Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me
Dietrich Eckart
Translated by Dr. William Pierce
EDITOR’S FOREWORD
The following material has been translated from a pamphlet found in the NSDAP Hauptarchiv. Its German title was Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin: Zwiegespräch zwischen Adolf Hitler und mir, and it was originally published in Munich in March 1924 from unfinished notes on which Dietrich Eckart had been working in the autumn of 1923.
Dietrich Eckart was born on March 23, 1868, in the Bavarian town of Neumarkt, which is about twenty miles southeast of Nürnberg, and he died on December 26, 1923, in Berchtesgaden. He was a poet, a playwright, a journalist, scholar, and a philosopher, as well as a dedicated fighter for the National Socialist cause. Among his better-known works are his play Lorenzaccio and his translation and adaptation to the German stage of Ibsen’s Peer Gynt. He was for a while editor of the Völkischer Beobachter, and he wrote the NSDAP song, with the famous words “Deutschland erwache,” which later became a NSDAP byword.
The reader interested in more details of Eckart’s life, as well as a fairly extensive sampling of his poetry, is referred to Alfred Rosenberg’s book Dietrich Eckart: Ein Vermächtnis (Munich, 1928 ff.)
Der Bolschewismus is of interest to Americans today for three reasons. First, it is the last earthly work of the man who, as the intimate companion of Adolf Hitler during those critical, early years in Munich, helped prepare the spiritual foundations of National Socialism. Eckart had been seriously ill as he was writing the pamphlet, and his arrest and temporary imprisonment, as a consequence of the Munich putsch of November 9, 1923, were followed shortly by his death.
Second, it is instructive, as being representative of a certain category of propaganda. Eckart was a practical propagandist as well as an idealist and a poet, and Der Bolschewismus is an excellent example of his style. Aimed at the reader with the equivalent of a high-school education, it is skillfully contrived to avoid tediousness and maintain a relatively unsophisticated audience’s interest while making a rather extensive, if not intensive, historical investigation of the Jewish question. It achieves this by relegating the great majority of documentary evidence to footnotes and by liberally interspersing historically significant points with spicy or amusing tidbits.
Third, it is of considerable interest, even today, for its own sake. Although the last forty years have unfortunately provided us with considerably more experience of Jewish-Bolshevist activities, Eckart did quite well with the materials available to him in 1923. Of particular interest is his use of the Old Testament, as a history of the Jews, to throw light onto more recent Jewish activities.
Eckart’s notes for Der Bolschewismus were still in rather rough and unfinished form when he died, and this will be evident at a few places in the text which follows. The editor has slightly condensed the original material during his translation, omitting several of the more ragged portions and such things as untranslatable puns, as well as a few sections which have limited interest for present-day readers. Additional footnotes have been added by the editor in a few places, and these are so designated.
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN ADOLF HITLER AND ME
“Yes!” he cried. “We’ve been on the wrong track! Consider how an astronomer would handle a similar situation. Suppose that he has been carefully observing the motion of a certain group of celestial bodies over a long period of time. Examining his records, he suddenly notices something amiss: ‘Damn it!’ he says. ‘Something’s wrong here. Normally, these bodies would have to be situated differently relative to one another; not this way. So there must be a hidden force somewhere which is responsible for the deviation. And, using his observations, he performs lengthy calculations and accurately computes the location of a planet which no eye has yet seen, but which is there all the same, as he has just proved. But what does the historian do, on the other hand? He explains an anomaly of the same type solely in terms of the conspicuous statesmen of the time. It never occurs to him that there might have been a hidden force which caused a certain turn of events. But it was there, nevertheless; it has been there since the beginning of history. You know what that force is: the Jew.”
“Yes, certainly,” I replied, “but to prove it, to prove it! For the last fifty or hundred years, so far as I’m concerned, it’s been obvious; indeed, a good deal further back, perhaps even in pre-Christian times…”
“My dear fellow,” he replied to me, “we can read in Strabo [Strabo (Greek geographer and historian, ca. 63 B.C. — ca. 24 A.D.), Geographica.] that already in his time, shortly after the birth of Christ, there was hardly a place to be found on the whole earth which was not then dominated by the Jews; dominated, he writes, not merely inhabited. Already decades earlier, Cicero [Marcus Tullius Cicero, Oratio pro L. Flacco. In 59 B.C. Cicero defended the proconsul Flaccus, who, at the urging of Jews, was accused of corruption in connection with his administrative activity in Syria.] — at that time a great and powerful man, my friend! — suddenly lost his nerve when, in his well-known defense plea in the Capitol, he was obliged to point out the great influence and the cohesiveness of the Jews: ‘Softly, softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many another gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.’ Similarly, the influence of the Jews with Augustus was so great that they completely intimidated Pontius Pilate, who, as deputy of the Roman Emperor, was certainly not a nobody. Thus he said, ‘For God’s sake, away with this sordid Jewish affair!’ as he reached for the washbasin and condemned Christ, whom he considered guiltless, to death (John 19:12). Considering these things, my friend, every child knows — or rather, could know — how late the hour already was at that time.”
A reach for the Old Testament, a brief flipping of pages, and — “There,” he cried, “the recipe from which the Jews always brew their hellish broth! We anti-Semites are really something. We manage to find out everything except that which is really important.” Word for word, he emphatically read with a hard voice:
“And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother and every one against his neighbor; city against city and kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt shall fall in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards (Isaiah 19:2-3).
“Yes indeed,” he laughed bitterly, “now the people will seek to Dr. Cuno, and Dr. Schweyer, and Dr. Heim, [Three figures prominent in German politics in 1923: the German Chancellor, the Bavarian Minister of the Interior, and the founder and leader of the Bavarian People’s Party, respectively. [Translator]] and whatever other charmers and wizards they have. When asked why Germany has become a pigsty these gentlemen will answer reproachfully, ‘You yourselves are to blame. You have no more good breeding, no faith, only selfishness and conceit. Now you will try to put the blame on the Jews. It’s always been like that when you have needed a scapegoat. Then everyone has jumped on the Jews and persecuted them unmercifully. And just because they had the money, and because they were defenseless. Is it any wonder that a few individual Jews are behaving in a reprehensible manner now? After all, one finds some black sheep in every group. As if there weren’t a good number of decent Jews! Look at their piety, their sense of family responsibility, their sober way of life, their readiness to make sacrifices, and, above all, their ability to stick together! And you? At one another like dogs and cats: sheer insanity!’
Thus will the charmers and wizards prattle on and on, till one night the blood sign will appear on all the Jewish houses, and the infuriated masses, led by the Jews, will swarm forth to smite all the firstborn in the land again as in Egypt” (Exodus 12:7-13, 29-30).
“Remember how it was here in Munich during the communist takeover?” I interjected. “The houses of the Jews certainly weren’t marked with blood, but there must have been a secret arrangement, because among all those who suffered the misfortune of a house search not one was a Jew. As a matter of fact, one of the stupid Red troopers who had me by the hair answered my sarcastic question by explaining that it was forbidden to search the Jewish houses.
“And in 1871, in Paris, the Jewish defense also ran according to plan. There the communists destroyed whatever they could, but the many places and houses of the Rothschilds remained completely intact. [James K. Hosmer, The Jews (New York, 1885), p. 272. [Translator]] All this enables us to understand the place in Exodus according to which ‘a mixed multitude’ also left Egypt with the Jews.”
“In Egypt the scoundrels’ scheme succeed only about halfway,” he finished. “The Egyptians became masters of the situation at the last moment and sent the ‘mixed multitude’ to the devil, together with the Jews. There must have been a desperate struggle. The slaughter of the firstborn reveals that clearly enough. Just as they have done with us, the Jews had won the great lower stratum of the population for themselves — ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!’ — until one night they sent out the order, ‘Down with the bourgeois! Kill them, the dogs!’ but things didn’t turn out so well as they had expected. That portion of the Egyptian nation that had remained patriotic turned the tables and booted Moses, Cohn, and Levi out of the country, followed by the inhabitants whom they had incited. During this exodus they carried along as much stolen booty as they could manage, the Bible reports with satisfaction. It also reports, in no uncertain terms, that the Egyptians were glad to be rid of them (Exodus 12:35-36; Psalms 105:38). The best, though, was the reward the Jews gave their stupid accomplices. Suddenly they began calling them ‘rabble,’ [In the translation from the Hebrew of Exodus 12:38, that word which is rendered in the King James version as “mixed multitude” appears in the German Bible as “Pöbelvolk,” meaning “rabble.” [Translator]] whereas formerly they had called them ‘comrade’ and pretended to love them. Imagine the faces these deluded ones must have made in the desert when they heard this.”
“The murder of seventy-five thousand Persians, in the Book of Esther, no doubt had the same Bolshevist background,” I answered. “The Jews certainly didn’t accomplish that all by themselves.”
“No more,” he confirmed, “than the dreadful bloodbath over half the Roman Empire, which took place during the reign of Emperor Trajan. Hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish nobles in Babylonia, in Cyrenaica, in Egypt, and on Cyprus butchered like cattle, most of them after the most abominable torture! [In volume two, chapter 16 (page 384 of the 1783 London edition) of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon reports: “From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives…. In Cyrene they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000, in Egypt, a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawed asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies.” [Translator]] And today the Jews still rejoice over that. ‘If only the various centers of rebellion had cooperated,’ triumphs the Jew Graetz, ‘then perhaps they would have already been able to give the Roman colossus its death blow at that time.'” [Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden von den ÄItesten Zeiten (Breslau, 1853).]
“The Jews call our Sedan Day [September 2. Sedan was the site of the great Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian war, on this day in 1870. [Translator]] celebration barbarous,” I remarked. “But they find entirely in order the fact that, year in and year out, they still, after all this enormous time, celebrate in the synagogues their heroic deed concerning the seventy-five thousand Persians, in the feast of Purim.” [“The rest of the Jews in the king’s provinces had united to defend themselves; they took vengeance on their enemies by killing seventy-five thousand of those who hated them” (NEB Esther 9:16). On the origin of Purim (Feast of Lots), which falls in late February or early March, see Esther 9:24-26. Purim is the most overtly anti-Gentile of the various Jewish festivals — celebrated with ritual beatings and even crucifixions of Haman, the principal Gentile villain in the Book of Esther — and accordingly Baruch Goldstein, in 1994, selected Purim as the appropriate “holy day” to slaughter 29 Muslims in Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque. [Irmin]]
“None of this evidence seems to make any impression on us, however,” he said dryly. “One would think us deaf and blind.
