Today, when Marxism has become accepted as a reputable political system, it would be salutary to revive the conservative reaction to this messianic doctrine that is evidenced in the writings of German intellectuals at the turn of the century. While Marxism made steady inroads into the social structure of the German population through its high-sounding Hegelian dialectic and stirring slogans addressed to the working class, genuinely German minds were indeed horrified by the economic desiccation of social life that Marxism implied, and some of the German economists and social philosophers proposed social reforms of their own that were more naturally suited to the ethical and social constitution of the German people. Of these German alternatives to Marxism, I shall present here two versions, those of Werner Sombart, and Oswald Spengler. Of these, the former called his system German Socialism and the latter Prussian Socialism. What is common to both these alternatives to Marxism is that they consider Marxism as coincidental with the question of the Jewish involvement in European society. Hence my paper will necessarily deal with the sociology of the Jews as much as with that of the Germans.
I may briefly recall that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was born in an orthodox Jewish family in the Rhineland and studied law, philosophy and history at the Universities of Bonn and Berlin. Marx began his career as a political economist in Paris through his association with the German, Friedrich Engels. His earliest economic work was theÂ Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844Â which reflected his absorption of Hegelianism, French socialism and English economics. Expelled from France in 1845, Marx moved to Brussels, where he was brought into contact with the workers’ movement, for which he drafted in 1848 the influentialCommunist ManifestoÂ which contained a critique of capitalism and a call for revolutionary socialism. During the Revolutions of 1848, Marx was extradited from Brussels and the remainder of his years were spent mostly in London where he was financially supported by Engels, who had by now become an affluent industrialist. His major work produced in England wasÂ Das Kapital(1867) which remains the Bible of Communism among left-wing thinkers.
The complete rejection of philosophical discussion inÂ Das KapitalÂ crystallises the innate defect of the Jewish mind as much as Marx’s exclusive focus on economic issues in his projects for the future society of man. Believing that capitalism was a transient stage in the evolution of society since it was based on the exploitation of labour by the capitalist minority which must sooner or later be swept aside by the masses, Marx outlined a coming anarchic utopia which would be entirely free of money, social classes and even state-government. It may be noted that Marx himself was a professed anti-Semite since he considered the Jews as predominantly capitalistic in spirit, but the social system that he propounded instead was no less significative of the Jewish mentality than that of the capitalists he attacked. The cultural limitations of Marx’s materialistic view of life conditioned by what he called “the mode of production of the material means of life” were, therefore, most clearly exposed by the more genuinely philosophical German sociologists such as Sombart and Spengler.
Werner Sombart (1863-1941), the economist and social philosopher is noted today for his several pioneering works on the capitalistic ethos. Although Sombart began his sociological career as a socialist in the Marxist vein, he gradually dissociated himself from the economic-orientation of Marx’s social theory in favour of a more voluntarist understanding of the springs of social evolution which supported the very patriarchal and aristocratic model of society which Marx had sought to destroy. In hisÂ Die deutsche Volkswirtschaft im neunzehnten JahrhundertÂ (1903), Sombart turned his back on the socialist glorification of progress which he saw as destructive of the human spirit and revived the mediaeval ideal of the guild community which involved, as Mitzman summarises it, “the full absorption1 and development of the personality of the producer in his work; limited goals; and the shaping of the productive units on the model of the family community”1 . The replacement of this original organic society by the artificial “Gesellschaft”, to use Tâ€nnies’ terminology, was consolidated by the interference of the Jew in Germanic society since the Jew is marked by abstract thought which is “synonymous with indifference to all qualitative values, with the inability to appreciate the concrete, individual, personal, living”.2 The symbolical expression of the Jewish capacity for abstraction is money which “dissolves all use-values into their quantitative equivalents”.3 The proletariat, which is the typical social product of capitalism, is the element which suffers most in the replacement of the patriarchal social ethos by the commercial, for “every community of interest is dissolved, just as every community of labour” and “bare payment is the only bond which ties the contracting parties together”.4 The traditional comfort of religion too has been destroyed by capitalism which typically bolstered the Liberal intellectual movement of the Enlightenment. A further crucial difference between Sombarts’s developing German Socialism and Marxism is his distinction of the capitalist into the entrepreneur and the trader in such a way that, whereas Marx attempted to overcome the entrepreneur as a historically obsolete figure, Sombart championed the creative and organisational virtue of the entrepreneurial spirit against the merely rationalising and abstracting characteristics of the trader.5 The entrepreneur thus becomes in Sombart’s view the economic representative of the typical Faustian spirit of the German hero while the calculating trader is increasingly identified with the foreigner, particularly the Jews and the English.
