The aryan man is superior culturally, they are the founders of civilization Sieg Heil

[Naofumi]

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 must always be confined to general ideas in a large
perspective. These ought to be deeply engraved, 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 small bit of knowledge that
some were fortunate to learn at school. The rats that poison our body-politic
devour from the hearts and memories of the broad masses even the little
bit remaining from distress and misery.
2.9 THE ORDEAL OF THE WORKER'S CHILD
Imagine the following scene:
There is a cellar apartment, and this lodging consists of two damp
rooms. A workman and his family live in these rooms-seven people in
all. Let's assume that one of the children is a 3-year-old boy. That is the
age at which children first become conscious of the impressions that they
receive. In the case of highly gifted people, traces of those early
impressions survive until old age.
Now, the narrowness and congestion of those living quarters are not
conducive to pleasant family relations. Quarrels and fits of mutual anger
thus arise. These people can hardly be said to live with one another, but
rather on top of one another. Small misunderstandings, ones that would
disappear in a spacious family home, become here the source of chronic
disputes. As far as the children are concerned, the situation is tolerable from
one 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 endlessly squabble, the daily arguments sink to an unimaginably
low level. Such experiences must eventually have an effect on the children.
One must actually live through such an environment to truly picture the
results of these mutual recriminations-as when the father physically
assaults the mother and abuses her in a fit of drunken rage.
At the age of six, the child can no longer ignore these sordid details,
ones that even an adult would find revolting. Infected with moral poison,
68
CHAPTER 2
bodily undernourished, and a head full of lice, the young 'citizen' goes to
elementary school. With difficulty, he barely learns to read and write. There
is no possibility of leaming any lessons at home. On the contrary. The father
and mother themselves speak ill of the teacher and school in front of the
children, and they are far more inclined to insult the teachers than to put
their child across the knee and knock sound reason into him. What the child
hears at home only decreases his respect for his fellow citizens. Nothing
good is said of human nature as a whole, and every institution, from the
school to the government, is reviled. Whether they speak of religion and
morals or the State and the social order, it's all the same; everything is
disparaged.
When the young boy leaves elementary school at the age of 14, it
would be difficult to say what are the most striking features of his character:
incredible ignorance insofar as real knowledge is concerned, or cynical
impudence combined with a negative attitude towards morality. For one of
such a young age, it's enough to make your hair stand on end.
2.10 YOUNG DESPISER OF AUTHORITY
What station in life can such a person fill, to whom nothing is sacred,
and who has never experienced anything noble--on the contrary, who has
been intimately acquainted with the lowest kind of human existence?
This 3-year-old child has become a 1 5-year-old despiser of authority.
He has been acquainted only with moral filth and vileness, and everything
excluded that might stimulate his thought towards higher things.
And now this young man enters the school of life.
He leads the same kind of life that was exemplified for him by his
father during childhood. He hangs around street comers and comes home
at all hours. He occasionally even beats his poor mother. He curses God
and the world, and finally ends up in a juvenile corrections center.
And there he gets his final polish.
And his bourgeois contemporaries are astonished at the lack of
'patriotic enthusiasm' that this young 'citizen' displays.
Day after day, they are all witnesses to the phenomenon of spreading
poison among the people, through the use of theater and cinema, gutter
journalism and obscene books. And yet they are astonished at the
deplorable 'moral standards' and 'national indifference' of the masses. As
if trash cinema, gutter press, and the like could impart knowledge of the

 

[Naofumi]

greatness of one's country-quite apart from the earlier education of the
individual.
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 that will furnish the grounds
necessary for the education of the individual. For only when family
upbringing and school education have imparted to the individual cultural
and economic knowledge and, above all, a sense of the political greatness
of his own country-only then will it be possible for him to feel proud of
being a citizen. I can fight only for something that I love. I can love only
what I respect. And in order to respect something, I must at least have some
knowledge of it.
2.11 ARCHITECT AND WATERCOLOR PAINTER
As soon as my interest in social questions was awakened, I began to
study them in a fundamental way. A new and previously unknown world
was thus revealed to me.
In the years 1 909- 1 9 10, I had so improved my position that I no longer
had to earn my daily bread as a manual laborer. I was now working
independently as a draftsman and painter in watercolors. This career was a
poor one indeed, at least as far as earnings were concerned. I barely had
enough to meet the necessities of life. Yet it was interesting for me, in light
of the profession that I aspired to.
Moreover, when I came home in the evenings, I was now no longer
dead-tired as before, when I was unable to glance at a book without falling
asleep almost immediately. My present work was therefore aligned with
my future profession. Furthermore, I was master of my own time, and could
distribute my working-hours better now than before.
I painted to make a living, and I studied for pleasure.
Thus I was able to acquire theoretical knowledge of the social problem,
something that was a necessary complement to what I was learning through
daily experience. I studied all the books I could find that dealt with this
question, and I thought deeply about what I read.
I believe that those around me considered me an eccentric person.
Apart from my interest in the social question, I naturally devoted
myself with enthusiasm to the study of architecture. Along side music, I
70
CHAPTER 2
considered it queen of the arts. It was pleasure, not work, to study it. I could
read or draw until late at night without ever getting tired. And I became
more and more confident that my dream of a brilliant future would become
true, even though I might have to wait years to achieve it. I was firmly
convinced that one day I would make a name for myself as an architect.
The fact that, along side my professional studies, I took the greatest
interest in everything political did not seem to be especially important. On
the contrary-I looked upon this practical interest in politics as the obvious
duty of every thinking man. Those who have no understanding of the
political world around them have no right to criticize or complain.
I therefore continued to read and study politics extensively.
2.12 THE ART OF READING
Reading, however, had a different meaning for me than it has for the
average run of our so-called 'intellectuals. '
I know people who read endlessly, book after book, from cover to
cover, and yet I would not call them 'well-read. ' Of course they 'know' an
immense amount; but their brain seems incapable of sifting and organizing
the information they have acquired. They don't have the ability to
distinguish between what is useful and what is useless. They may retain
the former in their minds and, if possible, skip over the latter while reading
it-and if that's not possible, they will 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 that comprises each person's
talents and abilities. Thus each one acquires for himself the tools and
materials needed for the fulfillment of his life's work-regardless whether
this is 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 provide an overall worldview.
In both cases, however, the information acquired through reading must
not be stored up in the memory, corresponding to the successive chapters
of the book. Rather, each little piece of knowledge thus gained must be
treated as if it were a stone to be inserted into a mosaic, so that it finds its
proper place among all the other elements that form a general worldview
in the reader's mind. 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. He seriously
7 1
MEIN KAMPF
thinks himself to be well-educated, and 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 further away from real life
until he finally ends up either in some sanatorium or in parliament.
Such a person never succeeds in making practical use of his knowledge
when the moment .calls for it. His mental equipment is not organized to
meet the demands of everyday life. His knowledge is stored in his brain as
a literal transcript of the books he has read, and in the order in which he
has read them. And if fate should one day call upon him to use his book
knowledge, it will have to give him the title and page number-otherwise
he will never be able to recall the needed information. But if the page is
not mentioned at the critical moment, the bright boy will find himself in a
state of hopeless embarrassment. Highly agitated, he searches for
comparable cases, and it is almost certain that he will finally deliver the
wrong prescription.
If that's an incorrect description, then how can we explain the political
achievements of our parliamentary heroes, who hold the highest positions
in government? Otherwise we would have to attribute their actions to
malice and chicanery, rather than to pathology.
On the other hand, one who has cultivated the art of reading will
instantly perceive, in a book or journal or pamphlet, what should be
remembered--either because it meets one's needs or it has value in general.
What he thus learns is incorporated into his mental picture of a problem or
a thing, further correcting or enlarging it, so that it becomes more exact
and precise. If some practical problem suddenly demands examination or
a solution, memory will immediately select the appropriate information
from the mass that has been acquired through years of reading. Memory
will also 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 to produce
a definitive solution.
Only thus can reading have any meaning or purpose.
For example, a speaker who does not have at hand the sources of
information that are necessary to a proper treatment of his subject is unable
to defend his opinions against an opponent, even though those opinions
may be perfectly solid and true. In every discussion, his memory will
abandon him. He cannot summon up arguments to support his statements,
or to refute his opponent. As long as the speaker only has to defend himself,
the situation is not serious; but the evil comes when fate places such a
know-it-all-who in reality knows nothing-in charge of a state.

