Articles:
On Divine Will by Dr. Egon Guttmann
Bismarck’s Attitude Toward Jews by Dr. [Otto] Jöhlinger
Infectious Diseases and the Persecution of Jews
Goethe and “Judendeutsch” by Walter A[rthur] Berendsohn, Ph.D.
Blasphemer Dinter Stands Before the Court
Berlin. Emigration status
Berlin. Dr. Sally Kornfeld obituary
Munich. Women’s right to vote
Munich. A spectacle in grand style
Palestine. Debate in the English Lower House
Palestine. Negotiations between Arabs and Jews
Bolshevism and the Jews in Russia
Send Swastikas Abroad!
Antisemitic Intellectual Flowering
On Self-defense
An Antisemitic Sanatorium
Technical Emergency Assistance
Family Announcements
Advertisements and Notices

p. 1

On Divine Will

by Dr. Egon Guttmann, Breslau

[Translator’s Note: The following translation is an edited version of a translation generated by Google Translate.]

The progress of human life consists solely in the solution of moral problems as directed by humanity. The Bible teaches us how humanity can fulfill this moral task by pointing us to the path to true salvation. It places the chain of responsibility for our lives on our shoulders, since it is in our power to choose our own well-being or misery, our blessing or curse. As a result of the freedom of the will, the Bible believes, we are conscious of our responsibility towards God and, if we act contrary to higher impulses, the consciousness of guilt.

Are the determinists right? They deny that man has free will and at most allow the ability to make decisions, or is the Bible right? This problem is one of the most difficult. Whichever way you look at it, both are right: man is free and also unfree, depending on his development, as we will soon see.

Since, according to the Bible, God has planted free will in us, it is entirely up to us to educate our soul for the eternal life of the spirit—for death and the destruction of the spiritual life. Without free will, morality would also collapse, because the person without a will would be a plaything of his own drives and passions. But aren’t there enough people without will? Don’t we often hear: “This person has no will.” Certainly, that is partially correct, because the will then leads a stunted, shadowy existence, which is why we also describe such a person as unfree, because his will is suppressed and subjugated by sensual desires and drives, and thus placed in their service. The will is therefore still present at the core of even a “will-less” person, and is therefore free in principle—and the Bible is quite right about that – but in terms of effectiveness in submission to the drives it is again unfree—and the determinists are right about that. With the ability that resides in us to make decisions, the possibility is always given in life: either to allow the germ of the will to grow and flourish, or to allow it to atrophy. The first case leads us to freedom of the spirit and thus to the constant pursuit of happiness, the latter to unfreedom or slavery to the senses and drives. This rule of the sensual drives, of the demons over the will, is a deplorable state for man. Such a man resembles an animal, indeed is far below it, and is also unable to rise above its finite, limited world of the senses. The Gnostics gave this type of animal-man the name of the Hylic (Greek Hyle – raw matter), i.e. the man who understands himself as nothing but flesh and blood and to whom, at this level, the knowledge of his higher existence is completely closed. However, whoever has achieved it, whether through spontaneous awakening to self-reflection or through the fertilizing inspiration of exemplary noble people, to make the embryonic free will subservient to moral tasks and thus to subordinate the drives to the will—in him the free will has already begun to develop its power and the person is faced with the choice: whether to continue to strive towards the divine will or to fall back into the hylic state. This second stage of the awakening of the will—the Gnostics call these people psychics—therefore shows differences or rather that fluctuations occur, because once, blinded by the radiating will of reason, man can turn away from it soon at the beginning of awakening as well as later, as though resisting and becoming a Hylic again, because “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is too weak.” Another possibility is that—figuratively speaking—the psychic allows himself to be driven by “the good Lord” and occasionally by “the devil” like a curve that sometimes goes up and sometimes down.

Or perhaps humanity’s free will constantly increases in power, uniting with the divine, so that the spiritual man or the godly man is “born”—the true rebirth of mankind. With this, the highest stage is reached, that of the Gnostics’ pneumatic or the “Adam Kadmon” of the Kabbalists (i.e. the true image of God).

Then the rule of God is present in man, i.e. the only rulership that we recognize over ourselves and to which we should bow for our own well-being, which every human being longs for. Only then is the kingdom of God in us. Having been absorbed into the divine will, man has then shown his instinctual will its limits and, thanks to the strength of his spiritual will, has become free of his instinctual will. Just his spiritual will was previously unfree because of his instinctual will. There has simply been an exchange of the two wills—divine and earthly—with regard to their rulership. Man is now unfree in terms of his drives, since he can no longer give in to them without limits, as he used to. In such a person, only the divine will can have supremacy over the instinctual will.

