has been absorbed into Judaism” (p. 11).
Marr claims that Judaism retreated in the face of “Christian fanaticism,” and achieved its greatest successes first among the Slavs and then among the Germans — both groups that were late in developing national cultures. He attributes the success of Jews in Germany to the fact that Germans did not have a sense of German nationality or German national pride (p. 12).
This is a point that I have also stressed: Collectivist cultures such as medieval Christianity tend to be bad for Jews because Jews are seen as an outgroup by a strongly defined ingroup. (See, e.g., here.) Moreover, a general trend in European society after the Enlightenment was to develop cultures with a strong sense of national identity where Christianity and/or ethnic origins formed a part. These cultures tended to exclude Jews, at least implicitly. An important aspect of Jewish intellectual and political activity in post-Enlightenment societies has been opposition to national cultures throughout Europe and other Western societies (see, e.g., here).
Marr credits Jews with bringing economic benefits to Germany: “There is no way to deny that the abstract, money-oriented, haggling mind of the Jews has contributed much to the flourishing of commerce and industry in Germany.” Although "racial anti-Semites" are often portrayed as viewing Jews as genetically inferior or even subhuman, a very strong tendency among racial anti-Semites is to see Jews as a very talented group.
Indeed, Marr sees the Germans as inferior to the Jews and as having a mélange of traits that caused them to lose the battle to Jews:
Into this confused, clumsy Germanic element penetrated a smooth crafty, pliable Jewry; with all of its gifts of realism [as opposed to German idealism], intellectually well qualified as far as the gift of astuteness is concerned, to look down upon the Germans and subduing the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices. (p. 13)
What we [Germans] don’t have is the drive of the Semitic people. On account of our tribal organization we shall never be able to acquire such a drive and because cultural development knows no pause, our outlook is none other than a time when we Germans will live as slaves under the legal and political feudalism of Judaism. (p. 14)
Germanic indolence, Germanic stinginess, convenient Teutonic disdainfulness of expression are responsible [for the fact] that the agile and clever Israel now decides what one shall say and what not…. You have turned the press over to them because you find brilliant frivolity more to your liking than moral fortitude …. The Jewish people thrive because of their talents and you have been vanquished, as you should have been and as you have deserved a thousandfold. (p. 30)
Are we willing to sacrifice? Did we succeed in creating even a single anti-Jewish leaning paper, which manages to be politically neutral? … To de-Judaize ourselves, for that we clearly lack physical and spiritual strength.
I marvel in admiration at this Semitic people which put its heel onto the nape of our necks. … We harbor a resilient, tough, intelligent foreign tribe among us, who knows how to take advantage of every form of abstract reality. (p. 24)
We are no longer a match for this foreign tribe. (p. 27)
As a result of his high estimation of Jews and low estimation of Germans, Marr claims that he does not hate Jews. It’s simply a war where one side loses. The conflict between Jews and Germans is “like a war. How can I hate the soldier whose bullet happens to hit me? — Does one not offer one’s hand as victor as well as a prisoner of war? … In my eyes, it is a war which has been going on for 1800 years”
Despite their long history of living together, Jews, unlike other peoples who have come to Germany, remain foreigners among the Germans — the separatism that is fundamental to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy (and hence my titles, A People that Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents):
[The Jew] was a typical foreigner to them and remained one until today; and yes, his exclusive Judaism, as we shall demonstrate in what follows, shows itself even more today after his emancipation, than it did in earlier times. (p. 13)
All other immigration into Germany … disappeared without a trace within Germanism; Wends and Slavs disappeared in the German element. The Semitic race, stronger and tougher, has survived them all. Truly! Were I a Jew, I would look upon this fact with my greatest pride. (p. 17)
One of Marr’s most interesting observations is his proposal that Germans formed idealistic images of Jews during the Enlightenment when others had more realistic and negative views. Jews are realists, accepting the world as it is and advancing their interests based on their understanding of this reality. Judaism is characterized by particularlst morality (Is it good for the Jews?). Germans, on the other hand, tend to have idealized images of themselves and others — to believe that the human mind can construct reality based on ideals that can then shape behavior. They are predisposed to moral universalism — moral rules apply to everyone and are not dependent on whether it benefits the ingroup.