“Before the first clash with the Egyptians, the head scoundrel, the modest Joseph, had pretty well prepared: the seven lean cows, all the granaries filled, the people raging with hunger, the reigning Pharaoh a perfect flunky of the Jews, and Joseph, with a corner on the grain supply, ‘ruler over all the land’! (Genesis 41:43). All the lamentations of the Egyptians were in vain; the Jew held the warehouse closed with an iron fist until they, in return for a bit of bread, were obliged to give away first their money, then their cattle and their land, and finally their freedom. And suddenly the capital was swarming with Jews; old Jacob was there, and ‘his sons, and his sons’ sons with him, his daughters, and his sons’ daughters, and all his seed’ — the entire hodgepodge (Genesis 46:7). And Joseph ‘wept a good while’ for joy. Afterward, he said to his brothers: ‘ye shall eat the fat of the land,’ and ‘the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.’ (Genesis 45:18,20)
“But some time after this glorious Egyptian citizen of the Jewish faith, one hundred and ten years old, had died, the old Pharaoh also passed away and was succeeded by another Pharaoh, who ‘knew not Joseph,’ and, seeing the multitude of Jews, who meanwhile had grown very powerful, he became quite frightened. He feared lest: ‘when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies’ (Exodus 1:6-10); thus he was smarter than Wilhelm II, [Emperor William II of Germany, who abdicated in 1918 after the Marxist-Jewish revolution in Germany led to the crumbling of her war effort and the loss of World War I. [Translator]] who hoped for their support. The Jews must work, he decided. In all seriousness, work. ‘Unmerciful,’ wailed the Jewish chronicler. No wonder that they breathed vengeance. After all, for what did one have the Pöbelvolk, if not to do the work?
“By now, the Egyptians had forgotten dear Joseph, who was dead and gone but there was no lack of others on whom to blame the state of affairs, namely the landowners, the industrialists, the bourgeois. According to the Jews, no one else was responsible. ‘Proletarians of all countries, unite!’ And the masses believed it and turned on their own flesh and blood for the sake of the ‘chosen people,’ who had brought on all their distress in the first place. But to us they touchingly read aloud in school the beautiful story of Joseph and his brothers. No doubt many teachers ‘wept a good while.’ It’s enough to drive one to despair.”
He paused with a dark look at the Book of Hate.
“And so it goes, through the entire Old Testament,” he began again. “Indeed, I’m telling you nothing new, but we must bring it home to ourselves as often as possible in order to be able to negate the constant hypocritical babble. Really, the Book of Joshua should suffice; such a thing of uninterrupted genocide, of bestial cruelty, of shameless rapacity and cold-blooded cunning — Hell incarnate! And everything in the name of Jehova, in fact, according to his express wish! When the city of Jericho fell victim to the Jews through the treachery of the harlot Rahab, neither man nor beast, neither young nor old remained among the living; only the harlot was spared. She and her whole, noble family were rewarded with the privilege of living in Israel (Joshua 6:25). And what good-natured peoples they were who, one after another, were completely exterminated! Delitzsch, who has thoroughly investigated that period, writes, for example, about the Canaanites: on all the hills, under every shady tree, they rendered adoration and reverence to the sun god and to the salutary goddess Aschera; and he compares this beautiful, poetic custom with the pious way of our Catholic villagers, serving the Almighty in remote mountain chapels.” [Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung: Kritische Betrachfungen zu den alttestamentlichen Berichten über Israels Eindringen in Kanaan, Die Gottesoffenbarung vom Sinai, und die Wirksamkeit der Propheten (Stuttgart, 1920).]
“Joshua alone,” I emphasized, “was responsible for the massacre of thirty-one kings, with all their people. Among those nations exterminated in these predatory raids were several who had yielded themselves trustingly to him. Each time the sinister words, ‘let none survive,’ were heard. I am inclined to believe that the Pöbelvolk or at least their descendants, must have still been the obedient shock troops of the Jews, not because the work was so atrocious, but because the children of Israel have always let deluded Gentiles do their dirty work, particularly where danger was involved. Besides, they would not have been strong enough to subdue the peoples to whom they were opposed, without the bellicose enthusiasm of their brutalized comrades.
“Of particular interest is the evident satisfaction with which the Jews have deliberately enumerated each of the slain kings one is reminded of the prophet Isaiah. In one place, he raves as if possessed: ‘The Lord is angry at all the Gentiles; he will deliver them to the slaughter; their land will became burning pitch; it will become a wasteland, soaked with their blood; there will be no nobles in the land; their princes will die out’ (Isaiah 34). Between Isaiah and Joshua were hundreds of years, but in that whole time the infernal rage of the Jews against non-Jewish royalty hadn’t changed a bit.”
“And in all eternity nothing will change,” he proceeded, “so far as the attitude of the Jews toward our kings and our leaders is concerned. To destroy them is their eternal sin, and when they can’t accomplish this by force, then they will use cunning. Whenever we have a strong leadership, the Jews are obliged to keep their noses clean. Our leadership can be truly strong, however, only if it is based completely in our people; only if it concerns itself with the welfare of the least among them just as much as with that of the wealthiest of them; only if, in the firm conviction of its own worth, it bars every alien influence from the beginning; only if it is not merely national, but is also social, down to its very bones. No matter what others may say, I assert this: a time will come when all the elite nations of the world will have such a leadership; and then everyone will be astonished to see that, instead of grating on one another as has previously been the case, they will treat one another with respect and consideration. For then there will be no more whipping up of land greed, of an itching for power, of suspicion — sentiments which exist in unmixed form only in the isolated few, and not in the more trusting general populace, anyhow. There will be an end to the lying praise of an indiscriminate human brotherhood, which would be possible, if at all, only under the supposition that one had from the first excluded that eternal mischief-maker, the Jew. But had this been done, there would be no need to push the universal brotherhood idea; the various peoples would find themselves compatible of their own accord.”
“Tell me,” I interrupted him; “strictly speaking, do you consider the Jew to be national, or international?”
“Neither,” was the answer. “One who really feels international has as much regard for the rest of the world as he does for his own nation. Were our so-called international swarms really like that — fine. But I fear that they are secretly more concerned with the attitude of the rest of the world toward themselves than with their own attitude toward the world. Internationalism requires basically good intentions. But the Jew fundamentally and completely lacks these. He hasn’t the remotest idea of classifying himself with the rest of humanity. His aim is to dominate others in order to extort from them at his leisure. Were he really interested in comradeship, he has had the longest and most abundant opportunity for it. Jehovah’s command to him to make no alliances with foreign peoples, but, on the contrary, to devour one after the other, went straight to his heart (Exodus 34:12; Deuteronomy 7:16). Everywhere one greeted him with cordiality, at first: in ancient Egypt, in Persia, in Babylonia, in Europe; the cloven hoof appeared everywhere. The early Germanic conquerors found him with a number of arrogated rights and made no move to dispossess him of these. He was allowed to do business wherever and however he wanted, even in the slave trade, toward which he has always been peculiarly inclined. Like everyone else, he could hold public office, including the magistracy; and his so-called religion was protected by the state. Thus wrote Otto Hauser, who is an excellent source of fascinating illuminations regarding the Jews.” [Otto Hauser, Geschichte des Judentums (Weimar, 1921), p. 251.]
“I should say so!” I nodded. “One must partake of him with caution though, otherwise one may not see the black forest for the ‘blond’ trees. [Hauser distinguishes “light” or “blond” men, or, as he says, men of noble race, from “dark” or “black” men of inferior race. Wherever he has occasion to mention a blond Jew in his book, he praises him to the sky. For my part, I have met some of the greatest rascals among blond Jews.] On the whole, I prefer Werner Sombart, even though his Berlin lectures swarm with Jews.”
“Now, he says the same thing!” he cried. “According to him the Jews were by no means always second-class citizens. In antiquity one even found them often with special privileges which absolved them from certain duties, such as military service. [Werner Sombart, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (Leipzig, 1911), p. 356.] It was never their strong side to risk armed conflict. In the War of Liberation, [Against Napoleon Bonaparte, 1813-1815. [Translator]] the Jews of Deutsch-Krone, in Pomerania, sent a petition to the king, requesting permission to remain home from the campaign in return for money. In this petition they argued that ten thousand talers would be of much more use in the war effort than the frankly questionable fighting ability of a Jew. The petition was accepted, not only from them, but also from the Jews of five more of the seven Prussian districts.” [Hauser, op. cit., p. 376.]
“Yes, I know that place in Hauser,” I added; “it is authentic. He also quotes there from Mayer’s Encyclopedia, however, a statement which calmly claims that the Jews, through their heroic spirit in the War of Liberation, proved themselves as worthy German citizens.”
“Just as they did in the World War,” he winked expressively. “If I had my way, I’d require placards to be hung in all the schools, at every street corner, and in every public room, on which would be printed nothing but Schopenhauer’s description of the Jews: ‘Great masters of the lie’! [Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena II p. 174.] There is no better description. And it applies without exception to every Jew equally, whether high or low, stock exchange tycoon or rabbi, baptized or circumcised. Our servile people! Provoked for thousands of years! And the innocents are taken in again and again by this blatant swindle. It is understandable that they become surly with the Jews, but only after the latter have shamelessly abused their naive good nature and plundered them to the skin with their usury and fraud. And that has been the case everywhere: in the old Roman Empire, in Egypt, in Asia, later in England, Italy, France, Poland, Holland, Germany, and even, as Sombart writes, ‘in the Iberian peninsula, where the Jews have experienced so many blessings’!
