Franklin Scandal Omaha

pictorial index

sitemap home



9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust revision & ISIS interactive spreadsheet

9/11, JFK, Holocaust ISIS Timeline



Mein Kamf

Murphy Translation











Publishers since 1812



This translation of the unexpurgated edition of "Mein Kampf '
was first published on March 21st, 1939










































1) In order to understand the reference here, and similar references in later
portions of Mein Kampf, the following must be borne in mind:

From 1792 to 1814 the French Revolutionary Armies overran Germany. In 1800
Bavaria shared in the Austrian defeat at Hohenlinden and the French occupied
Munich. In 1805 the Bavarian Elector was made King of Bavaria by Napoleon
and stipulated to back up Napoleon in all his wars with a force of 30,000 men.
Thus Bavaria became the absolute vassal of the French. This was 'The Time of
Germany's Deepest Humiliation', Which is referred to again and again by

In 1806 a pamphlet entitled 'Germany's Deepest Humiliation' was published in
South Germany. Amnng those who helped to circulate the pamphlet was the
Niirnberg bookseller, Johannes Philipp Palm. He was denounced to the French
by a Bavarian police agent. At his trial he refused to disclose the name of the
author. By Napoleon's orders, he was shot at Braunau-on-the-Inn on August
26th, 1806. A monument erected to him on the site of the execution was one of
the first public objects that made an impression on Hitler as a little boy.
Leo Schlageter's case was in many respects parallel to that of Johannes Palm.
Schlageter was a German theological student who volunteered for service in
1914. He became an artillery officer and won the Iron Cross of both classes.
When the French occupied the Ruhr in 1923 Schlageter helped to organize the
passive resistance on the German side. He and his companions blew up a
railway bridge for the purpose of making the transport of coal to France more

Those who took part in the affair were denounced to the French by a German
informer. Schlageter took the whole responsibility on his own shoulders and was
condemned to death, his companions being sentenced to various terms of
imprisonment and penal servitude by the French Court. Schlageter refused to
disclose the identity of those who issued the order to blow up the railway bridge
and he would not plead for mercy before a French Court. He was shot by a
French firing-squad on May 26th, 1923. Severing was at that time German
Minister of the Interior. It is said that representations were made, to him on
Schlageter's behalf and that he refused to interfere.

Schlageter has become the chief martyr of the German resistance to the French
occupation of the Ruhr and also one of the great heroes of the National Socialist
Movement. He had joined the Movement at a very early stage, his card of
membership bearing the number 61 .

2) Non-classical secondary school. The Lyceum and Gymnasium were classical
or semiclassical secondary schools.

3) See Translator's Introduction.

4) When Francis II had laid down his title as Emperor of the Holy Roman
Empire of the German Nation, which he did at the command of Napoleon, the


Crown and Mace, as the Imperial Insignia, were kept in Vienna. After the
German Empire was refounded, in 1871, under William I, there were many
demands to have the Insignia transferred to Berlin. But these went unheeded.
Hitler had them brought to Germany after the Austrian Anschluss and displayed
at Nuremberg during the Party Congress in September 1938.

5) The Phaecians were a legendary people, mentioned in Homer's Odyssey.
They were supposed to live on some unknown island in the Eastern
Mediterranean, sometimes suggested to be Corcyra, the modem Corfu. They
loved good living more than work, and so the name Phaecian has come to be a
synonym for parasite.

6) Spottgeburt von Dreck und Feuer. This is the epithet that Faust hurls at
Mephistopheles as the latter intrudes on the conversation between Faust and
Martha in the garden: Mephistopheles: Thou, full of sensual, super-sensual
desire, A girl by the nose is leading thee. Faust: Abortion, thou of filth and fire.

7) Herodotus (Book VII, 213-218) tells the story of how a Greek traitor,
Ephialtes, helped the Persian invaders at the Battle of Thermopylae (480 B.C.)
When the Persian King, Xerxes, had begun to despair of being able to break
through the Greek defence, Ephialtes came to him and, on being promised a
definite payment, told the King of a pathway over the shoulder of the mountain
to the Greek end of the Pass. The bargain being clinched, Ephialtes led a
detachment of the Persian troops under General Hydarnes over the mountain
pathway. Thus taken in the rear, the Greek defenders, under Leonidas, King of
Sparta, had to fight in two opposite directions within the narrow pass. Terrible
slaughter ensued and Leonidas fell in the thick of the fighting.

The bravery of Leonidas and the treason of Ephialtes impressed Hitler, as it does
almost every schoolboy. The incident is referred to again in Mein Kampf (Chap.
VIII, Vol. I), where Hitler compares the German troops that fell in France and
Flanders to the Greeks at Thermopylae, the treachery of Ephialtes being
suggested as the prototype of the defeatist policy of the German politicians
towards the end of the Great War.

8) German Austria was the East Mark on the South and East Prussia was the
East Mark on the North.

9) Carlyle explains the epithet thus: "First then, let no one from the title
Gehoernte (Homed, Behorned), fancy that our brave Siegfried, who was the
loveliest as well as the bravest of men, was actually cornuted, and had horns on
his brow, though like Michael Angelo's Moses; or even that his skin, to which
the epithet Behorned refers, was hard like a crocodile's, and not softer than the
softest shamey, for the truth is, his Homedness means only an Invulnerability,
like that of Achilles. . . "

10) Lines quoted from the Song of the Curassiers in Schiller's Wallenstein.

11) The Second Infantry Bavarian Regiment, in which Hitler served as a


12) Schwabing is the artistic quarter in Munich where artists have their studios
and Htterateurs, especially of the Bohemian class, foregather.

13) Here again we have the defenders of Thermopyl^ recalled as the prototype
of German valour in the Great War. Hitler's quotation is a German variant of the
couplet inscribed on the monument erected at Thermopyl^ to the memory of
Leonidas and his Spartan soldiers who fell defending the Pass. As given by
Herodotus, who claims that he saw the inscription himself, the original text may
be literally translated thus:

Go, tell the Spartans, thou who passeth by.

That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

14)Swedish Chancellor who took over the reins of Government after the death

of Gustavus Adolphus

15) When Mephistopheles first appears to Faust, in the latter' s study, Faust
inquires: "What is thy name?" To which Mephistopheles replies: "A part of the
Power which always wills the Bad and always works the Good." And when
Faust asks him what is meant by this riddle and why he should call himself 'a
part,' the gist of Mephistopheles' reply is that he is the Spirit of Negation and
exists through opposition to the positive Truth and Order and Beauty which
proceed from the never-ending creative energy of the Deity. In the Prologue to
Faust the Lord declares that man's active nature would grow sluggish in
working the good and that therefore he has to be aroused by the Spirit of
Opposition. This Spirit wills the Bad, but of itself it can do nothing positive, and
by its opposition always works the opposite of what it wills.

16) The last and most famous of the medieval alchemists. He was born at Basle
about the year 1490 and died at Salzburg in 1541. He taught that all metals could
be transmuted through the action of one primary element common to them all.
This element he called Alcahest. If it could be found it would prove to be at
once the philosopher's stone, the universal medicine and the irresistible solvent.
There are many aspects of his teaching which are now looked upon as by no
means so fantastic as they were considered in his own time.

17) The Battle of Leipzig (1813), where the Germans inflicted an overwhelming
defeat on Napoleon, was the decisive event which put an end to the French
occupation of Germany.

The occupation had lasted about twenty years. After the Great War, and the
partial occupation of Germany once again by French forces, the Germans used
to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig as a symbol of their

1 8) The flag of the German Empire, founded in 1871, was Black- White-Red.
This was discarded in 1918 and Black-Red-Gold was chosen as the flag of the
German Republic founded at Weimar in 1919. The flag designed by Hitler - red
with a white disc in the centre, bearing the black swastika - is now the national


19) After the debacle of 1918 several semi-military associations were formed by
demobilized officers who had fought at the Front. These were semi-clandestine
associations and were known as Freikorps (Volunteer corps). Their principal
purpose was to act as rallying centres for the old nationalist elements.

20) Schiller, who wrote the famous drama of William Tell.

21) The reference here is to those who gave information to the Allied
Commissions about hidden stores of arms in Germany.

22) Before 1918 Germany was a federal Empire, composed of twenty-five
federal states.

23) Probably the author has two separate incidents in mind. The first happened
in 390 B.C., when, as the victorious Gauls descended on Rome, the Senators
ordered their ivory chairs to be placed in the Forum before the Temples of the
Gods. There, clad in their robes of state, they awaited the invader, hoping to
save the city by sacrificing themselves. This noble gesture failed for the time
being; but it had an inspiring influence on subsequent generations. The second
incident, which has more historical authenticity, occurred after the Roman defeat
at Cannae in 216 B.C. On that occasion Varro, the Roman commander, who,
though in great part responsible for the disaster, made an effort to carry on the
struggle, was, on his return to Rome, met by the citizens of all ranks and
publicly thanked because he had not despaired of the Republic. The
consequence was that the Republic refused to make peace with the victorious




On April 1st, 1924, 1 began to serve my sentence of detention in the Fortress of

Landsberg am Lech, following the verdict of the Munich People's Court of that


After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for the first time to begin

a work which many had asked for and which I myself felt would be profitable

for the Movement. So I decided to devote two volumes to a description not only

of the aims of our Movement but also of its development. There is more to be

learned from this than from any purely doctrinaire treatise.

This has also given me the opportunity of describing my own development in so

far as such a description is necessary to the understanding of the first as well as

the second volume and to destroy the legendary fabrications which the Jewish

Press have circulated about me.

In this work I turn not to strangers but to those followers of the Movement

whose hearts belong to it and who wish to study it more profoundly. I know that

fewer people are won over by the written word than by the spoken word and that

every great movement on this earth owes its growth to great speakers and not to

great writers.

Nevertheless, in order to produce more equality and uniformity in the defence of

any doctrine, its fundamental principles must be committed to writing. May

these two volumes therefore serve as the building stones which I contribute to

the joint work.

The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech.

At half-past twelve in the afternoon of November 9th, 1923, those whose names
are given below fell in front of the Feldhermhalle and in the forecourt of the
former War Ministry in Munich for their loyal faith in the resurrection of their

Alfarth, Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901

Bauriedl, Andreas, Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879

Casella, Theodor, Bank Official, bom August 8th, 1900

Ehrlich, Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th, 1894

Faust, Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901

Hechenberger, Anton, Locksmith, bom September 28th, 1902

Koemer, Oskar, Merchant, born January 4th, 1875

Kuhn, Karl, Head Waiter, bom July 25th, 1897

Laforce, Karl, Student of Engineering, born October 28th, 1904

Neubauer, Kurt, Waiter, bom March 27th, 1899


Pape, Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904

Pfordten, Theodor von der. Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court,

bom May 14th, 1873

Rickmers, Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, bom May 7th, 1881

Scheubner-Richter, Max Erwin von. Dr. of Engineering, bom January 9th,


Stransky, Lorenz Ritter von. Engineer, bom March 14th, 1899

Wolf, Wilhelm, Merchant, bom October 19th, 1898

So-called national officials refused to allow the dead heroes a common burial.

So 1 dedicate the first volume of this work to them as a common memorial, that

the memory of those martyrs may be a permanent source of light for the

followers of our Movement.

The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech,

October 16th, 1924



In placing before the reader this unabridged translation of Adolf Hitler's book,
Mein Kampf, I feel it my duty to call attention to certain historical facts which
must be borne in mind if the reader would form a fair judgment of what is
written in this extraordinary work.

The first volume of Mein Kampf was written while the author was imprisoned in
a Bavarian fortress. How did he get there and why? The answer to that question
is important, because the book deals with the events which brought the author
into this plight and because he wrote under the emotional stress caused by the
historical happenings of the time. It was the hour of Germany's deepest
humiliation, somewhat parallel to that of a little over a century before, when
Napoleon had dismembered the old German Empire and French soldiers
occupied almost the whole of Germany.

In the beginning of 1923 the French invaded Germany, occupied the Ruhr
district and seized several German towns in the Rhineland. This was a flagrant
breach of international law and was protested against by every section of British
political opinion at that time. The Germans could not effectively defend
themselves, as they had been already disarmed under the provisions of the
Versailles Treaty. To make the situation more fraught with disaster for
Germany, and therefore more appalling in its prospect, the French carried on an
intensive propaganda for the separation of the Rhineland from the German
Republic and the establishment of an independent Rhenania. Money was poured
out lavishly to bribe agitators to carry on this work, and some of the most
insidious elements of the German population became active in the pay of the
invader. At the same time a vigorous movement was being carried on in Bavaria
for the secession of that country and the establishment of an independent
Catholic monarchy there, under vassalage to France, as Napoleon had done
when he made Maximilian the first King of Bavaria in 1805.
The separatist movement in the Rhineland went so far that some leading German
politicians came out in favour of it, suggesting that if the Rhineland were thus
ceded it might be possible for the German Republic to strike a bargain with the
French in regard to Reparations. But in Bavaria the movement went even
farther. And it was more far-reaching in its implications; for, if an independent
Catholic monarchy could be set up in Bavaria, the next move would have been a
union with Catholic German-Austria, possibly under a Habsburg King. Thus a
Catholic bloc would have been created which would extend from the Rhineland
through Bavaria and Austria into the Danube Valley and would have been at
least under the moral and military, if not the full political, hegemony of France.
The dream seems fantastic now, but it was considered quite a practical thing in
those fantastic times. The effect of putting such a plan into action would have
meant the complete dismemberment of Germany; and that is what French


diplomacy aimed at. Of course such an aim no longer exists. And I should not
recall what must now seem "old, unhappy, far-off things" to the modem
generation, were it not that they were very near and actual at the time Mein
Kampf was written and were more unhappy then than we can even imagine now.
By the autumn of 1923 the separatist movement in Bavaria was on the point of
becoming an accomplished fact. General von Lossow, the Bavarian chief of the
Reichswehr no longer took orders from Berlin. The flag of the German Republic
was rarely to be seen. Finally, the Bavarian Prime Minister decided to proclaim
an independent Bavaria and its secession from the German Republic. This was
to have taken place on the eve of the Fifth Anniversary of the establishment of
the German Republic (November 9th, 1918.)

Hitler staged a counter-stroke. For several days he had been mobilizing his
storm battalions in the neighbourhood of Munich, intending to make a national
demonstration and hoping that the Reichswehr would stand by him to prevent
secession. Ludendorff was with him. And he thought that the prestige of the
great German Commander in the World War would be sufficient to win the
allegiance of the professional army.

A meeting had been announced to take place in the Biirgerbrau Keller on the
night of November 8th. The Bavarian patriotic societies were gathered there,
and the Prime Minister, Dr. von Kahr, started to read his official
pronunciamento, which practically amounted to a proclamation of Bavarian
independence and secession from the Republic. While von Kahr was speaking
Hitler entered the hall, followed by Ludendorff. And the meeting was broken up.
Next day the Nazi battalions took the street for the purpose of making a mass
demonstration in favour of national union. They marched in massed formation,
led by Hitler and Ludendorff. As they reached one of the central squares of the
city the army opened fire on them. Sixteen of the marchers were instantly killed,
and two died of their wounds in the local barracks of the Reichswehr. Several
others were wounded also. Hitler fell on the pavement and broke a collar-bone.
Ludendorff marched straight up to the soldiers who were firing from the
barricade, but not a man dared draw a trigger on his old Commander.
Hitler was arrested with several of his comrades and imprisoned in the fortress
of Landsberg on the River Lech. On February 26th, 1924, he was brought to trial
before the Volksgericht, or People's Court in Munich. He was sentenced to
detention in a fortress for five years. With several companions, who had been
also sentenced to various periods of imprisonment, he returned to Landsberg am
Lech and remained there until the 20th of the following December, when he was
released. In all he spent about thirteen months in prison. It was during this
period that he wrote the first volume of Mein Kampf.

If we bear all this in mind we can account for the emotional stress under which
Mein Kampf was written. Hitler was naturally incensed against the Bavarian
government authorities, against the footling patriotic societies who were pawns
in the French game, though often unconsciously so, and of course against the




French. That he should write harshly of the French was only natural in the
circumstances. At that time there was no exaggeration whatsoever in calling
France the implacable and mortal enemy of Germany. Such language was being
used by even the pacifists themselves, not only in Germany but abroad. And
even though the second volume of Mein Kampf was written after Hitler's
release from prison and was published after the French had left the Ruhr, the
tramp of the invading armies still echoed in German ears, and the terrible
ravages that had been wrought in the industrial and financial life of Germany, as
a consequence of the French invasion, had plunged the country into a state of
social and economic chaos. In France itself the franc fell to fifty per cent of its
previous value. Indeed, the whole of Europe had been brought to the brink of
ruin, following the French invasion of the Ruhr and Rhineland.
But, as those things belong to the limbo of a dead past that nobody wishes to
have remembered now, it is often asked: Why doesn't Hitler revise Mein
Kampf? The answer, as I think, which would immediately come into the mind of
an impartial critic is that Mein Kampf is an historical document which bears the
imprint of its own time. To revise it would involve taking it out of its historical
context. Moreover Hitler has declared that his acts and public statements
constitute a partial revision of his book and are to be taken as such. This refers
especially to the statements in Mein Kampf regarding France and those German
kinsfolk that have not yet been incorporated in the Reich. On behalf of Germany
he has definitely acknowledged the German portion of South Tyrol as
permanently belonging to Italy and, in regard to France, he has again and again
declared that no grounds now exist for a conflict of political interests between
Germany and France and that Germany has no territorial claims against France.
Finally, I may note here that Hitler has also declared that, as he was only a
political leader and not yet a statesman in a position of official responsibility,
when he wrote this book, what he stated in Mein Kampf does not implicate him
as Chancellor of the Reich.

I now come to some references in the text which are frequently recurring and
which may not always be clear to every reader. For instance. Hitler speaks
indiscriminately of the German Reich. Sometimes he means to refer to the first
Reich, or Empire, and sometimes to the German Empire as founded under
William I in 1871. Incidentally the regime which he inaugurated in 1933 is
generally known as the Third Reich, though this expression is not used in Mein
Kampf. Hitler also speaks of the Austrian Reich and the East Mark, without
always explicitly distinguishing between the Habsburg Empire and Austria
proper. If the reader will bear the following historical outline in mind, he will
understand the references as they occur.

The word Reich, which is a German form of the Latin word Regnum, does not
mean Kingdom or Empire or Republic. It is a sort of basic word that may apply
to any form of Constitution. Perhaps our word. Realm, would be the best
translation, though the word Empire can be used when the Reich was actually an




Empire. The forerunner of the first German Empire was the Holy Roman
Empire which Charlemagne founded in A.D. 800. Charlemagne was King of the
Franks, a group of Germanic tribes that subsequently became Romanized. In the
tenth century Charlemagne's Empire passed into German hands when Otto I
(936-973) became Emperor. As the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation,
its formal appellation, it continued to exist under German Emperors until
Napoleon overran and dismembered Germany during the first decade of the last
century. On August 6th, 1806, the last Emperor, Francis II, formally resigned
the German crown. In the following October Napoleon entered Berlin in
triumph, after the Battle of Jena.

After the fall of Napoleon a movement set in for the reunion of the German
states in one Empire. But the first decisive step towards that end was the
foundation of the Second German Empire in 1871, after the Franco-Prussian
War. This Empire, however, did not include the German lands which remained
under the Habsburg Crown. These were known as German Austria. It was
Bismarck's dream to unite German Austria with the German Empire; but it
remained only a dream until Hitler turned it into a reality in 1938. It is well to
bear that point in mind, because this dream of reuniting all the German states in
one Reich has been a dominant feature of German patriotism and statesmanship
for over a century and has been one of Hitler's ideals since his childhood.
In Mein Kampf Hitler often speaks of the East Mark. This East Mark - i.e.
eastern frontier land - was founded by Charlemagne as the eastern bulwark of
the Empire. It was inhabited principally by Germano-Celtic tribes called
Bajuvari and stood for centuries as the firm bulwark of Western Christendom
against invasion from the East, especially against the Turks. Geographically it
was almost identical with German Austria.

There are a few points more that I wish to mention in this introductory note. For
instance, I have let the word Weltanschhauung stand in its original form very
often. We have no one English word to convey the same meaning as the German
word, and it would have burdened the text too much if I were to use a
circumlocution each time the word occurs. Weltanschhauung literally means
"Outlook-on-the World". But as generally used in German this outlook on the
world means a whole system of ideas associated together in an organic unity -
ideas of human life, human values, cultural and religious ideas, politics,
economics, etc., in fact a totalitarian view of human existence. Thus Christianity
could be called a Weltanschhauung, and Mohammedanism could be called a
Weltanschhauung, and Socialism could be called a Weltanschhauung, especially
as preached in Russia. National Socialism claims definitely to be a

Another word I have often left standing in the original is volkisch. The basic
word here is Volk, which is sometimes translated as People; but the German
word, Volk, means the whole body of the people without any distinction of class
or caste. It is a primary word also that suggests what might be called the basic




national stock. Now, after the defeat in 1918, the downfall of the Monarchy and
the destruction of the aristocracy and the upper classes, the concept of Das Volk
came into prominence as the unifying co-efficient which would embrace the
whole German people. Hence the large number of volkisch societies that arose
after the war and hence also the National Socialist concept of unification which
is expressed by the word Volksgemeinschaft, or folk community. This is used in
contradistinction to the Socialist concept of the nation as being divided into
classes. Hitler's ideal is the Volkischer Staat, which I have translated as the
People's State.

Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in
English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name
given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but
it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic
sections of the German people.
Abbots Langley, February, 1939





"What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of
the Jews in certain branches of Hfe, into the mystery of which I penetrated Httle
by Httle. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in
cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the
probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like
a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden
Hght." (p.42)

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the
handiwork of the Lord." (p.46)

"The yoke of slavery is and always will remain the most unpleasant experience
that mankind can endure. Do the Schwabing decadents look upon Germany's lot
to-day as 'aesthetic'? Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the
Jews, because they are the modem inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very
existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation."

"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and
increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the
maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the
Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it
by the Creator." (p. 125)

"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others
how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence
founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas
in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that
mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which
is profoundly and exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew "The Great
Master of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail."

"In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily
towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.




The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the
Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged. Man's effort to build up
something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with
those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By
acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin."

"It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitude threatens to disappear
that we notice a weakening of this force which is a necessary constituent in the
founding and maintenance of the community and is thereby a necessary
condition of civilization. As soon as the spirit of egotism begins to prevail
among a people then the bonds of the social order break and man, by seeking his
own personal happiness, veritably tumbles out of heaven and falls into hell."

"In times of distress a wave of public anger has usually arisen against the Jew;
the masses have taken the law into their own hands; they have seized Jewish
property and mined the Jew in their urge to protect themselves against what they
consider to be a scourge of God. Having come to know the Jew intimately
through the course of centuries, in times of distress they looked upon his
presence among them as a public danger comparable only to the plague."

"He will stop at nothing. His utterly low-down conduct is so appalling that one
really cannot be surprised if in the imagination of our people the Jew is pictured
as the incarnation of Satan and the symbol of evil. The ignorance of the broad
masses as regards the inner character of the Jew, and the lack of instinct and
insight that our upper classes display, are some of the reasons which explain
how it is that so many people fall an easy prey to the systematic campaign of
falsehood which the Jew carries on. While the upper classes, with their innate
cowardliness, turn away from anyone whom the Jew thus attacks with lies and
calumny, the common people are credulous of everything, whether because of
their ignorance or their simple-mindedness. Government authorities wrap
themselves up in a robe of silence, but more frequently they persecute the
victims of Jewish attacks in order to stop the campaign in the Jewish Press."

"How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The
fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even
though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping
with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as
the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they
look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the




Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-
raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To
balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the Zulus and
the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church. While our
European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to become the victims of
moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes
missionary stations for negroes. Finally, sound and healthy - though primitive
and backward - people will be transformed, under the name of our 'higher
civilization', into a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels." (p. 226)

"Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as a result of
being contaminated with Jewish blood. Bear in mind the fact that this poisonous
contamination can be eliminated from the national body only after centuries, or
perhaps never. Think further of how the process of racial decomposition is
debasing and in some cases even destroying the fundamental Aryan qualities of
our German people, so that our cultural creativeness as a nation is gradually
becoming impotent and we are running the danger, at least in our great cities, of
falling to the level where Southern Italy is to-day. This pestilential adulteration
of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no account, is
being systematically practised by the Jew to-day. Systematically these negroid
parasites in our national body corrupt our innocent fair-haired girls and thus
destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world.
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation
and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a
gift of God's grace. For the future of the world, however, it does not matter
which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it
does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two
Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan
humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the right
kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own
denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God
merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does
not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that
men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their
faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and
God's Will." (p.310)





It has turned out fortunate for me to-day that destiny appointed Braunau-on-the-
Inn to be my birthplace. For that Httle town is situated just on the frontier
between those two States the reunion of which seems, at least to us of the
younger generation, a task to which we should devote our lives and in the
pursuit of which every possible means should be employed.
German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland. And not
indeed on any grounds of economic calculation whatsoever. No, no. Even if the
union were a matter of economic indifference, and even if it were to be
disadvantageous from the economic standpoint, still it ought to take place.
People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will
have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their
children together in the one State. When the territory of the Reich embraces all
the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can
the moral right arise, from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory.
The plough is then the sword; and the tears of war will produce the daily bread
for the generations to come.

And so this little frontier town appeared to me as the symbol of a great task. But
in another regard also it points to a lesson that is applicable to our day. Over a
hundred years ago this sequestered spot was the scene of a tragic calamity which
affected the whole German nation and will be remembered for ever, at least in
the annals of German history. At the time of our Fatherland's deepest
humiliation a bookseller, Johannes Palm, uncompromising nationalist and
enemy of the French, was put to death here because he had the misfortune to
have loved Germany well. He obstinately refused to disclose the names of his
associates, or rather the principals who were chiefly responsible for the affair.
Just as it happened with Leo Schlageter. The former, like the latter, was
denounced to the French by a Government agent. It was a director of police
from Augsburg who won an ignoble renown on that occasion and set the
example which was to be copied at a later date by the neo-German officials of
the Reich under Herr Severing' s regime 1).

In this little town on the Inn, haloed by the memory of a German martyr, a town
that was Bavarian by blood but under the rule of the Austrian State, my parents
were domiciled towards the end of the last century. My father was a civil servant
who fulfilled his duties very conscientiously. My mother looked after the
household and lovingly devoted herself to the care of her children. From that
period I have not retained very much in my memory; because after a few years
my father had to leave that frontier town which I had come to love so much and
take up a new post farther down the Inn valley, at Passau, therefore actually in
Germany itself.




In those days it was the usual lot of an Austrian civil servant to be transferred
periodically from one post to another. Not long after coming to Passau my father
was transferred to Linz, and while there he retired finally to live on his pension.
But this did not mean that the old gentleman would now rest from his labours.
He was the son of a poor cottager, and while still a boy he grew restless and left
home. When he was barely thirteen years old he buckled on his satchel and set
forth from his native woodland parish. Despite the dissuasion of villagers who
could speak from 'experience,' he went to Vienna to learn a trade there. This
was in the fiftieth year of the last century. It was a sore trial, that of deciding to
leave home and face the unknown, with three gulden in his pocket. By when the
boy of thirteen was a lad of seventeen and had passed his apprenticeship
examination as a craftsman he was not content. Quite the contrary. The
persistent economic depression of that period and the constant want and misery
strengthened his resolution to give up working at a trade and strive for
'something higher.' As a boy it had seemed to him that the position of the parish
priest in his native village was the highest in the scale of human attainment; but
now that the big city had enlarged his outlook the young man looked up to the
dignity of a State official as the highest of all. With the tenacity of one whom
misery and trouble had already made old when only half-way through his youth
the young man of seventeen obstinately set out on his new project and stuck to it
until he won through. He became a civil servant. He was about twenty-three
years old, I think, when he succeeded in making himself what he had resolved to
become. Thus he was able to fulfil the promise he had made as a poor boy not to
return to his native village until he was 'somebody.'

He had gained his end. But in the village there was nobody who had
remembered him as a little boy, and the village itself had become strange to him.
Now at last, when he was fifty-six years old, he gave up his active career; but he
could not bear to be idle for a single day. On the outskirts of the small market
town of Lambach in Upper Austria he bought a farm and tilled it himself. Thus,
at the end of a long and hard-working career, he came back to the life which his
father had led.

It was at this period that I first began to have ideals of my own. I spent a good
deal of time scampering about in the open, on the long road from school, and
mixing up with some of the roughest of the boys, which caused my mother
many anxious moments. All this tended to make me something quite the reverse
of a stay-at-home. I gave scarcely any serious thought to the question of
choosing a vocation in life; but I was certainly quite out of sympathy with the
kind of career which my father had followed. I think that an inborn talent for
speaking now began to develop and take shape during the more or less strenuous
arguments which I used to have with my comrades. I had become a juvenile
ringleader who learned well and easily at school but was rather difficult to
manage. In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery church
at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a very favourable position




to be emotionally impressed again and again by the magnificent splendour of
ecclesiastical ceremonial. What could be more natural for me than to look upon
the Abbot as representing the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the
position of the humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own
boyhood days? At least, that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I
had with my father did not lead him to appreciate his son's oratorical gifts in
such a way as to see in them a favourable promise for such a career, and so he
naturally could not understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at that time.
This contradiction in my character made him feel somewhat anxious.
As a matter of fact, that transitory yearning after such a vocation soon gave way
to hopes that were better suited to my temperament. Browsing through my
father's books, I chanced to come across some publications that dealt with
military subjects. One of these publications was a popular history of the Franco-
German War of 1870-71. It consisted of two volumes of an illustrated periodical
dating from those years. These became my favourite reading. In a little while
that great and heroic conflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that
time onwards I became more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in
any way connected with war or military affairs.

But this story of the Franco-German War had a special significance for me on
other grounds also. For the first time, and as yet only in quite a vague way, the
question began to present itself: Is there a difference - and if there be, what is it -
between the Germans who fought that war and the other Germans? Why did not
Austria also take part in it? Why did not my father and all the others fight in that
struggle? Are we not the same as the other Germans? Do we not all belong

That was the first time that this problem began to agitate my small brain. And
from the replies that were given to the questions which I asked very tentatively,
I was forced to accept the fact, though with a secret envy, that not all Germans
had the good luck to belong to Bismarck's Empire. This was something that I
could not understand.

It was decided that I should study. Considering my character as a whole, and
especially my temperament, my father decided that the classical subjects studied
at the Lyceum were not suited to my natural talents. He thought that the
Realschule 2) would suit me better. My obvious talent for drawing confirmed
him in that view; for in his opinion drawing was a subject too much neglected in
the Austrian Gymnasium. Probably also the memory of the hard road which he
himself had travelled contributed to make him look upon classical studies as
unpractical and accordingly to set little value on them. At the back of his mind
he had the idea that his son also should become an official of the Government.
Indeed he had decided on that career for me. The difficulties through which he
had to struggle in making his own career led him to overestimate what he had
achieved, because this was exclusively the result of his own indefatigable
industry and energy. The characteristic pride of the self-made man urged him




towards the idea that his son should follow the same calling and if possible rise
to a higher position in it. Moreover, this idea was strengthened by the
consideration that the results of his own life's industry had placed him in a
position to facilitate his son's advancement in the same career.
He was simply incapable of imagining that I might reject what had meant
everything in life to him. My father's decision was simple, definite, clear and, in
his eyes, it was something to be taken for granted. A man of such a nature who
had become an autocrat by reason of his own hard struggle for existence, could
not think of allowing 'inexperienced' and irresponsible young fellows to choose
their own careers. To act in such a way, where the future of his own son was
concerned, would have been a grave and reprehensible weakness in the exercise
of parental authority and responsibility, something utterly incompatible with his
characteristic sense of duty.
And yet it had to be otherwise.

For the first time in my life - I was then eleven years old - I felt myself forced
into open opposition. No matter how hard and determined my father might be
about putting his own plans and opinions into action, his son was no less
obstinate in refusing to accept ideas on which he set little or no value.
I would not become a civil servant.

No amount of persuasion and no amount of 'grave' warnings could break down
that opposition. I would not become a State official, not on any account. All the
attempts which my father made to arouse in me a love or liking for that
profession, by picturing his own career for me, had only the opposite effect. It
nauseated me to think that one day I might be fettered to an office stool, that I
could not dispose of my own time but would be forced to spend the whole of my
life filling out forms.

One can imagine what kind of thoughts such a prospect awakened in the mind of
a young fellow who was by no means what is called a 'good boy' in the current
sense of that term. The ridiculously easy school tasks which we were given
made it possible for me to spend far more time in the open air than at home. To-
day, when my political opponents pry into my life with diligent scrutiny, as far
back as the days of my boyhood, so as finally to be able to prove what
disreputable tricks this Hitler was accustomed to in his young days, I thank
heaven that I can look back to those happy days and find the memory of them
helpful. The fields and the woods were then the terrain on which all disputes
were fought out.

Even attendance at the Realschule could not alter my way of spending my time.
But I had now another battle to fight.

So long as the paternal plan to make a State functionary contradicted my own
inclinations only in the abstract, the conflict was easy to bear. I could be discreet
about expressing my personal views and thus avoid constantly recurrent
disputes. My own resolution not to become a Government official was sufficient
for the time being to put my mind completely at rest. I held on to that resolution




inexorably. But the situation became more difficult once I had a positive plan of
my own which I might present to my father as a counter-suggestion. This
happened when I was twelve years old. How it came about I cannot exactly say
now; but one day it became clear to me that I would be a painter - I mean an
artist. That I had an aptitude for drawing was an admitted fact. It was even one
of the reasons why my father had sent me to the Realschule; but he had never
thought of having that talent developed in such a way that I could take up
painting as a professional career. Quite the contrary. When, as a result of my
renewed refusal to adopt his favourite plan, my father asked me for the first time
what I myself really wished to be, the resolution that I had already formed
expressed itself almost automatically. For a while my father was speechless. "A
painter? An artist-painter?" he exclaimed.

He wondered whether I was in a sound state of mind. He thought that he might
not have caught my words rightly, or that he had misunderstood what I meant.
But when I had explained my ideas to him and he saw how seriously I took
them, he opposed them with that full determination which was characteristic of
him. His decision was exceedingly simple and could not be deflected from its
course by any consideration of what my own natural qualifications really were.
"Artist! Not as long as I live, never." As the son had inherited some of the
father's obstinacy, besides having other qualities of his own, my reply was
equally energetic. But it stated something quite the contrary.
At that our struggle became stalemate. The father would not abandon his
'Never', and I became all the more consolidated in my 'Nevertheless'.
Naturally the resulting situation was not pleasant. The old gentleman was
bitterly annoyed; and indeed so was I, although I really loved him. My father
forbade me to entertain any hopes of taking up the art of painting as a
profession. I went a step further and declared that I would not study anything
else. With such declarations the situation became still more strained, so that the
old gentleman irrevocably decided to assert his parental authority at all costs.
That led me to adopt an attitude of circumspect silence, but I put my threat into
execution. I thought that, once it became clear to my father that I was making no
progress at the Realschule, for weal or for woe, he would be forced to allow me
to follow the happy career I had dreamed of.

I do not know whether I calculated rightly or not. Certainly my failure to make
progress became quite visible in the school. I studied just the subjects that
appealed to me, especially those which I thought might be of advantage to me
later on as a painter. What did not appear to have any importance from this point
of view, or what did not otherwise appeal to me favourably, I completely
sabotaged. My school reports of that time were always in the extremes of good
or bad, according to the subject and the interest it had for me. In one column my
qualification read 'very good' or 'excellent'. In another it read 'average' or even
'below average'. By far my best subjects were geography and, even more so.




general history. These were my two favourite subjects, and I led the class in

When I look back over so many years and try to judge the results of that
experience I find two very significant facts standing out clearly before my mind.
First, I became a nationalist.

Second, I learned to understand and grasp the true meaning of history.
The old Austria was a multi-national State. In those days at least the citizens of
the German Empire, taken through and through, could not understand what that
fact meant in the everyday life of the individuals within such a State. After the
magnificent triumphant march of the victorious armies in the Franco-German
War the Germans in the Reich became steadily more and more estranged from
the Germans beyond their frontiers, partly because they did not deign to
appreciate those other Germans at their true value or simply because they were
incapable of doing so.

The Germans of the Reich did not realize that if the Germans in Austria had not
been of the best racial stock they could never have given the stamp of their own
character to an Empire of 52 millions, so definitely that in Germany itself the
idea arose - though quite an erroneous one - that Austria was a German State.
That was an error which led to dire consequences; but all the same it was a
magnificent testimony to the character of the ten million Germans in that East
Mark. 3) Only very few of the Germans in the Reich itself had an idea of the
bitter struggle which those Eastern Germans had to carry on daily for the
preservation of their German language, their German schools and their German
character. Only to-day, when a tragic fate has torn several millions of our
kinsfolk away from the Reich and has forced them to live under the rule of the
stranger, dreaming of that common fatherland towards which all their yearnings
are directed and struggling to uphold at least the sacred right of using their
mother tongue - only now have the wider circles of the German population come
to realize what it means to have to fight for the traditions of one's race. And so
at last perhaps there are people here and there who can assess the greatness of
that German spirit which animated the old East Mark and enabled those people,
left entirely dependent on their own resources, to defend the Empire against the
Orient for several centuries and subsequently to hold fast the frontiers of the
German language through a guerilla warfare of attrition, at a time when the
German Empire was sedulously cultivating an interest for colonies but not for its
own flesh and blood before the threshold of its own door.

What has happened always and everywhere, in every kind of struggle, happened
also in the language fight which was carried on in the old Austria. There were
three groups - the fighters, the hedgers and the traitors. Even in the schools this
sifting already began to take place. And it is worth noting that the struggle for
the language was waged perhaps in its bitterest form around the school; because
this was the nursery where the seeds had to be watered which were to spring up
and form the future generation. The tactical objective of the fight was the




winning over of the child, and it was to the child that the first rallying cry was

"German youth, do not forget that you are a German," and "Remember, little
girl, that one day you must be a German mother."

Those who know something of the juvenile spirit can understand how youth will
always lend a glad ear to such a rallying cry. Under many forms the young
people led the struggle, fighting in their own way and with their own weapons.
They refused to sing non-German songs. The greater the efforts made to win
them away from their German allegiance, the more they exalted the glory of
their German heroes. They stinted themselves in buying things to eat, so that
they might spare their pennies to help the war chest of their elders. They were
incredibly alert in the significance of what the non-German teachers said and
they contradicted in unison. They wore the forbidden emblems of their own
kinsfolk and were happy when penalised for doing so, or even physically
punished. In miniature they were mirrors of loyalty from which the older people
might learn a lesson.

And thus it was that at a comparatively early age I took part in the struggle
which the nationalities were waging against one another in the old Austria.
When meetings were held for the South Mark German League and the School
League we wore cornflowers and black-red-gold colours to express our loyalty.
We greeted one another with Heil! and instead of the Austrian anthem we sang
our own Deutschland iiber Alles, despite warnings and penalties. Thus the youth
were educated politically at a time when the citizens of a so-called national State
for the most part knew little of their own nationality except the language. Of
course, I did not belong to the hedgers. Within a little while I had become an
ardent 'German National', which has a different meaning from the party
significance attached to that phrase to-day.

I developed very rapidly in the nationalist direction, and by the time I was 15
years old I had come to understand the distinction between dynastic patriotism
and nationalism based on the concept of folk, or people, my inclination being
entirely in favour of the latter.

Such a preference may not perhaps be clearly intelligible to those who have
never taken the trouble to study the internal conditions that prevailed under the
Habsburg Monarchy.

Among historical studies universal history was the subject almost exclusively
taught in the Austrian schools, for of specific Austrian history there was only
very little. The fate of this State was closely bound up with the existence and
development of Germany as a whole; so a division of history into German
history and Austrian history would be practically inconceivable. And indeed it
was only when the German people came to be divided between two States that
this division of German history began to take place.




The insignia 4) of a former imperial sovereignty which were still preserved in
Vienna appeared to act as magical relics rather than as the visible guarantee of
an everlasting bond of union.

When the Habsburg State crumbled to pieces in 1918 the Austrian Germans
instinctively raised an outcry for union with their German fatherland. That was
the voice of a unanimous yearning in the hearts of the whole people for a return
to the unforgotten home of their fathers. But such a general yearning could not
be explained except by attributing the cause of it to the historical training
through which the individual Austrian Germans had passed. Therein lay a spring
that never dried up. Especially in times of distraction and forgetfulness its quiet
voice was a reminder of the past, bidding the people to look out beyond the mere
welfare of the moment to a new future.

The teaching of universal history in what are called the middle schools is still
very unsatisfactory. Few teachers realize that the purpose of teaching history is
not the memorizing of some dates and facts, that the student is not interested in
knowing the exact date of a battle or the birthday of some marshal or other, and
not at all - or at least only very insignificantly - interested in knowing when the
crown of his fathers was placed on the brow of some monarch. These are
certainly not looked upon as important matters.

To study history means to search for and discover the forces that are the causes
of those results which appear before our eyes as historical events. The art of
reading and studying consists in remembering the essentials and forgetting what
is not essential.

Probably my whole future life was determined by the fact that I had a professor
of history who understood, as few others understand, how to make this
viewpoint prevail in teaching and in examining. This teacher was Dr. Leopold
Poetsch, of the Realschule at Linz. He was the ideal personification of the
qualities necessary to a teacher of history in the sense I have mentioned above.
An elderly gentleman with a decisive manner but a kindly heart, he was a very
attractive speaker and was able to inspire us with his own enthusiasm. Even to-
day I cannot recall without emotion that venerable personality whose
enthusiastic exposition of history so often made us entirely forget the present
and allow ourselves to be transported as if by magic into the past. He penetrated
through the dim mist of thousands of years and transformed the historical
memory of the dead past into a living reality. When we listened to him we
became afire with enthusiasm and we were sometimes moved even to tears.
It was still more fortunate that this professor was able not only to illustrate the
past by examples from the present but from the past he was also able to draw a
lesson for the present. He understood better than any other the everyday
problems that were then agitating our minds. The national fervour which we felt
in our own small way was utilized by him as an instrument of our education,
inasmuch as he often appealed to our national sense of honour; for in that way
he maintained order and held our attention much more easily than he could have




done by any other means. It was because I had such a professor that history
became my favourite subject. As a natural consequence, but without the
conscious connivance of my professor, I then and there became a young rebel.
But who could have studied German history under such a teacher and not
become an enemy of that State whose rulers exercised such a disastrous
influence on the destinies of the German nation? Finally, how could one remain
the faithful subject of the House of Habsburg, whose past history and present
conduct proved it to be ready ever and always to betray the interests of the
German people for the sake of paltry personal interests? Did not we as
youngsters fully realize that the House of Habsburg did not, and could not, have
any love for us Germans?

What history taught us about the policy followed by the House of Habsburg was
corroborated by our own everyday experiences. In the north and in the south the
poison of foreign races was eating into the body of our people, and even Vienna
was steadily becoming more and more a non-German city. The 'Imperial House'
favoured the Czechs on every possible occasion. Indeed it was the hand of the
goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution that caused the most deadly
enemy of Germanism in Austria, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, to fall by the
very bullets which he himself had helped to cast. Working from above
downwards, he was the chief patron of the movement to make Austria a Slav

The burdens laid on the shoulders of the German people were enormous and the
sacrifices of money and blood which they had to make were incredibly heavy.
Yet anybody who was not quite blind must have seen that it was all in vain.
What affected us most bitterly was the consciousness of the fact that this whole
system was morally shielded by the alliance with Germany, whereby the slow
extirpation of Germanism in the old Austrian Monarchy seemed in some way to
be more or less sanctioned by Germany herself. Habsburg hypocrisy, which
endeavoured outwardly to make the people believe that Austria still remained a
German State, increased the feeling of hatred against the Imperial House and at
the same time aroused a spirit of rebellion and contempt.

But in the German Empire itself those who were then its rulers saw nothing of
what all this meant. As if struck blind, they stood beside a corpse and in the very
symptoms of decomposition they believed that they recognized the signs of a
renewed vitality. In that unhappy alliance between the young German Empire
and the illusory Austrian State lay the germ of the World War and also of the
final collapse.

In the subsequent pages of this book I shall go to the root of the problem.
Suffice it to say here that in the very early years of my youth I came to certain
conclusions which I have never abandoned. Indeed I became more profoundly
convinced of them as the years passed. They were: That the dissolution of the
Austrian Empire is a preliminary condition for the defence of Germany; further,
that national feeling is by no means identical with dynastic patriotism; finally.




and above all, that the House of Habsburg was destined to bring misfortune to
the German nation.

As a logical consequence of these convictions, there arose in me a feeling of
intense love for my German-Austrian home and a profound hatred for the
Austrian State.

That kind of historical thinking which was developed in me through my study of
history at school never left me afterwards. World history became more and more
an inexhaustible source for the understanding of contemporary historical events,
which means politics. Therefore I will not "learn" politics but let politics teach

A precocious revolutionary in politics I was no less a precocious revolutionary
in art. At that time the provincial capital of Upper Austria had a theatre which,
relatively speaking, was not bad. Almost everything was played there. When I
was twelve years old I saw William Tell performed. That was my first
experience of the theatre. Some months later I attended a performance of
Lohengrin, the first opera I had ever heard. I was fascinated at once. My
youthful enthusiasm for the Bayreuth Master knew no limits. Again and again I
was drawn to hear his operas; and to-day I consider it a great piece of luck that
these modest productions in the little provincial city prepared the way and made
it possible for me to appreciate the better productions later on.
But all this helped to intensify my profound aversion for the career that my
father had chosen for me; and this dislike became especially strong as the rough
corners of youthful boorishness became worn off, a process which in my case
caused a good deal of pain. I became more and more convinced that I should
never be happy as a State official. And now that the Realschule had recognized
and acknowledged my aptitude for drawing, my own resolution became all the
stronger. Imprecations and threats had no longer any chance of changing it. I
wanted to become a painter and no power in the world could force me to
become a civil servant. The only peculiar feature of the situation now was that
as I grew bigger I became more and more interested in architecture. I considered
this fact as a natural development of my flair for painting and I rejoiced
inwardly that the sphere of my artistic interests was thus enlarged. I had no
notion that one day it would have to be otherwise.

The question of my career was decided much sooner than I could have expected.
When I was in my thirteenth year my father was suddenly taken from us. He was
still in robust health when a stroke of apoplexy painlessly ended his earthly
wanderings and left us all deeply bereaved. His most ardent longing was to be
able to help his son to advance in a career and thus save me from the harsh
ordeal that he himself had to go through. But it appeared to him then as if that
longing were all in vain. And yet, though he himself was not conscious of it, he
had sown the seeds of a future which neither of us foresaw at that time.
At first nothing changed outwardly.




My mother felt it her duty to continue my education in accordance with my
father's wishes, which meant that she would have me study for the civil service.
For my own part I was even more firmly determined than ever before that under
no circumstances would I become an official of the State. The curriculum and
teaching methods followed in the middle school were so far removed from my
ideals that I became profoundly indifferent. Illness suddenly came to my
assistance. Within a few weeks it decided my future and put an end to the long-
standing family conflict. My lungs became so seriously affected that the doctor
advised my mother very strongly not under any circumstances to allow me to
take up a career which would necessitate working in an office. He ordered that I
should give up attendance at the Realschule for a year at least. What I had
secretly desired for such a long time, and had persistently fought for, now
became a reality almost at one stroke.

Influenced by my illness, my mother agreed that I should leave the Realschule
and attend the Academy.

Those were happy days, which appeared to me almost as a dream; but they were
bound to remain only a dream. Two years later my mother's death put a brutal
end to all my fine projects. She succumbed to a long and painful illness which
from the very beginning permitted little hope of recovery. Though expected, her
death came as a terrible blow to me. I respected my father, but I loved my

Poverty and stem reality forced me to decide promptly.

The meagre resources of the family had been almost entirely used up through
my mother's severe illness. The allowance which came to me as an orphan was
not enough for the bare necessities of life. Somehow or other I would have to
earn my own bread.

With my clothes and linen packed in a valise and with an indomitable resolution
in my heart, I left for Vienna. I hoped to forestall fate, as my father had done
fifty years before. I was determined to become 'something' - but certainly not a
civil servant.





When my mother died my fate had already been decided in one respect. During
the last months of her illness I went to Vienna to take the entrance examination
for the Academy of Fine Arts. Armed with a bulky packet of sketches, I felt
convinced that I should pass the examination quite easily. At the Realschule I
was by far the best student in the drawing class, and since that time I had made
more than ordinary progress in the practice of drawing. Therefore I was pleased
with myself and was proud and happy at the prospect of what I considered an
assured success.

But there was one misgiving: It seemed to me that I was better qualified for
drawing than for painting, especially in the various branches of architectural
drawing. At the same time my interest in architecture was constantly increasing.
And I advanced in this direction at a still more rapid pace after my first visit to
Vienna, which lasted two weeks. I was not yet sixteen years old. I went to the
Hof Museum to study the paintings in the art gallery there; but the building itself
captured almost all my interest, from early morning until late at night I spent all
my time visiting the various public buildings. And it was the buildings
themselves that were always the principal attraction for me. For hours and hours
I could stand in wonderment before the Opera and the Parliament. The whole
Ring Strasse had a magic effect upon me, as if it were a scene from the
Thousand- and-one-Nights.

And now I was here for the second time in this beautiful city, impatiently
waiting to hear the result of the entrance examination but proudly confident that
I had got through. I was so convinced of my success that when the news that I
had failed to pass was brought to me it struck me like a bolt from the skies. Yet
the fact was that I had failed. I went to see the Rector and asked him to explain
the reasons why they refused to accept me as a student in the general School of
Painting, which was part of the Academy. He said that the sketches which I had
brought with me unquestionably showed that painting was not what I was suited
for but that the same sketches gave clear indications of my aptitude for
architectural designing. Therefore the School of Painting did not come into
question for me but rather the School of Architecture, which also formed part of
the Academy. At first it was impossible to understand how this could be so,
seeing that I had never been to a school for architecture and had never received
any instruction in architectural designing.

When I left the Hansen Palace, on the Schiller Platz, I was quite crestfallen. I
felt out of sorts with myself for the first time in my young life. For what I had
heard about my capabilities now appeared to me as a lightning flash which
clearly revealed a dualism under which I had been suffering for a long time, but
hitherto I could give no clear account whatsoever of the why and wherefore.




Within a few days I myself also knew that I ought to become an architect. But of
course the way was very difficult. I was now forced bitterly to me my former
conduct in neglecting and despising certain subjects at the Realschule. Before
taking up the courses at the School of Architecture in the Academy it was
necessary to attend the Technical Building School; but a necessary qualification
for entrance into this school was a Leaving Certificate from the Middle School.
And this I simply did not have. According to the human measure of things my
dream of following an artistic calling seemed beyond the limits of possibility.
After the death of my mother I came to Vienna for the third time. This visit was
destined to last several years. Since I had been there before I had recovered my
old calm and resoluteness. The former self-assurance had come back, and I had
my eyes steadily fixed on the goal. I would be an architect. Obstacles are placed
across our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted. And I was
fully determined to surmount these obstacles, having the picture of my father
constantly before my mind, who had raised himself by his own efforts to the
position of a civil servant though he was the poor son of a village shoemaker. I
had a better start, and the possibilities of struggling through were better. At that
time my lot in life seemed to me a harsh one; but to-day I see in it the wise
workings of Providence. The Goddess of Fate clutched me in her hands and
often threatened to smash me; but the will grew stronger as the obstacles
increased, and finally the will triumphed.

I am thankful for that period of my life, because it hardened me and enabled me
to be as tough as I now am. And I am even more thankful because I appreciate
the fact that I was thus saved from the emptiness of a life of ease and that a
mother's darling was taken from tender arms and handed over to Adversity as to
a new mother. Though I then rebelled against it as too hard a fate, I am grateful
that I was thrown into a world of misery and poverty and thus came to know the
people for whom I was afterwards to fight.

It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the names of
which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of their terrible
significance for the existence of the German people. These two perils were
Marxism and Judaism.

For many people the name of Vienna signifies innocent jollity, a festive place
for happy mortals. For me, alas, it is a living memory of the saddest period in
my life. Even to-day the mention of that city arouses only gloomy thoughts in
my mind. Five years of poverty in that Phaecian 5) town. Five years in which,
first as a casual labourer and then as a painter of little trifles, I had to earn my
daily bread. And a meagre morsel indeed it was, not even sufficient to still the
hunger which I constantly felt. That hunger was the faithful guardian which
never left me but took part in everything I did. Every book that I bought meant
renewed hunger, and every visit I paid to the opera meant the intrusion of that
inalienabl companion during the following days. I was always struggling with
my unsympathic friend. And yet during that time I learned more than I had ever




learned before. Outside my architectural studies and rare visits to the opera, for
which I had to deny myself food, I had no other pleasure in life except my

I read a great deal then, and I pondered deeply over what I read. All the free
time after work was devoted exclusively to study. Thus within a few years I was
able to acquire a stock of knowledge which I find useful even to-day.
But more than that. During those years a view of life and a definite outlook on
the world took shape in my mind. These became the granite basis of my conduct
at that time. Since then I have extended that foundation only very little, and I
have changed nothing in it.

On the contrary: I am firmly convinced to-day that, generally speaking, it is in
youth that men lay the essential groundwork of their creative thought, wherever
that creative thought exists. I make a distinction between the wisdom of age -
which can only arise from the greater profundity and foresight that are based on
the experiences of a long life - and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms
out in thought and ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to put
these into practice immediately, because of their very superabundance. These
furnish the building materials and plans for the future; and it is from them that
age takes the stones and builds the edifice, unless the so-called wisdom of the
years may have smothered the creative genius of youth.

The life which I had hitherto led at home with my parents differed in little or
nothing from that of all the others. I looked forward without apprehension to the
morrow, and there was no such thing as a social problem to be faced. Those
among whom I passed my young days belonged to the small bourgeois class.
Therefore it was a world that had very little contact with the world of genuine
manual labourers. For, though at first this may appear astonishing, the ditch
which separates that class, which is by no means economically well-off; from
the manual labouring class is often deeper than people think. The reason for this
division, which we may almost call enmity, lies in the fear that dominates a
social group which has only just risen above the level of the manual labourer - a
fear lest it may fall back into its old condition or at least be classed with the
labourers. Moreover, there is something repulsive in remembering the cultural
indigence of that lower class and their rough manners with one another; so that
people who are only on the first rung of the social ladder find it unbearable to be
forced to have any contact with the cultural level and standard of living out of
which they have passed.

And so it happens that very often those who belong to what can really be called
the upper classes find it much easier than do the upstarts to descend to and
intermingle with their fellow beings on the lowest social level. For by the word
upstart I mean everyone who has raised himself through his own efforts to a
social level higher than that to which he formerly belonged. In the case of such a
person the hard struggle through which he passes often destroys his normal




human sympathy. His own fight for existence kills his sensibility for the misery
of those who have been left behind.

From this point of view fate had been kind to me. Circumstances forced me to
return to that world of poverty and economic insecurity above which my father
had raised himself in his early days; and thus the blinkers of a narrow petit
bourgeois education were torn from my eyes. Now for the first time I learned to
know men and I learned to distinguish between empty appearances or brutal
manners and the real inner nature of the people who outwardly appeared thus.
At the beginning of the century Vienna had already taken rank among those
cities where social conditions are iniquitous. Dazzling riches and loathsome
destitution were intermingled in violent contrast. In the centre and in the Inner
City one felt the pulse-beat of an Empire which had a population of fiity-two
millions, with all the perilous charm of a State made up of multiple nationalities.
The dazzling splendour of the Court acted like a magnet on the wealth and
intelligence of the whole Empire. And this attraction was further strengthened
by the dynastic policy of the Habsburg Monarchy in centralizing everything in
itself and for itself.

This centralizing policy was necessary in order to hold together that hotchpotch
of heterogeneous nationalities. But the result of it was an extraordinary
concentration of higher officials in the city, which was at one and the same time
the metropolis and imperial residence.

But Vienna was not merely the political and intellectual centre of the Danubian
Monarchy; it was also the commercial centre. Besides the horde of military
officers of high rank. State officials, artists and scientists, there was the still
vaster horde of workers. Abject poverty confronted the wealth of the aristocracy
and the merchant class face to face. Thousands of unemployed loitered in front
of the palaces on the Ring Strasse; and below that Via Triumphalis of the old
Austria the homeless huddled together in the murk and filth of the canals.
There was hardly any other German city in which the social problem could be
studied better than in Vienna. But here I must utter a warning against the illusion
that this problem can be 'studied' from above downwards. The man who has
never been in the clutches of that crushing viper can never know what its poison
is. An attempt to study it in any other way will result only in superficial talk and
sentimental delusions. Both are harmful. The first because it can never go to the
root of the question, the second because it evades the question entirely. I do not
know which is the more nefarious: to ignore social distress, as do the majority of
those who have been favoured by fortune and those who have risen in the social
scale through their own routine labour, or the equally supercilious and often
tactless but always genteel condescension displayed by people who make a fad
of being charitable and who plume themselves on 'sympathising with the
people.' Of course such persons sin more than they can imagine from lack of
instinctive understanding. And thus they are astonished to find that the 'social
conscience' on which they pride themselves never produces any results, but




often causes their good intentions to be resented; and then they talk of the

ingratitude of the people.

Such persons are slow to learn that here there is no place for merely social

activities and that there can be no expectation of gratitude; for in this connection

there is no question at all of distributing favours but essentially a matter of

retributive justice. I was protected against the temptation to study the social

question in the way just mentioned, for the simple reason that I was forced to

live in the midst of poverty-stricken people. Therefore it was not a question of

studying the problem objectively, but rather one of testing its effects on myself.

Though the rabbit came through the ordeal of the experiment, this must not be

taken as evidence of its harmlessness.

When I try to-day to recall the succession of impressions received during that

time I find that I can do so only with approximate completeness. Here I shall

describe only the more essential impressions and those which personally

affected me and often staggered me. And I shall mention the few lessons I then

learned from this experience.

At that time it was for the most part not very difficult to find work, because I

had to seek work not as a skilled tradesman but as a so-called extra-hand ready

to take any job that turned up by chance, just for the sake of earning my daily


Thus I found myself in the same situation as all those emigrants who shake the

dust of Europe from their feet, with the cast-iron determination to lay the

foundations of a new existence in the New World and acquire for themselves a

new home. Liberated from all the paralysing prejudices of class and calling,

environment and tradition, they enter any service that opens its doors to them,

accepting any work that comes their way, filled more and more with the idea

that honest work never disgraced anybody, no matter what kind it may be. And

so I was resolved to set both feet in what was for me a new world and push

forward on my own road.

I soon found out that there was some kind of work always to be got, but I also

learned that it could just as quickly and easily be lost. The uncertainty of being

able to earn a regular daily livelihood soon appeared to me as the gloomiest

feature in this new life that I had entered.

Although the skilled worker was not so frequently thrown idle on the streets as

the unskilled worker, yet the former was by no means protected against the same

fate; because though he may not have to face hunger as a result of

unemployment due to the lack of demand in the labour market, the lock-out and

the strike deprived the skilled worker of the chance to earn his bread. Here the

element of uncertainty in steadily earning one's daily bread was the bitterest

feature of the whole social-economic system itself.

The country lad who migrates to the big city feels attracted by what has been

described as easy work - which it may be in reality - and few working hours. He

is especially entranced by the magic glimmer spread over the big cities.




Accustomed in the country to earn a steady wage, he has been taught not to quit
his former post until a new one is at least in sight. As there is a great scarcity of
agricultural labour, the probability of long unemployment in the country has
been very small. It is a mistake to presume that the lad who leaves the
countryside for the town is not made of such sound material as those who
remain at home to work on the land. On the contrary, experience shows that it is
the more healthy and more vigorous that emigrate, and not the reverse. Among
these emigrants I include not merely those who emigrate to America, but also
the servant boy in the country who decides to leave his native village and
migrate to the big city where he will be a stranger. He is ready to take the risk of
an uncertain fate. In most cases he comes to town with a little money in his
pocket and for the first few days he is not discouraged if he should not have the
good fortune to find work. But if he finds a job and then loses it in a little while,
the case is much worse. To find work anew, especially in winter, is often
difficult and indeed sometimes impossible. For the first few weeks life is still
bearable He receives his out-of-work money from his trade union and is thus
enabled to carry on. But when the last of his own money is gone and his trade
union ceases to pay out because of the prolonged unemployment, then comes the
real distress. He now loiters about and is hungry. Often he pawns or sells the last
of his belongings. His clothes begin to get shabby and with the increasing
poverty of his outward appearance he descends to a lower social level and mixes
up with a class of human beings through whom his mind is now poisoned, in
addition to his physical misery. Then he has nowhere to sleep and if that
happens in winter, which is very often the case, he is in dire distress. Finally he
gets work. But the old story repeats itself. A second time the same thing
happens. Then a third time; and now it is probably much worse. Little by little
he becomes indifferent to this everlasting insecurity. Finally he grows used to
the repetition. Thus even a man who is normally of industrious habits grows
careless in his whole attitude towards life and gradually becomes an instrument
in the hands of unscrupulous people who exploit him for the sake of their own
ignoble aims. He has been so often thrown out of employment through no fault
of his own that he is now more or less indifferent whether the strike in which he
takes part be for the purpose of securing his economic rights or be aimed at the
destruction of the State, the whole social order and even civilization itself.
Though the idea of going on strike may not be to his natural liking, yet he joins
in it out of sheer indifference.

I saw this process exemplified before my eyes in thousands of cases. And the
longer I observed it the greater became my dislike for that mammoth city which
greedily attracts men to its bosom, in order to break them mercilessly in the end.
When they came they still felt themselves in communion with their own people
at home; if they remained that tie was broken.

I was thrown about so much in the life of the metropolis that I experienced the
workings of this fate in my own person and felt the effects of it in my own soul.




One thing stood out clearly before my eyes: It was the sudden changes from
work to idleness and vice versa; so that the constant fluctuations thus caused by
earnings and expenditure finally destroyed the 'sense of thrift for many people
and also the habit of regulating expenditure in an intelligent way. The body
appeared to grow accustomed to the vicissitudes of food and hunger, eating
heartily in good times and going hungry in bad. Indeed hunger shatters all plans
for rationing expenditure on a regular scale in better times when employment is
again found. The reason for this is that the deprivations which the unemployed
worker has to endure must be compensated for psychologically by a persistent
mental mirage in which he imagines himself eating heartily once again. And this
dream develops into such a longing that it turns into a morbid impulse to cast off
all self-restraint when work and wages turn up again. Therefore the moment
work is found anew he forgets to regulate the expenditure of his earnings but
spends them to the full without thinking of to-morrow. This leads to confusion
in the little weekly housekeeping budget, because the expenditure is not
rationally planned. When the phenomenon which I have mentioned first
happens, the earnings will last perhaps for five days instead of seven; on
subsequent occasions they will last only for three days; as the habit recurs, the
earnings will last scarcely for a day; and finally they will disappear in one night
of feasting.

Often there are wife and children at home. And in many cases it happens that
these become infected by such a way of living, especially if the husband is good
to them and wants to do the best he can for them and loves them in his own way
and according to his own lights. Then the week's earnings are spent in common
at home within two or three days. The family eat and drink together as long as
the money lasts and at the end of the week they hunger together. Then the wife
wanders about furtively in the neighbourhood, borrows a little, and runs up
small debts with the shopkeepers in an effort to pull through the lean days
towards the end of the week. They sit down together to the midday meal with
only meagre fare on the table, and often even nothing to eat. They wait for the
coming payday, talking of it and making plans; and while they are thus hungry
they dream of the plenty that is to come. And so the little children become
acquainted with misery in their early years.

But the evil culminates when the husband goes his own way from the beginning
of the week and the wife protests, simply out of love for the children. Then there
are quarrels and bad feeling and the husband takes to drink according as he
becomes estranged from his wife. He now becomes drunk every Saturday.
Fighting for her own existence and that of the children, the wife has to hound
him along the road from the factory to the tavern in order to get a few shillings
from him on payday. Then when he finally comes home, maybe on the Sunday
or the Monday, having parted with his last shillings and pence, pitiable scenes
follow, scenes that cry out for God's mercy.




I have had actual experience of all this in hundreds of cases. At first I was
disgusted and indignant; but later on I came to recognize the whole tragedy of
their misfortune and to understand the profound causes of it. They were the
unhappy victims of evil circumstances.

Housing conditions were very bad at that time. The Vienna manual labourers
lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder even to-day when I think of
the woeful dens in which people dwelt, the night shelters and the slums, and all
the tenebrous spectacles of ordure, loathsome filth and wickedness.
What will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves come forth from
these dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspecting fellow men? For this
other world does not think about such a possibility. They have allowed these
things to go on without caring and even without suspecting - in their total lack of
instinctive understanding - that sooner or later destiny will take its vengeance
unless it will have been appeased in time.

To-day I fervidly thank Providence for having sent me to such a school. There I
could not refuse to take an interest in matters that did not please me. This school
soon taught me a profound lesson.

In order not to despair completely of the people among whom I then lived I had
to set on one side the outward appearances of their lives and on the other the
reasons why they had developed in that way. Then I could hear everything
without discouragement; for those who emerged from all this misfortune and
misery, from this filth and outward degradation, were not human beings as such
but rather lamentable results of lamentable laws. In my own life similar
hardships prevented me from giving way to a pitying sentimentality at the sight
of these degraded products which had finally resulted from the pressure of
circumstances. No, the sentimental attitude would be the wrong one to adopt.
Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which
alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these conditions.
This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social
development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among
the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a
ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of
being improved.

Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what
already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the
species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the
existing generation - which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred - and more a matter of securing from the very
start a better road for future development.

During my struggle for existence in Vienna I perceived very clearly that the aim
of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief, which is ridiculous
and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a way of eliminating the
fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life - deficiencies which




necessarily bring about the degradation of the individual or at least lead him
towards such degradation. The difficulty of employing every means, even the
most drastic, to eradicate the hostility prevailing among the working classes
towards the State is largely due to an attitude of uncertainty in deciding upon the
inner motives and causes of this contemporary phenomenon. The grounds of this
uncertainty are to be found exclusively in the sense of guilt which each
individual feels for having permitted this tragedy of degradation. For that feeling
paralyses every effort at making a serious and firm decision to act. And thus
because the people whom it concerns are vacillating they are timid and half-
hearted in putting into effect even the measures which are indispensable for self-
preservation. When the individual is no longer burdened with his own
consciousness of blame in this regard, then and only then will he have that inner
tranquillity and outer force to cut off drastically and ruthlessly all the parasite
growth and root out the weeds.

But because the Austrian State had almost no sense of social rights or social
legislation its inability to abolish those evil excrescences was manifest.
I do not know what it was that appalled me most at that time: the economic
misery of those who were then my companions, their crude customs and morals,
or the low level of their intellectual culture.

How often our bourgeoisie rises up in moral indignation on hearing from the
mouth of some pitiable tramp that it is all the same to him whether he be a
German or not and that he will find himself at home wherever he can get enough
to keep body and soul together. They protest sternly against such a lack of
'national pride' and strongly express their horror at such sentiments.
But how many people really ask themselves why it is that their own sentiments
are better? How many of them understand that their natural pride in being
members of so favoured a nation arises from the innumerable succession of
instances they have encountered which remind them of the greatness of the
Fatherland and the Nation in all spheres of artistic and cultural life? How many
of them realize that pride in the Fatherland is largely dependent on knowledge of
its greatness in all those spheres? Do our bourgeois circles ever think what a
ridiculously meagre share the people have in that knowledge which is a
necessary prerequisite for the feeling of pride in one's fatherland?
It cannot be objected here that in other countries similar conditions exist and that
nevertheless the working classes in those countries have remained patriotic.
Even if that were so, it would be no excuse for our negligent attitude. But it is
not so. What we call chauvinistic education - in the case of the French people,
for example - is only the excessive exaltation of the greatness of France in all
spheres of culture or, as the French say, civilization. The French boy is not
educated on purely objective principles. Wherever the importance of the
political and cultural greatness of his country is concerned he is taught in the
most subjective way that one can imagine.




This education will always have to be confined to general ideas in a large
perspective and these ought to be deeply engraven, by constant repetition if
necessary, on the memories and feelings of the people.

In our case, however, we are not merely guilty of negative sins of omission but
also of positively perverting the little which some individuals had the luck to
learn at school. The rats that poison our body-politic gnaw from the hearts and
memories of the broad masses even that little which distress and misery have

Let the reader try to picture the following:

There is a lodging in a cellar and this lodging consists of two damp rooms. In
these rooms a workman and his family live - seven people in all. Let us assume
that one of the children is a boy of three years. That is the age at which children
first become conscious of the impressions which they receive. In the case of
highly gifted people traces of the impressions received in those early years last
in the memory up to an advanced age. Now the narrowness and congestion of
those living quarters do not conduce to pleasant inter-relations. Thus quarrels
and fits of mutual anger arise. These people can hardly be said to live with one
another, but rather down on top of one another. The small misunderstandings
which disappear of themselves in a home where there is enough space for people
to go apart from one another for a while, here become the source of chronic
disputes. As far as the children are concerned the situation is tolerable from this
point of view. In such conditions they are constantly quarrelling with one
another, but the quarrels are quickly and entirely forgotten. But when the parents
fall out with one another these daily bickerings often descend to rudeness such
as cannot be adequately imagined. The results of such experiences must become
apparent later on in the children. One must have practical experience of such a
milieu so as to be able to picture the state of affairs that arises from these mutual
recriminations when the father physically assaults the mother and maltreats her
in a fit of drunken rage. At the age of six the child can no longer ignore those
sordid details which even an adult would find revolting. Infected with moral
poison, bodily undernourished, and the poor little head filled with vermin, the
young 'citizen' goes to the primary school. With difficulty he barely learns to
read and write. There is no possibility of learning any lessons at home. Quite the
contrary. The father and mother themselves talk before the children in the most
disparaging way about the teacher and the school and they are much more
inclined to insult the teachers than to put their offspring across the knee and
knock sound reason into him. What the little fellow hears at home does not tend
to increase respect for his human surroundings. Here nothing good is said of
human nature as a whole and every institution, from the school to the
government, is reviled. Whether religion and morals are concerned or the State
and the social order, it is all the same; they are all scoffed at. When the young
lad leaves school, at the age of fourteen, it would be difficult to say what are the
most striking features of his character, incredible ignorance in so far as real




knowledge is concerned or cynical impudence combined with an attitude

towards morality which is really startling at so young an age.

What station in life can such a person fill, to whom nothing is sacred, who has

never experienced anything noble but, on the contrary, has been intimately

acquainted with the lowest kind of human existence? This child of three has got

into the habit of reviling all authority by the time he is fifteen. He has been

acquainted only with moral filth and vileness, everything being excluded that

might stimulate his thought towards higher things. And now this young

specimen of humanity enters the school of life.

He leads the same kind of life which was exemplified for him by his father

during his childhood. He loiters about and comes home at all hours. He now

even black-guards that broken-hearted being who gave him birth. He curses God

and the world and finally ends up in a House of Correction for young people.

There he gets the final polish.

And his bourgeois contemporaries are astonished at the lack of 'patriotic

enthusiasm' which this young 'citizen' manifests.

Day after day the bourgeois world are witnesses to the phenomenon of spreading

poison among the people through the instrumentality of the theatre and the

cinema, gutter journalism and obscene books; and yet they are astonished at the

deplorable 'moral standards' and 'national indifference' of the masses. As if the

cinema bilge and the gutter press and suchlike could inculcate knowledge of the

greatness of one's country, apart entirely from the earlier education of the


I then came to understand, quickly and thoroughly, what I had never been aware

of before. It was the following:

The question of 'nationalizing' a people is first and foremost one of establishing

healthy social conditions which will furnish the grounds that are necessary for

the education of the individual. For only when family upbringing and school

education have inculcated in the individual a knowledge of the cultural and

economic and, above all, the political greatness of his own country - then, and

then only, will it be possible for him to feel proud of being a citizen of such a

country. I can fight only for something that I love. I can love only what I

respect. And in order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of


As soon as my interest in social questions was once awakened I began to study

them in a fundamental way. A new and hitherto unknown world was thus

revealed to me.