*) Believers in unavoidable predestination.

---

 

Bismarck’s Attitude Toward Jews

by Dr. [Otto] Jöhlinger, Advisory Councilor to the Ministry of Finance, Berlin. (Continued)
This article was first submitted to the Kölnische Zeitung.

The second period was completely different. In 1847, the young Bismarck said that he would grant Jews all their rights, just not that they could hold positions of authority in a Christian state, and in 1869 Minister President Bismarck did make equal rights for Jews the law. The law was passed in the northern German union. In Congress, only the representatives of the two Mecklenburgs voted against it. And if the Bismarck of 1847 had sharp words for civil marriage, he was the one who legalized it in Germany, and that at a time when Falk was the Minister of Culture. In 1847 German Catholics in the state congress had demanded civil marriages. As previously mentioned, Bismarck spoke against it. The emergency civil marriage was created as a partial solution so that people who could not be married in a church, for whatever reason, could be married by a civilian administrator. Civil marriage was permitted by imperial law on February 6, 1875, signed by Bismarck, and instituted mandatorily throughout the German Empire.

Here is a stark contradiction between the earlier Bismarck and Bismarck the statesman. Naturally, the conservatives around him did not miss his shift. It was the representative von Gerlach who reminded him of his earlier speeches. Germania claimed that Bismarck went against the old Kaiser’s objection to civil marriage. Bismarck contested this interpretation in his Reflections and Reminiscences, however. He admits that the Kaiser had indeed once was opposed to civil marriage but the pressure of the majority of ministers caused him to go so far that Kaiser Wilhelm would have had to choose between accepting the legalization of civil marriage or build a new cabinet. Bismarck took the opportunity to advise the Kaiser that if the choice were between new cabinet ministers or obligatory civil marriage, he should support the obligatory civil marriage. In Reflections and Reminiscences, Volume II, p. 141, it literally says

“Unquestionably his {the emperor’s) opposition to civil marriage was greater than mine. I sided with Luther that marriage was a civil matter and my opposition against recognizing this principle stemmed more from respect of current customs and the opinion of the masses than from my own Christian principle.”

Here Bismarck expresses a different opinion of civil marriage than in the speech he had given earlier in the parliament. When the conservatives, with whom he had broken shortly before, had the turnaround on the question of civil marriage before their eyes and as von Gerlach reminded him of his speech, Bismarck responds:

“I have never been ashamed of explaining changes in my positions if the situation called for it, whether it was to concede something or to convince myself that my positions were simply not in the country’s best interest…As a Minister, I do not conduct politics for special interests, but I have learned to put the state’s needs above my personal convictions.”

If the Bismarck of 1848 was intolerant of other religions, the later Bismarck strove to practice tolerance of others as much as possible. However, he often fell into contradictions with how the other side defined tolerance. Even so, in his Reflections and Reminiscences, he writes:

“With regard to religions, I have always been tolerant until the point where the necessity of different religions living together in the same State favors the demands of one different religion.”

While Bismarck published significant treatments of Catholicism, the culture war, and the Jesuits, there is nothing about Judaism in the two volumes of his Gedanken und Erinnerungen, which is certainly evidence that Bismarck did not oppose Judaism. Had Bismarck held the same position he did in the General Assembly, then he would have surely taken up the Jewish question in his Reflections and Reminiscences. But this was simply not a problem for him from the moment he took on the responsibilities of being a statesman. It was he who gave Jews equal civil rights. In his opinion, he had given the Jews what they were entitled to.

For Bismarck the fact that the majority of Jews of that time belonged in the camp of the opposition, and the opposition that Bismarck passionately hated was “free thinking.” With the conservatives he had an internal disagreement that could be quite vehement even within families but could be set aside. With the centrists he fought over the culture war but still worked with them politically. For the social-democrats he had no understanding. The party, however, against which Bismarck was continuously in opposition, and about which he had very bad memories from the time of conflict in 1863 was free thinking. It is known that he challenged Virchow, the leader of the free thinkers, to a duel and that he always stood against Eugen Richter. Supposedly, when Bismarck was asked by a free thinker representative in Frankfurt if he preferred a free thinker politician or the social-democratic teacher Sabor, he answered telegraphically, “The duke prefers Sabor,” who went on to celebrate his triumph over his free thinker opponent. Currently, this story is being questioned.

Nowadays, no one will argue that the free thinkers weren’t always very clever about the tactics they used against Bismarck and didn’t always consider the big picture. One need only read the speeches that the leading free-thinkers gave about Bismarck’s foreign policy. It is no wonder that Bismarck had such contempt for free-thinking.