This is a reference to the powerful idealist strand of German philosophy that has been so influential in the culture of the West. An illustrative example isAmerican transcendentalism, a movement that created an indigenous culture of critique in 19th-century America. This perspective resulted in overly optimistic views of human nature and tended toward radical egalitarianism; it also provided the theoretical underpinnings the abolitionist movement among elite intellectuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In particular, Marr notes that, whereas prominent and influential Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were critics of Judaism (seeing it as reactionary tribalism), in Germany the most influential writer was Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781). Lessing presented a very positive image of Judaism in his play Nathan the Wise. The Jewish Nathan (Marr calls him “Rothschild” to give it contemporary relevance) makes an eloquent plea for religious tolerance — while at the same time he finances the Muslim war against the Christian Crusaders. Marr suggests that Lessing engaged in a bit of self-deception:Despite his positive portrayal of Nathan as the essence of tolerance, “Lessing could not in his subconscious self overcome the identity of Jew and servant of Mammon” (p. 15).
The influence of Lessing was profound: “German idealism was captivated bythe legend of the ring [i.e., Lessing’s metaphor for religious tolerance], but missed that Lessing’s Nathan could only be — a character from a fable” (p. 16).
Marr suggests that instead of a fictional character like Nathan the Wise, Lessing should have seen 17th-century Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinozaas an illustration of what Judaism is really like. Whereas Nathan the Wise suggests that religious tolerance is a characteristic of Judaism, Marr interprets Spinoza’s fate as illustrating Jewish intolerance and fanaticism in the real world — features of Judaism also noted by several contemporary writers, most notably Israel Shahak, but also including Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire. Spinoza was hounded out of the Jewish community of Amsterdam because of his views on religion: “This truly great Jewish non-Jew had been cursed by his own tribal associates — all the way to attempted murderous assault”(p. 16). But in the 19th century, “woe to the German who dares to show the Jewish masses who the great Spinoza was and what he stood for!!” (p. 16).
Another trait of Germans that Marr sees as deleterious is “abstract individualism.” Marr states that Jewish economic success within capitalism is“in agreement with the dogma of ‘abstract individualism’ which you have accepted with enthusiasm from the hands of Judaism” (p. 30). In other words, Marr believed that individualism was something Jews imposed on Germany, not a tendency within the Germans themselves. (Contrary to Marr's position, I have argued that the fundamental uniqueness of European peoples is a greater tendency toward individualism than other human groups. Individualism then leads to moral universalism, a form of idealism, rather than the tribally-based morality of groups like the Jews.) As noted above, Marr (correctly) believed that individualistic societies are relatively defenseless against Jews, whereas societies centered around a strong collectivist religious core (e.g., medieval Christianity) or a strong sense of ethnic nationalism are more able to defend themselves.
Because of their grievances against Europeans, it is not surprising that Jews support revolution:
Who can hold it against the Jews that they happily welcomed the revolutions of 1789 and the one of 1848 and actively participated in them? “Jews, Poles and writers” was the battle cry of the conservatives in 1848. Well, of course, three suppressed factions!(p. 16)
Following his first decisive victory of 1848 he had to — whether he wanted to or not — pursue his success further and must now attempt to ruin the Germanic, Occidental world. (p. 28).