In his war-time book,Â HÃ¤ndler und HeldenÂ (Munich, 1915), Sombart discusses the sociological significance of the war between the English and the Germans in terms of the radical difference between the “trader spirit” which aims at achieving mere “happiness” through the negative virtues of “temperance, contentedness, industry, sincerity, moderation —, humility, patience and the like” which will facilitate a “peaceful concourse of traders”, and the “heroic spirit” which aims at fulfilling the mission of life as a task of the higher self-realisation of humanity through the positive virtues of “the will to sacrifice, loyalty, inoffensiveness, reverence, valour, piety, obedience, goodness” and the “military virtues”, since “all heroism was first fully developed in war and through war”.6 War for the English was a chiefly commercial enterprise whereas for the German it was a defence of his soul from the deadening influence of this same commercial spirit.
However, already in his major works of 1911-1913, onÂ Die JÃ¼den und das WirtschaftslebenÂ (1911) and on the bourgeois spirit,Der Bourgeois, 1913, Sombart had shown that the modern system of commercial capitalism was due mainly not to English Protestantism, as Max Weber had proclaimed in hisÂ Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des KapitalismusÂ (1904-5), but to Judaism. In fact, Weber himself was forced, under the stimulus of Sombart’s work, to distinguish between Protestant capitalism and the “pariah capitalism” of the Jews, a distinction which corresponds to Sombart’s own historical division of the development of capitalism into early and high capitalism. While Catholicism, and particularly Thomism, had been partially influential in the development of the commercial spirit in its rationalistic, legalistic and essentially this-worldly philosophy, Sombart denied that Protestantism was synonymous with capitalism since, on the contrary, Lutheranism had at least encouraged a deepening of religious feeling. Even other forms of Protestantism were marked by a generally anti-capitalistic spirit of niggardliness and at most took over capitalistic forms from the existing economic life of the Catholics. The real source of the development of the high capitalistic stage of society is however, according to Sombart, the Jewish mind, which first introduced the chief characteristics of modern capitalism, namely the unrestricted play of the profit motive through free-trade, usurious dealings2 and ruthless business practices, especially with regard to non-Jews.
The identification of cheating in commercial transactions and exploitation of other peoples as the chief causes of the financial power of Jewry is most fully discussed by Sombart inÂ Die Juden und das WirtschaftslebenÂ (Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1911). The root of Jewish economics is located by Sombart in the hereditary religion itself which
â€œin all its reasonings appeals to us as a creation of the intellect, a thing of thought and purpose projected into the world of organisms, mechanically and artfully wrought, destined to destroy and to conquer Nature’s realm and to reign itself in her stead. Just so does Capitalism appear on the scene; like the Jewish religion, an alien element in the midst of the natural, created world; like it too something schemed and planned in the midst of teeming life.â€7
Capitalism indeed derives directly from the sheer profit-oriented usurious economic tradition of the Jews:
â€œmodern capitalism is the child of money-lending — In money-lending all conception of quality vanishes and only the quantitative aspect matters — In money-lending economic activity as such has no meaning; it is no longer a question of exercising body or mind; it is all a question of success. Success, therefore, is the only thing that has a meaning. In money-lending the possibility is for the first time illustrated that you can earn without sweating; that you may get others to work for you without recourse to force.8
Sombart here points to the subtle form of commercial violence which constitutes the Jewish exploitative system. The Jews in general have disregarded the restraints to profit-making inherent in the traditional patterns of European economic life:
â€œ[The Jew] paid no attention to the strict delimitation of one calling or of one handicraft from another, so universally insisted on by law and custom. Again and again we hear the cry that Jews did not content themselves with one kind of activity; they did whatever they could, and so disturbed the order of things which the guild system wished to see maintained.â€9
The alien status of the Jew vis-Ã -vis the host peoples among whom they lived served as a contributory factor to the success of their capitalistic endeavours, for their second-class status in society only spurred them on in their natural hatred and resentment of the host peoples whereby they took advantage of non-Jews under the sanction of their so-called religious laws:
â€œintercourse with strangers was bereft of all considerations, and commercial morality (if I may put it so) became elastic.â€10
The end result of the prevalence of the Jewish spirit in the West was the corruption of the very nature of Western man and society, for,
â€œBefore capitalism could develop, the natural man had to be changed out of all recognition, and a rationalistically minded mechanism introduced in his stead. There had to be a transvaluation of all economic values.â€11
