In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion

that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if this
be so, how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the
United States just what they are
that is, American? For what we call
Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit
distilled.
But how comes it that American culture is so steeped in Jewishness?
The answer is simple through the early and universal admixture of
Jewish elements among the first settlers. We may picture the process of
colonizing somewhat after this fashion. A band of determined men and
women
let us say twenty families went forth into the wilds to
begin their life anew. Nineteen were equipped with plough and scythe,
ready to clear the forests and till the soil in order to earn their livelihood
as husbandmen. The twentieth family opened a store to provide their
companions with such necessaries of life as could not be obtained from
the soil, often no doubt hawking them at the very doors. Soon this twentieth
family made it its business to arrange for the distribution of the
products which the other nineteen won from the soil. It was they, too,
who were most likely in possession Of ready cash, and in case of need
could therefore be useful to the others by lending them money. Very
often the store had a kind of agricultural loan-bank as its adjunct, perhaps
also an office for the buying and selling of land. So through the
activity of the twentieth family the farmer in North America was from
the first kept in touch with the money and credit system of the Old
World. Hence the whole process of production and exchange was from
its inception along modern lines. Town methods made their way at once
into even the most distant villages. Accordingly, it may be said that
American economic life was from its very start impregnated with capitalism.
And who was responsible for this? The twentieth family in each
village. Need we add that this twentieth family was always a Jewish
one, which joined a party of settlers or soon sought them out in their
homesteads?
No form of organization
or tendency in economic life can be
particular year. It is all a matter
historian can do is to show that in
characteristic is found in business
all economic activities.

traced to a particular day or even a

of growth, and the most that the economic
any given period this or that
life, this or that organization dominates

It is a well-known fact that the specifically Roman conception of

indebtedness was a strictly personal one.43 The obligatio was a bond
between certain persons. Hence the creditor could not transfer his claim
to another, except under exceedingly difficult conditions. True, in later
Roman law the theory of delegation and transmission was interpreted
somewhat liberally, yet the root of the matter, the personal relationship,
remained unchanged.
In German law a contract was in the same way personal; nay, to a
certain extent it was even more so than in Roman law. The German
principle on the point was clear enough. The debtor was not obliged to
render payment to any one but the original creditor to whom he had
pledged his word. There could in no wise be transference of claim
as
was the case in English law until 1873. It was only when Roman law
obtained a strong hold on Germany that the transfer of claims first came
into vogue. The form it took was that of bearer bonds
the embodiment
of an impersonal credit relationship.
It is admitted that the legal notion underlying all bearer instruments
that the document represents a valid claim for each successive

holder
was not fully developed either in the ancient world or in the
Middle Ages.44 But the admission holds good only if Jewish law be left
out of account. Jewish law was certainly acquainted with the impersonal
credit relationship.45 Its underlying principle is that obligations
may be towards unnamed parties, that you may carry on business with
Messrs. Everybody. Let us examine this principle a little more closely.
Jewish law has no term for obligation: it knows only debt ( Chov )
and demand ( Tvia ). Each of these was regarded as distinct from the
other. That a demand and a promise were necessarily bound up with
some tangible object is proved by the symbolic act of acquisition. Consequently
there could be no legal obstacles to the transfer of demands or
to the making of agreements through agents. There was no necessity
therefore for the person against whom there was a claim to be defined,
the person in question became known by the acquisition of certain commodities.
In reality claims were against things and not against persons.
It was only to maintain a personal relationship that the possessor of the
things was made responsible. Hence the conception that just as an obligation
may refer to some specified individual, so also it may refer to
mankind as a whole. Therefore a transference of obligations is effected
merely by the transference of documents.
So much would appear from the view held by Auerbach. Jewish
law is more abstract in this respect than either Roman or German law.
Jewish law can conceive of an impersonal, standardized legal relationship.
It is not too much to assume that a credit instrument such as
the modern bearer bond should have grown out of such a legal system as
the Jewish. Accordingly, all the external reasons which I have adduced
in favour of my hypothesis are supported by what may be termed an
inner reason.
And what is this hypothesis? That instruments such as modern bearer
bonds owe thenorigin chiefly to Jewish influences.
Extracts from the interesting Introduction to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel s
Philosophy of History:
The peculiarly African character is difficult to comprehend, for the very reason
that in reference to it we must quite give up the principle which accompanies al
l our ideas
the category of Universality. ... Another characteristic fact in reference to th
e Negro is
slavery Bad as this may be, their lot in their own land is even worse, since a sl
avery
there quite as absolute exists; for it is the essential principle of slavery, th
at man has not
yet attained to a consciousness of his own freedom, and consequently sinks down
to a
mere Thing
an object of no value. Among the Negro moral sentiments are quite wea
k,
or more strictly speaking, non-existent. Parents sell their children and convers
ely
children their parents, as either has the opportunity
the polygamy of the Negroe
s has
frequently for its object the having of many children, to be sold, every one of
them, into
slavery. ... From these various traits it is manifest that want of self-control
distinguishes
the character of the Negroes. This condition is capable of no development or cul
ture, and
as we see them at this day, such have they always been. ... At this point we lea
ve Africa,
not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no mo
vement or

