Harald Nielsen on Jewish Deception
MA Harald Nielsen
(Reprint of DEN DANSKE TILSKUER, 15th April 1943, and a chapter in his book 'Self Disclosure' from 1948)
In the modern societies the Jews - because of a wise instinct of self-preservation - have placed themselves in the glands.
Louis Levy: 'The Jew as peacemaker'
Once during the summer of 1941 one of the city’s newspapers showed a picture of an elegant, young Jew seen in half profile from behind. On the back of his well fitting suit was a placard. The text was as follows: “Like in Poland, so also in the new Kingdom of Croatia Jews must wear a special mark – both in front and in back. The picture shows a Jew from Agram with the new mark.”
The newspaper knew very well what it was doing in bringing this picture. Nothing could be more correct and at the same time nothing – at least here at home – could be more suited for bringing sympathy to the Jews. For this was outrageous. Any reader seeing this picture, shuttered to think of treating decent people in this manner. One imagined, with horror, how the stalls of the Royal Theatre would look, if something similar were implemented here or what havoc it would create in social life – not to mention on the board of directors of limited liability companies etc.
Without the need for one single word or even revealing its own standpoint the newspaper had mobilised all of the emotions that arise as a wall of sympathy around the poor Jews and as a wall of antipathy against the barbarians who are exposing them to such shameful, inhuman treatment.
And who would argue, that it does seem babaric. Everything, that non-Jews have to do in order to protect themselves against them seems babaric, whereas the Jews do not need to do anything that looks babaric in order to reach their goal: the total annihilation of a person, the conquest of a nation, the domination of a trade. If they kill a man, it is done with a silencer, whereas it makes a brutal bang, when a non-Jew tries to repay it. No wonder then that the world which, as is well known, wants to be decieved, sees one part as more humane than the other, even though they both do, what they have to do: defend their lives – out of “instincts of self-preservation”, as Louis Levy says.
The suggestive power which emanates from such a picture is, however, so overwhelming, that most people are left without room for reflection of any kind. One has to be as level-headed, as only a person will be who has, himself, been exposed to the treatment by the Jews, has experienced himself, what it means to be “branded” by them, in order to dare think, where only emotions speak.
Thus one can assume, that not very many of the readers of the newspaper have thought of reversing the issue. They have been indignant, that such methods could be used, but they have hardly asked themselves, how it came to pass, that they were used, even though they would necessarily shed a sympathetic light upon the victims and an equally unsympathetic light upon those using such methods. They have probably not even asked themselves, why the representative of the “persecuted” race is so young, so elegant, so good-looking – so good at evoking sympathy, nor have they reflected upon whether his race-fellows are the same, or if it might serve a specific purpose, that he is. Even less have they reflected upon the sheer oppression that this oppressed man represents, himself. His victims and those victims of his race - his fellow-Jews, have not been “stigmatized” in this way; they have just been quietly strangulated, deprived of their livelihoods, conscripted to destruction, but as there was no press-photographer present when it happened, there has been no reason to be indignant about it. What the eye doesn’t see, doesn’t pain the heart. And, in particular, they have not given it any thought, what the non-Jew has to accomplish in the way of work, arguments and efforts in order to outweigh this one picture, nor how advantageous it is to have the picture and all the emotions, it evokes, on one’s side rather than the arguments.
For what might be the purpose of tacking a yellow rag onto an otherwise well sown suit? Could it be solely to cause an appearently unoffending fellow-citizen unnecessary suffering? Hardly! That could be done in a different and less ostentatious manner. The purpose must be to single out the person, so that the moment one sees him, one knows, that one has to do with a Jew and consider, what that means. But why, one may ask? Don’t we all know a Jew, when we see one? Yes, normally, but we do not all consider, what it means, that he is one or whether it means anything at all. It is precisely against this thoughtlesness, this indifference that the yellow mark is meant as a warning. Here is a Jew! Here is a problem! Watch out!
But what problem is it and what different parts does it consist of? Externally the outline of the Jewish problem is not hard to see. The race-differences are always latently present and the exterior is most unmistakable. Many cannot avoid running into the influence – and collide with it. It happens even in strongly social liberal circles, that one hears clandestine sighs over those damned Jews*),
but even so, there is not much impetus to deal with the issue. On the contrary, many – possibly even most – people have an intense dislike of it. If you trace this dislike back to its source, you find various reasons for it. First and foremost people take comfort in the idea, that the Jewish question means nothing, among other things because the Jews are a minority, even though particularly the most recent period in history shows, that a firmly cohesive and determined minority can have a great deal of influence. But at the same time as one asserts officially, that it means nothing, one has a very strong feeling, that it is not without risks to get on the wrong side of them, and that for this reason alone one had better not place much significance on the matter. Maximilian Hardens cynically outspoken words, that “anyone, who displays Anti-Semitism, must be prepared to be declared an outlaw” shows, that this fear is not without reason; it does not take much to be stigmatized as an Anti-Semite. But what is more, and that is in reality the worst obstacle is the phenomenon, that one feels he is about to commit a sacreledge, that by raising the Jewish question he attacks the most sacred principles of humanity and freedom. At least the Jews say so themselves and so do many others in good faith and from the most honest conviction.