That this contempt sometimes carried over to Jewish free-thinkers is understandable. Moritz Busch wrote an entry in his diaries about a meeting with the Chancellor in 1881. At that time he made negative comments about Representative [Ludwig] Bamberger as well as Representative [Heinrich] Rickert (whom he falsely identified as being Jewish), and in the same vein about Lasker, formerly a friend but with whom he had fallen out. In this meeting with Busch, Bismarck made a statement that shows his growing tolerance of Jews:

Image sources: https://itoldya420.getarchive.net/amp/topics/trebnitz and painting by Carl Daniel Freydanck, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

p. 2

I differentiate among the Jews. The ones who have grown rich are not dangerous, they don’t go to the barricades, and pay their taxes punctually. As for the ambitious who don’t have anything yet, especially those from the press, the Christians are the worst and not the Jews.

From this we can see that Bismarck has a very different perspective on Jews than before.

Bismarck often worked with Jewish members of parliament. An important chapter of this story is that of Bismarck and [Ferdinand] Lassalle, both of very different natures, both different personalities, and yet they felt a kinship and one could even say that they admired each other. Incontestably, Bismarck and Lassalle’s relationship was much closer than the public knew or than Bismarck made known. In Gedanken und Erinnerungen there’s not a single word about Lassalle. What brought Bismarck and Lassalle together was their mutual hatred they both had for the progressive party. Certainly, Bismarck’s political opinion was completely different from Lassalle’s, but they met in their distaste for the Berlin free-thinkers. In one of Lassalle’s speeches he signaled what he thought of Bismarck, which was a huge risk for him at that time to express himself publicly on the subject (it was the period of the famous conflict). In a speech that criticized the members of the press, he said among other things: “And if we were to exchange shots with Mr. von Bismarck, justice would require that even during the salvos we would have to admit: He is a man.”

That Count Bismarck had an exceptionally high respect for Lasalle can be seen in a parliamentary speech that Bismarck gave in response to an inquiry from [August] Bebel. During the time of the socialist law, Duchess [Sophie von] Hatzfeldt told the social democrats’ leaders how close Bismarck and Lassalle were and they often met three to four times a week. The claims that were made on September 17, 1878 in the Reichstag started with the statement that Bismarck never had any political dealings with a social democrat. That caused Bismarck to draw a thick line between the social democrats and Lassalle. In the same breath, he explained:
“I don’t count Lassalle among them. He was of a much more respectable nature than his epigones. He was an important man with whom one could certainly speak.”

Bismarck placed great value on the fact that he didn’t seek out Lassalle, but that Lassalle found the need to engage with Bismarck. He made it easy for him, however. While he never did meet with him three or four times a week, but only three or four times total. (A number that Bernstein doubts and says that the two men met frequently.) Bismarck emphasized in that speech that his relationship with Lassalle was not a political one, as Lassalle had nothing to offer. He meant that behind Lassalle there was no large political party like the national liberals or the centrists. Bismarck continued:

What he had was something that was extraordinarily attractive to my private self…He was one of the most intelligent and dear men that I ever had dealings with—a man who was ambitious in the highest sense, certainly not a republican. He had a very marked nationalist and monarchist sensibility. His guiding idea was the German Empire and there we had something in common. Lassalle was ambitious in the highest sense and whether he wanted to see the end of the German Empire with its Hohenzoller dynasty or a Lassalle dynasty was doubtful. But he had a monarchist sensibility through and through. Lassalle was an energetic and very intelligent man from whom one learned a lot when talking with him. Our meetings lasted for hours and I always regretted when they came to an end. It is not true that Lassalle and I parted ways in our personal relationship which grew into one of reciprocal goodwill where he had the impression that I saw in him a man of intellect with whom it was pleasant to interact. Likewise, he had the impression that I was an intelligent and willing listener.

In his speech, Bismarck explained that Lassalle and his political positions did not allow him to meet with him often. He added, “However, it would have made me happy to have a man of this talent and intellect as a neighbor at my country estate.”

We can’t think of a more positive depiction of a man’s character to come from the mouth of one with such a critical nature as Bismarck’s. Only very few in Bismarck’s closest circle ever heard a word of praise! (To be continued in the next issue.)

p. 2

Infectious Diseases and the Persecution of Jews.