“And the game they’re playing today, they have been at for two thousand years,” he continued. “I think that suffices to characterize the nature of Jewish internationalism. Now we still have left to consider the national feeling of the Jews. Naturally not that of the one for Germany, of the other for England, and so on. Not many mice are to be caught with that bait any longer. ‘Send me a box full of German soil, so that I can at least symbolically defile the accursed country,’ wrote the German Jew, Börne; and Heinrich Heine sniffed out Germany’s future from a toilet bowl. [Ludwig Börne (alias Löb Baruch), Briefe aus Paris (Hamburg, 1832); Heinrich (alias Chaim) Heine, Deutschland, ein Wintermärchen (1844).] The physicist, Einstein, whom the Jewish publicity agents celebrate as a second Kepler, explained he would have nothing to do with German nationalism. He considered ‘deceitful’ the custom of the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith of concerning themselves only with the religious interests of the Jews and not with their racial community also. A rare bird? No, only one who believed his people already safely in control, and thus considered it no longer necessary to keep up pretenses. In the Central Association itself, the mask has already fallen. A Dr. Brünn frankly admitted there that the Jews could have no German national spirit. [Artur Brünn, Im Deutschen Reich (the periodical of the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith) 1913, No. 8.] We always mistake their unprincipled exertions to accommodate themselves to all and everyone for impulses of the heart. Whenever they see an advantage to be gained by adopting a certain pose, they never hesitate, and certainly wouldn’t let ethical considerations stand in their way. How many Galician Jews have first become Germans, then Englishmen, and finally Americans! And every time in the twinkling of an eye. With startling rapidity they change their nationality back and forth, and wherever their feet touch, there resounds either the ‘Watch on the Rhine,’ or the ‘Marsellaise,’ or ‘Yankee Doodle.’ Dr. Heim does not once question the fact that our Warburgs, our Bleichroders, or our Mendelssohns are able to transfer their patriotism as well as their residence of today to London or to New York on the morrow. ‘On the sands of Brandenburg an Asiatic horde!’ Walther Rathenau once blurted out about the Berlin Jews. [Walther Rathenau, Berliner Kulturzentren, 1913. Rathenau was a Jewish war profiteer in World War I and later a minister in the Weimar government. He was executed by German patriots in 1922. [Translator]]
He forgot to add that the same horde is on the Isar, the Elbe, the Main, the Thames, the Seine, the Hudson, the Neva, and the Volga. And all of them with the same deceit toward their neighbors. Our charmers and wizards, however, distinguish between respectable and not-so-respectable, between settled and newly immigrated, between western and eastern Jews, and if worse comes to worst, they shrug their shoulders and mutter, ‘Every country has the Jews it deserves.’ It means nothing to them that it was a Jew who coined this fine-sounding phrase. Nor that in the case of Germany, considering the quality of the Jews we have ‘deserved,’ it becomes a resounding slap in the face. ‘All Israel stands openly in the British camp!’ announced the American union leader Samuel Gompers in 1916. And that includes the German Jews too, as the American, Ford, well knew. He has written of the faithlessness of the so-called ‘German’ Jews toward the country where they live, of the fact that they have united themselves with the rest of the world’s Jews toward the ruin of Germany. ‘Why?’ jeers the Jew. ‘Because the German is a vulgar scoundrel, a backward, medieval creature, who hasn’t the faintest idea of our worth. And we should help such rabble? No, he has the Jews he deserves!’ Such arrogance is indeed staggering to behold.”
I reminded him of Russia. “Before the revolution, the Jews condemned her as a downright sewer of vileness, even though they were the evident vermin in that sewer; now, the same Jews are at the helm, and, wuppdiwupp, the same Russia is a great nation.”
“In the year 1870,” he rejoined, “we Germans had the privilege of being a great people. The Jews considered that the time had arrived for replacing the French emperor, who had become undependable, with a pliable president. This also seemed an excellent opportunity to establish the Commune; [A Jew-controlled, socialist government of Paris which lasted only from March 18 to May 27, 1871, but which was responsible for thousands of horribly atrocious murders during this brief period. [Translator]] thus the ‘heroic German people.’ No wonder that right behind our princes and generals a pack of gesticulating Jewish financiers rode into Paris. Meanwhile, though, we have sunk back down into the pack again. The press, ‘that select tool of the Anti-christ,’ as Bismarck called it, has designated us as ‘Boches’ and as ‘Huns.’ But have patience! The more quickly we approach Bolshevism, the more glorious we will become again. And one fine day it will be the English and the French who are the scoundrels. One doesn’t need spectacles to see that. ‘I am a British subject but, first and foremost, a Jew,’ screamed a Hebrew years ago in a large English-Jewish newspaper. [M.J. Wodeslowsky, Jewish World, January 1, 1909.] And another: ‘Whoever has to choose between his duties as an Englishman and as a Jew must choose the latter.’ [Joseph Cohen, Jewish World, November 4, 1913.] And a third: ‘Jews who want to be both patriotic Englishmen and good Jews are simply living lies.’ [Jewish Chronicle, December 10, 1911.] That they could venture things of that sort so openly indicates how overrun with Jews England already was then.”
“The stronghold of European Jewry had its origin in the period between Cromwell and Edward VII,” I emphasized. “Since then, however, the center of Jewish activity seems to have been transferred to America. They have had a good footing there for a long time. Sombart maintains that it was Jewish money which made the first two voyages of Columbus possible. [Sombart, op. cit., pp. 32-33.] A Jew, Luis de Torres, is supposed to have been the first European to step on American soil. And, topping everything else, the Jews have recently claimed Columbus himself as one of them.”
“That’s not surprising,” he laughed. “Everyone who has somehow played a role in the world, the dear Lord included, is a Jew. [Jesus was, of course, Jewish by birth. But there are in fact ancient documents that suggest otherwise, such as a spurious letter purportedly by a contemporary of Pontius Pilate, the Epistle of Publius Lentulus, which describes Jesus as blond and blue-eyed. Eckart is relying on this tradition of the Aryan Christ. Cf. Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the Twentieth Century, trans. Vivian Bird (Newport Beach, CA: Noontide Press, 1982), p. 397: “There is no proof for the often-made claim that Jesus was a Jew. Indeed, there is much to show for the contrary. Jesus possibly was Aryan, or partially so, showing the Nordic type strongly. Let us look at Die historische Persönlichkeit Jesu (Munich, 1924). It reports that, according to the Syrian-Christian preacher Ephraem (fourth century A.D.), Jesus had a Danaite woman, that is, someone born in Dan, for a mother and a Latin as a father. Ephraem sees nothing dishonorable in this, adding ‘Jesus thus derived his ancestry from two of the greatest and most famous nations — namely, from the Syrians on the maternal side and from the Romans on the paternal.’ Ephraem presupposes the universal acknowledgement of this fact.” [Irmin]] They even have Goethe and Schopenhauer on their list. And blessed be he who believes it. For my part, I contest them Columbus as well as Torres; ocean travel was much more hazardous then than now.”
“According to Hauser,” I replied, “Columbus was an Aryan, perhaps even of German descent.”
“It’s all the same to me,” he responded. “As far as I’m concerned, he could have been a Zulu, I’d sooner attribute his deed to a Negro than to a Jew.”
“Completely aside from that, it’s clear that they have had America by the throat for quite a while,” I continued. “No country, writes Sombart, displays more of a Jewish character than the United States. [Ibid., p. 39.] We have already seen a consequence of this in the World War. In 1915, at a time when the true Americans hadn’t the slightest thought of a war against us and, in fact, were so disposed toward us that any indication of a possible conflict of interest could have been smoothly and amicably settled, a secret advisory committee met with President Wilson for the sole purpose of preparing the country for war against Germany. [Five years after Der Bolschewismus was written — on June 2, 1928 — an article appeared in Liberty magazine, by the former head of the United States Secret Service, William J. Flynn, detailing the previously secret intrigues of Wilson, Baruch, et al. in 1915 to engage the United States in the World War. But these treacherous proceedings pale into insignificance when compared to the activities of the Zionist Jews in 1916, following the negotiations between the British Government and world Jewry which led to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In a pamphlet published in London in March 1936 by the New Zion Press and entitled Great Britain, The Jews, and Palestine, Samuel Landman, the well-known Zionist, states that these negotiations led to a “quid pro quo contract” in which Jewry agreed to use its influence to bring America into the war on Britain’s side in return for Britain’s guarantee that Palestine would be handed over to the Jews. He says that, once the negotiations were complete, “the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favor of joining the Allies in the War was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.” Eckart, of course, did not know the full story of these arrangements in 1923. [Translator]] And who was the chief wire-puller in these nefarious activities, which were set into motion a full two years before the engagement of the United States in the war? The previously unknown Jew, Bernard Baruch. ‘I believed that the war would come, long before it came,’ he later calmly explained to the special committee of Congress which confirmed all this. And no one got up and beat the crafty scoundrel to a pulp.”
“The resolution of the Jewish high command many years ago to unleash the World War is well authenticated,” he said. “At the sixth Zionist Congress in Basel, in 1903, the president, Max Nordau, proclaimed: ‘Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world.’ [Litman Rosenthal, American Jewish News, September 19, 1919. Rosenthal, writing in reminiscence of his attendance at the 1903 conference, blatantly lays bare the eager Jewish anticipation of a world war, eleven years before the fact. Nordau’s speech continues “… let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionistic Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.” [Translator]] Good old Herzl! What an idealist! Our charmers and wizards were filled with awe at the thought of this noble patriarch. The scoundrel knew, however, what his filthy people had in mind for us!”
“But Herzl was a Zionist,” I interjected.
“He was a Jew!” he said, striking the table with his fist. “The word Jew says everything. There is no need for any further distinction! ‘God’s chosen people’ want to have their own ‘God’s country’ again. Catch that: ‘again’! God’s people and God’s country, neither of which, in reality, ever existed! Every portrayal ridicules for its depravity that general state of affairs which existed for some six hundred years in Palestine, till the Assyrians put an end to the mischief. Can you call that a country? Can’t one accept the Old Testament as the authority on the matter? First we read of the uninterrupted murders and plunderings of the other peoples of Palestine, which, naturally, took many years. Then right up to the last, with the most abominable vileness, one state of anarchy followed another. The pinnacle, the flowering, the glory of Jewish statesmanship, namely, King David, was such a rascal that even the unprecedented villainy of the letter condemning Uriah was not enough for him; on his deathbed he urged his son to murder his old war comrade, Joab.
“When Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine (from their Babylonian ‘captivity’) the overwhelming majority ignored Zion and remained in immeasurably rich Babylonia. Completely content there, they continued their financial speculations and other activities.”