In short, it is an entire web like the one, which bound the Fenris Wolf, made up of many very strange parts – including woman’s tears – that paralyze and hault any action against the Jews, whether it be clearing the concepts in theory or taking any kind of measures to regulate the relations between them and the non-Jews. As the thought is the father of action, one seeks to stifle even thought, and for many reasons that is not so difficult, because the Jews, thanks to their position in society, can do this without the non-Jews even noticing, what they are up to.
But in order to understand the advantageous positions which the Jews actually hold, one has to clarify concepts like mankind, race, nationality, people, liberalism, humanism etc. In everyday life it is jumbled together. Thus people substitute and mistake so that correct conclusions are drawn from the wrong assumptions and vice versa. They say that we are all human beings; they assume, that the laws of humanism are also valid beyond the bounderies of nationality, they protest against waging war against peaceful human beings, human beings that do no-one any harm etc. etc., a long series of sensible and humane considerations, that do not, however, fit the situation which exists between Jews and non-Jews.
That will be abundantly clear as soon as one realizes the relations between nationality and humanism and compare the Jewish problem of nationality with other problems of nationality. It is quite true that the laws of humanism include all human beings, but not in such a way, that they render all differences between people unimportant. A humane war does not mean a blodless war, for the laws of humanism, it is true, require that one not inflict any unnecessary suffering on one’s opponent, but they do not require one to open the gates for him, they do not require to surrender to him unconditionally, they do not involve any obligation to fraternize with him and they do not prevent one from killing him if this proves necessary.
Humanism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism, absence of differences are not the same thing. On the contrary, true humanism presupposes differences. The human values – be they religious, moral or artistic – all come into existence within specific races and nations, and for them to be absorbed by, and be able to release their common humane contents to, other nations and other races, they must first be appropriated and converted by them. There are no abstract spiritual values any more than there are abstract human beings – in this the Jewish-American critic Ludwig Lewisohn is perfectly right.
Thus, up until now, it has not been an offence against humanism to defend the nation to which one belonged, rather it has been a prerequisite for it. It was precisely through this defense and the effort it required, that the humane values were created and maintained, in the first place.
They were, for instance, not maintained by a passive surrender, on the part of Europe, to the horders from the East. That would not likely have maintained or created any humanism. Nor were they maintained by the European states giving up their specific character. They were specifically maintained by first discerning the differences before dwelling on the similarities.
This whole process, whereby at the same time nationality is defended and humanism is created happens under circumstances and in circles, where the broad masses do not see it. They sing their national anthems and yell hurrahs, when there is an occasion for it, for the national culture etc, and they are also willing to fight for their country, but what national culture is and what vigilance and sacrifices it demands – this they do not understand sufficiently – exactlyt that is demonstrated by the Jewish question, better than by anything else and by the attitude towards it.
For what is of importance if one nation is defending itself against another? How far can it go without being in danger in relation to a national opponent? Where does that begin, which separates the nations and what can be considered unimportant?
One only needs notice how people respond to these issues during a war in order to have a measure of how far one can expect their understanding to go and where it fails. At first their instincts will react spontaneously toward the opponent. He is the enemy and therefore he has all sorts of gruesome and infamous characteristics. To judge him objectively and yet fight him is the business of the minority only. The large majority only knows black and white, they respond based on their emotions and if these calm down they will have difficulty taking action at all. Therefore the war-propaganda must see to it, that they do not calm down, and therefore strict penalties must keep the population from fraternizing with the prisoners of war, since they are not private persons as long as the war continues. But the common man cannot understand that. As soon as the soldier has been disarmed, he sees him as a pitiable, even sympathetic person, which he does not mind being friends with or even include in his family. The supreme command in the war can not tolerate that, however. If it did, the feeling of what is at stake would be gradually effaced. The individual soldier is not the enemy because of his personally repulsive character-traits, but because he is part of an entity, which the common man himself, being part of another entity is opposing.
If one imagines a general fraternizing between the often numerous prisoners of war and the population at home, the instincts would soon become uncertain, the willpower veakened, the perception of what was at stake would disappear. If one could get along so well with these fine persons, why harbour hostility against them and kill their countrymen at the front? The whole thing would soon appear meaningless.