It’s been exactly 300 years since Cornelius Drebbel (Netherlands) invented the first assembled microscope—the same year that the universities of Rinteln and Strassburg were founded. Thus was the foundation set for finding the causes of diseases. Certainly, there was already some sense of the existence of bacteria. A certain Varro [Reatinus] (first century before Christ) wrote in his [Three Books On Agriculture: “Very tiny creatures that we can’t see grow in damp places. They come into the body through mouths and noses and cause serious illnesses.” But this perspective took two millennia to take hold. That the seeds of infections were in water was an idea that was common in medieval times, except one believed that this water was artificially poisoned. Naturally, one sought the perpetrators of this supposed crime and landed on the Jews who were an easy channel for the people’s anger, all the more because they could not defend themselves which made their persecution risk-free for the dear mobs. Characteristic of that time’s thinking is a letter that Duke Friedrich the Strict of Thuringia, ruler of Meissen, sent to the city council of Nordhausen in 1439. Translated into modern High German, the letter reads: “To the leaders and council of the city of Nordhausen! Know that we have burned all of our Jews throughout our land because of the great harm they have done to Christendom by their desire to kill all by throwing poison into the wells. Therefore, we advise you to kill your Jews for the glory and honor of God and the good of Christianity. So that they cannot weaken Christians. If one wants to make a complaint against you, we will defend you to the king and all other lords. Know also that we send you Mister Heinrich Suoze, our administrator from Salza who will accuse your Jews of the aforementioned crime they have committed against Christianity. Hence we plea that you help him to do this. We want what’s best for you. Given in Eisenach on the Saturday after Walpurgis and under our seal. Friedrich.”

One comprehends this way of thinking if one considers that this took place at a time when the ignorance and confusion of intellect had reached its highest point. However, only 10 years later in 1631 [sic] the Jesuit Friedrich Duke of Spee led a public campaign against the evil of another such superstition: witch trials. What nonsense swirled in people’s heads was reported by the Grand Duke of Hessen’s church councilor, Georg Conrad Horst in his “Magical Library” whose six volumes had been published in Mainz in the previous century. It took until 1675 when Antonie van Leuwenhoek from Delft discovered the little creatures in his infusion using the microscope thereby becoming the forerunner of modern microbiology.

Goethe and “Judendeutsch”.

by Walther A. Berendsohn, Ph.D., Hamburg

by Walter A[rthur]. Berendsohn, Ph.D., Hamburg.

In the debate over the “Goethe-authenticity” of the so-called Altona “Joseph.” In which, if I’m not mistaken, Professor Julius Petersen first published a very respected and much discussed analysis in the Frankfurter Zeitung. Manuel Schnitzer’s book The Case of Potiphar, which examines the many treatments of the Joseph narrative from ancient times to today, is an important source. Among other things, it draws our attention to other theatrical sources for this poetic work found by Paul Piper, including a comedy in the Judeo-German [Judendeutsch, also called “Western Yiddish”] dialect: The Sale (Mekirath) of Joseph that was staged with much pomp in Frankfurt at the start of the 18^th century and printed there in a small book with Hebrew letters as was the practice for this kind of literature. The Frankfurter Zeitung of this year published a comical excerpt without mentioning Goethe’s “Joseph” or connecting it to the young Goethe and his Purim play. But these connections exist.

On February 17, 1766 the marriage of the lawyer Johann Jost Textor with Maria Magdalena Möller was celebrated in Frankfurt. The bridegroom’s nephew, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, had been studying the gallant forms in dress, conduct, and language for the last several months, so could not attend. Instead, he sent a poem to mark the marriage, about which you can read much information in Dichtung und Warheit, Book 7. Unfortunately, the poem itself is not included. The Frankfurt Public Library has some of the poems written for this wedding, including this very odd piece—a song written in Judeo-German dialect with this dedication:

Ein schön Schier (Lied),
Hübsch und bescheidlich,
Rauffe (Doktor) Textor sing ich Dir,
Und der Calle Deinem Maydlich:
Aber hab Gedult mit mir.
In dem Schen (Namen) all der Jehudim,
Die beym Mischpott (Gericht) Du vertritst,
Singt im Tone der Talmudim
Dir Wolff Maas der Maliz (Prokurator) izt.

A lovely song,
Pretty and modest,
Doctor Textor I sing for you,
And your lovely maiden:
But be patient with me.
In the name of all the Jews
You represent in court
Singing in the tone of Talmudic scholars
Your Wolff Maas is the procurator.

There was a lively interest in this dialect in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, which was true for the respected Textor and Goethe families, and it often appeared at celebrations to delight the guests. The song mentioned here, however, the rest of whose text we won’t consider here, is preceded by a sort of dedication [written in high German]:

We wish you happiness and blessings in all things,
And to lengthen your life,
I am sure that this wish continues.
Whether it holds short or long.
Mechires Joseph.”