This ruinous transformation is effected basically through the resilient adaptation of the Jew to the society in which he is resident. But this process of adaptation is an intellectually determined one and lacks the organic quality of true sympathy:
â€œThat Lord Beaconsfield was a Conservative was due to some accident or other, or some political conjuncture; but Stein and Bismarck and Carlyle were Conservatives because they could not help it; it was in their blood.â€12
Indeed, the Jews lack sympathy for
â€œevery status where the nexus is a personal one. The Jew’s whole being is opposed to all that is usually understood by chivalry, to all sentimentality, knight-errantry, feudalism, patriarchalism. Nor does he comprehend a social order based on relationships such as these. `Estates of the realm’ and craft organisations are a loathing to him. Politically he is an individualist — He is the born representative of the `liberal’ view of life in which there are no living men and women of flesh and blood with distinct personalities, but only citizens with rights and duties.â€13
The result is that the Jews themselves often do not seem to understand the real significance of the Jewish question and appear to think that the Jewish question is only a political or religious one, believing that
â€œwhatever can be neatly set down on paper and ordered aright by the aid of the intellect must of necessity be capable of proper settlement in actual life.â€14
With Sombart’s understanding of the radical difference between the heroic Germanic spirit and the lowly Jewish commercial one it is not surprising that he identified himself with the National Socialist movement during the first years of its regime, even though he later withdrew from active participation in its programmes. In hisÂ Deutscher Sozialismus, written in 1934, Sombart reinforces this difference between the two ethoses, pointing once again to the desire of the Marxist proletariat socialism for “the greatest good of the greatest number”. This utopian trait of the Marxists is evidenced especially in their championing of modern industrialism, even though it wishes for a substitution of private economic organisation with an economic-community organisation built on the social ownership of the means of production. The aim of social happiness is geared to the notion of “liberty and equality and fraternity” borrowed from the French Revolution and betrays the same resentments that impelled the first European revolution. The methods used for its realisation are the reduction of the amount of physical labour that the proletariat is subjected to through the use of machines and proper organisation involving the abolishment of the division of labour. The abolition of the centralisation of capital and the notion of private property will further enhance the prosperity of the masses. This dream of the communistic proletariat is bolstered by the idea of unending historical progress not towards a higher mankind but a “happier” one. Simultaneously all religious feelings of reverence before an other-worldly deity must be suppressed so that the people may rapidly achieve the dream of a this-worldly paradise which is, in fact, the real goal of the Jewish religion as well.
Unfortunately, this “fatal belief in progress which — ruled the ideal world of the proletarian Socialism even more than the world of liberalism”15 is the chief cause of the inexorable decay of genuine human culture, for, as he says, “to perpetually renew, hinders all culture — Only when in the course of history the traditions of belief, of morals, of education, and of organisation are dominant is it possible for a culture to unfold itself. For, in accordance with its very nature, culture is old, rooted, indigenous”.16 The basis of all culture can be only the nation and not the state as such, for the nation is “the political association in its endeavour to attain an end — The nation exists not because it lives in the consciousness of the individuals, but it exists as an idea in the realm of the spirit; it is `spiritual individuality”.17 The people that constitute a nation are indeed an organism like the individual and possess the same origin, same historical destiny, and the same spiritual culture. It is on this cultural basis that one ought to distinguish the Jews as an alien nation. The Jews should be denied equal rights in holding leading and responsible positions, regardless of their spirit and character. He points with approval to the pre-Wilhelminian period when
“the military corps and nearly the entire internal and judicial administration, with approved exceptions, were closed against the Jews. Had this practice been retained, and had the Jews been assigned to other important fields, such as the universities, law and other activities, the German fatherland and, by no means least, the Jews themselves, would have been spared heavy afflictions”.18
The solution that Sombart suggests to the Jewish question is the transformation of the institutional culture in such a way that “it will no longer serve as a bulwark for the Jewish spirit”,19 that is, the “spirit of this economic age” or of bourgeois society, so that Germans themselves no longer indulge in the alien ethos foisted on them by the Jews.
