Quotes (Jewry in England-- Peter Aldag)

The Angel Children

• From Footnote 11

Translator’s note: Jacobs believed that that these ecclesiastical ordinances were made to regulate the ‘passing intercourse with Gallo-Jewish slave dealers’, the type to whom Pope Gregory I was referring when he complained about the sale of Christians to Jewish slave dealers in the north of Gaul (ibid.). We know that these Jewish slavers trafficked in English people, certainly in English children, thanks to the famous story about Pope Gregory spying two blond-haired slave children in Rome, asking their provenance, and on being told that they were Angles, replying ‘Non Angli, sed angeli!’ [Not Angles, but angels!]. Jacobs (pp. 34) made the following disturbingly triumphalist remark on recalling the tale: ‘Remembering that slaves have no nationality, I would suggest that if Gregory had stated the prosaic fact in his world-famous remarks about the chubby, blond-haired lads exposed for sale on the Roman slave-market, he would have said, “Non Angli nec angeli sed — Judaeorum servi.”’ [They are not Angles, nor angels, but slaves of the Jews.] (9)

Julian of Norwich in 1243 Regarding the People Suffering from Usury

The well-founded complaints of the Christians against the Jews were becoming unbearable, and that the extortion, oppression and usury of the perfidious people... had reduced the people to a condition of exhaustion. (41)

Nuremberg-like Laws of 1253

• Aldag comments on the striking similarity to Nazi policies and provides the full text of the mandate.

“Apparently, after such events, King Henry III was no longer able to ignore the pressure coming from anti-Jewish circles, and issued drastic regulations. It is very interesting to note that this royal ordinance of 1253 has partly the same content as the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. As a result, it is reproduced verbatim below:

MANDATE OF THE KING TO THE JUSTICES ASSIGNED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE JEWS TOUCHING CERTAIN STATUTES RELATING TO THE JEWS IN ENGLAND WHICH ARE TO BE RIGOROUSLY OBSERVED. THE THIRTYSEVENTH YEAR OF KING HENRY. A.D. 1253.

The King has provided and ordained etc.: That no Jew remain in England unless he do the King service, and that from the hour of birth every Jew, whether male or female, serve Us in some way. And that there be no synagogues of the Jews in England save in those places in which such synagogues were in the time of King John, the King’s father. And that in their synagogues the Jews, one and all, subdue their voices in performing their ritual offices, that Christians may not hear them. And that all Jews answer to the rector of the church of the parish in which they dwell touching all dues parochial relating to their houses. And that no Christian nurse in future suckle or nourish the child of any Jew, nor any Christian man or woman serve any Jew or Jewess, or eat with them or tarry in their houses. And that no Jew or Jewess eat or buy meat in Lent. And that no Jew disparage the Christian Faith, or publicly dispute concerning the same. And that no Jew have secret familiar intercourse with any Christian woman, and no Christian man with a Jewess. And that every Jew wear his badge conspicuously on his breast. And that no Jew enter any church or chapel save for purpose of transit, or linger in them in dishonour of Christ. And that no Jew place any hindrance in the way of another Jew desirous of turning to the Christian Faith. And that no Jew be received in any town but by special license to the King, save only in those towns in which Jews have been wont to dwell.

And that the Justices assigned to the custody of the Jews are commanded that they cause these provisions to be carried into effect, and rigorously observed on pain of forfeiture of the chattels of the said Jews. Witness the King at Westminster, on the 31st day of January. By King and Council.” (48)

Desecration Event in 1268 that Influenced Edward I

• In 1268, a Jew trampled a crucifix in public, an event which strongly influenced Edward I for life.

On the occasion of Ascension Day in 1268, a solemn procession took place in Oxford. The importance of the procession was marked by the presence of Crown Prince Edward and other high dignitaries. When the procession was reaching the spot where the sermon was due to take place, a Jew broke through the crowd of spectators, stopped the march of believers and tore the crucifix that was being carried in the procession out of the bearer's hands. Before the astonished crowd could wrest it from him, he had trampled it underfoot. The heir apparent, who had witnessed this incident himself, reported it to the king. This event must have made a deep impression on the prince and likely guided his entire future policy towards the Jews. The people's anger was indescribable: they had expected a deterrent punishment, but were very disappointed by the extremely moderate retribution. All the Jews had to do was erect a valuable cross at the site of the incident and provide the university with another portable silver cross.” The same or similar influences as those of the murderer Abraham were probably at work to prevent a just atonement. (51)

However, it is correct to state that he [Edward I] flatly rejected association with Jews. He was influenced in this by his mother and in no small measure by the despicable incident in Oxford in 1268, which likely marked him for life. (57)

People Eaten to the Bone by Usury

• Historian John Speed regarding why Edward I expelled the Jews in 1290

The Jews ‘by their cruel usuries had... eaten his [Edward’s] people to the bones’. (69)

Child Murder in 1290 as Possible Cause of Expulsion

• From Appendix II of Volume 1
• Mainstream scholars speculate that the murder of a Christian boy by Jews in Oxford in the year 1290 may have been the final straw for Edward I, as other Jewish murders against Christians were for other Christian monarchs across Europe.

Less than a month after these Calendar entries were recorded at Westminster, on 18th July, 1290, Edward I issued his infamous Edict of Expulsion, which makes one wonder if it was this particular day of Jewish crime that proved to be the final straw for the English monarch’s tolerance, just as in France the murder of Richard of Pontoise in 1181 was what ostensibly motivated Philip II to expel the Jews from his royal domain in 1182 (Rose, p. 220), and the murder of the so-called Holy Child of La Guardia (1491) was allegedly what impelled King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to issue the Alhambra Decree of March 31st, 1492, the edict itself indirectly referencing the ‘serious and detestable crime’ (Walsh, p. 345). There is no evidence that this 1290 killing was a ritual murder, but it is nevertheless the murder of a Christian child, and when taken in conjunction with the audacious Jewish fraud against the church which was considered the same day, it may be that it was at this point that Edward I, who, ‘like Philip [II of France] before him, had a strong interest in documenting both the alleged criminality of the Jews and defining the crown’s position as a staunch defender of the Christians of his nation’ (Rose, p. 226), finally decided to accede to the popular clamour. (124)

The Jewish Character of Puritanism

• Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz, who sympathised with the Puritans, demonstrating their Jewish character

He [Cromwell] and his army fought for religious liberty for themselves and others. He and his officers were not bloodthirsty mercenaries in search of booty, but warriors filled with the spirit of God, who dreamed of establishing a theocracy and undertook its accomplishment. The Puritan warriors, like the Maccabeans of old, went to battle with the praise of God in their mouths and the sword in their hands. Cromwell and his soldiers read the Bible before and after an engagement. But the ‘Roundheads’ were inspired to courage and enthusiasm not by the New but solely by the Old Testament. The Christian Bible, with its Essenic, monkish forms, offered no model for warriors who had to declare war on a perjured king, a faithless aristocracy and unholy priests. Only the great heroic figures of the Old Testament who had the fear of God in their hearts while fighting, sword in hand, for their God and their nation could serve as a model for the Puritans; the judges who freed their people from the foreign yoke; Saul, David, Joab, who routed the enemies of their nation; Jehu, who exterminated an idolatrous and wicked dynasty — such were the favourite heroes of the Puritanic warriors. Each verse of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings mirrored their own situation; each Psalm seemed peculiarly adapted to their own condition. Oliver Cromwell seemed another Gideon who, at first reluctant in obeying the voice of God, afterward routed the heathen hordes with heroic courage, or another Judas Maccabeus, who converted a handful of martyrs into a victorious army. (153)

Peter Aldag regarding the Philosemitism of the Puritans

Original English names were replaced by Jewish ones from the Old Testament, and the Lion of Judah was placed on the victorious banners of the Puritans. The period under Stuart rule was known as the ‘Egyptian Bondage’ It was even seriously suggested that Saturday should replace Sunday as the real Sabbath. English people travelled the continent to have learned conversations with rabbis, and there were even Puritans who converted to Judaism.” (153)

Aldag regarding Cromwell’s Parliament nearly becoming a literal Jewish Sanhedrin

Cromwell had dissolved Parliament and convened a new one on his own initiative, known to history as the Barebones Parliament, made up of Puritan clergy, officers and religious zealots. In all seriousness, the representatives of this Parliament proposed that the Council of State should consist of 70 members, based on the Jewish Sanhedrin. (182)

Historian Hilaire Belloc Regarding Worldwide Jewish Spies

• Every Jew in the world was effectively a Jewish spy for Britain

The Jewish news agencies of the nineteenth century favoured England in all her policy, political as well as commercial; they opposed those of her rivals and especially those of her enemies. The Jewish knowledge of the East was at the service of England. His international penetration of the European governments was also at her service — so was his secret information. With the consolidation of the Indian Empire after the Mutiny the Jews were again an ally from their traditional hatred of the Russian people, which hatred has led them in our time to wreak so awful a vengeance upon their former oppressors. The Jew might also be called a British agent upon the Continent of Europe, and still more in the Near and Far East, where the economic power of England extended even more rapidly than her political power. (165)

• See ‘Thurloe Papers’ under Evidence.
• See The Danger of Jewish Spies under Arguments to Repeal the Naturalization Act of 1753 under Quotes.

