A editorial note on "A Transylvanian Word for “Lord” Rothermere"

One of the most commonly used words throughout the essay of Moța is "jidan". In the Romanian language we have a few words that we call the jews. One is "jidan", the other common one is "evreu". The translation of "evreu" would be to English, naturally, "hebrew", but we use it as the English use the word "jew". The word "jidan" translates to "jew" (cognate also to "yid"), however this is the most pejorative word we have for them, in my opinion. There is no equivalent to "kike". One could thus also translate "jidan" to "kike" if they wanted, so when you see the translated article say "jew" know that it could have also said "kike". Unfortunately, I don't know which would be the more correct translation in this case.

A Transylvanian Word for “Lord” Rothermere (Article by Ion Moța)

“Greater Hungary” and jewish plans

The Romanian doesn’t get alarmed (even when he should) and he doesn’t lose his temper, however great the trials of fate. It is, it seems, a strength due to both his superior essence and his nationality, as well as the unparalleled honing from ages of great sacrifices and battles, for Justice and for his Right faith in God.


It is to be understood thus, why us Romanians didn’t really hurry to respond to “lord” Rothermere, that jew from England, which, recently, in his newspapers, has begun to request, with great haste, the reunification of Greater Hungary, not being stimulated to this by money that he maybe received from the Hungarian government, and not only the special hatred of all jews toward all that is Romanian, but put on his way by a certain jewish plan, about which we will talk at the end of the article.  Our indifference in the face of the fury of the boyar-lord is this much more explainable as there is no danger or great trial of fate. Seeing this, now, that this campaign continues to argue in front of the world the idea of a new “Greater Hungary”, we will also say here some words, in the name of a part of the Transylvanian youth, not to convince the jew, but for the honest foreigner that might seek this topic that he might have at his disposal a folder as complete as possible.

Yes, I am puzzled (Article by Ion Moța)

“Religion is the basis of culture”. (A. C. Cuza)

“Nationality is the creating power of human culture”. (A. C. Cuza)

“Eliminating the jews, from the domain of culture, is an existential problem for us. The elimination from the domain of culture implies still the elimination from the domain of national economy, where culture has its roots”. (A. C. Cuza)

My previous article – in which among others I affirmed that we cannot accept Mr. A. C. Cuza’s conception on the matter of culture: the materialist conception of culture as downstream from economy – it is objected that it is not true that Mr. Cuza has a “materialist conception” about culture and more so that it is absurd to say Mr. Cuza would sustain, implicitly, that Christianity itself is a product of a nationality supported by a certain national economy.

We assure anyone that it wasn’t easy for us to decide to touch on the doctrinaire system of our former professor. From what will follow however (since so far we will respond in summary) we believe that anyone will be able to see if we sought with daring to find a mistake at any cost to unjustly accuse, or rather we sought to clarify an important issue wrongly solved. (And we repeat: we do not criticise here at all the cuzist doctrine in its part referring to the issue of jewish economic parasitism, and only to its part referring to culture and thus to the problem of moral purification).

I said we will be short and we are; we will put just this question supported on the three quotes from A. C. Cuza, indicated above:

Weren’t we correct in saying that Mr. Cuza has an inacceptable conception about culture (especially about its source) when Mr. Cuza says precisely: “Religion is the basis of culture” (a truth incontestable, we recognize it strongly too); after Mr. Cuza also says: culture (with its base: religion) is a product of nationality; and, in the end, Mr. Cuza also says: “culture has its roots in national economy” (which without nationality cannot exist). So, we conclude, logically: “religion, as a basis of culture, is itself a product of nationality and of the national economy” (according to the cuzist conception). And, as we have concluded thusly, we understand clearly for what Mr. Cuza gives no importance to the moral element from our endeavours of national salvation. Mr. Cuza tell himself that purifying the economy, he purifies everything, as a purified economy will produce a purified culture, and will restore the healthy basis of culture, religion master of souls, automatically, as a consequence an accessory to eliminating the jews from economy. Why would we preoccupy ourselves thus with the moral element, when through preparing the economic elimination of the jews, we prepare the supreme and total happiness of our nation? Here is a mode of thinking which we reject and which has destroyed everything which the “national movement” has built until now.

I end: yes, I am puzzled how a genius mind such as of Mr. Cuza could sink itself to such a wrong conception about culture. It would give us, not pleasure, but a spiritual good if he would clarify. And, with great happiness, we shall ask the appropriate apologies if he convinces us that we are victims of an intellectual confusion.

(Originally published in the Legionary magazine “Pământul Strămoșesc” on the 15^th of September 1928.)