In the years 1909-10 I had so far improved my, position that I no longer had to

earn my daily bread as a manual labourer. I was now working independently as

draughtsman, and painter in water colours. This metier was a poor one indeed as

far as earnings were concerned; for these were only sufficient to meet the bare

exigencies of life. Yet it had an interest for me in view of the profession to

which I aspired. Moreover, when I came home in the evenings I was now no




longer dead-tired as formerly, when I used to be unable to look into a book
without falling asleep almost immediately. My present occupation therefore was
in line with the profession I aimed at for the future. Moreover, I was master of
my own time and could distribute my working-hours now better than formerly. I
painted in order to earn my bread, and I studied because I liked it.
Thus I was able to acquire that theoretical knowledge of the social problem
which was a necessary complement to what I was learning through actual
experience. I studied all the books which I could find that dealt with this
question and I thought deeply on what I read. I think that the milieu in which I
then lived considered me an eccentric person.

Besides my interest in the social question I naturally devoted myself with
enthusiasm to the study of architecture. Side by side with music, I considered it
queen of the arts. To study it was for me not work but pleasure. I could read or
draw until the small hours of the morning without ever getting tired. And I
became more and more confident that my dream of a brilliant future would
become true, even though I should have to wait long years for its fulfilment. I
was firmly convinced that one day I should make a name for myself as an

The fact that, side by side with my professional studies, I took the greatest
interest in everything that had to do with politics did not seem to me to signify
anything of great importance. On the contrary: I looked upon this practical
interest in politics merely as part of an elementary obligation that devolves on
every thinking man. Those who have no understanding of the political world
around them have no right to criticize or complain. On political questions
therefore I still continued to read and study a great deal. But reading had
probably a different significance for me from that which it has for the average
run of our so-called 'intellectuals'.

I know people who read interminably, book after book, from page to page, and
yet I should not call them 'well-read people'. Of course they 'know' an immense
amount; but their brain seems incapable of assorting and classifying the material
which they have gathered from books. They have not the faculty of
distinguishing between what is useful and useless in a book; so that they may
retain the former in their minds and if possible skip over the latter while reading
it, if that be not possible, then - when once read - throw it overboard as useless
ballast. Reading is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose is
to help towards filling in the framework which is made up of the talents and
capabilities that each individual possesses. Thus each one procures for himself
the implements and materials necessary for the fulfilment of his calling in life,
no matter whether this be the elementary task of earning one's daily bread or a
calling that responds to higher human aspirations. Such is the first purpose of
reading. And the second purpose is to give a general knowledge of the world in
which we live. In both cases, however, the material which one has acquired
through reading must not be stored up in the memory on a plan that corresponds




to the successive chapters of the book; but each Httle piece of knowledge thus
gained must be treated as if it were a Httle stone to be inserted into a mosaic, so
that it finds its proper place among all the other pieces and particles that help to
form a general world-picture in the brain of the reader. Otherwise only a
confused jumble of chaotic notions will result from all this reading. That jumble
is not merely useless, but it also tends to make the unfortunate possessor of it
conceited. For he seriously considers himself a well-educated person and thinks
that he understands something of life. He believes that he has acquired
knowledge, whereas the truth is that every increase in such 'knowledge' draws
him more and more away from real life, until he finally ends up in some
sanatorium or takes to politics and becomes a parliamentary deputy.
Such a person never succeeds in turning his knowledge to practical account
when the opportune moment arrives; for his mental equipment is not ordered
with a view to meeting the demands of everyday life. His knowledge is stored in
his brain as a literal transcript of the books he has read and the order of
succession in which he has read them. And if Fate should one day call upon him
to use some of his book-knowledge for certain practical ends in life that very
call will have to name the book and give the number of the page; for the poor
noodle himself would never be able to find the spot where he gathered the
information now called for. But if the page is not mentioned at the critical
moment the widely-read intellectual will find himself in a state of hopeless
embarrassment. In a high state of agitation he searches for analogous cases and
it is almost a dead certainty that he will finally deliver the wrong prescription.
If that is not a correct description, then how can we explain the political
achievements of our Parliamentary heroes who hold the highest positions in the
government of the country? Otherwise we should have to attribute the doings of
such political leaders, not to pathological conditions but simply to malice and

On the other hand, one who has cultivated the art of reading will instantly
discern, in a book or journal or pamphlet, what ought to be remembered because
it meets one's personal needs or is of value as general knowledge. What he thus
learns is incorporated in his mental analogue of this or that problem or thing,
further correcting the mental picture or enlarging it so that it becomes more
exact and precise. Should some practical problem suddenly demand examination
or solution, memory will immediately select the opportune information from the
mass that has been acquired through years of reading and will place this
information at the service of one's powers of judgment so as to get a new and
clearer view of the problem in question or produce a definitive solution.
Only thus can reading have any meaning or be worth while.
The speaker, for example, who has not the sources of information ready to hand
which are necessary to a proper treatment of his subject is unable to defend his
opinions against an opponent, even though those opinions be perfectly sound
and true. In every discussion his memory will leave him shamefully in the lurch.




He cannot summon up arguments to support his statements or to refute his
opponent. So long as the speaker has only to defend himself on his own personal
account, the situation is not serious; but the evil comes when Chance places at
the head of public affairs such a soi-disant know-it-all, who in reality knows

From early youth I endeavoured to read books in the right way and I was
fortunate in having a good memory and intelligence to assist me. From that point
of view my sojourn in Vienna was particularly useful and profitable. My
experiences of everyday life there were a constant stimulus to study the most
diverse problems from new angles. Inasmuch as I was in a position to put theory
to the test of reality and reality to the test of theory, I was safe from the danger
of pedantic theorizing on the one hand and, on the other, from being too
impressed by the superficial aspects of reality.

The experience of everyday life at that time determined me to make a
fundamental theoretical study of two most important questions outside of the
social question.

It is impossible to say when I might have started to make a thorough study of the
doctrine and characteristics of Marxism were it not for the fact that I then
literally ran head foremost into the problem.

What I knew of Social Democracy in my youth was precious little and that little
was for the most part wrong. The fact that it led the struggle for universal
suffrage and the secret ballot gave me an inner satisfaction; for my reason then
told me that this would weaken the Habsburg regime, which I so thoroughly
detested. I was convinced that even if it should sacrifice the German element the
Danubian State could not continue to exist. Even at the price of a long and slow
Slaviz-ation of the Austrian Germans the State would secure no guarantee of a
really durable Empire; because it was very questionable if and how far the Slavs
possessed the necessary capacity for constructive politics. Therefore I welcomed
every movement that might lead towards the final disruption of that impossible
State which had decreed that it would stamp out the German character in ten
millions of people. The more this babel of tongues wrought discord and
disruption, even in the Parliament, the nearer the hour approached for the
dissolution of this Babylonian Empire. That would mean the liberation of my
German Austrian people, and only then would it become possible for them to be
re-united to the Motherland.

Accordingly I had no feelings of antipathy towards the actual policy of the
Social Democrats. That its avowed purpose was to raise the level of the working
classes - which in my ignorance I then foolishly believed - was a further reason
why I should speak in favour of Social Democracy rather than against it. But the
features that contributed most to estrange me from the Social Democratic
movement was its hostile attitude towards the struggle for the conservation of
Germanism in Austria, its lamentable cocotting with the Slav 'comrades', who
received these approaches favourably as long as any practical advantages were




forthcoming but otherwise maintained a haughty reserve, thus giving the
importunate mendicants the sort of answer their behaviour deserved.
And so at the age of seventeen the word 'Marxism' was very little known to me,
while I looked on 'Social Democracy' and 'Socialism' as synonymous
expressions. It was only as the result of a sudden blow from the rough hand of
Fate that my eyes were opened to the nature of this unparalleled system for
duping the public.

Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only that of a
mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I had not the slightest idea of the
social-democratic teaching or the mentality of its partisans. All of a sudden I
was brought face to face with the products of their teaching and what they called
their Weltanschhauung. In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn
something which under other circumstances might have necessitated decades of
study - namely, that under the cloak of social virtue and love of one's neighbour
a veritable pestilence was spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not
stamped out of the world without delay it may eventually succeed in
exterminating the human race.

I first came into contact with the Social Democrats while working in the
building trade.

From the very time that I started work the situation was not very pleasant for
me. My clothes were still rather decent. I was careful of my speech and I was
reserved in manner. I was so occupied with thinking of my own present lot and
future possibilities that I did not take much of an interest in my immediate
surroundings. I had sought work so that I shouldn't starve and at the same time
so as to be able to make further headway with my studies, though this headway
might be slow. Possibly I should not have bothered to be interested in my
companions were it not that on the third or fourth day an event occurred which
forced me to take a definite stand. I was ordered to join the trade union.
At that time I knew nothing about the trades unions. I had had no opportunity of
forming an opinion on their utility or inutility, as the case might be. But when I
was told that I must join the union I refused. The grounds which I gave for my
refusal were simply that I knew nothing about the matter and that anyhow I
would not allow myself to be forced into anything. Probably the former reason
saved me from being thrown out right away. They probably thought that within
a few days I might be converted' and become more docile. But if they thought
that they were profoundly mistaken. After two weeks I found it utterly
impossible for me to take such a step, even if I had been willing to take it at first.
During those fourteen days I came to know my fellow workmen better, and no
power in the world could have moved me to join an organization whose
representatives had meanwhile shown themselves in a light which I found so
During the first days my resentment was aroused.




At midday some of my fellow workers used to adjourn to the nearest tavern,
while the others remained on the building premises and there ate their midday
meal, which in most cases was a very scanty one. These were married men.
Their wives brought them the midday soup in dilapidated vessels. Towards the
end of the week there was a gradual increase in the number of those who
remained to eat their midday meal on the building premises. I understood the
reason for this afterwards. They now talked politics.

I drank my bottle of milk and ate my morsel of bread somewhere on the
outskirts, while I circumspectly studied my environment or else fell to
meditating on my own harsh lot. Yet I heard more than enough. And I often
thought that some of what they said was meant for my ears, in the hope of
bringing me to a decision. But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the
strongest antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged - the nation, because it
was held to be an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had to listen to
that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the
hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation of the working masses; the
authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the proletariat;
religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards;
morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they
did not drag in the mud.

At first I remained silent; but that could not last very long. Then I began to take
part in the discussion and to reply to their statements. I had to recognize,
however, that this was bound to be entirely fruitless, as long as I did not have at
least a certain amount of definite information about the questions that were
discussed. So I decided to consult the source from which my interlocutors
claimed to have drawn their so-called wisdom. I devoured book after book,
pamphlet after pamphlet.

Meanwhile, we argued with one another on the building premises. From day to
day I was becoming better informed than my companions in the subjects on
which they claimed to be experts. Then a day came when the more redoubtable
of my adversaries resorted to the most effective weapon they had to replace the
force of reason. This was intimidation and physical force. Some of the leaders
among my adversaries ordered me to leave the building or else get flung down
from the scaffolding. As I was quite alone I could not put up any physical
resistance; so I chose the first alternative and departed, richer however by an

I went away full of disgust; but at the same time so deeply moved that it was
quite impossible for me to turn my back on the whole situation and think no
more about it. When my anger began to calm down the spirit of obstinacy got
the upper hand and I decided that at all costs I would get back to work again in
the building trade. This decision became all the stronger a few weeks later, when
my little savings had entirely run out and hunger clutched me once again in its




merciless arms. No alternative was left to me. I got work again and had to leave
it for the same reasons as before.

Then I asked myself: Are these men worthy of belonging to a great people? The
question was profoundly disturbing; for if the answer were 'Yes', then the
struggle to defend one's nationality is no longer worth all the trouble and
sacrifice we demand of our best elements if it be in the interests of such a rabble.
On the other hand, if the answer had to be 'No - these men are not worthy of the
nation', then our nation is poor indeed in men. During those days of mental
anguish and deep meditation I saw before my mind the ever-increasing and
menacing army of people who could no longer be reckoned as belonging to their
own nation.

It was with quite a different feeling, some days later, that I gazed on the
interminable ranks, four abreast, of Viennese workmen parading at a mass
demonstration. I stood dumbfounded for almost two hours, watching that
enormous human dragon which slowly uncoiled itself there before me. When I
finally left the square and wandered in the direction of my lodgings I felt
dismayed and depressed. On my way I noticed the Arbeiterzeitung (The
Workman's Journal) in a tobacco shop. This was the chief press-organ of the old
Austrian Social Democracy. In a cheap cafe, where the common people used to
foregather and where I often went to read the papers, the Arbeiterzeitung was
also displayed. But hitherto I could not bring myself to do more than glance at
the wretched thing for a couple of minutes: for its whole tone was a sort of
mental vitriol to me. Under the depressing influence of the demonstration I had
witnessed, some interior voice urged me to buy the paper in that tobacco shop
and read it through. So I brought it home with me and spent the whole evening
reading it, despite the steadily mounting rage provoked by this ceaseless
outpouring of falsehoods.

I now found that in the social democratic daily papers I could study the inner
character of this politico-philosophic system much better than in all their
theoretical literature.

For there was a striking discrepancy between the two. In the literary effusions
which dealt with the theory of Social Democracy there was a display of high-
sounding phraseology about liberty and human dignity and beauty, all
promulgated with an air of profound wisdom and serene prophetic assurance; a
meticulously-woven glitter of words to dazzle and mislead the reader. On the
other hand, the daily Press inculcated this new doctrine of human redemption in
the most brutal fashion. No means were too base, provided they could be
exploited in the campaign of slander. These journalists were real virtuosos in the
art of twisting facts and presenting them in a deceptive form. The theoretical
literature was intended for the simpletons of the soi-disant intellectuals
belonging to the middle and, naturally, the upper classes. The newspaper
propaganda was intended for the masses.




This probing into books and newspapers and studying the teachings of Social
Democracy reawakened my love for my own people. And thus what at first
seemed an impassable chasm became the occasion of a closer affection.
Having once understood the working of the colossal system for poisoning the
popular mind, only a fool could blame the victims of it. During the years that
followed I became more independent and, as I did so, I became better able to
understand the inner cause of the success achieved by this Social Democratic
gospel. I now realized the meaning and purpose of those brutal orders which
prohibited the reading of all books and newspapers that were not 'red' and at the
same time demanded that only the 'red' meetings should be attended. In the
clear light of brutal reality I was able to see what must have been the inevitable
consequences of that intolerant teaching.

The psyche of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and
uncompromising. Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so much under
the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to the influence of a vague
emotional longing for the strength that completes her being, and who would
rather bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling - in like manner the
masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a
stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival than by a
teaching which offers them a liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to
make such a choice and thus they are prone to feel that they have been
abandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and they
are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is
impudently abused; and thus they have not the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic
fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality of its
determined utterances, to which they always submit.

If Social Democracy should be opposed by a more truthful teaching, then even,
though the struggle be of the bitterest kind, this truthful teaching will finally
prevail provided it be enforced with equal mthlessness.

Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social
Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations.
I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a
campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who are neither morally
nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The tactics of Social
Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies
and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable
of their adversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed
the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace.
But the hope proved always to be a foolish one, for they were never left in

The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad dogs
exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their Victims.




Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value of strength, and
for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it scents stuff of the more
stalwart kind, which is indeed a very rare possession. On the other hand it
praises every weakling among its adversaries, more or less cautiously, according
to the measure of his mental qualities known or presumed. They have less fear
of a man of genius who lacks will-power than of a vigorous character with
mediocre intelligence and at the same time they highly commend those who are
devoid of intelligence and will-power.

The Social Democrats know how to create the impression that they alone are the
protectors of peace. In this way, acting very circumspectly but never losing sight
of their ultimate goal, they conquer one position after another, at one time by
methods of quiet intimidation and at another time by sheer daylight robbery,
employing these latter tactics at those moments when public attention is turned
towards other matters from which it does not wish to be diverted, or when the
public considers an incident too trivial to create a scandal about it and thus
provoke the anger of a malignant opponent.

These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and must
lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the other side also
learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told
that here it is a case of to be or not to be.

I also came to understand that physical intimidation has its significance for the
mass as well as for the individual. Here again the Socialists had calculated
accurately on the psychological effect.

Intimidation in workshops and in factories, in assembly halls and at mass
demonstrations, will always meet with success as long as it does not have to
encounter the same kind of terror in a stronger form.

Then of course the Party will raise a horrified outcry, yelling blue murder and
appealing to the authority of the State, which they have just repudiated. In doing
this their aim generally is to add to the general confusion, so that they may have
a better opportunity of reaching their own goal unobserved. Their idea is to find
among the higher government officials some bovine creature who, in the stupid
hope that he may win the good graces of these awe-inspiring opponents so that
they may remember him in case of future eventualities, will help them now to
break all those who may oppose this world pest.

The impression which such successful tactics make on the minds of the broad
masses, whether they be adherents or opponents, can be estimated only by one
who knows the popular mind, not from books but from practical life. For the
successes which are thus obtained are taken by the adherents of Social
Democracy as a triumphant symbol of the righteousness of their own cause; on
the other hand the beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of
any further resistance.

The more I understood the methods of physical intimidation that were
employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that had succumbed to it.




I am thankful now for the ordeal which I had to go through at that time; for it
was the means of bringing me to think kindly again of my own people,
inasmuch as the experience enabled me to distinguish between the false leaders
and the victims who have been led astray.

We must look upon the latter simply as victims. I have just now tried to depict a
few traits which express the mentality of those on the lowest rung of the social
ladder; but my picture would be disproportionate if I do not add that amid the
social depths I still found light; for I experienced a rare spirit of self-sacrifice
and loyal comradeship among those men, who demanded little from life and
were content amid their modest surroundings. This was true especially of the
older generation of workmen. And although these qualities were disappearing
more and more in the younger generation, owing to the all-pervading influence
of the big city, yet among the younger generation also there were many who
were sound at the core and who were able to maintain themselves
uncontaminated amid the sordid surroundings of their everyday existence. If
these men, who in many cases meant well and were upright in themselves, gave
the support to the political activities carried on by the common enemies of our
people, that was because those decent workpeople did not and could not grasp
the downright infamy of the doctrine taught by the socialist agitators.
Furthermore, it was because no other section of the community bothered itself
about the lot of the working classes. Finally, the social conditions became such
that men who otherwise would have acted differently were forced to submit to
them, even though unwillingly at first. A day came when poverty gained the
upper hand and drove those workmen into the Social Democratic ranks.
On innumerable occasions the bourgeoisie took a definite stand against even the
most legitimate human demands of the working classes. That conduct was ill-
judged and indeed immoral and could bring no gain whatsoever to the bourgeois
class. The result was that the honest workman abandoned the original concept of
the trades union organization and was dragged into politics.
There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being hostile to the
Social Democratic Party; but their defences were repeatedly stormed and finally
they had to surrender. Yet this defeat was due to the stupidity of the bourgeois
parties, who had opposed every social demand put forward by the working class.
The short-sighted refusal to make an effort towards improving labour
conditions, the refusal to adopt measures which would insure the workman in
case of accidents in the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant mothers -
all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders, who were thankful
for every opportunity which they could exploit for forcing the masses into their
net. Our bourgeois parties can never repair the damage that resulted from the
mistake they then made. For they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed
all efforts at social reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to




justify the claim put forward by the Social Democrats - namely, that they alone

stand up for the interests of the working class.

And this became the principal ground for the moral justification of the actual

existence of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organization became from that

time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the

Social Democratic Party.

While thus studying the social conditions around me I was forced, whether I

liked it or not, to decide on the attitude I should take towards the Trades Unions.

Because I looked upon them as inseparable from the Social Democratic Party,

my decision was hasty - and mistaken. I repudiated them as a matter of course.

But on this essential question also Fate intervened and gave me a lesson, with

the result that I changed the opinion which I had first formed.

When I was twenty years old I had learned to distinguish between the Trades

Union as a means of defending the social rights of the employees and fighting

for better living conditions for them and, on the other hand, the Trades Union as

a political instrument used by the Party in the class struggle.

The Social Democrats understood the enormous importance of the Trades Union

movement. They appropriated it as an instrument and used it with success, while

the bourgeois parties failed to understand it and thus lost their political prestige.

They thought that their own arrogant Veto would arrest the logical development

of the movement and force it into an illogical position. But it is absurd and also

untrue to say that the Trades Union movement is in itself hostile to the nation.

The opposite is the more correct view. If the activities of the Trades Union are

directed towards improving the condition of a class, and succeed in doing so,

such activities are not against the Fatherland or the State but are, in the truest

sense of the word, national. In that way the trades union organization helps to

create the social conditions which are indispensable in a general system of

national education. It deserves high recognition when it destroys the

psychological and physical germs of social disease and thus fosters the general

welfare of the nation.

It is superfluous to ask whether the Trades Union is indispensable.

So long as there are employers who attack social understanding and have wrong

ideas of justice and fair play it is not only the right but also the duty of their

employees - who are, after all, an integral part of our people - to protect the

general interests against the greed and unreason of the individual. For to

safeguard the loyalty and confidence of the people is as much in the interests of

the nation as to safeguard public health.

Both are seriously menaced by dishonourable employers who are not conscious

of their duty as members of the national community. Their personal avidity or

irresponsibility sows the seeds of future trouble. To eliminate the causes of such

a development is an action that surely deserves well of the country.

It must not be answered here that the individual workman is free at any time to

escape from the consequences of an injustice which he has actually suffered at




the hands of an employer, or which he thinks he has suffered - in other words, he
can leave. No. That argument is only a ruse to detract attention from the
question at issue. Is it, or is it not, in the interests of the nation to remove the
causes of social unrest? If it is, then the fight must be carried on with the only
weapons that promise success. But the individual workman is never in a position
to stand up against the might of the big employer; for the question here is not
one that concerns the triumph of right. If in such a relation right had been
recognized as the guiding principle, then the conflict could not have arisen at all.
But here it is a question of who is the stronger. If the case were otherwise, the
sentiment of justice alone would solve the dispute in an honourable way; or, to
put the case more correctly, matters would not have come to such a dispute at

No. If unsocial and dishonourable treatment of men provokes resistance, then
the stronger party can impose its decision in the conflict until the constitutional
legislative authorities do away with the evil through legislation. Therefore it is
evident that if the individual workman is to have any chance at all of winning
through in the struggle he must be grouped with his fellow workmen and present
a united front before the individual employer, who incorporates in his own
person the massed strength of the vested interests in the industrial or commercial
undertaking which he conducts.

Thus the trades unions can hope to inculcate and strengthen a sense of social
responsibility in workaday life and open the road to practical results. In doing
this they tend to remove those causes of friction which are a continual source of
discontent and complaint.

Blame for the fact that the trades unions do not fulfil this much-desired function
must be laid at the doors of those who barred the road to legislative social
reform, or rendered such a reform ineffective by sabotaging it through their
political influence.

The political bourgeoisie failed to understand - or, rather, they did not wish to
understand - the importance of the trades union movement. The Social
Democrats accordingly seized the advantage offered them by this mistaken
policy and took the labour movement under their exclusive protection, without
any protest from the other side. In this way they established for themselves a
solid bulwark behind which they could safely retire whenever the struggle
assumed a critical aspect. Thus the genuine purpose of the movement gradually
fell into oblivion, and was replaced by new objectives. For the Social Democrats
never troubled themselves to respect and uphold the original purpose for which
the trade unionist movement was founded. They simply took over the
Movement, lock, stock and barrel, to serve their own political ends.
Within a few decades the Trades Union Movement was transformed, by the
expert hand of Social Democracy, from an instrument which had been originally
fashioned for the defence of human rights into an instrument for the destruction
of the national economic structure. The interests of the working class were not




allowed for a moment to cross the path of this purpose; for in politics the
application of economic pressure is always possible if the one side be
sufficiently unscrupulous and the other sufficiently inert and docile. In this case
both conditions were fulfilled.

By the beginning of the present century the Trades Unionist Movement had
already ceased to recognize the purpose for which it had been founded. From
year to year it fell more and more under the political control of the Social
Democrats, until it finally came to be used as a battering-ram in the class
struggle. The plan was to shatter, by means of constantly repeated blows, the
economic edifice in the building of which so much time and care had been
expended. Once this objective had been reached, the destruction of the State
would become a matter of course, because the State would already have been
deprived of its economic foundations. Attention to the real interests of the
working-classes, on the part of the Social Democrats, steadily decreased until
the cunning leaders saw that it would be in their immediate political interests if
the social and cultural demands of the broad masses remained unheeded; for
there was a danger that if these masses once felt content they could no longer be
employed as mere passive material in the political struggle.
The gloomy prospect which presented itself to the eyes of the condottieri of the
class warfare, if the discontent of the masses were no longer available as a war
weapon, created so much anxiety among them that they suppressed and opposed
even the most elementary measures of social reform. And conditions were such
that those leaders did not have to trouble about attempting to justify such an
illogical policy.

As the masses were taught to increase and heighten their demands the possibility
of satisfying them dwindled and whatever ameliorative measures were taken
became less and less significant; so that it was at that time possible to persuade
the masses that this ridiculous measure in which the most sacred claims of the
working-classes were being granted represented a diabolical plan to weaken
their fighting power in this easy way and, if possible, to paralyse it. One will not
be astonished at the success of these allegations if one remembers what a small
measure of thinking power the broad masses possess.

In the bourgeois camp there was high indignation over the bad faith of the Social
Democratic tactics; but nothing was done to draw a practical conclusion and
organize a counter attack from the bourgeois side. The fear of the Social
Democrats, to improve the miserable conditions of the working-classes ought to
have induced the bourgeois parties to make the most energetic efforts in this
direction and thus snatch from the hands of the class-warfare leaders their most
important weapon; but nothing of this kind happened.

Instead of attacking the position of their adversaries the bourgeoisie allowed
itself to be pressed and harried. Finally it adopted means that were so tardy and
so insignificant that they were ineffective and were repudiated. So the whole




situation remained just as it had been before the bourgeois intervention; but the

discontent had thereby become more serious.

Like a threatening storm, the 'Free Trades Union' hovered above the poHtical

horizon and above the Hfe of each individual. It was one of the most frightful

instruments of terror that threatened the security and independence of the

national economic structure, the foundations of the State and the liberty of the

individual. Above all, it was the 'Free Trades Union' that turned democracy into

a ridiculous and scorned phrase, insulted the ideal of liberty and stigmatized that

of fraternity with the slogan 'If you will not become our comrade we shall crack

your skull'.

It was thus that I then came to know this friend of humanity. During the years

that followed my knowledge of it became wider and deeper; but I have never

changed anything in that regard.

The more I became acquainted with the external forms of Social Democracy, the

greater became my desire to understand the inner nature of its doctrines.

For this purpose the official literature of the Party could not help very much. In

discussing economic questions its statements were false and its proofs unsound.

In treating of political aims its attitude was insincere. Furthermore, its modem

methods of chicanery in the presentation of its arguments were profoundly

repugnant to me. Its flamboyant sentences, its obscure and incomprehensible

phrases, pretended to contain great thoughts, but they were devoid of thought,

and meaningless. One would have to be a decadent Bohemian in one of our

modern cities in order to feel at home in that labyrinth of mental aberration, so

that he might discover 'intimate experiences' amid the stinking fumes of this

literary Dadism. These writers were obviously counting on the proverbial

humility of a certain section of our people, who believe that a person who is

incomprehensible must be profoundly wise.

In confronting the theoretical falsity and absurdity of that doctrine with the

reality of its external manifestations, I gradually came to have a clear idea of the

ends at which it aimed.

During such moments I had dark presentiments and feared something evil. I had

before me a teaching inspired by egoism and hatred, mathematically calculated

to win its victory, but the triumph of which would be a mortal blow to humanity.

Meanwhile I had discovered the relations existing between this destructive

teaching and the specific character of a people, who up to that time had been to

me almost unknown.

Knowledge of the Jews is the only key whereby one may understand the inner

nature and therefore the real aims of Social Democracy.

The man who has come to know this race has succeeded in removing from his

eyes the veil through which he had seen the aims and meaning of his Party in a

false light; and then, out of the murk and fog of social phrases rises the

grimacing figure of Marxism.




To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word 'Jew' first
began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not remember even
having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime. If this name were
mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old gentleman would just have
considered those who used it in this way as being uneducated reactionaries. In
the course of his career he had come to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with
strong views on nationalism, which had its effect on me as well. In school, too, I
found no reason to alter the picture of things I had formed at home.
At the Realschule I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our
relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions of his
warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself formed no
particular opinions in regard to him.

It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against
the word 'Jew', partly in connection with political controversies. These
references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an
uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to
religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived
there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like
other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I
did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external
mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of
their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their
Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of
abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a
systematic anti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna.

Confused by the mass of impressions I received from the architectural
surroundings and depressed by my own troubles, I did not at first distinguish
between the different social strata of which the population of that mammoth city
was composed. Although Vienna then had about two hundred thousand Jews
among its population of two millions, I did not notice them. During the first
weeks of my sojourn my eyes and my mind were unable to cope with the onrush
of new ideas and values. Not until I gradually settled down to my surroundings,
and the confused picture began to grow clearer, did I acquire a more
discriminating view of my new world. And with that I came up against the
Jewish problem.

I will not say that the manner in which I first became acquainted with it was
particularly unpleasant for me. In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a
different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against
the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I
considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was




unworthy of the cuhural traditions of a great people. The memory of certain
events which happened in the middle ages came into my mind, and I felt that I
should not like to see them repeated. Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic
newspapers did not belong to the first rank - but I did not then understand the
reason of this - and so I regarded them more as the products of jealousy and
envy rather than the expression of a sincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
My own opinions were confirmed by what I considered to be the infinitely more
dignified manner in which the really great Press replied to those attacks or
simply ignored them, which latter seemed to me the most respectable way.
I diligently read what was generally called the World Press - Neue Freie Presse,
Wiener Tageblatt, etc.- and I was astonished by the abundance of information
they gave their readers and the impartial way in which they presented particular
problems. I appreciated their dignified tone; but sometimes the flamboyancy of
the style was unconvincing, and I did not like it. But I attributed all this to the
overpowering influence of the world metropolis.

Since I considered Vienna at that time as such a world metropolis, I thought this
constituted sufficient grounds to excuse these shortcomings of the Press. But I
was frequently disgusted by the grovelling way in which the Vienna Press
played lackey to the Court. Scarcely a move took place at the Hofburg which
was not presented in glorified colours to the readers. It was a foolish practice,
which, especially when it had to do with 'The Wisest Monarch of all Times',
reminded one almost of the dance which the mountain cock performs at pairing
time to woo his mate. It was all empty nonsense. And I thought that such a
policy was a stain on the ideal of liberal democracy. I thought that this way of
currying favour at the Court was unworthy of the people. And that was the first
blot that fell on my appreciation of the great Vienna Press.
While in Vienna I continued to follow with a vivid interest all the events that
were taking place in Germany, whether connected with political or cultural
question. I had a feeling of pride and admiration when I compared the rise of the
young German Empire with the decline of the Austrian State. But, although the
foreign policy of that Empire was a source of real pleasure on the whole, the
internal political happenings were not always so satisfactory. I did not approve
of the campaign which at that time was being carried on against William II. I
looked upon him not only as the German Emperor but, above all, as the creator
of the German Navy. The fact that the Emperor was prohibited from speaking in
the Reichstag made me very angry, because the prohibition came from a side
which in my eyes had no authority to make it. For at a single sitting those same
parliamentary ganders did more cackling together than the whole dynasty of
Emperors, comprising even the weakest, had done in the course of centuries.
It annoyed me to have to acknowledge that in a nation where any half-witted
fellow could claim for himself the right to criticize and might even be let loose
on the people as a 'Legislator' in the Reichstag, the bearer of the Imperial




Crown could be the subject of a 'reprimand' on the part of the most miserable
assembly of drivellers that had ever existed.

I was even more disgusted at the way in which this same Vienna Press
salaamed obsequiously before the meanest steed belonging to the Habsburg
royal equipage and went off into wild ecstacies of delight if the nag wagged its
tail in response. And at the same time these newspapers took up an attitude of
anxiety in matters that concerned the German Emperor, trying to cloak their
enmity by the serious air they gave themselves. But in my eyes that enmity
appeared to be only poorly cloaked. Naturally they protested that they had no
intention of mixing in Germany's internal affairs - God forbid! They pretended
that by touching a delicate spot in such a friendly way they were fulfilling a duty
that devolved upon them by reason of the mutual alliance between the two
countries and at the same time discharging their obligations of journalistic
truthfulness. Having thus excused themselves about tenderly touching a sore
spot, they bored with the finger ruthlessly into the wound.

That sort of thing made my blood boil. And now I began to be more and more
on my guard when reading the great Vienna Press.

I had to acknowledge, however, that on such subjects one of the anti-Semitic
papers - the Deutsche Volksblatt - acted more decently.

What got still more on my nerves was the repugnant manner in which the big
newspapers cultivated admiration for France. One really had to feel ashamed of
being a German when confronted by those mellifluous hymns of praise for 'the
great culture-nation'. This wretched Gallomania more often than once made me
throw away one of those 'world newspapers'. I now often turned to the
Volksblatt, which was much smaller in size but which treated such subjects
more decently. I was not in accord with its sharp anti-Semitic tone; but again
and again I found that its arguments gave me grounds for serious thought.
Anyhow, it was as a result of such reading that I came to know the man and the
movement which then determined the fate of Vienna. These were Dr. Karl
Lueger and the Christian Socialist Movement. At the time I came to Vienna I
felt opposed to both. I looked on the man and the movement as 'reactionary'.
But even an elementary sense of justice enforced me to change my opinion
when I had the opportunity of knowing the man and his work, and slowly that
opinion grew into outspoken admiration when I had better grounds for forming a
judgment. To-day, as well as then, I hold Dr. Karl Lueger as the most eminent
type of German Burgermeister. How many prejudices were thrown over through
such a change in my attitude towards the Christian-Socialist Movement!
My ideas about anti-Semitism changed also in the course of time, but that was
the change which I found most difficult. It cost me a greater internal conflict
with myself, and it was only after a struggle between reason and sentiment that
victory began to be decided in favour of the former. Two years later sentiment
rallied to the side of reasons and became a faithful guardian and counsellor.




At the time of this bitter struggle, between calm reason and the sentiments in
which I had been brought up, the lessons that I learned on the streets of Vienna
rendered me invaluable assistance. A time came when I no longer passed blindly
along the street of the mighty city, as I had done in the early days, but now with
my eyes open not only to study the buildings but also the human beings.
Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a
phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought
was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I
watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange
countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped
itself in my brain: Is this a German?

As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help in
removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself some anti-
Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all began with the
assumption that in principle the reader had at least a certain degree of
information on the Jewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the
tone of most of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again, because
the statements made were partly superficial and the proofs extraordinarily
unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, I returned to my old way of
thinking. The subject appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-
reaching that I was afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again
anxious and uncertain.

Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Germans
who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of
an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and
observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I
now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and
clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially
the Inner City and the district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with
a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.
But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally
removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great
movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national
character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.
To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this
movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But
an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were
purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of
theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes
of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not
disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as
brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to
create a danger for Jewry itself.




Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted
me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral
dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.
Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar meaning for
these people. That they were water-shy was obvious on looking at them and,
unfortunately, very often also when not looking at them at all. The odour of
those people in caftans often used to make me feel ill. Beyond that there were
the unkempt clothes and the ignoble exterior.

All these details were certainly not attractive; but the revolting feature was that
beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the
chosen race.

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of
the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little
by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in
cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the
probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like
a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden

In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I
discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre.
All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at
the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and
study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become
permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral
pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the
Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was
manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual
level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity.
Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump,
would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In
this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such
people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into
existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-
carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not
be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.

And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen people?
I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the fabricators of these
unclean products in public cultural life. The result of that inquiry was still more
disfavourable to the attitude which I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews.
Though my feelings might rebel a thousand time, reason now had to draw its
own conclusions.




The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical

banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one

per cent, of the nation - that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to

be admitted. Then I began to examine my favourite 'World Press', with that fact

before my mind.

The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for that Press which I

formerly admired. Its style became still more repellent and I was forced to reject

its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of

facts and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more

falsehood than truth. The writers were - Jews.

Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me now to

deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which I had formerly

looked at in a different light.

I saw the Liberal policy of that Press in another light. Its dignified tone in

replying to the attacks of its adversaries and its dead silence in other cases now

became clear to me as part of a cunning and despicable way of deceiving the

readers. Its brilliant theatrical criticisms always praised the Jewish authors and

its adverse, criticism was reserved exclusively for the Germans.

The light pin-pricks against William II showed the persistency of its policy, just

as did its systematic commendation of French culture and civilization. The

subject matter of the feuilletons was trivial and often pornographic. The

language of this Press as a whole had the accent of a foreign people. The general

tone was openly derogatory to the Germans and this must have been definitely


What were the interests that urged the Vienna Press to adopt such a policy? Or

did they do so merely by chance? In attempting to find an answer to those

questions I gradually became more and more dubious.

Then something happened which helped me to come to an early decision. I

began to see through the meaning of a whole series of events that were taking

place in other branches of Viennese life. All these were inspired by a general

concept of manners and morals which was openly put into practice by a large

section of the Jews and could be established as attributable to them. Here, again,

the life which I observed on the streets taught me what evil really is.

The part which the Jews played in the social phenomenon of prostitution, and

more especially in the white slave traffic, could be studied here better than in

any other West-European city, with the possible exception of certain ports in

Southern France. Walking by night along the streets of the Leopoldstadt, almost

at every turn whether one wished it or not, one witnessed certain happenings of

whose existence the Germans knew nothing until the War made it possible and

indeed inevitable for the soldiers to see such things on the Eastern front.

A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that it was the same

kind of cold-blooded, thick-skinned and shameless Jew who showed his




consummate skill in conducting that revolting exploitation of the dregs of the
big city. Then I became fired with wrath.

I had now no more hesitation about bringing the Jewish problem to light in all
its details. No. Henceforth I was determined to do so. But as I learned to track
down the Jew in all the different spheres of cultural and artistic life, and in the
various manifestations of this life everywhere, I suddenly came upon him in a
position where I had least expected to find him. I now realized that the Jews
were the leaders of Social Democracy. In face of that revelation the scales fell
from my eyes. My long inner struggle was at an end.

In my relations with my fellow workmen I was often astonished to find how
easily and often they changed their opinions on the same questions, sometimes
within a few days and sometimes even within the course of a few hours. I found
it difficult to understand how men who always had reasonable ideas when they
spoke as individuals with one another suddenly lost this reasonableness the
moment they acted in the mass. That phenomenon often tempted one almost to
despair. I used to dispute with them for hours and when I succeeded in bringing
them to what I considered a reasonable way of thinking I rejoiced at my success.
But next day I would find that it had been all in vain. It was saddening to think I
had to begin it all over again. Like a pendulum in its eternal sway, they would
fall back into their absurd opinions.

I was able to understand their position fully. They were dissatisfied with their lot
and cursed the fate which had hit them so hard. They hated their employers,
whom they looked upon as the heartless administrators of their cruel destiny.
Often they used abusive language against the public officials, whom they
accused of having no sympathy with the situation of the working people. They
made public protests against the cost of living and paraded through the streets in
defence of their claims. At least all this could be explained on reasonable
grounds. But what was impossible to understand was the boundless hatred they
expressed against their own fellow citizens, how they disparaged their own
nation, mocked at its greatness, reviled its history and dragged the names of its
most illustrious men in the gutter.

This hostility towards their own kith and kin, their own native land and home
was as irrational as it was incomprehensible. It was against Nature.
One could cure that malady temporarily, but only for some days or at least some
weeks. But on meeting those whom one believed to have been converted one
found that they had become as they were before. That malady against Nature
held them once again in its clutches.

I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press was predominantly
controlled by Jews. But I did not attach special importance to this circumstance,
for the same state of affairs existed also in other newspapers. But there was one
striking fact in this connection. It was that there was not a single newspaper with
which Jews were connected that could be spoken of as National, in the meaning
that my education and convictions attached to that word.




Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read articles of
this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing so my aversion increased
all the more. And then I set about learning something of the people who wrote
and published this mischievous stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of
them were Jews. I recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism,
and then I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race - the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries of
the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture
presented itself. I shall never forget the row of names - Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellenbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that this
alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with
whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months past. I was happy
at last to know for certain that the Jew is not a German.

Thus I finally discovered who were the evil spirits leading our people astray.
The sojourn in Vienna for one year had proved long enough to convince me that
no worker is so rooted in his preconceived notions that he will not surrender
them in face of better and clearer arguments and explanations. Gradually I
became an expert in the doctrine of the Marxists and used this knowledge as an
instrument to drive home my own firm convictions. I was successful in nearly
every case. The great masses can be rescued, but a lot of time and a large share
of human patience must be devoted to such work.
But a Jew can never be rescued from his fixed notions.

It was then simple enough to attempt to show them the absurdity of their
teaching. Within my small circle I talked to them until my throat ached and my
voice grew hoarse. I believed that I could finally convince them of the danger
inherent in the Marxist follies. But I only achieved the contrary result. It seemed
to me that immediately the disastrous effects of the Marxist Theory and its
application in practice became evident, the stronger became their obstinacy.
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their
argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their
opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out
they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite
of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter
arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down
truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to
other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original
theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could
not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm
grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime which
slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment
afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account
of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained
ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be




utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once
again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should
you become indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended
astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day
he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded.
I do not know what amazed me the more - the abundance of their verbiage or the
artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate

Yet all this had its good side; because the more I came to know the individual
leaders, or at least the propagandists, of Social Democracy, my love for my own
people increased correspondingly. Considering the Satanic skill which these evil
counsellors displayed, how could their unfortunate victims be blamed? Indeed, I
found it extremely difficult myself to be a match for the dialectical perfidy of
that race. How futile it was to try to win over such people with argument, seeing
that their very mouths distorted the truth, disowning the very words they had just
used and adopting them again a few moments afterwards to serve their own ends
in the argument! No. The more I came to know the Jew, the easier it was to
excuse the workers.

In my opinion the most culpable were not to be found among the workers but
rather among those who did not think it worth while to take the trouble to
sympathize with their own kinsfolk and give to the hard-working son of the
national family what was his by the iron logic of justice, while at the same time
placing his seducer and corrupter against the wall.

Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate more
thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Its effects were well
known to me in detail. As a result of careful observation, its daily progress had
become obvious to me. And one needed only a little imagination in order to be
able to forecast the consequences which must result from it. The only question
now was: Did the founders foresee the effects of their work in the form which
those effects have shown themselves to-day, or were the founders themselves
the victims of an error? To my mind both alternatives were possible.
If the second question must be answered in the affirmative, then it was the duty
of every thinking person to oppose this sinister movement with a view to
preventing it from producing its worst results. But if the first question must be
answered in the affirmative, then it must be admitted that the original authors of
this evil which has infected the nations were devils incarnate. For only in the
brain of a monster, and not that of a man, could the plan of this organization take
shape whose workings must finally bring about the collapse of human
civilization and turn this world into a desert waste.

Such being the case the only alternative left was to fight, and in that fight to
employ all the weapons which the human spirit and intellect and will could
furnish leaving it to Fate to decide in whose favour the balance should fall.




And so I began to gather information about the authors of this teaching, with a
view to studying the principles of the movement. The fact that I attained my
object sooner than I could have anticipated was due to the deeper insight into the
Jewish question which I then gained, my knowledge of this question being
hitherto rather superficial. This newly acquired knowledge alone enabled me to
make a practical comparison between the real content and the theoretical
pretentiousness of the teaching laid down by the apostolic founders of Social
Democracy; because I now understood the language of the Jew. I realized that
the Jew uses language for the purpose of dissimulating his thought or at least
veiling it, so that his real aim cannot be discovered by what he says but rather by
reading between the lines. This knowledge was the occasion of the greatest inner
revolution that I had yet experienced. From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan I
became an out-and-out anti-Semite.

Only on one further occasion, and that for the last time, did I give way to
oppressing thoughts which caused me some moments of profound anxiety.
As I critically reviewed the activities of the Jewish people throughout long
periods of history I became anxious and asked myself whether for some
inscrutable reasons beyond the comprehension of poor mortals such as
ourselves. Destiny may not have irrevocably decreed that the final victory must
go to this small nation? May it not be that this people which has lived only for
the earth has been promised the earth as a recompense? is our right to struggle
for our own self-preservation based on reality, or is it a merely subjective thing?
Fate answered the question for me inasmuch as it led me to make a detached and
exhaustive inquiry into the Marxist teaching and the activities of the Jewish
people in connection with it.

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature
and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass
and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human
personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary
significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human
existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as
the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of
all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a
law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know,
with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.
Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of
this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will
once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface,
as it did millions of years ago.

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the
handiwork of the Lord.





Generally speaking a man should not publicly take part in politics before he has
reached the age of thirty, though, of course, exceptions must be made in the case
of those who are naturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That at
least is my opinion to-day. And the reason for it is that until he reaches his
thirtieth year or thereabouts a man's mental development will mostly consist in
acquiring and sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a
general platform from which he can examine the different political problems
that arise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitude towards each.
A man must first acquire a fund of general ideas and fit them together so as to
form an organic structure of personal thought or outlook on life - a
Weltanschhauung. Then he will have that mental equipment without which he
cannot form his own judgments on particular questions of the day, and he will
have acquired those qualities that are necessary for consistency and
steadfastness in the formation of political opinions. Such a man is now qualified,
at least subjectively, to take his part in the political conduct of public affairs.
If these pre-requisite conditions are not fulfilled, and if a man should enter
political life without this equipment, he will run a twofold risk. In the first place,
he may find during the course of events that the stand which he originally took
in regard to some essential question was wrong. He will now have to abandon
his former position or else stick to it against his better knowledge and riper
wisdom and after his reason and convictions have already proved it untenable. If
he adopt the former line of action he will find himself in a difficult personal
situation; because in giving up a position hitherto maintained he will appear
inconsistent and will have no right to expect his followers to remain as loyal to
his leadership as they were before. And, as regards the followers themselves,
they may easily look upon their leader's change of policy as showing a lack of
judgment inherent in his character. Moreover, the change must cause in them a
certain feeling of discomfiture vis-a-vis those whom the leader formerly

If he adopts the second alternative - which so very frequently happens to-day -
then public pronouncements of the leader have no longer his personal persuasion
to support them. And the more that is the case the defence of his cause will be
all the more hollow and superficial. He now descends to the adoption of vulgar
means in his defence. While he himself no longer dreams seriously of standing
by his political protestations to the last - for no man will die in defence of
something in which he does not believe - he makes increasing demands on his
followers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his own insincerity, the more
unfortunate and inconsiderate become his claims on his party adherents. Finally,
he throws aside the last vestiges of true leadership and begins to play politics.




This means that he becomes one of those whose only consistency is their
inconsistency, associated with overbearing insolence and oftentimes an artful
mendacity developed to a shamelessly high degree.

Should such a person, to the misfortune of all decent people, succeed in
becoming a parliamentary deputy it will be clear from the outset that for him the
essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold
on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family. The
more his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he
fight to maintain for himself the representation of his parliamentary
constituency. For that reason any other person who gives evidence of political
capacity is his personal enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the
possible beginning of his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than
himself will appear to him in the light of a menace.

I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to which this kind of
parliamentary vermin give rise.

When a man has reached his thirtieth year he has still a great deal to learn. That
is obvious. But henceforward what he learns will principally be an amplification
of his basic ideas; it will be fitted in with them organically so as to fill up the
framework of the fundamental Weltanschhauung which he already possesses.
What he learns anew will not imply the abandonment of principles already held,
but rather a deeper knowledge of those principles. And thus his colleagues will
never have the discomforting feeling that they have been hitherto falsely led by
him. On the contrary, their confidence is increased when they perceive that their
leader's qualities are steadily developing along the lines of an organic growth
which results from the constant assimilation of new ideas; so that the followers
look upon this process as signifying an enrichment of the doctrines in which
they themselves believe, in their eyes every such development is a new witness
to the correctness of that whole body of opinion which has hitherto been held.
A leader who has to abandon the platform founded on his general principles,
because he recognizes the foundation as false, can act with honour only when he
declares his readiness to accept the final consequences of his erroneous views.
In such a case he ought to refrain from taking public part in any further political
activity. Having once gone astray on essential things he may possibly go astray a
second time. But, anyhow, he has no right whatsoever to expect or demand that
his fellow citizens should continue to give him their support.
How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our public leaders
nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalent among the cabal which
at the present moment feels itself called to political leadership. In the whole
cabal there is scarcely one who is properly equipped for this task.
Although in those days I used to give more time than most others to the
consideration of political question, yet I carefully refrained from taking an open
part in politics. Only to a small circle did I speak of those things which agitated
my mind or were the cause of constant preoccupation for me. The habit of




discussing matters within such a restricted group had many advantages in itself.
Rather than talk at them, I learned to feel my way into the modes of thought and
views of those men around me. Oftentimes such ways of thinking and such
views were quite primitive. Thus I took every possible occasion to increase my
knowledge of men.

Nowhere among the German people was the opportunity for making such a
study so favourable as in Vienna.

In the old Danubian Monarchy political thought was wider in its range and had a
richer variety of interests than in the Germany of that epoch - excepting certain
parts of Prussia, Hamburg and the districts bordering on the North Sea. When I
speak of Austria here I mean that part of the great Habsburg Empire which, by
reason of its German population, furnished not only the historic basis for the
formation of this State but whose population was for several centuries also the
exclusive source of cultural life in that political system whose structure was so
artificial. As time went on the stability of the Austrian State and the guarantee of
its continued existence depended more and more on the maintenance of this
germ-cell of that Habsburg Empire.

The hereditary imperial provinces constituted the heart of the Empire. And it
was this heart that constantly sent the blood of life pulsating through the whole
political and cultural system. Corresponding to the heart of the Empire, Vienna
signified the brain and the will. At that time Vienna presented an appearance
which made one think of her as an enthroned queen whose authoritative sway
united the conglomeration of heterogenous nationalities that lived under the
Habsburg sceptre. The radiant beauty of the capital city made one forget the sad
symptoms of senile decay which the State manifested as a whole.
Though the Empire was internally rickety because of the terrific conflict going
on between the various nationalities, the outside world - and Germany in
particular - saw only that lovely picture of the city. The illusion was all the
greater because at that time Vienna seemed to have risen to its highest pitch of
splendour. Under a Mayor, who had the true stamp of administrative genius, the
venerable residential City of the Emperors of the old Empire seemed to have the
glory of its youth renewed. The last great German who sprang from the ranks of
the people that had colonized the East Mark was not a 'statesman', in the official
sense. This Dr. Luegar, however, in his role as Mayor of 'the Imperial Capital
and Residential City', had achieved so much in almost all spheres of municipal
activity, whether economic or cultural, that the heart of the whole Empire
throbbed with renewed vigour. He thus proved himself a much greater statesman
than the so-called 'diplomats' of that period.

The fact that this political system of heterogeneous races called Austria, finally
broke down is no evidence whatsoever of political incapacity on the part of the
German element in the old East Mark. The collapse was the inevitable result of
an impossible situation. Ten million people cannot permanently hold together a
State of fifty millions, composed of different and convicting nationalities, unless




certain definite pre-requisite conditions are at hand while there is still time to
avail of them.

The German-Austrian had very big ways of thinking. Accustomed to live in a
great Empire, he had a keen sense of the obligations incumbent on him in such a
situation. He was the only member of the Austrian State who looked beyond the
borders of the narrow lands belonging to the Crown and took in all the frontiers
of the Empire in the sweep of his mind. Indeed when destiny severed him from
the common Fatherland he tried to master the tremendous task which was set
before him as a consequence. This task was to maintain for the German-
Austrians that patrimony which, through innumerable struggles, their ancestors
had originally wrested from the East. It must be remembered that the German-
Austrians could not put their undivided strength into this effort, because the
hearts and minds of the best among them were constantly turning back towards
their kinsfolk in the Motherland, so that only a fraction of their energy remained
to be employed at home.

The mental horizon of the German-Austrian was comparatively broad. His
commercial interests comprised almost every section of the heterogeneous
Empire. The conduct of almost all important undertakings was in his hands. He
provided the State, for the most part, with its leading technical experts and civil
servants. He was responsible for carrying on the foreign trade of the country, as
far as that sphere of activity was not under Jewish control. The German- Austrian
exclusively represented the political cement that held the State together. His
military duties carried him far beyond the narrow frontiers of his homeland.
Though the recruit might join a regiment made up of the German element, the
regiment itself might be stationed in Herzegovina as well as in Vienna or
Galicia. The officers in the Habsburg armies were still Germans and so was the
predominating element in the higher branches of the civil service. Art and
science were in German hands. Apart from the new artistic trash, which might
easily have been produced by a negro tribe, all genuine artistic inspiration came
from the German section of the population. In music, architecture, sculpture and
painting, Vienna abundantly supplied the entire Dual Monarchy. And the source
never seemed to show signs of a possible exhaustion. Finally, it was the German
element that determined the conduct of foreign policy, though a small number of
Hungarians were also active in that field.

All efforts, however, to save the unity of the State were doomed to end in
failure, because the essential pre-requisites were missing.

There was only one possible way to control and hold in check the centrifugal
forces of the different and differing nationalities. This way was: to govern the
Austrian State and organize it internally on the principle of centralization. In no
other way imaginable could the existence of that State be assured.
Now and again there were lucid intervals in the higher ruling quarters when this
truth was recognized. But it was soon forgotten again, or else deliberately
ignored, because of the difficulties to be overcome in putting it into practice.




Every project which aimed at giving the Empire a more federal shape was bound
to be ineffective because there was no strong central authority which could
exercise sufficient power within the State to hold the federal elements together.
It must be remembered in this connection that conditions in Austria were quite
different from those which characterized the German State as founded by
Bismarck. Germany was faced with only one difficulty, which was that of
transforming the purely political traditions, because throughout the whole of
Bismarck's Germany there was a common cultural basis. The German Empire
contained only members of one and the same racial or national stock, with the
exception of a few minor foreign fragments.

Demographic conditions in Austria were quite the reverse. With the exception of
Hungary there was no political tradition, coming down from a great past, in any
of the various affiliated countries. If there had been, time had either wiped out
all traces of it, or at least, rendered them obscure. Moreover, this was the epoch
when the principle of nationality began to be in ascendant; and that phenomenon
awakened the national instincts in the various countries affiliated under the
Habsburg sceptre. It was difficult to control the action of these newly awakened
national forces; because, adjacent to the frontiers of the Dual Monarchy, new
national States were springing up whose people were of the same or kindred
racial stock as the respective nationalities that constituted the Habsburg Empire.
These new States were able to exercise a greater influence than the German

Even Vienna could not hold out for a lengthy period in this conflict. When
Budapest had developed into a metropolis a rival had grown up whose mission
was, not to help in holding together the various divergent parts of the Empire,
but rather to strengthen one part. Within a short time Prague followed the
example of Budapest; and later on came Lemberg, Laibach and others. By
raising these places which had formerly been provincial towns to the rank of
national cities, rallying centres were provided for an independent cultural life.
Through this the local national instincts acquired a spiritual foundation and
therewith gained a more profound hold on the people. The time was bound to
come when the particularist interests of those various countries would become
stronger than their common imperial interests. Once that stage had been reached,
Austria's doom was sealed.

The course of this development was clearly perceptible since the death of Joseph
II. Its rapidity depended on a number of factors, some of which had their source
in the Monarchy itself; while others resulted from the position which the Empire
had taken in foreign politics.

It was impossible to make anything like a successful effort for the permanent
consolidation of the Austrian State unless a firm and persistent policy of
centralization were put into force. Before everything else the principle should
have been adopted that only one common language could be used as the official
language of the State. Thus it would be possible to emphasize the formal unity




of that imperial commonwealth. And thus the administration would have in its
hands a technical instrument without which the State could not endure as a
political unity. In the same way the school and other forms of education should
have been used to inculcate a feeling of common citizenship. Such an objective
could not be reached within ten or twenty years. The effort would have to be
envisaged in terms of centuries; just as in all problems of colonization, steady
perseverance is a far more important element than the output of energetic effort
at the moment.

It goes without saying that in such circumstances the country must be governed
and administered by strictly adhering to the principle of uniformity.
For me it was quite instructive to discover why this did not take place, or rather
why it was not done. Those who were guilty of the omission must be held
responsible for the break-up of the Habsburg Empire.

More than any other State, the existence of the old Austria depended on a strong
and capable Government. The Habsburg Empire lacked ethnical uniformity,
which constitutes the fundamental basis of a national State and will preserve the
existence of such a State even though the ruling power should be grossly
inefficient. When a State is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural
inertia of such a population will hold the Stage together and maintain its
existence through astonishingly long periods of misgovernment and
maladministration. It may often seem as if the principle of life had died out in
such a body-politic; but a time comes when the apparent corpse rises up and
displays before the world an astonishing manifestation of its indestructible

But the situation is utterly different in a country where the population is not
homogeneous, where there is no bond of common blood but only that of one
ruling hand. Should the ruling hand show signs of weakness in such a State the
result will not be to cause a kind of hibernation of the State but rather to awaken
the individualist instincts which are slumbering in the ethnological groups.
These instincts do not make themselves felt as long as these groups are
dominated by a strong central will-to-govern. The danger which exists in these
slumbering separatist instincts can be rendered more or less innocuous only
through centuries of common education, common traditions and common
interests. The younger such States are, the more their existence will depend on
the ability and strength of the central government. If their foundation was due
only to the work of a strong personality or a leader who is a man of genius, in
many cases they will break up as soon as the founder disappears; because,
though great, he stood alone. But even after centuries of a common education
and experiences these separatist instincts I have spoken of are not always
completely overcome. They may be only dormant and may suddenly awaken
when the central government shows weakness and the force of a common
education as well as the prestige of a common tradition prove unable to




withstand the vital energies of separatist nationahties forging ahead towards the

shaping of their own individual existence.

The failure to see the truth of all this constituted what may be called the tragic

crime of the Habsburg rulers.

Only before the eyes of one Habsburg ruler, and that for the last time, did the

hand of Destiny hold aloft the torch that threw light on the future of his country.

But the torch was then extinguished for ever.

Joseph II, Roman Emperor of the German nation, was filled with a growing

anxiety when he realized the fact that his House was removed to an outlying

frontier of his Empire and that the time would soon be at hand when it would be

overturned and engulfed in the whirlpool caused by that Babylon of

nationalities, unless something was done at the eleventh hour to overcome the

dire consequences resulting from the negligence of his ancestors. With

superhuman energy this 'Friend of Mankind' made every possible effort to

counteract the effects of the carelessness and thoughtlessness of his

predecessors. Within one decade he strove to repair the damage that had been

done through centuries. If Destiny had only granted him forty years for his

labours, and if only two generations had carried on the work which he had

started, the miracle might have been performed. But when he died, broken in

body and spirit after ten years of mlership, his work sank with him into the

grave and rests with him there in the Capucin Crypt, sleeping its eternal sleep,

having never again showed signs of awakening.

His successors had neither the ability nor the will-power necessary for the task

they had to face.

When the first signs of a new revolutionary epoch appeared in Europe they

gradually scattered the fire throughout Austria. And when the fire began to glow

steadily it was fed and fanned not by the social or political conditions but by

forces that had their origin in the nationalist yearnings of the various ethnic


The European revolutionary movement of 1848 primarily took the form of a

class conflict in almost every other country, but in Austria it took the form of a

new racial struggle. In so far as the German- Austrians there forgot the origins of

the movement, or perhaps had failed to recognize them at the start and

consequently took part in the revolutionary uprising, they sealed their own fate.

For they thus helped to awaken the spirit of Western Democracy which, within a

short while, shattered the foundations of their own existence.

The setting up of a representative parliamentary body, without insisting on the

preliminary that only one language should be used in all public intercourse

under the State, was the first great blow to the predominance of the German

element in the Dual Monarchy. From that moment the State was also doomed to

collapse sooner or later. All that followed was nothing but the historical

liquidation of an Empire.




To watch that process of progressive disintegration was a tragic and at the same
time an instructive experience. The execution of history's decree was carried out
in thousands of details. The fact that great numbers of people went about
blindfolded amid the manifest signs of dissolution only proves that the gods had
decreed the destruction of Austria.

I do not wish to dwell on details because that would lie outside the scope of this
book. I want to treat in detail only those events which are typical among the
causes that lead to the decline of nations and States and which are therefore of
importance to our present age. Moreover, the study of these events helped to
furnish the basis of my own political outlook.

Among the institutions which most clearly manifested unmistakable signs of
decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all the institutions
of State, ought to have been the most firmly founded - 1 mean the Parliament, or
the Reichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria.
The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed in England,
the land of classic democracy. The whole of that excellent organization was
bodily transferred to Austria with as little alteration as possible.
As the Austrian counterpart to the British two-chamber system a Chamber of
Deputies and a House of Lords (Herrenhaus) were established in Vienna. The
Houses themselves, considered as buildings were somewhat different. When
Barry built his palaces, or, as we say the Houses of Parliament, on the shore of
the Thames, he could look to the history of the British Empire for the inspiration
of his work. In that history he found sufficient material to fill and decorate the
1,200 niches, brackets, and pillars of his magnificent edifice. His statues and
paintings made the House of Lords and the House of Commons temples
dedicated to the glory of the nation.

There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the
Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace in which the
new body of popular representatives was to be housed he had to turn to the
ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical
shrine of 'Western Democracy' was adorned with the statues and portraits of
Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol
of irony, the horses of the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling
apart from one another towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no
better symbol for the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same

The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of Austrian history
in the decoration of this building, insisting that such would constitute an offence
to them and a provocation. Much the same happened in Germany, where the
Reich-stag, built by Wallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the
cannons were thundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by an




I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered the Palace on the
Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first
experience aroused in me a profound feeling of repugnance.
I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the
contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even
imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the
House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and
reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.
A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed towards
the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling of admiration
almost without my being conscious of the effect of it through so much reading
of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration
all in a moment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commons
fulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms
in which the Austrian Press reported these events. I used to ask myself whether
there could be any nobler form of government than self-government by the

But these considerations furnished the very motives of my hostility to the
Austrian Parliament. The form in which parliamentary government was here
represented seemed unworthy of its great prototype. The following
considerations also influenced my attitude:

The fate of the German element in the Austrian State depended on its position in
Parliament. Up to the time that universal suffrage by secret ballot was
introduced the German representatives had a majority in the Parliament, though
that majority was not a very substantial one. This situation gave cause for
anxiety because the Social-Democratic fraction of the German element could not
be relied upon when national questions were at stake. In matters that were of
critical concern for the German element, the Social-Democrats always took up
an anti-German stand because they were afraid of losing their followers among
the other national groups. Already at that time - before the introduction of
universal suffrage - the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be considered
as a German Party. The introduction of universal suffrage put an end even to the
purely numerical predominance of the German element. The way was now clear
for the further 'de-Germanization' of the Austrian State.

The national instinct of self-preservation made it impossible for me to welcome
a representative system in which the German element was not really represented
as such, but always betrayed by the Social-Democratic fraction. Yet all these,
and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the
parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still
believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body
there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian
State continued to exist.




Such was my general attitude at the time when I first entered those sacred and

contentious halls. For me they were sacred only because of the radiant beauty of

that majestic edifice. A Greek wonder on German soil.

But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several

hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical

importance and each representative had the right to have his say.

That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during

several weeks afterwards.

The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did

not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak

German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of

hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through

reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and

bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and

making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly

appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.

I could not refrain from laughing.

Several weeks later I paid a second visit. This time the House presented an

entirely different picture, so much so that one could hardly recognize it as the

same place. The hall was practically empty. They were sleeping in the other

rooms below. Only a few deputies were in their places, yawning in each other's

faces. One was speechifying. A deputy speaker was in the chair. When he

looked round it was quite plain that he felt bored.

Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament

whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but

attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I

studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the

various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my

own ideas about what I saw.

A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely

destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary

institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of

parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become

impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed

that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack

of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong

in its very essence and form.

A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more

closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I

scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen

who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of

making this institution function.




Thus it happened that at one and the same time I came to know the institution
itself and those of whom it was composed. And it was thus that, within the
course of a few years, I came to form a clear and vivid picture of the average
type of that most lightly worshipped phenomenon of our time - the
parliamentary deputy. The picture of him which I then formed became deeply
engraved on my mind and I have never altered it since, at least as far as
essentials go.

Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from getting
firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so alluring to many
people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence.
Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of
Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former.
Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world pest
can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy
produced an abortion of filth and fire 6), the creative fire of which, however,
seems to have died out.

I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to my notice when I was
still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany at that time I might easily have
found only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered
what an illogical thing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easily
have gone to the other extreme and believed - as many people believed, and
apparently not without good reason - that the salvation of the people and the
Empire could be secured only by restrengthening the principle of imperial
authority. Those who had this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time
and were blind to the aspirations of the people.

In Austria one could not be so easily misled. There it was impossible to fall from
one error into another. If the Parliament were worthless, the Habsburgs were
worse; or at least not in the slightest degree better. The problem was not solved
by rejecting the parliamentary system. Immediately the question arose: What
then? To repudiate and abolish the Vienna Parliament would have resulted in
leaving all power in the hands of the Habsburgs. For me, especially, that idea
was impossible.

Since this problem was specially difficult in regard to Austria, I was forced
while still quite young to go into the essentials of the whole question more
thoroughly than I otherwise should have done.

The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me
and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any
individual responsibility in the representative body.

The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating
consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called
to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility
when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the
responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament




dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the

responsibility of a definite person?

Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary

government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole

multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead

of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman

consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects?

Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their

generous consent?

Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of

persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political

measures and carry them through into practice?

Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over

a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called

together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly


Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a

great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness

openly demonstrated through its success?

In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the

inertia of the mass?

What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary

multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for

some sort of consideration?

Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he

then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital

necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with

an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand

and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the

level of a political jobber?

And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play polities',

seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with

an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority

necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite

brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to

dispense with this as a condition of its existence?




But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the
individual is indispensable?

The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the
majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of
anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic
principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must
remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristrocratic principle need not be
thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be
recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned
how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is
primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of
politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political
life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who
has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is
capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will
appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge
in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock,
and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not
demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of
sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of
small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity
does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the
beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is
already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room
for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our
decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the
calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and
smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary
majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy
of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the
majority - which means the dunder-headed multitude - hate nothing so much as
a superior brain.

For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be led by a person whose
intellectual stature is on a level with their own. Thus each one may have the
opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers and, above all, each one
feels that he may one day rise to the top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not
Paul tomorrow ?

This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar
phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the
cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever




important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in
being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.
In observing one of these political manipulators one notices how he wheedles
the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action he takes. He has to
have accomplices in order to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders
whenever it is opportune to do so. That is the main reason why this kind of
political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same
time it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept
responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to be covered by
something, must be classed among the knaves and the rascals. If a national
leader should come from that lower class of politicians the evil consequences
will soon manifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take a
decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than pluck up
courage to take a definite stand. And thus nobody is left who is willing to risk
his position and his career, if needs be, in support of a determined line of policy.
One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never
replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice.
And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a
hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires
moral strength and fortitude.

The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater
will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the
call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so
much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They
stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of
them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They
watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which
their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes
one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too
long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred
understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no
peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand
over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of
getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to
give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are
hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.

The result of all this is that, in such a State, the succession of sudden changes in
public positions and public offices has a very disquieting effect in general,
which may easily lead to disaster when an adverse crisis arises. It is not only the
ignorant and the incompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentary
conditions, for the genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if
not more so, whenever Fate has chanced to place a capable man in the position
of leader. Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the




result will be that a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that

leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of

intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want

to have only their own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards

any man who might show himself obviously above and beyond them when he

mingles in their ranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is

very sharp in this particular.

The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks

steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to

suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that

same class of 'leaders'.

The parliamentary regime in the old Austria was the very archetype of the

institution as I have described it.

Though the Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by the King-Emperor, this

act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the will of the parliament. The

huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to every ministerial position

showed all the typical marks of Western Democracy. The results that followed

were in keeping with the principles applied. The intervals between the

replacement of one person by another gradually became shorter, finally ending

up in a wild relay chase. With each change the quality of the 'statesman' in

question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type of political huckster

remained. In such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and

valued according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalition

after another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest

political transactions, which is the only kind of practical activity suited to the

aptitudes of these representatives.

In this sphere Vienna was the school which offered the most impressive


Another feature that engaged my attention quite as much as the features I have

already spoken of was the contrast between the talents and knowledge of these

representatives of the people on the one hand and, on the other, the nature of the

tasks they had to face. Willingly or unwillingly, one could not help thinking

seriously of the narrow intellectual outlook of these chosen representatives of

the various constituent nationalities, and one could not avoid pondering on the

methods through which these noble figures in our public life were first


It was worth while to make a thorough study and examination of the way in

which the real talents of these gentlemen were devoted to the service of their

country; in other words, to analyse thoroughly the technical procedure of their


The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the

more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and

principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very




necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors
talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination
and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous
existence the results were surprising.

There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the
parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

In our examination of it we may pass over the methods according to which the
election of the representatives takes place, as well as the ways which bring them
into office and bestow new titles on them. It is quite evident that only to a tiny
degree are public wishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which
an election takes place; for everybody who properly estimates the political
intelligence of the masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to
enable them to form general political judgments on their own account, or to
select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.
Whatever definition we may give of the term 'public opinion', only a very small
part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater
portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been
presented to the people through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent
system of 'information'.

In the religious sphere the profession of a denominational belief is largely the
result of education, while the religious yearning itself slumbers in the soul; so
too the political opinions of the masses are the final result of influences
systematically operating on human sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a
method which is applied sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness and

By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this connection
is best expressed by the word 'propaganda', is carried on by the Press. The Press
is the chief means employed in the process of political 'enlightenment'. It
represents a kind of school for adults. This educational activity, however, is not
in the hands of the State but in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very
inferior character. While still a young man in Vienna I had excellent
opportunities for coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass
instruction, as well as those who supplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first
I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this
dangerous Great Power within the State to produce a certain belief among the
public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often
completely misconstrued. It took the Press only a few days to transform some
ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital
problems were completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public

The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere within
the course of a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes of the
masses were bound up with those names. And so they made those names more




popular than any man of real ability could ever hope to be in a long lifetime. All
this was done, despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown and indeed
had never been heard of even up to a month before the Press publicly
emblazoned them. At the same time old and tried figures in the political and
other spheres of life quickly faded from the public memory and were forgotten
as if they were dead, though still healthy and in the enjoyment of their full
viguour. Or sometimes such men were so vilely abused that it looked as if their
names would soon stand as permanent symbols of the worst kind of baseness. In
order to estimate properly the really pernicious influence which the Press can
exercise one had to study this infamous Jewish method whereby honourable and
decent people were besmirched with mud and filth, in the form of low abuse and
slander, from hundreds and hundreds of quarters simultaneously, as if
commanded by some magic formula.