“Mechires” (Ashkenazi pronunciation of “Mekirath”) Joseph”

This from a footnote in the Sale of Joseph or Joseph Plays is evidence that in the 1760s, the play was still known in Frankfurt. Besides, its preservation is nothing to wonder at. In 1710 the play appeared in print, a thin octave booklet that you can still find in the Frankfurt public library. Additionally, the rector of the Frankfurt Gymnasium, Johann Jacob Schudt, included the play in his Jüdische Merkwürdigkeiten, Part 3. “The Comedy about Selling Joseph” was printed with Hebrew letters on the right side and a High-Germa translation that has, however, much Frankfurter color—like the original.

That young Goethe knew of this play there is no evidence. One can well assume though that while he was busily learning “Judendeutsch” he came across this play and read it in its original language.

As an exercise. For Goethe took formal lessons in Judeo-German and quite soon mastered it, as you can read in Dichtung und Wahrheit. To practice his six or seven learned languages, he wrote a novel that consisted of letters, which is unfortunately not preserved. He left them in Frankfurt, “a kind of quaking, white chick”–“its awful letters made me despair by gave my parents a good laugh.”

Councillor Goethe preserved the name of his son’s Judeo-German teacher in his 1761 household accounts book. He calls him Christamicus. Mrs. Elise Mentzel of Frankfurt reverently and diligently identified him as “Sergeant Christfreund, a man who was surely no imposing war hero—instead a peaceful policeman, who as his name indicates was a baptized Jew.

The so-called Altona “Joseph” has little of the Jewish Joseph play, but in addition to the Bible draws on an old Hebrew exegetical tract ”Sefer haYashar” and distorts the beloved tale with all kinds of gross and rude passages. It is indeed a pickled-herring comedy.

And yet the writer of the Altona manuscript used many sources, including from “Mekirath Joseph.” In this piece, Joseph sings a pastoral song on the way to Dothan to meet his brothers, which Schudt translated as:

Doesn’t a shepherd have it good?
He lies in the meadow and rests.
His sheep and his rams
Graze up and down.

When they’ve had enough
He happily goes home.

A second verse on the usefulness of wool follows, and a third about the usefulness of newborn lambs. The hero of the epic recently discovered in Altona sings a song “in praise of sheepherding,” written in two verses with more standardized spelling:

The shepherd’s life is a delightful one,
Free from all cares,
Stretched out in the shade,
With a little stream flowing by,
When you sing pretty songs
And bring them to the Creator with thanks,
Practicing how to
give the Giver
Love always.
When the sun goes down
And the dark night overtakes,
You don’t stay in the fields,
The shepherd drives the sheep home,
Playing on the folk shawm,
delighting his children,

So it’s true,
That shepherding is a joy.

The thoughts of the verse in “Meirath Joseph” are expanded into a longer poem that is certainly no masterpiece, but in contrast to some of the Joseph critics’ suppositions, the Altona manuscript yet points to Frankfurt… (Frankfurter Zeitung.}

p. 3

Aus dem Reich.