 

[Naofumi]

From my earliest youth, I tried to read books in the right way, and I
was fortunate to have good memory and intelligence to assist me. From
that point of view, my time in Vienna was particularly useful and profitable.
My experiences of everyday life there were a constant stimulus to study
the most varied problems in new ways. Inasmuch as I was in a position to
put theory to the test of reality-and reality to the test of theory-I was
protected from the danger of pedantic theorizing on the one hand and, on
the other, from being too impressed by superficial aspects of reality.
The experience of everyday life at that time forced me to make a
fundamental theoretical study of the two most important questions-apart
from the social question.
It is impossible to say when I might have begun to make a thorough
study of the doctrine and characteristics of Marxism, were it not for the
fact that I ran head-first into the problem!
2.13 SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
What I knew of Social Democracy2 in my youth was precious little
and for the most part, wrong.
The fact that it led the struggle for universal suffrage and the secret
ballot gave me an inner satisfaction. I then reasoned 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 Danube State could not
continue to exist. Even at the cost of a gradual Slavization of the Austrian
Germans, the state would not thereby become a durable empire. This was
because it was very questionable if, and to what degree, the Slavs possessed
the necessary capacity for constructive politics. I therefore welcomed every
movement that might lead towards the final disruption of that impossible
state-one that had condemned 10 million Germans to death. The more
this Babel of tongues wrought discord and disruption, even in the
parliament, the nearer the hour came for the dissolution of this Babylonian
Empire. That would mean the liberation of my German Austrian people.
Only then would it become possible for them to be reunited with the
Motherland.

 

[Naofumi]

Consequently, 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 foolishly believed-was
another factor that spoke in favor of Social Democracy rather than against
it. But what most repelled me was its hostile attitude towards the struggle
for the preservation of Germanism in Austria. Also lamentable was its
courting of the Slavic 'comrades'-who welcomed this development only
as long as there were practical advantages. Otherwise, the Slavs maintained
an arrogant reserve; this gave the fawning beggars their just desserts.
Thus, at the age of 1 7, the word 'Marxism' was very little known to
me, while I viewed ' Social Democracy' and 'Socialism' as synonymous .
It took a sudden blow from the hand of fate to open my eyes to the nature
of this unparalleled betrayal of humanity.
Until then, my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only
that of a mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I hadn't the
slightest idea of social-democratic teachings or the mindset of its partisans.
All of a sudden, I was brought face to face with the products of their
teaching and what they called their Weltanschauung, or worldview. Thus a
few months sufficed for me to learn something that, under other
circumstances, might have taken decades of study-namely that, under the
cloak of social virtue and love of one's neighbor, a veritable pestilence was
spreading abroad, and that if this pestilence were not immediately stamped
out, it might result in the end of the human race on this earth.
My first contact with the Social Democrats came while working in the
building trade.
From the very start, it was none too pleasant for me. My clothes were
still rather decent; I was careful in speech, and reserved in manner. I was so
occupied with thinking of my own present lot, and of future possibilities, that
I took little interest in my immediate surroundings. I sought work in order to
eat, and also to make progress with my studies-even though it might be
slow. I may have never bothered to be interested in my surroundings, if it
weren't for the fact that, on the third or fourth day, an event occurred that
forced me to take a definite stand. I was ordered to join the trade union.
At that time, I knew nothing about them. I had had no opportunity to
form an opinion on their value, whatever it may be. But when I was told
that I must join the union, I refused. The reasons I gave were simply that
I knew nothing about the matter, and that, in any case, I wouldn't allow
myself to be forced into anything. The first reason probably saved me from
being thrown out right away. They likely thought that I might be

 

[Naofumi]

converted' in a few days and become more docile. But if they thought
that, they were deeply mistaken. After two weeks, I found it utterly
impossible to contemplate, even ifl had been willing to join at first. During
those 14 days, I came to know my fellow workmen better; and no power
in the world could have forced me to join an organization whose
representatives had meanwhile shown themselves in such a bad light.
In the first few days, my resentment was aroused.
At noon, some of the workers adjourned to the nearest tavern, while
the others remained on the building premises and ate their midday meal;
in most cases, it was a very scanty one. These were married men, whose
wives brought them soup in pathetic bowls. At week's end, there was a
gradual increase in the number who stayed to eat on the premises. I later
understood the reason for this. On these occasions, they talked politics.
I drank my milk and ate my morsel of bread somewhere off to the side,
while I either cautiously studied my environment or else reflected 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 drawing me in.
But all that I heard infuriated me. Everything was disparaged: the nation,
because it was an invention of the 'capitalist' class-how often I had to
hear that phrase! ; the Fatherland, because it was 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 oppressing the proletariat; religion,
as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards; and
morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that
they didn't drag through the mud.
At first I remained silent; but that couldn't last very long. Then I began
to take part in the discussion, and to reply to their statements. I recognized,
however, that this was doomed to failure, as long as I didn't have at least a
certain amount of definite information about the questions that were
discussed. So I decided to examine the sources from which they claimed
to have drawn their so-called wisdom. I studied book after book, pamphlet
after pamphlet.
Meanwhile, we continued to argue with one another. Each day I was
getting better-informed than my opponents. Then a day came when the
more fearsome of my adversaries resorted to the weapon that most easily
triumphs over reason: terror and violence. Some of the leaders among my
opponents ordered me to leave the building, or else get thrown off the
scaffolding. Since I was all alone, I couldn't put up any physical resistance;
so I chose the first option and departed-but richer by experience.