These highway robbers would grab at anything which might serve their evil

They would poke their noses into the most intimate family affairs and would not
rest until they had sniffed out some petty item which could be used to destroy
the reputation of their victim. But if the result of all this sniffing should be that
nothing derogatory was discovered in the private or public life of the victim,
they continued to hurl abuse at him, in the belief that some of their
animadversions would stick even though refuted a thousand times. In most cases
it finally turned out impossible for the victim to continue his defence, because
the accuser worked together with so many accomplices that his slanders were re-
echoed interminably. But these slanderers would never own that they were
acting from motives which influence the common run of humanity or are
understood by them. Oh, no. The scoundrel who defamed his contemporaries in
this villainous way would crown himself with a halo of heroic probity fashioned
of unctuous phraseology and twaddle about his 'duties as a journalist' and other
mouldy nonsense of that kind. When these cuttle-fishes gathered together in
large shoals at meetings and congresses they would give out a lot of slimy talk
about a special kind of honour which they called the professional honour of the
journalist. Then the assembled species would bow their respects to one another.
These are the kind of beings that fabricate more than two-thirds of what is called
public opinion, from the foam of which the parliamentary Aphrodite eventually

Several volumes would be needed if one were to give an adequate account of the
whole procedure and fully describe all its hollow fallacies. But if we pass over
the details and look at the product itself while it is in operation I think this alone
will be sufficient to open the eyes of even the most innocent and credulous
person, so that he may recognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it




In order to realize how this human aberration is as harmful as it is absurd, the
test and easiest method is to compare democratic parliamentarianism with a
genuine German democracy.

The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is the fact
that a number of persons, let us say five hundred - including, in recent time,
women also - are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give final
judgment on anything and everything. In practice they alone are the governing
body; for although they may appoint a Cabinet, which seems outwardly to direct
the affairs of state, this Cabinet has not a real existence of its own. In reality the
so-called Government cannot do anything against the will of the assembly. It
can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not
vested in the Cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The Cabinet always
functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can
be judged only according to how far it succeeds in adjusting itself to the will of
the majority or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals. But this
means that it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a
mendicant who has to beg the approval of a majority that may be got together
for the time being. Indeed, the chief preoccupation of the Cabinet must be to
secure for itself, in the case of each individual measure, the favour of the
majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be more
favourably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts it may go on
'governing' for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a majority it must
retire. The question whether its policy as such has been right or wrong does not
matter at all.

Thereby all responsibility is abolished in practice. To what consequences such a
state of affairs can lead may easily be understood from the following simple

Those five hundred deputies who have been elected by the people come from
various dissimilar callings in life and show very varying degrees of political
capacity, with the result that the whole combination is disjointed and sometimes
presents quite a sorry picture. Surely nobody believes that these chosen
representatives of the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects.
Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to pretend that hundreds of statesmen can
emerge from papers placed in the ballot box by electors who are anything else
but averagely intelligent. The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of
universal suffrage cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those
times may be really called blessed when one genuine statesman makes his
appearance among a people. Such statesmen do not appear all at once in
hundreds or more. Secondly, among the broad masses there is instinctively a
definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. There is a better chance of
seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man
'discovered' through an election.




Whatever has happened in history above the level of the average of the broad
public has mostly been due to the driving force of an individual personality.
But here five hundred persons of less than modest intellectual qualities pass
judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form
governments which in turn learn to win the approval of the illustrious assembly
for every legislative step that may be taken, which means that the policy to be
carried out is actually the policy of the five hundred.
And indeed, generally speaking, the policy bears the stamp of its origin.
But let us pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and ask
what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact that the
problems which have to be discussed and solved belong to the most varied and
diverse fields we can very well realize how inefficient a governing system must
be which entrusts the right of decision to a mass assembly in which only very
few possess the knowledge and experience such as would qualify them to deal
with the matters that have to be settled. The most important economic measures
are submitted to a tribunal in which not more than one-tenth of the members
have studied the elements of economics. This means that final authority is
vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory training which might
make them competent to decide on the questions at issue.

The same holds true of every other problem. It is always a majority of ignorant
and incompetent people who decide on each measure; for the composition of the
institution does not vary, while the problems to be dealt with come from the
most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent judgment would be possible
only if different deputies had the authority to deal with different issues. It is out
of the question to think that the same people are fitted to decide on transport
questions as well as, let us say, on questions of foreign policy, unless each of
them be a universal genius. But scarcely more than one genius appears in a
century. Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real brains, but only with
dilettanti who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant,
intellectual demi-mondes of the worst kind. This is why these honourable
gentlemen show such astonishing levity in discussing and deciding on matters
that would demand the most painstaking consideration even from great minds.
Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the State are
framed and discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed the
latter suggests a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than that of
deciding the destinies of a people.

Of course it would be unfair to assume that each member in such a parliament
was endowed by nature with such a small sense of responsibility. That is out of
the question.

But this system, by forcing the individual to pass judgment on questions for
which he is not competent gradually debases his moral character. Nobody will
have the courage to say: "Gentlemen, I am afraid we know nothing about what
we are talking about. I for one have no competency in the matter at all."




Anyhow if such a declaration were made it would not change matters very
much; for such outspoken honesty would not be understood. The person who
made the declaration would be deemed an honourable ass who ought not to be
allowed to spoil the game. Those who have a knowledge of human nature know
that nobody likes to be considered a fool among his associates; and in certain
circles honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.

Thus it happens that a naturally upright man, once he finds himself elected to
parliament, may eventually be induced by the force of circumstances to
acquiesce in a general line of conduct which is base in itself and amounts to a
betrayal of the public trust. That feeling that if the individual refrained from
taking part in a certain decision his attitude would not alter the situation in the
least, destroys every real sense of honour which might occasionally arouse the
conscience of one person or another. Finally, the otherwise upright deputy will
succeed in persuading himself that he is by no means the worst of the lot and
that by taking part in a certain line of action he may prevent something worse
from happening.

A counter argument may be put forward here. It may be said that of course the
individual member may not have the knowledge which is requisite for the
treatment of this or that question, yet his attitude towards it is taken on the
advice of his Party as the guiding authority in each political matter; and it may
further be said that the Party sets up special committees of experts who have
even more than the requisite knowledge for dealing with the questions placed
before them.

At first sight, that argument seems sound. But then another question arises -
namely, why are five hundred persons elected if only a few have the wisdom
which is required to deal with the more important problems?
It is not the aim of our modem democratic parliamentary system to bring
together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed deputies. Not at all. The
aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on
others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the
mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party
policy, according to the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And
by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real
control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to
account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions
taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can
be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil
genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the
shoulders of the Party as a whole.

In practice no actual responsibility remains. For responsibility arises only from
personal duty and not from the obligations that rest with a parliamentary
assembly of empty talkers.




The parliamentary institution attracts people of the badger type, who do not like

the open light. No upright man, who is ready to accept personal responsibility

for his acts, will be attracted to such an institution.

That is the reason why this brand of democracy has become a tool in the hand of

that race which, because of the inner purposes it wishes to attain, must shun the

open light, as it has always done and always will do. Only a Jew can praise an

institution which is as corrupt and false as himself.

As a contrast to this kind of democracy we have the German democracy, which

is a true democracy; for here the leader is freely chosen and is obliged to accept

full responsibility for all his actions and omissions. The problems to be dealt

with are not put to the vote of the majority; but they are decided upon by the

individual, and as a guarantee of responsibility for those decisions he pledges all

he has in the world and even his life.

The objection may be raised here that under such conditions it would be very

difficult to find a man who would be ready to devote himself to so fateful a task.

The answer to that objection is as follows:

We thank God that the inner spirit of our German democracy will of itself

prevent the chance careerist, who may be intellectually worthless and a moral

twister, from coming by devious ways to a position in which he may govern his

fellow-citizens. The fear of undertaking such far-reaching responsibilities, under

German democracy, will scare off the ignorant and the feckless.

But should it happen that such a person might creep in surreptitiously it will be

easy enough to identify him and apostrophize him ruthlessly, somewhat thus:

"Be off, you scoundrel. Don't soil these steps with your feet; because these are

the steps that lead to the portals of the Pantheon of History, and they are not

meant for place-hunters but for men of noble character."

Such were the views I formed after two years of attendance at the sessions of the

Viennese Parliament. Then I went there no more.

The parliamentary regime became one of the causes why the strength of the

Habsburg State steadily declined during the last years of its existence. The more

the predominance of the German element was whittled away through

parliamentary procedure, the more prominent became the system of playing off

one of the various constituent nationalities against the other. In the Imperial

Parliament it was always the German element that suffered through the system,

which meant that the results were detrimental to the Empire as a whole; for at

the close of the century even the most simple-minded people could recognize

that the cohesive forces within the Dual Monarchy no longer sufficed to

counterbalance the separatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities. On the


The measures which the State adopted for its own maintenance became more

and more mean spirited and in a like degree the general disrespect for the State

increased. Not only Hungary but also the various Slav provinces gradually

ceased to identify themselves with the monarchy which embraced them all, and




accordingly they did not feel its weakness as in any way detrimental to
themselves. They rather welcomed those manifestations of senile decay. They
looked forward to the final dissolution of the State, and not to its recovery.
The complete collapse was still forestalled in Parliament by the humiliating
concessions that were made to every kind of importunate demands, at the cost of
the German element. Throughout the country the defence of the State rested on
playing off the various nationalities against one another. But the general trend of
this development was directed against the Germans. Especially since the right of
succession to the throne conferred certain influence on the Archduke Franz
Ferdinand, the policy of increasing the power of the Czechs was carried out
systematically from the upper grades of the administration down to the lower.
With all the means at his command the heir to the Dual Monarchy personally
furthered the policy that aimed at eliminating the influence of the German
element, or at least he acted as protector of that policy. By the use of State
officials as tools, purely German districts were gradually but decisively brought
within the danger zone of the mixed languages. Even in Lower Austria this
process began to make headway with a constantly increasing tempo and Vienna
was looked upon by the Czechs as their biggest city.

In the family circle of this new Habsburger the Czech language was favoured.
The wife of the Archduke had formerly been a Czech Countess and was wedded
to the Prince by a morganatic marriage. She came from an environment where
hostility to the Germans had been traditional. The leading idea in the mind of the
Archduke was to establish a Slav State in Central Europe, which was to be
constructed on a purely Catholic basis, so as to serve as a bulwark against
Orthodox Russia.

As had happened often in Habsburg history, religion was thus exploited to serve
a purely political policy, and in this case a fatal policy, at least as far as German
interests were concerned. The result was lamentable in many respects.
Neither the House of Habsburg nor the Catholic Church received the reward
which they expected. Habsburg lost the throne and the Church lost a great State.
By employing religious motives in the service of politics, a spirit was aroused
which the instigators of that policy had never thought possible.
From the attempt to exterminate Germanism in the old monarchy by every
available means arose the Pan-German Movement in Austria, as a response.
In the 'eighties of the last century Manchester Liberalism, which was Jewish in
its fundamental ideas, had reached the zenith of its influence in the Dual
Monarchy, or had already passed that point. The reaction which set in did not
arise from social but from nationalistic tendencies, as was always the case in the
old Austria. The instinct of self-preservation drove the German element to
defend itself energetically. Economic considerations only slowly began to gain
an important influence; but they were of secondary concern. But of the general
political chaos two party organizations emerged. The one was more of a




national, and the other more of a social, character; but both were highly
interesting and instructive for the future.

After the war of 1866, which had resulted in the humiliation of Austria, the
House of Habsburg contemplated a revanche on the battlefield. Only the tragic
end of the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico prevented a still closer collaboration
with France. The chief blame for Maximilian's disastrous expedition was
attributed to Napoleon III and the fact that the Frenchman left him in the lurch
aroused a general feeling of indignation. Yet the Habsburgs were still lying in
wait for their opportunity. If the war of 1870-71 had not been such a singular
triumph, the Viennese Court might have chanced the game of blood in order to
get its revenge for Sadowa. But when the first reports arrived from the Franco-
German battlefield, which, though true, seemed miraculous and almost
incredible, the 'most wise' of all monarchs recognized that the moment was
inopportune and tried to accept the unfavourable situation with as good a grace
as possible.

The heroic conflict of those two years (1870-71) produced a still greater miracle;
for with the Habsburgs the change of attitude never came from an inner heartfelt
urge but only from the pressure of circumstances. The German people of the
East Mark, however, were entranced by the triumphant glory of the newly
established German Empire and were profoundly moved when they saw the
dream of their fathers resurgent in a magnificent reality.

For - let us make no mistake about it - the true German-Austrian realized from
this time onward, that Koniggratz was the tragic, though necessary, pre-
condition for the re-establishment of an Empire which should no longer be
burdened with the palsy of the old alliance and which indeed had no share in
that morbid decay. Above all, the German-Austrian had come to feel in the very
depths of his own being that the historical mission of the House of Habsburg had
come to an end and that the new Empire could choose only an Emperor who was
of heroic mould and was therefore worthy to wear the 'Crown of the Rhine'. It
was right and just that Destiny should be praised for having chosen a scion of
that House of which Frederick the Great had in past times given the nation an
elevated and resplendent symbol for all time to come.

After the great war of 1870-71 the House of Habsburg set to work with all its
determination to exterminate the dangerous German element - about whose
inner feelings and attitude there could be no doubt - slowly but deliberately. I
use the word exterminate, because that alone expresses what must have been the
final result of the Slavophile policy. Then it was that the fire of rebellion blazed
up among the people whose extermination had been decreed. That fire was such
as had never been witnessed in modem German history.
For the first time nationalists and patriots were transformed into rebels.
Not rebels against the nation or the State as such but rebels against that form of
government which they were convinced, would inevitably bring about the ruin




of their own people. For the first time in modem history the traditional dynastic
patriotism and national love of fatherland and people were in open conflict.
It was to the merit of the Pan-German movement in Austria during the closing
decade of the last century that it pointed out clearly and unequivocally that a
State is entitled to demand respect and protection for its authority only when
such authority is administered in accordance with the interests of the nation, or
at least not in a manner detrimental to those interests.

The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any
kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred.

If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of
leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of
every individual citizen.

The question of whether and when such a situation exists cannot be answered by
theoretical dissertations but only by the exercise of force, and it is success that
decides the issue.

Every government, even though it may be the worst possible and even though it
may have betrayed the nation's trust in thousands of ways, will claim that its
duty is to uphold the authority of the State. Its adversaries, who are fighting for
national self-preservation, must use the same weapons which the government
uses if they are to prevail against such a rule and secure their own freedom and
independence. Therefore the conflict will be fought out with 'legal' means as
long as the power which is to be overthrown uses them; but the insurgents will
not hesitate to apply illegal means if the oppressor himself employs them.
Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence
is not the maintenance of a State of Government but rather the conservation of
the race.

If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated the question of
legality is only of secondary importance. The established power may in such a
case employ only those means which are recognized as 'legal', yet the instinct of
self-preservation on the part of the oppressed will always justify, to the highest
degree, the employment of all possible resources.

Only on the recognition of this principle was it possible for those struggles to be
carried through, of which history furnishes magnificent examples in abundance,
against foreign bondage or oppression at home.

Human rights are above the rights of the State. But if a people be defeated in the
struggle for its human rights this means that its weight has proved too light in
the scale of Destiny to have the luck of being able to endure in this terrestrial

The world is not there to be possessed by the faint-hearted races.
Austria affords a very clear and striking example of how easy it is for tyranny to
hide its head under the cloak of what is called 'legality'.

The legal exercise of power in the Habsburg State was then based on the anti-
German attitude of the parliament, with its non-German majorities, and on the




dynastic House, which was also hostile to the German element. The whole
authority of the State was incorporated in these two factors. To attempt to alter
the lot of the German element through these two factors would have been
senseless. Those who advised the 'legal' way as the only possible way, and also
obedience to the State authority, could offer no resistance; because a policy of
resistance could not have been put into effect through legal measures. To follow
the advice of the legalist counsellors would have meant the inevitable ruin of the
German element within the Monarchy, and this disaster would not have taken
long to come. The German element has actually been saved only because the
State as such collapsed.

The spectacled theorist would have given his life for his doctrine rather than for
his people.

Because man has made laws he subsequently comes to think that he exists for
the sake of the laws.

A great service rendered by the pan-German movement then was that it
abolished all such nonsense, though the doctrinaire theorists and other fetish
worshippers were shocked.

When the Habsburgs attempted to come to close quarters with the German
element, by the employment of all the means of attack which they had at their
command, the Pan-German Party hit out ruthlessly against the 'illustrious'
dynasty. This Party was the first to probe into and expose the corrupt condition
of the State; and in doing so they opened the eyes of hundreds of thousands. To
have liberated the high ideal of love for one's country from the embrace of this
deplorable dynasty was one of the great services rendered by the Pan-German

When that Party first made its appearance it secured a large following - indeed,
the movement threatened to become almost an avalanche. But the first successes
were not maintained. At the time I came to Vienna the pan-German Party had
been eclipsed by the Christian-Socialist Party, which had come into power in the
meantime. Indeed, the Pan-German Party had sunk to a level of almost complete

The rise and decline of the Pan-German movement on the one hand and the
marvellous progress of the Christian- Socialist Party on the other, became a
classic object of study for me, and as such they played an important part in the
development of my own views.

When I came to Vienna all my sympathies were exclusively with the Pan-
German Movement.

I was just as much impressed by the fact that they had the courage to shout Heil
Hohenzollem as I rejoiced at their determination to consider themselves an
integral part of the German Empire, from which they were separated only
provisionally. They never missed an opportunity to explain their attitude in
public, which raised my enthusiasm and confidence. To avow one's principles
publicly on every problem that concerned Germanism, and never to make any




compromises, seemed to me the only way of saving our people. What I could
not understand was how this movement broke down so soon after such a
magnificent start; and it was no less incomprehensible that the Christian-
Socialists should gain such tremendous power within such a short time. They
had just reached the pinnacle of their popularity.

When I began to compare those two movements Fate placed before me the best
means of understanding the causes of this puzzling problem. The action of Fate
in this case was hastened by my own straitened circumstances.
I shall begin my analysis with an account of the two men who must be regarded
as the founders and leaders of the two movements. These were George von
Schonerer and Dr. Karl Lueger.

As far as personality goes, both were far above the level and stature of the so-
called parliamentary figures. They lived lives of immaculate and irreproachable
probity amidst the miasma of all-round political corruption. Personally I first
liked the Pan-German representative, Schonerer, and it was only afterwards and
gradually that I felt an equal liking for the Christian-Socialist leader.
When I compared their respective abilities Schonerer seemed to me a better and
more profound thinker on fundamental problems. He foresaw the inevitable
downfall of the Austrian State more clearly and accurately than anyone else. If
this warning in regard to the Habsburg Empire had been heeded in Germany the
disastrous world war, which involved Germany against the whole of Europe,
would never have taken place.

But though Schonerer succeeded in penetrating to the essentials of a problem he
was very often much mistaken in his judgment of men.

And herein lay Dr. Lueger' s special talent. He had a rare gift of insight into
human nature and he was very careful not to take men as something better than
they were in reality. He based his plans on the practical possibilities which
human life offered him, whereas Schonerer had only little discrimination in that
respect. All ideas that this Pan-German had were right in the abstract, but he did
not have the forcefulness or understanding necessary to put his ideas across to
the broad masses. He was not able to formulate them so that they could be easily
grasped by the masses, whose powers of comprehension are limited and will
always remain so. Therefore all Schonerer's knowledge was only the wisdom of
a prophet and he never could succeed in having it put into practice.
This lack of insight into human nature led him to form a wrong estimate of the
forces behind certain movements and the inherent strength of old institutions.
Schonerer indeed realized that the problems he had to deal with were in the
nature of a Weltanschhauung; but he did not understand that only the broad
masses of a nation can make such convictions prevail, which are almost of a
religious nature.

Unfortunately he understood only very imperfectly how feeble is the fighting
spirit of the so-called bourgeoisie. That weakness is due to their business
interests, which individuals are too much afraid of risking and which therefore




deter them from taking action. And, generally speaking, a Weltanschhauung can
have no prospect of success unless the broad masses declare themselves ready to
act as its standard-bearers and to fight on its behalf wherever and to whatever
extent that may be necessary.

This failure to understand the importance of the lower strata of the population
resulted in a very inadequate concept of the social problem.
In all this Dr. Lueger was the opposite of Schonerer. His profound knowledge of
human nature enabled him to form a correct estimate of the various social forces
and it saved him from under-rating the power of existing institutions. And it was
perhaps this very quality which enabled him to utilize those institutions as a
means to serve the purposes of his policy.

He saw only too clearly that, in our epoch, the political fighting power of the
upper classes is quite insignificant and not at all capable of fighting for a great
new movement until the triumph of that movement be secured. Thus he devoted
the greatest part of his political activity to the task of winning over those
sections of the population whose existence was in danger and fostering the
militant spirit in them rather than attempting to paralyse it. He was also quick to
adopt all available means for winning the support of long-established
institutions, so as to be able to derive the greatest possible advantage for his
movement from those old sources of power.

Thus it was that, first of all, he chose as the social basis of his new Party that
middle class which was threatened with extinction. In this way he secured a
solid following which was willing to make great sacrifices and had good
fighting stamina. His extremely wise attitude towards the Catholic Church
rapidly won over the younger clergy in such large numbers that the old Clerical
Party was forced to retire from the field of action or else, which was the wiser
course, join the new Party, in the hope of gradually winning back one position
after another.

But it would be a serious injustice to the man if we were to regard this as his
essential characteristic. For he possessed the qualities of an able tactician, and
had the true genius of a great reformer; but all these were limited by his exact
perception of the possibilities at hand and also of his own capabilities.
The aims which this really eminent man decided to pursue were intensely
practical. He wished to conquer Vienna, the heart of the Monarchy. It was from
Vienna that the last pulses of life beat through the diseased and worn-out body
of the decrepit Empire. If the heart could be made healthier the others parts of
the body were bound to revive. That idea was correct in principle; but the time
within which it could be applied in practice was strictly limited. And that was
the man's weak point.

His achievements as Burgomaster of the City of Vienna are immortal, in the best
sense of the word. But all that could not save the Monarchy. It came too late.
His rival, Schonerer, saw this more clearly. What Dr. Lueger undertook to put
into practice turned out marvellously successful. But the results which he


expected to follow these achievements did not come. Schonerer did not attain
the ends he had proposed to himself; but his fears were realized, alas, in a
terrible fashion. Thus both these men failed to attain their further objectives.
Lueger could not save Austria and Schonerer could not prevent the downfall of
the German people in Austria.

To study the causes of failure in the case of these two parties is to learn a lesson
that is highly instructive for our own epoch. This is specially useful for my
friends, because in many points the circumstances of our own day are similar to
those of that time. Therefore such a lesson may help us to guard against the
mistakes which brought one of those movements to an end and rendered the
other barren of results.

In my opinion, the wreck of the Pan-German Movement in Austria must be
attributed to three causes.

The first of these consisted in the fact that the leaders did not have a clear
concept of the importance of the social problem, particularly for a new
movement which had an essentially revolutionary character. Schonerer and his
followers directed their attention principally to the bourgeois classes. For that
reason their movement was bound to turn out mediocre and tame. The German
bourgeoisie, especially in its upper circles, is pacifist even to the point of
complete self-abnegation - though the individual may not be aware of this -
wherever the internal affairs of the nation or State are concerned. In good times,
which in this case means times of good government, such a psychological
attitude makes this social layer extraordinarily valuable to the State. But when
there is a bad government, such a quality has a destructive effect. In order to
assure the possibility of carrying through a really strenuous struggle, the Pan-
German Movement should have devoted its efforts to winning over the masses.
The failure to do this left the movement from the very beginning without the
elementary impulse which such a wave needs if it is not to ebb within a short

In failing to see the truth of this principle clearly at the very outset of the
movement and in neglecting to put it into practice the new Party made an initial
mistake which could not possibly be rectified afterwards. For the numerous
moderate bourgeois elements admitted into the movements increasingly
determined its internal orientation and thus forestalled all further prospects of
gaining any appreciable support among the masses of the people. Under such
conditions such a movement could not get beyond mere discussion and
criticism. Quasi-religious faith and the spirit of sacrifice were not to be found in
the movement any more. Their place was taken by the effort towards 'positive'
collaboration, which in this case meant the acknowledgment of the existing state
of affairs, gradually whittling away the rough corners of the questions in dispute,
and ending up with the making of a dishonourable peace.
Such was the fate of the Pan-German Movement, because at the start the leaders
did not realize that the most important condition of success was that they should




recruit their following from the broad masses of the people. The Movement thus
became bourgeois and respectable and radical only in moderation.
From this failure resulted the second cause of its rapid decline.
The position of the Germans in Austria was already desperate when Pan-
Germanism arose. Year after year Parliament was being used more and more as
an instrument for the gradual extinction of the German-Austrian population. The
only hope for any eleventh-hour effort to save it lay in the overthrow of the
parliamentary system; but there was very little prospect of this happening.
Therewith the Pan-German Movement was confronted with a question of
primary importance.

To overthrow the Parliament, should the Pan-Germanists have entered it 'to
undermine it from within', as the current phrase was? Or should they have
assailed the institution as such from the outside?

They entered the Parliament and came out defeated. But they had found
themselves obliged to enter.

For in order to wage an effective war against such a power from the outside,
indomitable courage and a ready spirit of sacrifice were necessary weapons. In
such cases the bull must be seized by the horns. Furious drives may bring the
assailant to the ground again and again; but if he has a stout heart he will stand
up, even though some bones may be broken, and only after a long and tough
struggle will he achieve his triumph. New champions are attracted to a cause by
the appeal of great sacrifices made for its sake, until that indomitable spirit is
finally crowned with success.

For such a result, however, the children of the people from the great masses are
necessary. They alone have the requisite determination and tenacity to fight a
sanguinary issue through to the end. But the Pan-German Movement did not
have these broad masses as its champions, and so no other means of solution
could be tried out except that of entering Parliament.

It would be a mistake to think that this decision resulted from a long series of
internal hesitations of a moral kind, or that it was the outcome of careful
calculation. No. They did not even think of another solution. Those who
participated in this blunder were actuated by general considerations and vague
notions as to what would be the significance and effect of taking part in such a
special way in that institution which they had condemned on principle. In
general they hoped that they would thus have the means of expounding their
cause to the great masses of the people, because they would be able to speak
before 'the forum of the whole nation'. Also, it seemed reasonable to believe
that by attacking the evil in the root they would be more effective than if the
attack came from outside. They believed that, if protected by the immunity of
Parliament, the position of the individual protagonists would be strengthened
and that thus the force of their attacks would be enhanced.
In reality everything turned out quite otherwise.




The Forum before which the Pan-German representatives spoke had not grown
greater, but had actually become smaller; for each spoke only to the circle that
was ready to listen to him or could read the report of his speech in the

But the greater forum of immediate listeners is not the parliamentary
auditorium: it is the large public meeting. For here alone will there be thousands
of men who have come simply to hear what a speaker has to say, whereas in the
parliamentary sittings only a few hundred are present; and for the most part
these are there only to earn their daily allowance for attendance and not to be
enlightened by the wisdom of one or other of the 'representatives of the people'.
The most important consideration is that the same public is always present and
that this public does not wish to learn anything new; because, setting aside the
question of its intelligence, it lacks even that modest quantum of will-power
which is necessary for the effort of learning.

Not one of the representatives of the people will pay homage to a superior truth
and devote himself to its service. No. Not one of these gentry will act thus,
except he has grounds for hoping that by such a conversion he may be able to
retain the representation of his constituency in the coming legislature. Therefore,
only when it becomes quite clear that the old party is likely to have a bad time of
it at the forthcoming elections - only then will those models of manly virtue set
out in search of a new party or a new policy which may have better electoral
prospects; but of course this change of position will be accompanied by a
veritable deluge of high moral motives to justify it. And thus it always happens
that when an existing Party has incurred such general disfavour among the
public that it is threatened with the probability of a crushing defeat, then a great
migration commences. The parliamentary rats leave the Party ship.
All this happens not because the individuals in the case have become better
informed on the questions at issue and have resolved to act accordingly. These
changes of front are evidence only of that gift of clairvoyance which warns the
parliamentary flea at the right moment and enables him to hop into another
warm Party bed.

To speak before such a forum signifies casting pearls before certain animals.
Verily it does not repay the pains taken; for the result must always be negative.
And that is actually what happened. The Pan-German representatives might
have talked themselves hoarse, but to no effect whatsoever.
The Press either ignored them totally or so mutilated their speeches that the
logical consistency was destroyed or the meaning twisted round in such a way
that the public got only a very wrong impression regarding the aims of the new
movement. What the individual members said was not of importance. The
important matter was what people read as coming from them. This consisted of
mere extracts which had been torn out of the context of the speeches and gave
an impression of incoherent nonsense, which indeed was purposely meant. Thus




the only public before which they really spoke consisted merely of five hundred
parliamentarians; and that says enough.
The worst was the following:

The Pan-German Movement could hope for success only if the leaders realized
from the very first moment that here there was no question so much of a new
Party as of a new Weltanschhauung. This alone could arouse the inner moral
forces that were necessary for such a gigantic struggle. And for this struggle the
leaders must be men of first-class brains and indomitable courage. If the struggle
on behalf of a Weltanschhauung is not conducted by men of heroic spirit who
are ready to sacrifice, everything, within a short while it will become impossible
to find real fighting followers who are ready to lay down their lives for the
cause. A man who fights only for his own existence has not much left over for
the service of the community.

In order to secure the conditions that are necessary for success, everybody
concerned must be made to understand that the new movement looks to posterity
for its honour and glory but that it has no recompense to offer to the present-day
members. If a movement should offer a large number of positions and offices
that are easily accessible the number of unworthy candidates admitted to
membership will be constantly on the increase and eventually a day will come
when there will be such a preponderance of political profiteers among the
membership of a successful Party that the combatants who bore the brunt of the
battle in the earlier stages of the movement can now scarcely recognize their
own Party and may be ejected by the later arrivals as unwanted ballast.
Therewith the movement will no longer have a mission to fulfil.
Once the Pan-Germanists decided to collaborate with Parliament they were no
longer leaders and combatants in a popular movement, but merely
parliamentarians. Thus the Movement sank to the common political party level
of the day and no longer had the strength to face a hostile fate and defy the risk
of martyrdom. Instead of fighting, the Pan-German leaders fell into the habit of
talking and negotiating. The new parliamentarians soon found that it was a more
satisfactory, because less risky, way of fulfilling their task if they would defend
the new Weltanschhauung with the spiritual weapon of parliamentary rhetoric
rather than take up a fight in which they placed their lives in danger, the
outcome of which also was uncertain and even at the best could offer no
prospect of personal gain for themselves.

When they had taken their seats in Parliament their adherents outside hoped and
waited for miracles to happen. Naturally no such miracles happened or could
happen. Whereupon the adherents of the movement soon grew impatient,
because reports they read about their own deputies did not in the least come up
to what had been expected when they voted for these deputies at the elections.
The reason for this was not far to seek. It was due to the fact that an unfriendly
Press refrained from giving a true account of what the Pan-German
representatives of the people were actually doing.




According as the new deputies got to like this mild form of 'revolutionary'
struggle in Parliament and in the provincial diets they gradually became
reluctant to resume the more hazardous work of expounding the principles of the
movement before the broad masses of the people.

Mass meetings in public became more and more rare, though these are the only
means of exercising a really effective influence on the people; because here the
influence comes from direct personal contact and in this way the support of
large sections of the people can be obtained.

When the tables on which the speakers used to stand in the great beer-halls,
addressing an assembly of thousands, were deserted for the parliamentary
tribune and the speeches were no longer addressed to the people directly but to
the so-called 'chosen' representatives, the Pan-German Movement lost its
popular character and in a little while degenerated to the level of a more or less
serious club where problems of the day are discussed academically.
The wrong impression created by the Press was no longer corrected by personal
contact with the people through public meetings, whereby the individual
representatives might have given a true account of their activities. The final
result of this neglect was that the word 'Pan-German' came to have an
unpleasant sound in the ears of the masses.

The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of to-day should be made to realize
that the great transformations which have taken place in this world were never
conducted by a goosequill. No. The task of the pen must always be that of
presenting the theoretical concepts which motivate such changes. The force
which has ever and always set in motion great historical avalanches of religious
and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric
than to any other force. All great movements are popular movements. They are
the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by
the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the
midst of the people. In no case have great movements been set afoot by the
syrupy effusions of esthetic litterateurs and drawing-room heroes.
The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of glowing passion; but
only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others. It is only
through the capacity for passionate feeling that chosen leaders can wield the
power of the word which, like hammer blows, will open the door to the hearts of
the people.

He who is not capable of passionate feeling and speech was never chosen by
Providence to be the herald of its will. Therefore a writer should stick to his ink-
bottle and busy himself with theoretical questions if he has the requisite ability
and knowledge. He has not been bom or chosen to be a leader.
A movement which has great ends to achieve must carefully guard against the
danger of losing contact with the masses of the people. Every problem




encountered must be examined from this viewpoint first of all and the decision
to be made must always be in harmony with this principle.
The movement must avoid everything which might lessen or weaken its power
of influencing the masses; not from demagogical motives but because of the
simple fact that no great idea, no matter how sublime and exalted it may appear,
can be realized in practice without the effective power which resides in the
popular masses. Stern reality alone must mark the way to the goal. To be
unwilling to walk the road of hardship means, only too often in this world, the
total renunciation of our aims and purposes, whether that renunciation be
consciously willed or not.

The moment the Pan-German leaders, in virtue of their acceptance of the
parliamentary principle, moved the centre of their activities away from the
people and into Parliament, in that moment they sacrificed the future for the
sake of a cheap momentary success. They chose the easier way in the struggle
and in doing so rendered themselves unworthy of the final victory.
While in Vienna I used to ponder seriously over these two questions, and I saw
that the main reason for the collapse of the Pan-German Movement lay in the
fact that these very questions were not rightly appreciated. To my mind at that
time the Movement seemed chosen to take in its hands the leadership of the
German element in Austria.

These first two blunders which led to the downfall of the Pan-German
Movement were very closely connected with one another. Faulty recognition of
the inner driving forces that urge great movements forward led to an inadequate
appreciation of the part which the broad masses play in bringing about such
changes. The result was that too little attention was given to the social problem
and that the attempts made by the movement to capture the minds of the lower
classes were too few and too weak. Another result was the acceptance of the
parliamentary policy, which had a similar effect in regard to the importance of
the masses.

If there had been a proper appreciation of the tremendous powers of endurance
always shown by the masses in revolutionary movements a different attitude
towards the social problem would have been taken, and also a different policy in
the matter of propaganda. Then the centre of gravity of the movement would not
have been transferred to the Parliament but would have remained in the
workshops and in the streets.

There was a third mistake, which also had its roots in the failure to understand
the worth of the masses. The masses are first set in motion, along a definite
direction, by men of superior talents; but then these masses once in motion are
like a flywheel inasmuch as they sustain the momentum and steady balance of
the offensive.

The policy of the Pan-German leaders in deciding to carry through a difficult
fight against the Catholic Church can be explained only by attributing it to an
inadequate understanding of the spiritual character of the people.




The reasons why the new Party engaged in a violent campaign against Rome

were as follows:

As soon as the House of Habsburg had definitely decided to transform Austria

into a Slav State all sorts of means were adopted which seemed in any way

serviceable for that purpose. The Habsburg rulers had no scruples of conscience

about exploiting even religious institutions in the service of this new 'State

Idea' . One of the many methods thus employed was the use of Czech parishes

and their clergy as instruments for spreading Slav hegemony throughout Austria.

This proceeding was carried out as follows:

Parish priests of Czech nationality were appointed in purely German districts.

Gradually but steadily pushing forward the interests of the Czech people before

those of the Church, the parishes and their priests became generative cells in the

process of de-Germanization.

Unfortunately the German-Austrian clergy completely failed to counter this

procedure. Not only were they incapable of taking a similar initiative on the

German side, but they showed themselves unable to meet the Czech offensive

with adequate resistance. The German element was accordingly pushed

backwards, slowly but steadily, through the perversion of religious belief for

political ends on the one side, and the Jack of proper resistance on the other side.

Such were the tactics used in dealing with the smaller problems; but those used

in dealing with the larger problems were not very different.

The anti-German aims pursued by the Habsburgs, especially through the

instrumentality of the higher clergy, did not meet with any vigorous resistance,

while the clerical representatives of the German interests withdrew completely

to the rear. The general impression created could not be other than that the

Catholic clergy as such were grossly neglecting the rights of the German


Therefore it looked as if the Catholic Church was not in sympathy with the

German people but that it unjustly supported their adversaries. The root of the

whole evil, especially according to Schonerer's opinion, lay in the fact that the

leadership of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that this fact alone

was sufficient reason for the hostile attitude of the Church towards the demands

of our people.

The so-called cultural problem receded almost completely into the background,

as was generally the case everywhere throughout Austria at that time. In

assuming a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church, the Pan-German

leaders were influenced not so much by the Church's position in questions of

science but principally by the fact that the Church did not defend German rights,

as it should have done, but always supported those who encroached on these

rights, especially then Slavs.

George Schonerer was not a man who did things by halves. He went into battle

against the Church because he was convinced that this was the only way in

which the German people could be saved. The Los-von-Rom (Away from




Rome) Movement seemed the most formidable, but at the same time most
difficuh, method of attacking and destroying the adversary's citadel. Schonerer
believed that if this movement could be carried through successfully the
unfortunate division between the two great religious denominations in Germany
would be wiped out and that the inner forces of the German Empire and Nation
would be enormously enhanced by such a victory.

But the premises as well as the conclusions in this case were both erroneous.
It was undoubtedly true that the national powers of resistance, in everything
concerning Germanism as such, were much weaker among the German Catholic
clergy than among their non-German confreres, especially the Czechs. And only
an ignorant person could be unaware of the fact that it scarcely ever entered the
mind of the German clergy to take the offensive on behalf of German interests.
But at the same time everybody who is not blind to facts must admit that all this
should be attributed to a characteristic under which we Germans have all been
doomed to suffer. This characteristic shows itself in our objective way of
regarding our own nationality, as if it were something that lay outside of us.
While the Czech priest adopted a subjective attitude towards his own people and
only an objective attitude towards the Church, the German parish priest showed
a subjective devotion to his Church and remained objective in regard to his
nation. It is a phenomenon which, unfortunately for us, can be observed
occurring in exactly the same way in thousands of other cases.
It is by no means a peculiar inheritance from Catholicism; but it is something in
us which does not take long to gnaw the vitals of almost every institution,
especially institutions of State and those which have ideal aims. Take, for
example, the attitude of our State officials in regard to the efforts made for
bringing about a national resurgence and compare that attitude with the stand
which the public officials of any other nation would have taken in such a case.
Or is it to be believed that the military officers of any other country in the world
would refuse to come forward on behalf of the national aspirations, but would
rather hide behind the phrase 'Authority of the State', as has been the case in our
country during the last five years and has even been deemed a meritorious
attitude? Or let us take another example. In regard to the Jewish problem, do not
the two Christian denominations take up a standpoint to-day which does not
respond to the national exigencies or even the interests of religion? Consider the
attitude of a Jewish Rabbi towards any question, even one of quite insignificant
importance, concerning the Jews as a race, and compare his attitude with that of
the majority of our clergy, whether Catholic or Protestant.
We observe the same phenomenon wherever it is a matter of standing up for
some abstract idea.

'Authority of the State', 'Democracy', 'Pacifism', 'International Solidarity',
etc., all such notions become rigid, dogmatic concepts with us; and the more
vital the general necessities of the nation, the more will they be judged
exclusively in the light of those concepts.




This unfortunate habit of looking at all national demands from the viewpoint of
a pre-conceived notion makes it impossible for us to see the subjective side of a
thing which objectively contradicts one's own doctrine. It finally leads to a
complete reversion in the relation of means to an end. Any attempt at a national
revival will be opposed if the preliminary condition of such a revival be that a
bad and pernicious regime must first of all be overthrown; because such an
action will be considered as a violation of the 'Authority of the State'. In the
eyes of those who take that standpoint, the 'Authority of the State' is not a
means which is there to serve an end but rather, to the mind of the dogmatic
believer in objectivity, it is an end in itself; and he looks upon that as sufficient
apology for his own miserable existence. Such people would raise an outcry, if,
for instance, anyone should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the
man responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the politicians
for the time being, who constituted the parliamentary majority, were small and
incompetent men or maybe even on a lower grade of inferiority; because to such
sticklers for abstract principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the
welfare of the nation. In accordance with his principles, one of these gentry will
defend the worst kind of tyranny, though it may be leading a people to ruin,
because it is the fleeting embodiment of the 'Authority of the State', and another
will reject even a highly beneficent government if it should happen not to be in
accord with his notion of 'democracy'.

In the same way our German pacifist will remain silent while the nation is
groaning under an oppression which is being exercised by a sanguinary military
power, when this state of affairs gives rise to active resistance; because such
resistance means the employment of physical force, which is against the spirit of
the pacifist associations. The German International Socialist may be rooked and
plundered by his comrades in all the other countries of the world in the name of
'solidarity', but he responds with fraternal kindness and never thinks of trying to
get his own back, or even of defending himself. And why? Because he is a -

It may be unpleasant to dwell on such truths, but if something is to be changed
we must start by diagnosing the disease.

The phenomenon which I have just described also accounts for the feeble
manner in which German interests are promoted and defended by a section of
the clergy.

Such conduct is not the manifestation of a malicious intent, nor is it the outcome
of orders given from 'above', as we say; but such a lack of national grit and
determination is due to defects in our educational system. For, instead of
inculcating in the youth a lively sense of their German nationality, the aim of the
educational system is to make the youth prostrate themselves in homage to the
idea, as if the idea were an idol.

The education which makes them the devotees of such abstract notions as
'Democracy', 'International Socialism', 'Pacifism', etc., is so hard-and-fast and




exclusive and, operating as it does from within outwards, is so purely subjective
that in forming their general picture of outside life as a whole they are
fundamentally influenced by these a priori notions. But, on the other hand, the
attitude towards their own German nationality has been very objective from
youth upwards. The Pacifist - in so far as he is a German - who surrenders
himself subjectively, body and soul, to the dictates of his dogmatic principles,
will always first consider the objective right or wrong of a situation when danger
threatens his own people, even though that danger be grave and unjustly
wrought from outside. But he will never take his stand in the ranks of his own
people and fight for and with them from the sheer instinct of self-preservation.
Another example may further illustrate how far this applies to the different
religious denominations. In so far as its origin and tradition are based on
German ideals. Protestantism of itself defends those ideals better. But it fails the
moment it is called upon to defend national interests which do not belong to the
sphere of its ideals and traditional development, or which, for some reason or
other, may be rejected by that sphere.

Therefore Protestantism will always take its part in promoting German ideals as
far as concerns moral integrity or national education, when the German spiritual
being or language or spiritual freedom are to be defended: because these
represent the principles on which Protestantism itself is grounded. But this same
Protestantism violently opposes every attempt to rescue the nation from the
clutches of its mortal enemy; because the Protestant attitude towards the Jews is
more or less rigidly and dogmatically fixed. And yet this is the first problem
which has to be solved, unless all attempts to bring about a German resurgence
or to raise the level of the nation's standing are doomed to turn out nonsensical
and impossible.

During my sojourn in Vienna I had ample leisure and opportunity to study this
problem without allowing any prejudices to intervene; and in my daily
intercourse with people I was able to establish the correctness of the opinion I
formed by the test of thousands of instances.

In this focus where the greatest varieties of nationality had converged it was
quite clear and open to everybody to see that the German pacifist was always
and exclusively the one who tried to consider the interests of his own nation
objectively; but you could never find a Jew who took a similar attitude towards
his own race. Furthermore, I found that only the German Socialist is
'international' in the sense that he feels himself obliged not to demand justice
for his own people in any other manner than by whining and wailing to his
international comrades. Nobody could ever reproach Czechs or Poles or other
nations with such conduct. In short, even at that time, already I recognized that
this evil is only partly a result of the doctrines taught by Socialism, Pacifism,
etc., but mainly the result of our totally inadequate system of education, the
defects of which are responsible for the lack of devotion to our own national




Therefore the first theoretical argument advanced by the Pan-German leaders as
the basis of their offensive against Catholicism was quite entenable.
The only way to remedy the evil I have been speaking of is to train the Germans
from youth upwards to an absolute recognition of the rights of their own people,
instead of poisoning their minds, while they are still only children, with the virus
of this curbed 'objectivity', even in matters concerning the very maintenance of
our own existence. The result of this would be that the Catholic in Germany, just
as in Ireland, Poland or France, will be a German first and foremost. But all this
presupposes a radical change in the national government.

The strongest proof in support of my contention is furnished by what took place
at that historical juncture when our people were called for the last time before
the tribunal of History to defend their own existence, in a life-or-death struggle.
As long as there was no lack of leadership in the higher circles, the people
fulfilled their duty and obligations to an overwhelming extent. Whether
Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, each did his very utmost in helping our
powers of resistance to hold out, not only in the trenches but also, and even
more so, at home. During those years, and especially during the first outburst of
enthusiasm, in both religious camps there was one undivided and sacred German
Empire for whose preservation and future existence they all prayed to Heaven.
The Pan-German Movement in Austria ought to have asked itself this one
question: Is the maintenance of the German element in Austria possible or not,
as long as that element remains within the fold of the Catholic Faith? If that
question should have been answered in the affirmative, then the political Party
should not have meddled in religious and denominational questions. But if the
question had to be answered in the negative, then a religious reformation should
have been started and not a political party movement.

Anyone who believes that a religious reformation can be achieved through the
agency of a political organization shows that he has no idea of the development
of religious conceptions and doctrines of faith and how these are given practical
effect by the Church.

No man can serve two masters. And I hold that the foundation or overthrow of a
religion has far greater consequences than the foundation or overthrow of a
State, to say nothing of a Party.

It is no argument to the contrary to say that the attacks were only defensive
measures against attacks from the other side.

Undoubtedly there have always been unscrupulous rogues who did not hesitate
to degrade religion to the base uses of politics. Nearly always such a people had
nothing else in their minds except to make a business of religions and politics.
But on the other hand it would be wrong to hold religion itself, or a religious
denomination, responsible for a number of rascals who exploit the Church for
their own base interests just as they would exploit anything else in which they
had a part.




Nothing could be more to the taste of one of these pariiamentary loungers and
tricksters than to be able to find a scapegoat for his political sharp-practice -
after the event, of course. The moment religion or a religious denomination is
attacked and made responsible for his personal misdeeds this shrewd fellow will
raise a row at once and call the world to witness how justified he was in acting
as he did, proclaiming that he and his eloquence alone have saved religion and
the Church. The public, which is mostly stupid and has a very short memory, is
not capable of recognizing the real instigator of the quarrel in the midst of the
turmoil that has been raised. Frequently it does not remember the beginning of
the fight and so the rogue gets by with his stunt.

A cunning fellow of that sort is quite well aware that his misdeeds have nothing
to do with religion. And so he will laugh up his sleeve all the more heartily
when his honest but artless adversary loses the game and, one day losing all
faith in humanity, retires from the activities of public life.

But from another viewpoint also it would be wrong to make religion, or the
Church as such, responsible for the misdeeds of individuals. If one compares the
magnitude of the organization, as it stands visible to every eye, with the average
weakness of human nature we shall have to admit that the proportion of good to
bad is more favourable here than anywhere else. Among the priests there may,
of course, be some who use their sacred calling to further their political
ambitions. There are clergy who unfortunately forget that in the political melee
they ought to be the paladins of the more sublime truths and not the abettors of
falsehood and slander. But for each one of these unworthy specimens we can
find a thousand or more who fulfil their mission nobly as the trustworthy
guardians of souls and who tower above the level of our corrupt epoch, as little
islands above the seaswamp.

I cannot condemn the Church as such, and I should feel quite as little justified in
doing so if some depraved person in the robe of a priest commits some offence
against the moral law. Nor should I for a moment think of blaming the Church if
one of its innumerable members betrays and besmirches his compatriots,
especially not in epochs when such conduct is quite common. We must not
forget, particularly in our day, that for one such Ephialtes 7) there are a thousand
whose hearts bleed in sympathy with their people during these years of
misfortune and who, together with the best of our nation, yearn for the hour
when fortune will smile on us again.

If it be objected that here we are concerned not with the petty problems of
everyday life but principally with fundamental truths and questions of dogma,
the only way of answering that objection is to ask a question:
Do you feel that Providence has called you to proclaim the Truth to the world?
If so, then go and do it. But you ought to have the courage to do it directly and
not use some political party as your mouthpiece; for in this way you shirk your
vocation. In the place of something that now exists and is bad put something
else that is better and will last into the future.




If you lack the requisite courage or if you yourself do not know clearly what

your better substitute ought to be, leave the whole thing alone. But, whatever

happens, do not try to reach the goal by the roundabout way of a political party

if you are not brave enough to fight with your visor lifted.

Political parties have no right to meddle in religious questions except when these

relate to something that is alien to the national well-being and thus calculated to

undermine racial customs and morals.

If some ecclesiastical dignitaries should misuse religious ceremonies or religious

teaching to injure their own nation their opponents ought never to take the same

road and fight them with the same weapons.

To a political leader the religious teachings and practices of his people should be

sacred and inviolable. Otherwise he should not be a statesman but a reformer, if

he has the necessary qualities for such a mission.

Any other line of conduct will lead to disaster, especially in Germany.

In studying the Pan-German Movement and its conflict with Rome I was then

firmly persuaded, and especially in the course of later years, that by their failure

to understand the importance of the social problem the Pan-Germanists lost the

support of the broad masses, who are the indispensable combatants in such a

movement. By entering Parliament the Pan-German leaders deprived themselves

of the great driving force which resides in the masses and at the same time they

laid on their own shoulders all the defects of the parliamentary institution. Their

struggle against the Church made their position impossible in numerous circles

of the lower and middle class, while at the same time it robbed them of

innumerable high-class elements - some of the best indeed that the nation

possessed. The practical outcome of the Austrian Kulturkampf was negative.

Although they succeeded in winning 100,000 members away from the Church,

that did not do much harm to the latter. The Church did not really need to shed

any tears over these lost sheep, for it lost only those who had for a long time

ceased to belong to it in their inner hearts. The difference between this new

reformation and the great Reformation was that in the historic epoch of the great

Reformation some of the best members left the Church because of religious

convictions, whereas in this new reformation only those left who had been

indifferent before and who were now influenced by political considerations.

From the political point of view alone the result was as ridiculous as it was


Once again a political movement which had promised so much for the German

nation collapsed, because it was not conducted in a spirit of unflinching

adherence to naked reality, but lost itself in fields where it was bound to get

broken up.

The Pan-German Movement would never have made this mistake if it had

properly understood the psyche of the broad masses. If the leaders had known

that, for psychological reasons alone, it is not expedient to place two or more

sets of adversaries before the masses - since that leads to a complete splitting up




of their fighting strength - they would have concentrated the full and undivided
force of their attack against a single adversary. Nothing in the policy of a
political party is so fraught with danger as to allow its decisions to be directed
by people who want to have their fingers in every pie though they do not know
how to cook the simplest dish.

But even though there is much that can really be said against the various
religious denominations, political leaders must not forget that the experience of
history teaches us that no purely political party in similar circumstances ever
succeeded in bringing about a religious reformation. One does not study history
for the purpose of forgetting or mistrusting its lessons afterwards, when the time
comes to apply these lessons in practice. It would be a mistake to believe that in
this particular case things were different, so that the eternal truths of history
were no longer applicable. One learns history in order to be able to apply its
lessons to the present time and whoever fails to do this cannot pretend to be a
political leader. In reality he is quite a superficial person or, as is mostly the
case, a conceited simpleton whose good intentions cannot make up for his
incompetence in practical affairs.

The art of leadership, as displayed by really great popular leaders in all ages,
consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary
and taking care that nothing will split up that attention into sections. The more
the militant energies of the people are directed towards one objective the more
will new recruits join the movement, attracted by the magnetism of its unified
action, and thus the striking power will be all the more enhanced. The leader of
genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they
belonged to the one category; for weak and wavering natures among a leader's
following may easily begin to be dubious about the justice of their own cause if
they have to face different enemies.

As soon as the vacillating masses find themselves facing an opposition that is
made up of different groups of enemies their sense of objectivity will be aroused
and they will ask how is it that all the others can be in the wrong and they
themselves, and their movement, alone in the right.

Such a feeling would be the first step towards a paralysis of their fighting
vigour. Where there are various enemies who are split up into divergent groups
it will be necessary to block them all together as forming one solid front, so that
the mass of followers in a popular movement may see only one common enemy
against whom they have to fight. Such uniformity intensifies their belief in the
justice of their own cause and strengthens their feeling of hostility towards the

The Pan-German Movement was unsuccessful because the leaders did not grasp
the significance of that truth. They saw the goal clearly and their intentions were
right; but they took the wrong road. Their action may be compared to that of an
Alpine climber who never loses sight of the peak he wants to reach, who has set
out with the greatest determination and energy, but pays no attention to the road




beneath his feet. With his eye always fixed firmly on the goal he does not think
over or notice the nature of the ascent and finally he fails.

The manner in which the great rival of the Pan-German Party set out to attain its
goal was quite different. The way it took was well and shrewdly chosen; but it
did not have a clear vision of the goal. In almost all the questions where the Pan-
German Movement failed, the policy of the Christian- Socialist Party was correct
and systematic.

They assessed the importance of the masses correctly, and thus they gained the
support of large numbers of the popular masses by emphasizing the social
character of the Movement from the very start. By directing their appeal
especially to the lower middle class and the artisans, they gained adherents who
were faithful, persevering and self-sacrificing. The Christian- Socialist leaders
took care to avoid all controversy with the institutions of religion and thus they
secured the support of that mighty organization, the Catholic Church. Those
leaders recognized the value of propaganda on a large scale and they were
veritable virtuosos in working up the spiritual instincts of the broad masses of
their adherents.

The failure of this Party to carry into effect the dream of saving Austria from
dissolution must be attributed to two main defects in the means they employed
and also the lack of a clear perception of the ends they wished to reach.
The anti-Semitism of the Christian- Socialists was based on religious instead of
racial principles. The reason for this mistake gave rise to the second error also.
The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party were of the opinion that they could
not base their position on the racial principle if they wished to save Austria,
because they felt that a general disintegration of the State might quickly result
from the adoption of such a policy. In the opinion of the Party chiefs the
situation in Vienna demanded that all factors which tended to estrange the
nationalities from one another should be carefully avoided and that all factors
making for unity should be encouraged.

At that time Vienna was so honeycombed with foreign elements, especially the
Czechs, that the greatest amount of tolerance was necessary if these elements
were to be enlisted in the ranks of any party that was not anti-German on
principle. If Austria was to be saved those elements were indispensable. And so
attempts were made to win the support of the small traders, a great number of
whom were Czechs, by combating the liberalism of the Manchester School; and
they believed that by adopting this attitude they had found a slogan against
Jewry which, because of its religious implications, would unite all the different
nationalities which made up the population of the old Austria.
It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism did not upset the Jews
very much, simply because it had a purely religious foundation. If the worst
came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would settle the matter,
hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business safely and at the same time
retain his Jewish nationality.




On such superficial grounds it was impossible to deal with the whole problem in
an earnest and rational way. The consequence was that many people could not
understand this kind of anti-Semitism and therefore refused to take part in it.
The attractive force of the idea was thus restricted exclusively to narrow-minded
circles, because the leaders failed to go beyond the mere emotional appeal and
did not ground their position on a truly rational basis. The intellectuals were
opposed to such a policy on principle. It looked more and more as if the whole
movement was a new attempt to proselytize the Jews, or, on the other hand, as if
it were merely organized from the wish to compete with other contemporary
movements. Thus the struggle lost all traces of having been organized for a
spiritual and sublime mission. Indeed, it seemed to some people - and these were
by no means worthless elements - to be immoral and reprehensible. The
movement failed to awaken a belief that here there was a problem of vital
importance for the whole of humanity and on the solution of which the destiny
of the whole Gentile world depended.

Through this shilly-shally way of dealing with the problem the anti-Semitism of
the Christian-Socialists turned out to be quite ineffective.

It was anti-Semitic only in outward appearance. And this was worse than if it
had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; for the pretence gave rise to a
false sense of security among people who believed that the enemy had been
taken by the ears; but, as a matter of fact, the people themselves were being led
by the nose.

The Jew readily adjusted himself to this form of anti-Semitism and found its
continuance more profitable to him than its abolition would be.
This whole movement led to great sacrifices being made for the sake of that
State which was composed of many heterogeneous nationalities; but much
greater sacrifices had to be made by the trustees of the German element.
One did not dare to be 'nationalist', even in Vienna, lest the ground should fall
away from under one's feet. It was hoped that the Habsburg State might be
saved by a silent evasion of the nationalist question; but this policy led that State
to ruin. The same policy also led to the collapse of Christian Socialism, for thus
the Movement was deprived of the only source of energy from which a political
party can draw the necessary driving force.

During those years I carefully followed the two movements and observed how
they developed, one because my heart was with it and the other because of my
admiration for that remarkable man who then appeared to me as a bitter symbol
of the whole German population in Austria.

When the imposing funeral cortege of the dead Burgomaster wound its way
from the City Hall towards the Ring Strasse I stood among the hundreds of
thousands who watched the solemn procession pass by. As I stood there I felt
deeply moved, and my instinct clearly told me that the work of this man was all
in vain, because a sinister Fate was inexorably leading this State to its downfall.
If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany he would have been ranked among the




great leaders of our people. It was a misfortune for his work and for himself that

he had to live in this impossible State.

When he died the fire had already been enkindled in the Balkans and was

spreading month by month. Fate had been merciful in sparing him the sight of

what, even to the last, he had hoped to prevent.

I endeavoured to analyse the cause which rendered one of those movements

futile and wrecked the progress of the other. The result of this investigation was

the profound conviction that, apart from the inherent impossibility of

consolidating the position of the State in the old Austria, the two parties made

the following fatal mistake:

The Pan-German Party was perfectly right in its fundamental ideas regarding the

aim of the Movement, which was to bring about a German restoration, but it was

unfortunate in its choice of means. It was nationalist, but unfortunately it paid

too little heed to the social problem, and thus it failed to gain the support of the

masses. Its anti- Jewish policy, however, was grounded on a correct perception

of the significance of the racial problem and not on religious principles. But it

was mistaken in its assessment of facts and adopted the wrong tactics when it

made war against one of the religious denominations.

The Christian-Socialist Movement had only a vague concept of a German

revival as part of its object, but it was intelligent and fortunate in the choice of

means to carry out its policy as a Party. The Christian-Socialists grasped the

significance of the social question; but they adopted the wrong principles in their

struggle against Jewry, and they utterly failed to appreciate the value of the

national idea as a source of political energy.

If the Christian-Socialist Party, together with its shrewd judgment in regard to

the worth of the popular masses, had only judged rightly also on the importance

of the racial problem - which was properly grasped by the Pan-German

Movement - and if this party had been really nationalist; or if the Pan-German

leaders, on the other hand, in addition to their correct judgment of the Jewish

problem and of the national idea, had adopted the practical wisdom of the

Christian-Socialist Party, and particularly their attitude towards Socialism - then

a movement would have developed which, in my opinion, might at that time

have successfully altered the course of German destiny.

If things did not turn out thus, the fault lay for the most part in the inherent

nature of the Austrian State.

I did not find my own convictions upheld by any party then in existence, and so

I could not bring myself to enlist as a member in any of the existing

organizations or even lend a hand in their struggle. Even at that time all those

organizations seemed to me to be already jaded in their energies and were

therefore incapable of bringing about a national revival of the German people in

a really profound way, not merely outwardly.

My inner aversion to the Habsburg State was increasing daily.




The more I paid special attention to questions of foreign policy, the more the
conviction grew upon me that this phantom State would surely bring misfortune
on the Germans. I realized more and more that the destiny of the German nation
could not be decisively influenced from here but only in the German Empire
itself. And this was true not only in regard to general political questions but also
- and in no less a degree - in regard to the whole sphere of cultural life.
Here, also, in all matters affecting the national culture and art, the Austrian State
showed all the signs of senile decrepitude, or at least it was ceasing to be of any
consequence to the German nation, as far as these matters were concerned. This
was especially true of its architecture. Modem architecture could not produce
any great results in Austria because, since the building of the Ring Strasse - at
least in Vienna - architectural activities had become insignificant when
compared with the progressive plans which were being thought out in Germany.
And so I came more and more to lead what may be called a twofold existence.
Reason and reality forced me to continue my harsh apprenticeship in Austria,
though I must now say that this apprenticeship turned out fortunate in the end.
But my heart was elsewhere.

A feeling of discontent grew upon me and made me depressed the more I came
to realize the inside hollowness of this State and the impossibility of saving it
from collapse. At the same time I felt perfectly certain that it would bring all
kinds of misfortune to the German people.

I was convinced that the Habsburg State would balk and hinder every German
who might show signs of real greatness, while at the same time it would aid and
abet every non-German activity.

This conglomerate spectacle of heterogeneous races which the capital of the
Dual Monarchy presented, this motley of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians,
Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats, etc., and always that bacillus which is the solvent
of human society, the Jew, here and there and everywhere - the whole spectacle
was repugnant to me. The gigantic city seemed to be the incarnation of mongrel

The German language, which I had spoken from the time of my boyhood, was
the vernacular idiom of Lower Bavaria. I never forgot that particular style of
speech, and I could never learn the Viennese dialect. The longer I lived in that
city the stronger became my hatred for the promiscuous swarm of foreign
peoples which had begun to batten on that old nursery ground of German
culture. The idea that this State could maintain its further existence for any
considerable time was quite absurd.

Austria was then like a piece of ancient mosaic in which the cohesive cement
had dried up and become old and friable. As long as such a work of art remains
untouched it may hold together and continue to exist; but the moment some
blow is struck on it then it breaks up into thousands of fragments. Therefore it
was now only a question of when the blow would come.




Because my heart was always with the German Empire and not with the

Austrian Monarchy, the hour of Austria's dissolution as a State appeared to me

only as the first step towards the emancipation of the German nation.

All these considerations intensified my yearning to depart for that country for

which my heart had been secretly longing since the days of my youth.

I hoped that one day I might be able to make my mark as an architect and that I

could devote my talents to the service of my country on a large or small scale,

according to the will of Fate.

A final reason was that I longed to be among those who lived and worked in that

land from which the movement should be launched, the object of which would

be the fulfilment of what my heart had always longed for, namely, the union of

the country in which I was bom with our common fatherland, the German


There are many who may not understand how such a yearning can be so strong;

but I appeal especially to two groups of people. The first includes all those who

are still denied the happiness I have spoken of, and the second embraces those

who once enjoyed that happiness but had it torn from them by a harsh fate. I turn

to all those who have been torn from their motherland and who have to struggle

for the preservation of their most sacred patrimony, their native language,

persecuted and harried because of their loyalty and love for the homeland,

yearning sadly for the hour when they will be allowed to return to the bosom of

their father's household. To these I address my words, and I know that they will


Only he who has experienced in his own inner life what it means to be German

and yet to be denied the right of belonging to his fatherland can appreciate the

profound nostalgia which that enforced exile causes. It is a perpetual heartache,

and there is no place for joy and contentment until the doors of paternal home

are thrown open and all those through whose veins kindred blood is flowing will

find peace and rest in their common Reich.

Vienna was a hard school for me; but it taught me the most profound lessons of

my life. I was scarcely more than a boy when I came to live there, and when I

left it I had grown to be a man of a grave and pensive nature. In Vienna I

acquired the foundations of a Weltanschhauung in general and developed a

faculty for analysing political questions in particular. That Weltanschhauung and

the political ideas then formed have never been abandoned, though they were

expanded later on in some directions. It is only now that I can fully appreciate

how valuable those years of apprenticeship were for me.

That is why I have given a detailed account of this period. There, in Vienna,

stark reality taught me the truths that now form the fundamental principles of the

Party which within the course of five years has grown from modest beginnings

to a great mass movement. I do not know what my attitude towards Jewry,

Social-Democracy, or rather Marxism in general, to the social problem, etc..




would be to-day if I had not acquired a stock of personal beliefs at such an early

age, by dint of hard study and under the duress of Fate.

For, although the misfortunes of the Fatherland may have stimulated thousands

and thousands to ponder over the inner causes of the collapse, that could not

lead to such a thorough knowledge and deep insight as a man may develop who

has fought a hard struggle for many years so that he might be master of his own






At last I came to Munich, in the spring of 1912.

The city itself was as familiar to me as if I had lived for years within its walls.
This was because my studies in architecture had been constantly turning my
attention to the metropolis of German art. One must know Munich if one would
know Germany, and it is impossible to acquire a knowledge of German art
without seeing Munich.

All things considered, this pre-war sojourn was by far the happiest and most
contented time of my life. My earnings were very slender; but after all I did not
live for the sake of painting. I painted in order to get the bare necessities of
existence while I continued my studies. I was firmly convinced that I should
finally succeed in reaching the goal I had marked out for myself. And this
conviction alone was strong enough to enable me to bear the petty hardships of
everyday life without worrying very much about them.

Moreover, almost from the very first moment of my sojourn there I came to love
that city more than any other place known to me. A German city! I said to
myself. How different to Vienna. It was with a feeling of disgust that my
imagination reverted to that Babylon of races. Another pleasant feature here was
the way the people spoke German, which was much nearer my own way of
speaking than the Viennese idiom. The Munich idiom recalled the days of my
youth, especially when I spoke with those who had come to Munich from Lower
Bavaria. There were a thousand or more things which I inwardly loved or which
I came to love during the course of my stay. But what attracted me most was the
marvellous wedlock of native folk-energy with the fine artistic spirit of the city,
that unique harmony from the Hofbrauhaus to the Odeon, from the October
Festival to the Pinakothek, etc. The reason why my heart's strings are entwined
around this city as around no other spot in this world is probably because
Munich is and will remain inseparably connected with the development of my
own career; and the fact that from the beginning of my visit I felt inwardly
happy and contented is to be attributed to the charm of the marvellous
Wittelsbach Capital, which has attracted probably everybody who is blessed
with a feeling for beauty instead of commercial instincts.

Apart from my professional work, I was most interested in the study of current
political events, particularly those which were connected with foreign relations.
I approached these by way of the German policy of alliances which, ever since
my Austrian days, I had considered to be an utterly mistaken one. But in Vienna
I had not yet seen quite clearly how far the German Empire had gone in the
process of self-delusion. In Vienna I was inclined to assume, or probably I
persuaded myself to do so in order to excuse the German mistake, that possibly
the authorities in Berlin knew how weak and unreliable their ally would prove to
be when brought face to face with realities, but that, for more or less mysterious




reasons, they refrained from allowing their opinions on this point to be known in
public. Their idea was that they should support the policy of alliances which
Bismarck had initiated and the sudden discontinuance of which might be
undesirable, if for no other reason than that it might arouse those foreign
countries which were lying in wait for their chance or might alarm the
Philistines at home.

But my contact with the people soon taught me, to my horror, that my
assumptions were wrong. I was amazed to find everywhere, even in circles
otherwise well informed, that nobody had the slightest intimation of the real
character of the Habsburg Monarchy. Among the common people in particular
there was a prevalent illusion that the Austrian ally was a Power which would
have to be seriously reckoned with and would rally its man-power in the hour of
need. The mass of the people continued to look upon the Dual Monarchy as a
'German State' and believed that it could be relied upon. They assumed that its
strength could be measured by the millions of its subjects, as was the case in
Germany. First of all, they did not realize that Austria had ceased to be a
German State and, secondly, that the conditions prevailing within the Austrian
Empire were steadily pushing it headlong to the brink of disaster.
At that time I knew the condition of affairs in the Austrian State better than the
professional diplomats. Blindfolded, as nearly always, these diplomats stumbled
along on their way to disaster. The opinions prevailing among the bulk of the
people reflected only what had been drummed into them from official quarters
above. And these higher authorities grovelled before the 'Ally', as the people of
old bowed down before the Golden Calf. They probably thought that by being
polite and amiable they might balance the lack of honesty on the other side.
Thus they took every declaration at its full face value.

Even while in Vienna I used to be annoyed again and again by the discrepancy
between the speeches of the official statesmen and the contents of the Viennese
Press. And yet Vienna was still a German city, at least as far as appearances
went. But one encountered an utterly different state of things on leaving Vienna,
or rather German- Austria, and coming into the Slav provinces. It needed only a
glance at the Prague newspapers in order to see how the whole exalted hocus-
pocus of the Triple Alliance was judged from there. In Prague there was nothing
but gibes and sneers for that masterpiece of statesmanship. Even in the piping
times of peace, when the two emperors kissed each other on the brow in token of
friendship, those papers did not cloak their belief that the alliance would be
liquidated the moment a first attempt was made to bring it down from the
shimmering glory of a Nibelungen ideal to the plane of practical affairs.
Great indignation was aroused a few years later, when the alliances were put to
the first practical test. Italy not only withdrew from the Triple Alliance, leaving
the other two members to march by themselves, but she even joined their
enemies. That anybody should believe even for a moment in the possibility of
such a miracle as that of Italy fighting on the same side as Austria would be




simply incredible to anyone who did not suffer from the blindness of official
diplomacy. And that was just how people felt in Austria also.
In Austria only the Habsburgs and the German-Austrians supported the alliance.
The Habsburgs did so from shrewd calculation of their own interests and from
necessity. The Germans did it out of good faith and political ignorance. They
acted in good faith inasmuch as they believed that by establishing the Triple
Alliance they were doing a great service to the German Empire and were thus
helping to strengthen it and consolidate its defence. They showed their political
ignorance, however, in holding such ideas, because, instead of helping the
German Empire they really chained it to a moribund State which might bring its
associate into the grave with itself; and, above all, by championing this alliance
they fell more and more a prey to the Habsburg policy of de-Germanization. For
the alliance gave the Habsburgs good grounds for believing that the German
Empire would not interfere in their domestic affairs and thus they were in a
position to carry into effect, with more ease and less risk, their domestic policy
of gradually eliminating the German element. Not only could the 'objectiveness'
of the German Government be counted upon, and thus there need be no fear of
protest from that quarter, but one could always remind the German-Austrians of
the alliance and thus silence them in case they should ever object to the
reprehensible means that were being employed to establish a Slav hegemony in
the Dual Monarchy.

What could the German-Austrians do, when the people of the German Empire
itself had openly proclaimed their trust and confidence in the Habsburg regime?
Should they resist, and thus be branded openly before their kinsfolk in the Reich
as traitors to their own national interests? They, who for so many decades had
sacrificed so much for the sake of their German tradition!
Once the influence of the Germans in Austria had been wiped out, what then
would be the value of the alliance? If the Triple Alliance were to be
advantageous to Germany, was it not a necessary condition that the
predominance of the German element in Austria should be maintained? Or did
anyone really believe that Germany could continue to be the ally of a Habsburg
Empire under the hegemony of the Slavs?

The official attitude of German diplomacy, as well as that of the general public
towards internal problems affecting the Austrian nationalities was not merely
stupid, it was insane. On the alliance, as on a solid foundation, they grounded
the security and future existence of a nation of seventy millions, while at the
same time they allowed their partner to continue his policy of undermining the
sole foundation of that alliance methodically and resolutely, from year to year. A
day must come when nothing but a formal contract with Viennese diplomats
would be left. The alliance itself, as an effective support, would be lost to
As far as concerned Italy, such had been the case from the outset.




If people in Germany had studied history and the psychology of nations a little
more carefully not one of them could have believed for a single hour that the
Quirinal and the Viennese Hofburg could ever stand shoulder to shoulder on a
common battle front. Italy would have exploded like a volcano if any Italian
government had dared to send a single Italian soldier to fight for the Habsburg
State. So fanatically hated was this State that the Italians could stand in no other
relation to it on a battle front except as enemies. More than once in Vienna I
have witnessed explosions of the contempt and profound hatred which 'allied'
the Italian to the Austrian State. The crimes which the House of Habsburg
committed against Italian freedom and independence during several centuries
were too grave to be forgiven, even with the best of goodwill. But this goodwill
did not exist, either among the rank and file of the population or in the
government. Therefore for Italy there were only two ways of co-existing with
Austria - alliance or war. By choosing the first it was possible to prepare
leisurely for the second.