Pro-Jewish Propaganda Around 1650 for Jewish Readmission to England

• Aldag:

Numerous pamphlets published in favour of the Jews’ readmittance to England influenced public opinion then as now. Sometimes it seems as if the art of printing was invented for the Jews, because we all know to what extent they use this facility to serve their agenda. So from that point in history onwards, one sees rivers of printer's ink pour out in England whenever the Jews want to accomplish something. Since newspapers were still in their earliest infancy at that time, they were out of the question for reaching the people, and it was the pamphlets alone that made the no small contribution to the return of Jews to England. (155)

Spanish Expulsion: Missed Opportunity to Rule the World

• Extremely revealing quote from Jewish historian Lucien Wolf, who “dunks” on Spain for kicking out the Jews and missing out on the world supremacy that fell to the English, who took in the Jews

Thus, at the very moment when Spain was on the threshold of a brilliant epoch of colonial expansion — which, if wisely managed, might have given her as wide a dominion as is enjoyed by Great Britain to-day — she had not only depleted herself of a numerous and valuable portion of her industrial population, but had raised up, both within and without her borders, many hundreds of thousands of embittered and insidious foes, who strove against her by every means in their power and who enjoyed peculiar facilities for gratifying their just enmity. And with every step in the extension of Iberian conquests the Marranos extended their counteracting ramifications. The infatuation of the Inquisition assisted them in this by transporting to every new colony shiploads of suspected Jews, who subsequently acted as agents and correspondents of their kinsmen at home and in other countries. In this way the network of Jewish commerce, which already covered North-Western Europe, both littorals of the Mediterranean, and the whole of the Levant, became spread over South America, the East and West Indies, Western Africa, and South-Eastern Africa as far as Hindustan and the Far East. All these colonies were in communication with each other and the early English Jews were in business relations with nearly every one of them. (161)

Menasseh ben Israel’s Arguments for Settling in England

• Besides meaningless fluff, he argued that the Jews could bring money, commodities, trade connections, etc.
• Aldag:

In Menasseh’s opinion, profit was ‘a most powerfull motive, and which all the World preferres before all other things: and therefore we shall handle that point first’. Through ‘having banished them from their own Country, yet not from his Protection’, God gave the Jews the natural instinct to make money and ‘thrive in Riches and possessions’. Since then the trade in currencies, diamonds, dyes, wine, oil and other valuable commodities has been largely in their hands, and on their readmission to England they would bring with them their capital and business connections, which would cause an increase in trade, which in turn would bring in tax, and customs revenue would be increased. It was true that the Jews acquired great wealth, but this was only made possible for them by the providence of God, so that through accumulated treasure they would find favour in the eyes of the rulers and peoples.

Menasseh then explained in detail that the Jews have a trade presence in almost every country on earth. Some of them even enjoyed high honours and were privileged by their princes.

Moreover, the Hebrews had a huge advantage over all other foreigners because they never left their host nation, whereas other foreign peoples only stayed long enough to make their fortune and then return with that fortune to their native soil, ‘peaceably to enjoy their estate’. The Jews, on the other hand, having no native country to which to return, stayed where they were with their wealth.” (186)

• See ‘Menasseh ben Israel’ under Villains.

William Prynne at Whitehall Conference

• Prynne described how the pleas of the people inspired him to read history, which changed his mind on the Jews.
  • Proof that even a Puritan can come to the truth about Jews if they’re rational

“As I kept on my way, in Lincolnes Inne Fields, passing by seven or eight maimed Soldiers on Stilts, who begged of me; I heard them say aloud one to another, We must now all turn Jews, and there will be nothing left for the poor. And not far from them another company of poor people, just at Lincolns-Inne back Gate, cried aloud to each other: They are all turned Devils already, and now we must all turn Jews. Which unexpected concurrent Providences and Speeches, made such an impression on my Spirit, that before I could take my rest that night, I perused most of the passages in our English Histories concerning the Jews carriage in England, with some of their misdemeanors in other parts, to refresh my memory, and satisfie my judgement; making some Collections out of them, which after I enlarged and digested into this ensuing Demurrer…” (187)

• Argued that the Jews were quintessential criminals

“...the most grievous Clippers, Coyners, Forgers of money, Usurers, Extortioners, and the greatest Cheators, Cozeners, Imposters in the world, in all their Merchandizes and Manufactures whatsoever.” (199)

• Diagnosed that the Jews are eternal revolutionaries

“The Jews were alwayes heretofore a very murmuring, mutinous, discontented, rebellious, seditious people for the most part, not only against God, but their lawfull Governors, Kings, Priests, Prophets, oft tumultuously rebelling against, disobeying, revolting from, deposing, murdering their Kings, and Sovereigns; and contemning, disobeying, slaying, killing the Prophets, Messengers whom God sent unto them... And can we then in point of piety or policy; even in these distracted, rebellious, mutinous times, entertain, or bring in such a Nation, People as this amongst us? Or can our despised Ministry in this age, have any hopes of reclaiming or converting such a people, who have thus abused, murdered, stoned their own Prophets in former times, though immediatly sent unto them by God himself?” (199)

• Explained that the Jews deserved to be banished and shouldn’t be let back in

“Having therefore been thus frequently banished by Christian Kings, Princes, from time to time, at the earnest sollicitation of their godly Christian Ministers, Bishops, People; and by our King and Parliament too out of England, so long since, never to return again, what shadow, colour of Piety, Policy, Prudence, Justice, Law, Reason, there can be for any person or persons whatsoever to re-admit them (except the Argument of dishonest, private, filthy under-hand Bribes or Lucre, by which they usually scrue themselves into those places, whence they have been exiled) transcends my shallow capacity to comprehend, especially at this season, when we are so over-stored with English, that some think of sending and planting Colonies in another world; whither these Goldthirsty Jews may do well to transplant themselves, if they be weary of their former habitations.” (200)

• Slammed the policy of deporting loyalists but importing Jews

...to banish these Christian English Freemen out of their Native Country, both from their Wives, Children, Kinred, and Gods own publike Ordinances; and at the self-same time to call in foraign, Infidel Jews... (202)

• Identified that the real reason for accepting Jews is their money
  • It was only for money that the English

...kept them so long in England heretofore, till their very banishment; A sign we love their money better than their souls or our own. (203)

• Warned and exhorted regarding evils of money

For the Love of mony is the root of all evill, which whiles some coveted after, they have been seduced (or erred) from the faith, (as thousands of late years have been), and pierced themselvs through with many sorrows… And therefore let us give that resolute answer to the Jewish Agents, if they proffer to purchase an indenization amongst us by their gold, as St Peter once did to Simon Magus in another case: THY MONEY PERISH WITH THEE… (204)

• Described how the Jews never benefitted the people

The introduction of the Jews into England and other Nations, never advanced the publike wealthe of the Natives and Republike, but much impaired it by their Usuries and Deceits, clipping and falsifying monies, ingrossing all sorts of commodities into their hands, usurping the Natives trades, and becomming such intolerrable grievances to them, that they were never quiet till they were banished, as their greatest Annoyance, and purchased their Exiles even with publick Subsidies granted to their Kings to be quit of them, as the premises [sources] abundantly evidence. The Trade of this Nation flourished more after their banishment hence, then ever it did before; and their introduction now, will but supplant, undoe our English Merchants and other Natives, to enrich them, and some few other Grandees, who shall share with them in their spoils and unrighteous gains… (204)

• Detected the Jewish anti-Christ spirit

I John 4.3. Every Spirit that* confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God, and THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST, wherof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world…. *The case of every Jewish Spirit. (204)

William Prynne’s Prescient Book

• Aldag:

All in all, this is a book that deserves to be rescued from obscurity as one of the first scientifically based works in the fight against the Jewish spirit. It is nothing short of astonishing how Prynne's predictions on the progression of the Jewish system have come to pass. History has proven how the Jews and a small gentile elite have become vastly rich at the expense of the masses. (204)

Sir Marmaduke Langdale: Jews are the Great Masters of Money

• Sir Marmaduke Langdale to Sir Edward Nicholas, secretary of the exiled King Charles I

The Jewes are considerable all the world over, and the great masters of money. If his Majesty could either have them or divert them from Cromwell, it were a very good service… (229-230)

The People Immediately Urged Charles II to Throw Out the Jews

• The Jewish historian Lucien Wolf described how the moment Charles II took power, the first thing the people wanted was for him to throw out the Jews.

Scarcely had Charles arrived in the Metropolis when the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London presented to him a humble petition, bitterly complaining of the action of Cromwell in permitting the Jews to re-enter the land, and asking the King ‘to cause the former laws made against the Jews to be put in execution, and to recommend to your two Houses of Parliament to enact such new ones for the expulsion of all professed Jews out of your Majesty’s dominions, and to bar the door after them with such provisions and penalties as in your Majesty’s wisdom should be found most agreeable to the benefits of religion, the honour of your Majesty, and the good and welfare of your subjects.’ The long pent-up wrath of the city found full expression in this petition, which must be read in its entirety to be appreciated. (235)

Violet’s Petition

• Thomas Violet wrote the petition to Charles II, expressing the popular will to expel the Jews that Cromwell had allowed in.
• Extended quote from Aldag, who in turn, provides long excerpts from Violet, whose words are in italics

The petition from the City of London is a detailed document. Here we only find sober statements from merchants about their economic situation. The trade of English companies had declined horribly solely due to the fact that the exportation of woollen and other native commodities had fallen into the hands of:

...such strangers both Christians and Jews who live here obscurely, free from family expenses and charge of Public offices and, by the assistance of drawers of Cloth, Packers, Clothworkers & others, pretended English merchants defraud your Majesty and your Kingdom of that foreign Trade which can more than sufficiently be supplied by your Majesty’s native subjects.

This ‘grand complication of mischief’ was all thanks to ‘late usurper’ Cromwell, who, prompted by his own ‘corrupt interest’:

...resolved as subtly as wickedly to let in that swarme of Locusts for a plague upon us who are now daily multiplied by the accession of whole families of them from all parts (as if your Majesty’s dominions were condemned to be the Sink into which the scum of Mankind should be emptied for a plague to your subjects) from which most if not all hereditary Monarchies of Christendom are secured & against which your petitioners do humbly hope that your Majesty will provide an antidote when your Majesty shall have considered how prejudicial most Jews are...

The king was warned not to tolerate them in the country. In other states that were by no means friendly to England, they had already managed to gain a foothold in the governments themselves. Given their ties to one another, it is entirely possible that the Jews living in England would pass on important information to their ethnic brethren living abroad:

That those Jews having no other relation to these Kingdoms but their present liberty in order to the gaining of money and having their kindred & friends dispersed in all the Kingdoms & States of Christendom under a disguise of Christians and many of them crept into public employment under the neighbour Princes & States, those Jews doubtless here will by their correspondency with their said brethren discover the ocurrences of your Majesties affairs, as far as they can do to the prejudice of your Majesty’s just & Honourable designs especially if it may serve those foreign States into whose dominions they have a free & sure retreat when they can do no further mischief here.