The economic policy of the modern states must also be one directed in a corporative manner based on a system of estates, which will be free of the potential for exploitation in the Jewish system,
â€œself-interests are to be overcome and articulated in the state as a whole; nor, in such an order, does the individual find his place according to his own estimate, but receives the place assigned to him. That means the recognition of the primacy of politics. In other words, an order according to estates is not reconcilable with the principle of free enterprise and free competition. In a community in which capitalistic economy still rules, an estate system is a contradiction. Not until the state rests fundamentally upon institutions, that is, upon a legal order which imposes duties, can an estate-system fulfil its tasks.â€20
The new legal order will be both hierarchical and embody a “super-individual reason” directed to the welfare of the whole; this order will be fully represented by the state. Henceforth the domain of economics will be ruled by that of politics, focused essentially in its military virtue, while in the realm of economics itself, agriculture will occupy the first rank and business the last. The leadership of a strong or authoritarian socialist state must rest in one “who receives his directions, not as an inferior from a superior leader, but only from God … He is not required to listen to the “voice of the people”, in so far as he does not recognise in it the voice of God, which can never speak from the accidental and changing totality of all citizens or indeed only from the majority19 of the citizens. TheÂ volontÃ© gÃ©nÃ©raleÂ which is to be realised is a metaphysical, not an empirical reality … The statesman serves no popular interest, but only the national idea.” Naturally the leader will be supported in his national tasks by an elite of capable officials and autonomous public bodies.
Sombart’s German Socialism is indeed very indistinguishable from that of the Neo-conservatives of the Weimar Republic, Oswald Spengler, Moeller van den Bruck, or Edgar Julius Jung.21 This should only confirm the much neglected fact that what the anti-democratic and anti-liberal Germans were fundamentally fighting for in the Weimar Republic was the European ethos as opposed to the Jewish, and that German Socialism (as distinct from and irreconcilable with Marxist Socialism) is as oriented to the development of true moral culture and as hierarchically and neo-mediaevally organised as German Conservatism.22 As representative of the neo-conservative position in the Weimar Republic we may consider here the political views of Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) whose social ideal is indeed termed `Prussian Socialism’ in his essay,Â Preussentum und Sozialismus(1919), which was a sketch of the main themes of the second part of his two-volume magnum opus,Â Der Untergang des AbendlandesÂ (1918 and 1922). The burden of Spengler’s argument in this essay is the difference between the so-called Marxist socialism which is based on alien, English and Jewish, understandings of society and the genuine socialism of the Prussian state. The socialism of the English is demonstrated to be a Viking-like individualism which has encouraged the colonial rapacity of the British Empire and the mercantile ruthlessness of its leaders. The Norman conquest of England had put an end to the Anglo-Saxon way of life and introduced the `piracy principle’ whereby “the barons exploited the land apportioned to them, and were in turn exploited by the duke”.23 The modern English and American trade companies are enchained to the same motives of profiteering:
â€œTheir aim is not to work steadily to raise the entire nation’s standard of living, it is rather to produce private fortunes by the use of private capital, to overcome private competition, and to exploit the public through the use of advertising, price wars, control of the ratio of supply and demand.â€24
The French democratic notions, on the other hand, are ruled by an anarchic love of pleasure since what every individual in the French state wants is “an equality of pleasure, equal opportunity for life as a pensioner”.
The Marxist doctrine, being a product of the Jewish mind, which is characterised by `resentment’, is based on an envy of those who have wealth and privileges without work, and so it advocates revolt against those who possess these advantages. It is thus essentially a negative variant of the English ethos. It is not surprising, therefore, that the worker in the Marxist doctrine is encouraged to amass his own profits through private business, so that, as Spengler puts it, “Marxism is”, indeed, “the capitalism of the working class”. The Marxist system is indeed the “final chapter of a philosophy with roots in the English Revolution, whose biblical moods have remained dominant in English thought”.25 In fact, as he goes on to say, “a biblical interpretation of questionable business dealings can ease the conscience and greatly increase ambition and initiative”.26 While the industrialists engage in commerce with `money’ as a commodity, the workers do the same with `work’. In the Prussian state, on the other hand, work is not a commodity but a “duty towards the common interest, and there is no gradation – this is Prussian style democratisation – of ethical values among the various kinds of work.”
