**The Legitimacy of Antisemitism** **A Refutation of the Pamphlet by Mr. v. Oppeln-Bronikowski: “Antisemitism”** By **Adolf Bartels** Theodor Weicher, Leipzig All rights reserved. Copyright 1921 by Theodor Weicher, Leipzig. Reprinted by: Straubing & Müller (Nich. Matthias), Weimar ### **A Poem Instead of a Foreword** Let them lay my head upon the headsman's block, Let them vent on me their blasphemous rage, Let them even grind me to dust — so be it — If only from my blood the avenger shall rise. Not the avenger for me: Even though I’ve long been hated and persecuted in our time, I stood never beneath dire fate’s coercion And could easily have freed myself whenever. But my striving was to save my people From destruction, already appearing from afar, To free it to a new, nobler life, In which one star after another rises again. Oh, pretend not that I’m the narrow one, Who sees only evil, never the good. Well do I know who cunningly misled your gaze, So truth’s spirit no longer draws near you. Do you still hold to the God we all need? Do you still have the courage that sustains the world? Your longing is to sip the froth From pleasure’s cup as it passes by. The war above all revealed your true being: A flickering flame at first — then dullness — And always greed — with hell’s broom I longed, grimly, to sweep through my people. Yet it is only misled: in its deepest depths Still dwells a yearning for a better being; Though lip-service speaks the brazen phrase, The heart is still free of brazenness. Chase off to the devil those who delude the people, Render harmless the desecrators of culture, And behold: Men shall stand where once were grotesques, And nature shows herself noble and sublime. If war did not offer rescue to us, O God, let a new war arise, In which, joined with our dead, We boldly oppose the League of Lies! And should I fall in that holy struggle, Yes, succumb to wild enemy fury: The German people shall inherit ancient virtue And again be brave, sincere, and good. *Legefeld, Pentecost 1918* **Adolf Bartels** The not unknown author Friedrich von Oppeln-Bronikowski has published a pamphlet titled *“Antisemitism? An Impartial Analysis of the Problem”* (Charlottenburg 1920, Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik und Geschichte m.b.H.), which — according to the advertising band — is the “book of the hour,” as the first edition sold out in two days and the second now includes printings from the 6th through the 35th thousand. Mr. von Oppeln-Bronikowski states in a prefatory note: > “I am neither prejudiced by family connections nor by professional relations with Jews, and count among my closer acquaintances only one gentleman of Jewish descent, affiliated with the Christian faith and oriented politically to the right. Thus I pursue no selfish purpose with this work, but solely wish to serve domestic peace. Having lived through many human relationships, I have always endeavored to examine pros and cons objectively in all human affairs, have become familiar with the customs and doctrines of foreign peoples, deeply studied the teachings of history, and possess the experience of a mature man in his prime. I therefore certainly deserve to be heard.” Mr. von Oppeln-Bronikowski is not personally known to me, but I am familiar with aspects of his work, and he once did me a good turn — and so I believe, as I want to immediately make clear here, in his *bona fides* and *bona voluntas*, in his good faith and good will, despite the fact that he omits to mention his cooperation with the Jewish journal *Literarisches Echo* (cf. the issue of February 15, 1920). In addition to the author, the publisher of the brochure also includes a prefatory remark, professing support for the author's views, yet emphasizing that the publication of the pamphlet does not represent a political declaration by the publisher. As someone reasonably well acquainted with the publishing world, I must honestly admit I’ve always been a bit suspicious of “limited liability corporations” (GmbH), and particularly so of a company that, under its series of *Books for the Reconstruction of Germany*, has also issued works by Hans Delbrück, Dr. Oesterreich, Albert Haas, etc. Nonetheless, I will refrain from asserting connections between the firm and Jewry — ultimately it is of little importance who the publisher is. What matters is the work itself, which I now intend to examine quite carefully, and by doing so, simultaneously provide evidence for the legitimacy — indeed, the necessity — of antisemitism. Strong as the growth of antisemitic literature has been in recent times, a pamphlet of this kind has been lacking; otherwise Mr. von Oppeln-Bronikowski would scarcely have dared step forward with his. Mr. von Oppeln — I trust I may abbreviate his name for convenience — begins by conceding that the wave of antisemitism now coursing through