To make matters worse, there was also the issue of the Jews sexually exploiting the native English women and ‘tainting the blood’ of the nation:

...as to the Honour of the nations of your Majesty’s dominions, they have already debauched some necessitous [destitute] ones of the weaker sex to the abominable taint of the English blood & bringing on us the infamy of a mixt nation…

Then there was the problem of fraudulent trade, and Jewish behaviour generally, leading to an impoverishment and bankruptcy of the native people:

...your Petitioners already groaned under the wheel of their oppression; who are People that make it a practise to deceive Christians & are never just but when they cannot be otherwise; who never employ a Christian to gain a penny under them when none of their own tribes can serve them; who have found the way to buy our native manufactures on the best terms to ship them under English disguise and prostituted their price of them in foreign ports and raised the price of foreign Commodities to the great damage of your Majesty’s subjects in all the ports of the Spanish and Portugal dominions so as if they be continued here that whole trade will be drained from the English to the irreparable loss of their Majesty’s native People & that not only by these subtle underminings but by pure frauds also as appears by every fresh & sad experiences of several of them who having cheated other Christians in foreign parts under one name have assumed another & betaken hither and here by the confederacy of their own sort raised themselves a Reputation so as to obtain credit from your Majesty’s subjects and then retired themselves with the English estates to the ruin of many good families.

The City of London therefore humbly requested that the king take action against this unregulated trade, and in particular:

...that your Majesty will be pleased to cause the former Laws made against Jews to be put in execution & to recommend to your two houses of Parliament to enact such new ones for the expulsion of all professed Jews out of your Majesty’s dominions & to bar the door after them with such provisions and penalties as in your Majesty’s wisdom shall be found most agreeable to the safety of Religion the honour of your Majesty and the good & welfare of your subjects. (235-237)

• Peter Aldag’s summary description of the Violet Petition

So in order to keep the race pure and to prevent the nation from being bled dry, the English people demanded the expulsion of the Jews: demands of the Third Reich! (237)

The Jewish Tactic of Sneak Attack

• Aldag explains the tactic

The same Jewish tactic can be proven again and again in history: they work to achieve their goals through subtle and careful changes in legislation. First, they seek from the legislature the enactment of a law on (what appears to be) a matter of minor importance: the first stage for later efforts and at the same time a test of the popular response to such a measure. If the response is not favourable then the tactic is to wait a while and in the meantime use propaganda to prepare a better public mood for the next attempt at change. (297)

• The Plantation Act of 1740
  • Sneakily naturalized Jews under the radar.
    • Contemporary regarding the Plantation Act:

I think the American act, so far as relates to the naturalization of Jews, ought to be repealed. We know how artfully that part of the act was introduced: we know that it was passed by surprise, or rather, I may say, by stealth; for nothing relating to the Jews ever appeared in the votes, nor does now appear in the title of the act. (297)

Jews Don’t Understand the People: Results in Expulsion

• Aldag:

It is always the same with the Jews: they always fail where instinct has to take the place of intelligence, a consequence of the fact that they are no longer rooted to the soil and do not understand the feelings of the national body that is alien to them. As a result, they cannot appreciate the powers that arise from these forces, and they were defeated in England in 1753 — just as they were defeated in Germany in 1933. (304)

Arguments Presented in Parliament Against Jewish Naturalization in 1753

William Northey

• Opposing Jewish ambition isn’t oppression

  ...for what in this country we call liberty of conscience, that is to say, a liberty not only to profess openly, but even to propagate whatever sort of religion a man pleases, has too often been made a pretence for forming a party against the government. When I say this, I hope I shall not be supposed to mean, that people ought to be persecuted for the sake of religion; but there is a very great difference between this and allowing enthusiasts and sectaries of all sorts, and now at last Jews, to have a share in our government: I say, a share in our government, for by this Bill, and by the doctrine lately established by our lawyers, a multitude of Jews, may have votes for members of parliament, and we may soon have some of them in this House. (307)

• Poignant Quote: What Have the People Done Wrong to Deserve the Jews?
  • From translator’s Appendix I: Selected Parliamentary Speeches Opposing the ‘Jew Bill’ (368)
  • Speech of Mr. William Northey, delivered in the House of Commons, May 7th, 1753. Reproduced from Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XIV, pp. 1366-1373.
    • One of the most affecting quotes of the book

      Sir; I hope some of the gentlemen, who are advocates for this Bill, will rise up and inform the House, what terrible crime the people of this kingdom have committed; for I must suppose, that they have been guilty of some heinous offence, because we have of late had some sort of Bill offered every year to parliament for depriving them of their birthright: I say, depriving them, Sir; for the communication of a privilege is, in so far as that communication reaches, a taking it away from those who had before the sole right to it. Attempts have formerly been made to rob them of their birthright as Englishmen, but this Bill I must look on as an attempt to rob them of their birthright as Christians. We know what a curse Esau brought upon himself and his posterity, by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob for a mess of pottage, when he was faint and at the point of dying for hunger: his posterity were to serve the posterity of Jacob: ought we not to fear, that this may be the fate of our posterity, as we are now about to sell our birthright to the posterity of that same Jacob? Sell, I should not say, Sir, for we are going to act more foolishly than Esau: he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and when he was under a most urgent necessity: but we are going to give it away for nothing, and when we are under no necessity. Our national debt is, it is true, become monstrously great, so great that, I believe, we should be under great difficulty to find means for supporting another war, should such a misfortune soon happen; but till then we can be under no necessity, and even then we should not, I think, part with out birthright for nothing. (368)

    • Accusation of proponents of naturalization being bribed

      For could it ever have been expected, that what they have so often offered such large sums of money for, should at last be freely granted for nothing, and even without their asking, so far as appears, and what I indeed believe to be really the case? But whatever I believe, whatever may be known by some gentlemen in this House, it will not be believed without doors [i.e. outside of Parliament] that such a signal favour has been granted for nothing: it will be suspected, that a large sum has been paid for it, and as this is kept secret, as no part of this sum is to be applied either to the public service, or to the discharge of our national debt, the people without doors will conclude, that though they do not sell, they are sold, which will tend to raise a popular discontent against our present administration… (369)

Sir Edmund Isham

• Jewish problem as racial problem

  But if those of true English blood have not now the power to prevent opening the sluice for letting the torrent in upon us, can we hope, that they will have power enough to shut it up, after the torrent is broke in, and the Jews are become possessed, not only of all the wealth, but of many, perhaps most of the land-estates of the kingdom? This hope, I am sure, is much more chimerical than the danger of our being overwhelmed by the torrent before we begin to think of putting a stop to it. (307-8)

Sir John Bernard

• Jews as enemies of Christians, debunks Christian argument for bill

  The Jews, Sir, are, and always have been, the most professed enemies of Christianity, and the greatest revilers of Christ himself: they are the offspring of those that crucified our Saviour, and to this day labour under the curse pronounced against them upon that account. I know, Sir, that, as a Christian, I am obliged to love my enemy; but whilst he continues to be so, no precept of Christianity enjoins me to take him under my roof, much less to put him in a way of making himself master both of me and my roof… (308)

• Trade comes from Gentile labor, not Jewish finance

  ...it is a very great mistake to suppose, that the Jews ever did, or ever can set up trade in any country; for the origin of trade in all countries is manufacture; but none of the Jews, even of the poorest sort, are ever bred to be manufacturers or mechanics, or indeed to any laborious employment; therefore they can never be the beginners of trade in any country... In Poland there have been multitudes of Jews for many ages, yet no man will say that Poland is a trading country. (308)

• Jews don’t do productive labor, only export, take bread from Gentile mouths

  For this reason, in the infancy of the trade of any country, it is right to encourage the Jews to come and settle amongst them: as the manufacturers have not then money of their own sufficient for carrying their manufacture to any great extent, and as the native merchants have not a foreign correspondence settled, perhaps, in those countries where some of their manufactures may be sold to the best advantage. But in a country where trade and commerce have been fully and long established, where the manufacturers have money sufficient of their own, or of their friends, to carry their manufactures to the utmost extent, and where the native merchants have a correspondence settled in every foreign country where it is possible to carry on any commerce, and consequently must know where every sort of manufacture may be sold to the best advantage: in such a country, I say, it is madness, if not worse, to put Jews or any other foreigners upon an equal footing with natives, because it only enables the former to take the bread, or a part of the bread, out of the mouths of the latter, without increasing in the least the national trade or commerce; for no Jew, any more than a native, will export more of your manufacture than he can sell to advantage, and so much your own native merchants will always export, if there were not a Jew in the kingdom… (308-309)

• Jews will become masters of Gentiles

  They will probably leave the laborious part of all manufactures and mechanical trade to the poor Christians, but they will be the paramount masters… (309)

The Earl of Egmont

• The danger of Jewish tyranny against the English: the people would fight back against the Jews and be suppressed with military force

  ...the abomination in which they [the Jews] are held by the people of this kingdom, should they grow insolent, or obnoxious by their numbers, may provoke excesses against them, which, when all other arguments fail for a standing army, may furnish new ones for its support. For it is no extravagant supposition, should this Bill pass, that the consequence may hereafter be not only the establishment, but the employment of an army to knock our own Christian fellow-subjects on the head, in protection of our foreign Jews. (312)

Early Christian Zionism

• Written by anonymous writer, likely a Jew
• One has to wonder how all commerce passing through the hands of the Jews will bless the world when they themselves don’t produce anything. Even the the Jews’ biggest supporters struggle to put a favorable gloss on middleman parasitism.