development to exhibit.

"I know that in the world there is certainly no other people who would be compla
ining as much about their lot, incessantly, after each step and word of theirs - about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think tha
t it is not they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least th
e stock exchanges and, therefore, politics, domestic affairs, the morality of th
e states..."
"...Now, how would it be if in Russia there were not three million Jews, but thr
ee million Russians and there were eighty million Jews -- well, into what would
they convert the Russians, and how would they treat them? Would they permit them
to acquire equal rights? Would they permit them to worship freely in their mids
t? Wouldn't they instead convert them into slaves? Worse than that: wouldn't the
y skin them altogether? Wouldn't they slaughter the Russians down to the last ma
n, to the point of complete extermination, as they used to do with alien peoples
in ancient times, during their ancient history?"
"...It is possible to outline, at least, certain symptoms of that status in stat
u -- be it only externally. These symptoms are: alienation and estrangement in t
he matter of religious dogma; the impossibility of fusion; belief that in the wo
rld there exists but one national entity, the Jew, while, even though other enti
ties exist, nevertheless, it should be presumed that they are, as it were, nonex
istent. 'Step out of the family of nations and form your own entity, and thou sh
alt know that henceforth thou art the only one before God; exterminate the rest,
or make slaves of them, or exploit them. Have faith in the conquest of the whol
e world; adhere to the belief that everything will submit to thee. Loathe strict
ly everything, and do not have intercourse with anyone in thy mode of living. An
d even when thou shalt lose the land, thy political individuality, even when tho
u shalt be dispersed all over the face of the earth, amidst all nations -- never
mind, have faith in everything that has been promised thee, once and forever; be
lieve that all this will come to pass, and meanwhile live, loathe, unite, and ex
ploit -- and wait, wait..."
"Thus, Jewry is thriving precisely there where the people are still ignorant, or
not free, or economically backward. It is there that Jewry has a champ libre! A
nd instead of raising, by its influence, the level of education, instead of incr
easing knowledge, generating economic fitness in the native population -- instea
d of this the Jew, where he has settled, has still more humiliated and debauched
the people; there humaneness was still more debased and the educational level f
ell still lower; there inescapable, inhuman misery, and with it despair, spread
still more disgustingly. Ask the native population in our border regions: What i
s propelling the Jew -- and hasd been propelling him for centuries? You will rec
eive a unanimous answer: mercilessness. 'He has been prompted so many centuries
only by pitilessness for us, only by the thirst for our sweat and blood.'"
"And, in truth, the whole activity of the Jews in these border regions of ours c
onsisted of rendering the native population as much as possible inescapably depe
ndent on them, taking advantage of the local laws. They have always managed to b
e on friendly terms with those upon whom the people were dependent... Point to a
ny other tribe from among Russian aliens which could rival the Jew in his dreadf
ul influence in this connection! You will find no such other tribe. In this resp
ect the Jew preserves all his originality as compared with other Russian aliens,
and, of course, the reason therefore is that status in statu of his, the spirit
which specifically breathes with pitilessness for everything that is not Jew, w
ith disrespect for any people and tribe, for every human creature who is not a J
ew..."
"Now, what if somehow, for some reason, our rural society should disintegrate, t