Germany is very strong, and he attempts to explain it psychologically: > “The power of the Jews in the press, theater, and economy was its origin in peacetime. Its growth during the war was advanced by war-profiteering and black-market behavior, in which Jews certainly provided no small share, as well as the significant Judaization of the war corporations. Since the revolution, finally — the strong presence of Jews in the government and especially the fact that Jews repeatedly appeared as leaders in both the German and Russian revolutions, the more so the more radical the faction, and finally the utterly unwise appointment of the well-known investigative committee, before whose bench a Hindenburg was interrogated by Dr. Cohn, a man subsidized by the Bolsheviks. All this has understandably stoked ever-growing resentment and severely exacerbated the longstanding opposition.” Mr. von Oppeln is also insightful enough to acknowledge that this antisemitism does not, on the whole, originate with political leaders, nor is it disseminated “from above” into the masses — rather, it rises organically from the voter base, especially from the lower middle class, and compels the recognition of the leadership. Yet one can already see here that Mr. von Oppeln is not entirely up to the problem — as revealed by his characterization of the antisemitic surge as a counter-wave, a kind of intellectual pushback. Certainly, one may speak of today’s antisemitic movement as a *wave*, but antisemitism generally is infinitely more than that; it is an expression of *national feeling* and *cultural insight*, which has evolved and risen up naturally within the German people over the course of two generations, and is now carried not only by the masses, but also by truly intellectual (not just narrowly political) leaders, and for most independently thinking educated people has become something like a worldview. It should suffice to name Paul de Lagarde, Heinrich von Treitschke, and the “Rembrandt Germans,” none of whom can fairly be tied to any narrow party line. The fact that today many educated people say with Treitschke, “The Jews are our misfortune,” is shown, among other things, by the large number of associations — composed almost exclusively of educated members — that have committed themselves to the Aryan declaration. Very soon Mr. von Oppeln turns to the German National People's Party — one might say that his entire brochure is aimed at overturning this party’s position on the Jewish Question, and I do not deny that the fear that his pamphlet might cause confusion is what prompted me, above all, to take up the pen. Mr. von Oppeln asserts that the opinions of the party’s leaders and politically intelligent members are at least divided. This raises the initial question: are the political leaders always truly the intelligent ones? The answer is, in the end, rather skeptical: rhetorical talent and tactical cunning are not the same thing as real intelligence. To give a specific example: I do not regard the intelligence of Mr. Minister of State (ret.) Hergt of the German National People's Party—based on the speeches of his I’ve read—as very high; his famous remark: “We don’t need one, we need many Bismarcks” made me laugh out loud, if not very politely. Well, those are personal things. Mr. von Oppeln is right about that: The formulation of the Jewish Question in the program of the German National People’s Party is vague. It calls only for a fight against “every destructive, un-German spirit,” “whether originating among Jewish or other circles,” and instead of stating “The influx of Eastern Jews across our borders must be stopped,” it states: “The influx of foreign elements.” Nevertheless, it also includes the sentence: > “We emphatically oppose the increasingly disastrous predominance of Jewry in government and public life since the revolution.” And so we German ethnic nationalists declared ourselves in agreement with that paragraph, even though we naturally would have preferred a firm declaration that the party accepts no Jews, since they are not Germans, and that it combats Jewry—which is inherently harmful—wherever it appears. Mr. von Oppeln laments that the vehemence of antisemitic propaganda is just what drives the Jewish characters out of the party, and he then calls this program point an “embarrassed gesture,” a theoretical compromise with no real significance. But there he's mistaken: The wording in the program, uncertain as it may be, still suffices as a recognition and sanctioning of our ethnic-nationalist work. In that sense, its practical value is quite great. We would by no means have tolerated complete silence on the Jewish Question in the party’s platform, and we will naturally insist that the “uncertainty” of this formulation is gradually erased. We’re in no particular hurry with this demand. We are well aware that it