But there are other Circumstances which I have not mentioned as yet, that will induce them to heighten, as well as to perpetuate it; namely, first, that they will not have any Products of their own to trade with; and secondly, that they will have no Ports in their Neighbourhood on either on the Seas aforementioned, fit to receive Ships of War, and therefore, they will stand in Need of Great Britain, as well on Account of the rich Products wherewith she can furnish them, both native and foreign, as of the Protection which she will be able to give them by her Fleets, which may receive all the Stores that they may want from Time to Time for that Purpose, from Gibraltar and Port-Mahon, as to their Commerce in the West. So that if Great Britain should think fit, at the same Time, to make a Settlement once more upon the Isthmus of Darien, which parts the Western Ocean, that has a Communication with the Mediterranean Sea, by the Streights of Gibraltar; and the Pacific Ocean that hath a Communication with the Red Sea, by the Streights of Babelmandel [Bab-el-Mandeb], an Isthmus about the same Breadth as that before spoken of, all the whole Commerce of the Universe in its utmost Extent, will center in her ultimately; though at the same Time a great Part of it must go through the Hands of the Jews: And in consequence thereof, all that Peace, Plenty and Happiness might be introduced into the World, which are the great Characteristics of the Messiah’s Reign. (315-316)

Arguments to Repeal the Naturalization Act of 1753

• The act had been snuck through, provoking an uprising of the people.
  • See The Whittle Away, Sneak Attack, and Proxy Tactics under ‘Jewish Tactics’ under Themes

Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke:

• The Jews and the Christians are perpetual enemies

  The Jews and all other Infidels are in the Eye of the Law Aliens in the highest Degree, perpetui inimici, perpetual Enemies: For the Law presumes not they will ever be converted; for between them, as with the Devil, whose Subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual Hostility, and can be no Peace. (321)

William Romaine:

• Indictments of Jewish character, criminality

We know, that Grapes do not grow upon Briars, and yet we may as reasonably expect to gather a plentiful Vintage upon our Hedges, as to find a Race of moral Jews growing in our Cities. (321)

Their Crimes deserve these severe Lashes of Conscience, and how severe they are you may read in their very Faces. You know a Jew at first Sight. And what then are his distinguishing Features? Examine what it is peculiar that strikes you. It is not his dirty Skin, for there are other People as nasty; neither is it the Make of his Body, for the Dutch are every whit as odd, aukward Figures as the Jews. But look at his Eyes. Dont you see a malignant Blackness underneath them, which gives them such a Cast, as bespeaks Guilt and Murder? You can never mistake a Jew by this Mark, it throws such a dead, livid Aspect over all his Features, that he carries Evidence enough in his Face to convict him of being a Crucifier. (325)

• Prophecy of destruction if Jews not opposed

It is an old Observation, which has been justified by long Experience, that Blindness always precedes a Judgment. The very Heathen could observe it — Quos Jupiter vult perdere, prius dementet. [Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. ] Our present Conduct argues some such Infatuation, and foretells the Approach of some great Calamity... (326)

John Hanway

• Regarding the capitalistic, Jewish spirit, the bane of productive labor

Among the lower classes of the people, however great their poverty, they are naturally, or by custom, averse to labor. Their religion cuts them off from commerce with the rest of mankind, and I cannot discover that they learn any art, or practice any manual labor. They are of no use in agriculture, or manufactory; neither will they serve us in our army, or navy. (321)

It is rather a diminution of the merit of the Jews, that their poor are really a burden to the nation. They serve for little more than to raise the price of provision to the industrious laborer, from whose shoulders they take no part of the burthen. (322)

• Regarding their unethical, criminal practices

Next to these come a train of hawkers, and pedlars, and traffickers in every imaginable commodity, in every imaginable way, but very few in that which is deemed regular, honorable, and according to the ordinary rules of civil polity. In this general list, we must include those who buy, and sell, stolen goods. Gentlemen who have been curious in their remarks, observe that many second-hand things, exposed to sale by the Jews in Flanders, are of English manufacture. It ought not to be imagined that these are all stolen, since they buy great quantities, in what is generally called a fair way. In the light of itinerant pawnbrokers, and purchasers of that which the seller ought not to dispose of, a late complaint of the university of Cambridge may be urged in proof, that such kind of wanderers are oftentimes detrimental. As to the qualities of the goods which they vend up and down the country; the complaint made against them, seems to carry with it a reflexion on the understanding of the buyers; we will therefore pass it Over, as not essential to the present argument. (322)

For several Years past, most of the rich Jewels, Plate, Watches, &c. that have been stolen from the Nobility and Gentry, either from their Houses, or on the Highway, have been sold to the Jews; who carry them to Holland, and other Places, where they dispose of them, so that their Owners never hear more of them. Numbers of Jews are employ’d in this vile Traffick. Pretty Fellows indeed, and very proper for Naturalization! (322)

Letter-writer, ‘Civis Westmonasteriensis’

The Predictions in the Hebrew Journal, calculated for One Hundred Years hence, may, in a Century or two, be fulfilled, and our Children, that are yet unborn, feel the direful Effects of the Pusillanimity and avaricious Passion of their Ancestors: They may see the Jews possess’d of their principal Offices under the Government; or at least, the principal Officers of the State... And whenever that shall be the Case, nothing but a Miracle can save the Christian Religion from utter Destruction.' (325)

The Danger of Jewish Spies

...we Shall find, that no People on Earth are more apt to betray Secrets and communicate private Intelligence, from one Country to another than the Jews, on Condition that they are well paid for it. They are a People who by their Religion are rendered indifferent, if not directly opposite to all Christians of what Denomination soever; and their natural Thirst of Lucre makes them careless which Party they betray, so that they can avail themselves thereby. Though to do them Justice, they generally take Care to advantage the highest Bidder by their Information. (326)

• For examples of Jewish spying, see ‘Thurloe Papers’ under Evidence.
• See ‘Historian Hilaire Belloc Regarding Worldwide Jewish Spies’ under Quotes.

Fateful prophecy of England’s destruction for siding with Jews

• Quote from the 1753 Admonitions from Scripture and History

They blaspheme that Holy Name by which we are called, and curse us, and would at any Time destroy us Root and Branch, if they could. And their Naturalization would give them Means and Opportunities, beyond all that I have yet said; and indeed, beyond all that any Man can think or imagine, to effect this. So that we can have no Communion or Fellowship at all with Them, any farther than to allow them a quiet Being, for common Trade and Merchandize, among us. Beyond which, all Friendship with, and Charity to Them, is to join with them in Enmity against our own Redeemer; and so make ourselves Foes to our own Religion, Peace and Salvation. And, therefore, if the Attempt now said to be on Foot, to incorporate them in Rights and Privileges with our natural-born Englishmen, should take Place, I must look upon our own Destruction, as a People, to be the next Thing we have to expect; and that, after That, we shall never see happy Day more; but Their Sin and Guilt shall become ours; and their Judgement and Plague follow us; till God cast us out of this good Land which He hath given us; as He hath, so long since, cast Them out of Theirs. (327)

Another Prophecy of Destruction

• Another fitting and clairvoyant prophecy of England’s demise for naturalizing Jews

Thus Step by Step, a Nation is undone,

And Prodigals lose what their Fathers won; A Jew, a Turk, or Devil may come here,

And Naturalize; it will not cost them dear. (328)

Duke of Bedford

• From Translator’s Appendix II
• The Duke of Bedford’s 1753 Repeal Debate Speech Reproduced from Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XV [pp. 103-110]
• Explained how the Jews might seize power as a minority

This, I know, my lords, may be deemed chimerical at first view; but will not appear quite so chimerical, if we consider that the first body of Saxons called over to this island, did not amount to above 2 or 3,000 men, and yet in less than 150 years that nation, though not near so well united among themselves as the Jews are, made themselves masters of the greatest and most fertile part of this island; nor let it be objected, that the Jews are not a war-like people as the Saxons were, for a change of circumstances, with a few proper regulations, may produce an entire change of manners; and though nothing of this kind should happen, if they have the sole or the greatest command of money, they may prevail with one half of the natives to assist them in subduing the other, for we know the power of money in politics as well as in war. Thus it must appear not to be altogether impossible to imagine, that the Jews may by this scheme of naturalization, which we now seem to be so fond of, make themselves at last the chief masters of this island, and if they should, no one can suppose they would submit to be governed by the royal family now upon our throne. [insert citation]

Aldag summary of what the people were saying during 1753 about the Jews

The sources unfailingly tell us how the Hebrews continued to be a source of trouble. It is their general depravity that after a certain time turns the population against them, with all of the domestic political disruption that this brings, along with their eventual persecution. They also rightly aroused resentment because they rose to prominence and became rich ‘wheresoever they nest Themselves’, mainly through ‘Villanies and Cheating’. In addition, they would bring unrest into the nation through their innate revolutionary spirit, as amply proven by their own history. As Romaine wrote, it made no sense at all as to why anyone would want to grant these ‘Vagabond Jews’ — already described as such in the New Testament — every possible right and privilege of the free-born Englishman. (323)

People’s Victory of 1753

• The people were eventually successful in forcing their representatives to repeal the naturalization act of 1753.
• Aldag:

If one surveys history, it is rare to find a similar incident. All of the powers of the state had, in some cases unanimously, supported the law, and now they all — king, ministers, lords, bishops, members of Parliament — had to submit to the people. The Earl of Chesterfield thought differently to our view of the people’s opposition. He saw it as nothing more than ‘groundless and senseless clamors’ instigated by politically motivated rabble-rousers, and condemned the Duke of Newcastle for allowing himself to be intimidated by it.' Another contemporary figure, Horace Walpole, the youngest son of Sir Robert Walpole, took a similar view and saw it all as mainly a problem of ‘little curates’ and ‘drunken aldermen.’ We cannot agree with these lawmakers in any way, but see in the events of 1753 the defensive struggle of a strong and healthy people against Jewish infiltration. (339)

• Sir Robert Walpole was perhaps the most corrupt politician of his time. It is unsurprising that his son distained the righteous people’s movement.
  • See ‘Sir Robert Walpole’ under Villains.

Summary and Analysis of the 1753 Naturalization Bill Conflict

It is beyond doubt that the Jewish Naturalization Act — even if, according to the Hebrews, it was of little practical importance — was an unjustified preference for foreigners over the native people. A large part of the English population had fewer rights than the Jews, even though with their far greater number and not least because of their blood connection to the English nation, they had an incomparably greater right to at least the same treatment. If the government still went ahead, ignoring these circumstances and despite its own difficult domestic political situation, knowing that the vast majority of the population would be against it (undeniable after the events of 1751, when the previous naturalisation bill failed and the people’s antipathy towards the idea was revealed), then there must have been a special reason for it to make such a risky, unpopular move.