The Marxian solution to boundless private property is also a negative one: “expropriation of the expropriators, robbery of the robbers”.27 This is based on the “English” view of capital wherein “the billionaire demands absolute freedom to arrange world affairs by his private decisions, with no other ethical standard in mind than success. He beats down his opponents with credit and speculation as his weapons.” On the other hand, the Prussian sees property not as private booty but as part of a common weal, “not as a means of expression of personal power but as goods placed in trust, for the administration of which he, as a property owner, is responsible to the state”. Prussian socialism is thus essentially
â€œnot concerned with nominal property, but rather with techniques of administration — The Old Prussian method was to legislate the formal structure of the total productive potential while guarding carefully the right to property and inheritance, and to allow so much freedom to personal talent, energy, initiative, and intellect as one might allow a skilled chess 23 player who had mastered all the rules of the game. This is largely how it was done with the old cartels and syndicates, and there is no reason why it could not be systematically extended to work habits, work evaluation, profit distribution, and the internal relationship between planners and executive personnel. Socialisation means the slow, decades-long transformation of the worker into an economic civil-servant, of the employer into a responsible administrative official with extensive powers of authority, and of property into a kind of old-style hereditary fief to which a certain number of rights and privileges are attached.28
The significance of the notion of the national state is completely ignored by Marx in his focus on `society’. On the other hand, the Prussian form of socialism is based entirely on the notion of the primacy of the state which is indeed the ideal of the Teutonic knight, diametrically opposed to the roving plunder of the Viking:
â€œThe Teutonic knights that settled and colonised the eastern borderlands of Germany in the Middle Ages had a genuine feeling for the authority of the state in economic matters, and later Prussians have inherited that feeling. The individual is informed of his economic obligations by Destiny, by God, by the state, or by his own talent — Rights and privileges of producing and consuming goods are equally distributed. The aim is not ever greater wealth of the individual or for every individual, but rather the flourishing of the totality.â€29
While English society is devoted to `success’ and wealth, the Prussian is devoted to work for a common national goal:
â€œThe Prussian style of living — has produced a profound rank-consciousness, a feeling of unity based on an ethos of work, not of leisure. It unites the members of each professional group – military, civil service, and labour – by infusing them with a pride of vocation, and dedicates them to activity that benefits all others, the totality, the state.â€30
The individual subsumed in the totality is however marked most strikingly by “that glorious inner freedom, theÂ libertas oboedientiaeÂ which has always distinguished the best exemplars of Prussian breeding”31. The administrative ideal that Spengler proposes for the Prussian state is, like Sombart’s, corporative and hierarchical in structure:
â€œLet us envision a unified nation in which every one is assigned his place according to his socialistic rank, his talent for voluntary self-discipline based on inner conviction, his organisational abilities, his work potential, consciousness, and energy, his intelligent willingness to serve the common cause. Let us plan for general work conscription, resulting in occupational guilds that will administrate and at the same time be guided by an administrative council, and not by a parliament.â€32
Parliamentarianism is not only inappropriate in a monarchical state such as the Prussian, but it is a tired and outmoded system which has lost the glory lent it by the `gentlemen’ and aristocrats who once ruled German and British politics. Now
the institutions, the sense of tact and cautious observance of the amenities, are dying out with the old-style people of good breeding — The relationship between party leaders and party, between party and masses, will be tougher, more transparent, and more brazen. That is the beginning of Caesarism.33
Selfish individuals employ democratic forms of parliamentarianism to make the “state” an executive organ of their own business interests, “i.e. by paying for election campaigns and newspapers and thus controlling the opinion of voters and readers”. 34 Thus, democracy, in general, is an unholy alliance of urban masses, cosmopolitan intellectuals, and finance capitalists. The masses themselves are manipulated by the latter two elements through their specific agencies, the press and the parties. 35 The intelligentsia represent “abstract intelligence”, not spiritual enlightenment, while the finance capitalists are supported by mobile fortunes distinct from the landed property of the true nobility. In fact, the League of Nations, the forerunner of our United Nations, is itself an instrument of big business, and is “in reality a system of provinces and protectorates whose populations are being exploited by a business oligarchy with the aid of bribed parliaments and purchased laws”.36 As for the so-called `internationalism’ of the modern Marxism, this is immediately recognised as a sham when one notes the diversity of races and of their responses to political movements. In fact, according to Spengler, the true `International’ is
“only possible as the victory of the idea of a single race over all the others, and not as the mixture of all separate opinions into one colourless mass”.37