“In the year 1267,” I informed him, “there were only two Jewish residents in Jerusalem. Up to the World War, the number of Jews in all Palestine had grown to only 12,000, [Hauser, op. cit., pp. 484, 491.] even though they had been free to return there since ancient times and certainly weren’t lacking travel expenses. The remaining twenty or so millions — exactly how many is difficult to ascertain, since the Jews themselves do the counting — fatten themselves upon the sweat of others all over the world. It is hard to understand how tiny Palestine can hope to accommodate this enormous crowd.”
“That’s not necessary,” he retorted. “The point is that it is now official. Israel has remembered itself. Its chains are cast aside. The sun of a new God’s state rises over Zion. What an act! Finally liberated from bondage! Everyone is numbed with awe. The Jews grin.”
“They have already issued a resolution….” I wanted to continue.
“Yes indeed,” he cried, “if anywhere, this is where the cat jumps out of the bag! The resolution of the Pan-Jewish Conference of 1919, in Philadelphia!: ‘The Jews are citizens of the new Jewish state of Palestine, but at the same time they have complete rights of citizenship of whatever countries they choose to live in.’ One must read that non plus ultra of arrogance twice, indeed, a hundred times, in order to be sure one isn’t dreaming. Imagine instead: ‘The English are citizens of Great Britain. Each Englishman who chooses to live in Germany or France or Italy retains all his rights of English citizenship, but at the same time he has the complete rights of citizenship of the country in which he is living.’ Now ask yourself what a scream of indignation, not we or the French or the Italians, but the Jews themselves would raise if the English people had actually made such a resolution! The Pan-Jewish Congress, however, issued its resolution as categorically as a command.
“This assembly comprised representatives of all the Jews of the world, including the Zionists. Their intentions were, in short, that the Jews should stay where they were and that the new Zion should simply have the purpose, first, to strengthen their political backbone, second, to gratify their arrogance, and last but most important, to provide them a state where they could carry on their dirty business without fear of detection.
“I think we can form a pretty good idea of Jewish nationalism from this.”
“Okay. So they are neither national nor international,” I acknowledged. “What, then?”
“In terms of our customary concepts,” he shrugged, “it really can’t be defined. It is a rank growth over the whole earth, sometimes advancing slowly, sometimes leaping ahead in great bounds. Everywhere it sucks voraciously at the lifeblood of the planet. What was in the beginning a swollen abundance will become in the end nothing but dried-up sap. Zionism is the visible, surface aspect. It is connected underground to the rest of the monstrous growth.
“And nowhere is there to be found a trace of opposition to this thing.”
“One might say,” I laughed, “that the wolves have split themselves into two packs. It has been agreed that one of these shall abandon the land of the sheep in order to go live somewhere, quite among themselves, as pure vegetarians.”
“There is one thing above all of which we must always keep in mind,” he tendered, “one thing of which we must always remind ourselves: ‘Great masters of the lie’! One need only forget Schopenhauer’s words for an instant in order to begin slipping under the influence of their deceptions. To be sure, we also lie but, in the first place, not as a matter of habit and, in the second place, clumsily. Any really experienced judge of human nature is able to detect the lie of an Aryan, even a very shrewd one. Sherlock Holmes himself, however, would be at a loss when confronted with the Jewish cold-bloodedness in deception. A Jew is only embarrassed when he inadvertently blurts out the truth. If he should happen to deliberately tell the truth, it is always with a mental reservation, thus making a lie even of the truth.”
“Indeed, Luther,” I replied, “said to the Jews: ‘You are not a German, but a deceiver, not a Frenchman, but a faker.’ [Martin Luther, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen. Luther’s words are more poetic in German: “Du bist nicht ein Deutscher, sondern ein Täuscher; nicht ein Welcher, sondern ein Fälscher.” [Translator]] His synonym for Jew was ‘liar’!”
That’s what everyone who knows them says of them.” he rejoined, “from the Pharaohs up to Goethe and our time. It has been said in every dead and living language: in Greek, Latin, Persian, Turkish, English, French, or what have you. One would hope that these universal condemnations, throughout the whole world, would give our charmers and wizards at least a little to think about. God forbid! Not even Christ was able to reach them. He stood there among the cringing Jewish rabble, his eyes flashing, the very image of scorn, and his words fell among them like whiplashes: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44). But to our charmers and wizards that means no more than the unintelligible stammering of a child.”
“They delude themselves by believing that to be only a stern but well-meaning lecture of the Lord to his beloved people of Israel,” I underscored his irony.
“Christ,” he continued with a raised voice, “was never other than perfectly straightforward and frank. God, not to feel the fact that there two fundamentally different worlds opposed one another! In Palestine after the Babylonian captivity there was a great lower stratum of non-Jews ruled over by Jewish moneylenders, powerful through their usury. One can read that in the book of Nehemiah. Sombart says that it leaves absolutely nothing to be desired in the way of clarity. [Sombart, op. cit., p. 371.] The outstanding point is that the real population, composed of oppressed peasants, was of an entirely different race than the Hebrews. Gradually the Jews forced their religion on them. Christ himself growled about that: ‘Woe onto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye encompass sea and land to make one proselyte…’ (Matthew 23:15).To the Jews, Galilee was the land of the Gentiles, whose population ‘sat in darkness,’ as they impudently imagined (Matthew 4:15-16). They said: Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ and ‘Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet’ (John 1:46; 7:52). The Hebrews were so firmly convinced of the non-Jewish ancestry of Christ that they counted him among the especially hated Samaritans (John 7:48). We live and learn! There are many more such examples.”
One could hardly recommend a better policy than that which lets each man find salvation in his own fashion,” I stressed. “The tacit assumption in that policy, though, is that each man’s fashion should involve some sort of decent sentiment, some genuine belief, and not just a contemptible Phariseeism. This distinction should have been expressly emphasized long ago. It wasn’t, and the religion of the moneychanger has received the benefit of this misguided tolerance. Christ was not so tolerant. With a whip he put a stop to the business of the children of the devil, even though he had said, ‘Love your enemy’!”
“Yes,” he replied, “but we must understand what Christ meant by ‘enemy.’ We can love an honorable and decent enemy, even a brutal one, who is frank and forthright in his enmity. And at the same time we can beware of him. But Christ never dreamed that we should love men whom no love whatever could dissuade from their implacable determination to poison us, body and soul. Indeed, he himself did not do that. On the contrary, he continued to strike with his whip as hard as he could. And the words that he flung with indignation into the faces of the rabble breathed of irreconcilability itself. To me, he acted very proudly in the founding of his religion: there was very little contradiction between his sermons and his deeds! Why, then, have the ‘pious’ never followed his example? They least of all. They mercilessly persecute even their decent adversaries — as a matter of fact, only their decent adversaries. Their eyes remain closed to the most cunning bunch of swindlers in existence. The Bavarian People’s Party, for instance, knows quite well that we are defending the Christian foundations of our nation without mental reservations. They also know, however, that we can make no common cause with them as long as they adhere to their present policies. And so they turned to the Jews, hoping to remain in power with their help. They surprised themselves. Dripping with friendliness at first, the Jews turned on them murderously when they had gotten the upper hand.”
“That was inevitable,” I agreed with him. “Fortunately, the Jews would not be able to provide us with that same sort of dreadful experience, for we do not betray and murder our own flesh and blood for the sales of profit. So far as we are concerned, the Bavarian People’s party could even remain in office, provided they clean the manure out of they pigsty and perceive the correctness of our views. We are not willing to tear ourselves apart just for power. But we want Germanism, we want genuine Christianity, we want order and propriety, and we want these things so firmly established that our children and grandchildren can remain satisfied with them.”
“They consider that impossible,” he said, “and therefore they consider our program nothing but empty phrases, of no more sincerity than the empty phrases with which they consciously try to peddle themselves to the people. But our goals are not only possible, they are certain, even if we don’t attain them tomorrow. But first a beginning must be made. So far, never and nowhere has there been a truly social state. Everywhere and always the upper crust has leaned much more strongly to the principle, ‘what is yours, is mine,’ than to, ‘what is mine, is yours.’ These wise ones have only themselves to blame for the fact the lower stratum, full of rage, now is committing the same error. The Jew is able to take advantage of both these groups. One of them provides for his affairs, the other carries them out. Therefore, we oppose them both. We will put an end to unfair privileges as well as to slavery.”
“Decidedly,” I replied. “Our front stands against both left and right. A strange situation; from two directions we must ward off attackers who also fight one another. The Reds scream at us as reactionaries, and to the reactionaries we are Bolsheviks. From both sides the Jew directs the attack on us. The lower stratum doesn’t see him yet and, thus, hates us from sheer stupidity; the upper stratum sees him but thinks it can serve its own selfish purposes with him and thus, shoots us in the back more from unscrupulousness than stupidity. One really needs a good deal of faith under such circumstances in order to maintain one’s courage.”
“Which we have, God be thanked, in a hundred ways,” he said, laughing, as he stretched himself. “No words were spoken more directly to our hearts than ‘Be not afraid’! (Matthew 28:10) And that was supposed to have been said by a Jew? Those creatures of eternal fear? Crazy!”
“Every time new and promising opportunities for meddling have arisen,” he brought out, “the Jew has been immediately involved. He has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew ‘the dregs of mankind,’ ‘a beast,’ ‘the great master of the lie.’ How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society. Likewise, the Kant Society in his work, in spite of the fact that — or, rather, because — Kant summarily declared the Jewish people to be a ‘nation of swindlers.’ [Immanuel Kant, Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Königsberg, 1798).] The same with the Goethe Society. ‘We tolerate no Jews among us,’ said Goethe. ‘Their religion permits them to rob non-Jews,’ he wrote. ‘This crafty race has one great principle: as long as order prevails, there is nothing to be gained,’ he continued. He categorically emphasized: ‘I refrain from all cooperation with Jews and their accomplices. [Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre; Goethe, Das Jahrmarktfest zu Plundersweile; Goethe, Tag- und Jahresfeste; ibid.] All in vain; the Jewish Goethe Society is still there. It would be there even if he himself had expressly forbidden such knavery.”
“With exactly the same right,” I interjected, “the two of us could join a Talmud Society. What impudence that would require! Inconceivable.”
“Not to the Jew,” he replied. “To him impudence has no meaning. He is only able to think in terms of advantage or disadvantage, profit or loss. One must approach him with a different sort of measuring stick.”