As is well known, in the first half of the 18th century, kings, queens, ministers, members of the nobility, bishops (etc.) could be bought off for certain purposes. In addition, it is also undeniable that the Jews, under the leadership of Samson Gideon, had an overwhelming, almost exclusive influence on the shaping of the economy, on politics, and on state finances. Furthermore, they had already gained a firm footing in society, specifically, in those circles of English society which were directly or indirectly responsible for the fate of the country. The claims of the anti-Jewish faction that all of these circles were bribed or otherwise unlawfully influenced by the Hebrews are confirmed in that the Jewish side admits that Jewish money was used to get the law made.

Therefore, given the totality of the facts, prima facie evidence suggests that the law was brought into being through improper means. In other words, all of the circumstances point to the law being passed through bribery or other illicit influences in accordance with the then prevailing methods of the government and the legislature. What makes things more difficult for the Jews is that, according to known historical facts, such behaviour is prevalent among them and as a result they would have to prove that this case is an exception rather than the rule. (366)

Duke of Bedford Arguments to Repeal the Plantation Act of 1740

• Politics is downstream from money and this means the Jews could take power

Their power will increase with their property, and as their power increases their privileges will increase. Even at this time they have indulged with the privilege of having public synagogues, though expressly contrary to law... As dominion always will follow property, could we in this case expect they would submit to continue under the disability now proposed to be laid upon them with regard to estates relating to the church? No, my lords, they would not only repeal this law, but every law for establishing Christianity, and establish Judaism in its stead. They might then call this island their own land… (342)

• Jewish use of money, factions to rule

If they have the sole or the greatest command of money, they may prevail with one half of the natives to assist them in subduing the other, for we know the power of money in politics as well as in war… (342)

• Aldag summarizes

In his further remarks, the Duke of Bedford pointed out that the Jews, while remaining Jews, would always remain ‘a people quite distinct and separate from the ancient people of this island’ (342)

Key Romaine Quote about Jewish Tactic of Factions

When all the other Arts of Calumny and Falsehood fail, then the Jews betake themselves to Party Distinctions, trying to raise a new Jew Interest in this Kingdom, in Opposition to the old Christian Interest: To which End they endeavour to divide the Nation about their Affairs, and to support their Cause by Party, since they find they can no longer support it by Argument. And they have already made such a Proficiency in the Science of Faction, that they venture Publicly and in Print to call all their Enemies, Enemies to the Government. We are not surprized at the Jews taking these dishonest Methods of dividing us among ourselves; because they are sensible, that if these should fail them, their Cause is desperate. Unless they can attach themselves to some Party, their Interest is lost. They therefore labour this Point. It is their last Resource, and it is a most iniquitous one; because it tends to introduce some new Divisions among His Majesty’s good Subjects, whose great Misfortunes it is, that they are already too much divided. (366-7)

Intermarriage as a Weapon

• The following is an excellent Aldag quote about the question of whether the Jews intermarry purposefully as a weapon against their enemies or not. Ultimately, the intention doesn’t matter, only the effect.

The Jews' tactics of attrition undoubtedly include the mixing of Aryan and Jewish blood. It is probably irrelevant to discuss whether these intermarriages took place consciously with this aim in mind. In general, when it comes to the Jewish Question, it is not necessary to discuss whether some process or other to advance Judaism in a country has taken place intentionally according to a wellthought-out plan. We believe that this does happen, but the only thing that matters when deciding on countermeasures is to assess the consequences of the various Jewish behaviours and the Jewish system as a whole on the future of a people. If these prove to be detrimental, then they should be combatted purely out of the instinct for self-preservation, with no need to consider the question of whether this damage is intentional or not. In our opinion, we do not need to decide whether intermarriage was part of a well-thought-out system for weakening the host nation, beginning mainly through strategic unions with the ruling class. One could respond that the Jew himself — as we will see later — believes in keeping his race pure and even considers it necessary for his people’s future. However, a supporter of the theory that the Jews have a premeditated plan for world domination could counter this by saying that in every struggle individual members of a group have to sacrifice themselves for the greater good and so bloodlines of Jewish families must perish together with families of the host nation they have contaminated, unless the inferior race gains the upper hand in such mixing. We see that this mixing would also have an internal logic, or particular benefit, of its own, but there is no space here to go into this in more detail. We are merely stating that, regardless of whatever view is held, throughout recorded history intermarriage has always been one of the ways in which Judah gradually attains supremacy in a polity. Given all of this, the most practical method (and the only method that works) is to decide to combat the Jews based solely on the result of their general behaviour, because in the fight for the existence of a people, a defensive act cannot depend on the moral intention of the people harmed by the influence of an alien body: here the sole and exclusive decision to be made is for the preservation of the people, for which every means must necessarily be justified. (390)

Fake Ashkenazi/Sepphardi Split

• Demonstrated by the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews.

On the occasion of George III's accession to the throne in 1760, the elders of the Sephardi community gathered to choose seven delegates from among their ranks who would offer their respects to His Majesty. The king is said to have received these so-called ‘Deputies of the Portuguese Nation’ very graciously. The Ashkenazi Jews were not very pleased that this initiative had been taken by their fellow Jews without their being consulted, and later that same year it was agreed that from then onwards both branches of Judaism would work together ‘whenever any public affair should occur that may interest the two nations’ (396)

Objective Outsiders: Jewish Crime in Late 18th Century

• Aldag:

The professor of history and retired Prussian army officer Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz, who lived in England for ten years (1769-1779), had this to say about what he saw while living there: ...and the children of Israel who are obliged to quit Germany and Holland take refuge in England, where they live by cheating and nocturnal rapine, and if they do not steal themselves, they aid the thief in concealing and vending the stolen goods. Thus, they are so much abhorred by the English that the honesty of the Portuguese cannot obliterate the unfavourable impression which this troop of banditti has made on them.

• Another German visitor to London tells us in 1791:

I believe few burglaries, robberies, and false coinages are committed, in which some of them are not, in one shape or another, concerned. They steal not only themselves, but assist Christian thieves by receiving their stolen goods, and buying them at a very reasonable price. In Duke’s-Place, where hardly any but Jews live, during the whole night furnaces are ready to melt the stolen silver and gold as soon as the thieves bring it, that it may be rendered indistinguishable before day-light. (398)

Patrick Colquhoun: Founder of England’s Modern Police Force on Jewish Criminality

• 1796 ‘A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis’ (399)

In this nefarious traffic [of base coin] the lower order of the Jews in London assist the dealers in an eminent degree, particularly the circulation of bad half-pence. (400)

A Class of Cheats of the society of Jews, who are to be found in every street, lane, and alley, in and near the Metropolis, under the pretence of purchasing old clothes, and metals of different sorts, but whose chief business is to prowl about the houses and stables of men and rank and fortune, for the purpose of holding out temptations to the servants to pilfer and steal small articles, not likely to be missed, which these Jews purchase at about one third of the real value. It is supposed that upwards of two thousand of these depraved people are employed in diurnal journies of this kind, by which, through the medium of bad money and other fraudulent dealings, many of them acquire property, and then become receivers of stolen goods; thereby (while their labour produces no benefit to the State) employing themselves in every mischievous device that can render them nuisances in society. (400)

It is estimated that there are about twenty thousand Jews in the city of London, besides, perhaps, about five or six thousand more in the great provincial and sea-port towns (where there are at least twenty synagogues, besides six in the metropolis), who exist chiefly by their wits, seeing that the superstitious adherence to a particular mode of living, and to their sabbath, prevents them from placing out their children as servants, or apprentices, or binding their sons to mechanical employments, or indeed to any useful art, by which they can assist in increasing the national property — in place of which they diminish it by living upon the industry of others, and by establishing a system of mischievous intercourse all over the country, the better to carry on their fraudulent designs in the circulation of base money, the sale of stolen goods, and in the purchase of metals of various kinds, as well as other articles pilfered and stolen in the provincial towns, which they bring to the metropolis to elude detection — and vice versa. (401)

Educated in idleness, from their earliest infancy, they acquire every debauched and vicious principle which can fit them for the most complicated arts of fraud and deception, to which they seldom fail to add perjury, whenever it can be of use, in shielding themselves or their associates from the punishment of the law.

The itinerants utter [issue] base money to enable them by selling cheap to dispose of their goods, while those that are stationary, with a very few exceptions, receive and purchase, at an under price, whatever is brought them, without asking questions.

The mischiefs which must result from the increase of this depraved race, arising from the natural course of population, is so obvious, that a remedy cannot be too soon applied… (401)

Jewish “Philanthropy”

Peter Aldag Quote

Anyone who has read through the Hebrew playbook knows that philanthropy is a well-thought-out strategy to achieve overall goals. It is clear to the Jews that every host nation has an aversion to them from the outset, which is exacerbated by the system they have introduced — high finance with all its excesses, bribes, general immorality, etc. The populace, as the object of Jewish exploitation, might look askance at the growth of Jewish power, and at the lavish, brilliant galas and banquets. Therefore the Jews will use tried-and-tested methods to nip the growth of popular resentment in the bud, and no method could be more conciliatory than the cloak of charity: sums that seem gigantic to ordinary people being given to causes that guarantee the greatest publicity. And, of course, not everyone will realise that what the Jew gives with one hand, he takes double or triple with the other. (405-6)

Our thesis is supported by the fact that such charity donations from Jews would always be publicised as widely as possible. (406)

William Cobbett Quote

It is quite amusing to see how quietly the money-dealing villains go and thrust noblemen and gentlemen out of their estates. Aye, and pass for good and generous gentlemen, too, by a liberal distribution of a small part of this money, which this stupid nobility and gentry have enabled them to take out of the pockets of the people. (406)

Jewish “Philanthropy”/ “Humanitarianism” is covering up ritual murder.

[Moses Montefiore] managed to gain the special favour of Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, the mother of the future Queen Victoria. He was also on good terms with the latter. When Victoria ascended the throne in 1837, she raised Montefiore to the knighthood [the same year that he was elected Sheriff of the City of London], and in 1846 she made him a baronet for his humanitarian services on behalf of Jews all over the world. (409)

• Montefiore's humanitarian services?
  • Covered up the 1840 ritual murder in Damascus, using British power and world Jewry’s resources to bully the local officials. (475)
  • See ‘Moses Montefiore’ under Villains.