Especially since relations between Russia and Austria tended more and more
towards the arbitrament of war, the German policy of alliances was as senseless
as it was dangerous. Here was a classical instance which demonstrated the lack
of any broad or logical lines of thought.

But what was the reason for forming the alliance at all? It could not have been
other than the wish to secure the future of the Reich better than if it were to
depend exclusively on its own resources. But the future of the Reich could not
have meant anything else than the problem of securing the means of existence
for the German people.

The only questions therefore were the following: What form shall the life of the
nation assume in the near future - that is to say within such a period as we can
forecast? And by what means can the necessary foundation and security be
guaranteed for this development within the framework of the general
distribution of power among the European nations? A clear analysis of the
principles on which the foreign policy of German statecraft were to be based
should have led to the following conclusions:

The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000 souls.
The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must grow from year
to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unless ways and means are found
which will forestall the danger of misery and hunger. There were four ways of
providing against this terrible calamity:

(1) It was possible to adopt the French example and artificially restrict the
number of births, thus avoiding an excess of population.

Under certain circumstances, in periods of distress or under bad climatic
condition, or if the soil yields too poor a return. Nature herself tends to check the
increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a
method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise. It does not impede the procreative
faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by




submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or
less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever
survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold,
hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same
thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the
individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for
the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and
raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the
individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species.
But the case is different when man himself starts the process of numerical
restriction. Man is not carved from Nature's wood. He is made of 'human'
material. He knows more than the ruthless Queen of Wisdom. He does not
impede the preservation of the individual but prevents procreation itself. To the
individual, who always sees only himself and not the race, this line of action
seems more humane and just than the opposite way. But, unfortunately, the
consequences are also the opposite.

By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the
individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life. Nature selects the best from an
abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the
conservation of the species. But man restricts the procreative faculty and strives
obstinately to keep alive at any cost whatever has once been born. This
correction of the Divine Will seems to him to be wise and humane, and he
rejoices at having trumped Nature's card in one game at least and thus proved
that she is not entirely reliable. The dear little ape of an all-mighty father is
delighted to see and hear that he has succeeded in effecting a numerical
restriction; but he would be very displeased if told that this, his system, brings
about a degeneration in personal quality.

For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births
diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and
strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to 'save' feeble and
even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human
progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to
another, as long as Nature's will is scorned.

But if that policy be carried out the final results must be that such a nation will
eventually terminate its own existence on this earth; for though man may defy
the eternal laws of procreation during a certain period, vengeance will follow
sooner or later. A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the
vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-
called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the
humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the




Any policy which aims at securing the existence of a nation by restricting the
birth-rate robs that nation of its future.

(2) A second solution is that of internal colonization. This is a proposal which is
frequently made in our own time and one hears it lauded a good deal. It is a
suggestion that is well-meant but it is misunderstood by most people, so that it is
the source of more mischief than can be imagined.

It is certainly true that the productivity of the soil can be increased within certain
limits; but only within defined limits and not indefinitely. By increasing the
productive powers of the soil it will be possible to balance the effect of a surplus
birth-rate in Germany for a certain period of time, without running any danger of
hunger. But we have to face the fact that the general standard of living is rising
more quickly than even the birth rate. The requirements of food and clothing are
becoming greater from year to year and are out of proportion to those of our
ancestors of, let us say, a hundred years ago. It would, therefore, be a mistaken
view that every increase in the productive powers of the soil will supply the
requisite conditions for an increase in the population. No. That is true up to a
certain point only, for at least a portion of the increased produce of the soil will
be consumed by the margin of increased demands caused by the steady rise in
the standard of living. But even if these demands were to be curtailed to the
narrowest limits possible and if at the same time we were to use all our available
energies in the intenser cultivation, we should here reach a definite limit which
is conditioned by the inherent nature of the soil itself. No matter how
industriously we may labour we cannot increase agricultural production beyond
this limit. Therefore, though we may postpone the evil hour of distress for a
certain time, it will arrive at last. The first phenomenon will be the recurrence of
famine periods from time to time, after bad harvests, etc. The intervals between
these famines will become shorter and shorter the more the population increases;
and, finally, the famine times will disappear only in those rare years of plenty
when the granaries are full. And a time will ultimately come when even in those
years of plenty there will not be enough to go round; so that hunger will dog the
footsteps of the nation. Nature must now step in once more and select those who
are to survive, or else man will help himself by artificially preventing his own
increase, with all the fatal consequences for the race and the species which have
been already mentioned.

It may be objected here that, in one form or another, this future is in store for all
mankind and that the individual nation or race cannot escape the general fate.
At first glance, that objection seems logical enough; but we have to take the
following into account:

The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will be forced to check
the augmentation of the human species, because there will be no further
possibility of adjusting the productivity of the soil to the perpetual increase in
the population. Nature must then be allowed to use her own methods or man
may possibly take the task of regulation into his own hands and establish the




necessary equilibrium by the application of better means than we have at our
disposal to-day. But then it will be a problem for mankind as a whole, whereas
now only those races have to suffer from want which no longer have the strength
and daring to acquire sufficient soil to fulfil their needs. For, as things stand to-
day, vast spaces still lie uncultivated all over the surface of the globe. Those
spaces are only waiting for the ploughshare. And it is quite certain that Nature
did not set those territories apart as the exclusive pastures of any one nation or
race to be held unutilized in reserve for the future. Such land awaits the people
who have the strength to acquire it and the diligence to cultivate it.
Nature knows no political frontiers. She begins by establishing life on this globe
and then watches the free play of forces. Those who show the greatest courage
and industry are the children nearest to her heart and they will be granted the
sovereign right of existence.

If a nation confines itself to 'internal colonization' while other races are
perpetually increasing their territorial annexations all over the globe, that nation
will be forced to restrict the numerical growth of its population at a time when
the other nations are increasing theirs. This situation must eventually arrive. It
will arrive soon if the territory which the nation has at its disposal be small. Now
it is unfortunately true that only too often the best nations - or, to speak more
exactly, the only really cultured nations, who at the same time are the chief
bearers of human progress - have decided, in their blind pacifism, to refrain
from the acquisition of new territory and to be content with 'internal
colonization.' But at the same time nations of inferior quality succeed in getting
hold of large spaces for colonization all over the globe. The state of affairs
which must result from this contrast is the following:

Races which are culturally superior but less ruthless would be forced to restrict
their increase, because of insufficient territory to support the population, while
less civilized races could increase indefinitely, owing to the vast territories at
their disposal. In other words: should that state of affairs continue, then the
world will one day be possessed by that portion of mankind which is culturally
inferior but more active and energetic.

A time will come, even though in the distant future, when there can be only two
alternatives: Either the world will be ruled according to our modem concept of
democracy, and then every decision will be in favour of the numerically stronger
races; or the world will be governed by the law of natural distribution of power,
and then those nations will be victorious who are of more brutal will and are not
the nations who have practised self-denial.

Nobody can doubt that this world will one day be the scene of dreadful struggles
for existence on the part of mankind. In the end the instinct of self-preservation
alone will triumph. Before its consuming fire this so-called humanitarianism,
which connotes only a mixture of fatuous timidity and self-conceit, will melt
away as under the March sunshine. Man has become great through perpetual
struggle. In perpetual peace his greatness must decline.




For us Germans, the slogan of 'internal colonization' is fatal, because it
encourages the belief that we have discovered a means which is in accordance
with our innate pacifism and which will enable us to work for our livelihood in a
half slumbering existence. Such a teaching, once it were taken seriously by our
people, would mean the end of all effort to acquire for ourselves that place in the
world which we deserve. If. the average German were once convinced that by
this measure he has the chance of ensuring his livelihood and guaranteeing his
future, any attempt to take an active and profitable part in sustaining the vital
demands of his country would be out of the question. Should the nation agree to
such an attitude then any really useful foreign policy might be looked upon as
dead and buried, together with all hope for the future of the German people.
Once we know what the consequences of this 'internal colonization' theory
would be we can no longer consider as a mere accident the fact that among those
who inculcate this quite pernicious mentality among our people the Jew is
always in the first line. He knows his softies only too well not to know that they
are ready to be the grateful victims of every swindle which promises them a
gold-block in the shape of a discovery that will enable them to outwit Nature
and thus render superfluous the hard and inexorable struggle for existence; so
that finally they may become lords of the planet partly by sheer dolce far niente
and partly by working when a pleasing opportunity arises.
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that any German 'internal colonization'
must first of all be considered as suited only for the relief of social grievances.
To carry out a system of internal colonization, the most important preliminary
measure would be to free the soil from the grip of the speculator and assure that
freedom. But such a system could never suffice to assure the future of the nation
without the acquisition of new territory.

If we adopt a different plan we shall soon reach a point beyond which the
resources of our soil can no longer be exploited, and at the same time we shall
reach a point beyond which our man-power cannot develop.
In conclusion, the following must be said:

The fact that only up to a limited extent can internal colonization be practised in
a national territory which is of definitely small area and the restriction of the
procreative faculty which follows as a result of such conditions - these two
factors have a very unfavourable effect on the military and political standing of
a nation.

The extent of the national territory is a determining factor in the external
security of the nation. The larger the territory which a people has at its disposal
the stronger are the national defences of that people. Military decisions are more
quickly, more easily, more completely and more effectively gained against a
people occupying a national territory which is restricted in area, than against
States which have extensive territories. Moreover, the magnitude of a national
territory is in itself a certain assurance that an outside Power will not hastily risk
the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the struggle would have to be long




and exhausting before victory could be hoped for. The risk being so great, there
would have to be extraordinary reasons for such an aggressive adventure. Hence
it is that the territorial magnitude of a State furnishes a basis whereon national
liberty and independence can be maintained with relative ease; while, on the
contrary, a State whose territory is small offers a natural temptation to the

As a matter of fact, so-called national circles in the German Reich rejected those
first two possibilities of establishing a balance between the constant numerical
increase in the population and a national territory which could not expand
proportionately. But the reasons given for that rejection were different from
those which I have just expounded. It was mainly on the basis of certain moral
sentiments that restriction of the birth-rate was objected to. Proposals for
internal colonization were rejected indignantly because it was suspected that
such a policy might mean an attack on the big landowners, and that this attack
might be the forerunner of a general assault against the principle of private
property as a whole. The form in which the latter solution - internal colonization
- was recommended justified the misgivings of the big landowners.
But the form in which the colonization proposal was rejected was not very
clever, as regards the impression which such rejection might be calculated to
make on the mass of the people, and anyhow it did not go to the root of the
problem at all.

Only two further ways were left open in which work and bread could be secured
for the increasing population.

(3) It was possible to think of acquiring new territory on which a certain portion
of the increasing population could be settled each year; or else

(4) Our industry and commerce had to be organized in such a manner as to
secure an increase in the exports and thus be able to support our people by the
increased purchasing power accruing from the profits made on foreign markets.
Therefore the problem was: A policy of territorial expansion or a colonial and
commercial policy. Both pohcies were taken into consideration, examined,
recommended and rejected, from various standpoints, with the result that the
second alternative was finally adopted. The sounder alternative, however, was
undoubtedly the first.

The principle of acquiring new territory, on which the surplus population could
be settled, has many advantages to recommend it, especially if we take the
future as well as the present into account.

In the first place, too much importance cannot be placed on the necessity for
adopting a policy which will make it possible to maintain a healthy peasant class
as the basis of the national community. Many of our present evils have their
origin exclusively in the disproportion between the urban and rural portions of
the population. A solid stock of small and medium farmers has at all times been
the best protection which a nation could have against the social diseases that are
prevalent to-day. Moreover, that is the only solution which guarantees the daily




bread of a nation within the framework of its domestic national economy. With
this condition once guaranteed, industry and commerce would retire from the
unhealthy position of foremost importance which they hold to-day and would
take their due place within the general scheme of national economy, adjusting
the balance between demand and supply. Thus industry and commerce would no
longer constitute the basis of the national subsistence, but would be auxiliary
institutions. By fulfilling their proper function, which is to adjust the balance
between national production and national consumption, they render the national
subsistence more or less independent of foreign countries and thus assure the
freedom and independence of the nation, especially at critical junctures in its

Such a territorial policy, however, cannot find its fulfilment in the Cameroons
but almost exclusively here in Europe. One must calmly and squarely face the
truth that it certainly cannot be part of the dispensation of Divine Providence to
give a fifty times larger share of the soil of this world to one nation than to
another. In considering this state of affairs to-day, one must not allow existing
political frontiers to distract attention from what ought to exist on principles of
strict justice. If this earth has sufficient room for all, then we ought to have that
share of the soil which is absolutely necessary for our existence.
Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation. At this point
the right of self-preservation comes into effect. And when attempts to settle the
difficulty in an amicable way are rejected the clenched hand must take by force
that which was refused to the open hand of friendship. If in the past our
ancestors had based their political decisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our
present generation does, we should not possess more than one-third of the
national territory that we possess to-day and probably there would be no German
nation to worry about its future in Europe. No. We owe the two Eastern Marks
8) of the Empire to the natural determination of our forefathers in their struggle
for existence, and thus it is to the same determined policy that we owe the inner
strength which is based on the extent of our political and racial territories and
which alone has made it possible for us to exist up to now.
And there is still another reason why that solution would have been the correct

Many contemporary European States are like pyramids standing on their apexes.
The European territory which these States possess is ridiculously small when
compared with the enormous overhead weight of their colonies, foreign trade,
etc. It may be said that they have the apex in Europe and the base of the pyramid
all over the world; quite different from the United States of America, which has
its base on the American Continent and is in contact with the rest of the world
only through its apex. Out of that situation arises the incomparable inner
strength of the U.S.A. and the contrary situation is responsible for the weakness
of most of the colonial European Powers.




England cannot be suggested as an argument against this assertion, though in

glancing casually over the map of the British Empire one is inclined easily to

overlook the existence of a whole Anglo-Saxon world. England's position

cannot be compared with that of any other State in Europe, since it forms a vast

community of language and culture together with the U.S.A.

Therefore the only possibility which Germany had of carrying a sound territorial

policy into effect was that of acquiring new territory in Europe itself. Colonies

cannot serve this purpose as long as they are not suited for settlement by

Europeans on a large scale. In the nineteenth century it was no longer possible to

acquire such colonies by peaceful means. Therefore any attempt at such a

colonial expansion would have meant an enormous military struggle.

Consequently it would have been more practical to undertake that military

struggle for new territory in Europe rather than to wage war for the acquisition

of possessions abroad.

Such a decision naturally demanded that the nation's undivided energies should

be devoted to it. A policy of that kind which requires for its fulfilment every

ounce of available energy on the part of everybody concerned, cannot be carried

into effect by half-measures or in a hesitating manner. The political leadership

of the German Empire should then have been directed exclusively to this goal.

No political step should have been taken in response to other considerations than

this task and the means of accomplishing it. Germany should have been alive to

the fact that such a goal could have been reached only by war, and the prospect

of war should have been faced with calm and collected determination.

The whole system of alliances should have been envisaged and valued from that

standpoint. If new territory were to be acquired in Europe it must have been

mainly at Russia's cost, and once again the new German Empire should have set

out on its march along the same road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic

Knights, this time to acquire soil for the German plough by means of the

German sword and thus provide the nation with its daily bread.

For such a policy, however, there was only one possible ally in Europe. That

was England.

Only by alliance with England was it possible to safeguard the rear of the new

German crusade. The justification for undertaking such an expedition was

stronger than the justification which our forefathers had for setting out on theirs.

Not one of our pacifists refuses to eat the bread made from the grain grown in

the East; and yet the first plough here was that called the 'Sword'.

No sacrifice should have been considered too great if it was a necessary means

of gaining England's friendship. Colonial and naval ambitions should have been

abandoned and attempts should not have been made to compete against British


Only a clear and definite policy could lead to such an achievement. Such a

policy would have demanded a renunciation of the endeavour to conquer the

world's markets, also a renunciation of colonial intentions and naval power. All




the means of power at the disposal of the State should have been concentrated in

the military forces on land. This policy would have involved a period of

temporary self-denial, for the sake of a great and powerful future.

There was a time when England might have entered into negotiations with us, on

the grounds of that proposal. For England would have well understood that the

problems arising from the steady increase in population were forcing Germany

to look for a solution either in Europe with the help of England or, without

England, in some other part of the world.

This outlook was probably the chief reason why London tried to draw nearer to

Germany about the turn of the century. For the first time in Germany an attitude

was then manifested which afterwards displayed itself in a most tragic way.

People then gave expression to an unpleasant feeling that we might thus find

ourselves obliged to pull England's chestnuts out of the fire. As if an alliance

could be based on anything else than mutual give-and-take! And England would

have become a party to such a mutual bargain. British diplomats were still wise

enough to know that an equivalent must be forthcoming as a consideration for

any services rendered.

Let us suppose that in 1904 our German foreign policy was managed astutely

enough to enable us to take the part which Japan played. It is not easy to

measure the greatness of the results that might have accrued to Germany from

such a policy.

There would have been no world war. The blood which would have been shed in

1904 would not have been a tenth of that shed from 1914 to 1918. And what a

position Germany would hold in the world to-day?

In any case the alliance with Austria was then an absurdity.

For this mummy of a State did not attach itself to Germany for the purpose of

carrying through a war, but rather to maintain a perpetual state of peace which

was meant to be exploited for the purpose of slowly but persistently

exterminating the German element in the Dual Monarchy.

Another reason for the impossible character of this alliance was that nobody

could expect such a State to take an active part in defending German national

interests, seeing that it did not have sufficient strength and determination to put

an end to the policy of de-Germanization within its own frontiers. If Germany

herself was not moved by a sufficiently powerful national sentiment and was not

sufficiently ruthless to take away from that absurd Habsburg State the right to

decide the destinies of ten million inhabitants who were of the same nationality

as the Germans themselves, surely it was out of the question to expect the

Habsburg State to be a collaborating party in any great and courageous German

undertaking. The attitude of the old Reich towards the Austrian question might

have been taken as a test of its stamina for the struggle where the destinies of the

whole nation were at stake.

In any case, the policy of oppression against the German population in Austria

should not have been allowed to be carried on and to grow stronger from year to




year; for the value of Austria as an ally could be assured only by upholding the
German element there. But that course was not followed.

Nothing was dreaded so much as the possibility of an armed conflict; but finally,
and at a most unfavourable moment, the conflict had to be faced and accepted.
They thought to cut loose from the cords of destiny, but destiny held them fast.
They dreamt of maintaining a world peace and woke up to find themselves in a
world war.

And that dream of peace was a most significant reason why the above-
mentioned third alternative for the future development of Germany was not even
taken into consideration. The fact was recognized that new territory could be
gained only in the East; but this meant that there would be fighting ahead,
whereas they wanted peace at any cost. The slogan of German foreign policy at
one time used to be: The use of all possible means for the maintenance of the
German nation. Now it was changed to: Maintenance of world peace by all
possible means. We know what the result was. I shall resume the discussion of
this point in detail later on.

There remained still another alternative, which we may call the fourth. This was:
Industry and world trade, naval power and colonies.

Such a development might certainly have been attained more easily and more
rapidly. To colonize a territory is a slow process, often extending over centuries.
Yet this fact is the source of its inner strength, for it is not through a sudden
burst of enthusiasm that it can be put into effect, but rather through a gradual
and enduring process of growth quite different from industrial progress, which
can be urged on by advertisement within a few years. The result thus achieved,
however, is not of lasting quality but something frail, like a soap-bubble. It is
much easier to build quickly than to carry through the tough task of settling a
territory with farmers and establishing farmsteads. But the former is more
quickly destroyed than the latter.

In adopting such a course Germany must have known that to follow it out would
necessarily mean war sooner or later. Only children could believe that sweet and
unctuous expressions of goodness and persistent avowals of peaceful intentions
could get them their bananas through this 'friendly competition between the
nations', with the prospect of never having to fight for them.
No. Once we had taken this road, England was bound to be our enemy at some
time or other to come. Of course it fitted in nicely with our innocent
assumptions, but still it was absurd to grow indignant at the fact that a day came
when the English took the liberty of opposing our peaceful penetration with the
brutality of violent egoists.

Naturally, we on our side would never have done such a thing.
If a European territorial policy against Russia could have been put into practice
only in case we had England as our ally, on the other hand a colonial and world-
trade policy could have been carried into effect only against English interests
and with the support of Russia. But then this policy should have been adopted in




full consciousness of all the consequences it involved and, above all things,
Austria should have been discarded as quickly as possible.
At the turn of the century the alliance with Austria had become a veritable
absurdity from all points of view.

But nobody thought of forming an alliance with Russia against England, just as
nobody thought of making England an ally against Russia; for in either case the
final result would inevitably have meant war. And to avoid war was the very
reason why a commercial and industrial policy was decided upon. It was
believed that the peaceful conquest of the world by commercial means provided
a method which would permanently supplant the policy of force. Occasionally,
however, there were doubts about the efficiency of this principle, especially
when some quite incomprehensible warnings came from England now and
again. That was the reason why the fleet was built. It was not for the purpose of
attacking or annihilating England but merely to defend the concept of world-
peace, mentioned above, and also to protect the principle of conquering the
world by 'peaceful' means. Therefore this fleet was kept within modest limits,
not only as regards the number and tonnage of the vessels but also in regard to
their armament, the idea being to furnish new proofs of peaceful intentions.
The chatter about the peaceful conquest of the world by commercial means was
probably the most completely nonsensical stuff ever raised to the dignity of a
guiding principle in the policy of a State, This nonsense became even more
foolish when England was pointed out as a typical example to prove how the
thing could be put into practice. Our doctrinal way of regarding history and our
professorial ideas in that domain have done irreparable harm and offer a striking
'proof of how people 'learn' history without understanding anything of it. As a
matter of fact, England ought to have been looked upon as a convincing
argument against the theory of the pacific conquest of the world by commercial
means. No nation prepared the way for its commercial conquests more brutally
than England did by means of the sword, and no other nation has defended such
conquests more ruthlessly. Is it not a characteristic quality of British statecraft
that it knows how to use political power in order to gain economic advantages
and, inversely, to turn economic conquests into political power? What an
astounding error it was to believe that England would not have the courage to
give its own blood for the purposes of its own economic expansion! The fact
that England did not possess a national army proved nothing; for it is not the
actual military structure of the moment that matters but rather the will and
determination to use whatever military strength is available. England has always
had the armament which she needed. She always fought with those weapons
which were necessary for success. She sent mercenary troops, to fight as long as
mercenaries sufficed; but she never hesitated to draw heavily and deeply from
the best blood of the whole nation when victory could be obtained only by such
a sacrifice. And in every case the fighting spirit, dogged determination, and use




of brutal means in conducting military operations have always remained the

But in Germany, through the medium of the schools, the Press and the comic
papers, an idea of the Englishman was gradually formed which was bound
eventually to lead to the worst kind of self-deception. This absurdity slowly but
persistently spread into every quarter of German life. The result was an
undervaluation for which we have had to pay a heavy penalty. The delusion was
so profound that the Englishman was looked upon as a shrewd business man, but
personally a coward even to an incredible degree. Unfortunately our lofty
teachers of professorial history did not bring home to the minds of their pupils
the truth that it is not possible to build up such a mighty organization as the
British Empire by mere swindle and fraud. The few who called attention to that
truth were either ignored or silenced. I can vividly recall to mind the astonished
looks of my comrades when they found themselves personally face to face for
the first time with the Tommies in Flanders. After a few days of fighting the
consciousness slowly dawned on our soldiers that those Scotsmen were not like
the ones we had seen described and caricatured in the comic papers and
mentioned in the communiques.

It was then that I formed my first ideas of the efficiency of various forms of

Such a falsification, however, served the purpose of those who had fabricated it.
This caricature of the Englishman, though false, could be used to prove the
possibility of conquering the world peacefully by commercial means. Where the
Englishman succeeded we should also succeed. Our far greater honesty and our
freedom from that specifically English 'perfidy' would be assets on our side.
Thereby it was hoped that the sympathy of the smaller nations and the
confidence of the greater nations could be gained more easily.
We did not realize that our honesty was an object of profound aversion for other
people because we ourselves believed in it. The rest of the world looked on our
behaviour as the manifestation of a shrewd deceitfulness; but when the
revolution came, then they were amazed at the deeper insight it gave them into
our mentality, sincere even beyond the limits of stupidity.

Once we understand the part played by that absurd notion of conquering the
world by peaceful commercial means we can clearly understand how that other
absurdity, the Triple Alliance, came to exist. With what State then could an
alliance have been made? In alliance with Austria we could not acquire new
territory by military means, even in Europe. And this very fact was the real
reason for the inner weakness of the Triple Alliance. A Bismarck could permit
himself such a makeshift for the necessities of the moment, but certainly not any
of his bungling successors, and least of all when the foundations no longer
existed on which Bismarck had formed the Triple Alliance. In Bismarck's time
Austria could still be looked upon as a German State; but the gradual




introduction of universal suffrage turned the country into a parliamentary Babel,
in which the German voice was scarcely audible.

From the viewpoint of racial policy, this alliance with Austria was simply
disastrous. A new Slavic Great Power was allowed to grow up close to the
frontiers of the German Empire. Later on this Power was bound to adopt
towards Germany an attitude different from that of Russia, for example. The
Alliance was thus bound to become more empty and more feeble, because the
only supporters of it were losing their influence and were being systematically
pushed out of the more important public offices.

About the year 1900 the Alliance with Austria had already entered the same
phase as the Alliance between Austria and Italy.

Here also only one alternative was possible: Either to take the side of the
Habsburg Monarchy or to raise a protest against the oppression of the German
element in Austria. But, generally speaking, when one takes such a course it is
bound eventually to lead to open conflict.

From the psychological point of view also, the Triple decreases according as
such an alliance limits its object to the defence of the status quo. But, on the
other hand, an alliance will increase its cohesive strength the more the parties
concerned in it may hope to use it as a means of reaching some practical goal of
expansion. Here, as everywhere else, strength does not lie in defence but in

This truth was recognized in various quarters but, unfortunately, not by the so-
called elected representatives of the people. As early as 1912 Ludendorff, who
was then Colonel and an Officer of the General Staff, pointed out these weak
features of the Alliance in a memorandum which he then drew up. But of course
the 'statesmen' did not attach any importance or value to that document. In
general it would seem as if reason were a faculty that is active only in the case
of ordinary mortals but that it is entirely absent when we come to deal with that
branch of the species known as 'diplomats'.

It was lucky for Germany that the war of 1914 broke out with Austria as its
direct cause, for thus the Habsburgs were compelled to participate. Had the
origin of the War been otherwise, Germany would have been left to her own
resources. The Habsburg State would never have been ready or willing to take
part in a war for the origin of which Germany was responsible. What was the
object of so much obloquy later in the case of Italy's decision would have taken
place, only earlier, in the case of Austria. In other words, if Germany had been
forced to go to war for some reason of its own, Austria would have remained
'neutral' in order to safeguard the State against a revolution which might begin
immediately after the war had started. The Slav element would have preferred to
smash up the Dual Monarchy in 1914 rather than permit it to come to the
assistance of Germany. But at that time there were only a few who understood
all the dangers and aggravations which resulted from the alliance with the
Danubian Monarchy.




In the first place, Austria had too many enemies who were eagerly looking

forward to obtain the heritage of that decrepit State, so that these people

gradually developed a certain animosity against Germany, because Germany

was an obstacle to their desires inasmuch as it kept the Dual Monarchy from

falling to pieces, a consummation that was hoped for and yearned for on all

sides. The conviction developed that Vienna could be reached only by passing

through Berlin.

In the second place, by adopting this policy Germany lost its best and most

promising chances of other alliances. In place of these possibilities one now

observed a growing tension in the relations with Russia and even with Italy. And

this in spite of the fact that the general attitude in Rome was just as favourable to

Germany as it was hostile to Austria, a hostility which lay dormant in the

individual Italian and broke out violently on occasion.

Since a commercial and industrial policy had been adopted, no motive was left

for waging war against Russia. Only the enemies of the two countries, Germany

and Russia, could have an active interest in such a war under these

circumstances. As a matter of fact, it was only the Jews and the Marxists who

tried to stir up bad blood between the two States.

In the third place, the Alliance constituted a permanent danger to German

security; for any great Power that was hostile to Bismarck's Empire could

mobilize a whole lot of other States in a war against Germany by promising

them tempting spoils at the expense of the Austrian ally.

It was possible to arouse the whole of Eastern Europe against Austria, especially

Russia, and Italy also. The world coalition which had developed under the

leadership of King Edward could never have become a reality if Germany's ally,

Austria, had not offered such an alluring prospect of booty. It was this fact alone

which made it possible to combine so many heterogeneous States with divergent

interests into one common phalanx of attack. Every member could hope to

enrich himself at the expense of Austria if he joined in the general attack against

Germany. The fact that Turkey was also a tacit party to the unfortunate alliance

with Austria augmented Germany's peril to an extraordinary degree.

Jewish international finance needed this bait of the Austrian heritage in order to

carry out its plans of ruining Germany; for Germany had not yet surrendered to

the general control which the international captains of finance and trade

exercised over the other States. Thus it was possible to consolidate that coalition

and make it strong enough and brave enough, through the sheer weight of

numbers, to join in bodily conflict with the 'homed' Siegfried.9)

The alliance with the Habsburg Monarchy, which I loathed while still in Austria,

was the subject of grave concern on my part and caused me to meditate on it so

persistently that finally I came to the conclusions which I have mentioned


In the small circles which I frequented at that time I did not conceal my

conviction that this sinister agreement with a State doomed to collapse would




also bring catastrophe to Germany if she did not free herself from it in time. I
never for a moment wavered in that firm conviction, even when the tempest of
the World War seemed to have made shipwreck of the reasoning faculty itself
and had put blind enthusiasm in its place, even among those circles where the
coolest and hardest objective thinking ought to have held sway. In the trenches I
voiced and upheld my own opinion whenever these problems came under
discussion. I held that to abandon the Habsburg Monarchy would involve no
sacrifice if Germany could thereby reduce the number of her own enemies; for
the millions of Germans who had donned the steel helmet had done so not to
fight for the maintenance of a corrupt dynasty but rather for the salvation of the
German people.

Before the War there were occasions on which it seemed that at least one section
of the German public had some slight misgivings about the political wisdom of
the alliance with Austria. From time to time German conservative circles issued
warnings against being over-confident about the worth of that alliance; but, like
every other reasonable suggestion made at that time, it was thrown to the winds.
The general conviction was that the right measures had been adopted to
'conquer' the world, that the success of these measures would be enormous and
the sacrifices negligible.

Once again the 'uninitiated' layman could do nothing but observe how the
'elect' were marching straight ahead towards disaster and enticing their beloved
people to follow them, as the rats followed the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
If we would look for the deeper grounds which made it possible to foist on the
people this absurd notion of peacefully conquering the world through
commercial penetration, and how it was possible to put forward the maintenance
of world-peace as a national aim, we shall find that these grounds lay in a
general morbid condition that had pervaded the whole body of German political

The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany and the marvellous
development of German industries and commerce led us to forget that a
powerful State had been the necessary pre-requisite of that success. On the
contrary, certain circles went even so far as to give vent to the theory that the
State owed its very existence to these phenomena; that it was, above all, an
economic institution and should be constituted in accordance with economic
interests. Therefore, it was held, the State was dependent on the economic
structure. This condition of things was looked upon and glorified as the soundest
and most normal arrangement.

Now, the truth is that the State in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with any
definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise
from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited
territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of
living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the
purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards




fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or
racial branch. Therein, and therein alone, lie the purpose and meaning of a State.
Economic activity is one of the many auxiliary means which are necessary for
the attainment of those aims. But economic activity is never the origin or
purpose of a State, except where a State has been originally founded on a false
and unnatural basis. And this alone explains why a State as such does not
necessarily need a certain delimited territory as a condition of its establishment.
This condition becomes a necessary pre-requisite only among those people who
would provide and assure subsistence for their kinsfolk through their own
industry, which means that they are ready to carry on the struggle for existence
by means of their own work. People who can sneak their way, like parasites,
into the human body politic and make others work for them under various
pretences can form a State without possessing any definite delimited territory.
This is chiefly applicable to that parasitic nation which, particularly at the
present time preys upon the honest portion of mankind; I mean the Jews.
The Jewish State has never been delimited in space. It has been spread all over
the world, without any frontiers whatsoever, and has always been constituted
from the membership of one race exclusively. That is why the Jews have always
formed a State within the State. One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised
has been that of sailing the Jewish ship-of-state under the flag of Religion and
thus securing that tolerance which Aryans are always ready to grant to different
religious faiths. But the Mosaic Law is really nothing else than the doctrine of
the preservation of the Jewish race. Therefore this Law takes in all spheres of
sociological, political and economic science which have a bearing on the main
end in view.

The instinct for the preservation of one's own species is the primary cause that
leads to the formation of human communities. Hence the State is a racial
organism, and not an economic organization. The difference between the two is
so great as to be incomprehensible to our contemporary so-called 'statesmen'.
That is why they like to believe that the State may be constituted as an economic
structure, whereas the truth is that it has always resulted from the exercise of
those qualities which are part of the will to preserve the species and the race. But
these qualities always exist and operate through the heroic virtues and have
nothing to do with commercial egoism; for the conservation of the species
always presupposes that the individual is ready to sacrifice himself. Such is the
meaning of the poet's lines:
Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,
Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein.
(And if you do not stake your life.
You will never win life for yourself.) 10)

The sacrifice of the individual existence is necessary in order to assure the
conservation of the race. Hence it is that the most essential condition for the
establishment and maintenance of a State is a certain feeling of solidarity.




wounded in an identity of character and race and in a resolute readiness to
defend these at all costs. With people who live on their own territory this will
result in a development of the heroic virtues; with a parasitic people it will
develop the arts of subterfuge and gross perfidy unless we admit that these
characteristics are innate and that the varying political forms through which the
parasitic race expresses itself are only the outward manifestations of innate
characteristics. At least in the beginning, the formation of a State can result only
from a manifestation of the heroic qualities I have spoken of. And the people
who fail in the struggle for existence, that is to say those, who become vassals
and are thereby condemned to disappear entirely sooner or later, are those who
do not display the heroic virtues in the struggle, or those who fall victims to the
perfidy of the parasites. And even in this latter case the failure is not so much
due to lack of intellectual powers, but rather to a lack of courage and
determination. An attempt is made to conceal the real nature of this failing by
saying that it is the humane feeling.

The qualities which are employed for the foundation and preservation of a State
have accordingly little or nothing to do with the economic situation. And this is
conspicuously demonstrated by the fact that the inner strength of a State only
very rarely coincides with what is called its economic expansion. On the
contrary, there are numerous examples to show that a period of economic
prosperity indicates the approaching decline of a State. If it were correct to
attribute the foundation of human communities to economic forces, then the
power of the State as such would be at its highest pitch during periods of
economic prosperity, and not vice versa.

It is specially difficult to understand how the belief that the State is brought into
being and preserved by economic forces could gain currency in a country which
has given proof of the opposite in every phase of its history. The history of
Prussia shows in a manner particularly clear and distinct, that it is out of the
moral virtues of the people and not from their economic circumstances that a
State is formed. It is only under the protection of those virtues that economic
activities can be developed and the latter will continue to flourish until a time
comes when the creative political capacity declines. Therewith the economic
structure will also break down, a phenomenon which is now happening in an
alarming manner before our eyes. The material interest of mankind can prosper
only in the shade of the heroic virtues. The moment they become the primary
considerations of life they wreck the basis of their own existence.
Whenever the political power of Germany was specially strong the economic
situation also improved. But whenever economic interests alone occupied the
foremost place in the life of the people, and thrust transcendent ideals into the
back. -ground, the State collapsed and economic ruin followed readily.
If we consider the question of what those forces actually are which are necessary
to the creation and preservation of a State, we shall find that they are: The
capacity and readiness to sacrifice the individual to the common welfare. That




these qualities have nothing at all to do with economics can be proved by
referring to the simple fact that man does not sacrifice himself for material
interests. In other words, he will die for an ideal but not for a business. The
marvellous gift for public psychology which the English have was never shown
better than the way in which they presented their case in the World War. We
were fighting for our bread; but the English declared that they were fighting for
'freedom', and not at all for their own freedom. Oh, no, but for the freedom of
the small nations. German people laughed at that effrontery and were angered by
it; but in doing so they showed how political thought had declined among our
so-called diplomats in Germany even before the War. These diplomatists did not
have the slightest notion of what that force was which brought men to face death
of their own free will and determination.

As long as the German people, in the War of 1914, continued to believe that
they were fighting for ideals they stood firm. As soon as they were told that they
were fighting only for their daily bread they began to give up the struggle.
Our clever 'statesmen' were greatly amazed at this change of feeling. They
never understood that as soon as man is called upon to struggle for purely
material causes he will avoid death as best he can; for death and the enjoyment
of the material fruits of a victory are quite incompatible concepts. The frailest
woman will become a heroine when the life of her own child is at stake. And
only the will to save the race and native land or the State, which offers
protection to the race, has in all ages been the urge which has forced men to face
the weapons of their enemies.

The following may be proclaimed as a truth that always holds good:
A State has never arisen from commercial causes for the purpose of peacefully
serving commercial ends; but States have always arisen from the instinct to
maintain the racial group, whether this instinct manifest itself in the heroic
sphere or in the sphere of cunning and chicanery. In the first case we have the
Aryan States, based on the principles of work and cultural development. In the
second case we have the Jewish parasitic colonies. But as soon as economic
interests begin to predominate over the racial and cultural instincts in a people or
a State, these economic interests unloose the causes that lead to subjugation and

The belief, which prevailed in Germany before the War, that the world could be
opened up and even conquered for Germany through a system of peaceful
commercial penetration and a colonial policy was a typical symptom which
indicated the decline of those real qualities whereby States are created and
preserved, and indicated also the decline of that insight, will-power and practical
determination which belong to those qualities. The World War with its
consequences, was the natural liquidation of that decline.

To anyone who had not thought over the matter deeply, this attitude of the
German people - which was quite general - must have seemed an insoluble
enigma. After all, Germany herself was a magnificent example of an empire that




had been built up purely by a policy of power. Prussia, which was the generative
cell of the German Empire, had been created by brilliant heroic deeds and not by
a financial or commercial compact. And the Empire itself was but the
magnificent recompense for a leadership that had been conducted on a policy of
power and military valour.

How then did it happen that the political instincts of this very same German
people became so degenerate? For it was not merely one isolated phenomenon
which pointed to this decadence, but morbid symptoms which appeared in
alarming numbers, now all over the body politic, or eating into the body of the
nation like a gangrenous ulcer. It seemed as if some all-pervading poisonous
fluid had been injected by some mysterious hand into the bloodstream of this
once heroic body, bringing about a creeping paralysis that affected the reason
and the elementary instinct of self-preservation.

During the years 1912-1914 I used to ponder perpetually on those problems
which related to the policy of the Triple Alliance and the economic policy then
being pursued by the German Empire. Once again I came to the conclusion that
the only explanation of this enigma lay in the operation of that force which I had
already become acquainted with in Vienna, though from a different angle of
vision. The force to which I refer was the Marxist teaching and
Weltanschhauung and its organized action throughout the nation.
For the second time in my life I plunged deep into the study of that destructive
teaching. This time, however, I was not urged by the study of the question by the
impressions and influences of my daily environment, but directed rather by the
observation of general phenomena in the political life of Germany. In delving
again into the theoretical literature of this new world and endeavouring to get a
clear view of the possible consequences of its teaching, I compared the
theoretical principles of Marxism with the phenomena and happenings brought
about by its activities in the political, cultural, and economic spheres.
For the first time in my life I now turned my attention to the efforts that were
being made to subdue this universal pest.

I studied Bismarck's exceptional legislation in its original concept, its operation
and its results. Gradually I formed a basis for my own opinions, which has
proved as solid as a rock, so that never since have I had to change my attitude
towards the general problem. I also made a further and more thorough analysis
of the relations between Marxism and Jewry.

During my sojourn in Vienna I used to look upon Germany as an imperturbable
colossus; but even then serious doubts and misgivings would often disturb me.
In my own mind and in my conversation with my small circle of acquaintances I
used to criticize Germany's foreign policy and the incredibly superficial way,
according to my thinking, in which Marxism was dealt with, though it was then
the most important problem in Germany. I could not understand how they could
stumble blindfolded into the midst of this peril, the effects of which would be
momentous if the openly declared aims of Marxism could be put into practice.




Even as early as that time I warned people around me, just as I am warning a
wider audience now, against that soothing slogan of all indolent and feckless
nature: Nothing can happen to us. A similar mental contagion had already
destroyed a mighty empire. Can Germany escape the operation of those laws to
which all other human communities are subject?

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various
circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement,
that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the
problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.

I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the
consequences resulting from the disintegrating effects of the Marxist teaching;
for the alarming feature was that this teaching was invisibly corrupting the
foundations of a healthy political and economic outlook. Those who had been
themselves contaminated frequently did not realise that their aims and actions
sprang from this Weltanschhauung, which they otherwise openly repudiated.
Long before then the spiritual and moral decline of the German people had set
in, though those who were affected by the morbid decadence were frequently
unaware - as often happens - of the forces which were breaking up their very
existence. Sometimes they tried to cure the disease by doctoring the symptoms,
which were taken as the cause. But since nobody recognized, or wanted to
recognize, the real cause of the disease this way of combating Marxism was no
more effective than the application of some quack's ointment.





During the boisterous years of my youth nothing used to damp my wild spirits
so much as to think that I was born at a time when the world had manifestly
decided not to erect any more temples of fame except in honour of business
people and State officials. The tempest of historical achievements seemed to
have permanently subsided, so much so that the future appeared to be
irrevocably delivered over to what was called peaceful competition between the
nations. This simply meant a system of mutual exploitation by fraudulent means,
the principle of resorting to the use of force in self-defence being formally
excluded. Individual countries increasingly assumed the appearance of
commercial undertakings, grabbing territory and clients and concessions from
each other under any and every kind of pretext. And it was all staged to an
accompaniment of loud but innocuous shouting. This trend of affairs seemed
destined to develop steadily and permanently. Having the support of public
approbation, it seemed bound eventually to transform the world into a mammoth
department store. In the vestibule of this emporium there would be rows of
monumental busts which would confer immortality on those profiteers who had
proved themselves the shrewdest at their trade and those administrative officials
who had shown themselves the most innocuous. The salesmen could be
represented by the English and the administrative functionaries by the Germans;
whereas the Jews would be sacrificed to the unprofitable calling of
proprietorship, for they are constantly avowing that they make no profits and are
always being called upon to 'pay out'. Moreover they have the advantage of
being versed in the foreign languages.

Why could I not have been born a hundred years ago? I used to ask myself.
Somewhere about the time of the Wars of Liberation, when a man was still of
some value even though he had no 'business'.

Thus I used to think it an ill-deserved stroke of bad luck that I had arrived too
late on this terrestrial globe, and I felt chagrined at the idea that my life would
have to run its course along peaceful and orderly lines. As a boy I was anything
but a pacifist and all attempts to make me so turned out futile.
Then the Boer War came, like a glow of lightning on the far horizon. Day after
day I used to gaze intently at the newspapers and I almost 'devoured' the
telegrams and communiques, overjoyed to think that I could witness that heroic
struggle, even though from so great a distance.

When the Russo-Japanese War came I was older and better able to judge for
myself. For national reasons I then took the side of the Japanese in our
discussions. I looked upon the defeat of the Russians as a blow to Austrian

Many years had passed between that time and my arrival in Munich. I now
realized that what I formerly believed to be a morbid decadence was only the




lull before the storm. During my Vienna days the Balkans were already in the
grip of that sultry pause which presages the violent storm. Here and there a flash
of lightning could be occasionally seen; but it rapidly disappeared in sinister
gloom. Then the Balkan War broke out; and therewith the first gusts of the
forthcoming tornado swept across a highly-strung Europe. In the supervening
calm men felt the atmosphere oppressive and foreboding, so much so that the
sense of an impending catastrophe became transformed into a feeling of
impatient expectance. They wished that Heaven would give free rein to the fate
which could now no longer be curbed. Then the first great bolt of lightning
struck the earth. The storm broke and the thunder of the heavens intermingled
with the roar of the cannons in the World War.

When the news came to Munich that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been
murdered, I had been at home all day and did not get the particulars of how it
happened. At first I feared that the shots may have been fired by some German-
Austrian students who had been aroused to a state of furious indignation by the
persistent pro-Slav activities of the Heir to the Habsburg Throne and therefore
wished to liberate the German population from this internal enemy. It was quite
easy to imagine what the result of such a mistake would have been. It would
have brought on a new wave of persecution, the motives of which would have
been 'justified' before the whole world. But soon afterwards I heard the names
of the presumed assassins and also that they were known to be Serbs. I felt
somewhat dumbfounded in face of the inexorable vengeance which Destiny had
wrought. The greatest friend of the Slavs had fallen a victim to the bullets of
Slav patriots.

It is unjust to the Vienna government of that time to blame it now for the form
and tenor of the ultimatum which was then presented. In a similar position and
under similar circumstances, no other Power in the world would have acted
otherwise. On her southern frontiers Austria had a relentless mortal foe who
indulged in acts of provocation against the Dual Monarchy at intervals which
were becoming more and more frequent. This persistent line of conduct would
not have been relaxed until the arrival of the opportune moment for the
destruction of the Empire. In Austria there was good reason to fear that, at the
latest, this moment would come with the death of the old Emperor. Once that
had taken place, it was quite possible that the Monarchy would not be able to
offer any serious resistance. For some years past the State had been so
completely identified with the personality of Francis Joseph that, in the eyes of
the great mass of the people, the death of this venerable personification of the
Empire would be tantamount to the death of the Empire itself. Indeed it was one
of the clever artifices of Slav policy to foster the impression that the Austrian
State owed its very existence exclusively to the prodigies and rare talents of that
monarch. This kind of flattery was particularly welcomed at the Hofburg, all the
more because it had no relation whatsoever to the services actually rendered by
the Emperor. No effort whatsoever was made to locate the carefully prepared




sting which lay hidden in this glorifying praise. One fact which was entirely
overlooked, perhaps intentionally, was that the more the Empire remained
dependent on the so-called administrative talents of 'the wisest Monarch of all
times', the more catastrophic would be the situation when Fate came to knock at
the door and demand its tribute.

Was it possible even to imagine the Austrian Empire without its venerable ruler?
Would not the tragedy which befell Maria Theresa be repeated at once?
It is really unjust to the Vienna governmental circles to reproach them with
having instigated a war which might have been prevented. The war was bound
to come. Perhaps it might have been postponed for a year or two at the most. But
it had always been the misfortune of German, as well as Austrian, diplomats that
they endeavoured to put off the inevitable day of reckoning, with the result that
they were finally compelled to deliver their blow at a most inopportune moment.
No. Those who did not wish this war ought to have had the courage to take the
consequences of the refusal upon themselves. Those consequences must
necessarily have meant the sacrifice of Austria. And even then war would have
come, not as a war in which all the nations would have been banded against us
but in the form of a dismemberment of the Habsburg Monarchy. In that case we
should have had to decide whether we should come to the assistance of the
Habsburg or stand aside as spectators, with our arms folded, and thus allow Fate
to run its course.

Just those who are loudest in their imprecations to-day and make a great parade
of wisdom in judging the causes of the war are the very same people whose
collaboration was the most fatal factor in steering towards the war.
For several decades previously the German Social-Democrats had been agitating
in an underhand and knavish way for war against Russia; whereas the German
Centre Party, with religious ends in view, had worked to make the Austrian
State the chief centre and turning-point of German policy. The consequences of
this folly had now to be borne. What came was bound to come and under no
circumstances could it have been avoided. The fault of the German Government
lay in the fact that, merely for the sake of preserving peace at all costs, it
continued to miss the occasions that were favourable for action, got entangled in
an alliance for the purpose of preserving the peace of the world, and thus finally
became the victim of a world coalition which opposed the German effort for the
maintenance of peace and was determined to bring about the world war.
Had the Vienna Government of that time formulated its ultimatum in less
drastic terms, that would not have altered the situation at all: but such a course
might have aroused public indignation. For, in the eyes of the great masses, the
ultimatum was too moderate and certainly not excessive or brutal. Those who
would deny this to-day are either simpletons with feeble memories or else
deliberate falsehood-mongers.

The War of 1914 was certainly not forced on the masses; it was even desired by
the whole people.




There was a desire to bring the general feeling of uncertainty to an end once and
for all. And it is only in the light of this fact that we can understand how more
than two million German men and youths voluntarily joined the colours, ready
to shed the last drop of their blood for the cause.

For me these hours came as a deliverance from the distress that had weighed
upon me during the days of my youth. I am not ashamed to acknowledge to-day
that I was carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment and that I sank down
upon my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for the
favour of having been permitted to live in such a time.

The fight for freedom had broken out on an unparalleled scale in the history of
the world. From the moment that Fate took the helm in hand the conviction grew
among the mass of the people that now it was not a question of deciding the
destinies of Austria or Serbia but that the very existence of the German nation
itself was at stake.

At last, after many years of blindness, the people saw clearly into the future.
Therefore, almost immediately after the gigantic struggle had begun, an
excessive enthusiasm was replaced by a more earnest and more fitting
undertone, because the exaltation of the popular spirit was not a mere passing
frenzy. It was only too necessary that the gravity of the situation should be
recognized. At that time there was, generally speaking, not the slightest
presentiment or conception of how long the war might last. People dreamed of
the soldiers being home by Christmas and that then they would resume their
daily work in peace.

Whatever mankind desires, that it will hope for and believe in. The
overwhelming majority of the people had long since grown weary of the
perpetual insecurity in the general condition of public affairs. Hence it was only
natural that no one believed that the Austro- Serbian conflict could be shelved.
Therefore they looked forward to a radical settlement of accounts. I also
belonged to the millions that desired this.

The moment the news of the Sarajevo outrage reached Munich two ideas came
into my mind: First, that war was absolutely inevitable and, second, that the
Habsburg State would now be forced to honour its signature to the alliance. For
what I had feared most was that one day Germany herself, perhaps as a result of
the Alliance, would become involved in a conflict the first direct cause of which
did not affect Austria. In such a contingency, I feared that the Austrian State, for
domestic political reasons, would find itself unable to decide in favour of its
ally. But now this danger was removed. The old State was compelled to fight,
whether it wished to do so or not.

My own attitude towards the conflict was equally simple and clear. I believed
that it was not a case of Austria fighting to get satisfaction from Serbia but
rather a case of Germany fighting for her own existence - the German nation for
its own to-be-or-not-to-be, for its freedom and for its future. The work of
Bismarck must now be carried on. Young Germany must show itself worthy of




the blood shed by our fathers on so many heroic fields of battle, from
Weissenburg to Sedan and Paris. And if this struggle should bring us victory our
people will again rank foremost among the great nations. Only then could the
German Empire assert itself as the mighty champion of peace, without the
necessity of restricting the daily bread of its children for the sake of maintaining
the peace.

As a boy and as a young man, I often longed for the occasion to prove that my
national enthusiasm was not mere vapouring. Hurrahing sometimes seemed to
me to be a kind of sinful indulgence, though I could not give any justification for
that feeling; for, after all, who has the right to shout that triumphant word if he
has not won the right to it there where there is no play-acting and where the
hand of the Goddess of Destiny puts the truth and sincerity of nations and men
through her inexorable test? Just as millions of others, I felt a proud joy in being
permitted to go through this test. I had so often sung Deutschland iiber Alles and
so often roared 'Heil' that I now thought it was as a kind of retro-active grace
that I was granted the right of appearing before the Court of Eternal Justice to
testify to the truth of those sentiments.

One thing was clear to me from the very beginning, namely, that in the event of
war, which now seemed inevitable, my books would have to be thrown aside
forthwith. I also realized that my place would have to be there where the inner
voice of conscience called me.

I had left Austria principally for political reasons. What therefore could be more
rational than that I should put into practice the logical consequences of my
political opinions, now that the war had begun. I had no desire to fight for the
Habsburg cause, but I was prepared to die at any time for my own kinsfolk and
the Empire to which they really belonged.

On August 3rd, 1914, I presented an urgent petition to His Majesty, King
Ludwig III, requesting to be allowed to serve in a Bavarian regiment. In those
days the Chancellery had its hands quite full and therefore I was all the more
pleased when I received the answer a day later, that my request had been
granted. I opened the document with trembling hands; and no words of mine
could now describe the satisfaction I felt on reading that I was instructed to
report to a Bavarian regiment. Within a few days I was wearing that uniform
which I was not to put oft again for nearly six years.

For me, as for every German, the most memorable period of my life now began.
Face to face with that mighty struggle, all the past fell away into oblivion. With
a wistful pride I look back on those days, especially because we are now
approaching the tenth anniversary of that memorable happening. I recall those
early weeks of war when kind fortune permitted me to take my place in that
heroic struggle among the nations.

As the scene unfolds itself before my mind, it seems only like yesterday. I see
myself among my young comrades on our first parade drill, and so on until at
last the day came on which we were to leave for the front

In common with the others, I had one worry during those days. This was a fear
that we might arrive too late for the fighting at the front. Time and again that
thought disturbed me and every announcement of a victorious engagement left a
bitter taste, which increased as the news of further victories arrived.
At long last the day came when we left Munich on war service. For the first time
in my life I saw the Rhine, as we journeyed westwards to stand guard before that
historic German river against its traditional and grasping enemy. As the first soft
rays of the morning sun broke through the light mist and disclosed to us the
Niederwald Statue, with one accord the whole troop train broke into the strains
of Die Wacht am Rhein. I then felt as if my heart could not contain its spirit.
And then followed a damp, cold night in Flanders. We marched in silence
throughout the night and as the morning sun came through the mist an iron
greeting suddenly burst above our heads. Shrapnel exploded in our midst and
spluttered in the damp ground. But before the smoke of the explosion
disappeared a wild 'Hurrah' was shouted from two hundred throats, in response
to this first greeting of Death. Then began the whistling of bullets and the
booming of cannons, the shouting and singing of the combatants. With eyes
straining feverishly, we pressed forward, quicker and quicker, until we finally
came to close-quarter fighting, there beyond the beet-fields and the meadows.
Soon the strains of a song reached us from afar. Nearer and nearer, from
company to company, it came. And while Death began to make havoc in our
ranks we passed the song on to those beside us: Deutschland, Deutschland iiber
Alles, iiber Alles in der Welt.

After four days in the trenches we came back. Even our step was no longer what
it had been. Boys of seventeen looked now like grown men. The rank and file of
the List Regiment 11) had not been properly trained in the art of warfare, but
they knew how to die like old soldiers.

That was the beginning. And thus we carried on from year to year. A feeling of
horror replaced the romantic fighting spirit. Enthusiasm cooled down gradually
and exuberant spirits were quelled by the fear of the ever-present Death. A time
came when there arose within each one of us a conflict between the urge to self-
preservation and the call of duty. And I had to go through that conflict too. As
Death sought its prey everywhere and unrelentingly a nameless Something
rebelled within the weak body and tried to introduce itself under the name of
Common Sense; but in reality it was Fear, which had taken on this cloak in order
to impose itself on the individual. But the more the voice which advised
prudence increased its efforts and the more clear and persuasive became its
appeal, resistance became all the stronger; until finally the internal strife was
over and the call of duty was triumphant. Already in the winter of 1915-16 I had
come through that inner struggle. The will had asserted its incontestable
mastery. Whereas in the early days I went into the fight with a cheer and a
laugh, I was now habitually calm and resolute. And that frame of mind endured.




Fate might now put me through the final test without my nerves or reason giving
way. The young volunteer had become an old soldier.

This same transformation took place throughout the whole army. Constant
fighting had aged and toughened it and hardened it, so that it stood firm and
dauntless against every assault.

Only now was it possible to judge that army. After two and three years of
continuous fighting, having been thrown into one battle after another, standing
up stoutly against superior numbers and superior armament, suffering hunger
and privation, the time had come when one could assess the value of that
singular fighting force.

For a thousand years to come nobody will dare to speak of heroism without
recalling the German Army of the World War. And then from the dim past will
emerge the immortal vision of those solid ranks of steel helmets that never
flinched and never faltered. And as long as Germans live they will be proud to
remember that these men were the sons of their forefathers.
I was then a soldier and did not wish to meddle in politics, all the more so
because the time was inopportune. I still believe that the most modest stable-boy
of those days served his country better than the best of, let us say, the
'parliamentary deputies'. My hatred for those footlers was never greater than in
those days when all decent men who had anything to say said it point-blank in
the enemy's face; or, failing this, kept their mouths shut and did their duty
elsewhere. I despised those political fellows and if I had had my way I would
have formed them into a Labour Battalion and given them the opportunity of
babbling amongst themselves to their hearts' content, without offence or harm to
decent people.

In those days I cared nothing for politics; but I could not help forming an
opinion on certain manifestations which affected not only the whole nation but
also us soldiers in particular. There were two things which caused me the
greatest anxiety at that time and which I had come to regard as detrimental to
our interests.

Shortly after our first series of victories a certain section of the Press already
began to throw cold water, drip by drip, on the enthusiasm of the public. At first
this was not obvious to many people. It was done under the mask of good
intentions and a spirit of anxious care. The public was told that big celebrations
of victories were somewhat out of place and were not worthy expressions of the
spirit of a great nation. The fortitude and valour of German soldiers were
accepted facts which did not necessarily call for outbursts of celebration.
Furthermore, it was asked, what would foreign opinion have to say about these
manifestations? Would not foreign opinion react more favourably to a quiet and
sober form of celebration rather than to all this wild jubilation? Surely the time
had come - so the Press declared - for us Germans to remember that this war was
not our work and that hence there need be no feeling of shame in declaring our
willingness to do our share towards effecting an understanding among the




nations. For this reason it would not be wise to sully the radiant deeds of our
army with unbecoming jubilation; for the rest of the world would never
understand this. Furthermore, nothing is more appreciated than the modesty with
which a true hero quietly and unassumingly carries on and forgets. Such was the
gist of their warning.

Instead of catching these fellows by their long ears and dragging them to some
ditch and looping a cord around their necks, so that the victorious enthusiasm of
the nation should no longer offend the aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of
the pen, a general Press campaign was now allowed to go on against what was
called 'unbecoming' and 'undignified' forms of victorious celebration.
No one seemed to have the faintest idea that when public enthusiasm is once
damped, nothing can enkindle it again, when the necessity arises. This
enthusiasm is an intoxication and must be kept up in that form. Without the
support of this enthusiastic spirit how would it be possible to endure in a
struggle which, according to human standards, made such immense demands on
the spiritual stamina of the nation?

I was only too well acquainted with the psychology of the broad masses not to
know that in such cases a magnaminous 'aestheticism' cannot fan the fire which
is needed to keep the iron hot. In my eyes it was even a mistake not to have tried
to raise the pitch of public enthusiasm still higher. Therefore I could not at all
understand why the contrary policy was adopted, that is to say, the policy of
damping the public spirit.

Another thing which irritated me was the manner in which Marxism was
regarded and accepted. I thought that all this proved how little they knew about
the Marxist plague. It was believed in all seriousness that the abolition of party
distinctions during the War had made Marxism a mild and moderate thing.
But here there was no question of party. There was question of a doctrine which
was being expounded for the express purpose of leading humanity to its
destruction. The purport of this doctrine was not understood because nothing
was said about that side of the question in our Jew-ridden universities and
because our supercilious bureaucratic officials did not think it worth while to
read up a subject which had not been prescribed in their university course. This
mighty revolutionary trend was going on beside them; but those 'intellectuals'
would not deign to give it their attention. That is why State enterprise nearly
always lags behind private enterprise. Of these gentry once can truly say that
their maxim is: What we don't know won't bother us. In the August of 1914 the
German worker was looked upon as an adherent of Marxist socialism. That was
a gross error. When those fateful hours dawned the German worker shook off
the poisonous clutches of that plague; otherwise he would not have been so
willing and ready to fight. And people were stupid enough to imagine that
Marxism had now become 'national', another apt illustration of the fact that
those in authority had never taken the trouble to study the real tenor of the




Marxist teaching. If they had done so, such fooHsh errors would not have been

Marxism, whose final objective was and is and will continue to be the
destruction of all non- Jewish national States, had to witness in those days of July
1914 how the German working classes, which it had been inveigling, were
aroused by the national spirit and rapidly ranged themselves on the side of the
Fatherland. Within a few days the deceptive smoke-screen of that infamous
national betrayal had vanished into thin air and the Jewish bosses suddenly
found themselves alone and deserted. It was as if not a vestige had been left of
that folly and madness with which the masses of the German people had been
inoculated for sixty years. That was indeed an evil day for the betrayers of
German Labour. The moment, however, that the leaders realized the danger
which threatened them they pulled the magic cap of deceit over their ears and,
without being identified, played the part of mimes in the national reawakening.
The time seemed to have arrived for proceeding against the whole Jewish gang
of public pests. Then it was that action should have been taken regardless of any
consequent whining or protestation. At one stroke, in the August of 1914, all the
empty nonsense about international solidarity was knocked out of the heads of
the German working classes. A few weeks later, instead of this stupid talk
sounding in their ears, they heard the noise of American-manufactured shrapnel
bursting above the heads of the marching columns, as a symbol of international
comradeship. Now that the German worker had rediscovered the road to
nationhood, it ought to have been the duty of any Government which had the
care of the people in its keeping, to take this opportunity of mercilessly rooting
out everything that was opposed to the national spirit.

While the flower of the nation's manhood was dying at the front, there was time
enough at home at least to exterminate this vermin. But, instead of doing so. His
Majesty the Kaiser held out his hand to these hoary criminals, thus assuring
them his protection and allowing them to regain their mental composure.
And so the viper could begin his work again. This time, however, more carefully
than before, but still more destructively. While honest people dreamt of
reconciliation these perjured criminals were making preparations for a

Naturally I was distressed at the half-measures which were adopted at that time;
but I never thought it possible that the final consequences could have been so

But what should have been done then? Throw the ringleaders into gaol,
prosecute them and rid the nation of them? Uncompromising military measures
should have been adopted to root out the evil. Parties should have been
abolished and the Reichstag brought to its senses at the point of the bayonet, if
necessary. It would have been still better if the Reichstag had been dissolved
immediately. Just as the Republic to-day dissolves the parties when it wants to,
so in those days there was even more justification for applying that measure.




seeing that the very existence of the nation was at stake. Of course this
suggestion would give rise to the question: Is it possible to eradicate ideas by
force of arms? Could a Weltanschhauung be attacked by means of physical

At that time I turned these questions over and over again in my mind. By
studying analogous cases, exemplified in history, particularly those which had
arisen from religious circumstances, I came to the following fundamental

Ideas and philosophical systems as well as movements grounded on a definite
spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never be broken by the use of force
after a certain stage, except on one condition: namely, that this use of force is in
the service of a new idea or Weltanschhauung which bums with a new flame.
The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual
concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the
propagation of it, unless one is ready and able ruthlessly to exterminate the last
upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it
may tend to leave behind. Now in the majority of cases the result of such a
course has been to exclude such a State, either temporarily or for ever, from the
comity of States that are of political significance; but experience has also shown
that such a sanguinary method of extirpation arouses the better section of the
population under the persecuting power. As a matter of fact, every persecution
which has no spiritual motives to support it is morally unjust and raises
opposition among the best elements of the population; so much so that these are
driven more and more to champion the ideas that are unjustly persecuted. With
many individuals this arises from the sheer spirit of opposition to every attempt
at suppressing spiritual things by brute force.

In this way the number of convinced adherents of the persecuted doctrine
increases as the persecution progresses. Hence the total destruction of a new
doctrine can be accomplished only by a vast plan of extermination; but this, in
the final analysis, means the loss of some of the best blood in a nation or State.
And that blood is then avenged, because such an internal and total clean-up
brings about the collapse of the nation's strength. And such a procedure is
always condemned to futility from the very start if the attacked doctrine should
happen to have spread beyond a small circle.

That is why in this case, as with all other growths, the doctrine can be
exterminated in its earliest stages. As time goes on its powers of resistance
increase, until at the approach of age it gives way to younger elements, but
under another form and from other motives.

The fact remains that nearly all attempts to exterminate a doctrine, without
having some spiritual basis of attack against it, and also to wipe out all the
organizations it has created, have led in many cases to the very opposite being
achieved; and that for the following reasons:




When sheer force is used to combat the spread of a doctrine, then that force must
be employed systematically and persistently. This means that the chances of
success in the suppression of a doctrine lie only in the persistent and uniform
application of the methods chosen. The moment hesitation is shown, and periods
of tolerance alternate with the application of force, the doctrine against which
these measures are directed will not only recover strength but every successive
persecution will bring to its support new adherents who have been shocked by
the oppressive methods employed. The old adherents will become more
embittered and their allegiance will thereby be strengthened. Therefore when
force is employed success is dependent on the consistent manner in which it is
used. This persistence, however, is nothing less than the product of definite
spiritual convictions. Every form of force that is not supported by a spiritual
backing will be always indecisive and uncertain. Such a force lacks the stability
that can be found only in a Weltanschhauung which has devoted champions.
Such a force is the expression of the individual energies; therefore it is from
time to time dependent on the change of persons in whose hands it is employed
and also on their characters and capacities.

But there is something else to be said: Every Weltanschhauung, whether
religious or political - and it is sometimes difficult to say where the one ends and
the other begins - fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing
world of ideas as for the positive realization of its own ideas. Thus its struggle
lies in attack rather than in defence. It has the advantage of knowing where its
objective lies, as this objective represents the realization of its own ideas.
Inversely, it is difficult to say when the negative aim for the destruction of a
hostile doctrine is reached and secured. For this reason alone a
Weltanschhauung which is of an aggressive character is more definite in plan
and more powerful and decisive in action than a Weltanschhauung which takes
up a merely defensive attitude. If force be used to combat a spiritual power, that
force remains a defensive measure only so long as the wielders of it are not the
standard-bearers and apostles of a new spiritual doctrine.

To sum up, the following must be borne in mind: That every attempt to combat a
Weltanschhauung by means of force will turn out futile in the end if the struggle
fails to take the form of an offensive for the establishment of an entirely new
spiritual order of things. It is only in the struggle between two Weltan-
schauungen that physical force, consistently and ruthlessly applied, will
eventually turn the scales in its own favour. It was here that the fight against
Marxism had hitherto failed.

This was also the reason why Bismarck's anti-socialist legislation failed and was
bound to fail in the long run, despite everything. It lacked the basis of a new
Weltanschhauung for whose development and extension the struggle might have
been taken up. To say that the serving up of drivel about a so-called 'State-
Authority' or 'Law-and-Order' was an adequate foundation for the spiritual




driving force in a life-or-death struggle is only what one would expect to hear
from the wiseacres in high official positions.

It was because there were no adequate spiritual motives back of this offensive
that Bismarck was compelled to hand over the administration of his socialist
legislative measures to the judgment and approval of those circles which were
themselves the product of the Marxist teaching. Thus a very ludicrous state of
affairs prevailed when the Iron Chancellor surrendered the fate of his struggle
against Marxism to the goodwill of the bourgeois democracy. He left the goat to
take care of the garden. But this was only the necessary result of the failure to
find a fundamentally new Weltanschhauung which would attract devoted
champions to its cause and could be established on the ground from which
Marxism had been driven out. And thus the result of the Bismarckian campaign
was deplorable.

During the World War, or at the beginning of it, were the conditions any
different? Unfortunately, they were not.

The more I then pondered over the necessity for a change in the attitude of the
executive government towards Social-Democracy, as the incorporation of
contemporary Marxism, the more I realized the want of a practical substitute for
this doctrine. Supposing Social-Democracy were overthrown, what had one to
offer the masses in its stead? Not a single movement existed which promised
any success in attracting vast numbers of workers who would be now more or
less without leaders, and holding these workers in its train. It is nonsensical to
imagine that the international fanatic who has just severed his connection with a
class party would forthwith join a bourgeois party, or, in other words, another
class organization. For however unsatisfactory these various organizations may
appear to be, it cannot be denied that bourgeois politicians look on the
distinction between classes as a very important factor in social life, provided it
does not turn out politically disadvantageous to them. If they deny this fact they
show themselves not only impudent but also mendacious.
Generally speaking, one should guard against considering the broad masses
more stupid than they really are. In political matters it frequently happens that
feeling judges more correctly than intellect. But the opinion that this feeling on
the part of the masses is sufficient proof of their stupid international attitude can
be immediately and definitely refuted by the simple fact that pacifist democracy
is no less fatuous, though it draws its supporters almost exclusively from
bourgeois circles. As long as millions of citizens daily gulp down what the
social-democratic Press tells them, it ill becomes the 'Masters' to joke at the
expense of the 'Comrades'; for in the long run they all swallow the same hash,
even though it be dished up with different spices. In both cases the cook is one
and the same - the Jew.

One should be careful about contradicting established facts. It is an undeniable
fact that the class question has nothing to do with questions concerning ideals,
though that dope is administered at election time. Class arrogance among a large




section of our people, as well as a prevailing tendency to look down on the
manual labourer, are obvious facts and not the fancies of some day-dreamer.
Nevertheless it only illustrates the mentality of our so-called intellectual circles,
that they have not yet grasped the fact that circumstances which are incapable of
preventing the growth of such a plague as Marxism are certainly not capable of
restoring what has been lost.

The bourgeois' parties - a name coined by themselves - will never again be able
to win over and hold the proletarian masses in their train. That is because two
worlds stand opposed to one another here, in part naturally and in part
artificially divided. These two camps have one leading thought, and that is that
they must fight one another. But in such a fight the younger will come off
victorious; and that is Marxism.

In 1914 a fight against Social-Democracy was indeed quite conceivable. But the
lack of any practical substitute made it doubtful how long the fight could be kept
up. In this respect there was a gaping void.

Long before the War I was of the same opinion and that was the reason why I
could not decide to join any of the parties then existing. During the course of the
World War my conviction was still further confirmed by the manifest
impossibility of fighting Social-Democracy in anything like a thorough way:
because for that purpose there should have been a movement that was something
more than a mere 'parliamentary' party, and there was none such.
I frequently discussed that want with my intimate comrades. And it was then
that I first conceived the idea of taking up political work later on. As I have
often assured my friends, it was just this that induced me to become active on
the public hustings after the War, in addition to my professional work. And I am
sure that this decision was arrived at after much earnest thought.





In watching the course of poHtical events I was always struck by the active part
which propaganda played in them. I saw that it was an instrument, which the
Marxist Socialists knew how to handle in a masterly way and how to put it to
practical uses. Thus I soon came to realize that the right use of propaganda was
an art in itself and that this art was practically unknown to our bourgeois parties.
The Christian-Socialist Party alone, especially in Lueger's time, showed a
certain efficiency in the employment of this instrument and owed much of their
success to it.

It was during the War, however, that we had the best chance of estimating the
tremendous results which could be obtained by a propagandist system properly
carried out. Here again, unfortunately, everything was left to the other side, the
work done on our side being worse than insignificant. It was the total failure of
the whole German system of information - a failure which was perfectly obvious
to every soldier - that urged me to consider the problem of propaganda in a
comprehensive way. I had ample opportunity to learn a practical lesson in this
matter; for unfortunately it was only too well taught us by the enemy. The lack
on our side was exploited by the enemy in such an efficient manner that one
could say it showed itself as a real work of genius. In that propaganda carried on
by the enemy I found admirable sources of instruction. The lesson to be learned
from this had unfortunately no attraction for the geniuses on our own side. They
were simply above all such things, too clever to accept any teaching. Anyhow
they did not honestly wish to learn anything.