 

[Naofumi]

I went away full of disgust. But at the same time, I was so deeply
affected that it was quite impossible for me to ignore the whole situation
and to stop thinking about it. When my anger began to calm down, my
spirit of obstinacy got the upper hand and I decided that I would get back
to work again in the building trade, at all costs. This decision became all
the stronger a few weeks later, when my meager savings ran out and hunger
clutched me once again in its merciless arms. I had no alternative. I got
work again, but I soon had to leave 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. If the answer was 'Yes,' then the
struggle to defend one's nationality is hardly worth all the pain and sacrifice
we demand of our best men, if it only be in the interests of such rabble. On the
other hand, if the answer was 'No,' then we are a nation of pitiful men.
During those days of mental anguish and deep reflection, I envisioned
an ever-increasing mass of people who could no longer be reckoned as
belonging to their own nation.
2.14 THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PRESS
It was quite a different feeling a few days later, when I gazed at the
endless columns, four abreast, of Viennese workmen parading at a mass
demonstration! I stood dumbfounded for almost two hours, watching that
enormous human dragon slowly uncoil itself in front of me. When I finally
left the square and wandered home, I felt dismayed and depressed.
On my way, I noticed the Arbeiter-Zeitung (The Worker's Journal) in a
tobacco shop. This was the chief press-organ of the old Austrian Social
Democracy. It was also available in a cheap cafe that I used to visit, and
where I often went to read the papers. But previously I couldn't bring myself
to look at the wretched thing for more than two minutes; its whole tone
angered me. Depressed by the demonstration I had just seen, an inner 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 a ceaseless outpouring of lies.
I now found that, in the social democratic daily papers, I could study
the inner nature of their thought-process far better than in all their
theoretical literature.
And what a striking difference there was between the two ! In the
literary text that dealt with Social Democracy theory, there was a display
76
CHAPTER 2
of high-sounding phraseology about liberty, human dignity, and beauty. It
was all promoted with an air of profound wisdom and calm prophetic
assurance-a meticulously-woven glitter of words to dazzle and mislead
the reader. On the other hand, the daily press hammered out this new
doctrine of human redemption in a most brutal fashion. No means were too
crude, provided they could be exploited in the slanderous campaign. These
journalists were experts in the art of deception and twisting facts. The
theoretical literature was intended for the middle-
and upper-class
' intellectuals, ' whereas the newspaper was intended for the masses.
This probing into books and newspapers, and studying the teachings
of Social Democracy, drew me back to my own people.
And thus what at first seemed an impassable chasm became the
occasion for a greater love.
With an understanding of the workings of the colossal system for
poisoning the popular mind, only a fool could blame the victims. 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 of this
Social Democratic gospel. I now realized the meaning and purpose of those
brutal orders to read only 'Red' books and newspapers, and attend only
'Red' meetings. In the harsh light of reality, I saw the inevitable
consequences of that intolerant teaching.
The psyche of the masses is not receptive to anything half-hearted and
weak.
There are women whose inner sensibilities are not swayed by abstract
reasoning but are always subject to the influence of a vague emotional
longing for the strength that completes their being, and who would rather
bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling. Similarly, the masses
prefer the commander to the beggar, and they are filled with a stronger
sense of security by an unrivaled teaching than by one that offers them a
choice among many. They have very little idea of how to make such a
choice. Thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They
are equally unaware of their shameless spiritual terrorism and the impudent
abuse of their freedom; they haven't the slightest suspicion of the inner
insanity of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality
of its calculated words, to which they always submit.
If Social Democracy were to be opposed by a more truthful but equally
brutal teaching, then this truthful teaching will ultimately prevail-even
though the struggle may be of the bitterest kind.

 

[Naofumi]

2.15 SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC TACTICS
In less than two years, I gained a clear understanding of the doctrine
and operational technique of Social Democracy.
I recognized the infamous mental terrorism carried out 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 onslaught of lies and slanders against the man
whom they viewed as their strongest adversary-until his nerves gave way
and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being
allowed to live in peace.
But the fools never attained peace.
The same tactics are repeated again and again, until the fear of these
mad dogs paralyzes their victims.
Thus did Social Democracy learn the value of strength, and for that
reason it attacks mostly those who are of a stronger nature, which is rare
indeed. On the other hand, it praises every weakling among its opponents,
more or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mental qualities.
They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power than of a
vigorous character with mediocre intelligence. 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
now by methods of quiet intimidation and now by sheer daylight robbery.
They employ these tactics at those moments when public attention is turned
towards other matters, or when the public considers an incident too trivial to
raise a fuss about and thus provoke the anger of a vicious opponent.
These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human
weaknesses; they will 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 this is a case of 'to be or not to
be. '
I also came to understand that physical terror has its significance for
both the masses and the individual.
Here again the Socialists accurately calculated the psychological effect.
Terror in workshops and in factories, in assembly halls and at mass
demonstrations, will always meet with success, as long as it does not
encounter the same kind of terror in a stronger form.

 

[Naofumi]

In this case, the party will surely cry bloody murder. It will appeal to
the authority of the state, though they have previously repudiated it. In
doing so, theii- aim is to add to the general confusion, so that they may have
a better chance of reaching their own goal unobserved. They will search
for some idiot among the higher government officials, one who hopes to
ingratiate himself with them, and who will help this world-pest defeat its
opponents.
The impression that such successful tactics make on the minds of the
masses, whether they be supporters or opponents, can be estimated only
by one who knows the popular mind-practically, not theoretically.
Successes that are thus won are taken by Social Democrats as a triumphant
symbol of the righteousness of their own cause. On the other hand, the
defeated opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further
resistance.
The more I understood the methods of physical terror that were
employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that had succumbed
to it.
I am grateful now for that time of suffering. It allowed me to think
kindly again of my own people; and it enabled me to distinguish between
the false leaders and the victims who were led astray.
We must look upon the latter simply as victims. I have just now tried
to depict some of the mental traits of those on the lowest rung of the social
ladder. But my picture would be unbalanced if I do not add that, amid the
social depths, I still found light. 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 from the younger generation, due to the pervasive influence
of the big city, yet even among them, there were many who were sound at
the core, and who were able to keep themselves uncontaminated amid the
sordid surroundings of their everyday existence.
If these men-who in many cases were upright and well-meaning
supported the politics of their common enemy, it was because those decent
workmen did not and could not grasp the baseness of the doctrine taught
by the socialist agitators. Additionally, no other sector of society worried
much about the working classes. Finally, social conditions were such that
men who otherwise would have acted differently were forced to submit to
them, if unwillingly at first. The day came when poverty gained the upper
hand and drove those workmen into the Social Democratic camp.