When, in the name of humanism, all borderlines between Jews and non-Jews were removed and they were accepted as fully equal citizens in the various countries, where they happened to live, such an unclear situation was created in their case. Although the Jews represent a special national interest very much and have a special national will, which they do not themselves conceal, the populations of the nations in which they dwell, do not understand, that this creates in fact a front. Where is the bloody battle, that goes with it? What people do see is, that the Jews are walking around among us and behave like everybody else: they eat, drink, marry, have children, go on vacation out in the country, go to the theatre etc. etc. That they have the best places in the theatre and own the best placed villas may seem a bit odd, but can easily be explained by their well known greater abilities. The main thing is, that they do not, in their habits and behaviours, seperate themselvs out from the surrounding population. The food and clothing may be a bit different, but their daily thoughts and feelings revolve around similar interests, the living a daily life, and if that were the only concern, there would not really exist any national contrast. In this field – that of daily life – they and the people, they dwell amongst would be able to understand each other without further ado and in this field they would also largely be able to replace each other. A Jewish doctor can replace a Danish doctor just as a Chineese worker probably, in many cases, could replace a Danish worker.
But then, one may ask, where is the difference, where is that difference, that makes Jews unfit to be the guide of Danes and vice versa. Where is that, which makes the results from the activities of a Jewish race or from a Danish-Jewish race different from those, that come from a pure Danish population? Is it not, when everything is added up, just imagination, prejudice? We are all human beings, some good and some bad, some smart and some stupid – why make bones about something that means nothing?
No, in the short run it means nothing, that is quite right – but in the long run! And is that not exactly the point here? If one is sailing in waters, where there is land on both sides, f.ex. Oresund, then of course it isn’t strictly necessary to have a compass on board – and the tediousness of daily life can be likened to such waters, where the difference between Jew and non-Jew are of no consequence and will not be, but out on the great oceans one cannot dispense with a compass and the national life, through centuries, is such an ocean, where a nation cannot navigate safely, if it is not guided by its own compass, by its own instincts, by its own nature.
Humanism or not – against a background like this the question appears very different than when it was judged under the outrageous impression of a picture. Seen in its own perspective the question is, whether it is humane to demand that foreign paratroopers wear uniform and whether it is inhumane to shoot them, if they do not. The Jews are, seen tactically, paratroopers scattered out among the populations in the countries, where they dwell, enjoying all of the advantages that come from being able to move about undisturbed and unnoticed. If one were to imagine any other power being similarly favoured, it would not need to fire one single shot in order to conquer the territory, it had occupied. Why use violence, if one can - in peace and quiet, and with the assistance of the natives - occupy all of the central posts, usurp all power and cut all connections, that may be in the way of one’s own plans?
That is, what the paratroops have achieved, not just undisturbed by the unsuspecting natives, but under their protection. If one or more of them become suspicious and sound the alarm, then their countrymen will, motivated by the noblest of feelings, surround the innocently accused. It will not be the Jews, who risk being lynched, but the evil persons, who dared throw suspucion on such excellent and much respected countrymen.
For having captured the power and influence they have at the same time captured the power to determine, who is a good citizen and patriot. Like in an oldfashioned metamorphosis play the roles will be completely reversed. It will be those, who have the most sense of belonging to their people and the most responsibility for its future, that will be set out and exiled in their own country, whilst those, who have neither history nor nature in common with it, will speak on their behalf. Do they not already have the most prestigious positions, are they not already sons-in-law and friends, employers and business partners? How can one then contest their right to that? And what use would it be to try? If their countrymen should get an inkling, that those sounding the alarm might be right, they will therefore try to avoid recognizing this with all kinds of excuses. Anyone can then become a traitor to his own nationality in order to please those, who have conquered his country from within rather than exposing himself to their anger. Eyes that look the other way, embarrassed smiles and shrugging of shoulders will meet those, who dare do their duty for their country, and reveal, that the persons know very well, that he is right, but that they prefer to remain ignorant. One can alway rely on humanism if all other excuses should fail and one is ready to protect this “humanism” by ruthlessly sacrificing those, who have the audacity to see through the true nature of the situation and who say out loud for whom protection is mobilized. Countrymen in the service of Jews will become executioner’s assistants towards countrymen.
Nationality which is continually spoken of, will become a plaything for the interests of the Jews and will gradually loose its contents. For if it is unimportant, whether it is an oriental or a nordic race, that has the last word concerning the future of the people, and if it is unimportant, if it is Jewish or non-Jewish taste, that determines its culture, then there is not much reason to take anything concerning its existence seriously and as one has put oneself in the situation, that one cannot defend one’s most vital interests without placing oneself in a unfavorable light, which one is afraid to do, in such a people there will be nothing left except to state the facts, outline the course of events and point out the consequences.