Had we any propaganda at all? Alas, I can reply only in the negative. All that
was undertaken in this direction was so utterly inadequate and misconceived
from the very beginning that not only did it prove useless but at times harmful.
In substance it was insufficient. Psychologically it was all wrong. Anybody who
had carefully investigated the German propaganda must have formed that
judgment of it. Our people did not seem to be clear even about the primary
question itself: Whether propaganda is a means or an end?
Propaganda is a means and must, therefore, be judged in relation to the end it is
intended to serve. It must be organized in such a way as to be capable of
attaining its objective. And, as it is quite clear that the importance of the
objective may vary from the standpoint of general necessity, the essential
internal character of the propaganda must vary accordingly. The cause for which
we fought during the War was the noblest and highest that man could strive for.
We were fighting for the freedom and independence of our country, for the
security of our future welfare and the honour of the nation. Despite all views to
the contrary, this honour does actually exist, or rather it will have to exist; for a
nation without honour will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence.
This is in accordance with the ruling of a higher justice, for a generation of




poltroons is not entitled to freedom. He who would be a slave cannot have
honour; for such honour would soon become an object of general scorn.
Germany was waging war for its very existence. The purpose of its war
propaganda should have been to strengthen the fighting spirit in that struggle
and help it to victory.

But when nations are fighting for their existence on this earth, when the question
of 'to be or not to be' has to be answered, then all humane and esthetic
considerations must be set aside; for these ideals do not exist of themselves
somewhere in the air but are the product of man's creative imagination and
disappear when he disappears. Nature knows nothing of them. Moreover, they
are characteristic of only a small number of nations, or rather of races, and their
value depends on the measure in which they spring from the racial feeling of the
latter. Humane and esthetic ideals will disappear from the inhabited earth when
those races disappear which are the creators and standard-bearers of them.
All such ideals are only of secondary importance when a nation is struggling for
its existence. They must be prevented from entering into the struggle the
moment they threaten to weaken the stamina of the nation that is waging war.
That is always the only visible effect whereby their place in the struggle is to be

In regard to the part played by humane feeling, Moltke stated that in time of war
the essential thing is to get a decision as quickly as possible and that the most
ruthless methods of fighting are at the same time the most humane. When people
attempt to answer this reasoning by highfalutin talk about esthetics, etc., only
one answer can be given. It is that the vital questions involved in the struggle of
a nation for its existence must not be subordinated to any esthetic
considerations. The yoke of slavery is and always will remain the most
unpleasant experience that mankind can endure. Do the Schwabing 12)
decadents look upon Germany's lot to-day as 'aesthetic'? Of course, one doesn't
discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of
this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of
God's image in His creation.

Since these ideas of what is beautiful and humane have no place in warfare, they
are not to be used as standards of war propaganda.

During the War, propaganda was a means to an end. And this end was the
struggle for existence of the German nation. Propaganda, therefore, should have
been regarded from the standpoint of its utility for that purpose. The most cruel
weapons were then the most humane, provided they helped towards a speedier
decision; and only those methods were good and beautiful which helped towards
securing the dignity and freedom of the nation. Such was the only possible
attitude to adopt towards war propaganda in the life-or-death struggle.
If those in what are called positions of authority had realized this there would
have been no uncertainty about the form and employment of war propaganda as




a weapon; for it is nothing but a weapon, and indeed a most terrifying weapon in
the hands of those who know how to use it.

The second question of decisive importance is this: To whom should
propaganda be made to appeal? To the educated intellectual classes? Or to the
less intellectual?

Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. For the
intellectual classes, or what are called the intellectual classes to-day, propaganda
is not suited, but only scientific exposition. Propaganda has as little to do with
science as an advertisement poster has to do with art, as far as concerns the form
in which it presents its message. The art of the advertisement poster consists in
the ability of the designer to attract the attention of the crowd through the form
and colours he chooses. The advertisement poster announcing an exhibition of
art has no other aim than to convince the public of the importance of the
exhibition. The better it does that, the better is the art of the poster as such.
Being meant accordingly to impress upon the public the meaning of the
exposition, the poster can never take the place of the artistic objects displayed in
the exposition hall. They are something entirely different. Therefore, those who
wish to study the artistic display must study something that is quite different
from the poster; indeed for that purpose a mere wandering through the
exhibition galleries is of no use. The student of art must carefully and
thoroughly study each exhibit in order slowly to form a judicious opinion about

The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by the word,
propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of the
individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain things, the importance
of which can be brought home to the masses only by this means.
Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly
before the minds of the people as to create a general conviction regarding the
reality of a certain fact, the necessity of certain things and the just character of
something that is essential. But as this art is not an end in itself and because its
purpose must be exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention
of the masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to those
who already have an educated opinion on things or who wish to form such an
opinion on grounds of objective study - because that is not the purpose of
propaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their
reasoning powers.

All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual
level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it
is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest
mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When
there is question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as
happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid




to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high
degree of intelligence among the public.

The more modest the scientific tenor of this propaganda and the more it is
addressed exclusively to public sentiment, the more decisive will be its success.
This is the best test of the value of a propaganda, and not the approbation of a
small group of intellectuals or artistic people.

The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination
of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate
psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the
national masses. That this is not understood by those among us whose wits are
supposed to have been sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of
their vanity or mental inertia.

Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate the persuasive
forces of propaganda on the broad masses of the people, the following lessons
result therefrom:

That it is a mistake to organize the direct propaganda as if it were a manifold
system of scientific instruction.

The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding
is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all
effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must
be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be
persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that
has been put forward. If this principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to
be abstract and general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public
will not be able to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way. Therefore,
the greater the scope of the message that has to be presented, the more necessary
it is for the propaganda to discover that plan of action which is psychologically
the most efficient.

It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as
the Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their
propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face
to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore,
the mistake had disastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what a
tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had been deceived by the
manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore, instead
of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite
the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.

On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically
efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns,
they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them
against illusions. The most terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in
the field merely confirmed the information that they had already received and
their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their respective governments




was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the infamous foe
was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was
only another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on
the side of the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar
havoc which their own weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was
never allowed to feel that the information which he received at home was
untrue. Unfortunately the opposite was the case with the Germans, who finally
wound up by rejecting everything from home as pure swindle and humbug. This
result was made possible because at home they thought that the work of
propaganda could be entrusted to the first ass that came along, braying of his
own special talents, and they had no conception of the fact that propaganda
demands the most skilled brains that can be found.

Thus the German war propaganda afforded us an incomparable example of how
the work of 'enlightenment' should not be done and how such an example was
the result of an entire failure to take any psychological considerations
whatsoever into account.

From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by
those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not yet become
sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual
flood of enemy propaganda.

The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first condition
which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically
one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with. In this regard
so many errors were committed, even from the very beginning of the war, that it
was justifiable to doubt whether so much folly could be attributed solely to the
stupidity of people in higher quarters.

What, for example, should we say of a poster which purported to advertise some
new brand of soap by insisting on the excellent qualities of the competitive
brands? We should naturally shake our heads. And it ought to be just the same in
a similar kind of political advertisement. The aim of propaganda is not to try to
pass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each its due, but exclusively to
emphasize the right which we are asserting. Propaganda must not investigate the
truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it
according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect
of the truth which is favourable to its own side.

It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was responsible for
the outbreak of the war and declare that the sole responsibility could not be
attributed to Germany. The sole responsibility should have been laid on the
shoulders of the enemy, without any discussion whatsoever.
And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broad masses of the
people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor
simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a
vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one




idea and another. As soon as our own propaganda made the slightest suggestion
that the enemy had a certain amount of justice on his side, then we laid down the
basis on which the justice of our own cause could be questioned. The masses are
not in a position to discern where the enemy's fault ends and where our own
begins. In such a case they become hesitant and distrustful, especially when the
enemy does not make the same mistake but heaps all the blame on his adversary.
Could there be any clearer proof of this than the fact that finally our own people
believed what was said by the enemy's propaganda, which was uniform and
consistent in its assertions, rather than what our own propaganda said? And that,
of course, was increased by the mania for objectivity which addicts our people.
Everybody began to be careful about doing an injustice to the enemy, even at the
cost of seriously injuring, and even ruining his own people and State.
Naturally the masses were not conscious of the fact that those in authority had
failed to study the subject from this angle.

The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its
thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This
sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly
differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred,
right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly
that. English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put
what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might
have given rise to some doubt.

Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is
something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of horror and
outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and
ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of
great defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as
solely responsible for the war - which was a brutal and absolute falsehood - and
the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach
the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it
was that this atrocious lie was positively believed.

The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustrated by the fact that
after four-and-a-half years, not only was the enemy still carrying on his
propagandist work, but it was already undermining the stamina of our people at

That our propaganda did not achieve similar results is not to be wondered at,
because it had the germs of inefficiency lodged in its very being by reason of its
ambiguity. And because of the very nature of its content one could not expect it
to make the necessary impression on the masses. Only our feckless 'statesmen'
could have imagined that on pacifists slops of such a kind the enthusiasm could
be nourished which is necessary to enkindle that spirit which leads men to die
for their country.
And so this product of ours was not only worthless but detrimental.




No matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of
propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of these
fundamental principles. Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes and
these must be represented again and again. Here, as in innumerable other cases,
perseverance is the first and most important condition of success.
Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid esthetes and blase intellectuals
should never be allowed to take the lead. The former would readily transform
the impressive character of real propaganda into something suitable only for
literary tea parties. As to the second class of people, one must always beware of
this pest; for, in consequence of their insensibility to normal impressions, they
are constantly seeking new excitements.

Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for change and
will always be incapable of putting themselves in the position of picturing the
wants of their less callous fellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood,
let alone trying to understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to
criticize propaganda, or rather its message, because this appears to them to be
outmoded and trivial. They are always looking for something new, always
yearning for change; and thus they become the mortal enemies of every effort
that may be made to influence the masses in an effective way. The moment the
organization and message of a propagandist movement begins to be orientated
according to their tastes it becomes incoherent and scattered.
It is not the purpose of propaganda to create a series of alterations in sentiment
with a view to pleasing these blase gentry. Its chief function is to convince the
masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that
they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in
imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.

Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always
emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated
in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to
the assertion of the same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be
consistent and dynamic in its effects.

Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly, with
uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then one will be
rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a persistent
policy secures.

The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature,
depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent
example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for
mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance.
Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the
world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest
alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be




idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing,

but finally it was believed.

But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the

possibility of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass

employment of it, and that when employed in this way it brings full returns for

the large expenses incurred.

In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas

with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed

politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero type.

Taken all in all, its results were negative.





In 1915 the enemy started his propaganda among our soldiers. From 1916
onwards it steadily became more intensive, and at the beginning of 1918 it had
swollen into a storm flood. One could now judge the effects of this proselytizing
movement step by step. Gradually our soldiers began to think just in the way the
enemy wished them to think. On the German side there was no counter-

At that time the army authorities, under our able and resolute Commander, were
willing and ready to take up the fight in the propaganda domain also, but
unfortunately they did not have the necessary means to carry that intention into
effect. Moreover, the army authorities would have made a psychological mistake
had they undertaken this task of mental training. To be efficacious it had come
from the home front. For only thus could it be successful among men who for
nearly four years now had been performing immortal deeds of heroism and
undergoing all sorts of privations for the sake of that home. But what were the
people at home doing? Was their failure to act merely due to unintelligence or
bad faith?

In the midsummer of 1918, after the evacuation of the southern bank of the
heame, the German Press adopted a policy which was so woefully inopportune,
and even criminally stupid, that 1 used to ask myself a question which made me
more and more furious day after day: Is it really true that we have nobody who
will dare to put an end to this process of spiritual sabotage which is being
carried on among our heroic troops?

What happened in France during those days of 1914, when our armies invaded
that country and were marching in triumph from one victory to another? What
happened in Italy when their armies collapsed on the Isonzo front? What
happened in France again during the spring of 1918, when German divisions
took the main French positions by storm and heavy long-distance artillery
bombarded Paris?

How they whipped up the flagging courage of those troops who were retreating
and fanned the fires of national enthusiasm among them! How their propaganda
and their marvellous aptitude in the exercise of mass-influence reawakened the
fighting spirit in that broken front and hammered into the heads of the soldiers a,
firm belief in final victory!

Meanwhile, what were our people doing in this sphere? Nothing, or even worse
than nothing. Again and again 1 used to become enraged and indignant as 1 read
the latest papers and realized the nature of the mass-murder they were
committing: through their influence on the minds of the people and the soldiers.
More than once 1 was tormented by the thought that if Providence had put the
conduct of German propaganda into my hands, instead of into the hands of those




incompetent and even criminal ignoramuses and weaklings, the outcome of the

struggle might have been different.

During those months I felt for the first time that Fate was dealing adversely with

me in keeping me on the fighting front and in a position where any chance bullet

from some nigger or other might finish me, whereas I could have done the

Fatherland a real service in another sphere. For I was then presumptuous enough

to believe that I would have been successful in managing the propaganda


But I was a being without a name, one among eight millions. Hence it was better

for me to keep my mouth shut and do my duty as well as I could in the position

to which I had been assigned.

In the summer of 1915 the first enemy leaflets were dropped on our trenches.

They all told more or less the same story, with some variations in the form of it.

The story was that distress was steadily on the increase in Germany; that the

War would last indefinitely; that the prospect of victory for us was becoming

fainter day after day; that the people at home were yearning for peace, but that

'Militarism' and the 'Kaiser' would not permit it; that the world - which knew

this very well - was not waging war against the German people but only against

the man who was exclusively responsible, the Kaiser; that until this enemy of

world-peace was removed there could be no end to the conflict; but that when

the War was over the liberal and democratic nations would receive the Germans

as colleagues in the League for World Peace. This would be done the moment

'Prussian Militarism' had been finally destroyed.

To illustrate and substantiate all these statements, the leaflets very often

contained 'Letters from Home', the contents of which appeared to confirm the

enemy's propagandist message.

Generally speaking, we only laughed at all these efforts. The leaflets were read,

sent to base headquarters, then forgotten until a favourable wind once again

blew a fresh contingent into the trenches. These were mostly dropped from

sroplanes which were used specially for that purpose.

One feature of this propaganda was very striking. It was that in sections where

Bavarian troops were stationed every effort was made by the enemy

propagandists to stir up feeling against the Prussians, assuring the soldiers that

Prussia and Prussia alone was the guilty party who was responsible for bringing

on and continuing the War, and that there was no hostility whatsoever towards

the Bavarians; but that there could be no possibility of coming to their assistance

so long as they continued to serve Prussian interests and helped to pull the

Prussian chestnuts out of the fire.

This persistent propaganda began to have a real influence on our soldiers in

1915. The feeling against Prussia grew quite noticeable among the Bavarian

troops, but those in authority did nothing to counteract it. This was something

more than a mere crime of omission; for sooner or later not only the Prussians




were bound to have to atone severely for it but the whole German nation and
consequently the Bavarians themselves also.

In this direction the enemy propaganda began to achieve undoubted success
from 1916 onwards.

In a similar way letters coming directly from home had long since been
exercising their effect. There was now no further necessity for the enemy to
broadcast such letters in leaflet form. And also against this influence from home
nothing was done except a few supremely stupid 'warnings' uttered by the
executive government. The whole front was drenched in this poison which
thoughtless women at home sent out, without suspecting for a moment that the
enemy's chances of final victory were thus strengthened or that the sufferings of
their own men at the front were thus being prolonged and rendered more severe.
These stupid letters written by German women eventually cost the lives of
hundreds of thousands of our men.

Thus in 1916 several distressing phenomena were already manifest. The whole
front was complaining and grousing, discontented over many things and often
justifiably so. While they were hungry and yet patient, and their relatives at
home were in distress, in other quarters there was feasting and revelry. Yes;
even on the front itself everything was not as it ought to have been in this

Even in the early stages of the war the soldiers were sometimes prone to
complain; but such criticism was confined to 'internal affairs'. The man who at
one moment groused and grumbled ceased his murmur after a few moments and
went about his duty silently, as if everything were in order. The company which
had given signs of discontent a moment earlier hung on now to its bit of trench,
defending it tooth and nail, as if Germany's fate depended on these few hundred
yards of mud and shell-holes. The glorious old army was still at its post. A
sudden change in my own fortunes soon placed me in a position where I had
first-hand experience of the contrast between this old army and the home front.
At the end of September 1916 my division was sent into the Battle of the
Somme. For us this was the first of a series of heavy engagements, and the
impression created was that of a veritable inferno, rather than war. Through
weeks of incessant artillery bombardment we stood firm, at times ceding a little
ground but then taking it back again, and never giving way. On October 7th,
1916, 1 was wounded but had the luck of being able to get back to our lines and
was then ordered to be sent by ambulance train to Germany.
Two years had passed since I had left home, an almost endless period in such
circumstances. I could hardly imagine what Germans looked like without
uniforms. In the clearing hospital at Hermies I was startled when I suddenly
heard the voice of a German woman who was acting as nursing sister and
talking with one of the wounded men lying near me. Two years! And then this
voice for the first time!




The nearer our ambulance train approached the German frontier the more
restless each one of us became. En route we recognised all these places through
which we passed two years before as young volunteers - Brussels, Louvain,
Liege - and finally we thought we recognized the first German homestead, with
its familiar high gables and picturesque window-shutters. Home!
What a change! From the mud of the Somme battlefields to the spotless white
beds in this wonderful building. One hesitated at first before entering them. It
was only by slow stages that one could grow accustomed to this new world
again. But unfortunately there were certain other aspects also in which this new
world was different.

The spirit of the army at the front appeared to be out of place here. For the first
time I encountered something which up to then was unknown at the front:
namely, boasting of one's own cowardice. For, though we certainly heard
complaining and grousing at the front, this was never in the spirit of any
agitation to insubordination and certainly not an attempt to glorify one's fear.
No; there at the front a coward was a coward and nothing else. And the
contempt which his weakness aroused in the others was quite general, just as the
real hero was admired all round. But here in hospital the spirit was quite
different in some respects. Loudmouthed agitators were busy here in heaping
ridicule on the good soldier and painting the weak-kneed poltroon in glorious
colours. A couple of miserable human specimens were the ringleaders in this
process of defamation. One of them boasted of having intentionally injured his
hand in barbed- wire entanglements in order to get sent to hospital. Although his
wound was only a slight one, it appeared that he had been here for a very long
time and would be here interminably. Some arrangement for him seemed to be
worked by some sort of swindle, just as he got sent here in the ambulance train
through a swindle. This pestilential specimen actually had the audacity to parade
his knavery as the manifestation of a courage which was superior to that of the
brave soldier who dies a hero's death. There were many who heard this talk in
silence; but there were others who expressed their assent to what the fellow said.
Personally I was disgusted at the thought that a seditious agitator of this kind
should be allowed to remain in such an institution. What could be done? The
hospital authorities here must have known who and what he was; and actually
they did know. But still they did nothing about it.
As soon as I was able to walk once again I obtained leave to visit Berlin.
Bitter want was in evidence everywhere. The metropolis, with its teeming
millions, was suffering from hunger. The talk that was current in the various
places of refreshment and hospices visited by the soldiers was much the same as
that in our hospital. The impression given was that these agitators purposely
singled out such places in order to spread their views.

But in Munich conditions were far worse. After my discharge from hospital, I
was sent to a reserve battalion there. I felt as in some strange town. Anger,
discontent, complaints met one's ears wherever one went. To a certain extent




this was due to the infinitely maladroit manner in which the soldiers who had
returned from the front were treated by the non-commissioned officers who had
never seen a day's active service and who on that account were partly incapable
of adopting the proper attitude towards the old soldiers. Naturally those old
soldiers displayed certain characteristics which had been developed from the
experiences in the trenches. The officers of the reserve units could not
understand these peculiarities, whereas the officer home from active service was
at least in a position to understand them for himself. As a result he received
more respect from the men than officers at the home headquarters. But, apart
from all this, the general spirit was deplorable. The art of shirking was looked
upon as almost a proof of higher intelligence, and devotion to duty was
considered a sign of weakness or bigotry. Government offices were staffed by
Jews. Almost every clerk was a Jew and every Jew was a clerk. I was amazed at
this multitude of combatants who belonged to the chosen people and could not
help comparing it with their slender numbers in the fighting lines.
In the business world the situation was even worse. Here the Jews had actually
become 'indispensable'. Like leeches, they were slowly sucking the blood from
the pores of the national body. By means of newly floated War Companies an
instrument had been discovered whereby all national trade was throttled so that
no business could be carried on freely

Special emphasis was laid on the necessity for unhampered centralization.
Hence as early as 1916-17 practically all production was under the control of
Jewish finance.

But against whom was the anger of the people directed? It was then that I
already saw the fateful day approaching which must finally bring the debacle,
unless timely preventive measures were taken.

While Jewry was busy despoiling the nation and tightening the screws of its
despotism, the work of inciting the people against the Prussians increased. And
just as nothing was done at the front to put a stop to the venomous propaganda,
so here at home no official steps were taken against it. Nobody seemed capable
of understanding that the collapse of Prussia could never bring about the rise of
Bavaria. On the contrary, the collapse of the one must necessarily drag the other
down with it.

This kind of behaviour affected me very deeply. In it I could see only a clever
Jewish trick for diverting public attention from themselves to others. While
Prussians and Bavarians were squabbling, the Jews were taking away the
sustenance of both from under their very noses. While Prussians were being
abused in Bavaria the Jews organized the revolution and with one stroke
smashed both Prussia and Bavaria.

I could not tolerate this execrable squabbling among people of the same German
stock and preferred to be at the front once again. Therefore, just after my arrival
in Munich I reported myself for service again. At the beginning of March 1917 I
rejoined my old regiment at the front.




Towards the end of 1917 it seemed as if we had got over the worst phases of
moral depression at the front. After the Russian collapse the whole army
recovered its courage and hope, and all were gradually becoming more and more
convinced that the struggle would end in our favour. We could sing once again.
The ravens were ceasing to croak. Faith in the future of the Fatherland was once
more in the ascendant.

The Italian collapse in the autumn of 1917 had a wonderful effect; for this
victory proved that it was possible to break through another front besides the
Russian. This inspiring thought now became dominant in the minds of millions
at the front and encouraged them to look forward with confidence to the spring
of 1918. It was quite obvious that the enemy was in a state of depression. During
this winter the front was somewhat quieter than usual. But that was the calm
before the storm.

Just when preparations were being made to launch a final offensive which would
bring this seemingly eternal struggle to an end, while endless columns of
transports were bringing men and munitions to the front, and while the men
were being trained for that final onslaught, then it was that the greatest act of
treachery during the whole War was accomplished in Germany.
Germany must not win the War. At that moment when victory seemed ready to
alight on the German standards, a conspiracy was arranged for the purpose of
striking at the heart of the German spring offensive with one blow from the rear
and thus making victory impossible. A general strike in the munition factories
was organized.

If this conspiracy could achieve its purpose the German front would have
collapsed and the wishes of the Vorwarts (the organ of the Social-Democratic
Party) that this time victory should not take the side of the German banners,
would have been fulfilled. For want of munitions the front would be broken
through within a few weeks, the offensive would be effectively stopped and the
Entente saved. Then International Finance would assume control over Germany
and the internal objective of the Marxist national betrayal would be achieved.
That objective was the destruction of the national economic system and the
establishment of international capitalistic domination in its stead. And this goal
has really been reached, thanks to the stupid credulity of the one side and the
unspeakable treachery of the other.

The munition strike, however, did not bring the final success that had been
hoped for: namely, to starve the front of ammunition. It lasted too short a time
for the lack of ammunitions as such to bring disaster to the army, as was
originally planned. But the moral damage was much more terrible.
In the first place, what was the army fighting for if the people at home did not
wish it to be victorious? For whom then were these enormous sacrifices and
privations being made and endured? Must the soldiers fight for victory while the
home front goes on strike against it?
In the second place, what effect did this move have on the enemy?




In the winter of 1917-18 dark clouds hovered in the firmament of the Entente.
For nearly four years onslaught after onslaught has been made against the
German giant, but they failed to bring him to the ground. He had to keep them at
bay with one arm that held the defensive shield because his other arm had to be
free to wield the sword against his enemies, now in the East and now in the
South. But at last these enemies were overcome and his rear was now free for
the conflict in the West. Rivers of blood had been shed for the accomplishment
of that task; but now the sword was free to combine in battle with the shield on
the Western Front. And since the enemy had hitherto failed to break the German
defence here, the Germans themselves had now to launch the attack. The enemy
feared and trembled before the prospect of this German victory.
At Paris and London conferences followed one another in unending series. Even
the enemy propaganda encountered difficulties. It was no longer so easy to
demonstrate that the prospect of a German victory was hopeless. A prudent
silence reigned at the front, even among the troops of the Entente. The insolence
of their masters had suddenly subsided. A disturbing truth began to dawn on
them. Their opinion of the German soldier had changed. Hitherto they were able
to picture him as a kind of fool whose end would be destruction; but now they
found themselves face to face with the soldier who had overcome their Russian
ally. The policy of restricting the offensive to the East, which had been imposed
on the German military authorities by the necessities of the situation, now
seemed to the Entente as a tactical stroke of genius. For three years these
Germans had been battering away at the Russian front without any apparent
success at first. Those fruitless efforts were almost sneered at; for it was thought
that in the long run the Russian giant would triumph through sheer force of
numbers. Germany would be worn out through shedding so much blood. And
facts appeared to confirm this hope.

Since the September days of 1914, when for the first time interminable columns
of Russian war prisoners poured into Germany after the Battle of Tannenberg, it
seemed as if the stream would never end but that as soon as one army was
defeated and routed another would take its place. The supply of soldiers which
the gigantic Empire placed at the disposal of the Czar seemed inexhaustible;
new victims were always at hand for the holocaust of war. How long could
Germany hold out in this competition? Would not the day finally have to come
when, after the last victory which the Germans would achieve, there would still
remain reserve armies in Russia to be mustered for the final battle? And what
then? According to human standards a Russian victory over Germany might be
delayed but it would have to come in the long run.

All the hopes that had been based on Russia were now lost. The Ally who had
sacrificed the most blood on the altar of their mutual interests had come to the
end of his resources and lay prostrate before his unrelenting foe. A feeling of
terror and dismay came over the Entente soldiers who had hitherto been buoyed
up by blind faith. They feared the coming spring. For, seeing that hitherto they




had failed to break the Germans when the latter could concentrate only part of
the fighting strength on the Western Front, how could they count on victory now
that the undivided forces of that amazing land of heroes appeared to be gathered
for a massed attack in the West?

The shadow of the events which had taken place in South Tyrol, the spectre of
General Cadoma's defeated armies, were reflected in the gloomy faces of the
Entente troops in Flanders. Faith in victory gave way to fear of defeat to come.
Then, on those cold nights, when one almost heard the tread of the German
armies advancing to the great assault, and the decision was being awaited in fear
and trembling, suddenly a lurid light was set aglow in Germany and sent its rays
into the last shell-hole on the enemy's front. At the very moment when the
German divisions were receiving their final orders for the great offensive a
general strike broke out in Germany.

At first the world was dumbfounded. Then the enemy propaganda began
activities once again and pounced on this theme at the eleventh hour. All of a
sudden a means had come which could be utilized to revive the sinking
confidence of the Entente soldiers. The probabilities of victory could now be
presented as certain, and the anxious foreboding in regard to coming events
could now be transformed into a feeling of resolute assurance. The regiments
that had to bear the brunt of the Greatest German onslaught in history could now
be inspired with the conviction that the final decision in this war would not be
won by the audacity of the German assault but rather by the powers of
endurance on the side of the defence. Let the Germans now have whatever
victories they liked, the revolution and not the victorious army was welcomed in
the Fatherland.

British, French and American newspapers began to spread this belief among
their readers while a very ably managed propaganda encouraged the morale of
their troops at the front.

'Germany Facing Revolution! An Allied Victory Inevitable!' That was the best
medicine to set the staggering Poilu and Tommy on their feet once again. Our
rifles and machine-guns could now open fire once again; but instead of effecting
a panic-stricken retreat they were now met with a determined resistance that was
full of confidence.

That was the result of the strike in the munitions factories. Throughout the
enemy countries faith in victory was thus revived and strengthened, and that
paralysing feeling of despair which had hitherto made itself felt on the Entente
front was banished. Consequently the strike cost the lives of thousands of
German soldiers. But the despicable instigators of that dastardly strike were
candidates for the highest public positions in the Germany of the Revolution.
At first it was apparently possible to overcome the repercussion of these events
on the German soldiers, but on the enemy's side they had a lasting effect. Here
the resistance had lost all the character of an army fighting for a lost cause. In its
place there was now a grim determination to struggle through to victory. For,



according to all human rules of judgment, victory would now be assured if the
Western front could hold out against the German offensive even for only a few
months. The Allied parliaments recognized the possibilities of a better future
and voted huge sums of money for the continuation of the propaganda which
was employed for the purpose of breaking up the internal cohesion of Germany.
It was my luck that I was able to take part in the first two offensives and in the
final offensive. These have left on me the most stupendous impressions of my
life - stupendous, because now for the last time the struggle lost its defensive
character and assumed the character of an offensive, just as it was in 1914. A
sigh of relief went up from the German trenches and dug-outs when finally, after
three years of endurance in that inferno, the day for the settling of accounts had
come. Once again the lusty cheering of victorious battalions was heard, as they
hung the last crowns of the immortal laurel on the standards which they
consecrated to Victory. Once again the strains of patriotic songs soared upwards
to the heavens above the endless columns of marching troops, and for the last
time the Lord smiled on his ungrateful children.

In the midsummer of 1918 a feeling of sultry oppression hung over the front. At
home they were quarrelling. About what? We heard a great deal among various
units at the front. The War was now a hopeless affair, and only the foolhardy
could think of victory. It was not the people but the capitalists and the Monarchy
who were interested in carrying on. Such were the ideas that came from home
and were discussed at the front.

At first this gave rise to only very slight reaction. What did universal suffrage
matter to us? Is this what we had been fighting for during four years? It was a
dastardly piece of robbery thus to filch from the graves of our heroes the ideals
for which they had fallen. It was not to the slogan, 'Long Live Universal
Suffrage,' that our troops in Flanders once faced certain death but with the cry,
'Deutschland iiber Alles in der Welt' . A small but by no means an unimportant
difference. And the majority of those who were shouting for this suffrage were
absent when it came to fighting for it. All this political rabble were strangers to
us at the front. During those days only a fraction of these parliamentarian gentry
were to be seen where honest Germans foregathered.

The old soldiers who had fought at the front had little liking for those new war
aims of Messrs. Ebert, Scheidemann, Barth, Liebknecht and others. We could
not understand why, all of a sudden, the shirkers should abrogate all executive
powers to themselves, without having any regard to the army.
From the very beginning I had my own definite personal views. I intensely
loathed the whole gang of miserable party politicians who had betrayed the
people. I had long ago realized that the interests of the nation played only a very
small part with this disreputable crew and that what counted with them was the
possibility of filling their own empty pockets. My opinion was that those people
thoroughly deserved to be hanged, because they were ready to sacrifice the
peace and if necessary allow Germany to be defeated just to serve their own




ends. To consider their wishes would mean to sacrifice the interests of the
working classes for the benefit of a gang of thieves. To meet their wishes meant
that one should agree to sacrifice Germany.

Such, too, was the opinion still held by the majority of the army. But the
reinforcements which came from home were fast becoming worse and worse; so
much so that their arrival was a source of weakness rather than of strength to our
fighting forces. The young recruits in particular were for the most part useless.
Sometimes it was hard to believe that they were sons of the same nation that
sent its youth into the battles that were fought round Ypres.
In August and September the symptoms of moral disintegration increased more
and more rapidly, although the enemy's offensive was not at all comparable to
the frightfulness of our own former defensive battles. In comparison with this
offensive the battles fought on the Somme and in Flanders remained in our
memories as the most terrible of all horrors.

At the end of September my division occupied, for the third time, those
positions which we had once taken by storm as young volunteers. What a

Here we had received our baptism of fire, in October and November 1914. With
a burning love of the homeland in their hearts and a song on their lips, our
young regiment went into action as if going to a dance. The dearest blood was
given freely here in the belief that it was shed to protect the freedom and
independence of the Fatherland.

In July 1917 we set foot for the second time on what we regarded as sacred soil.
Were not our best comrades at rest here, some of them little more than boys - the
soldiers who had rushed into death for their country's sake, their eyes glowing
with enthusiastic love.

The older ones among us, who had been with the regiment from the beginning,
were deeply moved as we stood on this sacred spot where we had sworn
'Loyalty and Duty unto Death'. Three years ago the regiment had taken this
position by storm; now it was called upon to defend it in a gruelling struggle.
With an artillery bombardment that lasted three weeks the English prepared for
their great offensive in Flanders. There the spirits of the dead seemed to live
again. The regiment dug itself into the mud, clung to its shell-holes and craters,
neither flinching nor wavering, but growing smaller in numbers day after day.
Finally the British launched their attack on July 31st, 1917.
We were relieved in the beginning of August. The regiment had dwindled down
to a few companies, who staggered back, mud-crusted, more like phantoms than
human beings. Besides a few hundred yards of shell-holes, death was the only
reward which the English gained.

Now in the autumn of 1918 we stood for the third time on the ground we had
stormed in 1914. The village of Comines, which formerly had served us as a
base, was now within the fighting zone. Although little had changed in the
surrounding district itself, yet the men had become different, somehow or other.




They now talked politics. Like everywhere else, the poison from home was
having its effect here also. The young drafts succumbed to it completely. They
had come directly from home.

During the night of October 13th- 14th, the British opened an attack with gas on
the front south of Ypres. They used the yellow gas whose effect was unknown to
us, at least from personal experience. I was destined to experience it that very
night. On a hill south of Werwick, in the evening of October 13th, we were
subjected for several hours to a heavy bombardment with gas bombs, which
continued throughout the night with more or less intensity. About midnight a
number of us were put out of action, some for ever. Towards morning I also
began to feel pain. It increased with every quarter of an hour; and about seven
o'clock my eyes were scorching as I staggered back and delivered the last
dispatch I was destined to carry in this war. A few hours later my eyes were like
glowing coals and all was darkness around me.

I was sent into hospital at Pasewalk in Pomerania, and there it was that I had to
hear of the Revolution.

For a long time there had been something in the air which was indefinable and
repulsive. People were saying that something was bound to happen within the
next few weeks, although I could not imagine what this meant. In the first
instance I thought of a strike similar to the one which had taken place in spring.
Unfavourable rumours were constantly coming from the Navy, which was said
to be in a state of ferment. But this seemed to be a fanciful creation of a few
isolated young people. It is true that at the hospital they were all talking abut the
end of the war and hoping that this was not far off, but nobody thought that the
decision would come immediately. I was not able to read the newspapers.
In November the general tension increased. Then one day disaster broke in upon
us suddenly and without warning. Sailors came in motor-lorries and called on us
to rise in revolt. A few Jew-boys were the leaders in that combat for the
'Liberty, Beauty, and Dignity' of our National Being. Not one of them had seen
active service at the front. Through the medium of a hospital for venereal
diseases these three Orientals had been sent back home. Now their red rags were
being hoisted here.

During the last few days I had begun to feel somewhat better. The burning pain
in the eye-sockets had become less severe. Gradually I was able to distinguish
the general outlines of my immediate surroundings. And it was permissible to
hope that at least I would recover my sight sufficiently to be able to take up
some profession later on. That I would ever be able to draw or design once again
was naturally out of the question. Thus I was on the way to recovery when the
frightful hour came.

My first thought was that this outbreak of high treason was only a local affair. I
tried to enforce this belief among my comrades. My Bavarian hospital mates, in
particular, were readily responsive. Their inclinations were anything but
revolutionary. I could not imagine this madness breaking out in Munich; for it




seemed to me that loyalty to the House of Wittelsbach was, after all, stronger
than the will of a few Jews. And so I could not help believing that this was
merely a revolt in the Navy and that it would be suppressed within the next few

With the next few days came the most astounding information of my life. The
rumours grew more and more persistent. I was told that what I had considered to
be a local affair was in reality a general revolution. In addition to this, from the
front came the shameful news that they wished to capitulate! What! Was such a
thing possible?

On November 10th the local pastor visited the hospital for the purpose of
delivering a short address. And that was how we came to know the whole story.
I was in a fever of excitement as I listened to the address. The reverend old
gentleman seemed to be trembling when he informed us that the House of
Hohen-zollem should no longer wear the Imperial Crown, that the Fatherland
had become a 'Republic', that we should pray to the Almighty not to withhold
His blessing from the new order of things and not to abandon our people in the
days to come. In delivering this message he could not do more than briefly
express appreciation of the Royal House, its services to Pomerania, to Prussia,
indeed, to the whole of the German Fatherland, and - here he began to weep. A
feeling of profound dismay fell on the people in that assembly, and I do not
think there was a single eye that withheld its tears. As for myself, I broke down
completely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story by informing us
that we must now end this long war, because the war was lost, he said, and we
were at the mercy of the victor. The Fatherland would have to bear heavy
burdens in the future. We were to accept the terms of the Armistice and trust to
the magnanimity of our former enemies. It was impossible for me to stay and
listen any longer. Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to
my ward and buried my aching head between the blankets and pillow.
I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother's grave. Whenever
Fate dealt cruelly with me in my young days the spirit of determination within
me grew stronger and stronger. During all those long years of war, when Death
claimed many a true friend and comrade from our ranks, to me it would have
appeared sinful to have uttered a word of complaint. Did they not die for
Germany? And, finally, almost in the last few days of that titanic struggle, when
the waves of poison gas enveloped me and began to penetrate my eyes, the
thought of becoming permanently blind unnerved me; but the voice of
conscience cried out immediately: Poor miserable fellow, will you start howling
when there are thousands of others whose lot is a hundred times worse than
yours? And so I accepted my misfortune in silence, realizing that this was the
only thing to be done and that personal suffering was nothing when compared
with the misfortune of one's country.

So all had been in vain. In vain all the sacrifices and privations, in vain the
hunger and thirst for endless months, in vain those hours that we stuck to our




posts though the fear of death gripped our souls, and in vain the deaths of two
milHons who fell in discharging this duty. Think of those hundreds of thousands
who set out with hearts full of faith in their fatherland, and never returned; ought
not their graves to open, so that the spirits of those heroes bespattered with mud
and blood should come home and take vengeance on those who had so
despicably betrayed the greatest sacrifice which a human being can make for his
country? Was it for this that the soldiers died in August and September 1914, for
this that the volunteer regiments followed the old comrades in the autumn of the
same year? Was it for this that those boys of seventeen years of age were
mingled with the earth of Flanders? Was this meant to be the fruits of the
sacrifice which German mothers made for their Fatherland when, with heavy
hearts, they said good-bye to their sons who never returned? Has all this been
done in order to enable a gang of despicable criminals to lay hands on the

Was this then what the German soldier struggled for through sweltering heat and
blinding snowstorm, enduring hunger and thirst and cold, fatigued from
sleepless nights and endless marches? Was it for this that he lived through an
inferno of artillery bombardments, lay gasping and choking during gas attacks,
neither flinching nor faltering, but remaining staunch to the thought of defending
the Fatherland against the enemy? Certainly these heroes also deserved the
epitaph: Traveller, when you come to Germany, tell the Homeland that we lie
here, true to the Fatherland and faithful to our duty.

And at Home? But - was this the only sacrifice that we had to consider? Was the
Germany of the past a country of little worth? Did she not owe a certain duty to
her own history? Were we still worthy to partake in the glory of the past? How
could we justify this act to future generations?
What a gang of despicable and depraved criminals!

The more I tried then to glean some definite information of the terrible events
that had happened the more my head became afire with rage and shame. What
was all the pain I suffered in my eyes compared with this tragedy?
The following days were terrible to bear, and the nights still worse. To depend
on the mercy of the enemy was a precept which only fools or criminal liars
could recommend. During those nights my hatred increased - hatred for the
orignators of this dastardly crime.

During the following days my own fate became clear to me. I was forced now to
scoff at the thought of my personal future, which hitherto had been the cause of
so much worry to me. Was it not ludicrous to think of building up anything on
such a foundation? Finally, it also became clear to me that it was the inevitable
that had happened, something which I had feared for a long time, though I really
did not have the heart to believe it.

Emperor William II was the first German Emperor to offer the hand of
friendship to the Marxist leaders, not suspecting that they were scoundrels




without any sense of honour. While they held the imperial hand in theirs, the

other hand was already feeling for the dagger.

There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It must be

the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'

For my part I then decided that I would take up political work.





Towards the end of November I returned to Munich. I went to the depot of my
regiment, which was now in the hands of the 'Soldiers' Councils'. As the whole
administration was quite repulsive to me, I decided to leave it as soon as I
possibly could. With my faithful war-comrade, Ernst-Schmidt, I came to
Traunstein and remained there until the camp was broken up. In March 1919 we
were back again in Munich.

The situation there could not last as it was. It tended irresistibly to a further
extension of the Revolution. Eisner's death served only to hasten this
development and finally led to the dictatorship of the Councils - or, to put it
more correctly, to a Jewish hegemony, which turned out to be transitory but
which was the original aim of those who had contrived the Revolution.
At that juncture innumerable plans took shape in my mind. I spent whole days
pondering on the problem of what could be done, but unfortunately every
project had to give way before the hard fact that I was quite unknown and
therefore did not have even the first pre-requisite necessary for effective action.
Later on I shall explain the reasons why I could not decide to join any of the
parties then in existence.

As the new Soviet Revolution began to run its course in Munich my first
activities drew upon me the ill-will of the Central Council. In the early morning
of April 27th, 1919, 1 was to have been arrested; but the three fellows who came
to arrest me did not have the courage to face my rifle and withdrew just as they
had arrived.

A few days after the liberation of Munich I was ordered to appear before the
Inquiry Commission which had been set up in the 2nd Infantry Regiment for the
purpose of watching revolutionary activities. That was my first incursion into
the more or less political field.

After another few weeks I received orders to attend a course of lectures which
were being given to members of the army. This course was meant to inculcate
certain fundamental principles on which the soldier could base his political
ideas. For me the advantage of this organization was that it gave me a chance of
meeting fellow soldiers who were of the same way of thinking and with whom I
could discuss the actual situation. We were all more or less firmly convinced
that Germany could not be saved from imminent disaster by those who had
participated in the November treachery - that is to say, the Centre and the
Social-Democrats; and also that the so-called Bourgeois-National group could
not make good the damage that had been done, even if they had the best
intentions. They lacked a number of requisites without which such a task could
never be successfully undertaken. The years that followed have justified the
opinions which we held at that time.




In our small circle we discussed the project of forming a new party. The leading
ideas which we then proposed were the same as those which were carried into
effect afterwards, when the German Labour Party was founded. The name of the
new movement which was to be founded should be such that of itself, it would
appeal to the mass of the people; for all our efforts would turn out vain and
useless if this condition were lacking. And that was the reason why we chose the
name 'Social-Revolutionary Party', particularly because the social principles of
our new organization were indeed revolutionary.

But there was also a more fundamental reason. The attention which I had given
to economic problems during my earlier years was more or less confined to
considerations arising directly out of the social problem. Subsequently this
outlook broadened as I came to study the German policy of the Triple Alliance.
This policy was very largely the result of an erroneous valuation of the
economic situation, together with a confused notion as to the basis on which the
future subsistence of the German people could be guaranteed. All these ideas
were based on the principle that capital is exclusively the product of labour and
that, just like labour, it was subject to all the factors which can hinder or
promote human activity. Hence, from the national standpoint, the significance of
capital depended on the greatness and freedom and power of the State, that is to
say, of the nation, and that it is this dependence alone which leads capital to
promote the interests of the State and the nation, from the instinct of self-
preservation and for the sake of its own development.

On such principles the attitude of the State towards capital would be
comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that
capital remained subservient to the State and did not allocate to itself the right to
dominate national interests. Thus it could confine its activities within the two
following limits: on the one side, to assure a vital and independent system of
national economy and, on the other, to safeguard the social rights of the workers.
Previously I did not recognize with adequate clearness the difference between
capital which is purely the product of creative labour and the existence and
nature of capital which is exclusively the result of financial speculation. Here I
needed an impulse to set my mind thinking in this direction; but that impulse
had hitherto been lacking.

The requisite impulse now came from one of the men who delivered lectures in
the course I have already mentioned. This was Gottfried Feder.
For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles
of stock-exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After
hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my
head that I had now found a way to one of the most essential pre-requisites for
the founding of a new party.

To my mind, Feder' s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which
he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock-exchange and
loan transaction, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always




dependent on the payment of interest. In fundamental questions his statements
were so full of common sense that those who criticized him did not deny that au
fond his ideas were sound but they doubted whether it be possible to put these
ideas into practice. To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder's teaching,
though others considered it a weak point.

It is not the business of him who lays down a theoretical programme to explain
the various ways in which something can be put into practice. His task is to deal
with the problem as such; and, therefore, he has to look to the end rather than the
means. The important question is whether an idea is fundamentally right or not.
The question of whether or not it may be difficult to carry it out in practice is
quite another matter. When a man whose task it is to lay down the principles of
a programme or policy begins to busy himself with the question as to whether it
is expedient and practical, instead of confining himself to the statement of the
absolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to those who are looking
about for light and leading and will become merely a recipe for every-day life.
The man who lays down the programme of a movement must consider only the
goal. It is for the political leader to point out the way in which that goal may be
reached. The thought of the former will, therefore, be determined by those truths
that are everlasting, whereas the activity of the latter must always be guided by
taking practical account of the circumstances under which those truths have to
be carried into effect.

The greatness of the one will depend on the absolute truth of his idea,
considered in the abstract; whereas that of the other will depend on whether or
not he correctly judges the given realities and how they may be utilized under
the guidance of the truths established by the former. The test of greatness as
applied to a political leader is the success of his plans and his enterprises, which
means his ability to reach the goal for which he sets out; whereas the final goal
set up by the political philosopher can never be reached; for human thought may
grasp truths and picture ends which it sees like clear crystal, though such ends
can never be completely fulfilled because human nature is weak and imperfect.
The more an idea is correct in the abstract, and, therefore, all the more powerful,
the smaller is the possibility of putting it into practice, at least as far as this latter
depends on human beings. The significance of a political philosopher does not
depend on the practical success of the plans he lays down but rather on their
absolute truth and the influence they exert on the progress of mankind. If it were
otherwise, the founders of religions could not be considered as the greatest men
who have ever lived, because their moral aims will never be completely or even
approximately carried out in practice. Even that religion which is called the
Religion of Love is really no more than a faint reflex of the will of its sublime
Founder. But its significance lies in the orientation which it endeavoured to give
to human civilization, and human virtue and morals.

This very wide difference between the functions of a political philosopher and a
practical political leader is the reason why the qualifications necessary for both




functions are scarcely ever found associated in the same person. This applies
especially to the so-called successful politician of the smaller kind, whose
activity is indeed hardly more than practising the art of doing the possible, as
Bismarck modestly defined the art of politics in general. If such a politician
resolutely avoids great ideas his success will be all the easier to attain; it will be
attained more expeditely and frequently will be more tangible. By reason of this
very fact, however, such success is doomed to futility and sometimes does not
even survive the death of its author. Generally speaking, the work of politicians
is without significance for the following generation, because their temporary
success was based on the expediency of avoiding all really great decisive
problems and ideas which would be valid also for future generations.
To pursue ideals which will still be of value and significance for the future is
generally not a very profitable undertaking and he who follows such a course is
only very rarely understood by the mass of the people, who find beer and milk a
more persuasive index of political values than far-sighted plans for the future,
the realization of which can only take place later on and the advantages of which
can be reaped only by posterity.

Because of a certain vanity, which is always one of the blood-relations of
unintelligence, the general run of politicians will always eschew those schemes
for the future which are really difficult to put into practice; and they will practise
this avoidance so that they may not lose the immediate favour of the mob. The
importance and the success of such politicians belong exclusively to the present
and will be of no consequence for the future. But that does not worry small-
minded people; they are quite content with momentary results.
The position of the constructive political philosopher is quite different. The
importance of his work must always be judged from the standpoint of the future;
and he is frequently described by the word Weltfremd, or dreamer. While the
ability of the politician consists in mastering the art of the possible, the founder
of a political system belongs to those who are said to please the gods only
because they wish for and demand the impossible. They will always have to
renounce contemporary fame; but if their ideas be immortal, posterity will grant
them its acknowledgment.

Within long spans of human progress it may occasionally happen that the
practical politician and political philosopher are one. The more intimate this
union is, the greater will be the obstacles which the activity of the politician will
have to encounter. Such a man does not labour for the purpose of satisfying
demands that are obvious to every philistine, but he reaches out towards ends
which can be understood only by the few. His life is torn asunder by hatred and
love. The protest of his contemporaries, who do not understand the man, is in
conflict with the recognition of posterity, for whom he also works.
For the greater the work which a man does for the future, the less will he be
appreciated by his contemporaries. His struggle will accordingly be all the more
severe, and his success all the rarer. When, in the course of centuries, such a




man appears who is blessed with success then, towards the end of his days, he
may have a faint prevision of his future fame. But such great men are only the
Marathon runners of history. The laurels of contemporary fame are only for the
brow of the dying hero.

The great protagonists are those who fight for their ideas and ideals despite the
fact that they receive no recognition at the hands of their contemporaries. They
are the men whose memories will be enshrined in the hearts of the future
generations. It seems then as if each individual felt it his duty to make
retroactive atonement for the wrong which great men have suffered at the hands
of their contemporaries. Their lives and their work are then studied with
touching and grateful admiration. Especially in dark days of distress, such men
have the power of healing broken hearts and elevating the despairing spirit of a

To this group belong not only the genuinely great statesmen but all the great
reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great we have such men as Martin
Luther and Richard Wagner.

When I heard Gottfried Feder's first lecture on 'The Abolition of the Interest-
Servitude', I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental
importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of
stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it
possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business
without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would
jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was
developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have
to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital.
In Feder's speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.
Here, again, later events proved how correct was the impression we then had.
The fools among our bourgeois politicians do not mock at us on this point any
more; for even those politicians now see - if they would speak the truth - that
international stock-exchange capital was not only the chief instigating factor in
bringing on the War but that now when the War is over it turns the peace into a

The struggle against international finance capital and loan-capital has become
one of the most important points in the programme on which the German nation
has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.
Regarding the objections raised by so-called practical people, the following
answer must suffice: All apprehensions concerning the fearful economic
consequences that would follow the abolition of the servitude that results from
interest-capital are ill-timed; for, in the first place, the economic principles
hitherto followed have proved quite fatal to the interests of the German people.
The attitude adopted when the question of maintaining our national existence
arose vividly recalls similar advice once given by experts - the Bavarian Medical
College, for example - on the question of introducing railroads. The fears




expressed by that august body of experts were not realized. Those who travelled

in the coaches of the new 'Steam-horse' did not suffer from vertigo. Those who

looked on did not become ill and the hoardings which had been erected to

conceal the new invention were eventually taken down. Only those blinds which

obscure the vision of the would-be 'experts', have remained. And that will be

always so.

In the second place, the following must be borne in mind: Any idea may be a

source of danger if it be looked upon as an end in itself, when really it is only

the means to an end. For me and for all genuine National-Socialists there is only

one doctrine. People and Fatherland.

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase

of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of

our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so

that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.

All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must serve these ends. It is

from this standpoint that everything must be examined and turned to practical

uses or else discarded. Thus a theory can never become a mere dead dogma

since everything will have to serve the practical ends of everyday life.

Thus the judgment arrived at by Gottfried Feder determined me to make a

fundamental study of a question with which I had hitherto not been very


I began to study again and thus it was that I first came to understand perfectly

what was the substance and purpose of the life-work of the Jew, Karl Marx. His

Capital became intelligible to me now for the first time. And in the light of it I

now exactly understood the fight of the Social-Democrats against national

economics, a fight which was to prepare the ground for the hegemony of a real

international and stock-exchange capital.

In another direction also this course of lectures had important consequences for


One day I put my name down as wishing to take part in the discussion. Another

of the participants thought that he would break a lance for the Jews and entered

into a lengthy defence of them. This aroused my opposition. An overwhelming

number of those who attended the lecture course supported my views. The

consequence of it all was that, a few days later, I was assigned to a regiment

then stationed at Munich and given a position there as 'instruction officer'.

At that time the spirit of discipline was rather weak among those troops. It was

still suffering from the after-effects of the period when the Soldiers' Councils

were in control. Only gradually and carefully could a new spirit of military

discipline and obedience be introduced in place of 'voluntary obedience', a term

which had been used to express the ideal of military discipline under Kurt

Eisner's higgledy-piggledy regime. The soldiers had to be taught to think and

feel in a national and patriotic way. In these two directions lay my future line of





I took up my work with the greatest dehght and devotion. Here I was presented

with an opportunity of speaking before quite a large audience. I was now able to

confirm what I had hitherto merely felt, namely, that I had a talent for public

speaking. My voice had become so much better that I could be well understood,

at least in all parts of the small hall where the soldiers assembled.

No task could have been more pleasing to me than this one; for now, before

being demobilized, I was in a position to render useful service to an institution

which had been infinitely dear to my heart: namely, the army.

I am able to state that my talks were successful. During the course of my

lectures I have led back hundreds and even thousands of my fellow countrymen

to their people and their fatherland. I 'nationalized' these troops and by so doing

I helped to restore general discipline.

Here again I made the acquaintance of several comrades whose thought ran

along the same lines as my own and who later became members of the first

group out of which the new movement developed.





One day I received an order from my superiors to investigate the nature of an
association which was apparently poHtical. It called itself 'The German Labour
Party' and was soon to hold a meeting at which Gottfried Feder would speak. I
was ordered to attend this meeting and report on the situation.
The spirit of curiosity in which the army authorities then regarded political
parties can be very well understood. The Revolution had granted the soldiers the
right to take an active part in politics and it was particularly those with the
smallest experience who had availed themselves of this right. But not until the
Centre and the Social-Democratic parties were reluctantly forced to recognize
that the sympathies of the soldiers had turned away from the revolutionary
parties towards the national movement and the national reawakening, did they
feel obliged to withdraw from the army the right to vote and to forbid it all
political activity.

The fact that the Centre and Marxism had adopted this policy was instructive,
because if they had not thus curtailed the 'rights of the citizen' - as they
described the political rights of the soldiers after the Revolution - the
government which had been established in November 1918 would have been
overthrown within a few years and the dishonour and disgrace of the nation
would not have been further prolonged. At that time the soldiers were on the
point of taking the best way to rid the nation of the vampires and valets who
served the cause of the Entente in the interior of the country. But the fact that the
so-called 'national' parties voted enthusiastically for the doctrinaire policy of the
criminals who organized the Revolution in November (1918) helped also to
render the army ineffective as an instrument of national restoration and thus
showed once again where men might be led by the purely abstract notions
accepted by these most gullible people.

The minds of the bourgeois middle classes had become so fossilized that they
sincerely believed the army could once again become what it had previously
been, namely, a rampart of German valour; while the Centre Party and the
Marxists intended only to extract the poisonous tooth of nationalism, without
which an army must always remain just a police force but can never be in the
position of a military organization capable of fighting against the outside enemy.
This truth was sufficiently proved by subsequent events.

Or did our 'national' politicians believe, after all, that the development of our
army could be other than national? This belief might be possible and could be
explained by the fact that during the War they were not soldiers but merely
talkers. In other words, they were parliamentarians, and, as such, they did not
have the slightest idea of what was passing in the hearts of those men who
remembered the greatness of their own past and also remembered that they had
once been the first soldiers in the world.




I decided to attend the meeting of this Party, which had hitherto been entirely
unknown to me. When I arrived that evening in the guest room of the former
Stemecker Brewery - which has now become a place of historical significance
for us - 1 found approximately 20-25 persons present, most of them belonging to
the lower classes.

The theme of Feder's lecture was already familiar to me; for I had heard it in the
lecture course I have spoken of. Therefore, I could concentrate my attention on
studying the society itself.

The impression it made upon me was neither good nor bad. I felt that here was
just another one of these many new societies which were being formed at that
time. In those days everybody felt called upon to found a new Party whenever
he felt displeased with the course of events and had lost confidence in all the
parties already existing. Thus it was that new associations sprouted up all round,
to disappear just as quickly, without exercising any effect or making any noise
whatsoever. Generally speaking, the founders of such associations did not have
the slightest idea of what it means to bring together a number of people for the
foundations of a party or a movement. Therefore these associations disappeared
because of their woeful lack of anything like an adequate grasp of the necessities
of the situation.

My opinion of the 'German Labour Party' was not very different after I had
listened to their proceedings for about two hours. I was glad when Feder finally
came to a close. I had observed enough and was just about to leave when it was
announced that anybody who wished was free to open a discussion. Thereupon,
I decided to remain. But the discussion seemed to proceed without anything of
vital importance being mentioned, when suddenly a 'professor' commenced to
speak. He opened by throwing doubt on the accuracy of what Feder had said,
and then, after Feder had replied very effectively, the professor suddenly took up
his position on what he called 'the basis of facts,' but before this he
recommended the young party most urgently to introduce the secession of
Bavaria from Prussia as one of the leading proposals in its programme. In the
most self-assured way, this man kept on insisting that German-Austria would
join Bavaria and that the peace would then function much better. He made other
similarly extravagant statements. At this juncture I felt bound to ask for
permission to speak and to tell the learned gentleman what I thought. The result
was that the honourable gentleman who had last spoken slipped out of his place,
like a whipped cur, without uttering a sound. While I was speaking the audience
listened with an expression of surprise on their faces. When I was just about to
say good-night to the assembly and to leave, a man came after me quickly and
introduced himself. I did not grasp the name correctly; but he placed a little
book in my hand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, and asked me very
earnestly to read it.

I was quite pleased; because in this way, I could come to know about this
association without having to attend its tiresome meetings. Moreover, this man.




who had the appearance of a workman, made a good impression on me.
Thereupon, I left the hall.

At that time I was living in one of the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Regiment. I
had a little room which still bore the unmistakable traces of the Revolution.
During the day I was mostly out, at the quarters of Light Infantry No. 41 or else
attending meetings or lectures, held at some other branch of the army. I spent
only the night at the quarters where I lodged. Since I usually woke up about five
o'clock every morning I got into the habit of amusing myself with watching
little mice which played around in my small room. I used to place a few pieces
of hard bread or crust on the floor and watch the funny little beasts playing
around and enjoying themselves with these delicacies. I had suffered so many
privations in my own life that I well knew what hunger was and could only too
well picture to myself the pleasure these little creatures were experiencing.
So on the morning after the meeting I have mentioned, it happened that about
five o'clock I lay fully awake in bed, watching the mice playing and vying with
each other. As I was not able to go to sleep again, I suddenly remembered the
pamphlet that one of the workers had given me at the meeting. It was a small
pamphlet of which this worker was the author. In his little book he described
how his mind had thrown off the shackles of the Marxist and trades-union
phraseology, and that he had come back to the nationalist ideals. That was the
reason why he had entitled his little book: "My Political Awakening". The
pamphlet secured my attention the moment I began to read, and I read it with
interest to the end. The process here described was similar to that which I had
experienced in my own case ten years previously. Unconsciously my own
experiences began to stir again in my mind. During that day my thoughts
returned several times to what I had read; but I finally decided to give the matter
no further attention. A week or so later, however, I received a postcard which
informed me, to my astonishment, that I had been admitted into the German
Labour Party. I was asked to answer this communication and to attend a meeting
of the Party Committee on Wednesday next.

This manner of getting members rather amazed me, and I did not know whether
to be angry or laugh at it. Hitherto I had not any idea of entering a party already
in existence but wanted to found one of my own. Such an invitation as I now
had received I looked upon as entirely out of the question for me.
I was about to send a written reply when my curiosity got the better of me, and I
decided to attend the gathering at the date assigned, so that I might expound my
principles to these gentlemen in person.

Wednesday came. The tavern in which the meeting was to take place was the
'Alte Rosenbad' in the Herrnstrasse, into which apparently only an occasional
guest wandered. This was not very surprising in the year 1919, when the bills of
fare even at the larger restaurants were only very modest and scanty in their
pretensions and thus not very attractive to clients. But I had never before heard
of this restaurant.




I went through the badly-Hghted guest-room, where not a single guest was to be
seen, and searched for the door which led to the side room; and there I was face-
to-face with the 'Congress'. Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I
could see four young people sitting around a table, one of them the author of the
pamphlet. He greeted me cordially and welcomed me as a new member of the
German Labour Party.

I was taken somewhat aback on being informed that actually the National
President of the Party had not yet come; so I decided that I would keep back my
own exposition for the time being. Finally the President appeared. He was the
man who had been chairman of the meeting held in the Sternecker Brewery,
when Feder spoke.

My curiosity was stimulated anew and I sat waiting for what was going to
happen. Now I got at least as far as learning the names of the gentlemen who
had been parties to the whole affair. The Reich National President of the
Association was a certain Herr Harrer and the President for the Munich district
was Anton Drexler.

The minutes of the previous meeting were read out and a vote of confidence in
the secretary was passed. Then came the treasurer's report. The Society
possessed a total fund of seven marks and fifty pfennigs (a sum corresponding to
7s. 6d. in English money at par), whereupon the treasurer was assured that he
had the confidence of the members. This was now inserted in the minutes. Then
letters of reply which had been written by the Chairman were read; first, to a
letter received from Kiel, then to one from Diisseldorf and finally to one from
Berlin. All three replies received the approval of all present. Then the incoming
letters were read - one from Berlin, one from Diisseldorf and one from Kiel. The
reception of these letters seemed to cause great satisfaction. This increasing bulk
of correspondence was taken as the best and most obvious sign of the growing
importance of the German Labour Party. And then? Well, there followed a long
discussion of the replies which would be given to these newly -received letters.
It was all very awful. This was the worst kind of parish-pump clubbism. And
was I supposed to become a member of such a club?

The question of new members was next discussed - that is to say, the question of
catching myself in the trap.

I now began to ask questions. But I found that, apart from a few general
principles, there was nothing - no programme, no pamphlet, nothing at all in
print, no card of membership, not even a party stamp, nothing but obvious good
faith and good intentions.

I no longer felt inclined to laugh; for what else was all this but a typical sign of
the most complete perplexity and deepest despair in regard to all political
parties, their programmes and views and activities? The feeling which had
induced those few young people to join in what seemed such a ridiculous
enterprise was nothing but the call of the inner voice which told them - though
more intuitively than consciously - that the whole party system as it had hitherto




existed was not the kind of force that could restore the German nation or repair
the damages that had been done to the German people by those who hitherto
controlled the internal affairs of the nation. I quickly read through the list of
principles that formed the platform of the party. These principles were stated on
typewritten sheets. Here again I found evidence of the spirit of longing and
searching, but no sign whatever of a knowledge of the conflict that had to be
fought. I myself had experienced the feelings which inspired those people. It
was the longing for a movement which should be more than a party, in the
hitherto accepted meaning of that word.

When I returned to my room in the barracks that evening I had formed a definite
opinion on this association and I was facing the most difficult problem of my
life. Should I join this party or refuse?

From the side of the intellect alone, every consideration urged me to refuse; but
my feelings troubled me. The more I tried to prove to myself how senseless this
club was, on the whole, the more did my feelings incline me to favour it. During
the following days I was restless.

I began to consider all the pros and cons. I had long ago decided to take an
active part in politics. The fact that I could do so only through a new movement
was quite clear to me; but I had hitherto lacked the impulse to take concrete
action. I am not one of those people who will begin something to-day and just
give it up the next day for the sake of something new. That was the main reason
which made it so difficult for me to decide in joining something newly founded;
for this must become the real fulfilment of everything I dreamt, or else it had
better not be started at all. I knew that such a decision should bind me for ever
and that there could be no turning back. For me there could be no idle dallying
but only a cause to be championed ardently. I had already an instinctive feeling
against people who took up everything, but never carried anything through to
the end. I loathed these Jacks-of-all-Trades, and considered the activities of such
people to be worse than if they were to remain entirely quiescent.
Fate herself now seemed to supply the finger-post that pointed out the way. I
should never have entered one of the big parties already in existence and shall
explain my reasons for this later on. This ludicrous little formation, with its
handful of members, seemed to have the unique advantage of not yet being
fossilized into an 'organization' and still offered a chance for real personal
activity on the part of the individual. Here it might still be possible to do some
effective work; and, as the movement was still small, one could all the easier
give it the required shape. Here it was still possible to determine the character of
the movement, the aims to be achieved and the road to be taken, which would
have been impossible in the case of the big parties already existing.
The longer I reflected on the problem, the more my opinion developed that just
such a small movement would best serve as an instrument to prepare the way for
the national resurgence, but that this could never be done by the political
parliamentary parties which were too firmly attached to obsolete ideas or had an




interest in supporting the new regime. What had to be proclaimed here was a

new Wehanschhauung and not a new election cry.

It was, however, infinitely difficult to decide on putting the intention into

practice. What were the qualifications which I could bring to the

accomplishment of such a task?

The fact that I was poor and without resources could, in my opinion, be the

easiest to bear. But the fact that I was utterly unknown raised a more difficult

problem. I was only one of the millions which Chance allows to exist or cease to

exist, whom even their next-door neighbours will not consent to know. Another

difficulty arose from the fact that I had not gone through the regular school


The so-called 'intellectuals' still look down with infinite superciliousness on

anyone who has not been through the prescribed schools and allowed them to

pump the necessary knowledge into him. The question of what a man can do is

never asked but rather, what has he learned? 'Educated' people look upon any

imbecile who is plastered with a number of academic certificates as superior to

the ablest young fellow who lacks these precious documents. I could therefore

easily imagine how this 'educated' world would receive me and I was wrong

only in so far as I then believed men to be for the most part better than they

proved to be in the cold light of reality. Because of their being as they are, the

few exceptions stand out all the more conspicuously. I learned more and more to

distinguish between those who will always be at school and those who will one

day come to know something in reality.

After two days of careful brooding and reflection I became convinced that I

must take the contemplated step.

It was the most fateful decision of my life. No retreat was possible.

Thus I declared myself ready to accept the membership tendered me by the

German Labour Party and received a provisional certificate of membership. I

was numbered seven.





The depth of a fall is always measured by the difference between the level of the
original position from which a body has fallen and that in which it is now found.
The same holds good for Nations and States. The matter of greatest importance
here is the height of the original level, or rather the greatest height that had been
attained before the descent began.

For only the profound decline or collapse of that which was capable of reaching
extraordinary heights can make a striking impression on the eye of the beholder.
The collapse of the Second Reich was all the more bewildering for those who
could ponder over it and feel the effect of it in their hearts, because the Reich
had fallen from a height which can hardly be imagined in these days of misery
and humiliation.

The Second Reich was founded in circumstances of such dazzling splendour that
the whole nation had become entranced and exalted by it. Following an
unparalleled series of victories, that Empire was handed over as the guerdon of
immortal heroism to the children and grandchildren of the heroes. Whether they
were fully conscious of it or not does not matter; anyhow, the Germans felt that
this Empire had not been brought into existence by a series of able political
negotiations through parliamentary channels, but that it was different from
political institutions founded elsewhere by reason of the nobler circumstances
that had accompanied its establishment. When its foundations were laid the
accompanying music was not the chatter of parliamentary debates but the
thunder and boom of war along the battle front that encircled Paris. It was thus
that an act of statesmanship was accomplished whereby the Germans, princes as
well as people, established the future Reich and restored the symbol of the
Imperial Crown. Bismarck's State was not founded on treason and assassination
by deserters and shirkers but by the regiments that had fought at the front. This
unique birth and baptism of fire sufficed of themselves to surround the Second
Empire with an aureole of historical splendour such as few of the older States
could lay claim to.

And what an ascension then began! A position of independence in regard to the
outside world guaranteed the means of livelihood at home. The nation increased
in numbers and in worldly wealth. The honour of the State and therewith the
honour of the people as a whole were secured and protected by an army which
was the most striking witness of the difference between this new Reich and the
old German Confederation.

But the downfall of the Second Empire and the German people has been so
profound that they all seem to have been struck dumbfounded and rendered
incapable of feeling the significance of this downfall or reflecting on it. It seems
as if people were utterly unable to picture in their minds the heights to which the
Empire formerly attained, so visionary and unreal appears the greatness and




splendour of those days in contrast to the misery of the present. Bearing this in
mind we can understand why and how people become so dazed when they try to
look back to the sublime past that they forget to look for the symptoms of the
great collapse which must certainly have been present in some form or other.
Naturally this applies only to those for whom Germany was more than merely a
place of abode and a source of livelihood. These are the only people who have
been able to feel the present conditions as really catastrophic, whereas others
have considered these conditions as the fulfilment of what they had looked
forward to and hitherto silently wished.

The symptoms of future collapse were definitely to be perceived in those earlier
days, although very few made any attempt to draw a practical lesson from their
significance. But this is now a greater necessity than it ever was before. For just
as bodily ailments can be cured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so
also political disease can be treated only when it has been diagnosed. It is
obvious of course that the external symptoms of any disease can be more readily
detected than its internal causes, for these symptoms strike the eye more easily.
This is also the reason why so many people recognize only external effects and
mistake them for causes. Indeed they will sometimes try to deny the existence of
such causes. And that is why the majority of people among us recognize the
German collapse only in the prevailing economic distress and the results that
have followed therefrom. Almost everyone has to carry his share of this burden,
and that is why each one looks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of the
present deplorable state of affairs. The broad masses of the people see little of
the cultural, political, and moral background of this collapse. Many of them
completely lack both the necessary feeling and powers of understanding for it.
That the masses of the people should thus estimate the causes of Germany's
downfall is quite understandable. But the fact that intelligent sections of the
community regard the German collapse primarily as an economic catastrophe,
and consequently think that a cure for it may be found in an economic solution,
seems to me to be the reason why hitherto no improvement has been brought
about. No improvement can be brought about until it be understood that
economics play only a second or third role, while the main part is played by
political, moral and racial factors. Only when this is understood will it be
possible to understand the causes of the present evil and consequently to find the
ways and means of remedying them.

Therefore the question of why Germany really collapsed is one of the most
urgent significance, especially for a political movement which aims at
overcoming this disaster.

In scrutinizing the past with a view to discovering the causes of the German
break-up, it is necessary to be careful lest we may be unduly impressed by
external results that readily strike the eye and thus ignore the less manifest
causes of these results.




The most facile, and therefore the most generally accepted, way of accounting
for the present misfortune is to say that it is the result of a lost war, and that this
is the real cause of the present misfortune. Probably there are many who
honestly believe in this absurd explanation but there are many more in whose
mouths it is a deliberate and conscious falsehood. This applies to all those who
are now feeding at the Government troughs. For the prophets of the Revolution
again and again declared to the people that it would be immaterial to the great
masses what the result of the War might be. On the contrary, they solemnly
assured the public that it was High Finance which was principally interested in a
victorious outcome of this gigantic struggle among the nations but that the
German people and the German workers had no interest whatsoever in such an
outcome. Indeed the apostles of world conciliation habitually asserted that, far
from any German downfall, the opposite was bound to take place - namely, the
resurgence of the German people - once 'militarism' had been crushed. Did not
these self-same circles sing the praises of the Entente and did they not also lay
the whole blame for the sanguinary struggle on the shoulders of Germany?
Without this explanation, would they have been able to put forward the theory
that a military defeat would have no political consequences for the German
people? Was not the whole Revolution dressed up in gala colours as blocking
the victorious advance of the German banners and that thus the German people
would be assured its liberty both at home and abroad?
Is not that so, you miserable, lying rascals?

That kind of impudence which is typical of the Jews was necessary in order to
proclaim the defeat of the army as the cause of the German collapse. Indeed the
Berlin Vorwarts, that organ and mouthpiece of sedition then wrote on this
occasion that the German nation should not be permitted to bring home its
banners triumphantly.

And yet they attribute our collapse to the military defeat.

Of course it would be out of the question to enter into an argument with these
liars who deny at one moment what they said the moment before. I should waste
no further words on them were it not for the fact that there are many thoughtless
people who repeat all this in parrot fashion, without being necessarily inspired
by any evil motives. But the observations I am making here are also meant for
our fighting followers, seeing that nowadays one's spoken words are often
forgotten and twisted in their meaning.