he society that is protecting our poor native peasant against so many ills; what
if, straightaway, the Jew and his whole kehillah should fall upon that liberate
d peasant -- so inexperienced, so incapable of resisting temptation, and who up
to this time has been guarded precisely by society? Why, of course, instantly th
is would be his end; his entire property, his whole strength, the very next day
would come under the power of the Jew, and there would ensue such an era as coul
d be compared not only with the era of serfdom but even with that of the Tartar
yoke."
On the other hand, it is certain and must be carefully observed that, if the Jew
s are
responsible for many a shocking historical development, for the fall of many her
oic,
powerful peoples, still greater is the responsibility of those Europeans who hav
e always
from the most base motives encouraged, protected and fostered the disintegrating
activity
of the Jews, and these are primarily the Princes and the nobility
and that too f
rom the
first century of our era to the present day. Open the history of any European na
tion you
like wherever the Jews are numerous and begin to realise their strength, you wil
l always
hear bitter complaints against them from the people, from the commercial classes
, from
the circles of the learned and the poets; everywhere and at all times it is the
Princes and
the nobility that protect them: the Princes because they need money for their wa
rs, the
nobility because they live extravagantly.
As regards the social influence in particular, I will only quote two wise and fa
ir
authorities, whose judgment cannot be suspected even by the Jews, namely, Herder
and
Goethe. The former says, A ministry, in which the Jew is supreme, a household, in
which
a Jew has the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a departme
nt or
commissariat, in which Jews do the principal business ... are Pontine marshes th
at cannot
be drained ; and he expresses the opinion that the presence of an indefinite numbe
r of
Jews is so pernicious to the welfare of a European State, that we dare not be inf
luenced
by general humane principles ; it is a national question,and it is the duty of eve
ry State to decide how many of this alien people can be tolerated
without injury to the true citizens? * Goethe goes still deeper: How should we let
the
Jews share in our highest culture, when they deny its origin and source? And he b
ecame
violently enraged when the law of 1823 permitted marriage between Jews and Germans
,
prophesying the worst and most frightful consequences, particularly the undermining
of
all moral feelings and declaring that the bribery of the all-powerful Rothschild mu
st be
the cause of this folly.
Goethe and Herder have exactly the same opinion as the gr
eat