“Our charmers and wizards,” I rejoined, “all fall for their trick. Goethe, Kant, Schopenhauer seem to be nothing but babblers to them.”
“Bah, Goethe!” he interrupted contemptuously. “Not even the saintly Thomas Aquinas is able to reach these people. The great father of the Church has described in his writings our relationship with the Jews in terms of a voyage on a ship. The Jews, embarked on the same vessel with the Christians, play a characteristic role: while the Christians are occupied with sailing the ship, the Jews plunder the storeroom and bore holes in the hull. St. Thomas recommends that they should be relieved of their booty and chained to the rudder. What an atrocity! How un-Christian! Poor Jews! One can learn so much from them! At least, according to Drs. Heim and Schweyer. And so the world goes on, governed with the same wisdom as in the time of Joseph’s Pharaoh.”
“Namely, by statesmen,” I completed, “who are so busy ruling that they completely fail to notice that not they but others actually rule; by men like Czar Nicholas [In the night of July 16-17, 1918, a squad of Bolshevik secret police murdered Russia’s last emperor, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his wife, Tsaritsa Alexandra, their 14-year-old son, Tsarevich Alexis, and their four daughters. They were cut down in a hail of gunfire in a half-cellar room of the Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg, a city in the Ural mountain region, where they were being held prisoner. The daughters were finished off with bayonets. To prevent a cult for the dead Tsar, the bodies were carted away to the countryside and hastily buried in a secret grave. Bolshevik authorities at first reported that the Romanov emperor had been shot after the discovery of a plot to liberate him. For some time the deaths of the Empress and the children were kept secret. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the killings, and that Lenin, founder of the Soviet state, had nothing to do with the crime. In 1990, Moscow playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky announced the result of his detailed investigation into the murders. He unearthed the reminiscences of Lenin’s bodyguard, Alexei Akimov, who recounted how he personally delivered Lenin’s execution order to the telegraph office. The telegram was also signed by Soviet government chief Yakov Sverdlov. Akimov had saved the original telegraph tape as a record of the secret order. Radzinsky’s research confirmed what earlier evidence had already indicated. Leon Trotsky — one of Lenin’s closest colleagues — had revealed years earlier that Lenin and Sverdlov had together made the decision to put the Tsar and his family to death. […] [Mark Weber: The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime]], who indulged himself in the same self-deception and got a bullet in the head for it. As early as 1843 Disraeli gave us a hint of what we should expect there. ‘The mysterious Russian diplomacy is organized by Jews,’ he boasted. Also, ‘the mighty revolution which is in the making in Germany is evolving entirely under the leadership of Jews.'” [Benjamin Disraeli, Conningsby (London, 1844).]
“Most of our revolutions,” he said, “whether initially with desirable goals or not, have evolved under Jewish leadership. The revolutions of vulgar predisposition were, for the most part, the work of Jews; and those with loftier tendencies were soon subverted into a darker course by Jews. In the case of the struggling young Christianity, for example, the Jews, quick as a flash, began hanging onto its coattails. Consider Paul, properly called Schaul, who was a rabbinical student. That Schaul first chose the Roman-sounding name, Saulus, and then had himself renamed Paulus gives cause for thought. Still more, the fact that in the beginning he persecuted the fledgling Christian community with first-rate ferocity. I don’t know: mass murderers who later become saints is that not too much of a marvel? Indeed, the Jew Weininger supposed that Christ had also originally been a criminal. [Otto Weininger, Geschlecht und Charakter (Vienna and Leipzig, 1903).] But, my God, a Jew could say that a hundred times, and it still need not be true on that account.
“As a Jew, Paul certainly knew that of all the peoples of the world the Jews, first and foremost, needed their souls saved. ‘Go not … to the Gentiles, … But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ demanded Christ (Matthew 10:5-6). Paul ignored it. He went to the Greeks and the Romans and brought them his ‘Christianity.’ A ‘Christianity’ with which the Roman Empire became unhinged. ‘All men are equal! Brotherhood! Pacifism! No more privileges!’ And the Jew triumphed.”
“I always think,” I spun the thread further, “of the admirable Herr Levine in the Berliner Lokalanzeiger. [I.e., Berlin Advertiser, a Berlin Newspaper. [Translator]] He suddenly burst out one day, as if in rapture: only a Jew could have done that; could have, with Paul’s impudence, put himself in the middle of the Capitol and there expounded a doctrine which must bring about the utter ruin of the Roman Empire! That’s what the man said, word for word; I still remember it perfectly.”
“It certainly hits the nail on the head,” he rejoined. “It may be a long time yet before Christianity recovers from Paul. Oh, what gullible souls we are! A Jew murders hundreds of Christians; suddenly he notices that the rest only become even more zealous; the well-known light dawns on him; he pretends to be converted, throws himself into the great pose, and behold: even though he deviates in nearly all his doctrines from the other apostles, we listen devoutly to his sermons. The simple teachings of the Master, which the most childlike mind might comprehend, we must have ‘explained’ to us by a Hebrew.”
“The Jew,” I replied, “certainly must be tempted to say, ‘Why are you so stupid that you let everyone make fools of you?’ And there are many charmers and wizards who, on account of his extraordinary cunning, or ‘spirituality’ as they call it, look upon him with timid admiration.”
“If it depended on mere possessions,” he returned, “they would be justified. Someone named Goldstein once boasted that the Jews administer the spiritual property of the German people. [Moritz Goldstein, Kunstwart, March, 1912.] A pity that he didn’t add how they administer it.
“Well, let us be thankful that there will always be men who, for example, will read Goethe through the eyes of Goethe and not through the slimy spectacles of Goldstein. They may not be professors, but perhaps vagabonds of a sort. A breed, anyway, which will not become extinct and through which the original Goethe will be safely preserved. The Jews can then quietly ‘administer’ the new Goethe. It will not be begrudged them.” [One is reminded here of what has happened to Wagner in recent years. If Eckart could have foreseen how Wagner’s immortal operas would be someday perverted at Bayreuth, he would have been far more distressed than he was over Jewish “interpretations” of Goethe’s writing. [Translator]]
“Suppose, however,” I interjected anxiously, “the ‘vagabonds’ also listen credulously to them and fall into the trap?”
“It lies in the nature of the ‘vagabond,'” he laughed, “to have a heart so full that it matters not how his head happens to be persuaded; it will always be his heart that determines the outcome. They feel intuitively that which the clever, despite their understanding, are not able to see. And they preserve it. One may deceive their heads, but not even they have authority over their spirits.”
“And, you see,” he pounded on the table, “they alone are to be thanked that at least part of our Christian heritage, as well as our other cultural legacy, has survived administration by the Jews. Where are they? Where were they? Among high and low, among the kings and the soldiers, among the popes and the mendicant friars, among the learned and the illiterate, everywhere. But not among the nothing-but-rich; but not among the nothing-but-clever; but not among the greedy and the insatiable; but not among the Pöbelvolk. Here the Jew is at home. Whatever appears here in the way of spiritual possessions he matter-of-factly administers; it is his own. Just as everything was transformed into gold for King Midas, every deep and meaningful word is turned into filth at his touch. But for the others, for the…”
“Vagabonds of the spirit,” I threw to him.
“Everything remains as of old,” he nodded. “There have been popes of Jewish blood. [Anacletus II (1130-1138), Innocent II (1130-1143), Calixtus III (1168-1178), Clement Vlll (1424-1428), Alexander Vl (1492-1503), and even Pius Xl (1922-1939). In addition, Gregory Vl (1045-1046) and others may have been Jews or part-Jews. Anacletus Il, Calixtus III, and Clement VIII are generally classified as antipopes. [Translator]] Also there has seldom or never been a shortage of other dignitaries of the same descent in the Church. Was that which they stood for Catholicism? No, it was Judaism. Let’s take just one thing: the selling of indulgences. The very essence of the Jewish spirit. We are both Catholics, but dare we not say that? Are we really supposed to believe that there has never been anything in the Church with which one can find fault? Just because we are Catholics, we say it. That has nothing to do with Catholicism. We know that Catholicism would have remained intact even if half the hierarchy had consisted of Jews. A number of sincere men always held it high, though often only secretly, many times even against the pope. Sometimes there were many such men, sometimes few.
“The investigation of the Jew and his activities should have been the alpha and the omega of our historians. Instead, they investigate the bowel movements of the past.
“Karl the Great favored the Jews at every turn. It seems to me that his slaughter of the 4500 Saxons at Verden — the best German blood — and his Jewish advisers had something to do with one another.
“The notorious insanity of the Crusades bled the German people of six million men. Finally the Hohenstaufen, Frederick II, succeeded through mere negotiation, without striking a blow in securing the Holy Land for Christendom. What did the curia do? Full of hatred, they hurled the ban of excommunication on Frederick and refused to recognize his treaty with the sultan, thus neutralizing his great success. It seems that, to those pulling the strings, the incidental bloodletting was more important than the avowed objective of the Crusades.
“At last came the Children’s Crusade. Tens of thousands of children sent against the victorious Turkish army, all to be destroyed. I can’t believe that the idea for that absurdity originated in a non-Jewish mind. I am always reminded of the murder of the children of Bethlehem and the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn. I would give anything for a photograph of the priest who preached that Crusade, and his flunkeys.