The assertion that the loss of the War was the cause of the German collapse can
best be answered as follows:

It is admittedly a fact that the loss of the War was of tragic importance for the
future of our country. But that loss was not in itself a cause. It was rather the
consequence of other causes. That a disastrous ending to this life-or-death
conflict must have involved catastrophes in its train was clearly seen by
everyone of insight who could think in a straightforward manner. But
unfortunately there were also people whose powers of understanding seemed to




fail them at that critical moment. And there were other people who had first
questioned that truth and then altogether denied it. And there were people who,
after their secret desire had been fulfilled, were suddenly faced with the
subsequent facts that resulted from their own collaboration. Such people are
responsible for the collapse, and not the lost war, though they now want to
attribute everything to this. As a matter of fact the loss of the War was a result of
their activities and not the result of bad leadership as they now would like to
maintain. Our enemies were not cowards. They also know how to die. From the
very first day of the War they outnumbered the German Army, and the arsenals
and armament factories of the whole world were at their disposal for the
replenishment of military equipment. Indeed it is universally admitted that the
German victories, which had been steadily won during four years of warfare
against the whole world, were due to superior leadership, apart of course from
the heroism of the troops. And the organization was solely due to the German
military leadership. That organization and leadership of the German Army was
the most mighty thing that the world has ever seen. Any shortcomings which
became evident were humanly unavoidable. The collapse of that army was not
the cause of our present distress. It was itself the consequence of other faults.
But this consequence in its turn ushered in a further collapse, which was more
visible. That such was actually the case can be shown as follows:
Must a military defeat necessarily lead to such a complete overthrow of the State
and Nation? Whenever has this been the result of an unlucky war? As a matter
of fact, are nations ever mined by a lost war and by that alone? The answer to
this question can be briefly stated by referring to the fact that military defeats are
the result of internal decay, cowardice, want of character, and are a retribution
for such things. If such were not the causes then a military defeat would lead to
a national resurgence and bring the nation to a higher pitch of effort. A military
defeat is not the tombstone of national life. History affords innumerable
examples to confirm the truth of that statement.

Unfortunately Germany's military overthrow was not an undeserved
catastrophe, but a well-merited punishment which was in the nature of an eternal
retribution. This defeat was more than deserved by us; for it represented the
greatest external phenomenon of decomposition among a series of internal
phenomena, which, although they were visible, were not recognized by the
majority of the people, who follow the tactics of the ostrich and see only what
they want to see.

Let us examine the symptoms that were evident in Germany at the time that the
German people accepted this defeat. Is it not true that in several circles the
misfortunes of the Fatherland were even joyfully welcomed in the most
shameful manner? Who could act in such a way without thereby meriting
vengeance for his attitude? Were there not people who even went further and
boasted that they had gone to the extent of weakening the front and causing a
collapse? Therefore it was not the enemy who brought this disgrace upon our




shoulders but rather our own countrymen. If they suffered misfortune for it
afterwards, was that misfortune undeserved? Was there ever a case in history
where a people declared itself guilty of a war, and that even against its better
conscience and its better knowledge?

No, and again no. In the manner in which the German nation reacted to its defeat
we can see that the real cause of our collapse must be looked for elsewhere and
not in the purely military loss of a few positions or the failure of an offensive.
For if the front as such had given way and thus brought about a national disaster,
then the German nation would have accepted the defeat in quite another spirit.
They would have borne the subsequent misfortune with clenched teeth, or they
would have been overwhelmed by sorrow. Regret and fury would have filled
their hearts against an enemy into whose hands victory had been given by a
chance event or the decree of Fate; and in that case the nation, following the
example of the Roman Senate, would have faced the defeated legions on their
return and expressed their thanks for the sacrifices that had been made and
would have requested them not to lose faith in the Empire. Even the capitulation
would have been signed under the sway of calm reason, while the heart would
have beaten in the hope of the coming revanche.

That is the reception that would have been given to a military defeat which had
to be attributed only to the adverse decree of Fortune. There would have been
neither joy-making nor dancing. Cowardice would not have been boasted of, and
the defeat would not have been honoured. On returning from the Front, the
troops would not have been mocked at, and the colours would not have been
dragged in the dust. But above all, that disgraceful state of affairs could never
have arisen which induced a British officer. Colonel Repington, to declare with
scorn: Every third German is a traitor! No, in such a case this plague would
never have assumed the proportions of a veritable flood which, for the past five
years, has smothered every vestige of respect for the German nation in the
outside world.

This shows only too clearly how false it is to say that the loss of the War was the
cause of the German break-up. No. The military defeat was itself but the
consequence of a whole series of morbid symptoms and their causes which had
become active in the German nation before the War broke out. The War was the
first catastrophal consequence, visible to all, of how traditions and national
morale had been poisoned and how the instinct of self-preservation had
degenerated. These were the preliminary causes which for many years had been
undermining the foundations of the nation and the Empire.
But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and
their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall
precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his
effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation
from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the




weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to
succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was
inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is
always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are
always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds
they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they
themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort
to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate
colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove
this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and
waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been
nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all
who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how
to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others
how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence
founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas
in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that
mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which
is profoundly and exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew "The Great
Master of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.
We may regard it as a great stroke of fortune for the German nation that its
period of lingering suffering was so suddenly curtailed and transformed into
such a terrible catastrophe. For if things had gone on as they were the nation
would have more slowly, but more surely, gone to ruin. The disease would have
become chronic; whereas, in the acute form of the disaster, it at least showed
itself clearly to the eyes of a considerable number of observers. It was not by
accident that man conquered the black plague more easily than he conquered
tuberculosis. The first appeared in terrifying waves of death that shook the
whole of mankind, the other advances insidiously; the first induces terror, the
other gradual indifference. The result is, however, that men opposed the first
with all the energy they were capable of, whilst they try to arrest tuberculosis by
feeble means. Thus man has mastered the black plague, while tuberculosis still
gets the better of him.

The same applies to diseases in nations. So long as these diseases are not of a
catastrophic character, the population will slowly accustom itself to them and
later succumb. It is then a stroke of luck - although a bitter one - when Fate
decides to interfere in this slow process of decay and suddenly brings the victim
face to face with the final stage of the disease. More often than not the result of a




catastrophe is that a cure is at once undertaken and carried through with rigid

But even in such a case the essential prehminary condition is always the
recognition of the internal causes which have given rise to the disease in

The important question here is the differentiation of the root causes from the
circumstances developing out of them. This becomes all the more difficult the
longer the germs of disease remain in the national body and the longer they are
allowed to become an integral part of that body. It may easily happen that, as
time goes on, it will become so difficult to recognize certain definite virulent
poisons as such that they are accepted as belonging to the national being; or they
are merely tolerated as a necessary evil, so that drastic attempts to locate those
alien germs are not held to be necessary.

During the long period of peace prior to the last war certain evils were apparent
here and there although, with one or two exceptions, very little effort was made
to discover their origin. Here again these exceptions were first and foremost
those phenomena in the economic life of the nation which were more apparent
to the individual than the evil conditions existing in a good many other spheres.
There were many signs of decay which ought to have been given serious
thought. As far as economics were concerned, the following may be said: -
The amazing increase of population in Germany before the war brought the
question of providing daily bread into a more and more prominent position in all
spheres of political and economic thought and action. But unfortunately those
responsible could not make up their minds to arrive at the only correct solution
and preferred to reach their objective by cheaper methods. Repudiation of the
idea of acquiring fresh territory and the substitution for it of the mad desire for
the commercial conquest of the world was bound to lead eventually to unlimited
and injurious industrialization.

The first and most fatal result brought about in this way was the weakening of
the agricultural classes, whose decline was proportionate to the increase in the
proletariat of the urban areas, until finally the equilibrium was completely upset.
The big barrier dividing rich and poor now became apparent. Luxury and
poverty lived so close to each other that the consequences were bound to be
deplorable. Want and frequent unemployment began to play havoc with the
people and left discontent and embitterment behind them. The result of this was
to divide the population into political classes. Discontent increased in spite of
commercial prosperity. Matters finally reached that stage which brought about
the general conviction that 'things cannot go on as they are', although no one
seemed able to visualize what was really going to happen.
These were typical and visible signs of the depths which the prevailing
discontent had reached. Far worse than these, however, were other consequences
which became apparent as a result of the industrialization of the nation.




In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of the State,

money became more and more of a God whom all had to serve and bow down

to. Heavenly Gods became more and more old-fashioned and were laid away in

the comers to make room for the worship of mammon. And thus began a period

of utter degeneration which became specially pernicious because it set in at a

time when the nation was more than ever in need of an exalted idea, for a critical

hour was threatening. Germany should have been prepared to protect with the

sword her efforts to win her own daily bread in a peaceful way.

Unfortunately, the predominance of money received support and sanction in the

very quarter which ought to have been opposed to it. His Majesty, the Kaiser,

made a mistake when he raised representatives of the new finance capital to the

ranks of the nobility. Admittedly, it may be offered as an excuse that even

Bismarck failed to realize the threatening danger in this respect. In practice,

however, all ideal virtues became secondary considerations to those of money,

for it was clear that having once taken this road, the nobility of the sword would

very soon rank second to that of finance.

Financial operations succeed easier than war operations. Hence it was no longer

any great attraction for a true hero or even a statesman to be brought into touch

with the nearest Jew banker. Real merit was not interested in receiving cheap

decorations and therefore declined them with thanks. But from the standpoint of

good breeding such a development was deeply regrettable. The nobility began to

lose more and more of the racial qualities that were a condition of its very

existence, with the result that in many cases the term 'plebeian' would have

been more appropriate.

A serious state of economic disruption was being brought about by the slow

elimination of the personal control of vested interests and the gradual

transference of the whole economic structure into the hands of joint stock


In this way labour became degraded into an object of speculation in the hands of

unscrupulous exploiters.

The de-personalization of property ownership increased on a vast scale.

Financial exchange circles began to triumph and made slow but sure progress in

assuming control of the whole of national life.

Before the War the internationalization of the German economic structure had

already begun by the roundabout way of share issues. It is true that a section of

the German industrialists made a determined attempt to avert the danger, but in

the end they gave way before the united attacks of money-grabbing capitalism,

which was assisted in this fight by its faithful henchmen in the Marxist


The persistent war against German 'heavy industries' was the visible start of the

internationalization of German economic life as envisaged by the Marxists. This,

however, could only be brought to a successful conclusion by the victory which

Marxism was able to gain in the Revolution. As I write these words, success is




attending the general attack on the German State Railways which are now to be
turned over to international capitalists. Thus 'International Social-Democracy'
has once again attained one of its main objectives.

The best evidence of how far this 'commercialization' of the German nation was
able to go can be plainly seen in the fact that when the War was over one of the
leading captains of German industry and commerce gave it as his opinion that
commerce as such was the only force which could put Germany on its feet

This sort of nonsense was uttered just at the time when France was restoring
public education on a humanitarian basis, thus doing away with the idea that
national life is dependent on commerce rather than ideal values. The statement
which Stinnes broadcasted to the world at that time caused incredible confusion.
It was immediately taken up and has become the leading motto of all those
humbugs and babblers - the 'statesmen' whom Fate let loose on Germany after
the Revolution.

One of the worst evidences of decadence in Germany before the War was the
ever increasing habit of doing things by halves. This was one of the
consequences of the insecurity that was felt all round. And it is to be attributed
also to a certain timidity which resulted from one cause or another. And the
latter malady was aggravated by the educational system.

German education in pre- War times had an extraordinary number of weak
features. It was simply and exclusively limited to the production of pure
knowledge and paid little attention to the development of practical ability. Still
less attention was given to the development of individual character, in so far as
this is ever possible. And hardly any attention at all was paid to the development
of a sense of responsibility, to strengthening the will and the powers of decision.
The result of this method was to produce erudite people who had a passion for
knowing everything. Before the War we Germans were accepted and estimated
accordingly. The German was liked because good use could be made of him; but
there was little esteem for him personally, on account of this weakness of
character. For those who can read its significance aright, there is much
instruction in the fact that among all nationalities Germans were the first to part
with their national citizenship when they found themselves in a foreign country.
And there is a world of meaning in the saying that was then prevalent: 'With the
hat in the hand one can go through the whole country'.

This kind of social etiquette turned out disastrous when it prescribed the
exclusive forms that had to be observed in the presence of His Majesty. These
forms insisted that there should be no contradiction whatsoever, but that
everything should be praised which His Majesty condescended to like.
It was just here that the frank expression of manly dignity, and not subservience,
was most needed. Servility in the presence of monarchs may be good enough for
the professional lackey and place-hunter, in fact for all those decadent beings
who are more pleased to be found moving in the high circles of royalty than




among honest citizens. These exceedingly 'humble' creatures however, though
they grovel before their lord and bread-giver, invariably put on airs of boundless
superciliousness towards other mortals, which was particularly impudent when
they posed as the only people who had the right to be called 'monarchists'. This
was a gross piece of impertinence such as only despicable specimens among the
newly-ennobled or yet-to-be-ennobled could be capable of.
And these have always been just the people who have prepared the way for the
downfall of monarchy and the monarchical principle. It could not be otherwise.
For when a man is prepared to stand up for a cause, come what may, he never
grovels before its representative. A man who is serious about the maintenance
and welfare of an institution will not allow himself to be discouraged when the
representatives of that institution show certain faults and failings. And he
certainly will not run around to tell the world about it, as certain false
democratic 'friends' of the monarchy have done; but he will approach His
Majesty, the bearer of the Crown himself, to warn him of the seriousness of a
situation and persuade the monarch to act. Furthermore, he will not take up the
standpoint that it must be left to His Majesty to act as the latter thinks fit, even
though the course which he would take must plainly lead to disaster. But the
man I am thinking of will deem it his duty to protect the monarchy against the
monarch himself, no matter what personal risk he may run in doing so. If the
worth of the monarchical institution be dependent on the person of the monarch
himself, then it would be the worst institution imaginable; for only in rare cases
are kings found to be models of wisdom and understanding, and integrity of
character, though we might like to think otherwise. But this fact is unpalatable to
the professional knaves and lackeys. Yet all upright men, and they are the
backbone of the nation, repudiate the nonsensical fiction that all monarchs are
wise, etc. For such men history is history and truth is truth, even where
monarchs are concerned. But if a nation should have the good luck to possess a
great king or a great man it ought to consider itself as specially favoured above
all the other nations, and these may be thankful if an adverse fortune has not
allotted the worst to them.

It is clear that the worth and significance of the monarchical principle cannot
rest in the person of the monarch alone, unless Heaven decrees that the crown
should be set on the head of a brilliant hero like Frederick the Great, or a
sagacious person like William I. This may happen once in several centuries, but
hardly oftener than that. The ideal of the monarchy takes precedence of the
person of the monarch, inasmuch as the meaning of the institution must lie in the
institution it self. Thus the monarchy may be reckoned in the category of those
whose duty it is to serve. He, too, is but a wheel in this machine and as such he
is obliged to do his duty towards it. He has to adapt himself for the fulfilment of
high aims. If, therefore , there were no significance attached to the idea itself
and everything merely centred around the 'sacred' person, then it would never
be possible to depose a ruler who has shown himself to be an imbecile.




It is essential to insist upon this truth at the present time, because recently those
phenomena have appeared again and were in no small measure responsible for
the collapse of the monarchy. With a certain amount of native impudence these
persons once again talk about 'their King' - that is to say, the man whom they
shamefully deserted a few years ago at a most critical hour. Those who refrain
from participating in this chorus of lies are summarily classified as 'bad
Germans'. They who make the charge are the same class of quitters who ran
away in 1918 and took to wearing red badges. They thought that discretion was
the better part of valour. They were indifferent about what happened to the
Kaiser. They camouflaged themselves as 'peaceful citizens' but more often than
not they vanished altogether. All of a sudden these champions of royalty were
nowhere to be found at that time. Circumspectly, one by one, these 'servants and
counsellors' of the Crown reappeared, to resume their lip-service to royalty but
only after others had borne the brunt of the anti-royalist attack and suppressed
the Revolution for them. Once again they were all there, remembering wistfully
the flesh-pots of Egypt and almost bursting with devotion for the royal cause.
This went on until the day came when red badges were again in the ascendant.
Then this whole ramshackle assembly of royal worshippers scuttled anew like
mice from the cats.

If monarchs were not themselves responsible for such things one could not help
sympathizing with them. But they must realize that with such champions thrones
can be lost but certainly never gained.

All this devotion was a mistake and was the result of our whole system of
education, which in this case brought about a particularly severe retribution.
Such lamentable trumpery was kept up at the various courts that the monarchy
was slowly becoming under mined. When finally it did begin to totter,
everything was swept away. Naturally, grovellers and lick-spittles are never
willing to die for their masters. That monarchs never realize this, and almost on
principle never really take the trouble to learn it, has always been their undoing.
One visible result of wrong educational system was the fear of shouldering
responsibility and the resultant weakness in dealing with obvious vital problems
of existence.

The starting point of this epidemic, however, was in our parliamentary
institution where the shirking of responsibility is particularly fostered.
Unfortunately the disease slowly spread to all branches of everyday life but
particularly affected the sphere of public affairs. Responsibility was being
shirked everywhere and this led to insufficient or half-hearted measures being
taken, personal responsibility for each act being reduced to a minimum.
If we consider the attitude of various Governments towards a whole series of
really pernicious phenomena in public life, we shall at once recognize the fearful
significance of this policy of half-measures and the lack of courage to undertake
responsibilities. I shall single out only a few from the large numbers of instances
known to me.




In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as a 'Great
Power' within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One
cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the work of education even
in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups:
First, those who believe everything they read;
Second, those who no longer believe anything;

Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments

Numerically, the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad
masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion of the nation. It
cannot be classified according to occupation but only into grades of intelligence.
Under this category come all those who have not been bom to think for
themselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly through
incompetence and partly through ignorance, believe everything that is set before
them in print. To these we must add that type of lazy individual who, although
capable of thinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs
everything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to have been
thoroughly done. The influence which the Press has on all these people is
therefore enormous; for after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation.
But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willing personally to sift what
is being served up to them; so that their whole attitude towards daily problems is
almost solely the result of extraneous influence. All this can be advantageous
where public enlightenment is of a serious and truthful character, but great harm
is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at this work.
The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who
were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter disappointments are
now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print. They hate all
newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or they become exceptionally
annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies
and misstatements. These people are difficult to handle; for they will always be
sceptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive

The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real intellectuals
whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think for themselves and
who in all things try to form their own judgments, while at the same time
carefully sifting what they read. They will not read any newspaper without using
their own intelligence to collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this
does not set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader only
with a certain amount of reservation.

Hence the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little danger -
much less of importance - to the members of the third group of readers. In the
majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard every journalist as
fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the




value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical
strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where wisdom counts for
nothing and majorities for everything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the
masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically
strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the

It is an all-important interest of the State and a national duty to prevent these
people from falling into the hands of false, ignorant or even evil-minded
teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the State to supervise their education and
prevent every form of offence in this respect. Particular attention should be paid
to the Press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most
penetrating of all; since its effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense
significance lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching. Here, if
anywhere, the State should never forget that all means should converge towards
the same end. It must not be led astray by the will-o'-the-wisp of so-called
'freedom of the Press', or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding
from the nation that which is good and which does good. With ruthless
determination the State must keep control of this instrument of popular
education and place it at the service of the State and the Nation.
But what sort of pabulum was it that the German Press served up for the
consumption of its readers in pre- War days? Was it not the worst virulent poison
imaginable? Was not pacifism in its worst form inoculated into our people at a
time when others were preparing slowly but surely to pounce upon Germany?
Did not this self-same Press of ours in peace time already instil into the public
mind a doubt as to the sovereign rights of the State itself, thereby already
handicapping the State in choosing its means of defence? Was it not the German
Press that under stood how to make all the nonsensical talk about 'Western
democracy' palatable to our people, until an exuberant public was eventually
prepared to entrust its future to the League of Nations? Was not this Press
instrumental in bringing in a state of moral degradation among our people?
Were not morals and public decency made to look ridiculous and classed as out-
of-date and banal, until finally our people also became modernized? By means
of persistent attacks, did not the Press keep on undermining the authority of the
State, until one blow sufficed to bring this institution tottering to the ground?
Did not the Press oppose with all its might every movement to give the State
that which belongs to the State, and by means of constant criticism, injure the
reputation of the army, sabotage general conscription and demand refusal of
military credits, etc. - until the success of this campaign was assured?
The function of the so-called liberal Press was to dig the grave for the German
people and Reich. No mention need be made of the lying Marxist Press. To them
the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat.
Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing




the nation to become the slaves of international finance and its masters, the

And what measures did the State take to counteract this wholesale poisoning of
the public mind? None, absolutely nothing at all. By this policy it was hoped to
win the favour of this pest - by means of flattery, by a recognition of the 'value'
of the Press, its 'importance', its 'educative mission' and similar nonsense. The
Jews acknowledged all this with a knowing smile and returned thanks.
The reason for this ignominious failure on the part of the State lay not so much
in its refusal to realize the danger as in the out-and-out cowardly way of meeting
the situation by the adoption of faulty and ineffective measures. No one had the
courage to employ any energetic and radical methods. Everyone temporised in
some way or other; and instead of striking at its heart, the viper was only further
irritated. The result was that not only did everything remain as it was, but the
power of this institution which should have been combated grew greater from
year to year.

The defence put up by the Government in those days against a mainly Jew-
controlled Press that was slowly corrupting the nation, followed no definite line
of action, it had no determination behind it and above all, no fixed objective
whatsoever in view. This is where official understanding of the situation
completely failed both in estimating the importance of the struggle, choosing the
means and deciding on a definite plan. They merely tinkered with the problem.
Occasionally, when bitten, they imprisoned one or another journalistic viper for
a few weeks or months, but the whole poisonous brood was allowed to carry on
in peace.

It must be admitted that all this was partly the result of extraordinary crafty
tactics on the part of Jewry on the one hand, and obvious official stupidity or
naivete on the other hand. The Jews were too clever to allow a simultaneous
attack to be made on the whole of their Press. No one section functioned as
cover for the other. While the Marxist newspaper, in the most despicable manner
possible, reviled everything that was sacred, furiously attacked the State and
Government and incited certain classes of the community against each other, the
bourgeois-democratic papers, also in Jewish hands, knew how to camouflage
themselves as model examples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh
language, knowing well that block-heads are capable of judging only by external
appearances and never able to penetrate to the real depth and meaning of
anything. They measure the worth of an object by its exterior and not by its
content. This form of human frailty was carefully studied and understood by the

For this class of blockheads the Frankfurter Zeitung would be acknowledged as
the essence of respectability. It always carefully avoided calling a spade a spade.
It deprecated the use of every form of physical force and persistently appealed to
the nobility of fighting with 'intellectual' weapons. But this fight, curiously
enough, was most popular with the least intellectual classes. That is one of the




results of our defective education, which turns the youth away from the
instinctive dictates of Nature, pumps into them a certain amount of knowledge
without however being able to bring them to what is the supreme act of
knowing. To this end diligence and goodwill are of no avail, if innate
understanding fail. This final knowledge at which man must aim is the
understanding of causes which are instinctively perceived.
Let me explain: Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever
meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to
encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity
reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to
the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a
separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their
orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are
always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey
them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this
supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself
from their sway.

It is just for intellectual demi-monde that the Jew writes those papers which he
calls his 'intellectual' Press. For them the Frankfurter Zeitung and Berliner
Tageblatt are written, the tone being adapted to them, and it is over these people
that such papers have an influence. While studiously avoiding all forms of
expression that might strike the reader as crude, the poison is injected from other
vials into the hearts of the clientele. The effervescent tone and the fine
phraseology lug the readers into believing that a love for knowledge and moral
principle is the sole driving force that determines the policy of such papers,
whereas in reality these features represent a cunning way of disarming any
opposition that might be directed against the Jews and their Press.
They make such a parade of respectability that the imbecile readers are all the
more ready to believe that the excesses which other papers indulge in are only of
a mild nature and not such as to warrant legal action being taken against them.
Indeed such action might trespass on the freedom of the Press, that expression
being a euphemism under which such papers escape legal punishment for
deceiving the public and poisoning the public mind. Hence the authorities are
very slow indeed to take any steps against these journalistic bandits for fear of
immediately alienating the sympathy of the so-called respectable Press. A fear
that is only too well founded, for the moment any attempt is made to proceed
against any member of the gutter press all the others rush to its assistance at
once, not indeed to support its policy but simply and solely to defend the
principle of freedom of the Press and liberty of public opinion. This outcry will
succeed in cowering the most stalwart; for it comes from the mouth of what is
called decent journalism.

And so this poison was allowed to enter the national bloodstream and infect
public life without the Government taking any effectual measures to master the




course of the disease. The ridiculous half-measures that were taken were in
themselves an indication of the process of disintegration that was already
threatening to break up the Empire. For an institution practically surrenders its
existence when it is no longer determined to defend itself with all the weapons at
its command. Every half-measure is the outward expression of an internal
process of decay which must lead to an external collapse sooner or later.
I believe that our present generation would easily master this danger if they were
rightly led. For this generation has gone through certain experiences which must
have strengthened the nerves of all those who did not become nervously broken
by them. Certainly in days to come the Jews will raise a tremendous cry
throughout their newspapers once a hand is laid on their favourite nest, once a
move is made to put an end to this scandalous Press and once this instrument
which shapes public opinion is brought under State control and no longer left in
the hands of aliens and enemies of the people. I am certain that this will be
easier for us than it was for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel
is more penetrating than the hiss from a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers.
Therefore let them go on with their hissing.

A further example of the weak and hesitating way in which vital national
problems were dealt with in pre- War Germany is the following: Hand in hand
with the political and moral process of infecting the nation, for many years an
equally virulent process of infection had been attacking the public health of the
people. In large cities, particularly, syphilis steadily increased and tuberculosis
kept pace with it in reaping its harvest of death almost in every part of the

Although in both cases the effect on the nation was alarming, it seemed as if
nobody was in a position to undertake any decisive measures against these

In the case of syphilis especially the attitude of the State and public bodies was
one of absolute capitulation. To combat this state of affairs something of far
wider sweep should have been undertaken than was really done. The discovery
of a remedy which is of a questionable nature and the excellent way in which it
was placed on the market were only of little assistance in fighting such a
scourge. Here again the only course to adopt is to attack the disease in its causes
rather than in its symptoms. But in this case the primary cause is to be found in
the manner in which love has been prostituted. Even though this did not directly
bring about the fearful disease itself, the nation must still suffer serious damage
thereby, for the moral havoc resulting from this prostitution would be sufficient
to bring about the destruction of the nation, slowly but surely. This Judaizing of
our spiritual life and mammonizing of our natural instinct for procreation will
sooner or later work havoc with our whole posterity. For instead of strong,
healthy children, blessed with natural feelings, we shall see miserable specimens
of humanity resulting from economic calculation. For economic considerations




are becoming more and more the foundations of marriage and the sole
prehminary condition of it. And love looks for an outlet elsewhere.
Here, as elsewhere, one may defy Nature for a certain period of time; but sooner
or later she will take her inexorable revenge. And when man realizes this truth it
is often too late.

Our own nobility furnishes an example of the devastating consequences that
follow from a persistent refusal to recognize the primary conditions necessary
for normal wedlock. Here we are openly brought face to face with the results of
those reproductive habits which on the one hand are determined by social
pressure and, on the other, by financial considerations. The one leads to
inherited debility and the other to adulteration of the blood-strain; for all the
Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible
mates to co-operate in propagating His Lordship's stock. And the stock certainly
looks it. All this leads to absolute degeneration. Nowadays our bourgeoise are
making efforts to follow in the same path. They will come to the same journey's

These unpleasant truths are hastily and nonchalantly brushed aside, as if by so
doing the real state of affairs could also be abolished. But no. It cannot be
denied that the population of our great towns and cities is tending more and
more to avail of prostitution in the exercise of its amorous instincts and is thus
becoming more and more contaminated by the scourge of venereal disease. On
the one hand, the visible effects of this mass-infection can be observed in our
insane asylums and, on the other hand, alas! among the children at home. These
are the doleful and tragic witnesses to the steadily increasing scourge that is
poisoning our sexual life. Their sufferings are the visible results of parental vice.
There are many ways of becoming resigned to this unpleasant and terrible fact.
Many people go about seeing nothing or, to be more correct, not wanting to see
anything. This is by far the simplest and cheapest attitude to adopt. Others cover
themselves in the sacred mantle of prudery, as ridiculous as it is false. They
describe the whole condition of affairs as sinful and are profoundly indignant
when brought face to face with a victim. They close their eyes in reverend
abhorrence to this godless scourge and pray to the Almighty that He - if possible
after their own death - may rain down fire and brimstone as on Sodom and
Gomorrah and so once again make an out standing example of this shameless
section of humanity. Finally, there are those who are well aware of the terrible
results which this scourge will and must bring about, but they merely shrug their
shoulders, fully convinced of their inability to undertake anything against this
peril. Hence matters are allowed to take their own course.

Undoubtedly all this is very convenient and simple, only it must not be
overlooked that this convenient way of approaching things can have fatal
consequences for our national life. The excuse that other nations are also not
faring any better does not alter the fact of our own deterioration, except that the
feeling of sympathy for other stricken nations makes our own suffering easier to




bear. But the important question that arises here is: Which nation will be the first
to take the initiative in mastering this scourge, and which nations will succumb
to it? This will be the final upshot of the whole situation. The present is a period
of probation for racial values. The race that fails to come through the test will
simply die out and its place will be taken by the healthier and stronger races,
which will be able to endure greater hardships. As this problem primarily
concerns posterity, it belongs to that category of which it is said with terrible
justification that the sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring unto the
tenth generation. This is a consequence which follows on an infringement of the
laws of blood and race.

The sin against blood and race is the hereditary sin in this world and it brings
disaster on every nation that commits it.

The attitude towards this one vital problem in pre-War Germany was most
regrettable. What measures were undertaken to arrest the infection of our youth
in the large cities? What was done to put an end to the contamination and
mammonization of sexual life among us? What was done to fight the resultant
spreading of syphilis throughout the whole of our national life? The reply to this
question can best be illustrated by showing what should have been done.
Instead of tackling this problem in a haphazard way, the authorities should have
realized that the fortunes or misfortunes of future generations depended on its
solution. But to admit this would have demanded that active measures be carried
out in a ruthless manner. The primary condition would have been that the
enlightened attention of the whole country should be concentrated on this
terrible danger, so that every individual would realize the importance of fighting
against it. It would be futile to impose obligations of a definite character - which
are often difficult to bear - and expect them to become generally effective,
unless the public be thoroughly instructed on the necessity of imposing and
accepting such obligations. This demands a widespread and systematic method
of enlightenment and all other daily problems that might distract public attention
from this great central problem should be relegated to the background.
In every case where there are exigencies or tasks that seem impossible to deal
with successfully public opinion must be concentrated on the one problem,
under the conviction that the solution of this problem alone is a matter of life or
death. Only in this way can public interest be aroused to such a pitch as will
urge people to combine in a great voluntary effort and achieve important results.
This fundamental truth applies also to the individual, provided he is desirous of
attaining some great end. He must always concentrate his efforts to one
definitely limited stage of his progress which has to be completed before the
next step be attempted. Those who do not endeavour to realize their aims step by
step and who do not concentrate their energy in reaching the individual stages,
will never attain the final objective. At some stage or other they will falter and
fail. This systematic way of approaching an objective is an art in itself, and




always calls for the expenditure of every ounce of energy in order to conquer
step after step of the road.

Therefore the most essential preliminary condition necessary for an attack on
such a difficult stage of the human road is that the authorities should succeed in
convincing the masses that the immediate objective which is now being fought
for is the only one that deserves to be considered and the only one on which
everything depends. The broad masses are never able clearly to see the whole
stretch of the road lying in front of them without becoming tired and thus losing
faith in their ability to complete the task. To a certain extent they will keep the
objective in mind, but they are only able to survey the whole road in small
stages, as in the case of the traveller who knows where his journey is going to
end but who masters the endless stretch far better by attacking it in degrees.
Only in this way can he keep up his determination to reach the final objective.
It is in this way, with the assistance of every form of propaganda, that the
problem of fighting venereal disease should be placed before the public - not as
a task for the nation but as the main task. Every possible means should be
employed to bring the truth about this scourge home to the minds of the people,
until the whole nation has been convinced that everything depends on the
solution of this problem; that is to say, a healthy future or national decay.
Only after such preparatory measures - if necessary spread over a period of
many years - will public attention and public resolution be fully aroused, and
only then can serious and definite measures be undertaken without running the
risk of not being fully understood or of being suddenly faced with a slackening
of the public will. It must be made clear to all that a serious fight against this
scourge calls for vast sacrifices and an enormous amount of work.
To wage war against syphilis means fighting against prostitution, against
prejudice, against old-established customs, against current fashion, public
opinion, and, last but not least, against false prudery in certain circles.
The first preliminary condition to be fulfilled before the State can claim a moral
right to fight against all these things is that the young generation should be
afforded facilities for contracting early marriages. Late marriages have the
sanction of a custom which, from whatever angle we view it, is and will remain
a disgrace to humanity.

Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity and cannot be removed simply by
charitable or academic methods. Its restriction and final extermination
presupposes the removal of a whole series of contributory circumstances. The
first remedy must always be to establish such conditions as will make early
marriages possible, especially for young men - for women are, after all, only
passive subjects in this matter.

An illustration of the extent to which people have so often been led astray
nowadays is afforded by the fact that not infrequently one hears mothers in so-
called 'better' circles openly expressing their satisfaction at having found as a
husband for their daughter a man who has already sown his wild oats, etc. As




there is usually so little shortage in men of this type, the poor girl finds no
difficulty in getting a mate of this description, and the children of this marriage
are a visible result of such supposedly sensible unions.

When one realizes, apart from this, that every possible effort is being made to
hinder the process of procreation and that Nature is being wilfully cheated of her
rights, there remains really only one question: Why is such an institution as
marriage still in existence, and what are its functions? Is it really nothing better
than prostitution? Does our duty to posterity no longer play any part? Or do
people not realize the nature of the curse they are inflicting on themselves and
their offspring by such criminally foolish neglect of one of the primary laws of
Nature? This is how civilized nations degenerate and gradually perish.
Marriage is not an end in itself but must serve the greater end, which is that of
increasing and maintaining the human species and the race. This is its only
meaning and purpose.

This being admitted, then it is clear that the institution of marriage must be
judged by the manner in which its allotted function is fulfilled. Therefore early
marriages should be the rule, because thus the young couple will still have that
pristine force which is the fountain head of a healthy posterity with unimpaired
powers of resistance. Of course early marriages cannot be made the rule unless a
whole series of social measures are first undertaken without which early
marriages cannot be even thought of . In other words, a solution of this question,
which seems a small problem in itself, cannot be brought about without adopting
radical measures to alter the social background. The importance of such
measures ought to be studied and properly estimated, especially at a time when
the so-called 'social' Republic has shown itself unable to solve the housing
problem and thus has made it impossible for innumerable couples to get
married. That sort of policy prepares the way for the further advance of

Another reason why early marriages are impossible is our nonsensical method of
regulating the scale of salaries, which pays far too little attention to the problem
of family support. Prostitution, therefore, can only be really seriously tackled if,
by means of a radical social reform, early marriage is made easier than hitherto.
This is the first preliminary necessity for the solution of this problem.
Secondly, a whole series of false notions must be eradicated from our system of
bringing up and educating children - things which hitherto no one seems to have
worried about. In our present educational system a balance will have to be
established, first and foremost, between mental instruction and physical training.
What is known as Gymnasium (Grammar School) to-day is a positive insult to
the Greek institution. Our system of education entirely loses sight of the fact that
in the long run a healthy mind can exist only in a healthy body. This statement,
with few exceptions, applies particularly to the broad masses of the nation.
In the pre- War Germany there was a time when no one took the trouble to think
over this truth. Training of the body was criminally neglected, the one-sided




training of the mind being regarded as a sufficient guarantee for the nation's
greatness. This mistake was destined to show its effects sooner than had been
anticipated. It is not pure chance that the Bolshevic teaching flourishes in those
regions whose degenerate population has been brought to the verge of
starvation, as, for example, in the case of Central Germany, Saxony, and the
Ruhr Valley. In all these districts there is a marked absence of any serious
resistance, even by the so-called intellectual classes, against this Jewish
contagion. And the simple reason is that the intellectual classes are themselves
physically degenerate, not through privation but through education. The
exclusive intellectualism of the education in vogue among our upper classes
makes them unfit for life's struggle at an epoch in which physical force and not
mind is the dominating factor. Thus they are neither capable of maintaining
themselves nor of making their way in life. In nearly every case physical
disability is the forerunner of personal cowardice.

The extravagant emphasis laid on purely intellectual education and the
consequent neglect of physical training must necessarily lead to sexual thoughts
in early youth. Those boys whose constitutions have been trained and hardened
by sports and gymnastics are less prone to sexual indulgence than those stay-at-
homes who have been fed exclusively with mental pabulum. Sound methods of
education cannot, however, afford to disregard this, and we must not forget that
the expectations of a healthy young man from a woman will differ from those of
a weakling who has been prematurely corrupted.

Thus in every branch of our education the day's curriculum must be arranged so
as to occupy a boy's free time in profitable development of his physical powers.
He has no right in those years to loaf about, becoming a nuisance in public
streets and in cinemas; but when his day's work is done he ought to harden his
young body so that his strength may not be found wanting when the occasion
arises. To prepare for this and to carry it out should be the function of our
educational system and not exclusively to pump in knowledge or wisdom. Our
school system must also rid itself of the notion that the training of the body is a
task that should be left to the individual himself. There is no such thing as
allowing freedom of choice to sin against posterity and thus against the race.
The fight against pollution of the mind must be waged simultaneously with the
training of the body. To-day the whole of our public life may be compared to a
hot-house for the forced growth of sexual notions and incitements. A glance at
the bill-of-fare provided by our cinemas, playhouses, and theatres suffices to
prove that this is not the right food, especially for our young people. Hoardings
and advertisements kiosks combine to attract the public in the most vulgar
manner. Anyone who has not altogether lost contact with adolescent yearnings
will realize that all this must have very grave consequences. This seductive and
sensuous atmosphere puts notions into the heads of our youth which, at their
age, ought still to be unknown to them. Unfortunately, the results of this kind of
education can best be seen in our contemporary youth who are prematurely




grown up and therefore old before their time. The law courts from time to time
throw a distressing light on the spiritual life of our 14- and 15-year old children.
Who, therefore, will be surprised to learn that venereal disease claims its victims
at this age? And is it not a frightful shame to see the number of physically weak
and intellectually spoiled young men who have been introduced to the mysteries
of marriage by the whores of the big cities?

No; those who want seriously to combat prostitution must first of all assist in
removing the spiritual conditions on which it thrives. They will have to clean up
the moral pollution of our city 'culture' fearlessly and without regard for the
outcry that will follow. If we do not drag our youth out of the morass of their
present environment they will be engulfed by it. Those people who do not want
to see these things are deliberately encouraging them and are guilty of spreading
the effects of prostitution to the future - for the future belongs to our young
generation. This process of cleansing our 'Kultur' will have to be applied in
practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the Press and
advertisement posters, all must have the stains of pollution removed and be
placed in the service of a national and cultural idea. The life of the people must
be freed from the asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism and also from
every unmanly and prudish form of insincerity. In all these things the aim and
the method must be determined by thoughtful consideration for the preservation
of our national well-being in body and soul. The right to personal freedom
comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining the race.
Only after such measures have been put into practice can a medical campaign
against this scourge begin with some hope of success. But, here again, half-
measures will be valueless. Far-reaching and important decisions will have to be
made. It would be doing things by halves if incurables were given the
opportunity of infecting one healthy person after another. This would be that
kind of humanitarianism which would allow hundreds to perish in order to save
the suffering of one individual. The demand that it should be made impossible
for defective people to continue to propagate defective offspring is a demand
that is based on most reasonable grounds, and its proper fulfilment is the most
humane task that mankind has to face. Unhappy and undeserved suffering in
millions of cases will be spared, with the result that there will be a gradual
improvement in national health. A determined decision to act in this manner will
at the same time provide an obstacle against the further spread of venereal
disease. It would then be a case, where necessary, of mercilessly isolating all
incurables - perhaps a barbaric measure for those unfortunates - but a blessing
for the present generation and for posterity. The temporary pain thus
experienced in this century can and will spare future thousands of generations
from suffering.

The fight against syphilis and its pace-maker, prostitution, is one of the gigantic
tasks of mankind; gigantic, because it is not merely a case of solving a single
problem but the removal of a whole series of evils which are the contributory




causes of this scourge. Disease of the body in this case is merely the resuh of a
diseased condition of the moral, social, and racial instincts.
But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is not fought to a finish
we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years hence. Little of God's
image will be left in human nature, except to mock the Creator.
But what has been done in Germany to counteract this scourge? If we think
calmly over the answer we shall find it distressing. It is true that in
governmental circles the terrible and injurious effects of this disease were well
known, but the counter-measures which were officially adopted were ineffective
and a hopeless failure. They tinkered with cures for the symptoms, wholly
regardless of the cause of the disease. Prostitutes were medically examined and
controlled as far as possible, and when signs of infection were apparent they
were sent to hospital . When outwardly cured, they were once more let loose on

It is true that 'protective legislation' was introduced which made sexual
intercourse a punishable offence for all those not completely cured, or those
suffering from venereal disease. This legislation was correct in theory, but in
practice it failed completely. In the first place, in the majority of cases women
will decline to appear in court as witnesses against men who have robbed them
of their health. Women would be exposed far more than men to uncharitable
remarks in such cases, and one can imagine what their position would be if they
had been infected by their own husbands. Should women in that case lay a
charge? Or what should they do?

In the case of the man there is the additional fact that he frequently is
unfortunate enough to run up against this danger when he is under the influence
of alcohol. His condition makes it impossible for him to assess the qualities of
his 'amorous beauty,' a fact which is well known to every diseased prostitute
and makes them single out men in this ideal condition for preference. The result
is that the unfortunate man is not able to recollect later on who his
compassionate benefactress was, which is not surprising in cities like Berlin and
Munich. Many of such cases are visitors from the provinces who, held
speechless and enthralled by the magic charm of city life, become an easy prey
for prostitutes.

In the final analysis who is able to say whether he has been infected or not?
Are there not innumerable cases on record where an apparently cured person has
a relapse and does untold harm without knowing it?

Therefore in practice the results of these legislative measures are negative. The
same applies to the control of prostitution, and, finally, even medical treatment
and cure are nowadays unsafe and doubtful. One thing only is certain. The
scourge has spread further and further in spite of all measures, and this alone
suffices definitely to stamp and substantiate their inefficiency.




Everything else that was undertaken was just as inefficient as it was absurd. The
spiritual prostitution of the people was neither arrested nor was anything
whatsoever undertaken in this direction.

Those, however, who do not regard this subject as a serious one would do well
to examine the statistical data of the spread of this disease, study its growth in
the last century and contemplate the possibilities of its further development. The
ordinary observer, unless he were particularly stupid, would experience a cold
shudder if the position were made clear to him.

The half-hearted and wavering attitude adopted in pre- War Germany towards
this iniquitous condition can assuredly be taken as a visible sign of national
decay. When the courage to fight for one's own health is no longer in evidence,
then the right to live in this world of struggle also ceases.
One of the visible signs of decay in the old Reich was the slow setback which
the general cultural level experienced. But by 'Kultur' I do not mean that which
we nowadays style as civilization, which on the contrary may rather be regarded
as inimical to the spiritual elevation of life.

At the turn of the last century a new element began to make its appearance in
our world. It was an element which had been hitherto absolutely unknown and
foreign to us. In former times there had certainly been offences against good
taste; but these were mostly departures from the orthodox canons of art, and
posterity could recognize a certain historical value in them. But the new
products showed signs, not only of artistic aberration but of spiritual
degeneration. Here, in the cultural sphere, the signs of the coming collapse first
became manifest.

The Bolshevization of art is the only cultural form of life and the only spiritual
manifestation of which Bolshevism is capable.

Anyone to whom this statement may appear strange need only take a glance at
those lucky States which have become Bolshevized and, to his horror, he will
there recognize those morbid monstrosities which have been produced by insane
and degenerate people. All those artistic aberrations which are classified under
the names of cubism and dadism, since the opening of the present century, are
manifestations of art which have come to be officially recognized by the State
itself. This phenomenon made its appearance even during the short-lived period
of the Soviet Republic in Bavaria. At that time one might easily have recognized
how all the official posters, propagandist pictures and newspapers, etc., showed
signs not only of political but also of cultural decadence.

About sixty years ago a political collapse such as we are experiencing to-day
would have been just as inconceivable as the cultural decline which has been
manifested in cubist and futurist pictures ever since 1900. Sixty years ago an
exhibition of so-called dadistic 'experiences' would have been an absolutely
preposterous idea. The organizers of such an exhibition would then have been
certified for the lunatic asylum, whereas, to-day they are appointed presidents of
art societies. At that time such an epidemic would never have been allowed to




spread. Public opinion would not have tolerated it, and the Government would
not have remained silent; for it is the duty of a Government to save its people
from being stampeded into such intellectual madness. But intellectual madness
would have resulted from a development that followed the acceptance of this
kind of art. It would have marked one of the worst changes in human history; for
it would have meant that a retrogressive process had begun to take place in the
human brain, the final stages of which would be unthinkable.
If we study the course of our cultural life during the last twenty-five years we
shall be astonished to note how far we have already gone in this process of
retrogression. Everywhere we find the presence of those germs which give rise
to protuberant growths that must sooner or later bring about the ruin of our
culture. Here we find undoubted symptoms of slow corruption; and woe to the
nations that are no longer able to bring that morbid process to a halt.
In almost all the various fields of German art and culture those morbid
phenomena may be observed. Here everything seems to have passed the
culminating point of its excellence and to have entered the curve of a hasty
decline. At the beginning of the century the theatres seemed already
degenerating and ceasing to be cultural factors, except the Court theatres, which
opposed this prostitution of the national art. With these exceptions, and also a
few other decent institutions, the plays produced on the stage were of such a
nature that the people would have benefited by not visiting them at all. A sad
symptom of decline was manifested by the fact that in the case of many 'art
centres' the sign was posted on the entrance doors: For Adults Only.
Let it be borne in mind that these precautions had to be taken in regard to
institutions whose main purpose should have been to promote the education of
the youth and not merely to provide amusement for sophisticated adults. What
would the great dramatists of other times have said of such measures and, above
all, of the conditions which made these measures necessary? How exasperated
Schiller would have been, and how Goethe would have turned away in disgust!
But what are Schiller, Goethe and Shakespeare when confronted with the heroes
of our modern German literature? Old and frowsy and outmoded and finished.
For it was typical of this epoch that not only were its own products bad but that
the authors of such products and their backers reviled everything that had really
been great in the past. This is a phenomenon that is very characteristic of such
epochs. The more vile and miserable are the men and products of an epoch, the
more they will hate and denigrate the ideal achievements of former generations.
What these people would like best would be completely to destroy every vestige
of the past, in order to do away with that sole standard of comparison which
prevents their own daubs from being looked upon as art. Therefore the more
lamentable and wretched are the products of each new era, the more it will try to
obliterate all the memorials of the past. But any real innovation that is for the
benefit of mankind can always face comparison with the best of what has gone
before; and frequently it happens that those monuments of the past guarantee the




acceptance of those modern productions. There is no fear that modem
productions of real worth will look pale and worthless beside the monuments of
the past. What is contributed to the general treasury of human culture often
fulfils a part that is necessary in order to keep the memory of old achievements
alive, because this memory alone is the standard whereby our own works are
properly appreciated. Only those who have nothing of value to give to the world
will oppose everything that already exists and would have it destroyed at all

And this holds good not only for new phenomena in the cultural domain but also
in politics. The more inferior new revolutionary movements are, the more will
they try to denigrate the old forms. Here again the desire to pawn off their
shoddy products as great and original achievements leads them into a blind
hatred against everything which belongs to the past and which is superior to
their own work. As long as the historical memory of Frederick the Great, for
instance, still lives, Frederick Ebert can arouse only a problematic admiration.
The relation of the hero of Sans Souci to the former republican of Bremen may
be compared to that of the sun to the moon; for the moon can shine only after
the direct rays of the sun have left the earth. Thus we can readily understand
why it is that all the new moons in human history have hated the fixed stars. In
the field of politics, if Fate should happen temporarily to place the ruling power
in the hands of those nonentities they are not only eager to defile and revile the
past but at the same time they will use all means to evade criticism of their own
acts. The Law for the Protection of the Republic, which the new German State
enacted, may be taken as one example of this truth.

One has good grounds to be suspicious in regard to any new idea, or any
doctrine or philosophy, any political or economical movement, which tries to
deny everything that the past has produced or to present it as inferior and
worthless. Any renovation which is really beneficial to human progress will
always have to begin its constructive work at the level where the last stones of
the structure have been laid. It need not blush to utilize those truths which have
already been established; for all human culture, as well as man himself, is only
the result of one long line of development, where each generation has
contributed but one stone to the building of the whole structure. The meaning
and purpose of revolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building but to take
away what has not been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to rebuild the free
space thus caused, after which the main construction of the building will be
carried on.

Thus alone will it be possible to talk of human progress; for otherwise the world
would never be free of chaos, since each generation would feel entitled to reject
the past and to destroy all the work of the past, as the necessary preliminary to
any new work of its own.

The saddest feature of the condition in which our whole civilization found itself
before the War was the fact that it was not only barren of any creative force to




produce its own works of art and civilization but that it hated, defiled and tried
to efface the memory of the superior works produced in the past. About the end
of the last century people were less interested in producing new significant
works of their own - particularly in the fields of dramatic art and literature - than
in defaming the best works of the past and in presenting them as inferior and
antiquated. As if this period of disgraceful decadence had the slightest capacity
to produce anything of superior quality! The efforts made to conceal the past
from the eyes of the present afforded clear evidence of the fact that these
apostles of the future acted from an evil intent. These symptoms should have
made it clear to all that it was not a question of new, though wrong, cultural
ideas but of a process which was undermining the very foundations of
civilization. It threw the artistic feeling which had hitherto been quite sane into
utter confusion, thus spiritually preparing the way for political Bolshevism. If
the creative spirit of the Periclean age be manifested in the Parthenon, then the
Bolshevist era is manifested through its cubist grimace.

In this connection attention must be drawn once again to the want of courage
displayed by one section of our people, namely, by those who, in virtue of their
education and position, ought to have felt themselves obliged to take up a firm
stand against this outrage on our culture. But they refrained from offering
serious resistance and surrendered to what they considered the inevitable. This
abdication of theirs was due, however, to sheer funk lest the apostles of
Bolshevist art might raise a rumpus; for those apostles always violently attacked
everyone who was not ready to recognize them as the choice spirits of artistic
creation, and they tried to strangle all opposition by saying that it was the
product of Philistine and backwater minds. People trembled in fear lest they
might be accused by these yahoos and swindlers of lacking artistic appreciation,
as if it would have been a disgrace not to be able to understand and appreciate
the effusions of those mental degenerates or arrant rogues. Those cultural
disciples, however, had a very simple way of presenting their own effusions as
works of the highest quality. They offered incomprehensible and manifestly
crazy productions to their amazed contemporaries as what they called 'an inner
experience'. Thus they forestalled all adverse criticism at very little cost indeed.
Of course nobody ever doubted that there could have been inner experiences like
that, but some doubt ought to have arisen as to whether or not there was any
justification for exposing these hallucinations of psychopaths or criminals to the
sane portion of human society. The works produced by a Moritz von Schwind or
a Bocklin were also extemalizations of an inner experience, but these were the
experiences of divinely gifted artists and not of buffoons.

This situation afforded a good opportunity of studying the miserable
cowardliness of our so-called intellectuals who shirked the duty of offering
serious resistance to the poisoning of the sound instincts of our people. They left
it to the people themselves to formulate their own attitude towards his impudent
nonsense. Lest they might be considered as understanding nothing of art, they




accepted every caricature of art, until they finally lost the power of judging what
is really good or bad.

Taken all in all, there were superabundant symptoms to show that a diseased
epoch had begun.

Still another critical symptom has to be considered. In the course of the
nineteenth century our towns and cities began more and more to lose their
character as centres of civilization and became more and more centres of
habitation. In our great modern cities the proletariat does not show much
attachment to the place where it lives. This feeling results from the fact that their
dwelling-place is nothing but an accidental abode, and that feeling is also partly
due to the frequent change of residence which is forced upon them by social
conditions. There is no time for the growth of any attachment to the town in
which they live. But another reason lies in the cultural barrenness and
superficiality of our modern cities. At the time of the German Wars of
Liberation our German towns and cities were not only small in number but also
very modest in size. The few that could really be called great cities were mostly
the residential cities of princes; as such they had almost always a definite
cultural value and also a definite cultural aspect. Those few towns which had
more than fifty thousand inhabitants were, in comparison with modern cities of
the same size, rich in scientific and artistic treasures. At the time when Munich
had not more than sixty thousand souls it was already well on the way to
become one of the first German centres of art. Nowadays almost every industrial
town has a population at least as large as that, without having anything of real
value to call its own. They are agglomerations of tenement houses and
congested dwelling barracks, and nothing else. It would be a miracle if anybody
should grow sentimentally attached to such a meaningless place. Nobody can
grow attached to a place which offers only just as much or as little as any other
place would offer, which has no character of its own and where obviously pains
have been taken to avoid everything that might have any resemblance to an
artistic appearance.

But this is not all. Even the great cities become more barren of real works of art
the more they increase in population. They assume more and more a neutral
atmosphere and present the same aspect, though on a larger scale, as the
wretched little factory towns. Everything that our modern age has contributed to
the civilization of our great cities is absolutely deficient. All our towns are living
on the glory and the treasures of the past. If we take away from the Munich of
to-day everything that was created under Ludwig II we should be horror-stricken
to see how meagre has been the output of important artistic creations since that
time. One might say much the same of Berlin and most of our other great towns.
But the following is the essential thing to be noticed: Our great modem cities
have no outstanding monuments that dominate the general aspect of the city and
could be pointed to as the symbols of a whole epoch. Yet almost every ancient
town had a monument erected to its glory. It was not in private dwellings that




the characteristic art of ancient cities was displayed but in the pubHc
monuments, which were not meant to have a transitory interest but an enduring
one. And this was because they did not represent the weahh of some individual
citizen but the greatness and importance of the community. It was under this
inspiration that those monuments arose which bound the individual inhabitants
to their own town in a manner that is often almost incomprehensible to us to-
day. What struck the eye of the individual citizen was not a number of mediocre
private buildings, but imposing structures that belonged to the whole
community. In contradistinction to these, private dwellings were of only very
secondary importance indeed.

When we compare the size of those ancient public buildings with that of the
private dwellings belonging to the same epoch then we can understand the great
importance which was given to the principle that those works which reflected
and affected the life of the community should take precedence of all others.
Among the broken arches and vast spaces that are covered with ruins from the
ancient world the colossal riches that still arouse our wonder have not been left
to us from the commercial palaces of these days but from the temples of the
Gods and the public edifices that belonged to the State. The community itself
was the owner of those great edifices. Even in the pomp of Rome during the
decadence it was not the villas and palaces of some citizens that filled the most
prominent place but rather the temples and the baths, the stadia, the circuses, the
aqueducts, the basilicas, etc., which belonged to the State and therefore to the
people as a whole.

In medieval Germany also the same principle held sway, although the artistic
outlook was quite different. In ancient times the theme that found its expression
in the Acropolis or the Pantheon was now clothed in the forms of the Gothic
Cathedral. In the medieval cities these monumental structures towered
gigantically above the swarm of smaller buildings with their framework walls of
wood and brick. And they remain the dominant feature of these cities even to
our own day, although they are becoming more and more obscured by the
apartment barracks. They determine the character and appearance of the locality.
Cathedrals, city-halls, com exchanges, defence towers, are the outward
expression of an idea which has its counterpart only in the ancient world.
The dimensions and quality of our public buildings to-day are in deplorable
contrast to the edifices that represent private interests. If a similar fate should
befall Berlin as befell Rome future generations might gaze upon the ruins of
some Jewish department stores or joint-stock hotels and think that these were the
characteristic expressions of the culture of our time. In Berlin itself, compare the
shameful disproportion between the buildings which belong to the Reich and
those which have been erected for the accommodation of trade and finance.
The credits that are voted for public buildings are in most cases inadequate and
really ridiculous. They are not built as structures that were meant to last but
mostly for the purpose of answering the need of the moment. No higher idea




influenced those who commissioned such buildings. At the time the Berhn
Schloss was buih it had a quite different significance from what the new Hbrary
has for our time, seeing that one battleship alone represents an expenditure of
about sixty million marks, whereas less than half that sum was allotted for the
building of the Reichstag, which is the most imposing structure erected for the
Reich and which should have been built to last for ages. Yet, in deciding the
question of internal decoration, the Upper House voted against the use of stone
and ordered that the walls should be covered with stucco. For once, however, the
parliamentarians made an appropriate decision on that occasion; for plaster
heads would be out of place between stone walls.

The community as such is not the dominant characteristic of our contemporary
cities, and therefore it is not to be wondered at if the community does not find
itself architecturally represented. Thus we must eventually arrive at a veritable
civic desert which will at last be reflected in the total indifference of the
individual citizen towards his own country.

This is also a sign of our cultural decay and general break-up. Our era is entirely
preoccupied with little things which are to no purpose, or rather it is entirely
preoccupied in the service of money. Therefore it is not to be wondered at if,
with the worship of such an idol, the sense of heroism should entirely disappear.
But the present is only reaping what the past has sown.

All these symptoms which preceded the final collapse of the Second Empire
must be attributed to the lack of a definite and uniformly accepted
Weltanschhauung and the general uncertainty of outlook consequent on that
lack. This uncertainty showed itself when the great questions of the time had to
be considered one after another and a decisive policy adopted towards them.
This lack is also accountable for the habit of doing everything by halves,
beginning with the educational system, the shilly-shally, the reluctance to
undertake responsibilites and, finally, the cowardly tolerance of evils that were
even admitted to be destructive. Visionary humanitarianisms became the
fashion. In weakly submitting to these aberrations and sparing the feelings of the
individual, the future of millions of human beings was sacrificed.
An examination of the religious situation before the War shows that the general
process of disruption had extended to this sphere also. A great part of the nation
itself had for a long time already ceased to have any convictions of a uniform
and practical character in their ideological outlook on life. In this matter the
point of primary importance was by no means the number of people who
renounced their church membership but rather the widespread indifference.
While the two Christian denominations maintained missions in Asia and Africa,
for the purpose of securing new adherents to the Faith, these same
denominations were losing millions and millions of their adherents at home in
Europe. These former adherents either gave up religion wholly as a directive
force in their lives or they adopted their own interpretation of it. The
consequences of this were specially felt in the moral life of the country. In




parenthesis it may be remarked that the progress made by the missions in
spreading the Christian Faith abroad was only quite modest in comparison with
the spread of Mohammedanism.

It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic principles underlying
ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in violence. And yet this human world
of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious
belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the
masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral
outlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown
any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the
existing denominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once
accepted by the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absolute
authority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort.
There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely
and intelligently without depending on the general standards that prevail in
everyday life, but the millions of others cannot do so. Now the place which
general custom fills in everyday life corresponds to that of general laws in the
State and dogma in religion. The purely spiritual idea is of itself a changeable
thing that may be subjected to endless interpretations. It is only through dogma
that it is given a precise and concrete form without which it could not become a
living faith. Otherwise the spiritual idea would never become anything more
than a mere metaphysical concept, or rather a philosophical opinion.
Accordingly the attack against dogma is comparable to an attack against the
general laws on which the State is founded. And so this attack would finally lead
to complete political anarchy if it were successful, just as the attack on religion
would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.

The political leader should not estimate the worth of a religion by taking some
of its shortcomings into account, but he should ask himself whether there be any
practical substitute in a view which is demonstrably better. Until such a
substitute be available only fools and criminals would think of abolishing the
existing religion.

Undoubtedly no small amount of blame for the present unsatisfactory religious
situation must be attributed to those who have encumbered the ideal of religion
with purely material accessories and have thus given rise to an utterly futile
conflict between religion and science. In this conflict victory will nearly always
be on the side of science, even though after a bitter struggle, while religion will
suffer heavily in the eyes of those who cannot penetrate beneath the mere
superficial aspects of science.

But the greatest damage of all has come from the practice of debasing religion as
a means that can be exploited to serve political interests, or rather commercial
interests. The impudent and loud-mouthed liars who do this make their
profession of faith before the whole world in stentorian tones so that all poor
mortals may hear - not that they are ready to die for it if necessary but rather that




they may live all the better. They are ready to sell their faith for any political
quid pro quo. For ten parliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with
the Marxists, who are the mortal foes of all religion. And for a seat in the
Cabinet they would go the length of wedlock with the devil, if the latter had not
still retained some traces of decency.

If religious life in pre-war Germany had a disagreeable savour for the mouths of
many people this was because Christianity had been lowered to base uses by
political parties that called themselves Christian and because of the shameful
way in which they tried to identify the Catholic Faith with a political party.
This substitution was fatal. It procured some worthless parliamentary mandates
for the party in question, but the Church suffered damage thereby.
The consequences of that situation had to be borne by the whole nation; for the
laxity that resulted in religious life set in at a juncture when everything was
beginning to lose hold and vacillate and the traditional foundations of custom
and of morality were threatening to fall asunder.

Yet all those cracks and clefts in the social organism might not have been
dangerous if no grave burdens had been laid upon it; but they became disastrous
when the internal solidarity of the nation was the most important factor in
withstanding the storm of big events.

In the political field also observant eyes might have noticed certain anomalies of
the Reich which foretold disaster unless some alteration and correction took
place in time. The lack of orientation in German policy, both domestic and
foreign, was obvious to everyone who was not purposely blind. The best thing
that could be said about the practice of making compromises is that it seemed
outwardly to be in harmony with Bismarck's axiom that 'politics is the art of the
possible'. But Bismarck was a slightly different man from the Chancellors who
followed him. This difference allowed the former to apply that formula to the
very essence of his policy, while in the mouths of the others it took on an utterly
different significance. When he uttered that phrase Bismarck meant to say that
in order to attain a definite political end all possible means should be employed
or at least that all possibilities should be tried. But his successors see in that
phrase only a solemn declaration that one is not necessarily bound to have
political principles or any definite political aims at all. And the political leaders
of the Reich at that time had no far-seeing policy. Here, again, the necessary
foundation was lacking, namely, a definite Weltanschhauung, and these leaders
also lacked that clear insight into the laws of political evolution which is a
necessary quality in political leadership.

Many people who took a gloomy view of things at that time condemned the lack
of ideas and lack of orientation which were evident in directing the policy of the
Reich. They recognized the inner weakness and futility of this policy. But such
people played only a secondary role in politics. Those who had the Government
of the country in their hands were quite as indifferent to principles of civil
wisdom laid down by thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain as our




political leaders now are. These people are too stupid to think for themselves,
and they have too much self-conceit to take from others the instruction which
they need. Oxenstierna 14) gave expression to a truth which has lasted since
time immemorial, when he said that the world is governed by only a particle of
wisdom. Almost every civil servant of councillor rank might naturally be
supposed to possess only an atom or so belonging to this particle. But since
Germany became a Republic even this modicum is wanting. And that is why
they had to promulgate the Law for the Defence of the Republic, which prohibits
the holding of such views or expressing them. It was fortunate for Oxenstierna
that he lived at that time and not in this wise Republic of our time.
Already before the War that institution which should have represented the
strength of the Reich - the Parliament, the Reichstag - was widely recognized as
its weakest feature. Cowardliness and fear of shouldering responsibilities were
associated together there in a perfect fashion.

One of the silliest notions that one hears expressed to-day is that in Germany the
parliamentary institution has ceased to function since the Revolution. This might
easily be taken to imply that the case was different before the Revolution. But in
reality the parliamentary institution never functioned except to the detriment of
the country. And it functioned thus in those days when people saw nothing or
did not wish to see anything. The German downfall is to be attributed in no
small degree to this institution. But that the catastrophe did not take place sooner
is not to be credited to the Parliament but rather to those who opposed the
influence of this institution which, during peace times, was digging the grave of
the German Nation and the German Reich.

From the immense mass of devastating evils that were due either directly or
indirectly to the Parliament I shall select one the most intimately typical of this
institution which was the most irresponsible of all time. The evil I speak of was
seen in the appalling shilly-shally and weakness in conducting the internal and
external affairs of the Reich. It was attributable in the first place to the action of
the Reichstag and was one of the principal causes of the political collapse.
Everything subject to the influence of Parliament was done by halves, no matter
from what aspect you may regard it.

The foreign policy of the Reich in the matter of alliances was an example of
shilly-shally. They wished to maintain peace, but in doing so they steered
straight, into war.

Their Polish policy was also carried out by half-measures. It resulted neither in a
German triumph nor Polish conciliation, and it made enemies of the Russians.
They tried to solve the Alsace-Lorraine question through half-measures. Instead
of crushing the head of the French hydra once and for all with the mailed fist
and granting Alsace-Lorraine equal rights with the other German States, they did
neither the one nor the other. Anyhow, it was impossible for them to do
otherwise, for they had among their ranks the greatest traitors to the country,
such as Herr Wetterle of the Centre Party.




But still the country might have been able to bear with all this provided the half-
measure policy had not victimized that force in which, as the last resort, the
existence of the Empire depended: namely, the Army.

The crime committed by the so-called German Reichstag in this regard was
sufficient of itself to draw down upon it the curses of the German Nation for all
time. On the most miserable of pretexts these parliamentary party henchmen
filched from the hands of the nation and threw away the weapons which were
needed to maintain its existence and therewith defend the liberty and
independence of our people. If the graves on the plains of Flanders were to open
to-day the bloodstained accusers would arise, hundreds of thousands of our best
German youth who were driven into the arms of death by those conscienceless
parliamentary ruffians who were either wrongly educated for their task or only
half-educated. Those youths, and other millions of the killed and mutilated, were
lost to the Fatherland simply and solely in order that a few hundred deceivers of
the people might carry out their political manoeuvres and their exactions or even
treasonably pursue their doctrinaire theories.

By means of the Marxist and democratic Press, the Jews spread the colossal
falsehood about 'German Militarism' throughout the world and tried to inculpate
Germany by every possible means, while at the same time the Marxist and
democratic parties refused to assent to the measures that were necessary for the
adequate training of our national defence forces. The appalling crime thus
committed by these people ought to have been obvious to everybody who
foresaw that in case of war the whole nation would have to be called to arms and
that, because of the mean huckstering of these noble 'representatives of the
people', as they called themselves, millions of Germans would have to face the
enemy ill-equipped and insufficiently trained. But even apart from the
consequences of the crude and brutal lack of conscience which these
parliamentarian rascals displayed, it was quite clear that the lack of properly
trained soldiers at the beginning of a war would most probably lead to the loss
of such a war; and this probability was confirmed in a most terrible way during
the course of the world war.

Therefore the German people lost the struggle for the freedom and independence
of their country because of the half-hearted and defective policy employed
during times of peace in the organization and training of the defensive strength
of the nation.

The number of recruits trained for the land forces was too small; but the same
half-heartedness was shown in regard to the navy and made this weapon of
national self-preservation more or less ineffective. Unfortunately, even the naval
authorities themselves were contaminated with this spirit of half-heartedness.
The tendency to build the ship on the stocks somewhat smaller than that just
launched by the British did not show much foresight and less genius. A fleet
which cannot be brought to the same numerical strength as that of the probable
enemy ought to compensate for this inferiority by the superior fighting power of




the individual ship. It is the weight of the fighting power that counts and not any
sort of traditional quality. As a matter of fact, modem technical development is
so advanced and so well proportioned among the various civilized States that it
must be looked on as practically impossible for one Power to build vessels
which would have a superior fighting quality to that of the vessels of equal size
built by the other Powers. But it is even less feasible to build vessels of smaller
displacement which will be superior in action to those of larger displacement.
As a matter of fact, the smaller proportions of the German vessels could be
maintained only at the expense of speed and armament. The phrase used to
justify this policy was in itself an evidence of the lack of logical thinking on the
part of the naval authorities who were in charge of these matters in times of
peace. They declared that the German guns were definitely superior to the
British 30.5 cm. as regards striking efficiency.

But that was just why they should have adopted the policy of building 30.5 cm.
guns also; for it ought to have been their object not to achieve equality but
superiority in fighting strength. If that were not so then it would have been
superfluous to equip the land forces with 42 cm. mortars; for the German 21 cm.
mortar could be far superior to any high-angle guns which the French possessed
at that time and since the fortresses could probably have been taken by means of
30.5 cm. mortars. The army authorities unfortunately failed to do so. If they
refrained from assuring superior efficiency in the artillery as in the velocity, this
was because of the fundamentally false 'principle of risk' which they adopted.
The naval authorities, already in times of peace, renounced the principle of
attack and thus had to follow a defensive policy from the very beginning of the
War. But by this attitude they renounced also the chances of final success, which
can be achieved only by an offensive policy.

A vessel with slower speed and weaker armament will be crippled and battered
by an adversary that is faster and stronger and can frequently shoot from a
favourable distance. A large number of cruisers have been through bitter
experiences in this matter. How wrong were the ideas prevalent among the naval
authorities in times of peace was proved during the War. They were compelled
to modify the armament of the old vessels and to equip the new ones with better
armament whenever there was a chance to do so. If the German vessels in the
Battle of the Skagerrak had been of equal size, the same armament and the same
speed as the English, the British Fleet would have gone down under the tempest
of the German 38 centimeter shells, which hit their aims more accurately and
were more effective.

Japan had followed a different kind of naval policy. There, care was principally
taken to create with every single new vessel a fighting force that would be
superior to those of the eventual adversaries. But, because of this policy, it was
afterwards possible to use the fleet for the offensive.

While the army authorities refused to adopt such fundamentally erroneous
principles, the navy - which unfortunately had more representatives in




Parliament - succumbed to the spirit that ruled there. The navy was not
organized on a strong basis, and it was later used in an unsystematic and
irresolute way. The immortal glory which the navy won, in spite of these
drawbacks, must be entirely credited to the good work and the efficiency and
incomparable heroism of officers and crews. If the former commanders-in-chief
had been inspired with the same kind of genius all the sacrifices would not have
been in vain.

It was probably the very parliamentarian skill displayed by the chief of the navy
during the years of peace which later became the cause of the fatal collapse,
since parliamentarian considerations had begun to play a more important role in
the construction of the navy than fighting considerations. The irresolution, the
weakness and the failure to adopt a logically consistent policy, which is typical
of the parliamentary system, contaminated the naval authorities.
As I have already emphasized, the military authorities did not allow themselves
to be led astray by such fundamentally erroneous ideas. Ludendorff, who was
then a Colonel in the General Staff, led a desperate struggle against the criminal
vacillations with which the Reichstag treated the most vital problems of the
nation and in most cases voted against them. If the fight which this officer then
waged remained unsuccessful this must be debited to the Parliament and partly
also to the wretched and weak attitude of the Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg.
Yet those who are responsible for Germany's collapse do not hesitate now to lay
all the blame on the shoulders of the one man who took a firm stand against the
neglectful manner in which the interests of the nation were managed. But one
falsehood more or less makes no difference to these congenital tricksters.
Anybody who thinks of all the sacrifices which this nation has had to bear, as a
result of the criminal neglect of those irresponsible individuals; anybody who
thinks of the number of those who died or were maimed unnecessarily; anybody
who thinks of the deplorable shame and dishonour which has been heaped upon
us and of the illimitable distress into which our people are now plunged -
anybody who realizes that in order to prepare the way to a few seats in
Parliament for some unscrupulous place-hunters and arrivists will understand
that such hirelings can be called by no other name than that of rascal and
criminal; for otherwise those words could have no meaning. In comparison with
traitors who betrayed the nation's trust every other kind of twister may be
looked upon as an honourable man.