is we German ethnic nationalists who keep the masses aligned with the German National People’s Party, and we trust that the truly intelligent minds within the party will gradually align themselves with us. Time has been working in our favor since Bismarck’s dismissal, and it does so with each passing day. Mr. von Oppeln then places himself in the mindset of a “simple” party member and concludes that such a person believes Germany is fighting its death-struggle against “international Jewry,” which is partially identical with the Entente, and that it is every German’s duty not to despair in this struggle, but to endure courageously. He grants this way of thinking a legitimate core of truth but claims it’s riddled with logical errors and exaggerations—the problem, he says, is not so simple. If only those logical errors weren’t on his side instead! He asserts first that “international Jewry” is not a homogeneous, uniformly organized mass—that internal divisions within it are just as considerable as among nations that enjoy a national constitutional state; particularly wide, he says, is the gulf between the economically and culturally backward Eastern Jewry and the economically and culturally advanced Jewry of the Western democracies. Of course, we educated antisemites have some knowledge of Jewry as well and know that there are divisions within it, but we value the bond of race infinitely more highly than von Oppeln does. Jewry may not be strictly “organized” against Germany, but one shouldn’t be quick to doubt the famous quote from Walter Rathenau about the “three hundred who control the fate of the world,” and it could be demonstrated conclusively that at least 290 out of those 300 were during the World War in opposition to Germany. Broadly speaking, we assume only a basic dichotomy within Jewry: between those who already have something and those who have nothing yet (among other peoples, possession previously wasn’t the decisive factor); but even this division we do not regard as fundamentally decisive. As early as 1912, Gregor von Glasenapp wrote in his highly valuable treatise *“The Character of the Israelites and the Nature of their Activity”*, which I heartily recommend to Mr. von Oppeln: > “People have, for example, expressed amazement that the Israelites—who accumulate enormous private fortunes and comprise the bulk of Europe’s capitalists—are likewise heavily involved with the Social Democrats and the strike-revolver-dynamite crowd, and that they agitate most actively within the radical factions. > This appears as though the Israelites had methodically agreed not to let any promising and potentially powerful party pursue its own path independently, but to have their representatives embedded in all of them, keeping the strings in their hands so that, when decisive blows come and the existing order begins to crack, they can still steer party politics in such a way that Jewish interests are preserved. > In the case of many individuals, this undoubtedly applies; but I believe, generally speaking, that Israelites act less by deliberate agreement and more by instinct of race. Being a capitalist is, of course, a fine thing for an Israelite—but not every one of them can be one. There are simply too many of them.” Meanwhile, racial instinct has been whispering unmistakably into everyone’s ear what their historian Graetz explicitly states in his *History of the Jews*: “The Revolution is Judea’s guiding star.” Generally speaking: Every process of disintegration and every upheaval within a state, every fracture within parties that hate each other, every social and political disturbance of the accustomed, steady life of a working population is welcome to them as an opportunity to fish in troubled waters, to bore into those rotten parts of the state organism, and to exploit their principal skill—the skill of influencing people—for profit. Only in such conditions do they feel strong. Naturally, at times the interests of different groups of racial comrades—those of the capitalists and those of the demagogues—may come into conflict. But both pursue the same goal: with the help of the same specific racial characteristics, to gain power—and what inevitably comes with it—money. There would only be a contradiction if the Jewish Social Democrat were so honest and far-sighted that he truly wished to live in that social-democratic future state where all human beings conduct their lives peacefully and evenly in untroubled, harmonious labor. But even that expectation would merely elicit his scorn.” This was written back in 1912, and one can scarcely deny that, especially the Russian and German events of recent years, have confirmed nearly everything in full. Do the Trotzkys and Sinowjev-Apfelbaums really conduct their lives according to the vision of a socialist future state? Have our Jewish Social Democrats done anything to