“Giordano Bruno [[…] He was born in 1550, was educated for a priest, became a Dominican friar. At last his reason revolted against the doctrine of transubstantiation. He could not believe that the entire Trinity was in a wafer, or in a swallow of wine. He could not believe that a man could devour the Creator of the universe by eating a piece of bread. This led him to investigate other dogmas of the Catholic Church, and in every direction he found the same contradictions and impossibilities supported, not by reason, but by faith. Those who loved their enemies threatened his life. He was obliged to flee from his native land, and he became a vagabond in nearly every nation of Europe. He declared that he fought, not what priests believed, but what they pretended to believe. He was driven from his native country because of his astronomical opinions. He had lost confidence in the Bible as a scientific work. He was in danger because he had discovered a truth. He fled to England. He gave some lectures at Oxford. He found that institution controlled by priests. He found that they were teaching nothing of importance — only the impossible and the hurtful. He called Oxford “the widow of true learning.” There were in England, at that time, two men who knew more than the rest of the world. Shakespeare was then alive. Bruno was driven from England. He was regarded as a dangerous man, — he had opinions, he inquired after reasons, he expressed confidence in facts. He fled to France. He was not allowed to remain in that country. He discussed things — that was enough. The church said, “move on.” He went to Germany. He was not a believer — he was an investigator. The Germans wanted believers: they regarded the whole Christian system as settled; they wanted witnesses; they wanted men who would assert. So he was driven from Germany. […] [Robert Green Ingersoll: Julian the Apostate and Giordano Bruno]] called the Jews ‘such a pestilential, leprous, and publicly dangerous race that they deserved to be rooted out and destroyed even before their birth.’ [Giordano Bruno, Spacio della Bestis Trionfante (1584).] This genial philosopher was burned at the stake. For his heresy? Opponents of the Church were swarming in Italy during his time, yet he, the most impartial of them, was seized.” [Image: Giordano Bruno (1550?-1600)]
“Well, how about now?” I interrupted him. “In Russia one Catholic priest after another is tortured to death by the Jewish beast; hundreds have already been liquidated; the Church is taking its last gasp; but Rome cannot bring herself to call the child by its real name. Many times she has made a small start in that direction — but only to be immediately squelched. Catholicism wants to speak; Jewry paralyzes its tongue.”
“Rome,” he replied, “will pull herself together, but only if we pull ourselves together first. And one day it can be said that the Church is whole again.”
“Since those who are responsible for the trouble will have been discovered!” I cried. “Since the disguised Hebrew, together with his cuckoo eggs, will have been thrown out of the Christian community! He has set not only the Egyptians but also the Christians against one another so that ‘they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbor,’ and he is still at this game. He works from the outside, carefully building his pitfalls and making his destructive influence felt in the press. But he also works from the inside, where he is even more dangerous, in the mask of the Christian minister. The Christian confessions swarm with Jewish and half-Jewish clergymen, the Protestant denominations even more so than the Catholic. They already feel so sure of victory in the Protestant churches that in Dresden a certain Pastor Wallfisch had the impudence to announce publicly: ‘I am a Jew and will remain one; yes, now that I have learned the Christian beliefs I have become more than ever a true Israelite.’ [In his lecture in 1894, entitled Umpires of the Jewish Question.] And in Hamburg a preacher named Schwalb said: ‘I consider myself a genuine Jew and have always considered myself thus’. [In his farewell sermon in March, 1894.] Where that sort of thing is possible, Christianity might as well let itself be buried.
“Luther’s spirit seems to be completely played out among our Protestants. On the question of all questions, the Jewish question, they either hush him completely or try to tone him down. One of the most well meaning among their theologians, Professor Walther, calls Luther’s attitude toward the Jews ‘so offensive that it must arouse not only confused astonishment among Christians but also great indignation among Jews.’ Those Christians with a confused astonishment wouldn’t have found themselves in that state if they had not previously let themselves be confused by the Jews. And as for the great indignation of the Hebrews, we are not grieved a bit. Where, by the way, has that indignation been apparent? So far, Israel has been quiet as a mouse about it. They have always praised Luther greatly as the enemy of Rome. Heine began a ceremonious hymn of joy to the Reformer with the words, ‘Luther, you dear man.'”
“He had good reason,” he jeered. “All Jews have good reason to celebrate Luther and to ignore his anti-Semitism. Without intending to do so, he paved the way for them, and how! The more they extol his authority, the less the world notices his error. That he later cursed them as a pestilence is indeed bitter to them, but — how many people are even aware of his condemnation of the Jews.”
“The Jew Goldmann,” I put in, “stated their reason plainly enough. ‘Luther has again brought the Old Testament to honor.'” [Nahum Goldmann, the well-known Russian Jewish Zionist who also had the unbelievable audacity to announce that the Jews “no longer recognize the right of any country to consider the question of the treatment of its Jewish population as an internal affair.”] [Image: Nahum Goldmann (1894-1982)]
“Instead of to dishonor,” was the reply. “His translation to the German language might have been of some use; as it is, it has grievously damaged the German power of discernment. Lord in heaven, what a halo now surrounds Satan’s ‘Bible’! Luther’s poetry sparkles so that even the incest of Lot’s daughters has been given a religious shimmer. Jehova’s command to be fruitful and multiply had to be obeyed by these two pious maidens — at any price!”
Schopenhauer expressed a similar opinion,” I confirmed. “He said that if one wants to understand the Old Testament one must read it in the Greek version. There it has an entirely different tone, an entirely different color, with no presentiment of Christianity! Contrasted with the Greek, Luther’s translation seems ‘pious’; also ‘often erroneous, indeed, sometimes intentionally, and delivered throughout in a churchly, edifying tone.’ Luther has permitted himself changes ‘which one could call forgeries’ and so on.” [Schopenhauer, loc. cit.]
“Not Luther,” he raised his finger. “The rabbis who helped him with the entire translation introduced changes and forgeries. Hebrew is a difficult language. Luther translated a certain word, for example, as ‘racial kinsman.’ But then the rabbi came in and said that the word means ‘neighbor.’ And so we have the translation: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ rather than, as it should be: ‘Love thy racial kinsman as thyself.’ A small piece of cunning, but — it served its purpose of giving the Jews the aspect of real humanitarians.”
“Yes, even Luther was taken in by the ‘chosen people,'” I replied. “He looked upon the Old Testament as divine revelation. He approached the book with infatuation, convinced that it could contain nothing but sheer preciousness. Then he began wading into the vile thing. After a few steps he blinked his eyes, bewildered. He was stunned. That just couldn’t be so! It must have some other meaning! And so, with perfectly honest intentions, he read between the lines what simply wasn’t there. Everywhere he managed to see allusions to Christ, although nothing could be farther from the Jews’ actual thoughts on the matter. Their Messiah is no ‘lamb’s tail,’ Heine jeered at Christ, no scorner of earthly existence. [Heinrich Heine, in his poem “Disputation.”] On the contrary, their Messiah is a brutal dog who will conquer the earth for his Jews; he is the ‘prince of this world.’ Page after page it says: ‘Ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves,’ or ‘Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.’ One of these is a statement of a ‘divinely inspired’ prophet, the other a ‘deeply spiritual’ psalm (Isaiah 61:6, Psalms 2:8).
“Credulously, Luther viewed everything in a rosy light. This became easier for him when, in the middle of the great morass, he came to passages like: ‘Ye will have no permanent existence among the nations, and the soles of thy feet shall find no rest,’ and ‘Ye will be an abomination among all peoples.’ Compassion seized him. “The Jews,’ he thought to himself, ‘have become untrue to their godly doctrine, but they will again find their way home to it.’ It never occurred to him that these direly threatening sermons served only the purpose of holding the Jews to their course.
“On the other hand, many passages of apparently lofty stamp have quite a different purpose: namely, they serve as a protective cover. He later recognized this Jewish tactic, but only in the living Hebrews, not in their Bible. ‘The Jews desire to make all their affairs ambiguous, so that nothing about them is really certain,’ he said. If one belabors them for an especially low-minded passage, they can indignantly point at one which is dripping with loving kindness. Heine, for example, writes an utterly vulgar poem about Germany; five minutes later he is praising ‘the dear homeland’ to the skies. A matter of changing mood? Oh, dear God I suppose that we are to believe that an old street whore often finds herself in the mood to sing the ‘Ave Maria,’ or that a basically honest fellow is often in the mood to steal. What nonsense!”
“No, you are right,” he said. “The Jew often plays the role of a benefactor only in order to accomplish his destructive aims without notice. It’s always been that way.
“This ambiguity,” I completed, “one finds even in Spinoza. One can hardly imagine a bolder, more outspoken world view than his; but his ethics would horrify a pig. ‘In all things seek that which is advantageous’ is the quintessence of his moral philosophy — the genuine Jewish viewpoint.” [Image: Baruch Spinoza, the greatest Jewish philosopher (1632-1677)]
“It is the most terrible tragedy,” he said sadly, “that Luther bears the responsibility for such a dire development — the consequence of deeds committed in perfect innocence — that today all civilization is in danger of running aground on it. The greatest German the unsuspecting cause of the German collapse; Luther, the mighty opponent of the Jews, the one who most disastrously paved the way for them — incomprehensible, I tell you, incomprehensible. To happen too late by a paltry ten or twenty years! To first become awake to the Jews shortly before his death, when everything had already been determined! [Martin Luther died in 1546. His two principal anti-Semitic writings, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen and Vom Schem Hamphoras, appeared in 1543. A philo-Semitic tract by him was written in 1523. The modern reader may refer to Walther Linden, Luthers Kampfschriften gegen das Judentum (Berlin, 1936), which contains the complete text of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen and extracts from Vom Schem Hamphoras; or to E.V. von Rudolf, Dr. Martin Luther Wider die Juden (Munich, 1940), which has extracts from both. [Translator]] Previously, body and soul for the traitors! Then the Hebrews had still been ‘cousins and brothers of our Lord’ to him, while we Christians were only ‘brother-in-law and strangers.’ Wringing his hands, he entreated the populace to associate with them in a ‘decent and proper’ manner. To him they were exalted above the Apostles! The late Erzberger couldn’t have carried on more absurdly. [Matthias Erzberger (1875-1922) was a left-wing member of the Catholic Center Party. A collaborator with the Jews and Social Democrats during World War I, he favored the Versailles Treaty and became German vice chancellor in 1919. He was executed for his treasonable activities by German patriots in 1921. [Translator]]
“Only not for an instant as sincerely,” I stopped him. “If Luther had been a contemporary of Erzberger, he wouldn’t have had to find out about the purpose of the Jewish hush-money first, in order to see through Judaism. As early as his student days he would have promptly leaped with both feet into the battle against the devil’s brood.”