It was a peculiar feature of the situation that all the real faults of the old
Germany were exposed to the public gaze only when the inner solidarity of the
nation could be injured by doing so. Then, indeed, unpleasant truths were openly
proclaimed in the ears of the broad masses, while many other things were at
other times shamefully hushed up or their existence simply denied, especially at
times when an open discussion of such problems might have led to an
improvement in their regard. The higher government authorities knew little or
nothing of the nature and use of propaganda in such matters. Only the Jew knew




that by an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented
to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa, the most miserable kind of life
can be presented as if it were paradise. The Jew knew this and acted
accordingly. But the German, or rather his Government, did not have the
slightest suspicion of it. During the War the heaviest of penalties had to be paid
for that ignorance.

Over against the innumerable drawbacks which I have mentioned here and
which affected German life before the War there were many outstanding
features on the positive side. If we take an impartial survey we must admit that
most of our drawbacks were in great measure prevalent also in other countries
and among the other nations, and very often in a worse form than with us;
whereas among us there were many real advantages which the other did not

The leading phase of Germany's superiority arose from the fact that, almost
alone among all the other European nations, the German nation had made the
strongest effort to preserve the national character of its economic structure and
for this reason was less subject than other countries to the power of international
finance, though indeed there were many untoward symptoms in this regard also.
And yet this superiority was a perilous one and turned out later to be one of the
chief causes of the world war.

But even if we disregard this advantage of national independence in economic
matters there were certain other positive features of our social and political life
which were of outstanding excellence. These features were represented by three
institutions which were constant sources of regeneration. In their respective
spheres they were models of perfection and were partly unrivalled.
The first of these was the statal form as such and the manner in which it had
been developed for Germany in modem times. Of course we must except those
monarchs who, as human beings, were subject to the failings which afflict this
life and its children. If we were not so tolerant in these matters, then the case of
the present generation would be hopeless; for if we take into consideration the
personal capabilities and character of the representative figures in our present
regime it would be difficult to imagine a more modest level of intelligence and
moral character. If we measure the 'value' of the German Revolution by the
personal worth and calibre of the individuals whom this revolution has presented
to the German people since November 1918 then we may feel ashamed indeed
in thinking of the judgment which posterity will pass on these people, when the
Law for the Protection of the Republic can no longer silence public opinion.
Coming generations will surely decide that the intelligence and integrity of our
new German leaders were in adverse ratio to their boasting and their vices.
It must be admitted that the monarchy had become alien in spirit to many
citizens and especially the broad masses. This resulted from the fact that the
monarchs were not always surrounded by the highest intelligence - so to say -
and certainly not always by persons of the most upright character. Unfortunately




many of them preferred flatterers to honest-spoken men and hence received their
'information' from the former. This was a source of grave danger at a time when
the world was passing through a period in which many of the old conditions
were changing and when this change was affecting even the traditions of the

The average man or woman could not have felt a wave of enthusiasm surging
within the breast when, for example, at the turn of the century, a princess in
uniform and on horseback had the soldiers file past her on parade. Those high
circles had apparently no idea of the impression which such a parade made on
the minds of ordinary people; else such unfortunate occurrences would not have
taken place. The sentimental humanitarianism - not always very sincere - which
was professed in those high circles was often more repulsive than attractive.
When, for instance, the Princess X condescended to taste the products of a soup
kitchen and found them excellent, as usual, such a gesture might have made an
excellent impression in times long past, but on this occasion it had the opposite
effect to what was intended. For even if we take it for granted that Her Highness
did not have the slightest idea, that on the day she sampled it, the food was not
quite the same as on other days, it sufficed that the people knew it. Even the best
of intentions thus became an object of ridicule or a cause of exasperation.
Descriptions of the proverbial frugality practised by the monarch, his much too
early rise in the morning and the drudgery he had to go through all day long
until late at night, and especially the constantly expressed fears lest he might
become undernourished - all this gave rise to ominous expression on the part of
the people. Nobody was keen to know what and how much the monarch ate or
drank. Nobody grudged him a full meal, or the necessary amount of sleep.
Everybody was pleased when the monarch, as a man and a personality, brought
honour on his family and his country and fulfilled his duties as a sovereign. All
the legends which were circulated about him helped little and did much damage.
These and such things, however, are only mere bagatelle. What was much worse
was the feeling, which spread throughout large sections of the nation, that the
affairs of the individual were being taken care of from above and that he did not
need to bother himself with them. As long as the Government was really good,
or at least moved by goodwill, no serious objections could be raised.
But the country was destined to disaster when the old Government, which had at
least striven for the best, became replaced by a new regime which was not of the
same quality. Then the docile obedience and infantile credulity which formerly
offered no resistance was bound to be one of the most fatal evils that can be

But against these and other defects there were certain qualities which
undoubtedly had a positive effect.

First of all the monarchical form of government guarantees stability in the
direction of public affairs and safeguards public offices from the speculative
turmoil of ambitious politicians. Furthermore, the venerable tradition which this




institution possesses arouses a feeling which gives weight to the monarchical
authority. Beyond this there is the fact that the whole corps of officials, and the
army in particular, are raised above the level of political party obligations. And
still another positive feature was that the supreme rulership of the State was
embodied in the monarch, as an individual person, who could serve as the
symbol of responsibility, which a monarch has to bear more seriously than any
anonymous parliamentary majority. Indeed, the proverbial honesty and integrity
of the German administration must be attributed chiefly to this fact. Finally, the
monarchy fulfilled a high cultural function among the German people, which
made amends for many of its defects. The German residential cities have
remained, even to our time, centres of that artistic spirit which now threatens to
disappear and is becoming more and more materialistic. The German princes
gave a great deal of excellent and practical encouragement to art and science,
especially during the nineteenth century. Our present age certainly has nothing
of equal worth.

During that process of disintegration which was slowly extending throughout the
social order the most positive force of resistance was that offered by the army.
This was the strongest source of education which the German people possessed.
For that reason all the hatred of our enemies was directed against the paladin of
our national self-preservation and our liberty. The strongest testimony in favour
of this unique institution is the fact that it was derided, hated and fought against,
but also feared, by worthless elements all round. The fact that the international
profiteers who gathered at Versailles, further to exploit and plunder the nations
directed their enmity specially against the old German army proved once again
that it deserved to be regarded as the institution which protected the liberties of
our people against the forces of the international stock-exchange. If the army
had not been there to sound the alarm and stand on guard, the purposes of the
Versailles representatives would have been carried out much sooner. There is
only one word to express what the German people owe to this army -

It was the army that still inculcated a sense of responsibility among the people
when this quality had become very rare and when the habit of shirking every
kind of responsibility was steadily spreading. This habit had grown up under the
evil influences of Parliament, which was itself the very model of
irresponsibility. The army trained the people to personal courage at a time when
the virtue of timidity threatened to become an epidemic and when the spirit of
sacrificing one's personal interests for the good of the community was
considered as something that amounted almost to weak-mindedness. At a time
when only those were estimated as intelligent who knew how to safeguard and
promote their own egotistic interests, the army was the school through which
individual Germans were taught not to seek the salvation of their nation in the
false ideology of international fraternization between negroes, Germans,




Chinese, French and EngHsh, etc., but in the strength and unity of their own
national being.

The army developed the individual's powers of resolute decision, and this at a
time when a spirit of indecision and scepticism governed human conduct. At a
time when the wiseacres were everywhere setting the fashion it needed courage
to uphold the principle that any command is better than none. This one principle
represents a robust and sound style of thought, of which not a trace would have
been left in the other branches of life if the army had not furnished a constant
rejuvenation of this fundamental force. A sufficient proof of this may be found
in the appalling lack of decision which our present government authorities
display. They cannot shake off their mental and moral lethargy and decide on
some definite line of action except when they are forced to sign some new
dictate for the exploitation of the German people. In that case they decline all
responsibility while at the same time they sign everything which the other side
places before them; and they sign with the readiness of an official stenographer.
Their conduct is here explicable on the ground that in this case they are not
under the necessity of coming to a decision; for the decision is dictated to them.
The army imbued its members with a spirit of idealism and developed their
readiness to sacrifice themselves for their country and its honour, while greed
and materialism dominated in all the other branches of life. The army united a
people who were split up into classes: and in this respect had only one defect,
which was the One Year Military Service, a privilege granted to those who had
passed through the high schools. It was a defect, because the principle of
absolute equality was thereby violated; and those who had a better education
were thus placed outside the cadres to which the rest of their comrades
belonged. The reverse would have been better. Since our upper classes were
really ignorant of what was going on in the body corporate of the nation and
were becoming more and more estranged from the life of the people, the army
would have accomplished a very beneficial mission if it had refused to
discriminate in favour of the so-called intellectuals, especially within its own
ranks. It was a mistake that this was not done; but in this world of ours can we
find any institution that has not at least one defect? And in the army the good
features were so absolutely predominant that the few defects it had were far
below the average that generally rises from human weakness.
But the greatest credit which the army of the old Empire deserves is that, at a
time when the person of the individual counted for nothing and the majority was
everything, it placed individual personal values above majority values. By
insisting on its faith in personality, the army opposed that typically Jewish and
democratic apotheosis of the power of numbers. The army trained what at that
time was most surely needed: namely, real men. In a period when men were
falling a prey to effeminacy and laxity, 350,000 vigorously trained young men
went from the ranks of the army each year to mingle with their fellow-men. In
the course of their two years' training they had lost the softness of their young




days and had developed bodies as tough as steel. The young man who had been
taught obedience for two years was now fitted to command. The trained soldier
could be recognized already by his walk.

This was the great school of the German nation; and it was not without reason
that it drew upon its head all the bitter hatred of those who wanted the Empire to
be weak and defenceless, because they were jealous of its greatness and were
themselves possessed by a spirit of rapacity and greed. The rest of the world
recognized a fact which many Germans did not wish to see, either because they
were blind to facts or because out of malice they did not wish to see it. This fact
was that the German Army was the most powerful weapon for the defence and
freedom of the German nation and the best guarantee for the livelihood of its

There was a third institution of positive worth, which has to be placed beside
that of the monarchy and the army. This was the civil service.
German administration was better organized and better carried out than the
administration of other countries. There may have been objections to the
bureaucratic routine of the officials, but from this point of view the state of
affairs was similar, if not worse, in the other countries. But the other States did
not have the wonderful solidarity which this organization possessed in Germany,
nor were their civil servants of that same high level of scrupulous honesty. It is
certainly better to be a trifle over-bureaucratic and honest and loyal than to be
over-sophisticated and modern, the latter often implying an inferior type of
character and also ignorance and inefficiency. For if it be insinuated to-day that
the German administration of the pre-War period may have been excellent so far
as bureaucratic technique goes, but that from the practical business point of view
it was incompetent, I can only give the following reply: What other country in
the world possessed a better-organized and administered business enterprise
than the German State Railways, for instance? It was left to the Revolution to
destroy this standard organization, until a time came when it was taken out of
the hands of the nation and socialized, in the sense which the founders of the
Republic had given to that word, namely, making it subservient to the
international stock-exchange capitalists, who were the wire-pullers of the
German Revolution.

The most outstanding trait in the civil service and the whole body of the civil
administration was its independence of the vicissitudes of government, the
political mentality of which could exercise no influence on the attitude of the
German State officials. Since the Revolution this situation has been completely
changed. Efficiency and capability have been replaced by the test of party-
adherence; and independence of character and initiative are no longer
appreciated as positive qualities in a public official. They rather tell against him.
The wonderful might and power of the old Empire was based on the
monarchical form of government, the army and the civil service. On these three
foundations rested that great strength which is now entirely lacking; namely, the




authority of the State. For the authority of the State cannot be based on the
babbling that goes on in Pariiament or in the provincial diets and not upon laws
made to protect the State, or upon sentences passed by the law courts to frighten
those who have had the hardihood to deny the authority of the State, but only on
the general confidence which the management and administration of the
community establishes among the people. This confidence is in its turn, nothing
else than the result of an unshakable inner conviction that the government and
administration of a country is inspired by disinterested and honest goodwill and
on the feeling that the spirit of the law is in complete harmony with the moral
convictions of the people. In the long run, systems of government are not
maintained by terrorism but on the belief of the people in the merits and
sincerity of those who administer and promote the public interests.
Though it be true that in the period preceding the War certain grave evils tended
to infect and corrode the inner strength of the nation, it must be remembered that
the other States suffered even more than Germany from these drawbacks and yet
those other States did not fail and break down when the time of crisis came. If
we remember further that those defects in pre-War Germany were outweighed
by great positive qualities we shall have to look elsewhere for the effective
cause of the collapse. And elsewhere it lay.

The ultimate and most profound reason of the German downfall is to be found in
the fact that the racial problem was ignored and that its importance in the
historical development of nations was not grasped. For the events that take place
in the life of nations are not due to chance but are the natural results of the effort
to conserve and multiply the species and the race, even though men may not be
able consciously to picture to their minds the profound motives of their conduct.





There are certain truths which stand out so openly on the roadsides of Hfe, as it
were, that every passer-by may see them. Yet, because of their very
obviousness, the general run of people disregard such truths or at least they do
not make them the object of any conscious knowledge. People are so blind to
some of the simplest facts in every-day life that they are highly surprised when
somebody calls attention to what everybody ought to know. Examples of The
Columbus Egg lie around us in hundreds of thousands; but observers like
Columbus are rare.

Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think
that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding
principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the
inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth.
Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in
which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law -
one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to
keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and
multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The
titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with
the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the
house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.

Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This
happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other
obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the
same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and
her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either
sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and
their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the
natural means of defence against outer attack.

Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two
breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an
intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the
offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically
lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must
eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating
contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in
general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate
individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete
triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the
weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the
born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is




merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did
not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life
would not be conceivable at all.

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon
that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the
sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in
the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed
or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the
tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within
the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active
power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual
specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly
and protective disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has a
friendly disposition towards mice.

That is why the struggle between the various species does not arise from a
feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love. In both cases
Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased with what happens. The struggle for
the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything that is weak or diseased
or wavering; while the fight of the male to possess the female gives to the
strongest the right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. And this
struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the
species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development
towards a higher quality of being.

If the case were different the progressive process would cease, and even
retrogression might set in. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the
former would always increase more rapidly if they possessed the same
capacities for survival and for the procreation of their kind; and the final
consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede into the
background. Therefore a corrective measure in favour of the better quality must
intervene. Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to
which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted;
but even that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a
new and rigorous selection takes place, according to strength and health.
If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger,
she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one;
because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of
years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows,
with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that
of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the
standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is
prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior




race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization
which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter
countries the immigrants - who mainly belonged to the Latin races - mated with
the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a
clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in
North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and
did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American
Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a
victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily
towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the
Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

Man's effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature
brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively
owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the
way that leads to his ruin.

Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is
typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even Nature."
There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewish babble and end up by
imagining that somehow they themselves are the conquerors of Nature. And yet
their only weapon is just a mere idea, and a very preposterous idea into the
bargain; because if one accepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine
the existence of the world.

The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcome Nature in any sphere
whatsoever but that at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting
a tiny corner of the enormous veil which she has spread over her eternal
mysteries and secret. He never creates anything. All he can do is to discover
something. He does not master Nature but has only come to be the master of
those living beings who have not gained the knowledge he has arrived at by
penetrating into some of Nature's laws and mysteries. Apart from all this, an
idea can never subject to its own sway those conditions which are necessary for
the existence and development of mankind; for the idea itself has come only
from man. Without man there would be no human idea in this world. The idea as
such is therefore always dependent on the existence of man and consequently is
dependent on those laws which furnish the conditions of his existence.
And not only that. Certain ideas are even confined to certain people. This holds
true with regard to those ideas in particular which have not their roots in
objective scientific truth but in the world of feeling. In other words, to use a
phrase which is current to-day and which well and clearly expresses this truth:
They reflect an inner experience. All such ideas, which have nothing to do with




cold logic as such but represent mere manifestations of feeling, such as ethical
and moral conceptions, etc., are inextricably bound up with man's existence. It
is to the creative powers of man's imagination that such ideas owe their

Now, then, a necessary condition for the maintenance of such ideas is the
existence of certain races and certain types of men. For example, anyone who
sincerely wishes that the pacifist idea should prevail in this world ought to do all
he is capable of doing to help the Germans conquer the world; for in case the
reverse should happen it may easily be that the last pacifist would disappear
with the last German. I say this because, unfortunately, only our people, and no
other people in the world, fell a prey to this idea. Whether you like it or not, you
would have to make up your mind to forget wars if you would achieve the
pacifist ideal. Nothing less than this was the plan of the American world-
redeemer, Woodrow Wilson. Anyhow that was what our visionaries believed,
and they thought that through his plans their ideals would be attained.
The pacifist-humanitarian idea may indeed become an excellent one when the
most superior type of manhood will have succeeded in subjugating the world to
such an extent that this type is then sole master of the earth. This idea could
have an injurious effect only in the measure according to which its application
would become difficult and finally impossible. So, first of all, the fight and then
pacifism. If the case were different it would mean that mankind has already
passed the zenith of its development, and accordingly the end would not be the
supremacy of some moral ideal but degeneration into barbarism and consequent
chaos. People may laugh at this statement; but our planet has been moving
through the spaces of ether for millions and millions of years, uninhabited by
men, and at some future date may easily begin to do so again - if men should
forget that wherever they have reached a superior level of existence, it was not
the result of following the ideas of crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and
rigorously observing the iron laws of Nature.

All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its technical
developments and discoveries, are the products of the creative activities of a few
peoples, and it may be true that their first beginnings must be attributed to one
race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly dependent on such peoples.
Should they perish, all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them
into the grave.

However great, for example, be the influence which the soil exerts on men, this
influence will always vary according to the race in which it produces its effect.
Dearth of soil may stimulate one race to the most strenuous efforts and highest
achievement; while, for another race, the poverty of the soil may be the cause of
misery and finally of undernourishment, with all its consequences. The internal
characteristics of a people are always the causes which determine the nature of
the effect that outer circumstances have on them. What reduces one race to
starvation trains another race to harder work.




All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally
creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the
people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse.
In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that
creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-
hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must
triumph and that they have the right to endure.

He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world,
where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that is how the matter really stands.
Yet far harder is the lot of him who believes that he can overcome Nature and
thus in reality insults her. Distress, misery, and disease are her rejoinders.
Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really deprives himself of the
happiness to which he believes he can attain. For he places an obstacle in the
victorious path of the superior race and, by so doing, he interferes with a
prerequisite condition of all human progress. Loaded with the burden of
humanitarian sentiment, he falls back to the level of those who are unable to
raise themselves in the scale of being.

It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or races were
the original standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real
founders of all that we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to
deal with this question in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer
is simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art,
science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully
justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type
of humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the
term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the
divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that
fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing
aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master
over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a
profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human
culture will vanish and the world will become a desert.

If we divide mankind into three categories - founders of culture, bearers of
culture, and destroyers of culture - the Aryan alone can be considered as
representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork and erected
the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only the shape and colour of
such structures are to be attributed to the individual characteristics of the various
nations. It is the Aryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for
the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been
executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a few




decades the whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated a culture and
called such a culture its own, whereas the basis of that culture was the Greek
mind and Teutonic skill as we know it. Only the external form - at least to a
certain degree - shows the traits of an Asiatic inspiration. It is not true, as some
believe, that Japan adds European technique to a culture of her own. The truth
rather is that European science and technics are just decked out with the peculiar
characteristics of Japanese civilization. The foundations of actual life in Japan
to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although this characterizes
the external features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the real
foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific and
technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, of Aryan peoples.
Only by adopting these achievements as the foundations of their own progress
can the various nations of the Orient take a place in contemporary world
progress. The scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America
provide the basis on which the struggle for daily livelihood is carried on in the
Orient. They provide the necessary arms and instruments for this struggle, and
only the outer forms of these instruments have become gradually adapted to
Japanese ways of life.

If, from to-day onwards, the Aryan influence on Japan would cease - and if we
suppose that Europe and America would collapse - then the present progress of
Japan in science and technique might still last for a short duration; but within a
few decades the inspiration would dry up, and native Japanese character would
triumph, while the present civilization would become fossilized and fall back
into the sleep from which it was aroused about seventy years ago by the impact
of Aryan culture. We may therefore draw the conclusion that, just as the present
Japanese development has been due to Aryan influence, so in the immemorial
past an outside influence and an outside culture brought into existence the
Japanese culture of that day. This opinion is very strongly supported by the fact
that the ancient civilization of Japan actually became fossilizied and petrified.
Such a process of senility can happen only if a people loses the racial cell which
originally had been creative or if the outside influence should be withdrawn after
having awakened and maintained the first cultural developments in that region.
If it be shown that a people owes the fundamental elements of its culture to
foreign races, assimilating and elaborating such elements, and if subsequently
that culture becomes fossilized whenever the external influence ceases, then
such a race may be called the depository but never the creator of a culture.
If we subject the different peoples to a strict test from this standpoint we shall
find that scarcely any one of them has originally created a culture, but almost all
have been merely the recipients of a culture created elsewhere.
This development may be depicted as always happening somewhat in the
following way:




Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number, subjugated foreign
peoples and, stimulated by the conditions of life which their new country offered
them (fertility, the nature of the climate, etc.), and profiting also by the
abundance of manual labour furnished them by the inferior race, they developed
intellectual and organizing faculties which had hitherto been dormant in these
conquering tribes. Within the course of a few thousand years, or even centuries,
they gave life to cultures whose primitive traits completely corresponded to the
character of the founders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of
the soil and the characteristics of the subjugated people. But finally the
conquering race offended against the principles which they first had observed,
namely, the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and they began to
intermingle with the subjugated people. Thus they put an end to their own
separate existence; for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been
followed by the expulsion of the guilty parties.

After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of those former masters
may then be found in a lighter tint of the skin which the Aryan blood had
bequeathed to the subjugated race, and in a fossilized culture of which those
Aryans had been the original creators. For just as the blood, of the conqueror,
who was a conqueror not only in body but also in spirit, got submerged in the
blood of the subject race, so the substance disappeared out of which the torch of
human culture and progress was kindled. In so far as the blood of the former
ruling race has left a light nuance of colour in the blood of its descendants, as a
token and a memory, the night of cultural life is rendered less dim and dark by a
mild light radiated from the products of those who were the bearers of the
original fire. Their radiance shines across the barbarism to which the subjected
race has reverted and might often lead the superficial observer to believe that he
sees before him an image of the present race when he is really looking into a
mirror wherein only the past is reflected.

It may happen that in the course of its history such a people will come into
contact a second time, and even oftener, with the original founders of their
culture and may not even remember that distant association. Instinctively the
remnants of blood left from that old ruling race will be drawn towards this new
phenomenon and what had formerly been possible only under compulsion can
now be successfully achieved in a voluntary way. A new cultural wave flows in
and lasts until the blood of its standard-bearers becomes once again adulterated
by intermixture with the originally conquered race.

It will be the task of those who set themselves to the study of a universal history
of civilization to investigate history from this point of view instead of allowing
themselves to be smothered under the mass of external data, as is only too often
the case with our present historical science.

This short sketch of the changes that take place among those races that are only
the depositories of a culture also furnishes a picture of the development and the




activity and the disappearance of those who are the true founders of cuhure on
this earth, namely the Aryans themselves.

Just as in our daily life the so-called man of genius needs a particular occasion,
and sometimes indeed a special stimulus, to bring his genius to light, so too in
the life of the peoples the race that has genius in it needs the occasion and
stimulus to bring that genius to expression. In the monotony and routine of
everyday life even persons of significance seem just like the others and do not
rise beyond the average level of their fellow-men. But as soon as such men find
themselves in a special situation which disconcerts and unbalances the others,
the humble person of apparently common qualities reveals traits of genius, often
to the amazement of those who have hitherto known him in the small things of
everyday life. That is the reason why a prophet only seldom counts for
something in his own country. War offers an excellent occasion for observing
this phenomenon. In times of distress, when the others despair, apparently
harmless boys suddenly spring up and become heroes, full of determination,
undaunted in the presence of Death and manifesting wonderful powers of calm
reflection under such circumstances. If such an hour of trial did not come
nobody would have thought that the soul of a hero lurked in the body of that
beardless youth. A special impulse is almost always necessary to bring a man of
genius into the foreground. The sledge-hammer of Fate which strikes down the
one so easily suddenly finds the counter-impact of steel when it strikes at the
other. And, after the common shell of everyday life is broken, the core that lay
hidden in it is displayed to the eyes of an astonished world. This surrounding
world then grows obstinate and will not believe that what had seemed so like
itself is really of that different quality so suddenly displayed. This is a process
which is repeated probably every time a man of outstanding significance

Though an inventor, for example, does not establish his fame until the very day
that he carries through his invention, it would be a mistake to believe that the
creative genius did not become alive in him until that moment. From the very
hour of his birth the spark of genius is living within the man who has been
endowed with the real creative faculty. True genius is an innate quality. It can
never be the result of education or training.

As I have stated already, this holds good not merely of the individual but also of
the race. Those peoples who manifest creative abilities in certain periods of their
history have always been fundamentally creative. It belongs to their very nature,
even though this fact may escape the eyes of the superficial observer. Here also
recognition from outside is only the consequence of practical achievement.
Since the rest of the world is incapable of recognizing genius as such, it can only
see the visible manifestations of genius in the form of inventions, discoveries,
buildings, painting, etc.; but even here a long time passes before recognition is
given. Just as the individual person who has been endowed with the gift of
genius, or at least talent of a very high order, cannot bring that endowment to




realization until he comes under the urge of special circumstances, so in the life
of the nations the creative capacities and powers frequently have to wait until
certain conditions stimulate them to action.

The most obvious example of this truth is furnished by that race which has been,
and still is, the standard-bearer of human progress: I mean the Aryan race. As
soon as Fate brings them face to face with special circumstances their powers
begin to develop progressively and to be manifested in tangible form. The
characteristic cultures which they create under such circumstances are almost
always conditioned by the soil, the climate and the people they subjugate. The
last factor - that of the character of the people - is the most decisive one. The
more primitive the technical conditions under which the civilizing activity takes
place, the more necessary is the existence of manual labour which can be
organized and employed so as to take the place of mechanical power. Had it not
been possible for them to employ members of the inferior race which they
conquered, the Aryans would never have been in a position to take the first steps
on the road which led them to a later type of culture; just as, without the help of
certain suitable animals which they were able to tame, they would never have
come to the invention of mechanical power which has subsequently enabled
them to do without these beasts. The phrase, 'The Moor has accomplished his
function, so let him now depart', has, unfortunately, a profound application. For
thousands of years the horse has been the faithful servant of man and has helped
him to lay the foundations of human progress, but now motor power has
dispensed with the use of the horse. In a few years to come the use of the horse
will cease entirely; and yet without its collaboration man could scarcely have
come to the stage of development which he has now created.
For the establishment of superior types of civilization the members of inferior
races formed one of the most essential pre-requisites. They alone could supply
the lack of mechanical means without which no progress is possible. It is certain
that the first stages of human civilization were not based so much on the use of
tame animals as on the employment of human beings who were members of an
inferior race.

Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted
to animals, and not vice versa, as some people would have us believe. At first it
was the conquered enemy who had to draw the plough and only afterwards did
the ox and horse take his place. Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider
this fact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to recognize that this
evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of
civilization which these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world
pay attention to their rigmarole.

The progress of mankind may be compared to the process of ascending an
infinite ladder. One does not reach the higher level without first having climbed
the lower rungs. The Aryan therefore had to take that road which his sense of
reality pointed out to him and not that which the modem pacifist dreams of. The




path of reality is, however, difficuh and hard to tread; yet it is the only one
which finally leads to the goal where the others envisage mankind in their
dreams. But the real truth is that those dreamers help only to lead man away
from his goal rather than towards it.

It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilization arose there where
the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced
them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first
mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilization.

Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow. As a
conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into
organized channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will
and purpose. By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing
their powers he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered but
probably made their lives easier than these had been in the former state of so-
called 'freedom'. While he ruthlessly maintained his position as their master, he
not only remained master but he also maintained and advanced civilization. For
this depended exclusively on his inborn abilities and, therefore, on the
preservation of the Aryan race as such. As soon, however, as his subject began
to rise and approach the level of their conqueror, a phase of which ascension
was probably the use of his language, the barriers that had distinguished master
from servant broke down. The Aryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock
unmixed and therewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he himself had
created. He became submerged in the racial mixture and gradually lost his
cultural creativeness, until he finally grew, not only mentally but also physically,
more like the aborigines whom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors.
For some time he could continue to live on the capital of that culture which still
remained; but a condition of fossilization soon set in and he sank into oblivion.
That is how cultures and empires decline and yield their places to new

The adulteration of the blood and racial deterioration conditioned thereby are the
only causes that account for the decline of ancient civilizations; for it is never by
war that nations are mined, but by the loss of their powers of resistance, which
are exclusively a characteristic of pure racial blood. In this world everything that
is not of sound racial stock is like chaff. Every historical event in the world is
nothing more nor less than a manifestation of the instinct of racial self-
preservation, whether for weal or woe.

The question as to the ground reasons for the predominant importance of
Aryanism can be answered by pointing out that it is not so much that the Aryans
are endowed with a stronger instinct for self-preservation, but rather that this
manifests itself in a way which is peculiar to themselves. Considered from the
subjective standpoint, the will-to-live is of course equally strong all round and
only the forms in which it is expressed are different. Among the most primitive
organisms the instinct for self-preservation does not extend beyond the care of




the individual ego. Egotism, as we call this passion, is so predominant that it
includes even the time element; which means that the present moment is deemed
the most important and that nothing is left to the future. The animal lives only
for itself, searching for food only when it feels hunger and fighting only for the
preservation of its own life. As long as the instinct for self-preservation
manifests itself exclusively in such a way, there is no basis for the establishment
of a community; not even the most primitive form of all, that is to say the
family. The society formed by the male with the female, where it goes beyond
the mere conditions of mating, calls for the extension of the instinct of self-
preservation, since the readiness to fight for one's own ego has to be extended
also to the mate. The male sometimes provides food for the female, but in most
cases both parents provide food for the offspring. Almost always they are ready
to protect and defend each other; so that here we find the first, though infinitely
simple, manifestation of the spirit of sacrifice. As soon as this spirit extends
beyond the narrow limits of the family, we have the conditions under which
larger associations and finally even States can be formed.

The lowest species of human beings give evidence of this quality only to a very
small degree, so that often they do not go beyond the formation of the family
society. With an increasing readiness to place their immediate personal interests
in the background, the capacity for organizing more extensive communities

The readiness to sacrifice one's personal work and, if necessary, even one's life
for others shows its most highly developed form in the Aryan race. The
greatness of the Aryan is not based on his intellectual powers, but rather on his
willingness to devote all his faculties to the service of the community. Here the
instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form; for the Aryan
willingly subordinates his own ego to the common weal and when necessity
calls he will even sacrifice his own life for the community.
The constructive powers of the Aryan and that peculiar ability he has for the
building up of a culture are not grounded in his intellectual gifts alone. If that
were so they might only be destructive and could never have the ability to
organize; for the latter essentially depends on the readiness of the individual to
renounce his own personal opinions and interests and to lay both at the service
of the human group. By serving the common weal he receives his reward in
return. For example, he does not work directly for himself but makes his
productive work a part of the activity of the group to which he belongs, not only
for his own benefit but for the general. The spirit underlying this attitude is
expressed by the word: WORK, which to him does not at all signify a means of
earning one's daily livelihood but rather a productive activity which cannot
clash with the interests of the community. Whenever human activity is directed
exclusively to the service of the instinct for self-preservation it is called theft or
usury, robbery or burglary, etc.




This mental attitude, which forces self-interest to recede into the background in
favour of the common weal, is the first prerequisite for any kind of really human
civilization. It is out of this spirit alone that great human achievements have
sprung for which the original doers have scarcely ever received any recompense
but which turns out to be the source of abundant benefit for their descendants. It
is this spirit alone which can explain why it so often happens that people can
endure a harsh but honest existence which offers them no returns for their toil
except a poor and modest livelihood. But such a livelihood helps to consolidate
the foundations on which the community exists. Every worker and every
peasant, every inventor, state official, etc., who works without ever achieving
fortune or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this sublime idea, even
though he may never become conscious of the profound meaning of his own

Everything that may be said of that kind of work which is the fundamental
condition of providing food and the basic means of human progress is true even
in a higher sense of work that is done for the protection of man and his
civilization. The renunciation of one's own life for the sake of the community is
the crowning significance of the idea of all sacrifice. In this way only is it
possible to protect what has been built up by man and to assure that this will not
be destroyed by the hand of man or of nature.

In the German language we have a word which admirably expresses this
underlying spirit of all work: It is Pflichterfiillung, which means the service of
the common weal before the consideration of one's own interests. The
fundamental spirit out of which this kind of activity springs is the
contradistinction of 'Egotism' and we call it 'Idealism'. By this we mean to
signify the willingness of the individual to make sacrifices for the community
and his fellow-men.

It is of the utmost importance to insist again and again that idealism is not
merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment but rather something which has
been, is and always will be, a necessary precondition of human civilization; it is
even out of this that the very idea of the word 'Human' arises. To this kind of
mentality the Aryan owes his position in the world. And the world is indebted to
the Aryan mind for having developed the concept of 'mankind'; for it is out of
this spirit alone that the creative force has come which in a unique way
combined robust muscular power with a first-class intellect and thus created the
monuments of human civilization.

Were it not for idealism all the faculties of the intellect, even the most brilliant,
would be nothing but intellect itself, a mere external phenomenon without inner
value and never a creative force.

Since true idealism, however, is essentially the subordination of the interests and
life of the individual to the interests and life of the community, and since the
community on its part represents the pre-requisite condition of every form of
organization, this idealism accords in its innermost essence with the final




purpose of Nature. This feeling alone makes men voluntarily acknowledge that
strength and power are entitled to take the lead and thus makes them a
constituent particle in that order out of which the whole universe is shaped and

Without being conscious of it, the purest idealism is always associated with the
most profound knowledge. How true this is and how little genuine idealism has
to do with fantastic self-dramatization will become clear the moment we ask an
unspoilt child, a healthy boy for example, to give his opinion. The very same
boy who listens to the rantings of an 'idealistic' pacifist without understanding
them, and even rejects them, would readily sacrifice his young life for the ideal
of his people.

Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of
the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he
will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing
better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws
of human development. For it is a necessity of human evolution that the
individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common
weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those
knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to
criticize her decrees.

It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitude threatens to disappear that
we notice a weakening of this force which is a necessary constituent in the
founding and maintenance of the community and is thereby a necessary
condition of civilization. As soon as the spirit of egotism begins to prevail
among a people then the bonds of the social order break and man, by seeking his
own personal happiness, veritably tumbles out of heaven and falls into hell.
Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their own individual
interests, but it will praise those heroes who renounced their own happiness.
The Jew offers the most striking contrast to the Aryan. There is probably no
other people in the world who have so developed the instinct of self-preservation
as the so-called 'chosen' people. The best proof of this statement is found in the
simple fact that this race still exists. Where can another people be found that in
the course of the last two thousand years has undergone so few changes in
mental outlook and character as the Jewish people? And yet what other people
has taken such a constant part in the great revolutions? But even after having
passed through the most gigantic catastrophes that have overwhelmed mankind,
the Jews remain the same as ever. What an infinitely tenacious will-to-live, to
preserve one's kind, is demonstrated by that fact!

The intellectual faculties of the Jew have been trained through thousands of
years. To-day the Jew is looked upon as specially 'cunning'; and in a certain
sense he has been so throughout the ages. His intellectual powers, however, are
not the result of an inner evolution but rather have been shaped by the object-
lessons which the Jew has received from others. The human spirit cannot climb




upwards without taking successive steps. For every step upwards it needs the
foundation of what has been constructed before - the past - which in, the
comprehensive sense here employed, can have been laid only in a general
civilization. All thinking originates only to a very small degree in personal
experience. The largest part is based on the accumulated experiences of the past.
The general level of civilization provides the individual, who in most cases is
not consciously aware of the fact, with such an abundance of preliminary
knowledge that with this equipment he can more easily take further steps on the
road of progress. The boy of to-day, for example, grows up among such an
overwhelming mass of technical achievement which has accumulated during the
last century that he takes as granted many things which a hundred years ago
were still mysteries even to the greatest minds of those times. Yet these things
that are not so much a matter of course are of enormous importance to those
who would understand the progress we have made in these matters and would
carry on that progress a step farther. If a man of genius belonging to the
'twenties of the last century were to arise from his grave to-day he would find it
more difficult to understand our present age than the contemporary boy of
fifteen years of age who may even have only an average intelligence. The man
of genius, thus come back from the past, would need to provide himself with an
extraordinary amount of preliminary information which our contemporary youth
receive automatically, so to speak, during the time they are growing up among
the products of our modem civilization.

Since the Jew - for reasons that I shall deal with immediately - never had a
civilization of his own, he has always been furnished by others with a basis for
his: intellectual work. His intellect has always developed by the use of those
cultural achievements which he has found ready-to-hand around him.
The process has never been the reverse.

For, though among the Jews the instinct of self-preservation has not been
weaker but has been much stronger than among other peoples, and though the
impression may easily be created that the intellectual powers of the Jew are at
least equal to those of other races, the Jews completely lack the most essential
pre-requisite of a cultural people, namely the idealistic spirit. With the Jewish
people the readiness for sacrifice does not extend beyond the simple instinct of
individual preservation. In their case the feeling of racial solidarity which they
apparently manifest is nothing but a very primitive gregarious instinct, similar to
that which may be found among other organisms in this world. It is a remarkable
fact that this herd instinct brings individuals together for mutual protection only
as long as there is a common danger which makes mutual assistance expedient
or inevitable. The same pack of wolves which a moment ago joined together in a
common attack on their victim will dissolve into individual wolves as soon as
their hunger has been satisfied. This is also sure of horses, which unite to defend
themselves against any aggressor but separate the moment the danger is over.




It is much the same with the Jew. His spirit of sacrifice is only apparent. It
manifests itself only so long as the existence of the individual makes this a
matter of absolute necessity. But as soon as the common foe is conquered and
the danger which threatened the individual Jews is overcome and the prey
secured, then the apparent harmony disappears and the original conditions set in
again. Jews act in concord only when a common danger threatens them or a
common prey attracts them. Where these two motives no longer exist then the
most brutal egotism appears and these people who before had lived together in
unity will turn into a swarm of rats that bitterly fight against each other.
If the Jews were the only people in the world they would be wallowing in filth
and mire and would exploit one another and try to exterminate one another in a
bitter struggle, except in so far as their utter lack of the ideal of sacrifice, which
shows itself in their cowardly spirit, would prevent this struggle from

Therefore it would be a complete mistake to interpret the mutual help which the
Jews render one another when they have to fight - or, to put it more accurately,
to exploit - their fellow being, as the expression of a certain idealistic spirit of

Here again the Jew merely follows the call of his individual egotism. That is
why the Jewish State, which ought to be a vital organization to serve the purpose
of preserving or increasing the race, has absolutely no territorial boundaries. For
the territorial delimitation of a State always demands a certain idealism of spirit
on the part of the race which forms that State and especially a proper acceptance
of the idea of work. A State which is territorially delimited cannot be established
or maintained unless the general attitude towards work be a positive one. If this
attitude be lacking, then the necessary basis of a civilization is also lacking.
That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with which they
are apparently endowed, have not a culture - certainly not a culture of their own.
The culture which the Jew enjoys to-day is the product of the work of others and
this product is debased in the hands of the Jew.

In order to form a correct judgment of the place which the Jew holds in relation
to the whole problem of human civilization, we must bear in mind the essential
fact that there never has been any Jewish art and consequently that nothing of
this kind exists to-day. We must realize that especially in those two royal
domains of art, namely architecture and music, the Jew has done no original
creative work. When the Jew comes to producing something in the field of art he
merely bowdler-izes something already in existence or simply steals the
intellectual word, of others. The Jew essentially lacks those qualities which are
characteristic of those creative races that are the founders of civilization.
To what extent the Jew appropriates the civilization built up by others - or rather
corrupts it, to speak more accurately - is indicated by the fact that he cultivates
chiefly the art which calls for the smallest amount of original invention, namely
the dramatic art. And even here he is nothing better than a kind of juggler or.




perhaps more correctly speaking, a kind of monkey imitator; for in this domain
also he lacks the creative elan which is necessary for the production of all really
great work. Even here, therefore, he is not a creative genius but rather a
superficial imitator who, in spite of all his retouching and tricks, cannot disguise
the fact that there is no inner vitality in the shape he gives his products. At this
juncture the Jewish Press comes in and renders friendly assistance by shouting
hosannas over the head of even the most ordinary bungler of a Jew, until the rest
of the world is stampeded into thinking that the object of so much praise must
really be an artist, whereas in reality he may be nothing more than a low-class

No; the Jews have not the creative abilities which are necessary to the founding
of a civilization; for in them there is not, and never has been, that spirit of
idealism which is an absolutely necessary element in the higher development of
mankind. Therefore the Jewish intellect will never be constructive but always
destructive. At best it may serve as a stimulus in rare cases but only within the
meaning of the poet's lines: 'The Power which always wills the Bad, and always
works the Good' (Kraft, die stets das Bose will und stets das Gute schafft). It is
not through his help but in spite of his help that mankind makes any progress.
Since the Jew has never had a State which was based on territorial delimitations,
and therefore never a civilization of his own, the idea arose that here we were
dealing with a people who had to be considered as Nomads. That is a great and
mischievous mistake. The true nomad does actually possess a definite delimited
territory where he lives. It is merely that he does not cultivate it, as the settled
farmer does, but that he lives on the products of his herds, with which he
wanders over his domain. The natural reason for this mode of existence is to be
found in the fact that the soil is not fertile and that it does not give the steady
produce which makes a fixed abode possible. Outside of this natural cause,
however, there is a more profound cause: namely, that no mechanical
civilization is at hand to make up for the natural poverty of the region in
question. There are territories where the Aryan can establish fixed settlements
by means of the technical skill which he has developed in the course of more
than a thousand years, even though these territories would otherwise have to be
abandoned, unless the Aryan were willing to wander about them in nomadic
fashion; but his technical tradition and his age-long experience of the use of
technical means would probably make the nomadic life unbearable for him. We
ought to remember that during the first period of American colonization
numerous Aryans earned their daily livelihood as trappers and hunters, etc.,
frequently wandering about in large groups with their women and children, their
mode of existence very much resembling that of ordinary nomads. The moment,
however, that they grew more numerous and were able to accumulate larger
resources, they cleared the land and drove out the aborigines, at the same time
establishing settlements which rapidly increased all over the country.




The Aryan himself was probably at first a nomad and became a settler in the
course of ages. But yet he was never of the Jewish kind. The Jew is not a
nomad; for the nomad has already a definite attitude towards the concept of
'work', and this attitude served as the basis of a later cultural development,
when the necessary intellectual conditions were at hand. There is a certain
amount of idealism in the general attitude of the nomad, even though it be rather
primitive. His whole character may, therefore, be foreign to Aryan feeling but it
will never be repulsive. But not even the slightest trace of idealism exists in the
Jewish character. The Jew has never been a nomad, but always a parasite,
battening on the substance of others. If he occasionally abandoned regions
where he had hitherto lived he did not do it voluntarily. He did it because from
time to time he was driven out by people who were tired of having their
hospitality abused by such guests. Jewish self-expansion is a parasitic
phenomenon - since the Jew is always looking for new pastures for his race.
But this has nothing to do with nomadic life as such; because the Jew does not
ever think of leaving a territory which he has once occupied. He sticks where he
is with such tenacity that he can hardly be driven out even by superior physical
force. He expands into new territories only when certain conditions for his
existence are provided therein; but even then - unlike the nomad - he will not
change his former abode. He is and remains a parasite, a sponger who, like a
pernicious bacillus, spreads over wider and wider areas according as some
favourable area attracts him. The effect produced by his presence is also like that
of the vampire; for wherever he establishes himself the people who grant him
hospitality are bound to be bled to death sooner or later. Thus the Jew has at all
times lived in States that have belonged to other races and within the
organization of those States he had formed a State of his own, which is,
however, hidden behind the mask of a 'religious community', as long as external
circumstances do not make it advisable for this community to declare its true
nature. As soon as the Jew feels himself sufficiently established in his position
to be able to hold it without a disguise, he lifts the mask and suddenly appears in
the character which so many did not formerly believe or wish to see: namely that
of the Jew.

The life which the Jew lives as a parasite thriving on the substance of other
nations and States has resulted in developing that specific character which
Schopenhauer once described when he spoke of the Jew as 'The Great Master of
Lies'. The kind of existence which he leads forces the Jew to the systematic use
of falsehood, just as naturally as the inhabitants of northern climates are forced
to wear warm clothes.

He can live among other nations and States only as long as he succeeds in
persuading them that the Jews are not a distinct people but the representatives of
a religious faith who thus constitute a 'religious community', though this be of a
peculiar character.
As a matter of fact, however, this is the first of his great falsehoods.




He is obliged to conceal his own particular character and mode of life that he
may be allowed to continue his existence as a parasite among the nations. The
greater the intelligence of the individual Jew, the better will he succeed in
deceiving others. His success in this line may even go so far that the people who
grant him hospitality may be led to believe that the Jew among them is a
genuine Frenchman, for instance, or Englishman or German or Italian, who just
happens to belong to a religious denomination which is different from that
prevailing in these countries. Especially in circles concerned with the executive
administration of the State, where the officials generally have only a minimum
of historical sense, the Jew is able to impose his infamous deception with
comparative ease. In these circles independent thinking is considered a sin
against the sacred rules according to which official promotion takes place. It is
therefore not surprising that even to-day in the Bavarian government offices, for
example, there is not the slightest suspicion that the Jews form a distinct nation
themselves and are not merely the adherents of a 'Confession', though one
glance at the Press which belongs to the Jews ought to furnish sufficient
evidence to the contrary even for those who possess only the smallest degree of
intelligence. The Jewish Echo, however, is not an official gazette and therefore
not authoritative in the eyes of those government potentates.
Jewry has always been a nation of a definite racial character and never
differentiated merely by the fact of belonging to a certain religion. At a very
early date, urged on by the desire to make their way in the world, the Jews began
to cast about for a means whereby they might distract such attention as might
prove inconvenient for them. What could be more effective and at the same time
more above suspicion than to borrow and utilize the idea of the religious
community? Here also everything is copied, or rather stolen; for the Jew could
not possess any religious institution which had developed out of his own
consciousness, seeing that he lacks every kind of idealism; which means that
belief in a life beyond this terrestrial existence is foreign to him. In the Aryan
mind no religion can ever be imagined unless it embodies the conviction that life
in some form or other will continue after death. As a matter of fact, the Talmud
is not a book that lays down principles according to which the individual should
prepare for the life to come. It only furnishes rules for a practical and convenient
life in this world.

The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection of instructions for
maintaining the Jewish blood pure and for regulating intercourse between Jews
and the rest of the world: that is to say, their relation with non-Jews. But the
Jewish religious teaching is not concerned with moral problems. It is rather
concerned with economic problems, and very petty ones at that. In regard to the
moral value of the religious teaching of the Jews there exist and always have
existed quite exhaustive studies (not from the Jewish side; for whatever the Jews
have written on this question has naturally always been of a tendentious
character) which show up the kind of religion that the Jews have in a light that




makes it look very uncanny to the Aryan mind. The Jew himself is the best
example of the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is
of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity
as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand
years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those
enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always,
they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at
that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews;
whereas our modem Christians enter into party politics and when elections are
being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into
political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their
own Christian nation.

On this first and fundamental lie, the purpose of which is to make people believe
that Jewry is not a nation but a religion, other lies are subsequently based. One
of those further lies, for example, is in connection with the language spoken by
the Jew. For him language is not an instrument for the expression of his inner
thoughts but rather a means of cloaking them. When talking French his thoughts
are Jewish and when writing German rhymes he only gives expression to the
character of his own race.

As long as the Jew has not succeeded in mastering other peoples he is forced to
speak their language whether he likes it or not. But the moment that the world
would become the slave of the Jew it would have to learn some other language
(Esperanto, for example) so that by this means the Jew could dominate all the
more easily.

How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood
is proved in a unique way by 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which are so
violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and moans, the Frankfurter
Zeitung repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence
in favour of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here
clearly set forth. It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these
revelations sprang; but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an
almost terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of
the Jewish people and these writings expound in all their various directions the
final aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study of real happenings,
however, is the best way of judging the authenticity of those documents. If the
historical developments which have taken place within the last few centuries be
studied in the light of this book we shall understand why the Jewish Press
incessantly repudiates and denounces it. For the Jewish peril will be stamped out
the moment the general public come into possession of that book and understand

In order to get to know the Jew properly it is necessary to study the road which
he has been following among the other peoples during the last few centuries.




One example will suffice to give a clear insight here. Since his career has been
the same at all epochs - just as the people at whose expense he has lived have
remained the same - for the purposes of making the requisite analysis it will be
best to mark his progress by stages. For the sake of simplicity we shall indicate
these stages by letters of the alphabet.

The first Jews came into what was then called Germania during the period of the
Roman invasion; and, as usual, they came as merchants. During the turmoil
caused by the great migrations of the German tribes the Jews seem to have
disappeared. We may therefore consider the period when the Germans formed
the first political communities as the beginning of that process whereby Central
and Northern Europe was again, and this time permanently, Judaized. A
development began which has always been the same or similar wherever and
whenever Jews came into contact with Aryan peoples.

(a) As soon as the first permanent settlements had been established the Jew was
suddenly 'there'. He arrived as a merchant and in the beginning did not trouble
to disguise his nationality. He still remained openly a Jew, partly it may be
because he knew too little of the language. It may also be that people of other
races refused to mix with him, so that he could not very well adopt any other
appearance than that of a foreign merchant. Because of his subtlety and cunning
and the lack of experience on the part of the people whose guest he became, it
was not to his disadvantage openly to retain his Jewish character. This may even
have been advantageous to him; for the foreigner was received kindly.

(b) Slowly but steadily he began to take part in the economic life around him;
not as a producer, however, but only as a middleman. His commercial cunning,
acquired through thousands of years of negotiation as an intermediary, made
him superior in this field to the Aryans, who were still quite ingenuous and
indeed clumsy and whose honesty was unlimited; so that after a short while
commerce seemed destined to become a Jewish monopoly. The Jew began by
lending out money at usurious interest, which is a permanent trade of his. It was
he who first introduced the payment of interest on borrowed money. The danger
which this innovation involved was not at first recognized; indeed the
innovation was welcomed, because it offered momentary advantages.

(c) At this stage the Jew had become firmly settled down; that is to say, he
inhabited special sections of the cities and towns and had his own quarter in the
market-places. Thus he gradually came to form a State within a State. He came
to look upon the commercial domain and all money transactions as a privilege
belonging exclusively to himself and he exploited it ruthlessly.

(d) At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly. Finally,
his usurious rate of interest aroused opposition and the increasing impudence
which the Jew began to manifest all round stirred up popular indignation, while
his display of wealth gave rise to popular envy. The cup of his iniquity became
full to the brim when he included landed property among his commercial wares
and degraded the soil to the level of a market commodity. Since he himself




never cultivated the soil but considered it as an object to be exploited, on which
the peasant may still remain but only on condition that he submits to the most
heartless exactions of his new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadily
increased and finally turned into open animosity. His extortionate tyranny
became so unbearable that people rebelled against his control and used physical
violence against him. They began to scrutinize this foreigner somewhat more
closely, and then began to discover the repulsive traits and characteristics
inherent in him, until finally an abyss opened between the Jews and their hosts,
across which abyss there could be no further contact.

In times of distress a wave of public anger has usually arisen against the Jew;
the masses have taken the law into their own hands; they have seized Jewish
property and mined the Jew in their urge to protect themselves against what they
consider to be a scourge of God. Having come to know the Jew intimately
through the course of centuries, in times of distress they looked upon his
presence among them as a public danger comparable only to the plague.

(e) But then the Jew began to reveal his true character. He paid court to
governments, with servile flattery, used his money to ingratiate himself further
and thus regularly secured for himself once again the privilege of exploiting his
victim. Although public wrath flared up against this eternal profiteer and drove
him out, after a few years he reappeared in those same places and carried on as
before. No persecution could force him to give up his trade of exploiting other
people and no amount of harrying succeeded in driving him out permanently. He
always returned after a short time and it was always the old story with him.

In an effort to save at least the worst from happening, legislation was passed
which debarred the Jew from obtaining possession of the land.

(f) In proportion as the powers of kings and princes increased, the Jew sidled up
to them. He begged for 'charters' and 'privileges' which those gentlemen, who
were generally in financial straits, gladly granted if they received adequate
payment in return. However high the price he has to pay, the Jew will succeed in
getting it back within a few years from operating the privilege he has acquired,
even with interest and compound interest. He is a real leech who clings to the
body of his unfortunate victims and cannot be removed; so that when the princes
found themselves in need once again they took the blood from his swollen veins
with their own hands.

This game was repeated unendingly. In the case of those who were called
'German Princes', the part they played was quite as contemptible as that played
by the Jew. They were a real scourge for their people. Their compeers may be
found in some of the government ministers of our time.

It was due to the German princes that the German nation could not succeed in
definitely freeing itself from the Jewish peril. Unfortunately the situation did not
change at a later period. The princes finally received the reward which they had
a thousand-fold deserved for all the crimes committed by them against their own




people. They had alHed themselves with Satan and later on they discovered that
they were in Satan's embrace.

(g) By permitting themselves to be entangled in the toils of the Jew, the princes
prepared their own downfall. The position which they held among their people
was slowly but steadily undermined not only by their continued failure to guard
the interests of their subjects but by the positive exploitation of them. The Jew
calculated exactly the time when the downfall of the princes was approaching
and did his best to hasten it. He intensified their financial difficulties by
hindering them in the exercise of their duty towards their people, by inveigling
them through the most servile flatteries into further personal display, whereby he
made himself more and more indispensable to them. His astuteness, or rather his
utter unscmpulousness, in money affairs enabled him to exact new income from
the princes, to squeeze the money out of them and then have it spent as quickly
as possible. Every Court had its 'Court Jews', as this plague was called, who
tortured the innocent victims until they were driven to despair; while at the same
time this Jew provided the means which the princes squandered on their own
pleasures. It is not to be wondered at that these ornaments of the human race
became the recipients of official honours and even were admitted into the ranks
of the hereditary nobility, thus contributing not only to expose that social
institution to ridicule but also to contaminate it from the inside.
Naturally the Jew could now exploit the position to which he had attained and
push himself forward even more rapidly than before. Finally he became baptized
and thus entitled to all the rights and privileges which belonged to the children
of the nation on which he preyed. This was a high-class stroke of business for
him, and he often availed himself of it, to the great joy of the Church, which was
proud of having gained a new child in the Faith, and also to the joy of Israel,
which was happy at seeing the trick pulled off successfully,
(h) At this stage a transformation began to take place in the world of Jewry. Up
to now they had been Jews - that is to say, they did not hitherto set any great
value on pretending to be something else; and anyhow the distinctive
characteristics which separated them from other races could not be easily
overcome. Even as late as the time of Frederick the Great nobody looked upon
the Jews as other than a 'foreign' people, and Goethe rose up in revolt against
the failure legally to prohibit marriage between Christians and Jews. Goethe was
certainly no reactionary and no time-server. What he said came from the voice
of the blood and the voice of reason. Notwithstanding the disgraceful
happenings taking place in Court circles, the people recognized instinctively that
the Jew was the foreign body in their own flesh and their attitude towards him
was directed by recognition of that fact.

But a change was now destined to take place. In the course of more than a
thousand years the Jew had learned to master the language of his hosts so
thoroughly that he considered he might now lay stress on his Jewish character
and emphasize the 'Germanism' a bit more. Though it must have appeared




ridiculous and absurd at first sight, he was impudent enough to call himself a
'Teuton', which in this case meant a German. In that way began one of the most
infamous impositions that can be imagined. The Jew did not possess the
slightest traces of the German character. He had only acquired the art of twisting
the German language to his own uses, and that in a disgusting way, without
having assimilated any other feature of the German character. Therefore his
command of the language was the sole ground on which he could pretend to be a
German. It is not however by the tie of language, but exclusively by the tie of
blood that the members of a race are bound together. And the Jew himself
knows this better than any other, seeing that he attaches so little importance to
the preservation of his own language while at the same time he strives his
utmost to maintain his blood free from intermixture with that of other races. A
man may acquire and use a new language without much trouble; but it is only
his old ideas that he expresses through the new language. His inner nature is not
modified thereby. The best proof of this is furnished by the Jew himself. He may
speak a thousand tongues and yet his Jewish nature will remain always one and
the same. His distinguishing characteristics were the same when he spoke the
Latin language at Ostia two thousand years ago as a merchant in grain, as they
are to-day when he tries to sell adulterated flour with the aid of his German
gibberish. He is always the same Jew. That so obvious a fact is not recognized
by the average head-clerk in a German government department, or by an officer
in the police administration, is also a self-evident and natural fact; since it would
be difficult to find another class of people who are so lacking in instinct and
intelligence as the civil servants employed by our modem German State

The reason why, at the stage I am dealing with, the Jew so suddenly decided to
transform himself into a German is not difficult to discover. He felt the power of
the princes slowly crumbling and therefore looked about to find a new social
plank on which he might stand. Furthermore, his financial domination over all
the spheres of economic life had become so powerful that he felt he could no
longer sustain that enormous structure or add to it unless he were admitted to the
full enjoyment of the 'rights of citizenship.' He aimed at both, preservation and
expansion; for the higher he could climb the more alluring became the prospect
of reaching the old goal, which was promised to him in ancient times, namely
world-mlership, and which he now looked forward to with feverish eyes, as he
thought he saw it visibly approaching. Therefore all his efforts were now
directed to becoming a fully-fledged citizen, endowed with all civil and political

That was the reason for his emancipation from the Ghetto,
(i) And thus the Court Jew slowly developed into the national Jew. But naturally
he still remained associated with persons in higher quarters and he even
attempted to push his way further into the inner circles of the ruling set. But at
the same time some other representatives of his race were currying favour with




the people. If we remember the crimes the Jew had committed against the
masses of the people in the course of so many centuries, how repeatedly and
ruthlessly he exploited them and how he sucked out even the very marrow of
their substance, and when we further remember how they gradually came to hate
him and finally considered him as a public scourge - then we may well
understand how difficult the Jew must have found this final transformation. Yes,
indeed, it must tax all their powers to be able to present themselves as 'friends of
humanity' to the poor victims whom they have skinned raw.
Therefore the Jew began by making public amends for the crimes which he had
committed against the people in the past. He started his metamorphosis by first
appearing as the 'benefactor' of humanity. Since his new philanthropic policy
had a very concrete aim in view, he could not very well apply to himself the
biblical counsel, not to allow the left hand to know what the right hand is giving.
He felt obliged to let as many people as possible know how deeply the
sufferings of the masses grieved him and to what excesses of personal sacrifice
he was ready to go in order to help them. With this manifestation of innate
modesty, so typical of the Jew, he trumpeted his virtues before the world until
finally the world actually began to believe him. Those who refused to share this
belief were considered to be doing him an injustice. Thus after a little while he
began to twist things around, so as to make it appear that it was he who had
always been wronged, and vice versa. There were really some particularly
foolish people who could not help pitying this poor unfortunate creature of a

Attention may be called to the fact that, in spite of his proclaimed readiness to
make personal sacrifices, the Jew never becomes poor thereby. He has a happy
knack of always making both ends meet. Occasionally his benevolence might be
compared to the manure which is not spread over the field merely for the
purpose of getting rid of it, but rather with a view to future produce. Anyhow,
after a comparatively short period of time, the world was given to know that the
Jew had become a general benefactor and philanthropist. What a transformation!
What is looked upon as more or less natural when done by other people here
became an object of astonishment, and even sometimes of admiration, because it
was considered so unusual in a Jew. That is why he has received more credit for
his acts of benevolence than ordinary mortals.

And something more: The Jew became liberal all of a sudden and began to talk
enthusiastically of how human progress must be encouraged. Gradually he
assumed the air of being the herald of a new age.

Yet at the same time he continued to undermine the ground- work of that part of
the economic system in which the people have the most practical interest. He
bought up stock in the various national undertakings and thus pushed his
influence into the circuit of national production, making this latter an object of
buying and selling on the stock exchange, or rather what might be called the
pawn in a financial game of chess, and thus mining the basis on which personal




proprietorship alone is possible. Only with the entrance of the Jew did that
feeling of estrangement, between employers and employees begin which led at a
later date to the political class-struggle.

Finally the Jew gained an increasing influence in all economic undertakings by
means of his predominance in the stock-exchange. If not the ownership, at least
he secured control of the working power of the nation.

In order to strengthen his political position, he directed his efforts towards
removing the barrier of racial and civic discrimination which had hitherto
hindered his advance at every turn. With characteristic tenacity he championed
the cause of religious tolerance for this purpose; and in the freemason
organization, which had fallen completely into his hands, he found a
magnificent weapon which helped him to achieve his ends. Government circles,
as well as the higher sections of the political and commercial bourgeoisie, fell a
prey to his plans through his manipulation of the masonic net, though they
themselves did not even suspect what was happening.

Only the people as such, or rather the masses which were just becoming
conscious of their own power and were beginning to use it in the fight for their
rights and liberties, had hitherto escaped the grip of the Jew. At least his
influence had not yet penetrated to the deeper and wider sections of the people.
This was unsatisfactory to him. The most important phase of his policy was
therefore to secure control over the people. The Jew realized that in his efforts to
reach the position of public despot he would need a 'peace-maker.' And he
thought he could find a peace-maker if he could whip-in sufficient extensive
sections of the bourgeois. But the freemasons failed to catch the glove-
manufacturers and the linen-weavers in the frail meshes of their net. And so it
became necessary to find a grosser and withal a more effective means. Thus
another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be secured. This was
the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity in getting hold of it. By
means of the Press he began gradually to control public life in its entirety. He
began to drive it along the road which he had chosen to reach his own ends; for
he was now in a position to create and direct that force which, under the name of
'public opinion' is better known to-day than it was some decades ago.
Simultaneously the Jew gave himself the air of thirsting after knowledge. He
lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of
others; for he judges all progress and development from the standpoint of the
advantages which these bring to his own people. When it brings him no such
advantages he is the deadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which
is real culture as such. All the knowledge which he acquires in the schools of
others is exploited by him exclusively in the service of his own race.
Even more watchfully than ever before, he now stood guard over his Jewish
nationality. Though bubbling over with 'enlightenment', 'progress', 'liberty',
'humanity', etc., his first care was to preserve the racial integrity of his own
people. He occasionally bestowed one of his female members on an influential




Christian; but the racial stock of his male descendants was always preserved
unmixed fundamentally. He poisons the blood of others but preserves his own
blood unadulterated. The Jew scarcely ever marries a Christian girl, but the
Christian takes a Jewess to wife. The mongrels that are a result of this latter
union always declare themselves on the Jewish side. Thus a part of the higher
nobility in particular became completely degenerate. The Jew was well aware of
this fact and systematically used this means of disarming the intellectual leaders
of the opposite race. To mask his tactics and fool his victims, he talks of the
equality of all men, no matter what their race or colour may be. And the
simpletons begin to believe him.

Since his whole nature still retains too foreign an odour for the broad masses of
the people to allow themselves to be caught in his snare, he uses the Press to put
before the public a picture of himself which is entirely untrue to life but well
designed to serve his purpose. In the comic papers special efforts are made to
represent the Jews as an inoffensive little race which, like all others, has its
peculiarities. In spite of their manners, which may seem a bit strange, the comic
papers present the Jews as fundamentally good-hearted and honourable.
Attempts are generally made to make them appear insignificant rather than

During this phase of his progress the chief goal of the Jew was the victory of
democracy, or rather the supreme hegemony of the parliamentary system, which
embodies his concept of democracy. This institution harmonises best with his
purposes; for thus the personal element is eliminated and in its place we have the
dunder-headed majority, inefficiency and, last but by no means least, knavery.
The final result must necessarily have been the overthrow of the monarchy,
which had to happen sooner or later.

(j) A tremendous economic development transformed the social structure of the
nation. The small artisan class slowly disappeared and the factory worker, who
took its place, had scarcely any chance of establishing an independent existence
of his own but sank more and more to the level of a proletariat. An essential
characteristic of the factory worker is that he is scarcely ever able to provide for
an independent source of livelihood which will support him in later life. In the
true sense of the word, he is 'disinherited'. His old age is a misery to him and
can hardly be called life at all.

In earlier times a similar situation had been created, which had imperatively
demanded a solution and for which a solution was found. Side by side with the
peasant and the artisan, a new class was gradually developed, namely that of
officials and employees, especially those employed in the various services of the
State. They also were a 'disinherited' class, in the true sense of the word. But the
State found a remedy for this unhealthy situation by taking upon itself the duty
of providing for the State official who could establish nothing that would be an
independent means of livelihood for himself in his old age. Thus the system of
pensions and retiring allowances was introduced. Private enterprises slowly




followed this example in increasing numbers; so that to-day every permanent
non-manual worker receives a pension in his later years, if the firm which he has
served is one that has reached or gone beyond a certain size. It was only by
virtue of the assurance given of State officials, that they would be cared for in
their old age. that such a high degree of unselfish devotion to duty was
developed, which in pre-war times was one of the distinguising characteristics of
German officials.

Thus a whole class which had no personal property was saved from destitution
by an intelligent system of provision, and found a place in the social structure of
the national community.

The problem is now put before the State and nation, but this time in a much
larger form. When the new industries sprang up and developed, millions of
people left the countryside and the villages to take up employment in the big
factories. The conditions under which this new class found itself forced to live
were worse than miserable. The more or less mechanical transformation of the
methods of work hitherto in vogue among the artisans and peasants did not fit in
well with the habits or mentality of this new working-class. The way in which
the peasants and artisans had formerly worked had nothing comparable to the
intensive labour of the new factory worker. In the old trades time did not play a
highly important role, but it became an essential element in the new industrial
system. The formal taking over of the old working hours into the mammoth
industrial enterprises had fatal results. The actual amount of work hitherto
accomplished within a certain time was comparatively small, because the
modern methods of intensive production were then unknown. Therefore, though
in the older system a working day of fourteen or even fifteen hours was not
unendurable, now it was beyond the possibilities of human endurance because in
the new system every minute was utilized to the extreme. This absurd
transference of the old working hours to the new industrial system proved fatal
in two directions. First, it mined the health of the workers; secondly, it destroyed
their faith in a superior law of justice. Finally, on the one hand a miserable wage
was received and, on the other, the employer held a much more lucrative
position than before. Hence a striking difference between the ways of life on the
one side and on the other.

In the open country there could be no social problem, because the master and the
farm-hand were doing the same kind of work and doing it together. They ate
their food in common, and sometimes even out of the same dish. But in this
sphere also the new system introduced an entirely different set of conditions
between masters and men.

The division created between employer and employees seems not to have
extended to all branches of life. How far this Judaizing process has been allowed
to take effect among our people is illustrated by the fact that manual labour not
only receives practically no recognition but is even considered degrading. That
is not a natural German attitude. It is due to the introduction of a foreign element




into our lives, and that foreign element is the Jewish spirit, one of the effects of
which has been to transform the high esteem in which our handicrafts once were
held into a definite feeling that all physical labour is something base and

Thus a new social class has grown up which stands in low esteem; and the day
must come when we shall have to face the question of whether the nation will be
able to make this class an integral part of the social community or whether the
difference of status now existing will become a permanent gulf separating this
class from the others.

One thing, however, is certain: This class does not include the worst elements of
the community in its ranks. Rather the contrary is the truth: it includes the most
energetic parts of the nation. The sophistication which is the result of a so-called
civilization has not yet exercised its disintegrating and degenerating influence on
this class. The broad masses of this new lower class, constituted by the manual
labourers, have not yet fallen a prey to the morbid weakness of pacifism. These
are still robust and, if necessary, they can be brutal.

While our bourgeoisie middle class paid no attention at all to this momentous
problem and indifferently allowed events to take their course, the Jew seized
upon the manifold possibilities which the situation offered him for the future.
While on the one hand he organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their
ultimate degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle against
himself. 'Against himself is here only a figurative way of speaking; for this
'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and
throw the guilt on others. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead
among the masses, they never for a moment suspected that they were falling a
prey to one of the most infamous deceits ever practised. And yet that is what it
actually was.

The moment this new class had arisen out of the general economic situation and
taken shape as a definite body in the social order, the Jew saw clearly where he
would find the necessary pacemaker for his own progressive march. At first he
had used the bourgeois class as a battering-ram against the feudal order; and
now he used the worker against the bourgeois world. Just as he succeeded in
obtaining civic rights by intrigues carried on under the protection of the
bourgeois class, he now hoped that by joining in the struggle which the workers
were waging for their own existence he would be able to obtain full control over

When that moment arrives, then the only objective the workers will have to fight
for will be the future of the Jewish people. Without knowing it, the worker is
placing himself at the service of the very power against which he believes he is
fighting. Apparently he is made to fight against capital and thus he is all the
more easily brought to fight for capitalist interests. Outcries are systematically
raised against international capital but in reality it is against the structure of




national economics that these slogans are directed. The idea is to demolish this
structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International
Stock Exchange.

In this line of action the procedure of the Jew was as follows:
He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him and his
lot, and even to be indignant at the misery and poverty which the worker had to
endure. That is the way in which the Jew endeavoured to gain the confidence of
the working class. He showed himself eager to study their various hardships,
whether real or imaginary, and strove to awaken a yearning on the part of the
workers to change the conditions under which they lived. The Jew artfully
enkindled that innate yearning for social justice which is a typical Aryan
characteristic. Once that yearning became alive it was transformed into hatred
against those in more fortunate circumstances of life. The next stage was to give
a precise philosophical aspect to the struggle for the elimination of social
wrongs. And thus the Marxist doctrine was invented.

By presenting his doctrine as part and parcel of a just revindication of social
rights, the Jew propagated the doctrine all the more effectively. But at the same
time he provoked the opposition of decent people who refused to admit these
demands which, because of the form and pseudo-philosophical trimmings in
which they are presented, seemed fundamentally unjust and impossible for
realization. For, under the cloak of purely social concepts there are hidden aims
which are of a Satanic character. These aims are even expounded in the open
with the clarity of unlimited impudence. This Marxist doctrine is an individual
mixture of human reason and human absurdity; but the combination is arranged
in such a way that only the absurd part of it could ever be put into practice, but
never the reasonable part of it. By categorically repudiating the personal worth
of the individual and also the nation and its racial constituent, this doctrine
destroys the fundamental basis of all civilization; for civilization essentially
depends on these very factors. Such is the true essence of the Marxist
Weltanschhauung, so far as the word Weltanschhauung can be applied at all to
this phantom arising from a criminal brain. The destruction of the concept of
personality and of race removes the chief obstacle which barred the way to
domination of the social body by its inferior elements, which are the Jews.
The very absurdity of the economic and political theories of Marxism gives the
doctrine its peculiar significance. Because of its pseudo-logic, intelligent people
refuse to support it, while all those who are less accustomed to use their
intellectual faculties, or who have only a rudimentary notion of economic
principles, join the Marxist cause with flying banners. The intelligence behind
the movement - for even this movement needs intelligence if it is to subsist - is
supplied by the Jews themselves, naturally of course as a gratuitous service
which is at the same time a sacrifice on their part.