bring about socialization precisely in those areas where it would be easiest to implement—namely, in the realm of banks and department stores? Frankly, I also regard the distinction between Eastern and Western Jews as quite insignificant, even though I do know that racial differences underlie it. Trotzky and Sinowjev—both Eastern Jews—very quickly appropriated the elements of Western European culture. When an Eastern Jew arrives in Berlin, he very soon becomes partially assimilated into Western Jewry; his son is almost certainly a fully integrated Western Jew. Indeed, even the higher culture of his host nation can be adopted by a Jew relatively quickly. I remind Mr. von Oppeln of Samuel Lublinski— known both to him and to me personally—a native of West Prussia, very likely of Eastern Jewish origin, and yet he wrote a number of noteworthy German books—only noteworthy for us Germans, however, in that they most clearly reveal the ineradicably Jewish characteristics. Mr. von Oppeln believes in significant differences and finds them within Germany as well; he asks: “Does one really believe that the Oppenheims, Bleichröders, and Mendelssohns have anything in common with a Dr. Cohn and his ilk?”—to which the obvious answer is: “But of course—race, and its physical and mental characteristics!” It is true that Jewish wealth, like “Aryan” wealth, wants no part in being confiscated or taxed away; in fact, it will likely try to prevent this even more vigorously than we Germans would. But that doesn’t make it all the same—even if the *Berliner Tageblatt* protests as forcefully as possible against Erzberger’s economy-strangling financial policy. As the old folk saying goes: “If two do the same thing, it’s not the same thing.” By the same logic, it can also be claimed that just because Jews are present in all political camps, it does not follow that they are there for the same reasons as those of German blood. Mr. von Oppeln says they represent the interests of the parties; we reply that parties, as such, have no interests at all, but merely exist to represent the interests of certain segments of the population—and of course the Jews go wherever they think they’ll get the most out of it. Mr. von Oppeln then touches on the view of the so-called “very refined,” as he calls them—meaning, for example, Richard Wagner and Gregor von Glasenapp: “While wealthy Jewry,” he paraphrases, “seizes power from above and its middle groups undermine the national spirit, the Bolshevik Jews hollow out the state from below. Furthermore, Jews of every persuasion know how to benefit from any upheaval and increase their power.” So even if this is not a predetermined scheme, it is nevertheless a case of instinctive precision in achieving a goal—a perhaps unconscious but real habit of working circumstances into their own hands— and the outcome is always the same. He (meaning Mr. von Oppeln) dismisses this as “mystical nonsense,” but Mr. von Glasenapp proceeds wholly from psychological observation, and his claims are supported by countless facts that became known during the war and the revolution. Mr. von Oppeln’s objection, then—that if such claims were true, Germany’s own property holders would also have to be in secret alliance with Germany’s revolutionaries, and would have to be the ones “driving the rabbits into their own kitchens”—is entirely illogical. Apologies accepted — but the Germans are not Jews, do not live as foreigners among other peoples, and cannot, once they have the means, fully detach themselves from their host nations. Certainly, the nation- states of the Entente, which Mr. von Oppeln then references, are not yet the “helots” of the Entente; the Jews there, though few in number, still serve—though not national interests, but capitalist ones. But what does that have to do with the Jewish national character as such? There is scarcely a more careless way to confront the tremendous body of factual evidence and the well- grounded psychology of antisemitism, derived from men like Luther, Goethe, Schopenhauer, etc., than by throwing out the label “mysticism.” That war profiteering and black-market speculation, as Mr. von Oppeln continues, spilled widely into the German national character, can certainly be conceded to him. But that the Jews were the first, the relatively most numerous, and probably also the most successful war profiteers, can likewise be taken as fact. I am not one of those Germans who excuse their fellow countrymen in such matters as having been “infected,” but by the same token, I do not wish the sins of the Jews to be forgiven simply because some Germans committed them as well. The fact is surely this: That the founders of modern, purely speculative capitalism were Jews. I refer here to Werner Sombart’s book *Modern Capitalism* — and Sombart was no antisemite — in which it says (2nd edition, p. 113): “Just as