Hohenstauffen, the great Hohenzollern, and all great men before and after them:
without
superstitiously reproaching the Jews with their peculiar individuality, they con
sider them
an actual danger to our civilisation and our culture; they would not give them a
n active
part in our life. We cannot proceed with our discussion and simply pass over suc
h a
consensus ingeniorum. For to these well-weighed, serious judgments derived from
the
fulness of experience and the insight of the greatest intellects we have nothing
to oppose
but the empty phrases of the droits de l homme a parliamentary clap-trap.
I have intentionally limited my quotations. But I cannot refrain from defending
in a
note the great Voltaire against the almost established myth that he was altogeth
er
favourable and as superficial in his humanitarian judgment of the influence of t
he Jews
upon our culture, as is the modern fashion. Even Jews of such broad culture as J
ames
Darmesteter (Peuple Juif, 2e d. p. 17) print the name Voltaire in thick type and
represent
him as one of the intellectual originators of their emancipation. The opposite i
s true; more
than once Voltaire advises that the Jews be sent back to Palestine. Voltaire is
one of the
authors whom I know best, because I prefer interesting books to wearisome ones,
and I
think I could easily collect a hundred quotations of a most aggressive nature ag
ainst the
Jews. In the essay of the Dictionnaire Philosophique (end of Section 1) he says:
Vous ne
trouverez dans les Juifs qu un peuple ignorant et barbare, qui joint depuis longte
mps la
plus sordide avarice la plus dtestable superstition et la plus invincible haine p
our tous les peuples qui les tolrent et qui les enrichissent. In Dieu et les homme
s (chap. x.)
he calls the Jews La plus hassable et la plus honteuse des petites nations. Enough
has
surely been said to make his attitude clear! But this opinion should have all th
e more
force, since Voltaire himself in many long treatises has made a thorough study o
f Jewish
history and the Jewish character (so thorough that he who has been decried as a
superficial dilettante is occasionally quoted to-day by a scholar of the first ran
k like
Wellhausen). And so it is noteworthy when he writes (Essai sur les Moeurs, chap.
xlii.):
La nation juive ose taler une haine irrconciliable contre toutes les nations, elle
se
rvolte contre tous ses matres; toujours superstitieuse, toujours avide du bien d aut
rui,
toujours barbare rampante dans le malheur, et insolente dans la prosprit. His judgm
ent
of their mental qualities is brief and apodeictic, Les Juifs n ont jamais rien inve
nt (La
dfense de mon oncle, chap. vii.), and in the Essai sur les Moeurs he shows in sev

eral
chapters that the Jews had always learned from other nations but had never taugh
t others
anything; even their music, which is generally praised, Voltaire cannot endure: R
etournez
en Jude le plus tt que vous pourrez ... vous y excuteriez plaisir dans votre dtestab
le
jargon votre dtestable musique (6me lettre du Dictionnaire). He explains elsewhere
this
remarkable mental sterility of the Jews by their inordinate lust for money; L argen
t fut
l objet de leur conduite dans tous les temps (Dieu et les hommes, xxix.). Voltaire
scoffs at the Jews in a hundred places; for
instance, in Zadig (chap. x.), where the Jew utters a solemn prayer of thankfuln
ess to God
for a successful piece of fraud; the most biting satire against the Jews that ex
ists is
beyond doubt the treatise Un Chrtien contre six Juifs. And yet in all these utter
ances
there was a certain reserve, as they were destined for publication; on the other
hand, in a
letter to the Chevalier de Lisle on December 15, 1773 (that is, at the end of hi
s life, not in
the heat of youth), he could speak his opinion freely: Que ces dprpuc d Isral se disent
de la tribu de Naphthali ou d Issachar, cela est fort peu important; ils n en sont p
as moins
les plus grand gueux qui aient jamais souill la face du globe. Evidently this fier
y
Frenchman had just the same to say of the Jews as any fanatical Bishop; he diffe
rs at
most in the addition which he occasionally makes to his bitterest attacks, Il ne
faut
pourtant pas les brler. There is a further difference in the fact that it is a hum
ane,
tolerant and learned man that utters this very sharp judgment. But how, in a man
of such
open mind, can we explain the existence of a view so pitilessly one-sided and so
ruthlessly intolerant, a view which in its utter lack of moderation compares ver
y
unfavourably with the words of the German sages quoted above? Our age could lear
n
much here, if it wished to! For we see that the Gallic love of equality and free
dom is not
based upon love of justice nor respect for the individual; and we may draw the f
urther
conclusion; understanding is not got from principles, and universal humanity doe
s not
ensure the possibility of living together in dignified peace, it is only the fra
nk recognition
of what separates our own kind and our own interests from those of others that c
an make
us just towards an alien nature and alien interests.
Government loans, government bonds,
railroad bonds, war bonds, mortgages,
covered-bond obligations -- in short
loan-instruments of every kind have in a
manner ensnared our entire economic
life, so that henceforth all the peoples of