Blasphemer Dinter Stands Before the Court

Kassel. The leader of the German Volk party, Artur Dinter, PhD, stood before the first court of the region’s state court indicted for blasphemy. In the May 21 1920 meeting of the Kassel group of the German Nationalist Protection and Defiance Federation the accused said that the Jewish God is a merchant. He described the Old Testament scripture as a diary of Jewish deceptions, and finally he “analyzed” the Kol Nidre prayer in typical antisemitic style as giving permission to Jews to commit all nature of crimes such as perjury, deception, etc. The accused, who was present and, with recourse to powerful lungs, let loose his slander and libel against Jews and Judaism. He repeatedly called Jews scoundrels, liars, etc. Witnesses testified to worse statements made by him in which he blasphemed against God and insulted the Jewish religion (see the proceedings, 166, Vol. 2, paragraph B). He tried to minimize these by testifying what he meant to say was, that the Jews have diminished God by turning him into a deal-maker.” It was significant that in the lecture in Kassel on the spread of Judaism, he said that, under the direction of the Central Association, Jews had taken a prominent position and must be opposed. The Old Testament, the Jew-hater continued, was the product of the Jewish merchant who had always been a cheater and con man. Dinter called the Old Testament writings a ”running diary of Jewish deceptions that had been done under this twisted God. The prophets, who Dinter makes into non-Jews, deliver the flaming judgment on the deceptions. By means of the Kohlnidre prayer the uneducated Jew has the opportunity not to take the sacredness of oaths not too seriously. And there we see the two-faced Jewish morality. The banker Blumenthal and the publishers Gadomski and Dispeker served as witnesses. Dispeker said that it struck him how Dinter ridiculed the story of Jacob and Esau by drawing a contrast between the “Aryan Esau” with blond-red hair and Jacob, who represented the Jews. The Reverend Stein of Kassel was an expert witness and explained how in earliest times the concept of a god was not so elevated until humanity, that is Jewish humanity, raised the concept of God through ever-clearer ideas. At first the concept of god was cast in anthropomorphic ideas and fetishism. However, after the prophets one recognizes the living, more refined religion of Israel embodied by the priesthood. The Jewish people lifted themselves from a low point—the prophets had urged truth, law, and justice. Science can smile at the thought of the prophets being Aryans or non-Jews. And it can outright laugh at the notion that Jesus was not a Jew. Reverend Stein referred to recent researchers who have created a construct that can’t be proven by anything. The state’s attorney Dr. Schmitz emphasized that the court has ruled that the concept of a Jewish God is also covered by Paragraph 166. The question of whether the accused has blasphemed against God and caused unrest is to be answered with a “yes.” Also on the second point of the complaint, the defendant was found guilty, although not in its fullest interpretation. Dinter wanted to critically analyze the Kol Nidra prayer. But there is no question that the Old Testament scripture is the foundation of the Jewish, and therefore, Christian, religion. The attorney went on to say that the accused was guilty of blasphemy and slander against the Jewish Scripture. Further, as an educated man and practiced speaker, he must have been aware of the injurious nature of his statements—these will be taken into consideration for his sentencing as will the intentionality of these statements. The prosecutor called for two months jail time for every single point, that is, three months total. After half an hour’s consideration, the court pronounced Dinter not guilty because he did not exceed the boundaries of objective criticism. The expression “diaries of Jewish deception” was a subjective interpretation of Jewish teaching, however not of the totality of Jewish religion.

p.3

Berlin. Emigration Status. As a result of the closing of the German consulate in Warsaw the recent flow of emigration has lessened considerably.

Meanwhile, the expansion of the emigration function of the Central Bureau has made further progress. In Osnabruck, the most important railway connection point near the Dutch border, a safety committee has been formed. It has taken over the railroad service started by the youth organization. The founder and experienced director of the railroad service, Mrs. Sara Frank, is the head of the safety committee.

The German Jewish Aid Society’s committee responsible for Jewish railway service at the Silesian train station will now expand to other stations in greater Berlin.

Berlin. After a short but difficult illness, the Berlin council member for justice, Dr. Sally Kornfeld, passed away in Bad Kreuzfeld on July 4 at the age of 68. Berlin’s Jewish community lost one of its most respected and most loyal members, a man who was not interested in external praise but put his energy and extensive knowledge at the service of his faith and love of neighbor. He was a liberal Jew in the most noble sense of the word and was among the founders of the Liberal Association for the concerns of Berlin’s Jewish community.

Munich. Women’s right to vote. The Union of Bavaria’s Israelite Congregations, founded last spring, granted women the active and passive right to vote, as we have previously reported. In the subsequent election, five women were elected as delegates to the assembly.

Munich. A spectacle in grand style took place in the Circus Krone on Wednesday evening, if one believed the giant, bright red wall posters and the thousands of broadsheets in the tone of the “Völkischen Beobachters” and the “Miesbacher News.” Even so, about 2,500 attended. Mr. Hitler spoke on the theme of “Fatherland or Colony?” in his inimitable way where he concluded that we were among the world’s 300 Jewish capitalists whom the imperial government served. He even went so far as to say that they had colluded with the enemies and were responsible for the command to disarm. (!!) Roars against the Reichskanzler, “Hang him!”, “Scoundrel!” and such were heard and found fertile ground among part of the audience. Minister Rathenau was especially badly treated, Hitler calling him the German Trotzky and heaping insults and suspicion upon him. Hitler’s loyalists were enchanted. The speaker criticized the president of the police, Pöhner, whom he accused of having strictly censored attacks out of consideration of the Jews. How these must have looked in the original design. Apparently, loud disturbances had been expected, of the kind that the National Socialists made in the other parties’ meetings. A small group of security police bravely kept watch in the area around Circus Krone. The opposition felt their time was too precious to listen to Mr. Hitler’s expectorations; on the other hand they reproached him for the way he busted up the opposition’s meetings. Since no speaker could step up to enlighten the audience was treated to a program filled with well-known names from Hitler’s circle.