Adam Smith’s system concludes the era of weak stock-market economies, so too Pinto (a Portuguese Jew, 1771) inaugurates the modern age with his credit theory — the age in which stock speculation became the centerpiece of economic success, and the stock exchange ‘the heart of the economic body.’” Sombart also shows that the expansion of the securities market from 1800 to 1850 corresponds exactly with the expansion of the House of Rothschild. He replies to Mr. von Oppeln’s objection that “not all Jews are rich” with the following sentence (p. 379): “It can be determined without difficulty that for as long as Jewish history exists, the accumulation of great wealth by individual Jews, as well as the comparatively greater overall affluence of the Jewish population, has never been called into question — and that Jewish wealth has been proverbial in all times and all cultures.” Of course, there are also poor Jews. But there is no true Jewish proletariat in Germany — if Mr. von Oppeln wishes to point toward North Berlin, then he is making a serious error. Because those are Eastern Jews still standing before the threshold of ascent. And yet, every Jew is a real or virtual capitalist — in worldview, that is. Even Karl Marx was such, because he never managed to break out of the capitalist worldview, according to which labor is not pursued for its own sake, but only to earn the highest possible wage — and sadly, he infected our entire working class with this idea. There is no doubt that all Jews would safely achieve their goal — that of becoming real capitalists — if they could reshape economic and political conditions everywhere in their own image. At this very moment, they are, in Germany at least (aside from the newly immigrated Eastern Jews), not far off from this. Every one of us made observations during the war and afterward. Admittedly, there are impractical Jews as well. A number of poor Jewish writers like Ludwig Jacobowski, Leo Berg, Samuel Lublinski — whom von Oppeln names as personal acquaintances — have certainly always existed. But I have fought battles against all three of them and can assure Mr. von Oppeln that they were in no way idealists in the German sense, as he believes, but rather quite unabashed champions of their own ethnicity. They might well have accomplished even more had they not died relatively young. There are also highly questionable reports about Jacobowski — I ask Mr. von Oppeln to consult the *Semikürschner* and read the testimony of the Jewess Anselma Heine — it is worse than materialism. Mr. von Oppeln’s closing sentence: > “Capitalism and materialism are consequences of the modern economic process; they affect both Jews and non-Jews alike — materialism even in alarmingly increasing measure” ...reads rather differently for us German volkish thinkers — something more like this: The Jews have brought us — in accordance with their nature — economic systems which, as they gained more power, exerted profoundly soul-destructive effects and spread materialism widely into large swaths of our people. This corresponds to the historical facts. Of course, we do not deny that materialism lies within all mankind and has made appearances in every era. But among other peoples — especially the Germans — it has not led to such refined methods of exploitation as it has through the Jews. What Mr. von Oppeln says about the war corporations is also, overall, not very convincing. He certainly cannot deny that Jews were amply represented in them — but he argues that, based on their past, Jews were naturally predisposed to trade and that one had, after all, to select men for these business sectors who were already familiar with economic affairs. Yes — but were there not enough merchants of German blood? Were they, in the end, not even more suited, based on practical expertise, than the Jews, who were fundamentally oriented toward money- dealings? Mr. von Oppeln acknowledges the nepotism and favoritism involved, but then justifies it by pointing to the patronage economy of the Social Democratic Party — but I’ve already said that one form of corruption does not excuse another. It is almost somewhat comical to note that the “wasteful bureaucracy offices” were nowhere as bitterly ridiculed as in the Jewish *Berliner Tageblatt* — where then is the “Jewish solidarity”? Yes, dear Mr. von Oppeln, you should inquire at the *Berliner Tageblatt*. We other Germans do not concern ourselves much over this. It remains a fact that the war corporations originated on Jewish initiative (Walter Rathenau) and substantially served Jewry. The fault lay not — as Mr. von Oppeln thinks — in the state-socialist system but in its thoroughly one-sided implementation, for which one can certainly hold Mr. von Bethmann- Hollweg and our civil service, which was inadequate for the task, responsible. ### Shirking Duty Regarding the shirking