 

[Naofumi]

2.16 SINS OF THE BOURGEOISIE
On many occasions, the bourgeoisie took a definite stand against even
the most reasonable demands of the working classes. Such conduct was ill
considered and indeed immoral; it could bring no gain whatsoever to the
bourgeois class. The result was that the honest workman was dragged out
of the trade-union organization and into politics.
Millions of workers surely began with hostility to the Social
Democratic Party; but their defenses were repeatedly attacked, and finally
they had to surrender. But this outcome was due to the stupidity of the
bourgeois parties, who opposed every social demand put forth by the
working class. Bourgeois leaders' tactics included: a short-sighted refusal
to make an effort towards improving labor conditions; a refusal to adopt
accident insurance for factory workers; a refusal to forbid child labor;
and a refusal to consider protective measures for women workers,
especially pregnant ones. These leaders were thankful for every
opportunity that they could exploit for forcing the masses into their net.
Our bourgeois parties can never repair the damage that resulted from
these mistakes. 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 Social Democrats' claim that they, alone, stood up for the
interests of the working class.
And this became the principal ground for the justification of the
existence of the trade unions; thus they became, from that time onward,
the chief political recruiting tool for growing the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party.
2.17 THE TRADE-UNION QUESTION
During my years in Vienna, I was forced-whether I liked it or not
to take a position on the trade unions.
Because I saw them as inseparable from the Social Democratic Party,
my decision was hasty-and mistaken.
I rejected them as a matter of course.
But on this essential question, fate intervened and taught me a lesson.
As a result, I changed my initial opinion.
When I was 20 years old, I learned to distinguish between the trade
unions as, on the one hand, a means of defending the social rights of the

 

[Naofumi]

employees and fighting for better living conditions and, on the other, as a
political instrument used by the party in the class struggle.
The Social Democrats understood the enormous importance of the
trade union movement. They appropriated it as a tool and used it with
success, while the bourgeois parties failed to understand it and thus lost
political prestige. They thought that their own arrogant 'rejection' would
arrest the logical development of the movement, forcing it into � illogical
position.
·
But it is absurd and false to say that the trade union movement is, in
itself, hostile to the nation. Rather, the opposite is true. If the activities of
the trade union are directed towards improving the condition of the
working-class, and are successful, such activities are not against the
Fatherland or the state but are, in the truest sense of the word, national. In
this way, the trade union organization helps to create social conditions that
are indispensable for a general system of national education. It deserves
high recognition when it destroys the intellectual and physical germs of
social disease, and thus promotes the general welfare of the nation.
It is superfluous to ask whether the trade union is necessary.
As long as there are employers who lack 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 public interest from individual greed and irrationality. 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 dishonorable employers, who are
unaware of their duty as members of a national community. Their personal
greed or ruthlessness sows the seeds of future trouble.
To eliminate the causes of such a development is truly a service to the
nation.
One must not say that the individual worker is always free to escape
from the consequences of a perceived or actual injustice by an employer
in other words, that he is free to leave. No! That argument is only a ruse to
distract from the question at hand. 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 might prevail. But the individual
worker is never in a position to stand up against the power of the big
employer. The question here is not one that concerns the victory of that
which is right. If this were the guiding principle, then the conflict would
never have arisen. Rather, it is a question of who is stronger. If the case

 

[Naofumi]

were otherwise, justice alone would solve the dispute in an honorable way
or, more precisely, such matters would not have come to dispute at all.
No. If unsocial and unjust treatment of men provokes resistance, then,
until legislative action is taken to alleviate the situation, the stronger party
can simply impose its will. Therefore it is evident that if the individual
worker is to have any chance at all of winning, he must join together with
his fellow workers and present a united front to the individual employer.
For his part, the employer incorporates in his own person the collective
strength of the vested interests in the industrial or commercial undertaking
that he manages.
Thus the trade unions can hope to promote and strengthen a sense of
social responsibility in the typical work-life, and can open the way to
practical results. In doing this, they tend to remove those causes of friction
that are a continual source of dissatisfaction and complaint.
If this is not so, it is largely the fault of those who blocked the path to
legislative social reform, or rendered such a reform ineffective by
sabotaging it through their political influence.
2.18 POLITICIZATION OF THE TRADE UNIONS
The political bourgeoisie failed to understand-or rather, did not wish
to understand-the importance of the trade union movement. The Social
Democrats thereby took advantage of this mistake and pulled the labor
movement under their sole protection, without any protest. Thus they
established for themselves a solid foundation of support. Correspondingly,
the real purpose of the union movement gradually fell into oblivion, and
was replaced by new objectives.
It never occurred to the Social Democrats that they should respect the
original purpose of the union movement.
No, that was never their intention.
Within a few decades, the trade union movement was transformed, by
the expert hand of Social Democracy, from an instrument that was
originally created for the defense of human rights into one for the
destruction of the national economic structure. Working-class interests were
never respected, even for a moment. In politics, the application of economic
blackmail is always possible if the one side is sufficiently unscrupulous
and the other sufficiently docile.
In this case, both conditions were fulfilled.

 

[PoopyPigeon]

In Mein Kampf Hitler divided mankind into three categories - founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture. His argument was that only Aryans were the founders of culture and it was the European (and American) influence of Japan that allowed for their own progress.

"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."

"That is why the Jewish people, despite 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 today is the product of the work of others and this product is debased in the hands of the Jew.

"...we must bear in mind the essential fact that there has never been any Jewish art and consequently that nothing of this kind exists today." - this remark is in relation to his belief that Jews do not have a culture of their own.

"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, the spirit of idealism which is an absolutely necessary element in the higher development of mankind. Therefore Jewish intellect will never be constructive but always destructive."

View attachment 8142



Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question - Marx characterizes the Jews of Europe as not having a real religious culture, but instead focusing their social integrity on materialism.
Martin Luther, On Jews and Their Lies - Many of Hitler's "remedies" were prescribed by Luther in this book.
While Nietzsche was vocally anti-fascist, his writings (especially The Will to Power) were popular among Nazis, who saw his conception of the "ubermensch" as an alternative to the Jewish "untermensch."
Kant and Hegel also characterized the Jews as irredeemable and a social and economic drain on Europe. John Weiss (Ideology of Death) does a good job of tracing anti-semitism through philosophical and religious texts in Europe leading up to the war, and has interesting things to say about Kant and Hegel.
I do think, however, that Hitler's ideas about Jews were less a philosophical conclusion and more a reflection of a broader culture of self-destructive fantasy in Germany after WWII. Sigfried Kracauer discussed this in From Caligari to Hitler.

The German people, or Volk, were, he believed, a single ethnicity
with unique and singular self-interests. They were-indisputably
responsible for many of the greatest achievements in Western history. They
were among the leading lights in music, literature, architecture, science,
and technology. They were great warriors, and great nation-builders. They
were, in large part, the driving force behind Western civilization itself. All
this is true and undeniable, and Hitler is justly proud of his heritage. Equally
is he outraged at the indignities suffered by this great people in then-recent
decades-culminating in the disastrous humiliation ofWWI and the Treaty
of Versailles. He seeks, above all, to remedy these injustices and restore
greatness to the German people. To do this, he needs to identify both their
primary opponents and the defective political ideologies and structures that
bind them. Then he undertakes to outline a new socio-political system that
can carry them forward to a higher and rightful destiny. He accomplishes
all this, and more.
Finally, in its fourth aspect, Mein Kampf is a kind of blueprint for action.
It describes the evolution and aims of National Socialism and the NSDAP,
or Nazi Party, in compelling detail. Hitler naturally wants his new
movement to succeed in assuming power in Germany and in a future
German Reich. But this is no theoretical analysis. Hitler is nothing if not
pragmatic. He has concrete goals and precise means of achieving them. He
has nothing but disdain for the geistigen Waffen, the intellectual weapons,
of the impotent intelligentsia. He demands results, and success. By all
accounts, he achieved both.