• See ‘“Philanthropy” Tactic’ under ‘Jewish Tactics’ under Themes.

Nathan Rothschild/ Money Power Was the Key force in Jewish Emancipation

The Jewish side does not deny Rothschild's intervention in this regard. He tirelessly reached out to leading politicians of both sides and tried to put them under his spell. [Jewish writer on him] “M. Rothschild has done more for the emancipation of the Jews, than Mr. O’Connell for that of the Catholics. By the magic power of wealth, he has rendered their obstinate enemies their tributaries; while, by the attractive seduction of gastronomic and musical entertainment, he has completely conquered the aversion of the aristocracy to mix with merchants and Jews; and were the whole Church of England to threaten anathemas against the frequenters of the wealthy financier’s mansion, they would certainly prefer corporeal to spiritual comforts, and disregard the threats. Those who are acquainted with the irresistible attractions which good dinners possess for the nobility, will bear me out in this assertion… (408)

William Cobbett: Heroic Journalist

• Regarding Jewish control of the press, general misbehavior

I have often said, that the London press, is in great part owned by the Jews. There was a Jew of the name of King, who owned in part or in whole, two or three of the newspapers; and I am quite satisfied that the far greater part of them are now in the pay of the Jews, at any rate. (415)

God forbid, that I should not believe, that a vast majority of this nation is yet undebased: but as far as the press can go; as far as it has influence, this verily is, the basest nation, that ever was in the world. Nine tenths of the press, which ought to be the guardian of public morals, which ought to be the support of public spirit, which ought to prevent the nation from being cheated or deluded. Nine tenths of this press, or at least a very large part of it, is absolutely in the pay of the Jews. Not a stipend received from them, perhaps; not, perhaps, so much money down upon the counter, generally speaking; but in one way or other, the tool of the Jews for pecuniary reward. (415)

Every nation, that has fostered the Jews, has become miserable in proportion to their numbers and influence. Here, they have had an influence, and have influence, such as fills one with indignation to think of; and as the system becomes more and more embarrassed, their influence becomes greater and greater — Base press of London is their tool; no man who wishes to utter a word against them, can get that word in a newspaper in London. (415)

Peter Aldag on Napoleon

• Napoleon’s interactions with the Jews prove that they are a monolith.

In 1806 he summoned to Paris an assembly of 111 Jewish notables (which later became the Great Sanhedrin), from whom he demanded a clear explanation on certain questions put to them. Among other things, he demanded assurances from them that their fellow Jews would behave patriotically and fraternally towards the local population from that point onwards and would refrain from any kind of usury. Napoleon's plan was an attempt to reform the entire life of the Jews, who, in his view, had to assimilate themselves to the views and customs of modern Europe. He considered it essential that they renounce the Halakha [the traditional Jewish law code] and the teachings that had come down to them through the Talmud and other books, in view of the fundamental change in overall social conditions that had recently occurred, just as he also held their reckless accumulation of money to be significantly disadvantageous to French society. When the Great Sanhedrin accepted his proposals for reformation, he assured the Jews of a complete emancipation.

[...]

People who do not sufficiently understand the Jewish Question are inclined to explain these events in England with the claim, so often made by the Jews, that they were due to the fact that the Jews do not all work in lockstep, and often have major disagreements with each other. However, there is in fact no such disunity because the Children of Israel have always been united on major issues of global politics. But even putting this argument to one side for a moment, there are better ways to explain the behaviour of the Jews in England.

As is well known, Rothschild founded his banking house largely with the blood money of the infamous Prince of Hesse-Cassel. His client was the creditor of almost all the princes who fought against Napoleon. Napoleon, who knew of Rothschild's activities against him, was a constant threat to Rothschild’s extensive business on the continent. As a result, Rothschild could not endure such a constant threat either to his personal interests or to the general emancipation plans closely related to them.

But even without this interpretation of events, the following explanation is hard to refute.

What did Napoleon demand from the Jews in return for emancipation? Nothing more and nothing less than an improvement in their behaviour towards the host population by abolishing their so-called divine and, for the most part, completely immoral laws. What did that mean? Above all, it meant that Napoleon had undoubtedly made the decision that under no circumstance would he permit the people’s wealth to be sucked dry by usury and that Jews would only be tolerated in the country if they behaved decently. This was a clear indication from a powerful ruler that only he had the right to determine the laws which governed the life and wellbeing of his people. There was no doubt in the minds of the Hebrews that Napoleon would prevail in this regard, and this was unacceptable to them.

But Napoleon went further. He had recognised that the principles of the Jews were incompatible with those of a healthy nation and that a root-and-branch reformation of Judaism was therefore necessary. In doing so, he intervened in the Jews' own lives. No matter how corrupt their values may be from our point of view, they have been sacred to the Jews for centuries and, above all, a means to an end: world domination.

[...]

But no one disputes that Rothschild was also an Orthodox Jew, and so this too could also be another explanation as to why he opposed Napoleon.

[...]

We are convinced that Napoleon's endeavours stood in the way of the power-political considerations of international Jewry under Rothschild leadership. Then it was Napoleon, today it is Hitler. (417-9)

Jewish Playbook

• Gain money through criminality, use the money to gain advantages, use the power, including the press, to crack down on the anti-Jewish resistance. Appeal to empathy and ignorance.
• Superb description by Aldag:

Jews often gain their first foothold by blatantly breaking the law. At first it is ignored for some reason, probably because most people do not like trouble, and to go against certain individuals, who to the casual observer appear to be doing no real harm, can backfire badly on the person trying to raise the alarm. Not being challenged, the Jews then gradually expand their position in terms of numbers and power, although still working covertly so that it is difficult for the public to see what is happening. With their new authority they intertwine as large a number of fellow Jews as possible into their network, but especially also local people. At some point, there is a build-up of counterpressure from the host population, a natural reaction to the untenable situation created by the Hebrews, which inevitably leads to an open determination of the facts and corresponding measures to counter the problem. At this point not only the Jews feel threatened in their illegally acquired position, but also the non-Jews who have become dependent on them. The aggrieved Jews and their allies start screaming blue murder, demanding that the outdated, inhumane laws that are still on the books be abolished unquestionably because, as evidence of anti-Jewish persecution, they endanger the very existence of Jews. We will see how, in the course of further events, this method was used purposefully and assiduously by the Jews, and had the same good results for the Children of Israel in 19th-century England as it has had in all countries and epochs. Incidentally, while such Jewish protests are going on, the public, or at least the printed press posing as public opinion, often mock the ‘narrow-mindedness’ and ‘bigotry’ of those who are determined to stick to their ancestors’ traditional usages. The same forces also pity those who have gotten into trouble because of these ‘ridiculous’ ancient laws, although in such cases it is usually overlooked that it is the Jews themselves who have created their own predicament through their overreaching and disregard for others, which means that by rights they should be made to bear the consequences of their own illicit actions. Even today, this Jewish appeal to the compassion of the masses who are not yet enlightened about Jewish behaviour [the argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy], always yields the best results. (431-432)

• For more of the Jewish playbook, see Jewish “Philanthropy” under Quotes and Jewish Tactics under Themes.

Robert Inglis 1830 Speech against Jewish Civil Disabilities Bill

• A summary of the speech

It appeared to him that there was nothing in their character, conduct, history, or present condition, which justified the appeal that had been made. He maintained that the Jews were aliens, not in the technical and legal sense, when Lord Coke called them ‘aliens and perpetual enemies’, but in the popular sense of the word: they were aliens because their country and their interests were not merely different, but hostile to our own. The Jews of London had more sympathy with the Jews resident in Berlin or Vienna than with Christians among whom they resided — and a reference to a few instances would show that their interests were different and hostile. In one of the wars of the last century the Jews were expelled from Bohemia for assisting an invading army, and it was well known that they importantly facilitated the retreat of Napoleon after his campaign in Russia: they furnished the means to those who were lucky enough to escape. It was a known fact also, that while we were at war with France, the Jews of London had furnished Napoleon with a loan to enable him to carry on the most determined hostility. ... but the Jews might get into the House of Commons, and use that power for their own selfish and unnational purposes. They were not a sect; but to this day they called themselves a people; and they might avail themselves of their political influence for objects connected with their own aggrandisement... The Jews might obtain admission by the same means [bribery] and for the same purposes [self-interest], and an honourable friend of his had said, that he knew of four who were ready to enter the House at once: considering that there were in the United Kingdom, at the utmost, 40,000 Jews, and that about every 40,000 Christians had only one representative, this number was considerably above their fair proportion. The command of capital would enable the Jews to obtain seats, and the introduction of a Jew ought to be considered direct evidence of bribery, for it was out of the question to suppose that they would ever obtain the unbought suffrages of the people. A Jew Member would carry on his forehead the evidence of the mode by which he obtained admission… (453-454)

Lionel Rothschild Used Dirty Tactics, Including Mobs, Intimidation, and Bribes to Win Elections

July 1847

With great participation, Nomination Day arrived, in which the different candidates for the Liberals and the Conservatives set out their political agendas. But for now our primary concern is the circumstances around this event and in particular the electors present, who for the most part had come from the poorest and dirtiest districts of London’s East End. At least three quarters of these people were made up of Jews, ‘and those of the very worst type and most repulsive aspect’, who did not stop shouting down the speakers they did not like. When Rothschild began to speak one could observe the greatest silence, and only occasionally was his speech interrupted with shouts of approval, while, by contrast, the other Liberal candidates [the City of London was a four-member seat] had trouble making themselves heard through ‘the howling of the rabble’, several of whom had ‘wrought themselves into... a state of demoniacal phrenzy’. In short, according to the Daily News, the whole hustings area had been ‘usurped, to the exclusion of electors, by an unwashed mass of claqueurs, comprising coal porters, dustmen, venders of old clothes, and others id genus omne...’.

[...]

Election day came and it appears that there were truly frenzied scenes. The longshoremen — individuals who had been given the job of bribery — were working all day, especially in the poorest boroughs of the city: Cripplegate, Bishopsgate, Smithfield, etc. These individuals, strangers to the local people, obstructed the route to the polling place, tried to turn people away, or else tried to persuade them by every means possible, and at times were seen slipping electors amounts of money ranging from three to five pounds, naturally in exchange for a Liberal vote, that is to say, for Rothschild. Some voters, who did not hide this trade, reported these offers to the Conservatives and even showed themselves open to selling them their vote for an equal (or perhaps somewhat higher) price. As the Conservatives rejected such activities, the corresponding votes fell to the Liberals.