of duty by the Jews, on which Mr. von Oppeln then dwells, I want to say only a few words because it is quite indifferent to me. For all I care, the Jews could have been left at home all together. But it is somewhat troubling when Mr. von Oppeln excuses the Jewish shirkers by asserting that Jews are often afflicted with organic diseases which our younger, more numerous, and thus less inbred people do not possess. Forgive me — they were examined by the same military doctors as our people and were certainly better fed in the later war years. It is also not without concern how Mr. von Oppeln accepts the statistics in Otto Armin’s book *“The Jews in the Army,”* which finds that Jews made up only half as many war volunteers and casualties as Germans. He reasons that since this is based on membership in the Israelite religion, it excludes the many baptized Jews of the upper classes who went out as officers, officials, or war volunteers. In my view, these baptized but racially pure have only a comparatively small number, and from a racial standpoint, the ratio shifts only slightly in favor of the Jews, since those baptized surely spent a good part of their service in headquarters, bureaus, etc. No reasonable German denies that some Jews fought bravely and rightly earned decorations before the enemy; there are always enough Jews who know what matters and who do not disgrace themselves — and some may have been carried by German enthusiasm and even come closer to the German character. But we prefer not to remember the old heroic era of the Jews with Mr. von Oppeln — for the old Jewish heroes were mostly Israelites — and we do not put much faith in Generals von Mosler and Liman von Sanders (whom von Oppeln only suggests). In any case, we consider it rather foolish when Mr. von Oppeln discusses why the Jewish population did not more frequently turn to officer service. Undoubtedly, before the war, Jews would have liked nothing more than to become reserve officers, but hardly out of martial ambitions. The treatment of the Jewish financial contributions during the war seems to me as unnecessary as the discussion of shirking duty. Mr. von Oppeln claims that Jewish capital contributed very significantly to the war bonds. If this claim is to hold weight, he must provide figures, especially relative figures. I had during the war the impression that while Jewish banks eagerly gathered funds for the bonds, they themselves somewhat held back. That the transfer of German capital abroad with the help of Jewish intermediaries became quite large is probably a fact — we even had newspaper advertisements here in Weimar, somewhat veiled, offering such services. It is indisputable that the Jews made huge donations for war welfare purposes — Mr. von Oppeln reverentially points to the column-long lists in the *Berliner Tageblatt* — but they also had it to spare, and anyone who knows Jewish charity finds nothing remarkable in this. Yes, Jews give money more easily than we Germans — first, because they have it, and second, because they always know exactly what for. But no statistics yet exist on the ratio of what is gained to what is given, and thus, for us ethnic Germans, Jewish charitable giving never truly impresses — except perhaps when it directly serves Jewish ethnonational interests. In that respect, we Germans could indeed learn a great deal from the Jews. But when Mr. von Oppeln ends with the sentimental question: “Should all that be forgotten and only the account of Jewish guilt remain?” — we smile and shake our heads. Mr. von Oppeln considers the accusation that Jews were heavily involved in the revolution to be the most substantial one, and he addresses it in relatively thorough fashion. The Jewish argument — that they were excessively disadvantaged under the old regime — he at least half rejects. Then again, he returns to the position that even in this matter one must not generalize or hold Jewry collectively responsible. People like Ballin and Rathenau, he says, were surely as unpleasantly surprised by the revolution as non-Jews. Well, Ballin surely realized that, as a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II, he was no longer viable in the German Republic — but Rathenau, if I recall correctly, had long since found his *modus vivendi* and had already written plenty about Kaiser Wilhelm II that would’ve rendered him impossible in any new monarchy. I don't follow Mr. von Oppeln in all his statements; if I did, I would go too far. He regards the claim that “the Jews made the revolution” as a gross exaggeration and argues that men like Scheidemann and Prince Max of Baden contributed to it just as much as any Jews. Maybe — but perhaps more as instruments than as instigators. That Jewish-influenced parliamentarians dismantled Bismarck’s state and that Jewish revolutionaries received Russian — i.e., Jewish-provided — funds is already documented. Mr. von Oppeln believes that Jews played no influential role in the English Revolution of 1642 or the French Revolutions of 1784 and 1830 (therefore, the phrase “the revolution as the work of Judah” wouldn’t straightaway apply). But in this, at least regarding the French revolutions, he is poorly informed: Mirabeau was close to the Jews, even to our Mendelssohn, and Jews — such as Abraham Furtado — were already involved in the Revolution of 1789. If one considers the Enlightenment and Freemasonry as drivers of the revolution, then the Jewish share becomes noticeably large — although perhaps the importance of Freemasonry in our circles is also often overestimated. That Jews joined in quite enthusiastically in the acquisition of French church property, and likely also of noble estates, can be seen, among other sources, in Graetz. It is well known that big bankers were heavily involved in the French July Revolution, and under Louis Philippe, there were already Jewish ministers like Achille Fould. Soon after appears Isaac Adolphe Crémieux, who, in 1848 during the February Revolution, persuaded Louis Philippe and the royal family to flee and then became a member ofthe provisional government himself. In 1860, he founded the Alliance Israélite Universelle and, following the fall of Napoleon III in 1870, became a member of the provisional government. Later, he served alongside the Jew Gambetta in Tours. So yes, connections between Jews and earlier revolutions do in fact exist. As for the question of whether Jews contributed to the preparation of the Russian and German revolutions, Mr. von Oppeln does not outright deny it. But he doesn’t want to throw all Jews into the same basket either. He cites a passage from Fritz Gerlich’s work *“Communism as a Doctrine of the Thousand-Year Reign”* (Munich, 1920), in which it states: > “Judaism always shows the characteristic trait of aligning itself with the most dominant intellectual trend of each national culture... Among peoples with strongly developed nationalism, the Jew therefore tends to be nationalist as well, as seen in England, France, Italy... But in Germany, the dominant idea among the masses is not nationalism, but internationally oriented philosophical chiliasm.” Well, might not that chiliasm perhaps have been brought into the German people through the Jews (Marx, Lassalle, etc.) — and with great success, as the German race had already significantly deteriorated under the forces of capitalism and industrialism? There is certainly some strong evidence in favor of this view from the ethnic-nationalist side. Moreover, the notion that Jews always have two irons in the fire cannot be so easily dismissed: after all, they aligned themselves with Wilhelm II and with Social Democracy — and today, they align with both the bourgeoisie and Social Democracy, within the latter both with the Majority Socialists and with the Independents. Mr. von Oppeln might respond: Yes, because they are human beings and should not all be judged by the same standard. — But I believe the Jew chooses his political position with more awareness than the German does. Fritz Gerlich sees in the Jews’ turn toward a “messianic religion of Marxist redemption” even the aftereffect of ancient messianic hopes; he is of the opinion that German Jewry still lives in a kind of ghetto, and he rejects improper motives behind its participation in the Marxist-communist movement. Well then, he should go take a long hard look at gentlemen like Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle — maybe that will bring him some clarity. — That Mr. von Oppeln also falls for an article by the Jew Elias Hurwicz in the *Deutsche Rundschau*, and that he actually takes seriously a supposed quote from the great Trotzky — “Go to your Jews and tell them that I am not a Jew and have nothing to do with them” — and further believes in the reports circulating in Jewish papers about pogroms in Russia allegedly carried out by Bolsheviks (Trotzky? Zinoviev?), well, that’s really a bit much. He concludes, “The fact shows once again that Bolshevik Jews, to use Trotzky’s own words, are no longer Jews—but have been absorbed into greater Russian Bolshevism.” — Come now — no German should be this naïve anymore. It would truly be enough just to listen to Zinoviev-Apfelbaum speak at Halle and look at him — to see the situation clearly. The general conclusions Mr. von Oppeln then draws from his line of argument are such that they are likely to provoke sharp resentment — not only among antisemites but in all national circles. He asserts that one should not combat the involvement of a segment of the Jewish population in communism by holding “the Jews” as such accountable and inciting against them — but rather by fighting the false doctrines of Marxism (is that even really communism?) and by strengthening one’s