“My God,” he immediately resumed, “one cannot blame him. A lot has happened in the last four hundred years. But there is one thing to remember: popular instinct was more alert then than nowadays. All along the line mistrust of the Jews was quite firm. Luther was a man of the people, the son of simple folk. His predilection of many years toward the Jews is a bit misleading; one must take into account a certain naivete, a lack of worldliness, the result of his stay in the cloister. The same rule seems to have applied here as elsewhere: too much studying ruined his vision. Nevertheless, Luther was a great man, a giant. With a shock which pierced the twilight he saw the Jews as we have only begun to see them today. But, unfortunately, too late, and even then not there, where he had done the most damage — in Christianity. Oh, had he only seen them there; had he only seen them in his youth! Then he would not have attacked Catholicism, but, rather, the Jews behind it! Instead of a wholesale condemnation of the Church, he would have let his whole, passionate impetus fall on the true villains. Instead of glorifying the Old Testament, he would have branded it as the arsenal of the Antichrist. And the Jew — the Jew would have stood there in his abominable nakedness, as an eternal warning. He would have been obliged to get out of the Church, out of society, out of the halls of the princes, out of the castles of the knights and the houses of the citizens. For Luther had the strength and the courage and the overpowering will. It would never have come to the splitting of the Church or to the war which, in accordance with the wishes of the Hebrews, spilled Aryan blood in torrents for thirty long years.”
“‘And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother and every one against his neighbor,'” he ground out. “What hatred, what demonic hatred! That’s not human; what is it?”
“That, my friend,” I joked, “is the ‘geniality of the heart’ of which the Jew, Fritz Kahn, has spoken, through which ‘Israel has become the ethical mother of mankind.’ These fellows are really quaint in their impudence. Kahn has called Moses ‘an almost unique phenomenon in the history of civilized peoples: a national hero without weapons.’ At the same time he reproves us with the remark that ‘on stormy nights the distressed wail of widows may be heard around the bronze heroes of our market places,’ that is, around the statues of Prince Eugene, Marshal Blucher and so on. I wonder what he thinks Moses used to massacre the Egyptian firstborn, if not weapons. Gumdrops, perhaps? Or were they smothered to death from sheer love? Apparently, we are to believe that the Pöbelvolk consisted entirely of baby sitters and wet nurses.
“Well, all these fellows operate the same way at least. They don’t even bother to deny anything; instead they flatly maintain exactly the opposite.”
“That tactic seems to work quite well with our men of learning,’ he growled. “The Jews say whatever they please; it is all gospel to our scholars. They wouldn’t think of trying to verify anything; the fact that it appears in print is enough for them. A certain Jewess called the Talmud ‘a grandiose, monumental work of the spirit,’ a ‘heroic monument of ideas, to which the millennia have given the breath of their experience.’ [Doris Wittner, Ostijudische Antlitz, No. 252 (1920).] Immediately upon encountering such a gem, the German professor whips out his notebook — and the next day his students have devoured and digested the new tidbit. That’s the way it goes in our gymnasia. They are all designed, so they say, to turn out nothing but geniuses; instead, one lackey after another is graduated.”
“A few hours spent browsing in the Talmud,” I proceeded, “is quite sufficient to remove any doubt about the Jews. It is understandable that they have only the most inordinate praise for the book. When they peep into it their own peculiar nature peers back out at them. And that, of course, is the greatest source of joy for them. Thus, in essence, every Jew is a Talmudist, even if he has never looked at the Talmud. It makes no difference when it was written; in fact, it needn’t have been written at all. The first Jew comprised all its essential ingredients. The Jewish leaders fully understand that, but they only say it metaphorically. ‘The Talmud is an unimpeachable authority,’ trumpeted the rabbi Dr. Gronemann, before a Hanover tribunal in 1894. ‘The legal doctrines of the Talmud have precedence,’ a Professor Cohen imperiously told a criminal court in Marburg in 1888. And he added — now pay attention to this! — that it applied also to non-believing Jews who, however, were nonetheless still a part of the Jewish community, ‘since they acknowledge the moral doctrines of the Talmud.’ A masterpiece! From time to time the fellows blurt out a real secret in their babbling, but we just don’t pay attention. ‘Whatever it is in the Talmud we acknowledge to have absolute precedence over the whole law of Moses,’ a group of so-called reformed Jews testified in Paris in 1860, with the concurrence of the Alliance Israelite. And a rabbi, Dr. Rahmer, has written in Pierer’s Encyclopaedia that the Schul Aruch, a kind of Talmud for home use, has been ‘taken on by the Israelitisch community as an authoritative guide for religious practice.’ Taken on? Such a wag! Pretty soon I’ll be ‘taking on’ the features of Dietrich Eckart.”
“Lord,” he said, “whoever doesn’t become sickened and nauseated upon making a closer acquaintance with the Talmud can put himself on display in a circus side show.”
“The local side show,” I remarked, “has certain limits on the degree of abnormality it will exhibit. The young student from Tubingen who could gulp down half-a-dozen toads with gusto has been its greatest attraction till now. No one, though, has a stomach capable of digesting even this one passage from the Talmud: “Rabbi Johanan said the penis of Rabbi Ishmael was as large as a six-kab [The kab is an ancient Hebrew unit of measure equivalent to about two quarts. [Translator]] wineskin; according to others, three kabs. The penis of Rabbi Papa was as large as one of the baskets of the inhabitants of Harpania.’ [Talmud, Baba Mecia, 84a. It is interesting to note that recent editions of the Talmud replace the word “penis” (männliches Glied in German) with “waist” (Körperumfang in German). The 1933 Berlin edition translated by Lazarus Goldschmidt, for example, claims in a footnote to this passage that the appearance of mannliches Glied in earlier editions was due to a “mistake” in translation. One only needs, however, to read the material adjacent to this passage, with its distinctly smutty character, to see that the original translation was no “mistake.” [Translator]] The high-minded competitive zeal of the three old rabbis could knock an unprepared person off his chair.”
“One finds a whole series of such pleasantries in this magnificent example of a religious book,” he said disgustedly. “The real clincher, however, is that non-Jewish girls ‘who are less than three years and one day old’ are considered ‘suitable’ for rabbis, since Moses had written: ‘But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,’ namely, for the rabbis. [Talmud, Jabmuth, 606. The exact words of Goldschmidt’s 1931 Berlin Edition of Jabmuth are: “Es wird gelehrt: R. Simon b. Johaj sagte: Eine Proselytin unter drei Jahren und einem Tage ist für Priester tauglich, denn es heisst: und alle Kinder unter den Weibern, die die Beiwohnung eines Mannes nicht erkannt haben, lass für euch leben…” [Translator]]
“The most abominable perversity and the most tedious syllable-thrashing in the same breath. What goes on within Jewish heads must really be frightful.”
“They,” I returned, “are of a contrary opinion on that. Otherwise their mirror image, the Talmud, wouldn’t inform us that ‘the Israelites are more pleasing before God than the angels,’ [Talmud, Hulin, 91b. One really must take the trouble to look into the Talmud oneself, in order to believe the truly astounding things to be found therein. We have referred to Goldschmidt’s German translation, published by the Jüdischer Verlag (Berlin, 1930-1936), but the Talmud is also available in English (with the exception of a few of the more perverse passages) from the Soncino Press (London, 1935). [Translator]] or that ‘the world was created on behalf of the Israelites alone,’ or that ‘whoever slaps a Jew in the face has struck God himself,’ or that ‘the sun illuminates the earth and the rain makes it fertile only because Israelites live on it,’ and more of the same sort of modesty.”
“I really doubt that there is any sort of medical encyclopaedia which contains terms suitable for describing the Jewish megalomania,” he said. “But what an incredible talent they have for disguising it!”
“Their book Sirach,” I completed, “howls: ‘Terrify all peoples; lift your hand up against strangers, that they may see your power. The fire of wrath must burn them. Crush the heads of the princes, who are our enemies!’ (Sirach 36:2-12). And the Schulchan Aruch rages: ‘Pour out, oh Lord, your fury over the goyim, who do not know you, and over the kingdoms which do not invoke your name. Pursue them in wrath and extinguish them beneath God’s heaven!’ (Schulchan Aruch, Orach Gaijim, 480). They make the same threat in both places, with the distinction that the Schulchan Aruch emphasizes that all must be exterminated who do not swear on Jehova.”
“And with such an abominable moral doctrine on his conscience,” he began to boil, “that marvel of modern Jewry, Moses Mendelssohn, [Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) was a troll-like, hunchbacked, little Jew, originally a Talmudic scholar, who eventually displayed a vastly greater affinity for a fast buck than for the peculiar “wisdom” of the Talmud. Starting as a tutor in the house of a rich, Jewish silk merchant in Berlin, he soon became a partner in the business and amassed an enormous fortune. He was celebrated by his fellow Jews, as well as by a circle of Gentile admirers, however, as an extraordinarily pious and clever philosopher. [Translator]] had the impudence to assert that ‘dominion over the earth belongs by right to Jewry.’ Because of their religion! As a trained Talmudist he certainly knew his way around in the whole, vile thing — those extracts we have just quoted are only a tiny fraction — but he still … oh, this lying, this utterly mendacious pack, the very essence of the lie!”
“All Berlin,” I said, “buzzed with praise for the ‘wise’, for the ‘noble’ Moses. But Goethe wasn’t deceived: ‘Jewish trivia!’ was his comment on the pious trickery. It struck no one as odd that the incomparable Moses philosophized himself in the twinkling of an eye from a simple, private tutor to the powerfully wealthy founder of the banking house of Mendelssohn, thus avoiding by a wide detour the eye of the needle. This benefactor of mankind slyly promoted the idea that the Jewish people constitute a religious community only. Today this still constitutes a favorite nostrum of the Jews. A certain Dr. Ruppin has revealed why. ‘Special laws against the Jews,’ he tells us as he chuckles and rubs his hands together, ‘have always been directed against the religious aspects of Jewry, since this sphere of activity provided the only easily conceivable target for legislation. Anti-Semitism, has never really been inimicable to the Jewish religion, but has been indifferent to it.’ [Arthur Ruppin, Die Juden der Gegenwart (Berlin, 1904), p. 203 ff.] So! We now have an admission that their ‘religion’ serves a very useful diversionary purpose. Anyone, however, who has become acquainted with it has found out that what the Jews call their religion coincides exactly with their character.”
“That’s what they themselves say,” he said. “They are incessantly boasting, too, that their religion is such a masterful creation that it stands alone in the world. Then bring the Talmud forward! It contains the Jewish religion in its purest form — theology, dogmatics, morality, everything together in the same place. Why do they hold back the magnificent book so nervously, if indeed ‘the millennia have given the breath of its existence’ to it? As born benefactors of mankind they should have long since made it accessible to the general populace. Instead, it still hasn’t been completely translated, even today. And who in the devil has read what there is of it? One would think they are afraid some medieval church is still waiting to burn it for heresy.