Palestine.

Debate in the English Lower House [of Parliament]. The debate over Churchill’s important speech on July 14 was recently taken up again by the Lower House.

Firstly, [H.H.] Asquith, the well-known leader of the opposition, explained that Churchill’s idea that it might be possible to lead Jews and Arabs to friendly co-habitation in Palestine was purely hypothetical. Sir J. W. Rees had only one criticism of Herbert Samuel—that he is still too much of a Zionist. The representative was very much in favor of limiting immigration. Sir W. Joynson-Hicks spoke at length disagreeing that the 7,000 Jewish immigrants to date brought any real value to Palestine. They were fed at the expense of the general population from taxes. The Mandate’s stipulations must anger the Arabs, but also the smaller concessions made for the sake of a sense of Jewish nationhood like introducing Jewish symbols on stamps and Jewish street signs. Actually, the Jews could have established a “Jewish-national homeland” in England, but they would never be given concessions of this kind—according to the Balfour Declaration these do not have to occur in Palestine. Moreover, one really must revise the terminology of the Balfour Declaration. If we do not, we should be prepared to send not just 5,000 soldiers, but a couple of Divisions of the English army to Palestine.

Churchill comforted the representatives by looking forward to next year. Then he might be able to lay better results from the English Palestine policy before the House. In any case, he stood firm that the English troops in Palestine had decreased over the last months.

On Tuesday,  the Lower House was informed, upon their request, that the Palestinian government, including the railway and postal service, employed 2,561 civil employees. Of these, 1,338 are Christian, 719 are Muslim, and 514 are Jewish.

Negotiations between Arabs and Jews. The Arab Delegation to Europe, which consists of Muslims and Christians and led by Musa Kazim Pasha, has recently arrived. In London, negotiations between the Delegation and the executive officers of the Zionist World Organization will begin on the creation of a modus vivendi between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.

Aus der Presse.

In the New Berlin Newspaper, under the title “Bolshevism and the Jews in Russia” stands the following:

The view that the Bolshevik dictatorship in Russia is equivalent to Jewish rulership is broadly held.

From that stems the belief that the Jewry is responsible for the actions of the Moscow Soviet government. These views are completely unjust. However, they are grounded in the claim that the Soviet government destroyed the Russian citizenry, yet protected the well-off and rich Jews in Russia.

What’s particularly true about this claim is that Moscow’s Soviet government offered well-off and rich Jews at the beginning of its rule an apparently unique protection. These Russian Jews had already secured quite large fortunes abroad in neutral countries during the war and still during the Kerenski Revolution. However, the Soviet government explained that because the government, which included a number of Jews, wanted to protect the fortunes of Russian Jews by bringing them back to Russia. As soon as the Soviet government believed it had the trust of the unsuspecting Russian Jews who believed its promises and brought their fortunes back, it attacked.

The section of the Bolshevik law against speculation was an easy way to confiscate those Jewish fortunes that had become very desirable to the Soviet government just like every other citizen’s. The accusations always ended in the Jews being executed, like the non-Jewish citizens, and their fortunes falling to the Soviet government and its Commissars. Already on August 27, 1919 37 rich Jews were arrested and executed in the main square of Ryazan, Morshansk and Kovrov.

Such news reports and the fact that countless Jews had to flee from Bolshevik Russia, leaving behind everything they owned give evidence that the Moscow Soviet government is not identical to the Russian Jewry.

Under the headline, “Send Swastikas Abroad!” the following appears in the “Freiheit”: The right-wing press claims that the writer Maximilian Harden has been sent to America on assignment from the German government to improve how Germany is perceived by holding lectures. The government has denied this claim but the right-wing press holds fast to its narrative and demands that the government makes the connection between itself and Harden clear. What the right-wing press cares about is made clear in this description in the Kreuz Zeitung:

If one somehow believes that a man with foreign roots who rejects any national feelings could act on behalf of Germany, they are committing a huge political mistake, as can only be done in Germany—not to mention the dangers of the moral effects. A people’s political position first and foremost depends on the admiration it receives from other people. A man like Harden, who is disdainful of the German people, can only deliver Germany’s reputation an even greater blow that the Revolution already has done.”

p.4

Apparently, the Kreuz-Zeitung deems only those men able to increase admiration of Germany who wear a swastika front and back and have branded their foreheads with the slogan “Forward with God for King and Fatherland” just like the Kreuz-Zeitung has.

Antisemitic Intellectual Flowering.