Born on 20 April 1 889 in present-day
Austria, Hitler grew up as a citizen of the multi-ethnic state known as the
Austro-Hungarian Empire. This diverse amalgamation was formed in 1867,
with the union of the Austrian and Hungarian monarchies; thus does Hitler
refer to the state as the "Double Monarchy." Throughout its 50-year history,
it was always a loose conjunction of many ethnicities, and never a truly
unified state. The ethnic Germans in it were a minority, and had to struggle
to promote their own interests. This fact caused Hitler no end of distress;
he explicitly felt more attachment to the broader German Volk than to the
multi-ethnic state into which he was born.
As a youth, his interests tended toward the arts, painting, and history. This
led to conflict with his obstinate father, who envisioned a safe, comfortable,
bureaucratic career for his son. But his father's death on 3 January 1903,
when Adolf was 13, allowed the young man to determine his own future.
Two years later he moved to Vienna, scraping by with manual labor jobs to
survive. In late 1907, his mother died. At the age of 1 8, he then applied to
enter the Viennese arts academy in painting, but was diverted to architecture.
He worked and studied for two more years, eventually becoming skilled
enough to work fulltime as a draftsman and painter of watercolors.
All the while, he studied the mass of humanity around him. He read the
various writings and publications of the political parties. He observed the
workings of the press. He watched how unions functioned. He sat in on
Parliament. He followed events in neighboring Germany. And he became
intrigued by the comings and goings of one particular Viennese minority:
the Jews.
Gradually he became convinced that the two dominant threats to
German well-being were Marxism-a Jewish form of communism-and
the international capitalist Jews. The problems were compounded by the
fundamentally inept workings of a representative democracy that tried to
serve diverse ethnicities. In the end, the fine and noble concept of
democracy became nothing other than a "Jewish democracy," working for
the best interests of Jews instead of Austrians or Germans.
Upon turning 23 in 1912, Hitler went to Munich. It was his first extended
contact with German culture, and he found it invigorating. He lived there
for two years, until the outbreak of WWI in July 1914. Thrilled at the
opportunity to defend the German homeland, he enlisted, serving on the
Western front in Belgium. After more than 2 years of service, he was lightly
wounded in October 1916 and sent back to Germany, spending some time
in a reserve battalion in Munich. Appalled at both the role of Jews there and
the negative public attitude, he returned to the front in March 1917.

By this time, the war had been dragging on for some two and a half
years. It had effectively become a stalemate. Even the looming entrance of
the Americans into the war-President Wilson would call for war the next
month, and US troops would soon follow-would have little near-term
effect. As Hitler explains, however, the Germans actually had reasons for
optimism by late 1917. The Central Powers (primarily Germany and
Austria-Hungary) had inflicted a decisive defeat on Italy in the Battle of
Caporetto, and the Russians had pulled out of the war after the Bolshevik
revolution, thus freeing up German troops for the Western front. Hitler
recalls that his compatriots "looked forward with confidence" to the spring
of 1918, when they anticipated final victory.
NOVEMBER REVOLUTION, AND A NEW MOVEMENT
But things would tum out differently. German dissatisfaction with the
prolonged war effort was being fanned by Jewish activists calling for mass
demonstrations, strikes, and even revolution against the Kaiser. In late
January 1918 there was a large munitions strike. Various workers' actions
and riots followed for months afterward. The Western front held, but
Germany was weakening internally.
In mid-October of 1918, the German front near Ypres, Belgium was hit with
mustard gas. Hitler's eyes were badly affected, and he was sent to a military
hospital in Pasewalk, north of Berlin. In late October, a minor naval revolt in
Kiel began to spread to the wider population. Two major Jewish-led parties, the
Social Democrats (SPD) and the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD),
agitated for the Kaiser to abdicate-which he did, on November 9. Jewish
activists in Berlin and Munich then declared independent "soviet" states; for a
detailed discussion of these events, see Dalton (2014). Germany formally
capitulated on November 11. After the dust had settled, a new 'Weimar'
government was formed, one that was notably sympathetic to Jewish interests.
Hearing about the revolution from his hospital bed, Hitler was
devastated. All the effort and sacrifices made at the front had proven
worthless. Jewish agitators in the homeland had succeeded in whipping up
local dissatisfaction to the point that the Kaiser was driven from power.
The revolutionaries then assumed power and immediately surrendered to
the enemy. This was the infamous "stab in the back" that would haunt
German nationalists for years to come. And it was the triggering event that
caused Hitler to enter politics.

Unironically an European is the last thing an original Aryan man(Persian/Indian) would be. Both evolved from two totally separate group of humans who traveled out of Africa at different times.

 

[Naofumi]

By the turn of the century, the trade union movement had already ceased
to serve its original function. Year after year, it fell more and more under the
political control of the Social Democrats, until finally it became a battering
ram in the class struggle. The plan was to shatter, by means of constantly
repeated blows, the economic foundation of a carefully constructed system.
Once this was achieved, the destruction of the state would soon follow,
because it was already deprived of its economic foundations.
Social-Democratic attention to the real interests of the working-classes
steadily decreased, until the cunning leaders saw that it would serve their
immediate political interests if the demands of the masses remained
unheeded; there was a danger that, if they became content, the masses could
no longer be used as mere passive material in the political struggle.
The gloomy prospect that presented itself to the leaders of the class
warfare-that the masses might no longer be used as a weapon of war
created so much anxiety among them that they suppressed and opposed
even the most basic measures of social reform.
And conditions were such that those leaders had no trouble justifying
such an illogical policy.
As the public demands increased, the possibility of satisfying them
dwindled. Whatever small measure were taken became more and more
insignificant. Ultimately they were able to persuade the masses that these
small actions represented a diabolical plan to weaken their fighting power,
and perhaps even to paralyze it. Considering the stupidity of the masses,
we shouldn't be surprised at the success of these methods.
The bourgeois camp was indignant over the bad faith of the Social
Democratic tactics; but they did nothing to draw the practical conclusion
and organize a counter attack from the bourgeois side. The fear that the
Social Democrats might truly raise the working-classes out of misery
should have induced the bourgeois parties to make the most strenuous
efforts in this direction-thus snatching the most important weapon from
the hands of the class-warfare leaders.
But this was not done.
Instead of attacking their opponent's position, the bourgeoisie allowed
itself to be pressed and harried. Finally it adopted means that were so late
and so insignificant that they were ineffective-and consequently
repudiated. So the whole situation remained just as it was before; but the
discontent was greater.
Like a threatening storm-cloud, the 'free trade union' hovered over the
political horizon and over the life of each individual.