These events could be observed again and again. In each polling place, the same tableau. The last hour of the election must have been a very serious affair. Not only was the bribery taking place more brazenly than at the start, but even the prices of the votes went up, and up to £68 came to be paid per vote, with the result that the electors who arrived late ended up well paid. (480)

June 1849

The situation of the candidate chosen to challenge Rothschild was, as might be expected, far from satisfactory. While Rothschild worked with electoral propaganda which had been prepared long in advance, Lord Manners did not even have a whole day available to make his own preparations, because on a Sunday electoral campaigning hardly ever takes place in England. Rothschild, on the other hand, was in a much more favourable position, all things considered. His ethnic brethren worked for him even on Sunday, and even during church hours invaded the City with posters and election leaflets, which must have been printed only the night before, given that they most outrageously attacked Lord Manners personally.

The morning of Nomination Day saw a large crowd in the streets, formed mainly of Jews from the most disreputable districts of London. It seemed as if, on that day, not a single Jew was working at his trade. Everywhere candidacy advertisements for Rothschild, and everywhere banners inscribed with ‘Civil and Religious Liberty’ or ‘Rothschild’. When Rothschild was presented to the crowd, a frenzy of zealous cheering broke out; on Lord John Manners being presented, the words of his friend’s introduction were lost in the jeers and whistles of the crowd.

Rothschild mainly spoke of the need for the equality of rights and liberties for all. When he finished his speech, the applause never seemed to end.

In vain Lord Manners tried to explain his political principles to the crowd. Not even those closest to him were able to make out his words. When the uproar got too much even for Rothschild’s friends, the head of the assembly tried to restore calm. He appealed to the gentility of those present, saying that it was un-English to not let the adversary speak. But these words appeared not to make the slightest impression on the crowd, for as soon as Lord Manners tried to resume his speech, the same uproar returned. In a final effort, Lord Manners addressed the gathering with the following words: “This is said to be a contest for religious liberty and freedom, but it seems to me that liberty of speech is not included in liberty of conscience.’

[...]

In contrast to the first election and to ensure that things went as desired, Nomination Day saw all of Rothschild’s supporters be invited to eat and drink their fill in various restaurants.

On the day of the election itself, the disturbances reached even greater proportions than those of previous day. Just as in the election of 1847, the longshoremen once again dominated the terrain, with the same scenes repeated, and the bribes at least as large as before.

In addition, Rothschild worked with false electoral lists. The Conservative Association had already ascertained, long before the election took place, that some 1,400 people — with no right to vote or even deceased — had been wrongfully included on the electoral roll; this figure constituted a very high percentage of the City of London electorate at that time. The Conservative Association complained to the registration court for the City, asking for these names to be removed, which the president of the court rejected. However strange this may seem, it cannot be surprising when one considers that the partisanship of such public bodies had been publicly complained about for years. It was also known that the main functionary of this authority, a barrister, worked for a morning newspaper, whose editor was completely economically dependant upon Rothschild. Thus he did nothing to change such an illegal situation. Rothschild, concerned with not losing a single vote, had bought, almost without exception, all of those wrongfully registered on the list; and moreover, even men were found who were prepared to vote in the name of the deceased. (494-495)

• See ‘Lionel Rothschild’s Corruption during Parliament Elections’ under Evidence.
• See ‘Lionel Nathan Rothschild’ under Villains.

1847 Editorial on the ‘Odious and Sinful’ Jew Bill

• The editorial in the Standard of December 18th, 1847

We therefore must protest against the line of argument taken by Lord John Russell and his supporters, and tell them that the onus of proof of necessity for abolishing the Christian character of the British constitution rests upon them, not upon us, who would maintain those principles and institutions that have existed amongst us for far more than one thousand years — indeed, ever since Britain emerged from barbarism. Nothing has occurred to change the character of the Jews or their relations to us during that long period. If, therefore, we are fools and oppressors because we exclude Jews from the government of the country, our ancestors have been fools and oppressors for more than ten centuries...

Now Jews are not Englishmen, though born in this country; they are and claim to be an exclusive nation — a nation separated from all others... But, admitting, contrary to the truth, that Jews born in this country are Englishmen, Lord John Russell’s proposition does not apply, for there are millions of ‘Englishmen born in this country’ who are excluded from sitting in Parliament by want of a property qualification, or of ability to support the expenses of a parliamentary election. We might add the millions of ‘Englishmen born in this country’ who have not even a vote for representatives because they do not hold a 40-shilling freehold or a 10-pound house. We pass over officers in the public service, and the whole body of the clergy, because they embrace their disqualification; but we demand to know, why the want of a given sum of money is more inconsistent with the possession of civil privileges than the want of faith in the Saviour of mankind, whom all ‘Englishmen born in this country’ reverently acknowledge.

The number of Jews in this country (rated by Lord John Russell at 40,000, by Lord George Bentinck at 25,000) can bear only upon the question of policy, for right is not to be determined by numbers. If the Jews have a right to be among our governors, no matter whether their number be ten, or ten millions, they ought to be admitted to the enjoyment of that right; but if we are free to grant or to refuse, according to the determination of policy, the number of Jews is a consideration of some weight. We should like to see a statistical analysis of our 25,000 or 40,000 Jews, as the case may be. How many of them are usurers? How many of them of the trade of Mr. Fagan?

How many of them sheriffs’ officers, members of the ring, keepers of flash-houses, or engaged in still more loathsome occupations? How many, if any, occupied in useful industry? How many ever held a plough, or are connected with the soil of the country?

But their numbers, says Lord John, are not formidable as ‘a physical power’. No, but they may be formidable as a vehicle of pestilence — a bale of plague-poisoned cloth may destroy more than the most numerous army, and the introduction of unbelievers into the legislature alone is enough to poison, by the contempt of religion which it evinces, the religion and morality of the nation; and it will destroy both, if it ever be consummated. (487-8)

1848 Article Regarding the General Character, Criminality of the Jews

• February, 14th, 1848, the Morning Post

As we have plunged into the unamiable, we will venture to add, that throughout the debate the general character of the Jews seems to have been dealt with but too tenderly. That there are good and generous men among them we should be sorry to deny; but when considering the question whether or no the barrier between them and the Legislature should be removed, it is fair to take their general character into account. Now, whatever may have been suppressed by the somewhat squeamish courtesy of Parliament in these days of weak civility, we know very well that the general impression, and we believe the just impression, of the people of this country is that the Jews are more discreditable members of society than any other sect or class of the same numerical amount. Whatever is most gross and revolting in the immoralities and secret abominations of crowded communities —

‘...whatever vice /

The cruel city breeds’

— is chiefly under the management of persons of the Jewish race. We do not accuse their religion, for we believe these persons have no religion. The Jews of the lower orders, says Mr. Coleridge in his ‘Table Talk’, are the very lowest of mankind; they have not a principle of honesty in them; to grasp and to be getting money for ever is their single and exclusive occupation. A learned Jew once said to him upon this subject, ‘Oh! Sir, make the inhabitants of Holywell Street and Duke’s Place Israelites first, and then we may debate about making them Christians.’

The vileness of these people in our great cities being notorious, we should think the best preparation which their great men could make for satisfying the British public that they were worthy to approach Parliament would be in strenuous efforts to reform the character and conduct of wretches who are a disgrace not merely to the Hebrew race, but to human nature itself. (488)

1849 Debates about the Jew Bill

Sir John Robert Inglis

...whenever they were admitted into that House, they would form a nucleus for their own opinions, and there were many instances of a small compact body having a great effect upon the public deliberations. (490)

Mr. Law

Mr. Law presented a previously unheard and complete summary of the history of the Jews in England, of which he had personally made an in-depth study. An excerpt of his speech:

To employ the eloquent language of the modern and accomplished author of the History of the Jews: ‘Refusing still to mingle their blood with any other race of mankind, they dwell in their distinct families and communities; and still maintain, though sometimes long and utterly unconnected with each other, the principle of national unity. Jews in the indelible features of the countenance, in mental character, in customs, usages and laws, in language and literature, above all in religion, in recollections of the past, and in the hopes of the future. Denizens everywhere, rarely citizens even in the countries in which they have been the longest and most firmly established, they appear to a certain degree strangers or sojourners; they dwell apart, though mingling with neighbours in many of the affairs of life.’

We must look therefore to some other cause than the alleged principle of this Bill for its introduction, and the urgency with which it is advocated. The fact is, that the Jews, by their connexions, can command the money market all over the world; and the money market is the secret why it is sought to admit them into this House.

Is it from the idle notion of paying a compliment to a millionaire, who happened to be associated with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or is it in consequence of his wealth and his influence, especially in the contracting of loans, and in the money market — that this measure was brought forward? Was it introduced from any other accident, than because he is the colleague of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and a rich man well backed on the Stock Exchange?

Why, I would venture to ask, should we break through the fundamental principles of the British constitution to pave the way for the admission of the Jews into Parliament? ...the stability of the country depends — under the Supreme Disposer of events — upon the maintenance of our institutions on an exclusively Christian foundation. (490-491)

Bishop of Oxford

First, then, he said that there was danger, because it was impossible to measure the number of constituencies upon whom the power of money might be brought to bear in order to secure an object which might be of great importance to the Jews; and at the present time he thought it was especially dangerous to increase the representation of wealth as separate from those other considerations which ought to qualify and control the money influence. They had of late years seen the great increase of that money power in the British Legislature, without a proportionate increase of those considerations; and therefore he thought that to pass this measure, which would give the directest representation of the most immediate money power in the country, was a real, practical and great evil. (492)

Jews Cannot Be Gentlemen

The Morning Herald of July 31st opined that ultimately, Rothschild’s repeated failures were no surprise, given that, even though a Jew may become immensely rich, he would never learn to conduct himself like a gentleman:

Why cannot a Jew, however wealthy, however educated, learn the habits and feelings of a gentleman? Why cannot he understand that frankness, straightforwardness and a noble simplicity, are among the very first requisites of a man who desires honourably to elevate himself among his fellow creatures?