“Some religion! This wallowing in filth, this hate, this malice, this arrogance, this hypocrisy, this pettifogging, this incitement to deceit and murder — is that a religion? Then there has never been anyone more religious than the devil himself. It is the Jewish essence, the Jewish character, period!”
“Luther,” I interjected, “expressed his opinion of it plainly enough. He urges us to burn the synagogues and Jewish schools and to heap earth on the remains ‘so that no man would ever again see one stone or cinder of them.’ God would forgive us for what we formerly had tolerated through our ignorance — ‘I hadn’t known it myself,’ he wrote — but now that we were aware of what went on, we dared not, at any price, protect these buildings ‘wherein they slander, curse, spit on, and revile both Christ and us.’ We could hardly speak more strongly ourselves. He also urged the destruction of their houses, for they carried on there the same way as in their schools. ‘Some may feel,’ he complained, ‘that my judgment is too harsh. It is, if anything, too lenient, for I have seen their writings.’ [Luther, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen.]
“Our school inspectors apparently haven’t seen them, nor have our charmers or wizards.”
“Burning their synagogues, I am afraid, would have been of little avail,” he shrugged. “Even if there had never been a synagogue, a Jewish school, an Old Testament, or a Talmud, the Jewish spirit would still have been there and had its effect. It has always been there. Every Jew ever born has embodied it. And that is even more pronounced with the so-called enlightened Jews. Heine belonged, certainly, among the most enlightened, but he had just as much insane arrogance as the greasiest Galician kike. Moses Mendelssohn passed for a downright wonder of wisdom. Yet, lo and behold, he found it actually shocking that the Jews still didn’t have the dominion over the earth which was due them!”
[Hitler’s actual views on the “Jewish spirit” were considerably more nuanced than Eckart’s fictional dialogue suggests: “We use the term ‘Jewish race’ as a matter of convenience, for in reality and from the genetic point of view there is no such thing as the Jewish race. There does, however, exist a community, to which, in fact, the term can be applied and the existence of which is admitted by the Jews themselves. It is the spiritually homogeneous group, to membership of which all Jews throughout the world deliberately adhere, regardless of their whereabouts and of their country of domicile; and it is this group of human beings to which we give the title Jewish race. It is not, mark you, a religious entity, although the Hebrew religion serves them as a pretext to present themselves as such; nor indeed is it even a collection of groups, united by the bonds of a common religion.” “The Jewish race is first and foremost an abstract race of the mind. It has its origins, admittedly, in the Hebrew religion, and that religion, too, has had a certain influence in molding its general characteristics; for all that, however, it is in no sense of the word a purely religious entity, for it accepts on equal terms both the most determined atheists and the most sincere, practising believers. To all this must be added the bond that has been forged by centuries of persecution — though the Jews conveniently forget that it is they themselves who provoked these persecutions. Nor does Jewry possess the anthropological characteristics which would stamp them as a homogeneous race. It cannot, however, be denied that every Jew in the world has some drops of purely Jewish blood in him. Were this not so, it would be impossible to explain the presence of certain physical characteristics which are permanently common to all Jews from the ghetto of Warsaw to the bazaars of Morocco — the offensive nose, the cruel vicious nostrils and so on.” “A race of the mind is something more solid, more durable than just a race, pure and simple. Transplant a German to the United States and you turn him into an American. But the Jew remains a Jew wherever he goes, a creature which no environment can assimilate. It is the characteristic make-up of his race which renders him impervious to the processes of assimilation. And there in a nutshell is the proof of the superiority of the mind over the flesh!” (Hitler-Bormann Documents, February 13, 1945) [Irmin]]
“From long years of experience,” I brought out, “Dostoevski depicted the hair-raising conceit of the Russian Jew. [Feodor Dostoevski, An Author’s Diary, (1876-1880). Dostoevski spent five years in a Siberian prison camp at Omsk (1849-1854). [Translator]] For a long time he lived with all kinds of convicts, including several Jews, sleeping on the same wooden bunks with them. Everyone treated these Jews in a friendly manner, he reported, not even taking offense at their raving-mad manner of praying. Probably their own religion had once been like that, thought the Russians to themselves, and they quietly let the Jews do as they pleased. But, on the other hand, the Jews haughtily rejected the Russians, didn’t want to eat with them, and looked down on them. And where was this? In a Siberian prison! All over Russia Dostoevski found this antipathy and loathing of the Jews for the natives. Nowhere, however, did the Russian people resent their behavior, indulgently believing it to be a part of the Jewish religion.” [Image: Feodor Dostoevski (1821-81)]
“Yes, indeed, and what a religion!” he said scornfully. “It is the character of a people which determines the nature of their religion, not the other way around.”
“Dostoevski,” I continued, “was compassion itself but, like Christ, he took exception to the Jews. With foreboding, he asked what would happen in Russia if ever the Jews should get the upper hand there. Would they even approximately give the natives the same rights they themselves enjoyed? Would they likewise allow them to pray in the manner they wished or would they not simply make slaves of them? Still worse, ‘wouldn’t they skin and fleece them?’ Wouldn’t they even exterminate them, as they had so often done with other peoples in their history?”
“Ah, could our workers but share his forebodings, particularly those who hope for salvation from the Soviets!” he cried. “Famine, mass graves, slavery, Jewish whips. Whoever goes on strike is hanged. ‘Come hither, all ye who are weary and heavy laden.’ How they whistle, the dogs! And how fine that sounds, in front of the curtain! Behind it, however, lurk the pampered ‘Pöbelvolk’ the Red Army, the dregs of non-Jewish humanity.”
“The toll of Russians sacrificed since the beginning of Bolshevik domination is estimated by the authorities at about thirty million,” I answered. “Those who weren’t summarily executed fell to famine and disease. Were they all bourgeois? Only an imbecile could believe that. Who among us then has the most to suffer? The thousands who every day stand for long hours at their various occupations. Capitalists are hardly a majority among them. But that hasn’t dawned on our workers. In their eagerness to be the masters, they let themselves be led about by the nose like children.
“Ebert [Friedrich Ebert (1871-1925) was the Marxist leader of the Social Democrats. He collaborated with other traitors to bring about the German collapse of 1918 and became Reichspräsident under the new regime, in 1919. [Translator]] has thundered against capitalism his whole life. Now he is president. And? At every street corner banks sprout from the ground like mushrooms. That is certainly a fact. Everyone sees it. Anyone can reach out and touch it. But does that lead anyone to smell a rat? Not on your life!
“The first thing the Jew Eisner [Kurt Eisner (1867-1919) was a Jewish journalist politician and Marxist leader in Bavaria. A principal organizer of the 1918 revolution (Dolchstoss), he became first president of the Bavarian republic. He was executed by a German patriot in 1919. [Translator]] did after the revolution was have the banks guarded by the army. Capitalists smuggled their enormous hordes of money out of the country for months, and he didn’t raise a finger to stop them. He felt it was more important to travel to the Socialist Congress in Switzerland and there place the entire guilt for the world war on Germany. Do penance, he said, and the French will forgivingly clasp you to their hearts. Quite likely! Experience has gloriously confirmed it.”
“The same Eisner,” he nodded, “who, at the beginning of the war, sent a flood of telegrams to the other Social Democrat leaders, entreating them to remain true to the Kaiser. A disgraceful stab in the back must be avoided at all costs, said he. It went like that until the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. [The treaty of March 3, 1918, ending hostilities between Germany and Russia, was signed at Brest Litovsk. [Translator]] Up till then all German Jews were inspired monarchists. But then came the about-face. The Moor had done his duty and crushed Czarist Russia; now for him to crush himself. The rest is silence. Visible to all eyes, the Jew also made his bid in Germany.
“Oh, workers! To let yourselves be thus deceived! Things are different than which innocents let themselves dream. The Communist Party in Germany still has fewer than a quarter of a million members; yet it owns over fifty newspapers. What that costs is simply incalculable. Millions. Who pays these enormous sums? We National Socialists have our hands full just keeping our one Beobachter [The Völkischer Beobachter was the official NSDAP newspaper, from December, 1920, on. [Translator]] going. If we had an arrangement with the Jews, we would have a prodigious number of party newspapers in an instant. Are there comrades who doubt that? I’d like to meet one. And, look here, this is the incredible thing: they know that the Jews are secretly behind things, but they act as if it weren’t so at all. Is that honest? Can that lead to a happy outcome? To rush to destruction unsuspectingly is one thing, but to do it knowingly and to single out one’s grimmest enemy as an accomplice is another.”
“I’d like to know,” I remarked, “what the comrades would say if one proved to them in black and white that the Junkers or the big industrialists have had a secret moral philosophy of the most abominable sort since the time ‘x’. Their rage would be unimaginable. ‘Aha!’ everyone would roar. ‘With principles like that it is no wonder the devils torment us so! Imagine that! How can anyone be that mean and vile? The whole bunch of them should be exterminated!’ They would carry on like that, as if possessed, and rightly so. But, on the other hand, when one shows them that the Jews have, in their official religious books, the most hair-raising statements about the plundering and murder of all Gentiles, it makes no difference at all to them. They either dispute it or, when that seems hopeless, say that most Jews haven’t been that religious for a long time and don’t concern themselves with that stuff anymore. It never occurs to them that the Jewish character is the source of their vile literature.”
“But this,” he said, “tops it all: all — and I mean all — social injustices of any significance in the world today can be traced back to the subterranean influence of the Jews. The workers seek, therefore, to eliminate with the help of the Jews those evils which none other than the Jews themselves have consciously and deliberately established. One can imagine what kind of help they will receive.”
“Behold the modest Joseph!” I rejoined. “His influence on the Pharaoh caused the Egyptians dreadful distress, from which they later thought they would free themselves with the help of Moses. I must admit that the episode does not lack a certain grim humor.”
“The truth,” he said, “is, indeed, as you once wrote: one can only understand the Jew when one knows what his ultimate goal is. And that goal is, beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world. He must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so. But one sees, if only in the means which he employs, that he is secretly driven to something else. While he pretends to himself to be elevating mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If a halt is not ordered, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself. There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred. To be obliged to try and annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to suspect that that must lead inevitably to his own ruin — therein lies, if you will, the tragedy of Lucifer.”
Here the notes of Dietrich Eckart break off.
Source:
Brown Green Red 