The significance of Spengler’s critique of English and Jewish ethics cannot be exaggerated, for it serves as a reminder of the importance of distinguishing between the English piracy principle and the German state idea as well as between the false 37 “socialism” of Marx and the genuine one of the Prussian. The real meaning of socialism, according to Spengler, is
â€œthat life is dominated not by a contrast of rich and poor but by rank as determined by achievement and ability. That is our kind of freedom: freedom from the economic capriciousness of the individual.â€ 38
Spengler, thus like Sombart, believed in the Prussian ideal of rule, not by popular parliamentary methods, but by an elite who would, like the military officer or bureaucrat, be characterised by devotion to duty and to the common good. As he declares, “Authoritarian socialism is by definition monarchistic”, for “The most responsible position in this gigantic organism … must not be abandoned to ambitious privateers”. Although Spengler welcomed Hitler’s movement as indicative of the revival of the “disciplined will” of the Prussian spirit, he shied away from the question of the Jewry and criticised the National Socialists for being too materialistic in their discussions of race. Also, he believed that the National Socialists had betrayed the Prussian elitism which he favoured by turning the revolution into a mass movement
(“the demagogue lives with the masses as one of themselves; the born ruler can use them, but he despises them”)39
However, Spengler seems rather unaware of the elitist character of Hitler’s S.S. organisation and of its characterisation by precisely that “war-like” quality that Spengler looked for in the rulers of the future (“armies, and not parties, are the future form of power”). Indeed, Spengler’s view of nationalism, “together with the monarchical idea latent in it”40 as a transition to the Caesarism which he envisaged as the final outcome of the degeneracy of the modern age is also confirmed by the history of the National Socialist movement, which, to this day, believes that Hitler’s effort was only a start in a continuing battle for the establishment of the hegemony of the Germanic world-view against the Jewish one – whether capitalistic or communistic.41
We will have noticed then that the German socialism of the two thinkers we have considered is essentially a moral Idea based on the strong-willed character of the Germanic race. Both thinkers, moreover, are united in their contempt of the Jew whose chief modern political representative, Marx, is responsible for the perversion of the German feeling for social justice based on mutual co-operation into an unnatural warfare between the different classes of the same nation, for the ultimate benefit of an international organisation. Sombart’s anti-Semitism is more exclusively economic and, for that reason, considers institutional reorganisation as sufficient for the elimination of the Jewish economic influence on society. Spengler’s recognition of the irreconciliability of the Jewish ethos with the German on a spiritual level at the same time as he rejects racialism of the blood is a contradiction which leads him to believe that once the Europeans and Americans have achieved a certain independent mastery of the new urban civilisation of the modern age the Jewish financial expertise will become superfluous and the Jews fade away as a force to reckon with:
To-day this Magian nation, with its ghetto and its religion, itself is in danger of disappearing – not because the metaphysics of the two Cultures come closer to one another (for that is impossible), but because the intellectualised upper stratum of each side is ceasing to be metaphysical at all — The lead that this nation has enjoyed from its long habituation to thinking in business terms becomes ever less and less (vis-a-vis the American, it has already almost gone), and with the loss of it will go the last potent means of keeping up a Consensus that has fallen regionally into parts. 42
The social and political facts of the post-war world have proven Spengler tragically wrong in his underestimation of the pervasive and tenacious power of Jewry both among its host nations and in its new home in the Middle East. This power is due precisely to the success that the Jewish mentality has had in eroding the metaphysical finesse of the European mind to the materialistic and rationalistic level of the former. The danger of Marxism is that, like the Jewish race from which it arose, it is virulently opposed to national cultures and to the natural, hierarchical and autarchical ordering of European society. It is hardly surprising that these anti-nationalistic traits persist in European society today, if not under the guise of communism as in the earlier part of this century, still under that of liberal democracy, for the Jews are able through the latter system, even more freely than in communism, to continue to foster intellectual and cultural corruption, as well as the consequent social dissatisfaction, in such a way as to benefit and perpetuate their own sterile commercial existence as an international power. The remedy to this problem, it must be realised sooner or later, lies in the reversion to more authentic versions of European socialism than those presented today and in the countering of the atomising and fragmenting tendency of the Jewish materialistic rationalism which has seeped into virtually every pore of European society since the Jewish emancipation, with the moral integrity, conservatism and organic spiritual creativity that alone were responsible for the lasting cultural achievements of the Europeans and that alone can ensure their survival in the future.
[Note: footnotes not included in online version.]