By 1848 Judaism had entirely ceased being a religion at all. It was “nothing else but the constitution of a people, forming a state within a state and this secondary or counter-state demanded certain material advantages for its members” (p. 17). Marr states that Jewish emancipation only meant political equality because Jews had already achieved “a leading and dominating role” (p. 17), and dominated all political factions except the Catholics. “The daily press is predominantly in Jewish hands, which have transformed journalism … into a business with public opinion; critique of the theater, of art in general — is to three quarters in the hands of Jews. Writing about politics and even religion is — in Jewish hands” (p. 19). While Jews are deeply involved in creating the culture of Germany, “Judaism has been declared a subject off-limits for us Germans. … To comment on [Jewish] rituals is ‘hatred’, but if the Jew takes it upon himself to pronounce the last word in our religious and state affairs, then it is quite a different matter" (p. 20).
Jews are particularly involved in the “culture struggle” againstultramontanism — the view that papal authority should extend over secular affairs. Ultramontanism was attacked by Jews because the Church “opposed Judaism for world domination.” Although opposition to ultramontanism was also an interest for many Germans, Jews did all the talking, and any criticism of Roman Catholicism was banned “if Israel was touched on ever so slightly!!” (p. 20).
Jews are powerful and they will continue to obtain more power. In the end, Germans will be at the mercy of the Jews:
Within less than four generations there will not be a single office in the land, including the highest, which will not have been usurped by the Jews. Yes, through Jewry Germany will become a world power, an Occidental Palestine… Jewry has fought the Occident for 1800 years. It has conquered and subjected it. We are the vanquished and it is quite in order that the victor chants ‘Vae Victis’ [woe to the vanquished]. (p. 22)
The Jew has no real religion, he has a business contract with Jehovah and pays his god with statutes and formulations and in return is charged with the pleasant task of exterminating all that is not Jewish. (p. 14)
Marr saw Russia as the only European nation that had resisted the Jewish onslaught. However, he believed that Russia would eventually fall by bloody revolution and this revolution would lead to the downfall of the West:
[Among European nations, only Russia] is left to still resist the foreign invasion. … [T]he final surrender of Russia is only a question of time. … Jewish resilient, fly-by-night attitude will plunge Russia into a revolution like the world might never have seen before. … With Russia, Jewry will have captured the last strategic position from which it has to fear a possible attack on its rear …. After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The ‘last hour’ of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years” (p. 24–25).
Indeed, Jews are already taking the lead in fomenting anti-Russian policy, as in the Russian-Turkish war. For example, ideas that “the insolence of the great sea power England might be curbed” by allying with Russia were banned from the Jewish newspapers (p. 26).
Marr is entirely pessimistic about the future, foreseeing a cataclysm:
The destructive mission of Judaism (which also existed in antiquity) will only come to a halt once it has reached its culmination, that is after Jewish Caesarism has been installed” (p. 28).
Jewry will have to face a final, desperate assault particularly by Germanism, before it will achieve authoritarian dominance. (p. 29)
Marr thinks that anti-Jewish attitudes will become powerful but ultimately they will fail to fend off disaster for the Germans and the West. Marr lays part of the blame on the fact that the only people who publicly oppose the Jews conceptualize them incorrectly as a religion. As a result, responsible, informed criticism of Jews that would appeal to non-religious people and intellectual elites never appears in the press: “A catastrophe lies ahead, because the indignation against the Judaization of society is intensified by the fact that it can’t be ventilated in the press without showing itself as a most abstruse religious hatred, such as it surfaces in the ultramontane and generally in the reactionary press” (p. 30). Nevertheless, even a “violent anti-Jewish explosion will only delay, but not avert the disintegration of Judaized society” (p. 30).
Regarding his own mission, Marr sees himself as a soldier fighting a lost cause: “I am aware that my journalist friends and I stand defenseless before Jewry. We have no patronage among the nobility or the middle class. Our German people are too Judaized to have the will for self-preservation (p. 32).
Marr concludes with the following:
The battle had to be fought without hatred against the individual combatant, who was forced into the role of attacker or defender. Tougher and more persistent than we, you became victorious in this battle between people, which you fought without the sword, while we massacred and burned you, but did not muster the moral strength to tell you to live and deal among your own. …
Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.