Thus arose a movement which was composed exclusively of manual workers
under the leadership of Jews. To all external appearances, this movement strives




to ameliorate the conditions under which the workers Hve; but in reality its aim
is to enslave and thereby annihilate the non- Jewish races.
The propaganda which the freemasons had carried on among the so-called
intelligentsia, whereby their pacifist teaching paralysed the instinct for national
self-preservation, was now extended to the broad masses of the workers and
bourgeoisie by means of the Press, which was almost everywhere in Jewish
hands. To those two instruments of disintegration a third and still more ruthless
one was added, namely, the organization of brute physical force among the
masses. As massed columns of attacks, the Marxist troops stormed those parts of
the social order which had been left standing after the two former undermining
operations had done their work.

The combined activity of all these forces has been marvellously managed. And
it will not be surprising if it turns out that those institutions which have always
appeared as the organs of the more or less traditional authority of the State
should now fall before the Marxist attack. Among our higher and highest State
officials, with very few exceptions, the Jew has found the cost complacent
backers in his work of destruction. An attitude of sneaking servility towards
'superiors' and supercilious arrogance towards 'inferiors' are the characteristics
of this class of people, as well as a grade of stupidity which is really frightening
and at the same time a towering self-conceit, which has been so consistently
developed to make it amusing.

But these qualities are of the greatest utility to the Jew in his dealings with our
authorities. Therefore they are qualities which he appreciates most in the

If I were to sketch roughly the actual struggle which is now beginning I should
describe it somewhat thus:

Not satisfied with the economic conquest of the world, but also demanding that
it must come under his political control, the Jew subdivides the organized
Marxist power into two parts, which correspond to the ultimate objectives that
are to be fought for in this struggle which is carried on under the direction of the
Jew. To outward appearance, these seem to be two independent movements, but
in reality they constitute an indivisible unity. The two divisions are: The
political movement and the trades union movement.

The trades union movement has to gather in the recruits. It offers assistance and
protection to the workers in the hard struggle which they have to wage for the
bare means of existence, a struggle which has been occasioned by the greediness
and narrow-mindedness of many of the industrialists. Unless the workers be
ready to surrender all claims to an existence which the dignity of human nature
itself demands, and unless they are ready to submit their fate to the will of
employers who in many cases have no sense of human responsibilities and are
utterly callous to human wants, then the worker must necessarily take matters
into his own hands, seeing that the organized social community - that is to say,
the State - pays no attention to his needs.




The so-called national-minded bourgeoisie, blinded by its own material
interests, opposes this life-or-death struggle of the workers and places the most
difficult obstacles in their way. Not only does this bourgeoisie hinder all efforts
to enact legislation which would shorten the inhumanly long hours of work,
prohibit child-labour, grant security and protection to women and improve the
hygienic conditions of the workshops and the dwellings of the working-class,
but while the bourgeoisie hinders all this the shrewd Jew takes the cause of the
oppressed into his own hands. He gradually becomes the leader of the trades
union movements, which is an easy task for him, because he does not genuinely
intend to find remedies for the social wrong: he pursues only one objective,
namely, to gather and consolidate a body of followers who will act under his
commands as an armed weapon in the economic war for the destruction of
national economic independence. For, while a sound social policy has to move
between the two poles of securing a decent level of public health and welfare on
the one hand and, on the other, that of safeguarding the independence of the
economic life of the nation, the Jew does not take these poles into account at all.
The destruction of both is one of his main objects. He would ruin, rather than
safeguard, the independence of the national economic system. Therefore, as the
leader of the trades union movement, he has no scruples about putting forward
demands which not only go beyond the declared purpose of the movement but
could not be carried into effect without mining the national economic structure.
On the other hand, he has no interest in seeing a healthy and sturdy population
develop; he would be more content to see the people degenerate into an
unthinking herd which could be reduced to total subjection. Because these are
his final objectives, he can afford to put forward the most absurd claims. He
knows very well that these claims can never be realized and that therefore
nothing in the actual state of affairs could be altered by them, but that the most
they can do is to arouse the spirit of unrest among the masses. That is exactly the
purpose which he wishes such propaganda to serve and not a real and honest
improvement of the social conditions.

The Jews will therefore remain the unquestioned leaders of the trades union
movement so long as a campaign is not undertaken, which must be carried out
on gigantic lines, for the enlightenment of the masses; so that they will be
enabled better to understand the causes of their misery. Or the same end might
be achieved if the government authorities would get rid of the Jew and his work.
For as long as the masses remain so ill-informed as they actually are to-day, and
as long as the State remains as indifferent to their lot as it now is, the masses
will follow whatever leader makes them the most extravagant promises in regard
to economic matters. The Jew is a past master at this art and his activities are not
hampered by moral considerations of any kind.

Naturally it takes him only a short time to defeat all his competitors in this field
and drive them from the scene of action. In accordance with the general brutality
and rapacity of his nature, he turns the trades union movement into an




organization for the exercise of physical violence. The resistance of those whose
common sense has hitherto saved them from surrendering to the Jewish
dictatorship is now broken down by terrorization. The success of that kind of
activity is enormous.

Parallel with this, .the political organization advances. It operates hand-in-hand
with the trades union movement, inasmuch as the latter prepares the masses for
the political organization and even forces them into it. This is also the source
that provides the money which the political organization needs to keep its
enormous apparatus in action. The trades union organization is the organ of
control for the political activity of its members and whips in the masses for all
great political demonstrations. In the end it ceases to struggle for economic
interests but places its chief weapon, the refusal to continue work - which takes
the form of a general strike - at the disposal of the political movement.
By means of a Press whose contents are adapted to the level of the most ignorant
readers, the political and trades union organizations are provided with an
instrument which prepares the lowest stratum of the nation for a campaign of
ruthless destruction. It is not considered part of the purpose of this Press to
inspire its readers with ideals which might help them to lift their minds above
the sordid conditions of their daily lives; but, on the contrary, it panders to their
lowest instincts. Among the lazy-minded and self-seeking sections of the masses
this kind of speculation turns out lucrative.

It is this Press above all which carries on a fanatical campaign of calumny,
strives to tear down everything that might be considered as a mainstay of
national independence and to sabotage all cultural values as well as to destroy
the autonomy of the national economic system.

It aims its attack especially against all men of character who refuse to fall into
line with the Jewish efforts to obtain control over the State or who appear
dangerous to the Jews merely because of their superior intelligence. For in order
to incur the enmity of the Jew it is not necessary to show any open hostility
towards him. It is quite sufficient if one be considered capable of opposing the
Jew some time in the future or using his abilities and character to enhance the
power and position of a nation which the Jew finds hostile to himself.
The Jewish instinct, which never fails where these problems have to be dealt
with, readily discerns the true mentality of those whom the Jew meets in
everyday life; and those who are not of a kindred spirit with him may be sure of
being listed among his enemies. Since the Jew is not the object of aggression but
the aggressor himself, he considers as his enemies not only those who attack him
but also those who may be capable of resisting him. The means which he
employs to break people of this kind, who may show themselves decent and
upright, are not the open means generally used in honourable conflict, but
falsehood and calumny.




He will stop at nothing. His utterly low-down conduct is so appalling that one
really cannot be surprised if in the imagination of our people the Jew is pictured
as the incarnation of Satan and the symbol of evil.

The ignorance of the broad masses as regards the inner character of the Jew, and
the lack of instinct and insight that our upper classes display, are some of the
reasons which explain how it is that so many people fall an easy prey to the
systematic campaign of falsehood which the Jew carries on.
While the upper classes, with their innate cowardliness, turn away from anyone
whom the Jew thus attacks with lies and calumny, the common people are
credulous of everything, whether because of their ignorance or their simple-
mindedness. Government authorities wrap themselves up in a robe of silence,
but more frequently they persecute the victims of Jewish attacks in order to stop
the campaign in the Jewish Press. To the fatuous mind of the government
official such a line of conduct appears to belong to the policy of upholding the
authority of the State and preserving public order. Gradually the Marxist weapon
in the hands of the Jew becomes a constant bogy to decent people. Sometimes
the fear of it sticks in the brain or weighs upon them as a kind of nightmare.
People begin to quail before this fearful foe and therewith become his victims,
(k) The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that not only
can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges
freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and political questions. A section
of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is
another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe
that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the
establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another
means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention
of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are
aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling
and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other
States. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out
and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.
As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain section
of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another
section hypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the
case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows
how clearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.
The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring
at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her
blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every
possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. In
his systematic efforts to ruin girls and women he strives to break down the last
barriers of discrimination between him and other peoples. The Jews were
responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of




bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cuhural and
political level so that the Jew might dominate. For as long as a people remain
racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be
overcome by the Jew. Never in this world can the Jew become master of any
people except a bastardized people.

That is why the Jew systematically endeavours to lower the racial quality of a
people by permanently adulterating the blood of the individuals who make up
that people.

In the field of politics he now begins to replace the idea of democracy by
introducing the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the masses organized under the
Marxist banners he has found a weapon which makes it possible for him to
discard democracy, so as to subjugate and rule in a dictatorial fashion by the aid
of brute force. He is systematically working in two ways to bring about this
revolution. These ways are the economic and the political respectively.
Aided by international influences, he forms a ring of enemies around those
nations which have proved themselves too sturdy for him in withstanding
attacks from within. He would like to force them into war and then, if it should
be necessary to his plans, he will unfurl the banners of revolt even while the
troops are actually fighting at the front.

Economically he brings about the destruction of the State by a systematic
method of sabotaging social enterprises until these become so costly that they
are taken out of the hands of the State and then submitted to the control of
Jewish finance. Politically he works to withdraw from the State its means of
susbsistence, inasmuch as he undermines the foundations of national resistance
and defence, destroys the confidence which the people have in their
Government, reviles the past and its history and drags everything national down
into the gutter.

Culturally his activity consists in bowdlerizing art, literature and the theatre,
holding the expressions of national sentiment up to scorn, overturning all
concepts of the sublime and beautiful, the worthy and the good, finally dragging
the people to the level of his own low mentality.

Of religion he makes a mockery. Morality and decency are described as
antiquated prejudices and thus a systematic attack is made to undermine those
last foundations on which the national being must rest if the nation is to struggle
for its existence in this world.

(1) Now begins the great and final revolution. As soon as the Jew is in
possession of political power he drops the last few veils which have hitherto
helped to conceal his features. Out of the democratic Jew, the Jew of the People,
arises the 'Jew of the Blood', the tyrant of the peoples. In the course of a few
years he endeavours to exterminate all those who represent the national
intelligence. And by thus depriving the peoples of their natural intellectual
leaders he fits them for their fate as slaves under a lasting despotism.




Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery. In that country the

Jew killed or starved thirty millions of the people, in a bout of savage fanaticism

and partly by the employment of inhuman torture. And he did this so that a gang

of Jewish literati and financial bandits should dominate over a great people.

But the final consequence is not merely that the people lose all their freedom

under the domination of the Jews, but that in the end these parasites themselves

disappear. The death of the victim is followed sooner or later by that of the


If we review all the causes which contributed to bring about the downfall of the

German people we shall find that the most profound and decisive cause must be

attributed to the lack of insight into the racial problem and especially in the

failure to recognize the Jewish danger.

It would have been easy enough to endure the defeats suffered on the battlefields

in August 1918. They were nothing when compared with the military victories

which our nation had achieved. Our downfall was not the result of those defeats;

but we were overthrown by that force which had prepared those defeats by

systematically operating for several decades to destroy those political instincts

and that moral stamina which alone enable a people to struggle for its existence

and therewith secure the right to exist.

By neglecting the problem of preserving the racial foundations of our national

life, the old Empire abrogated the sole right which entitles a people to live on

this planet. Nations that make mongrels of their people, or allow their people to

be turned into mongrels, sin against the Will of Eternal Providence. And thus

their overthrow at the hands of a stronger opponent cannot be looked upon as a

wrong but, on the contrary, as a restoration of justice. If a people refuses to

guard and uphold the qualities with which it has been endowed by Nature and

which have their roots in the racial blood, then such a people has no right to

complain over the loss of its earthly existence.

Everything on this earth can be made into something better. Every defeat may be

made the foundation of a future victory. Every lost war may be the cause of a

later resurgence. Every visitation of distress can give a new impetus to human

energy. And out of every oppression those forces can develop which bring about

a new re-birth of the national soul - provided always that the racial blood is kept


But the loss of racial purity will wreck inner happiness for ever. It degrades men

for all time to come. And the physical and moral consequences can never be

wiped out.

If this unique problem be studied and compared with the other problems of life

we shall easily recognize how small is their importance in comparison with this.

They are all limited to time; but the problem of the maintenance or loss of the

purity of the racial blood will last as long as man himself lasts.

All the symptoms of decline which manifested themselves already in pre-war

times can be traced back to the racial problem.




Whether one is deahng with questions of general law, or monstrous
excrescences in economic life, of phenomena which point to a cultural decline
or political degeneration, whether it be a question of defects in the school-
system or of the evil influence which the Press exerts over the adult population -
always and everywhere these phenomena are at bottom caused by a lack of
consideration for the interests of the race to which one's own nation belongs, or
by the failure to recognize the danger that comes from allowing a foreign race to
exist within the national body.

That is why all attempts at reform, all institutions for social relief, all political
striving, all economic progress and all apparent increase in the general stock of
knowledge, were doomed to be unproductive of any significant results. The
nation, as well as the organization which enables it to exist - namely, the State -
were not developing in inner strength and stability, but, on the contrary, were
visibly losing their vitality. The false brilliance of the Second Empire could not
disguise the inner weakness. And every attempt to invigorate it anew failed
because the main and most important problem was left out of consideration.
It would be a mistake to think that the followers of the various political parties
which tried to doctor the condition of the German people, or even all their
leaders, were bad in themselves or meant wrong. Their activity even at best was
doomed to fail, merely because of the fact that they saw nothing but the
symptoms of our general malady and they tried to doctor the symptoms while
they overlooked the real cause of the disease. If one makes a methodical study
of the lines along which the old Empire developed one cannot help seeing, after
a careful political analysis, that a process of inner degeneration had already set
in even at the time when the united Empire was formed and the German nation
began to make rapid external progress. The general situation was declining, in
spite of the apparent political success and in spite of the increasing economic
wealth. At the elections to the Reichstag the growing number of Marxist votes
indicated that the internal breakdown and the political collapse were then rapidly
approaching. All the victories of the so-called bourgeois parties were fruitless,
not only because they could not prevent the numerical increase in the growing
mass of Marxist votes, even when the bourgeois parties triumphed at the polls,
but mainly because they themselves were already infected with the germs of
decay. Though quite unaware of it, the bourgeois world was infected from
within with the deadly virus of Marxist ideas. The fact that they sometimes
openly resisted was to be explained by the competitive strife among ambitious
political leaders, rather than by attributing it to any opposition in principle
between adversaries who were determined to fight one another to the bitter end.
During all those years only one protagonist was fighting with steadfast
perseverance. This was the Jew. The Star of David steadily ascended as the will
to national self-preservation declined.

Therefore it was not a solid national phalanx that, of itself and out of its own
feeling of solidarity, rushed to the battlefields in August 1914. But it was rather




the manifestation of the last flicker from the instinct of national self-preservation
against the progress of the paralysis with which the pacifist and Marxist doctrine
threatened our people. Even in those days when the destinies of the nation were
in the balance the internal enemy was not recognized; therefore all efforts to
resist the external enemy were bound to be in vain. Providence did not grant the
reward to the victorious sword, but followed the eternal law of retributive
justice. A profound recognition of all this was the source of those principles and
tendencies which inspire our new movement. We were convinced that only by
recognizing such truths could we stop the national decline in Germany and lay a
granite foundation on which the State could again be built up, a State which
would not be a piece of mechanism alien to our people, constituted for economic
purposes and interests, but an organism created from the soul of the people





Here at the close of the volume I shall describe the first stage in the progress of
our movement and shall give a brief account of the problems we had to deal
with during that period. In doing this I have no intention of expounding the
ideals which we have set up as the goal of our movement; for these ideals are so
momentous in their significance that an exposition of them will need a whole
volume. Therefore I shall devote the second volume of this book to a detailed
survey of the principles which form the programme of our movement and I shall
attempt to draw a picture of what we mean by the word 'State'. When I say 'we'
in this connection I mean to include all those hundreds of thousands who have
fundamentally the same longing, though in the individual cases they cannot find
adequate words to describe the vision that hovers before their eyes. It is a
characteristic feature of all great reforms that in the beginning there is only one
single protagonist to come forward on behalf of several millions of people. The
final goal of a great reformation has often been the object of profound longing
on the parts of hundreds of thousands for many centuries before, until finally
one among them comes forward as a herald to announce the will of that
multitude and become the standard-bearer of the old yearning, which he now
leads to a realization in a new idea.

The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for a radical change in our
present conditions is proved by the profound discontent which exists among
them. This feeling is manifested in a thousand ways. Some express it in a form
of discouragement and despair. Others show it in resentment and anger and
indignation. Among some the profound discontent calls forth an attitude of
indifference, while it urges others to violent manifestations of wrath. Another
indication of this feeling may be seen on the one hand in the attitude of those
who abstain from voting at elections and, on the other, in the large numbers of
those who side with the fanatical extremists of the left wing.
To these latter people our young movement had to appeal first of all. It was not
meant to be an organization for contented and satisfied people, but was meant to
gather in all those who were suffering from profound anxiety and could find no
peace, those who were unhappy and discontented. It was not meant to float on
the surface of the nation but rather to push its roots deep among the masses.
Looked at from the purely political point of view, the situation in 1918 was as
follows: A nation had been torn into two parts. One part, which was by far the
smaller of the two, contained the intellectual classes of the nation from which all
those employed in physical labour were excluded. On the surface these
intellectual classes appeared to be national-minded, but that word meant nothing
else to them except a very vague and feeble concept of the duty to defend what
they called the interests of the State, which in turn seemed identical with those




of the dynastic regime. This class tried to defend its ideas and reach its aims by
carrying on the fight with the aid of intellectual weapons, which could be used
only here and there and which had only a superficial effect against the brutal
measures employed by the adversaries, in the face of which the intellectual
weapons were of their very nature bound to fail. With one violent blow the class
which had hitherto governed was now struck down. It trembled with fear and
accepted every humiliation imposed on it by the merciless victor.
Over against this class stood the broad masses of manual labourers who were
organized in movements with a more or less radically Marxist tendency. These
organized masses were firmly determined to break any kind of intellectual
resistance by the use of brute force. They had no nationalist tendencies
whatsoever and deliberately repudiated the idea of advancing the interests of the
nation as such. On the contrary, they promoted the interests of the foreign
oppressor. Numerically this class embraced the majority of the population and,
what is more important, included all those elements of the nation without whose
collaboration a national resurgence was not only a practical impossibility but
was even inconceivable.

For already in 1918 one thing had to be clearly recognized; namely, that no
resurgence of the German nation could take place until we had first restored our
national strength to face the outside world. For this purpose arms are not the
preliminary necessity, though our bourgeois 'statesmen' always blathered about
it being so; what was wanted was will-power. At one time the German people
had more than sufficient military armament. And yet they were not able to
defend their liberty because they lacked those energies which spring from the
instinct of national self-preservation and the will to hold on to one's own. The
best armament is only dead and worthless material as long as the spirit is
wanting which makes men willing and determined to avail themselves of such
weapons. Germany was rendered defenceless not because she lacked arms, but
because she lacked the will to keep her arms for the maintenance of her people.
To-day our Left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their
craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the
disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors.
To all that kind of talk the answer ought to be: No, the contrary is the truth.
Your action in delivering up the arms was dictated by your anti-national and
criminal policy of abandoning the interests of the nation. And now you try to
make people believe that your miserable whining is fundamentally due to the
fact that you have no arms. Just like everything else in your conduct, this is a lie
and a falsification of the true reason.

But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was
through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into
power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms. The conservative
politicians have neither right nor reason on their side when they appeal to
disarmament as the cause which compelled them to adopt a policy of prudence




(that is to say, cowardice). Here, again, the contrary is the truth. Disarmament is
the resuh of their lack of spirit.

Therefore the problem of restoring Germany's power is not a question of how
can we manufacture arms but rather a question of how we can produce that spirit
which enables a people to bear arms. Once this spirit prevails among a people
then it will find a thousand ways, each of which leads to the necessary
armament. But a coward will not fire even a single shot when attacked though
he may be armed with ten pistols. For him they are of less value than a
blackthorn in the hands of a man of courage.

The problem of re-establishing the political power of our nation is first of all a
problem of restoring the instinct of national self-preservation for if no other
reason than that every preparatory step in foreign policy and every foreign
judgment on the worth of a State has been proved by experience to be grounded
not on the material size of the armament such a State may possess but rather on
the moral capacity for resistance which such a State has or is believed to have.
The question whether or not a nation be desirable as an ally is not so much
determined by the inert mass of arms which it has at hand but by the obvious
presence of a sturdy will to national self-preservation and a heroic courage
which will fight through to the last breath. For an alliance is not made between
arms but between men.

The British nation will therefore be considered as the most valuable ally in the
world as long as it can be counted upon to show that brutality and tenacity in its
government, as well as in the spirit of the broad masses, which enables it to
carry through to victory any struggle that it once enters upon, no matter how
long such a struggle may last, or however great the sacrifice that may be
necessary or whatever the means that have to be employed; and all this even
though the actual military equipment at hand may be utterly inadequate when
compared with that of other nations.

Once it is understood that the restoration of Germany is a question of
reawakening the will to political self-preservation we shall see quite clearly that
it will not be enough to win over those elements that are already national-
minded but that the deliberately anti-national masses must be converted to
believe in the national ideals.

A young movement that aims at re-establishing a German State with full
sovereign powers will therefore have to make the task of winning over the broad
masses a special objective of its plan of campaign. Our so-called 'national
bourgeoisie' are so lamentably supine, generally speaking, and their national
spirit appears so feckless, that we may feel sure they will offer no serious
resistance against a vigorous national foreign - or domestic policy. Even though
the narrow-minded German bourgeoisie should keep up a passive resistance
when the hour of deliverance is at hand, as they did in Bismarck's time, we shall
never have to fear any active resistance on their part, because of their recognized
proverbial cowardice.




It is quite different with the masses of our population, who are imbued with
ideas of internationalism. Through the primitive roughness of their natures they
are disposed to accept the preaching of violence, while at the same time their
Jewish leaders are more brutal and ruthless. They will crush any attempt at a
German revival, just as they smashed the German Army by striking at it from
the rear. Above all, these organized masses will use their numerical majority in
this Parliamentarian State not only to hinder any national foreign policy, but also
to prevent Germany from restoring her political power and therewith her
prestige abroad. Thus she becomes excluded from the ranks of desirable allies.
For it is not we ourselves alone who are aware of the handicap that results from
the existence of fifteen million Marxists, democrats, pacifists and followers of
the Centre, in our midst, but foreign nations also recognize this internal burden
which we have to bear and take it into their calculations when estimating the
value of a possible alliance with us. Nobody would wish to form an alliance
with a State where the active portion of the population is at least passively
opposed to any resolute foreign policy.

The situation is made still worse by reason of the fact that the leaders of those
parties which were responsible for the national betrayal are ready to oppose any
and every attempt at a revival, simply because they want to retain the positions
they now hold. According to the laws that govern human history it is
inconceivable that the German people could resume the place they formerly held
without retaliating on those who were both cause and occasion of the collapse
that involved the ruin of our State. Before the judgment seat of posterity
November 1918 will not be regarded as a simple rebellion but as high treason
against the country.

Therefore it is not possible to think of re-establishing German sovereignty and
political independence without at the same time reconstructing a united front
within the nation, by a peaceful conversion of the popular will.
Looked at from the standpoint of practical ways and means, it seems absurd to
think of liberating Germany from foreign bondage as long as the masses of the
people are not willing to support such an ideal of freedom. After carefully
considering this problem from the purely military point of view, everybody, and
in particular every officer, will agree that a war cannot be waged against an
outside enemy by battalions of students; but that, together with the brains of the
nation, the physical strength of the nation is also necessary. Furthermore it must
be remembered that the nation would be robbed of its irreplaceable assets by a
national defence in which only the intellectual circles, as they are called, were
engaged. The young German intellectuals who joined the volunteer regiments
and fell on the battlefields of Flanders in the autumn of 1914 were bitterly
missed later on. They were the dearest treasure which the nation possessed and
their loss could not be made good in the course of the war. And it is not only the
struggle itself which could not be waged if the working masses of the nation did
not join the storm battalions, but the necessary technical preparations could not




be made without a unified will and a common front within the nation itself. Our
nation which has to exist disarmed, under the thousand eyes appointed by the
Versailles Peace Treaty, cannot make any technical preparations for the
recovery of its freedom and human independence until the whole army of spies
employed within the country is cut down to those few whose inborn baseness
would lead them to betray anything and everything for the proverbial thirty
pieces of silver. But we can deal with such people. The millions, however, who
are opposed to every kind of national revival simply because of their political
opinions, constitute an insurmountable obstacle. At least the obstacle will
remain insurmountable as long as the cause of their opposition, which is
international Marxism, is not overcome and its teachings banished from both
their hearts and heads.

From whatever point of view we may examine the possibility of recovering our
independence as a State and a people, whether we consider the problem from the
standpoint of technical rearmament or from that of the actual struggle itself, the
necessary pre-requisite always remains the same. This pre-requisite is that the
broad masses of the people must first be won over to accept the principle of our
national independence.

If we do not regain our external freedom every step forward in domestic reform
will at best be an augmentation of our productive powers for the benefit of those
nations that look upon us as a colony to be exploited. The surplus produced by
any so-called improvement would only go into the hands of our international
controllers and any social betterment would at best increase the product of our
labour in favour of those people. No cultural progress can be made by the
German nation, because such progress is too much bound up with the political
independence and dignity of a people.

Therefore, as we can find a satisfactory solution for the problem of Germany's
future only by winning over the broad masses of our people for the support of
the national idea, this work of education must be considered the highest and
most important task to be accomplished by a movement which does not strive
merely to satisfy the needs of the moment but considers itself bound to examine
in the light of future results everything it decides to do or refrain from doing.
As early as 1919 we were convinced that the nationalization of the masses
would have to constitute the first and paramount aim of the new movement.
From the tactical standpoint, this decision laid a certain number of obligations
on our shoulders.

(1) No social sacrifice could be considered too great in this effort to win over the
masses for the national revival.

In the field of national economics, whatever concessions are granted to-day to
the employees are negligible when compared with the benefit to be reaped by
the whole nation if such concessions contribute to bring back the masses of the
people once more to the bosom of their own nation. Nothing but meanness and
shortsightedness, which are characteristics that unfortunately are only too




prevalent among our employers, could prevent people from recognizing that in
the long run no economic improvement and therefore no rise in profits are
possible unless internal solidarity be restored among the bulk of the people who
make up our nation.

If the German trades unions had defended the interests of the working-classes
uncompromisingly during the War; if even during the War they had used the
weapon of the strike to force the industrialists - who were greedy for higher
dividends - to grant the demands of the workers for whom the unions acted; if at
the same time they had stood up as good Germans for the defence of the nation
as stoutly as for their own claims, and if they had given to their country what
was their country's due - then the War would never have been lost. How
ludicrously insignificant would all, and even the greatest, economic concession
have been in face of the tremendous importance of such a victory.
For a movement which would restore the German worker to the German people
it is therefore absolutely necessary to understand clearly that economic sacrifices
must be considered light in such cases, provided of course that they do not go
the length of endangering the independence and stability of the national
economic system.

(2) The education of the masses along national lines can be carried out only
indirectly, by improving their social conditions; for only by such a process can
the economic conditions be created which enable everybody to share in the
cultural life of the nation.

(3) The nationalization of the broad masses can never be achieved by half-
measures - that is to say, by feebly insisting on what is called the objective side
of the question - but only by a ruthless and devoted insistence on the one aim
which must be achieved. This means that a people cannot be made 'national'
according to the signification attached to that word by our bourgeois class to-day
- that is to say, nationalism with many reservations - but national in the
vehement and extreme sense. Poison can be overcome only by a counter-poison,
and only the supine bourgeois mind could think that the Kingdom of Heaven can
be attained by a compromise.

The broad masses of a nation are not made up of professors and diplomats.
Since these masses have only a poor acquaintance with abstract ideas, their
reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings, where the roots of their positive
as well as their negative attitudes are implanted. They are susceptible only to a
manifestation of strength which comes definitely either from the positive or
negative side, but they are never susceptible to any half-hearted attitude that
wavers between one pole and the other. The emotional grounds of their attitude
furnish the reason for their extraordinary stability. It is always more difficult to
fight successfully against Faith than against knowledge. Love is less subject to
change than respect. Hatred is more lasting than mere aversion. And the driving
force which has brought about the most tremendous revolutions on this earth has
never been a body of scientific teaching which has gained power over the




masses, but always a devotion which has inspired them, and often a kind of
hysteria which has urged them to action.

Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key that will open the
door to their hearts. It is not objectivity, which is a feckless attitude, but a
determined will, backed up by force, when necessary.

(4) The soul of the masses can be won only if those who lead the movement for
that purpose are determined not merely to carry through the positive struggle for
their own aims but are also determined to destroy the enemy that opposes them.
When they see an uncompromising onslaught against an adversary the people
have at all times taken this as a proof that right is on the side of the active
aggressor; but if the aggressor should go only half-way and fail to push home his
success by driving his opponent entirely from the scene of action, the people
will look upon this as a sign that the aggressor is uncertain of the justice of his
own cause and his half-way policy may even be an acknowledgment that his
cause is unjust.

The masses are but a part of Nature herself. Their feeling is such that they
cannot understand mutual hand- shakings between men who are declared
enemies. Their wish is to see the stronger side win and the weaker wiped out or
subjected unconditionally to the will of the stronger.

The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if, in the
positive struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread the
international poison among them are exterminated.

(5) All the great problems of our time are problems of the moment and are only
the results of certain definite causes. And among all those there is only one that
has a profoundly causal significance. This is the problem of preserving the pure
racial stock among the people. Human vigour or decline depends on the blood.
Nations that are not aware of the importance of their racial stock, or which
neglect to preserve it, are like men who would try to educate the pug-dog to do
the work of the greyhound, not understanding that neither the speed of the
greyhound nor the imitative faculties of the poodle are inborn qualities which
cannot be drilled into the one or the other by any form of training. A people that
fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys the unity of the
soul of the nation in all its manifestations. A disintegrated national character is
the inevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a people is
only an effect of the change that has modified its racial substance.

If we are to free the German people from all those failings and ways of acting

which do not spring from their original character, we must first get rid of those

foreign germs in the national body which are the cause of its failings and false


The German nation will never revive unless the racial problem is taken into

account and dealt with. The racial problem furnishes the key not only to the




understanding of human history but also to the understanding of every kind of
human cuhure.

(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of our people who
are now in the international camp we do not thereby mean to renounce the
principle that the interests of the various trades and professions must be
safeguarded. Divergent interests in the various branches of labour and in the
trades and professions are not the same as a division between the various
classes, but rather a feature inherent in the economic situation. Vocational
grouping does not clash in the least with the idea of a national community, for
this means national unity in regard to all those problems that affect the life of the
nation as such.

To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the
people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes
must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class
which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower
one which is fighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not
incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but
only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own

The German worker cannot be raised from his present standing and incorporated
in the German folk-community by means of goody-goody meetings where
people talk about the brotherhood of the people, but rather by a systematic
improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss
between him and the other classes can be filled in. A movement which has this
for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working
class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such
members have rightly understood and accepted without reserve the ideal towards
which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion
cannot be completed within ten or twenty years. It will take several generations,
as the history of such movements has shown.

The most difficult obstacle to the reunion of our contemporary worker in the
national folk-community does not consist so much in the fact that he fights for
the interests of his fellow-workers, but rather in the international ideas with
which he is imbued and which are of their nature at variance with the ideas of
nationhood and fatherland. This hostile attitude to nation and fatherland has
been inculcated by the leaders of the working class. If they were inspired by the
principle of devotion to the nation in all that concerns its political and social
welfare, the trades unions would make those millions of workers most valuable
members of the national community, without thereby affecting their own
constant struggle for their economic demands.

A movement which sincerely endeavours to bring the German worker back into
his folk-community, and rescue him from the folly of internationalism, must
wage a vigorous campaign against certain notions that are prevalent among the




industrialists. One of these notions is that according to the concept of the folk-
community, the employee is obliged to surrender all his economic rights to the
employer and, further, that the workers would come into conflict with the folk-
community if they should attempt to defend their own just and vital interests.
Those who try to propagate such a notion are deliberate liars. The idea of a folk-
community does not impose any obligations on the one side that are not imposed
on the other.

A worker certainly does something which is contrary to the spirit of folk-
community if he acts entirely on his own initiative and puts forward exaggerated
demands without taking the common good into consideration or the maintenance
of the national economic structure. But an industrialist also acts against the spirit
of the folk-community if he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation and
misuses the working forces of the nation to make millions unjustly for himself
from the sweat of the workers. He has no right to call himself 'national' and no
right to talk of a folk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who
sows the seeds of social discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which
sooner or later must be injurious to the interests of the country.
The reservoir from which the young movement has to draw its members will
first of all be the working masses. Those masses must be delivered from the
clutches of the international mania. Their social distress must be eliminated.
They must be raised above their present cultural level, which is deplorable, and
transformed into a resolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired
by national ideas and national sentiment.

If among those intellectual circles that are nationalist in their outlook men can
be found who genuinely love the people and look forward eagerly to the future
of Germany, and at the same time have a sound grasp of the importance of a
struggle whose aim is to win over the soul of the masses, such men are cordially
welcomed in the ranks of our movement, because they can serve as a valuable
intellectual force in the work that has to be done. But this movement can never
aim at recruiting its membership from the unthinking herd of bourgeois voters.
If it did so the movement would be burdened with a mass of people whose
whole mentality would only help to paralyse the effort of our campaign to win
the mass of the people. In theory it may be very fine to say that the broad masses
ought to be influenced by a combined leadership of the upper and lower social
strata within the framework of the one movement; but, notwithstanding all this,
the fact remains that though it may be possible to exercise a psychological
influence on the bourgeois classes and to arouse some enthusiasm or even
awaken some understanding among them by our public demonstrations, their
traditional characteristics cannot be changed. In other words, we could not
eliminate from the bourgeois classes the inefficiency and supineness which are
part of a tradition that has developed through centuries. The difference between
the cultural levels of the two groups and between their respective attitudes
towards social-economic questions is still so great that it would turn out a




hindrance to the movement the moment the first enthusiasm aroused by our
demonstrations calmed down.

Finally, it is not part of our programme to transform the nationalist camp itself,
but rather to win over those who are anti-national in their outlook. It is from this
viewpoint that the strategy of the whole movement must finally be decided.
(7) This one-sided but accordingly clear and definite attitude must be manifested
in the propaganda of the movement; and, on the other hand, this is absolutely
necessary to make the propaganda itself effective.

If propaganda is to be of service to the movement it must be addressed to one
side alone; for if it should vary the direction of its appeal it will not be
understood in the one camp or may be rejected by the other, as merely insisting
on obvious and uninteresting truisms; for the intellectual training of the two
camps that come into question here has been very different.
Even the manner in which something is presented and the tone in which
particular details are emphasized cannot have the same effect in those two strata
that belong respectively to the opposite extremes of the social structure. If the
propaganda should refrain from using primitive forms of expression it will not
appeal to the sentiments of the masses. If, on the other hand, it conforms to the
crude sentiments of the masses in its words and gestures the intellectual circles
will be averse to it because of its roughness and vulgarity. Among a hundred
men who call themselves orators there are scarcely ten who are capable of
speaking with effect before an audience of street-sweepers, locksmiths and
navvies, etc., to-day and expound the same subject with equal effect to-morrow
before an audience of university professors and students. Among a thousand
public speakers there may be only one who can speak before a composite
audience of locksmiths and professors in the same hall in such a way that his
statements can be fully comprehended by each group while at the same time he
effectively influences both and awakens enthusiasm, on the one side as well as
on the other, to hearty applause. But it must be remembered that in most cases
even the most beautiful idea embodied in a sublime theory can be brought home
to the public only through the medium of smaller minds. The thing that matters
here is not the vision of the man of genius who created the great idea but rather
the success which his apostles achieve in shaping the expression of this idea so
as to bring it home to the minds of the masses.

Social-Democracy and the whole Marxist movement were particularly qualified
to attract the great masses of the nation, because of the uniformity of the public
to which they addressed their appeal. The more limited and narrow their ideas
and arguments, the easier it was for the masses to grasp and assimilate them; for
those ideas and arguments were well adapted to a low level of intelligence.
These considerations led the new movement to adopt a clear and simple line of
policy, which was as follows:




In its message as well as in its forms of expression the propaganda must be kept
on a level with the intelligence of the masses, and its value must be measured
only by the actual success it achieves.

At a public meeting where the great masses are gathered together the best
speaker is not he whose way of approaching a subject is most akin to the spirit
of those intellectuals who may happen to be present, but the speaker who knows
how to win the hearts of the masses.

An educated man who is present and who finds fault with an address because he
considers it to be on an intellectual plane that is too low, though he himself has
witnessed its effect on the lower intellectual groups whose adherence has to be
won, only shows himself completely incapable of rightly judging the situation
and therewith proves that he can be of no use in the new movement. Only
intellectuals can be of use to a movement who understand its mission and its
aims so well that they have learned to judge our methods of propaganda
exclusively by the success obtained and never by the impression which those
methods made on the intellectuals themselves. For our propaganda is not meant
to serve as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist
outlook, but its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been
hostile to national ideas and who are nevertheless of our own blood and race.
In general, those considerations of which I have given a brief summary in the
chapter on 'War Propaganda' became the guiding rules and principles which
determined the kind of propaganda we were to adopt in our campaign and the
manner in which we were to put it into practice. The success that has been
obtained proves that our decision was right.

(8) The ends which any political reform movement sets out to attain can never
be reached by trying to educate the public or influence those in power but only
by getting political power into its hands. Every idea that is meant to move the
world has not only the right but also the obligation of securing control of those
means which will enable the idea to be carried into effect. In this world success
is the only rule of judgment whereby we can decide whether such an
undertaking was right or wrong. And by the word 'success' in this connection I
do not mean such a success as the mere conquest of power in 1918 but the
successful issue whereby the common interests of the nation have been served.
A coup d'etat cannot be considered successful if, as many empty-headed
government lawyers in Germany now believe, the revolutionaries succeeded in
getting control of the State into their hands but only if, in comparison with the
state of affairs under the old regime, the lot of the nation has been improved
when the aims and intentions on which the revolution was based have been put
into practice. This certainly does not apply to the German Revolution, as that
movement was called, which brought a gang of bandits into power in the autumn
of 1918.

But if the conquest of political power be a requisite preliminary for the practical
realization of the ideals that inspire a reform movement, then any movement




which aims at reform must, from the very first day of its activity, be considered
by its leaders as a movement of the masses and not as a Hterary tea club or an
association of philistines who meet to play ninepins.

(9) The nature and internal organization of the new movement make it anti-
parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in general and in its own structure all
those principles according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the
majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and
opinion of others. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as
well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absolute authority and
bear all responsibility.

In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following:
The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group
immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his
group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There
is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This
work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The
same principle applies to the higher organizations - the Bezirk (district), the
Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (the region). In each case the president is
appointed from above and is invested with full authority and executive power.
Only the leader of the whole party is elected at the general meeting of the
members. But he is the sole leader of the movement. All the committees are
responsible to him, but he is not responsible to the committees. His decision is
final, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The members of the movement
are entitled to call him to account by means of a new election, or to remove him
from office if he has violated the principles of the movement or has not served
its interests adequately. He is then replaced by a more capable man. who is
invested with the same authority and obliged to bear the same responsibility.
One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative
not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.
The man who becomes leader is invested with the highest and unlimited
authority, but he also has to bear the last and gravest responsibility.
The man who has not the courage to shoulder responsibility for his actions is not
fitted to be a leader. Only a man of heroic mould can have the vocation for such
a task.

Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the multitude. They are
exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency.
Because of this principle, our movement must necessarily be anti-
parliamentarian, and if it takes part in the parliamentary institution it is only for
the purpose of destroying this institution from within; in other words, we wish to
do away with an institution which we must look upon as one of the gravest
symptoms of human decline.

(10) The movement steadfastly refuses to take up any stand in regard to those
problems which are either outside of its sphere of political work or seem to have




no fundamental importance for us. It does not aim at bringing about a religious

reformation, but rather a political reorganization of our people. It looks upon the

two religious denominations as equally valuable mainstays for the existence of

our people, and therefore it makes war on all those parties which would degrade

this foundation, on which the religious and moral stability of our people is

based, to an instrument in the service of party interests.

Finally, the movement does not aim at establishing any one form of State or

trying to destroy another, but rather to make those fundamental principles

prevail without which no republic and no monarchy can exist for any length of

time. The movement does not consider its mission to be the establishment of a

monarchy or the preservation of the Republic but rather to create a German


The problem concerning the outer form of this State, that is to say, its final

shape, is not of fundamental importance. It is a problem which must be solved in

the light of what seems practical and opportune at the moment.

Once a nation has understood and appreciated the great problems that affect its

inner existence, the question of outer formalities will never lead to any internal


(11) The problem of the inner organization of the movement is not one of

principle but of expediency.

The best kind of organization is not that which places a large intermediary

apparatus between the leadership of the movement and the individual followers

but rather that which works successfully with the smallest possible intermediary

apparatus. For it is the task of such an organization to transmit a certain idea

which originated in the brain of one individual to a multitude of people and to

supervise the manner in which this idea is being put into practice.

Therefore, from any and every viewpoint, the organization is only a necessary

evil. At best it is only a means of reaching certain ends. The worst happens

when it becomes an end in itself.

Since the world produces more mechanical than intelligent beings, it will always

be easier to develop the form of an organization than its substance; that is to say,

the ideas which it is meant to serve.

The march of any idea which strives towards practical fulfilment, and in

particular those ideas which are of a reformatory character, may be roughly

sketched as follows:

A creative idea takes shape in the mind of somebody who thereupon feels

himself called upon to transmit this idea to the world. He propounds his faith

before others and thereby gradually wins a certain number of followers. This

direct and personal way of promulgating one's ideas among one's

contemporaries is the most natural and the most ideal. But as the movement

develops and secures a large number of followers it gradually becomes

impossible for the original founder of the doctrine on which the movement is




based to carry on his propaganda personally among his innumerable followers
and at the same time guide the course of the movement.

According as the community of followers increases, direct communication
between the head and the individual followers becomes impossible. This
intercourse must then take place through an intermediary apparatus introduced
into the framework of the movement. Thus ideal conditions of inter-
communication cease, and organization has to be introduced as a necessary evil.
Small subsidiary groups come into existence, as in the political movement, for
example, where the local groups represent the germ-cells out of which the
organization develops later on.

But such sub-divisions must not be introduced into the movement until the
authority of the spiritual founder and of the school he has created are accepted
without reservation. Otherwise the movement would run the risk of becoming
split up by divergent doctrines. In this connection too much emphasis cannot be
laid on the importance of having one geographic centre as the chief seat of the
movement. Only the existence of such a seat or centre, around which a magic
charm such as that of Mecca or Rome is woven, can supply a movement with
that permanent driving force which has its sources in the internal unity of the
movement and the recognition of one head as representing this unity.
When the first germinal cells of the organization are being formed care must
always be taken to insist on the importance of the place where the idea
originated. The creative, moral and practical greatness of the place whence the
movement went forth and from which it is governed must be exalted to a
supreme symbol, and this must be honoured all the more according as the
original cells of the movement become so numerous that they have to be
regrouped into larger units in the structure of the organization.
When the number of individual followers became so large that direct personal
contact with the head of the movement was out of the question, then we had to
form those first local groups. As those groups multiplied to an extraordinary
number it was necessary to establish higher cadres into which the local groups
were distributed. Examples of such cadres in the political organization are those
of the region (Gau) and the district (Bezirk).

Though it may be easy enough to maintain the original central authority over the
lowest groups, it is much more difficult to do so in relation to the higher units of
organization which have now developed. And yet we must succeed in doing this,
for this is an indispensable condition if the unity of the movement is to be
guaranteed and the idea of it carried into effect.

Finally, when those larger intermediary organizations have to be combined in
new and still higher units it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain over them
the absolute supremacy of the original seat of the movement and the school
attached to it.

Consequently the mechanical forms of an organization must only be introduced
if and in so far as the spiritual authority and the ideals of the central seat of the




organization are shown to be firmly established. In the political sphere it may
often happen that this supremacy can be maintained only when the movement
has taken over supreme political control of the nation.

Having taken all these considerations into account, the following principles were
laid down for the inner structure of the movement:

(a) That at the beginning all activity should be concentrated in one town:
namely, Munich. That a band of absolutely reliable followers should be trained
and a school founded which would subsequently help to propagate the idea of
the movement. That the prestige of the movement, for the sake of its subsequent
extension, should first be established here through gaining as many successful
and visible results as possible in this one place. To secure name and fame for the
movement and its leader it was necessary, not only to give in this one town a
striking example to shatter the belief that the Marxist doctrine was invincible but
also to show that a counter-doctrine was possible.

(b) That local groups should not be established before the supremacy of the
central authority in Munich was definitely established and acknowledged.

(c) That District, Regional, and Provincial groups should be formed only after
the need for them has become evident and only after the supremacy of the
central authority has been satisfactorily guaranteed.

Further, that the creation of subordinate organisms must depend on whether or

not those persons can be found who are qualified to undertake the leadership of


Here there were only two solutions:

(a) That the movement should acquire the necessary funds to attract and train
intelligent people who would be capable of becoming leaders. The personnel
thus obtained could then be systematically employed according as the tactical
situation and the necessity for efficiency demanded.

This solution was the easier and the more expedite. But it demanded large
financial resources; for this group of leaders could work in the movement only if
they could be paid a salary.

(b) Because the movement is not in a position to employ paid officials it must
begin by depending on honorary helpers. Naturally this solution is slower and
more difficult.

It means that the leaders of the movement have to allow vast territories to lie
fallow unless in these respective districts one of the members comes forward
who is capable and willing to place himself at the service of the central authority
for the purpose of organizing and directing the movement in the region

It may happen that in extensive regions no such leader can be found, but that at
the same time in other regions two or three or even more persons appear whose
capabilities are almost on a level. The difficulty which this situation involves is
very great and can be overcome only with the passing of the years.




For the establishment of any branch of the organization the decisive condition
must always be that a person can be found who is capable of fulfilling the
functions of a leader.

Just as the army and all its various units of organization are useless if there are
no officers, so any political organization is worthless if it has not the right kind
of leaders.

If an inspiring personality who has the gift of leadership cannot be found for the
organization and direction of a local group it is better for the movement to
refrain from establishing such a group than to run the risk of failure after the
group has been founded.

The will to be a leader is not a sufficient qualification for leadership. For the
leader must have the other necessary qualities. Among these qualities will-
power and energy must be considered as more serviceable than the intellect of a
genius. The most valuable association of qualities is to be found in a
combination of talent, determination and perseverance.

(12) The future of a movement is determined by the devotion, and even
intolerance, with which its members fight for their cause. They must feel
convinced that their cause alone is just, and they must carry it through to
success, as against other similar organizations in the same field.
It is quite erroneous to believe that the strength of a movement must increase if
it be combined with other movements of a similar kind. Any expansion resulting
from such a combination will of course mean an increase in external
development, which superficial observers might consider as also an increase of
power; but in reality the movement thus admits outside elements which will
subsequently weaken its constitutional vigour.

Though it may be said that one movement is identical in character with another,
in reality no such identity exists. If it did exist then practically there would not
be two movements but only one. And whatever the difference may be, even if it
consist only of the measure in which the capabilities of the one set of leaders
differ from those of the other, there it is. It is against the natural law of all
development to couple dissimilar organisms,or the law is that the stronger must
overcome the weaker and, through the struggle necessary for such a conquest,
increase the constitutional vigour and effective strength of the victor.
By amalgamating political organizations that are approximately alike, certain
immediate advantages may be gained, but advantages thus gained are bound in
the long run to become the cause of internal weaknesses which will make their
appearance later on.

A movement can become great only if the unhampered development of its
internal strength be safeguarded and steadfastly augmented, until victory over all
its competitors be secured.

One may safely say that the strength of a movement and its right to existence
can be developed only as long as it remains true to the principle that struggle is a




necessary condition of its progress and that its maximum strength will be

reached only as soon as complete victory has been won.

Therefore a movement must not strive to obtain successes that will be only

immediate and transitory, but it must show a spirit of uncompromising

perseverance in carrying through a long struggle which will secure for it a long

period of inner growth.

All those movements which owe their expansion to a so-called combination of

similar organisms, which means that their external strength is due to a policy of

compromise, are like plants whose growth is forced in a hothouse. They shoot

up externally but they lack that inner strength which enables the natural plant to

grow into a tree that will withstand the storms of centuries.

The greatness of every powerful organization which embodies a creative idea

lies in the spirit of religious devotion and intolerance with which it stands out

against all others, because it has an ardent faith in its own right. If an idea is

right in itself and, furnished with the fighting weapons I have mentioned, wages

war on this earth, then it is invincible and persecution will only add to its

internal strength.

The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises

with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some

resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical

proclamation and defence of its own teaching.

The apparent advance that a movement makes by associating itself with other

movements will be easily reached and surpassed by the steady increase of

strength which a doctrine and its organization acquires if it remains independent

and fights its own cause alone.

(13) The movement ought to educate its adherents to the principle that struggle

must not be considered a necessary evil but as something to be desired in itself.

Therefore they must not be afraid of the hostility which their adversaries

manifest towards them but they must take it as a necessary condition on which

their whole right to existence is based. They must not try to avoid being hated by

those who are the enemies of our people and our philosophy of life, but must

welcome such hatred. Lies and calumnies are part of the method which the

enemy employs to express his chagrin.

The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish Press is

not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The best rule whereby

the sincerity of his convictions, his character and strength of will, can be

measured is the hostility which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of

our people.

The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be reminded

again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his newspapers, the Jew

is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells the truth on some occasions it

is only for the purpose of masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent




truth into a deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood

and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.

Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of honour which

can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest to our hearts

and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.

If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does not find

himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no account. For if he had

achieved something he would be persecuted, slandered, derided and abused.

Those who effectively combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the

same time the enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to

arouse opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its slanderous


When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of our

members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible.

(14) The movement must use all possible means to cultivate respect for the

individual personality. It must never forget that all human values are based on

personal values, and that every idea and achievement is the fruit of the creative

power of one man. We must never forget that admiration for everything that is

great is not only a tribute to one creative personality but that all those who feel

such admiration become thereby united under one covenant.

Nothing can take the place of the individual, especially if the individual

embodies in himself not the mechanical element but the element of cultural

creativeness. No pupil can take the place of the master in completing a great

picture which he has left unfinished; and just in the same way no substitute can

take the place of the great poet or thinker, or the great statesman or military

general. For the source of their power is in the realm of artistic creativeness. It

can never be mechanically acquired, because it is an innate product of divine


The greatest revolutions and the greatest achievements of this world, its greatest

cultural works and the immortal creations of great statesmen, are inseparably

bound up with one name which stands as a symbol for them in each respective

case. The failure to pay tribute to one of those great spirits signifies a neglect of

that enormous source of power which lies in the remembrance of all great men

and women.

The Jew himself knows this best. He, whose great men have always been great

only in their efforts to destroy mankind and its civilization, takes good care that

they are worshipped as idols. But the Jew tries to degrade the honour in which

nations hold their great men and women. He stigmatizes this honour as 'the cult

of personality'.

As soon as a nation has so far lost its courage as to submit to this impudent

defamation on the part of the Jews it renounces the most important source of its

own inner strength. This inner force cannot arise from a policy of pandering to




the masses but only from the worship of men of genius, whose Hves have
uplifted and ennobled the nation itself.

When men's hearts are breaking and their souls are plunged into the depths of
despair, their great forebears turn their eyes towards them from the dim shadows
of the past - those forebears who knew how to triumph over anxiety and
affliction, mental servitude and physical bondage - and extend their eternal
hands in a gesture of encouragement to despairing souls. Woe to the nation that
is ashamed to clasp those hands.

During the initial phase of our movement our greatest handicap was the fact that
none of us were known and our names meant nothing, a fact which then seemed
to some of us to make the chances of final success problematical. Our most
difficult task then was to make our members firmly believe that there was a
tremendous future in store for the movement and to maintain this belief as a
living faith; for at that time only six, seven or eight persons came to hear one of
our speakers.

Consider that only six or seven poor devils who were entirely unknown came
together to found a movement which should succeed in doing what the great
mass-parties had failed to do: namely, to reconstruct the German Reich, even in
greater power and glory than before. We should have been very pleased if we
were attacked or even ridiculed. But the most depressing fact was that nobody
paid any attention to us whatever. This utter lack of interest in us caused me
great mental pain at that time.

When I entered the circle of those men there was not yet any question of a party
or a movement. I have already described the impression which was made on me
when I first came into contact with that small organization. Subsequently I had
time, and also the occasion, to study the form of this so-called party which at
first had made such a woeful impression. The picture was indeed quite
depressing and discouraging. There was nothing, absolutely nothing at all. There
was only the name of a party. And the committee consisted of all the party
members. Somehow or other it seemed just the kind of thing we were about to
fight against - a miniature parliament. The voting system was employed. When
the great parliament cried until they were hoarse - at least they shouted over
problems of importance - here this small circle engaged in interminable
discussions as to the form in which they might answer the letters which they
were delighted to have received.

Needless to say, the public knew nothing of all this. In Munich nobody knew of
the existence of such a party, not even by name, except our few members and
their small circle of acquaintances.

Every Wednesday what was called a committee meeting was held in one of the
cafes, and a debate was arranged for one evening each week. In the beginning all
the members of the movement were also members of the committee, therefore
the same persons always turned up at both meetings. The first step that had to be
taken was to extend the narrow limits of this small circle and get new members.




but the principal necessity was to utilize all the means at our command for the
purpose of making the movement known.

We chose the following methods: We decided to hold a monthly meeting to
which the public would be invited. Some of the invitations were typewritten, and
some were written by hand. For the first few meetings we distributed them in the
streets and delivered them personally at certain houses. Each one canvassed
among his own acquaintances and tried to persuade some of them to attend our
meetings. The result was lamentable.

I still remember once how I personally delivered eighty of these invitations and
how we waited in the evening for the crowds to come. After waiting in vain for
a whole hour the chairman finally had to open the meeting. Again there were
only seven people present, the old familiar seven.

We then changed our methods. We had the invitations written with a typewriter
in a Munich stationer's shop and then multi graphed them.
The result was that a few more people attended our next meeting. The number
increased gradually from eleven to thirteen to seventeen, to twenty-three and
finally to thirty-four. We collected some money within our own circle, each poor
devil giving a small contribution, and in that way we raised sufficient funds to
be able to advertise one of our meetings in the Munich Observer, which was still
an independent paper.

This time we had an astonishing success. We had chosen the Munich
Hofbrauhaus Keller (which must not be confounded with the Munich
Hofbrauhaus Festsaal) as our meeting-place. It was a small hall and would
accommodate scarcely more than 130 people. To me, however, the hall seemed
enormous, and we were all trembling lest this tremendous edifice would remain
partly empty on the night of the meeting.

At seven o'clock 111 persons were present, and the meeting was opened. A
Munich professor delivered the principal address, and I spoke after him. That
was my first appearance in the role of public orator. The whole thing seemed a
very daring adventure to Herr Harrer, who was then chairman of the party. He
was a very decent fellow; but he had an a priori conviction that, although I might
have quite a number of good qualities, I certainly did not have a talent for public
speaking. Even later he could not be persuaded to change his opinion. But he
was mistaken. Twenty minutes had been allotted to me for my speech on this
occasion, which might be looked upon as our first public meeting.
I talked for thirty minutes, and what I always had felt deep down in my heart,
without being able to put it to the test, was here proved to be true: I could make
a good speech. At the end of the thirty minutes it was quite clear that all the
people in the little hall had been profoundly impressed. The enthusiasm aroused
among them found its first expression in the fact that my appeal to those present
brought us donations which amounted to three hundred marks. That was a great
relief for us. Our finances were at that time so meagre that we could not afford
to have our party prospectus printed, or even leaflets. Now we possessed at least




the nucleus of a fund from which we could pay the most urgent and necessary

But the success of this first larger meeting was also important from another
point of view. I had already begun to introduce some young and fresh members
into the committee. During the long period of my military service I had come to
know a large number of good comrades whom I was now able to persuade to
join our party. All of them were energetic and disciplined young men who,
through their years of military service, had been imbued with the principle that
nothing is impossible and that where there's a will there's a way.
The need for this fresh blood supply became evident to me after a few weeks of
collaboration with the new members. Herr Harrer, who was then chairman of the
party, was a journalist by profession, and as such he was a man of general
knowledge. But as leader of the party he had one very serious handicap: he
could not speak to the crowd. Though he did his work conscientiously, it lacked
the necessary driving force, probably for the reason that he had no oratorical
gifts whatsoever. Herr Drexler, at that time chairman of the Munich local group,
was a simple working man. He, too, was not of any great importance as a
speaker. Moreover, he was not a soldier. He had never done military service,
even during the War. So that this man who was feeble and diffident by nature
had missed the only school which knows how to transform diffident and weakly
natures into real men. Therefore neither of those two men were of the stuff that
would have enabled them to stir up an ardent and indomitable faith in the
ultimate triumph of the movement and to brush aside, with obstinate force and if
necessary with brutal ruthlessness, all obstacles that stood in the path of the new
idea. Such a task could be carried out only by men who had been trained, body
and soul, in those military virtues which make a man, so to speak, agile as a
greyhound, tough as leather, and hard as Krupp steel.

At that time I was still a soldier. Physically and mentally I had the polish of six
years of service, so that in the beginning this circle must have looked on me as
quite a stranger. In common with my army comrades, I had forgotten such
phrases as: "That will not go", or "That is not possible", or "We ought not to
take such a risk; it is too dangerous" .

The whole undertaking was of its very nature dangerous. At that time there were
many parts of Germany where it would have been absolutely impossible openly
to invite people to a national meeting that dared to make a direct appeal to the
masses. Those who attended such meetings were usually dispersed and driven
away with broken heads. It certainly did not call for any great qualities to be
able to do things in that way. The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings
were accustomed to dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like
rabbits when frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on
the scene. The Reds used to pay little attention to those bourgeois organizations
where only babblers talked. They recognized the inner triviality of such
associations much better than the members themselves and therefore felt that




they need not be afraid of them. On the contrary, however, they were all the
more determined to use every possible means of annihilating once and for all
any movement that appeared to them to be a danger to their own interests. The
most effective means which they always employed in such cases were terror and
brute force.

The Marxist leaders, whose business consisted in deceiving and misleading the
public, naturally hated most of all a movement whose declared aim was to win
over those masses which hitherto had been exclusively at the service of
international Marxism in the Jewish and Stock Exchange parties. The title alone,
'German Labour party', irritated them. It could easily be foreseen that at the first
opportune moment we should have to face the opposition of the Marxist despots,
who were still intoxicated with their triumph in 1918.

People in the small circles of our own movement at that time showed a certain
amount of anxiety at the prospect of such a conflict. They wanted to refrain as
much as possible from coming out into the open, because they feared that they
might be attacked and beaten. In their minds they saw our first public meetings
broken up and feared that the movement might thus be ruined for ever. I found it
difficult to defend my own position, which was that the conflict should not be
evaded but that it should be faced openly and that we should be armed with
those weapons which are the only protection against brute force. Terror cannot
be overcome by the weapons of the mind but only by counter-terror. The success
of our first public meeting strengthened my own position. The members felt
encouraged to arrange for a second meeting, even on a larger scale.
Some time in October 1919 the second larger meeting took place in the Eberl-
brau Keller. The theme of our speeches was 'Brest-Litowsk and Versailles'.
There were four speakers. I talked for almost an hour, and the success was even
more striking than at our first meeting. The number of people who attended had
grown to more than 130. An attempt to disturb the proceedings was immediately
frustrated by my comrades. The would-be disturbers were thrown down the
stairs, bearing imprints of violence on their heads.

A fortnight later another meeting took place in the same hall. The number in
attendance had now increased to more than 170, which meant that the room was
fairly well filled. I spoke again, and once more the success obtained was greater
than at the previous meeting.

Then I proposed that a larger hall should be found. After looking around for
some time we discovered one at the other end of the town, in the 'Deutschen
Reich' in the Dachauer Strasse. The first meeting at this new rendezvous had a
smaller attendance than the previous meeting. There were just less than 140
present. The members of the committee began to be discouraged, and those who
had always been sceptical were now convinced that this falling-off in the
attendance was due to the fact that we were holding the meetings at too short
intervals. There were lively discussions, in which I upheld my own opinion that
a city with 700,000 inhabitants ought to be able not only to stand one meeting



every fortnight but ten meetings every week. I held that we should not be
discouraged by one comparative setback, that the tactics we had chosen were
correct, and that sooner or later success would be ours if we only continued with
determined perseverance to push forward on our road. This whole winter of
1919-20 was one continual struggle to strengthen confidence in our ability to
carry the movement through to success and to intensify this confidence until it
became a burning faith that could move mountains.

Our next meeting in the small hall proved the truth of my contention. Our
audience had increased to more than 200. The publicity effect and the financial
success were splendid. I immediately urged that a further meeting should be
held. It took place in less than a fortnight, and there were more than 270 people
present. Two weeks later we invited our followers and their friends, for the
seventh time, to attend our meeting. The same hall was scarcely large enough
for the number that came. They amounted to more than four hundred.
During this phase the young movement developed its inner form. Sometimes we
had more or less hefty discussions within our small circle. From various sides -
it was then just the same as it is to-day - objections were made against the idea
of calling the young movement a party. I have always considered such criticism
as a demonstration of practical incapability and narrow-mindedness on the part
of the critic. Those objections have always been raised by men who could not
differentiate between external appearances and inner strength, but tried to judge
the movement by the high-sounding character of the name attached to it. To this
end they ransacked the vocabulary of our ancestors, with unfortunate results.
At that time it was very difficult to make the people understand that every
movement is a party as long as it has not brought its ideals to final triumph and
thus achieved its purpose. It is a party even if it give itself a thousand difterent

Any person who tries to carry into practice an original idea whose realization
would be for the benefit of his fellow men will first have to look for disciples
who are ready to fight for the ends he has in view. And if these ends did not go
beyond the destruction of the party system and therewith put a stop to the
process of disintegration, then all those who come forward as protagonists and
apostles of such an ideal are a party in themselves as long as their final goal is
reached. It is only hair-splitting and playing with words when these antiquated
theorists, whose practical success is in reverse ratio to their wisdom, presume to
think they can change the character of a movement which is at the same time a
party, by merely changing its name.

On the contrary, it is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the nation to keep
harping on that far-off and forgotten nomenclature which belongs to the ancient
Germanic times and does not awaken any distinct association in our age. This
habit of borrowing words from the dead past tends to mislead the people into
thinking that the external trappings of its vocabulary are the important feature of
a movement. It is really a mischievous habit; but it is quite prevalent nowadays.




At that time, and subsequently, I had to warn followers repeatedly against these
wandering scholars who were peddling Germanic folk-lore and who never
accomplished anything positive or practical, except to cultivate their own
superabundant self-conceit. The new movement must guard itself against an
influx of people whose only recommendation is their own statement that they
have been fighting for these very same ideals during the last thirty or forty years.
Now if somebody has fought for forty years to carry into effect what he calls an
idea, and if these alleged efforts not only show no positive results but have not
even been able to hinder the success of the opposing party, then the story of
those forty years of futile effort furnishes sufficient proof for the incompetence
of such a protagonist. People of that kind are specially dangerous because they
do not want to participate in the movement as ordinary members. They talk
rather of the leading positions which would be the only fitting posts for them, in
view of their past work and also so that they might be enabled to carry on that
work further. But woe to a young movement if the conduct of it should fall into
the hands of such people. A business man who has been in charge of a great firm
for forty years and who has completely mined it through his mismanagement is
not the kind of person one would recommend for the founding of a new firm.
And it is just the same with a new national movement. Nobody of common
sense would appoint to a leading post in such a movement some Teutonic
Methuselah who had been ineffectively preaching some idea for a period of
forty years, until himself and his idea had entered the stage of senile decay.
Furthermore, only a very small percentage of such people join a new movement
with the intention of serving its end unselfishly and helping in the spread of its
principles. In most cases they come because they think that, under the sgis of
the new movement, it will be possible for them to promulgate their old ideas to
the misfortune of their new listeners. Anyhow, nobody ever seems able to
describe what exactly these ideas are.

It is typical of such persons that they rant about ancient Teutonic heroes of the
dim and distant ages, stone axes, battle spears and shields, whereas in reality
they themselves are the woefullest poltroons imaginable. For those very same
people who brandish Teutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefully
according to ancient models and wear padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen
mounted over their bearded faces, proclaim that all contemporary conflicts must
be decided by the weapons of the mind alone. And thus they skedaddle when the
first communist cudgel appears. Posterity will have little occasion to write a new
epic on these heroic gladiators.

I have seen too much of that kind of people not to feel a profound contempt for
their miserable play-acting. To the masses of the nation they are just an object of
ridicule; but the Jew finds it to his own interest to treat these folk-lore
comedians with respect and to prefer them to real men who are fighting to
establish a German State. And yet these comedians are extremely proud of
themselves. Notwithstanding their complete fecklessness, which is an




established fact, they pretend to know everything better than other people; so
much so that they make themselves a veritable nuisance to all sincere and honest
patriots, to whom not only the heroism of the past is worthy of honour but who
also feel bound to leave examples of their own work for the inspiration of the
coming generation.

Among those people there were some whose conduct can be explained by their
innate stupidity and incompetence; but there are others who have a definite
ulterior purpose in view. Often it is difficult to distinguish between the two
classes. The impression which I often get, especially of those so-called religious
reformers whose creed is grounded on ancient Germanic customs, is that they
are the missionaries and proteges of those forces which do not wish to see a
national revival taking place in Germany. All their activities tend to turn the
attention of the people away from the necessity of fighting together in a
common cause against the common enemy, namely the Jew. Moreover, that kind
of preaching induces the people to use up their energies, not in fighting for the
common cause, but in absurd and ruinous religious controversies within their
own ranks. There are definite grounds that make it absolutely necessary for the
movement to be dominated by a strong central force which is embodied in the
authoritative leadership. In this way alone is it possible to counteract the activity
of such fatal elements. And that is just the reason why these folk-lore
Ahasuemses are vigorously hostile to any movement whose members are firmly
united under one leader and one discipline. Those people of whom I have
spoken hate such a movement because it is capable of putting a stop to their

It was not without good reason that when we laid down a clearly defined
programme for the new movement we excluded the word volkisch from it. The
concept underlying the term volkisch cannot serve as the basis of a movement,
because it is too indefinite and general in its application. Therefore, if somebody
called himself volkisch such a designation could not be taken as the hall-mark of
some definite, party affiliation.

Because this concept is so indefinite from the practical viewpoint, it gives rise to
various interpretations and thus people can appeal to it all the more easily as a
sort of personal recommendation. Whenever such a vague concept, which is
subject to so many interpretations, is admitted into a political movement it tends
to break up the disciplined solidarity of the fighting forces. No such solidarity
can be maintained if each individual member be allowed to define for himself
what he believes and what he is willing to do.

One feels it a disgrace when one notices the kind of people who float about
nowadays with the volkisch symbol stuck in their buttonholes, and at the same
time to notice how many people have various ideas of their own as to the
significance of that symbol. A well-known professor in Bavaria, a famous
combatant who fights only with the weapons of the mind and who boasts of
having marched against Berlin - by shouldering the weapons of the mind, of




course - believes that the word volkisch is synonymous with 'monarchical'. But
this learned authority has hitherto neglected to explain how our German
monarchs of the past can be identified with what we generally mean by the word
volkisch to-day. I am afraid he will find himself at a loss if he is asked to give a
precise answer. For it would be very difficult indeed to imagine anything less
volkisch than most of those German monarchical States were. Had they been
otherwise they would not have disappeared; or if they were volkisch, then the
fact of their downfall may be taken as evidence that the volkisch outlook on the
world (Weltanschhauung) is a false outlook.

Everybody interprets this concept in his own way. But such multifarious
opinions cannot be adopted as the basis of a militant political movement. I need
not call attention to the absolute lack of worldly wisdom, and especially the
failure to understand the soul of the nation, which is displayed by these
Messianic Precursors of the Twentieth Century. Sufficient attention has been
called to those people by the ridicule which the left-wing parties have bestowed
on them. They allow them to babble on and sneer at them.
I do not set much value on the friendship of people who do not succeed in
getting disliked by their enemies. Therefore, we considered the friendship of
such people as not only worthless but even dangerous to our young movement.
That was the principal reason why we first called ourselves a Party. We hoped
that by giving ourselves such a name we might scare away a whole host of
volkisch dreamers. And that was the reason also why we named our Party, The
National Socialist German Labour Party.

The first term. Party, kept away all those dreamers who live in the past and all
the lovers of bombastic nomenclature, as well as those who went around beating
the big drum for the volkisch idea. The full name of the Party kept away all
those heroes whose weapon is the sword of the spirit and all those whining
poltroons who take refuge behind their so-called 'intelligence' as if it were a
kind of shield.

It was only to be expected that this latter class would launch a massed attack
against us after our movement had started; but, of course, it was only a pen-and-
ink attack, for the goose-quill is the only weapon which these volkisch lancers
wield. We had declared one of our principles thus: "We shall meet violence with
violence in our own defence". Naturally that principle disturbed the equanimity
of the knights of the pen. They reproached us bitterly not only for what they
called our crude worship of the cudgel but also because, according to them, we
had no intellectual forces on our side. These charlatans did not think for a
moment that a Demosthenes could be reduced to silence at a mass-meeting by
fifty idiots who had come there to shout him down and use their fists against his
supporters. The innate cowardice of the pen-and-ink charlatan prevents him
from exposing himself to such a danger, for he always works in safe retirement
and never dares to make a noise or come forward in public.




Even to-day I must warn the members of our young movement in the strongest
possible terms to guard against the danger of falHng into the snare of those who
call themselves 'silent workers'. These 'silent workers' are not only a
whitelivered lot but are also, and always will be, ignorant do-nothings. A man
who is aware of certain happenings and knows that a certain danger threatens,
and at the same time sees a certain remedy which can be employed against it, is
in duty bound not to work in silence but to come into the open and publicly fight
for the destruction of the evil and the acceptance of his own remedy. If he does
not do so, then he is neglecting his duty and shows that he is weak in character
and that he fails to act either because of his timidity, or indolence or
incompetence. Most of these 'silent workers' generally pretend to know God
knows what. Not one of them is capable of any real achievement, but they keep
on trying to fool the world with their antics. Though quite indolent, they try to
create the impression that their 'silent work' keeps them very busy. To put it
briefly, they are sheer swindlers, political jobbers who feel chagrined by the
honest work which others are doing. When you find one of these volkisch moths
buzzing over the value of his 'silent work' you may be sure that you are dealing
with a fellow who does no productive work at all but steals from others the fruits
of their honest labour.

In addition to all this one ought to note the arrogance and conceited impudence
with which these obscurantist idlers try to tear to pieces the work of other
people, criticizing it with an air of superiority, and thus playing into the hands of
the mortal enemy of our people.

Even the simplest follower who has the courage to stand on the table in some
beer-hall where his enemies are gathered, and manfully and openly defend his
position against them, achieves a thousand times more than these slinking
hypocrites. He at least will convert one or two people to believe in the
movement. One can examine his work and test its effectiveness by its actual
results. But those knavish swindlers - who praise their own 'silent work' and
shelter themselves under the cloak of anonymity, are just worthless drones, in
the truest sense of the term, and are utterly useless for the purpose of our
national reconstruction.

In the beginning of 1920 I put forward the idea of holding our first mass
meeting. On this proposal there were differences of opinion amongst us. Some
leading members of our party thought that the time was no