 

[Naofumi]

It was one of the most frightful instruments of terror; it threatened the
security and independence of the national economic structure, the
foundations of the state, and individual liberty.
Above all, it was the 'free trade union' that turned democracy into a
ridiculous and scorned phrase, and insulted the ideal of liberty. It also
stigmatized the notion of brotherhood with the slogan 'If you won't become
our comrade, we will crack your skull. '
This was how I came to know this 'friend' of humanity. During the
years that followed, my knowledge of it became wider and deeper-but it
hasn't fundamentally changed.
2.19 THE KEY TO SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
The more I became acquainted with the external forms of Social
Democracy, the greater was my desire to understand the inner nature of its
doctrines.
Official party literature was not very useful. On economic questions,
its statements were false and its proofs unsound. In treating of political
aims, its attitude was insincere. Furthermore, its modern 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 urban Bohemian in order
to be comfortable in that maze of aberrant reasoning, so that he might
discover an 'inner experience' amid this dung-heap of literary Dadaism.
They were obviously counting on the proverbial humility of certain of our
people, who believe that incomprehensibility equals wisdom.
In confronting the theoretical falsity and absurdity of that doctrine with
the reality of the phenomenon, I gradually acquired a clear picture of its aims.
At such times, I was overcome by dark forebodings and fear of
something evil. I saw before me a teaching inspired by egoism and hatred,
mathematically calculated to win a victory-but the triumph of which
would be a mortal blow to humanity.
Meanwhile, I discovered the relationship between this destructive
teaching and the specific character of a people who, up to that time, were
almost completely unknown to me.

 

[Naofumi]

2.20 THE JEWISH QUESTION
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 comes to know this race succeeds in removing a veil
from his eyes, one that shows the aims and meaning of this party in a false
light. And then, out of the fog and mist of socialist phrases, rises the
grinning fig'ure of Marxism.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for me to now say when the word 'Jew'
first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I don't remember
even having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime. If it were
mentioned in a derogatory sense, I think the old man would just have
considered those who used it to be culturally backward. In his career, he
became 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 change the picture of things I had
formed at home.
At the Realschule, I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on guard in our
relations with him; his reticence and certain of his actions warned us to be
discreet. Beyond that, my schoolmates and I had no particular opinions
about him.
It was not until I was 14 or 1 5 years old that I frequently ran up against
the word 'Jew, ' partly in connection with political controversies. These
references aroused a mild distaste in me, and an uncomfortable feeling
always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes.
But at that time, I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.
There were very few Jews in Linz. Over the centuries, the Jews who
lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance, and were so
much like other people that I even looked upon them as Germans. The
reason why I didn't then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that
I saw no other distinguishing feature but the strange religion. I believed
that they were persecuted on account of their faith, and my aversion at
hearing such remarks nearly grew into a feeling of abhorrence.
I hadn't the slightest idea that there could be such a thing as a
systematic anti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna.
Preoccupied by the mass of impressions I received from the
architectural surroundings, and depressed by my own troubles, I did not at
first distinguish the different social strata of that huge city. Although Vienna

 

[Naofumi]

then had about 200,000 Jews among its population of 2 million, I didn't
notice them. 3 During my first few weeks there, my eyes and my mind were
unable to cope with the onrush of new ideas and values. Not until I
gradually became accustomed to my surroundings, and the confused picture
began to grow clearer, did I gain a more discriminating view of my new
world. It was then that I came upon the Jewish question.
I won't say that the manner of my initial acquaintance with it was
particularly unpleasant. I saw in the Jew only a man of a different religion.
Therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I opposed the idea that he
should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered
the anti-Semitic press in Vienna to be unworthy of the cultural traditions
of a great people. The memory of certain events that happened in the
Middle Ages came to mind, and I felt that they should not be repeated.4
Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did not have a good
reputation-though at the time, I didn't understand why-and so I regarded
them more as the products of jealousy and envy rather than the expression
of a sincere, though perhaps mistaken, outlook.

 

[Naofumi]

2.21 THE SO-CALLED WORLD PRESS
My own opinions were confirmed by what I considered to be the
infinitely more dignified manner in which the big papers replied to those
attacks-or even better, simply ignored them.
I diligently read the so-called 'world press' -Neue Freie Presse,
Wiener Tagblatt, etc.5-and I was astonished by the abundance of
information they gave their readers, and the impartial way that they
presented particular problems. I appreciated their dignified tone. But
sometimes the flamboyant style was unconvincing, and I didn't like it. Even
so, I attributed all this to the overpowering influence of the whole
metropolis.
Since I considered Vienna at that time as just such a world metropolis,
I thought this fact sufficient to excuse these shortcomings of the press.
But I was frequently disgusted by the undignified manner in which this
press curried favor with the Court. They were either presenting everything
that happened at the Hofburg in glorious tones or lamenting the critics of
Wilhelm 11.6 It was a foolish practice, one that-especially when it had to
do with 'The Wisest Monarch of all Time'-reminded me of the mating
dance of the mountain cock.
The whole thing seemed artificial.
In my eyes, it was a stain on the ideal of liberal democracy.
To curry favor at the Court like this, and in such an indecent manner,
was unworthy of the nation.
This was the first shadow to darken my appreciation of the 'great'
Vienna press.
2.22 CRITICISM OF KAISER WILHELM II
While in Vienna, I continued to follow all the events that were taking
place in Germany with an ardent zeal-regardless if they were political or
cultural questions. I had a feeling of pride and admiration when I contrasted
the rise of the young Reich with the decline of the Austrian state. But even
though the Reich's overall foreign policy was pleasing, the internal political
situation was not always so good.
I didn't approve of the struggle against Wilhelm II. I regarded him not
only as the German Emperor but, above all, as the creator of the German
Navy. The fact that the Kaiser was prohibited from speaking in the
Reichstag made me very angry, because the prohibition came from those
with no authority to do so. At a single sitting, those same parliamentary
imbeciles cackled together more than did the whole dynasty of emperors
even including the weakest-in the course of centuries

 

[Naofumi]