Mr. Schwarz put the Leipzig Democratic Student Association into a real vacation mindset with choice antisemitic tidbits. Here is a sampling: “(Swastika) Who will help? A manufacturer seeks 50,000 Marks to expand his — Litor [sic] factory!” Hans (!) Günter says of heroic hatred: “We gave up the pagan runes for the Latin alphabet, the stave rhyme for the softer end rhyme, our mighty paganism for degenerate Christianity, our native justice for Roman, and therefore capitalistic, conditions, Nordic art for Greek art even in the eighteenth century, and many other Germanic traits. Hatred is an idea from the soul. You should recognize it by its hates. A man is worth as much as his hatred. Every hatred is creative, even if it destroys and burns.” “Whoever had blond hair and blue eyes can still have an un-Germanic mind and soul.” When choosing a spouse, racist perspectives should be deciding factors; the concept of Aryan breeding settlements should be considered.  (Aryan stud farms! We have come so magnificently far! And they want to talk about the decline of the West?—Interesting is the German folkish take on literature. Adolf Bartels is the great intellect here. When a new writer appears he first looks at their picture and their ancestry, and then he critiques their work. A certain “Amelek” writes: “[Heinrich] Heine was a big ape who imitated everything and then dirtied it with the sink of his ghetto.” Jewish critics sniff all artworks like dogs at a lamppost!” – The German Nationalist Protection and Defiance Federation is also making discoveries, for example that Clemenceau was a Jew. The Berliner Tageblatt states that he is not. But the German folkish are never shy: If he isn’t a Jew by blood, then he has been intellectually so “jewified” that he – is a Jew! The also knows how yellow (gold) has forced its way into the new Reich’s colors. Namely because—hear this and be amazed!—the Jewish badge is yellow for in 1215 Pope Innocence III, instituted a decree about Jews that required Jews to wear a yellow badge. – The Jewish theory of relativity will soon be put into practice. Example: A woman buys 10 meters of velvet in a Jewish store. At home she measures it again to find it’s only 9 meters. She complains. The Jewish lawyer opines that the difference can be explained by the merchant’s quick and the housewife’s slow measuring. The court finds for the Jewish merchant. And this isn’t a joke, rather it has a high degree of probability.

Breslau.

On Self-defense

One of this paper’s esteemed readers sent an inquiry about the recent notice “On Self-defense” to the police commission and received this answer:
As to the article “On Self-defense” you sent us, and with which I was already familiar, I respectfully inform you that the police is doing everything to prevent this kind of nonsense.”

An Antisemitic Sanatorium

The head of the Waldsanatorium in Obernigk, Dr. Kontny, has the Knüppel-Kunze’s Deutches Wochenblatt in his institution’s reading room. He probably believes provoking his patients will strengthen their lungs and nerves. Oddly enough, he doesn’t exclude private Jewish patients. Our fellow congregants might wish to take notice.

Technical Emergency Assistance

The technical emergency assistance group put on a festival in the zoo to raise money for Upper Silesia. There was singing, dancing, music, and a great atmosphere. The capable organizers and the many attendees let us hope that this festival has an excellent result.   [by] W. Sch.

[Editorial Note:] For the articles with named authors which express their personal opinions, the editors accept only the responsibility stated in the laws governing the press.

Family Announcements.

Engaged: Ruth Feibel with Ilko Kiminski, Breslau; Tina Cohn, Neustadt Upper Silesia, with Erich Warschawski, Berlin; Erna Miedzwinsky with Werner Frank; Else Metzner with Robert Fröhlich, Breslau.

Married: Dr. Karl Danziger with Dr. Elfriede Goldmann, Brieg; Walter Loebel with Selma Luchtenstein, Breslau; Martin Kosterlitz with Erna Berger, Beuthen Upper Silesia; Dr. Lothar Katz with Trude Lichtenstein, Breslau; Kurt Löwengard with Elli Kallmann, Berlin-Charlottenburg.

Born: Sons: Erich Sandberg and Rose, née Meckauer, Breslau; Fritz Bial and Lucie, née Schenkalowski, Gleiwitz.

Daughters: Alfred Redlich and Käthe, née Schimmelburg, Breslau.

Died: Bertha Zöllner née Katz, Breslau; Victor Neumann, Breslau; Benno Loewy, Gleiwitz; Friederike Pulvermacher, Breslau; Gustav Weinhausen, Breslau; Sally Heinrich, Oppeln.

Advertisements and Notices.

“Prophetism” Course begins next week. The instructor, Miss Lucie Jakobson requests that registrations be sent in writing to Nikolai-Stadtgraben 19 immediately.