own ethnic nationalism — while at the same time breaking down the moral ghetto status of the Jews and giving them the opportunity, “as in the Entente countries,” to engage in national life. “Strong nationalism without antisemitic overtones,” he then continues, “that is the solution to the riddle” (which riddle, exactly?) “and also the central aim of this publication. What antisemitism attacks in Jewry is largely the product of its own hands.” So we dumb antisemites — I include myself here with pleasure — are the ones who have turned the Jews into what they are, and have driven them toward Social Democracy and Bolshevism?! That assertion is, to be honest, quite a bit much — and might tempt one toward a harsher tone. But I will restrain myself and simply request that a few questions be answered. Is it not known to you, Mr. von Oppeln, that the antisemitic movement was from the very start a defensive movement? If not, then kindly consult *Meyer's Encyclopedia*, which no one would accuse of having anti-Jewish sentiment. Look up the article “Antisemitism” (6th edition, Volume 1, p. 577) — where it explicitly states: > “In Germany, the Gründerzeit period and its disastrous consequences from 1875 onward initially gave rise to several writings... The agitation among the people began in 1878 with the Berlin court preacher Stoecker, who through the establishment of a Christian-Social Party opposed what he identified as the harmful effects of the Jewish population element.” Furthermore, I might ask: Mr. von Oppeln, do you really consider Heinrich von Treitschke — who belonged to the National Liberal Party — so limited in mind that he misjudged the danger of Jewish influence? And finally: can you name me just one antisemite who encouraged or fostered Mammonism — which is surely the worst of all Jewish plagues — in the Jew himself? I am convinced that you cannot answer all three questions in such a way that would support your own views. (Not least because the most extreme antisemites, like Ahlwardt and Count Pückler, were never taken seriously by the Jews — merely ridiculed.) And so I must, unfortunately, also declare your positive belief — that by eliminating what you call the “moral ghetto position” of the Jews, they could be spurred to national participation — to be rather illusory. The expression “moral ghetto position” is already an extreme exaggeration: after all, there are still Germans who have the courage to oppose the Jews, but they can no longer strip them of their social position — I need only point to the *Association of German Scholars and Artists* and to Berlin’s *German Society of 1914*, in which the Jews are practically dominant. Mr. von Oppeln speaks of strengthening one's own ethnic-national nationalism, of a strong nationalism without antisemitic overtones — but how does he imagine that? Does he really believe that the entry of Jews into the only truly national German party — or the channeling of Jewish money into it — would strengthen nationalism? Nationalism at its core is not party doctrine, but a worldview grounded in peoplehood. Can Jews even understand our sense of peoplehood? Can they truly work in service of it? I deny this — based on my very precise knowledge of both ethnic groups, the German and the Jewish, and I have probably already delivered the proof for my position. At least I am not so naïve as to fall for declarations by the *Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith*, as Mr. von Oppeln does. He cites one such statement from November 22, 1919, which first affirms that the members of the Central Association are “national-German” in orientation, but then claims that open dissociation from Bolshevism would be unworthy — because no such statement is demanded from the Catholic People’s Association or the Protestant League either. It concludes by declaring that the Russian and German Jews — “mostly overambitious scribblers” who had distinguished themselves in the Bolshevik movement — had, in fact, long since left Jewishness behind. Now, a writer on antisemitism ought to be sharp enough to see the usual mixing of race and religion here — and to call out to the men of the Central Association: > “You cannot leave Jewishness, dear sirs. Trotzky and Zinoviev, Cohn and Toller, remain yours!” And it fits with the rest that Mr. von Oppeln takes up the defense of the *Berliner Tageblatt* and related papers, arguing that these are not really “Jewish papers” either in their editorial line or their staff — citing well-known German contributors to the *Tageblatt*, and then praising other newspapers, democratically oriented and largely under Jewish leadership, as far more national. Mr. von Oppeln will likely not want me to speak too plainly on these matters. But the conclusion of this section — that one cannot hold Jews any more accountable for a handful of harmful Jewish figures than