I was outraged that, in a nation where any half-wit could claim for
himself the right to criticize others as a 'legislator' in the Reichstag, the
bearer of the imperial crown was himself subject to reprimand by the most
miserable assembly of drivellers that has ever existed.
I was even more disgusted at the way this same Viennese press pandered
to the every rickety horse in the Court, and then flew into wild ecstasies of
joy if he wagged his tail in response. At the same time, these very newspapers
displayed anxiety at anything to do with the German Emperor-all the while
trying to hide their enmity. But to me, it was poorly cloaked. Of course, they
denied any intention of meddling in Germany's internal affairs-God forbid.
They pretended that, by touching these wounds in a friendly way, they were
both fulfilling the duties of the mutual alliance between the two countries
and were also meeting their journalistic obligations. Having thus excused
themselves, they then poked their finger ruthlessly into the wound.
That sort of thing made my blood boil.
I then began to be increasingly on guard when reading the great Viennese
press.
2.23 TRANSFORMATION INTO AN ANTI-SEMITE
I had to acknowledge, however, that on such subjects, one of the anti
Semitic papers-the Deutsche Volksblatt-acted more decently.
One thing that got on my nerves was the disgusting manner in which
the big newspapers cultivated admiration for France. One really had to feel
ashamed of being a German when confronted by those saccharine hymns
of praise for 'the great cultural nation.' This wretched Francophilia more
than once made me throw away one of those 'world newspapers. ' On such
occasions, I often turned to the Volksblatt, which was much smaller in size
but which treated such subjects more decently. I disagreed with its sharp
anti-Semitic tone; but I found, again and again, that its arguments gave me
grounds for serious thought.
Anyhow, it was as a result of such readings that I came to know the
man and the movement that determined Vienna's fate. These were Dr. Karl

 

[Naofumi]

When I arrived in Vienna, I was opposed to both.
I viewed both the man and the movement as 'reactionary. '
But even an elementary sense of justice forced me to change my
opinion when I had the opportunity to know the man and his work. Slowly,
as I developed a stronger basis for judgment, that opinion grew into
outspoken admiration. Today, more than ever, I hold this man Lueger as
the preeminent type of German mayor.
So many of my basic principles were overthrown by this change in my
attitude towards the Christian-Socialist movement!
My ideas about anti-Semitism also changed in the course of time, and
this was my most difficult transformation.
It cost me a great internal struggle, and it was only after a long battle
between reason and sentiment that the former emerged victorious. Two
years later, sentiment rallied to the side of reason and became its faithful
guardian and advisor.
At the time of this bitter struggle between calm reason and my spiritual
sentiments, the lessons that I learned on the Vienna streets proved to be
invaluable. A time came when I no longer passed blindly along the streets
of the mighty city; now my eyes were open to both buildings and human
beings.
Once, while passing through the inner city, I suddenly encountered an
apparition in a long caftan and wearing black hair-locks.
My first thought was: Is this also a Jew?
They certainly didn't have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man
stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange face and
examined it feature by feature, the more that my first question became a
new question:
Is this also a German?
As was always my habit in such cases, I turned to books for help in
removing my doubts. For the first time in my life, I bought some anti
Semitic pamphlets for a few cents. But unfortunately they all began by
assuming that the reader had at least some degree of knowledge about the
Jewish question, or was at least familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most
of these pamphlets made me skeptical once again, both because they were
partly superficial and because their 'proofs' were incredibly unscientific.
For weeks, and even months, I returned to my old way of thinking.
The subject appeared so enormous, and the accusations so far-reaching,
that I was afraid of dealing with it unfairly; and so I again became anxious
and uncertain.

 

[Naofumi]

Yet I could no longer doubt that this was not a question of Germans
who happened to be of a different religion, but rather one of an entirely
different people. As soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe
the Jews, Vienna then appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I went,
I saw Jews. 8 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 districts north of the Danube, swarmed with a people
who, even in outer appearance, had no similarity to the Germans.
Whatever doubts I may still have had at that point were finally removed
by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves.
There was a great movement among them, well-represented in Vienna,
and which strongly confirmed the national character of Jewry: this was
Zionism.9
From outward appearances, it seemed as if only part of the Jews
championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of or
even repudiated it. But a close examination showed that those appearances
were deliberately misleading. They emerged from a fog of theories that
were produced for reasons of expediency, if not outright deception. The
so-called liberal Jews did not reject the Zionists as if non-Jews, but only as
brother Jews with an impractical or even dangerous way of promoting
Jewry.
There was no real conflict in their inner nature.
This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the liberal Jews soon
disgusted me; it was thoroughly false, and in direct contradiction to the
moral dignity and immaculate character on which that people had always
prided itself.
Cleanliness, whether moral or otherwise, has its own peculiar meaning
for these people. That they were not water-lovers was obvious upon first
glance, and unfortunately, often also when not looking at them at all. The
odor of those people in caftans often made me sick to my stomach. 1 0
8 By the 1920s, Jews were roughly 10 percent of the Viennese population
though in certain districts, they exceeded 50 percent.
9 Zionism may be defined as the movement to establish a Jewish homeland in
Palestine. It was founded in 1 899, and rapidly grew during the first few decades
of the 20th century.
JO There is a long history of negative commentary on 'the Jewish stench,' dating
back to the Roman poet Martial (ca. 1 00 AD). Among the more recent
commentators was Arthur Schopenhauer, who issued a number of biting remarks
on the "foetor Judaicus."
90
CHAPTER 2
Beyond that, there were the unkempt clothes and the generally ignoble
appearance.
All these details were certainly not attractive. But the truly revolting
feature was that, beneath their unclean exterior, one suddenly perceived
the moral rot of this 'chosen people. ' 11
What soon gave me cause for serious thought, with a slowly rising
insight, were the activities of the Jews in certain fields of life.
Was there any shady undertaking, any form of nastiness-especially
in cultural life-in which at least one Jew did not participate?12
On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess, one
immediately discovers, like a maggot in a rotting corpse, often blinded by
the dazzling light: a little Jew.
In my eyes, the charge against Jewry became a grave one the moment
I discovered their activities in the press, art, literature, and the theater. All
protests to the contrary were now essentially futile. One needed only to
look at the posters announcing the monstrous productions of the cinema
and theater, and study the names of the authors who were so highly praised
there, in order to become permanently unwavering.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being infected-one worse than the Black Death. And in what mighty
doses this poison was manufactured and distributed! Naturally, the lower
the moral and intellectual level of such artists, the more inexhaustible their
fecundity. Sometimes it happened that these fellows, acting like a sewage
pump, would spew their filth directly in the face of humanity. We must
recall that there is no limit to the number of such people. One must realize
that, for every Goethe, nature may bring into existence 1 0,000 despoilers,
who act as germ-carriers of the worst sort, poisoning human souls.

 

[Naofumi]

It was a terrible thought-and yet it couldn't be avoided, that most of
the Jews seemed particularly destined by nature to play this shameful role.
Is this why they can be called 'the chosen people'?
I then began to carefully investigate the names of all the fabricators of
these filthy cultural products. As a result, I became even more disgusted
with the Jews than I was previously. Even if my feelings might resist a
thousand times, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
The fact was that 90 percent of all the filthy literature, artistic trash,
and theatrical idiocy had to be charged to the account of a people who
formed scarcely one percent of the nation. This fact could not be denied. It
was there, and had to be admitted.
Then I began to examine my beloved 'world press' from a different
point of view.
The deeper I probed, the lesser grew my respect for that press that I
formerly admired. Its style became even more repellent, and I was forced
to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial. The claim that it
impartially presented facts and ideas was more lie than truth. And the
writers were--Jews.
Thousands of details that I scarcely noticed before now came to deserve
new attention. I began to grasp and understand things differently than I had
before.
I now saw the liberal press in a different light. Its dignified tone in
replying to its opponents' attacks, and its dead silence on other issues, now
became clear to me as part of a cunning and despicable way of deceiving
the reader. Its brilliant theatrical criticisms always praised the Jewish
authors, whereas its negative criticism was reserved exclusively for the
Germans. The gentle pinpricks against Wilhelm II showed the persistency
of its policy, as did its systematic praise of French culture and civilization.
The subject matter of the short story was trashy and often indecent. The
entire language of this press had the accent of a foreign people. The general
tone was so openly derogatory to the Germans that it must have been
intentional.
In whose interest was this?
Was all this merely an accident?
My doubts gradually increased.