the world wriggle helplessly in the

golden webs. For the sake of the
interest-principle, in keeping with a
thoroughly mad political delusion that
every kind of possession carries an
entitlement to earnings, we have
submitted to enslavement to interest on
money. Not a single real, valid moral
reason can be given as to why mere
possession of money should bring an
entitlement to perpetual interestpayments.
Never has Mammonism been prepared
in such a world-encompassing manner to
begin world-domination. Never yet has
it placed in its service all baseness, lust
for power, lust for revenge, greed, envy,
and falsehood in such a cleverly
concealed and yet brutally pushy manner
as now. The World War is at its inmost
core one of the biggest decisions in the
evolutionary process of humanity in the
struggle to decide whether in the future
the Mammonistic-materialistic
worldview or the socialistic-aristocratic
worldview should determine the fate of
the world.
On the surface, the Mammonistic AngloAmerican coalition has without a doubt
been initially victorious. As a reaction
against it, Bolshevism arose in the East,
and if one wishes to see a great idea in
Bolshevism, it is without a doubt the
position diametrically opposed to the
Mammonistic worldview. The methods
that Bolshevism seeks to employ for this
however are the botched cures of a Dr.
Eisenbarth. They are the attempt to help
someone sick from internal poisoning
with a scalpel, by amputating his head,
arm, and legs.
It should be most emphatically stressed
that precisely our contemporary culture,
precisely the internationality of
economic relations, make the interestprinciple
so murderous. The foregoing
historical retrospective should also not
be regarded as providing an analogy for
the circumstances of today. When the
Babylonians overcame the Assyrians,
the Romans the Carthaginians, the
Germans the Romans, then there was no
continuation of enslavement to interest;
there were no international worldpowers.
The wars were also not
financed through borrowing but with
treasures accumulated during peace.

David Hume gives a very nice overview

of this in his Essay on Public Credit.
Only the modern age with its continuity
of ownership and its international law
allows loan-capital to escalate into
infinity. The penny that was invested at
interest at the time of the birth of Christ
exists no more, because since then all
rights of ownership have had to give
way to violence several times; by
contrast the penny that old Rothschild
invested at interest still exists, and will
exist, if there is international law, for all
eternity.
In addition it ought to be considered that
broad stretches of the Earth have only in
the modern age gone over from natural
economy to money-economy. It is quite
especially important in this connection
that only in the middle of the 19th century
were all restrictions on charging
interest, and likewise all prohibitions on
interest, abolished: thus England in the
year 1854, Denmark 1856, Belgium
1865, Austria 1868.
Thus today's concept of interest as
inseparable from the possession of
money is not much older than half a
century. But precisely this interestconcept
has for the first time caused
money to turn into the demonic power of
such universal coercion that we have
come to know.
The incipient and then ever-increasing
indebtedness of states to capitalists
likewise dates only to the middle of the
19th century. Only since that time do we
see the state degraded from being the
trustee of the folk-community into being
the trustee of capitalistic interests. This
development has reached its highpoint in
war-bonds, which we encounter in all
lands, which exclusively, as we have
recognized, serve only Mammonistic
interests, which should be crowned with
the gigantic credit-edifice of a world-loan.
These brief retrospectives should make
it easier for us finally to break away
from the supposition that unto loancapital
must be lent the supramundane
power to grow eternally and
interminably from itself. Gifted with a
terrifying potential for sucking dry. We
must break away from the notion that
loan-capital, unaffected by worldly
deeds and misdeeds, should be able to

sit enthroned above the clouds,

unaffected by transitoriness, unaffected
by the forces of destruction, unaffected
by the shots of our giant guns. For,
should even houses and huts, railroads
and bridges shattered by shells sink into
dust and ash, the mortgages will still
exist; the railroad bonds and public
certificates of indebtedness are not
thereby erased. Should villages and
cities, entire provinces fall victim to the
insane destruction of war, what is the
result? New certificates of indebtedness
are what it means. With eyes flashing
greed the Gold International enthroned
above the clouds watches the mad rush
of humanity. And not long distant is the
time when all humanity finally shall
serve only as interest-slaves to
Mammonism.