 

[Naofumi]

2.24 THE JEW AS LEADER OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
Then something happened that accelerated my insight. I began to see
the deeper meaning of a whole series of events that were taking place. All
these were inspired by a general concept of ethics and morals that were
openly practiced by a majority of the Jews-one that had practical
applications.
Here again, life on the streets taught me what evil really is.
The relationship of the Jews to prostitution and, even more, to human
trafficking, could be studied here better than in any other West European
city-with the possible exception of certain ports in southern France.
Walking at night along the streets of the Leopoldstadt, at almost every tum,
whether one wished it or not, one witnessed certain happenings that were
unknown to most Germans-at least, until the war made it possible, or
rather inevitable, to see such things on the Eastern front.
A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first realized that it was the
cold-blooded, shameless, and calculating Jew who skillfully directed this
revolting exploitation of the scum of the big city.
Then I became enraged.
I no longer hesitated about bringing up the Jewish question. No; now
I sought it. As I learned to track down the Jew in many different spheres of
cultural and artistic life-and
in various manifestations
of life
everywhere-I suddenly found him where I least expected to.
I now realized that the Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy.
With that revelation, the scales fell from my eyes. My long inner struggle
was at an end.
In my relations with my fellow workers, I was often astonished at how
easily and often they changed their opinions on the same questions
sometimes within a few days, and sometimes even within a few hours. I
found it difficult to understand how men who were reasonable as
individuals suddenly lost this ability as soon as they acted as a mass. This
phenomenon often tempted me to despair. I argued with them for hours,
and when I succeeded in bringing them to what I considered a reasonable
way of thinking, I celebrated my success. But the next day, I found that it
was all in vain. It was disgusting to have to begin all over again. Like an
eternal pendulum, they would swing back to their absurd opinions.
All this was understandable. They were dissatisfied with their lot and
cursed the fate that hit them so hard. They hated their employers, whom
they looked upon as the heartless administrators of their cruel destiny. They

 

[Naofumi]

often used abusive language against public officials, whom they accused
of being completely unsympathetic to the situation of working people. They
conducted public protests against the cost of living, and paraded through
the streets in defense of their claims.
All this, at least, could be reasonably explained. But impossible to
explain was the boundless hatred against their fellow citizen-how they
disparaged their own nation, mocked its greatness, reviled its history, and
dragged the names of its most illustrious men through the gutter.
This hostility towards their own kind, their own native land and home,
was as irrational as it was incomprehensible. It was deeply unnatural.
One could temporarily cure this malady, but only for a few days or
some weeks. But upon later meeting those were converted, one found that
they were the same as before.
That unnatural illness once again possessed them.
I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic press was
predominantly controlled by Jews. But I didn't attach special importance
to this circumstance because the same state of affairs existed in the other
newspapers. But there was one striking fact: not a single newspaper
connected to the Jews could be called 'national'-as I understood the term.
I swallowed my disgust and tried to read this type of Marxist press;
but in doing so, my revulsion increased all the more. I then set about
learning something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher on down, they were all Jews.
I grabbed all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could find, and
checked the names of their authors: Jews. I noted the names of all the
leaders; most of them were also members of 'the chosen people. ' It didn't
matter if they were representatives in the Reichsrat or trade union
secretaries, organizational heads or street agitators. Everywhere it was
always the same sinister picture. I'll never forget the list of names:
Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellenbogen, and others.

 

[Naofumi]

One fact became quite evident to me: that this alien people held in its
hands the leadership of the Social Democratic Party, with whose minor
representatives I had been disputing for months. I was happy to finally
know for certain that the Jew is not a German.
Only then did I truly understand who the evil seducers of our people
were.
A single year of my sojourn in Vienna sufficed to convince me that no
worker is so rooted in his preconceptions that he will not surrender them
to better and clearer arguments and explanations. Gradually I became an
expert in Marxist doctrine. I used this knowledge as an instrument to drive
home my own firm convictions.
Success was almost always on my side.
2.25 JEWISH DIALECTICS
The great masses can be rescued, but only by sacrificing much time
and patience.
But a Jew can never be parted from his opinions.
It was simple enough, at that time, to try 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 Marxist foolishness. But I only achieved the
contrary result. It seemed that the more they understood the destructiveness
of Social-Democratic doctrine and its consequences, the more firmly they
clung to it.
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 tied up that they couldn't find a way out,
they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should that fail, in
spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they couldn't understand the
counter arguments, and jumped away to another topic of discussion. They

 

[Naofumi]

stated truisms and platitudes; and if you accepted these, they applied them
to other matters of an essentially different nature. If you pointed this out,
they escaped again and avoided any precise statement. Whenever one tried
to get a firm grip on one of these apostles, one 's hand grasped only a jelly
like slimer-that slipped through the fingers, and then recombined into a
solid mass a moment later.
But if you really struck a blow on one of these adversaries and, due to
the audience present, he had to concede the point, a swprise was in store
for you the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had
happened the day before. He would start once again by repeating his former
absurdities, as if nothing had happened. If you became indignant and
reminded him of yesterday's defeat, he feigned astonishment, and couldn't
remember a thing-except that on the day before, he was proven correct.
Sometimes I was simply dumbfounded.
I don't know what amazed me more: the agility of their speech or their
art of lying.
I gradually came to hate them.
Yet all this had its good side. The more I came to know the individual
leaders of Social Democracy, or at least the propagandists, the more my
love for my own people grew. Considering the diabolical craftiness of these
seducers, who could blame their unfortunate victims? How hard it was,
even for me, to get the best of this race of dialectical liars ! How futile it
was to try to win over such people with argument, seeing how their mouths
distorted the truth-disowning the very words they had just used, and then,
a moment later, taking credit for them!
No. The more I came to know the Jew, the easier it was to excuse the
workers.
In my opinion, the greatest guilt lay not with the workers but rather
with those who didn't find it worthwhile to sympathize with their own
people. They should have given the hard-working son of the national family
what he was owed, and at the same time placed his seducer and corrupter
up against the wall.
2.26 STUDY OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF MARXISM
Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate more
thoroughly the sources of Marxist doctrine. Its effects were well-known to
me in detail. As a result of careful observation, its daily progress became