We might as well ask, why the majority of our brothel-keepers, spunging-housekeepers, and keepers of ‘hells’, have always been Jews? It is part of their punishment — it is one among many other invincible proofs that the Sacred Books, of which they have been made the guardians and witnesses, and in very deed the Word of God; inasmuch as, more than three thousand years ago, all these characteristics, and their attendant contempt and scorn, were minutely predicted of them.

The Jew who consults his true dignity will not stoop to regard with the least attention the politics of the Goyim. Were a really religious Jew of Poland or Germany to be desired to take a share in the affairs of state of those countries, he would regard the proposal as an insult. Mr Rothschild only desires to mingle in English politics because he is not a religious Jew.

And this low aim, and low standard of feeling, mark every step he takes. Never would he have been in a position to fence with the House of Commons, had he not first used means to gain his seat which no high-minded man would for a moment contemplate. And what has his conduct during the last three days been? Has it not been marked by that mixture of audacity and cunning, which is the secret of modern Jewish success; but which is so peculiarly revolting to every properly constituted mind?... [Insert citation]

Newdegate Regarding Rothschild’s Disgraceful Attempt to Forgo the Christian Oath of Abjuration

It could not be forgotten that Baron Rothschild had come to the table of that House, and had gone through the oath until he came to the words ‘on the true faith of a Christian’; but he did not stop at those words, but, omitting them, he had ventured, on his own authority and in his own case, to alter the substance of the oath... the Speaker, in that grave, dignified and impartial manner in which he discharged all the business of that House, told the hon. Member that he had been guilty of a grave irregularity... The election in 1848, in the city of London, had been too much under the influence of the long purse of the Baron Rothschild, and the number of Jews who resided there... The Jewish religion was not the religion of the Bible, but the religion of the Talmud. It was neither more nor less than the religion of the Pharisees, perpetuated, through the Talmud, down to the present time... He would ask the honourable and learned Member whether he had ever considered the morality inculcated in the Talmud?... It allows men to detain what they know does not belong to them, if it only belongs to a Gentile... Poland might serve as a warning example of the fact that in all Christian countries where the Jews were allowed a wide sphere of political operation, corrupting and destroying elements were introduced and propagated in society, to the ruin of the State at large. In Poland one-tenth of the population were Jews, and he need not say that she was perhaps the most miserable nation in the world… (502)

Arguments Around 1853 Regarding Jewish Emancipation

Sir Robert Peel

Aldag:

It was not solely upon religious grounds that he [Peel] opposed the introduction of the Jews into the House, but because he had considered that those words, ‘On the true faith of a Christian,’ represented a great principle; and, denying, as the Jews did, the fundamental principles of Christianity, it was incompatible and inconsistent with the dignity and character of the Christian Parliament to admit them to the exercise of the highest functions of the State. This measure was unwise and unnecessary, and, consequently, impolitic. It was idle to say we need be under no apprehension of their swamping our institutions, or filling all of the high offices of State. He did not believe any other constituency besides the City of London could be found confiding its political interests to a Hebrew legislator; but really we had seen of late such remarkable changes and contradictions, that it was almost impossible to argue what consequences might result from either men or measures, and he could not consent to run the risk of the possibility of that which might occur, and of the interests of the Church of England being submitted to the legislation of the Jews. What was the character, and respectability, and moral influence of the Jewish community in England? Their numbers were not above 30,000 — 30,000 among 30,000,000; but it would not matter one straw if there were 30 or 30,000, provided the principle was good, and there was a necessity for Parliament to interfere. Their charitable disposition and general good conduct he was perfectly ready to admit were worthy of our consideration; but he did not think that there was a title to all the great encomiums that some were in the habit of passing upon them in that House when such measures as the present were being considered. He would merely refer the House to what passed before the Select Committee on Juvenile Offenders. There it appeared in evidence that the chief instigators of crime in the metropolis were Jews. This was literally what appeared in evidence, and the statement was justified on the ground that the Jews almost exclusively afforded facilities for the disposal of stolen goods. He maintained, that if this was the case in the metropolis, it must be so in all the great centres of population — in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham — and therefore the Jews were not, as a body, entitled to those high encomiums which were generally passed upon them. The House, however, must consider that they were now merely considering a personal affair of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. That noble Lord had the honour of representing the City of London with a Jew, and he had given a pledge that he would annually bring forward in this House a measure upon the subject of the Jews’ disabilities. Now, Baron Rothschild was probably a very worthy man — they all knew he was a very wealthy man — but he (Sir. R. Peel) did not think he was entitled to a seat in that House on account of his wealth, for everybody was perfectly aware how that wealth had been amassed. It was only last night he had read in a newspaper which was very well informed upon foreign subjects, that the House of Rothschild had consented to grant a loan to the Government of Athens, with very considerable guarantees, at the rate of 9 per cent; and they could consequently very well understand how the Rothschild family had amassed their wealth. He was ready to admit that Baron Rothschild might be a very worthy man; but, at the same time, as much had been said by the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) about gagging the French and Belgian press, no one had done more to gag the expression of liberal opinions throughout the world than the House of Rothschild, from the loans contracted with despotic Governments, like, for instance, that of Naples. But, even supposing Baron Rothschild to be a very worthy man, he, for one, had expected, considering the qualities of the noble Lord who represented the Government in that House, and that the Government represented all the political factions that had combined to oppose the late Government, that the country would have received at his hands some measures more practical and more important for the material interest of the people of this country. In 1851 and 1852 they had been distinctly told by the noble Lord of the absolute necessity that existed for a new Reform Bill; and yet now that the noble found himself leader in the House of Commons for a coalition Cabinet, that measure was almost indefinitely adjourned. At Carlisle, at Southwark, and in the City of London, we had heard of nothing else but allusions to the gross bribery, corruption, and intimidation which had prevailed over the country at the last election... however, the noble Lord had thought proper to adjourn weightier considerations of Government for the purpose of hurriedly introducing a Jew Bill… ...-he for one, upon conscientious convictions, believing that he was best fulfilling the wishes of those whose opinions he was to a certain extent bound to consider, believing also that in so doing he was giving a fair interpretation to the views of the people of this country, he gave to this Bill his most determined resistance.. (516-17)

Mr. Drummond

They [the Jews] were looking forward to the time when they should trample upon the Gentiles like ashes under the soles of their feet. They cared very little about principle, but a great deal about interest.

[...]

He had been struck by a passage he read not long ago, in which it was said that the time was when the nations of the earth were bound together in unity with Rome for their universal centre, while the talisman which bound them was credo. True we were still bound together, but our centre was the Stock Exchange, and the talisman which governed us was not credo, but credit. It is not credo — no-one says I believe in anything; but credit: he believes someone else. The Bill before this House originated in these circumstances: The rabble of London, partly out of the love of mischief, partly from contempt of the House of Commons, and partly from a desire to give a slap in the face of Christianity, elected a Jew. (518)

Mr. Herbert

• Speaking in favor of the Jews, pointed out the contradiction of allowing converted Jews but not regular Jews into Parliament and demonstratesd that fighting the Jews as proxies instead of directly is always doomed to failure.

You exclude him, you say, on account of his nationality, his origin, and his race; but if that be true, and if you say there is an inherent nationality about the Jew — about his race and about his origin — why do you not exclude a converted Jew? His race, his origin, and his blood are the same; and on what principle did you allow a converted Jew to sit in Parliament for several years. (518-519)

Mr. William Kirk’s Zionism

It was now a period of 3,774 years since it pleased God to choose that people as a peculiar race, and in selecting Abraham as their great progenitor he used these remarkable words, ‘I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ The Jewish people resident in this country seemed to be most anxious to have representatives of their own race in the House of Commons. Might not that desire be an indication of the coming fulfilment of the prophecy as to their restoration? Might it not be in the designs of Providence that the leaders of the Jews in this country should obtain seats in our House of Parliament, in order that they might become thoroughly acquainted with our mode of legislation, and subsequently legislate for the Jews in their own country after the English model? This House being, as it were, a sort of normal school for their instruction, would not the admission of Jews to our Legislature induce the Jews, when restored to their own land, to become the firmest friends of Great Britain? And the friendship of such a people, when restored, and in possession not simply of Palestine, as they had in the days of David, and Solomon, but of all that was originally promised to them, of the whole of the land extending from the Euphrates to the Nile, and from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, would be of no little advantage to the people of these realms. That land which would come into the possession of the Jews would be the most fertile and the most desirable in the world. It would form part of the highway from Great Britain to Indian and Australian Colonies. The Jews, in possession of their own land, would undoubtedly become one of the most important nations upon the earth. That was prophesied of them. Upon every ground, therefore, both of justice and of public policy, he called upon the House to vote in favour of the third reading of the Bill. (519-520)

Thesiger Thwarts Attempt to Sneak Through Another Jew Bill

• Thesiger caught Russell in the act of doing the Jewish tactic of Sneak Attack by Proxy.

It would appear that there were two reasons for pursuing this variation: Firstly, it was likely that they did not wish to openly signal to the public that the Jews could gain entry to Parliament in the case of this law being passed; secondly, it was desired to win over the Catholic members, because with their support the chance of success seemed more certain.

The first reading took place without a debate and, moreover, without a vote worthy of mention. At the second reading Sir Frederic Thesiger returned to being very active, acting as an attack dog in the debate. He continually warned the Chamber that it was solely the Jews that were yet again behind this bill and that it must not let itself be fooled by the fact that the Catholics were also mentioned in the text. He was scathing of Russell’s connivance with Rothschild, which had led to his continual failed attempts to push through the Jewish agenda, and warns those present:

...inflamed, rather than discouraged, by successful opposition, he [Russell] now proposes to break down some of the defences of our Protestant Constitution, in order that he may be able to march over their ruins with the Jew [Rothschild] by his side, and seat him in the Legislature. (523)

• See The Whittle Away, Sneak Attack, and Proxy Tactics under ‘Jewish Tactics’ under Themes.

1857: Jews Defeated Again, Characteristic Relentlessness

• Aldag:

As had happened so many times before, the Jews’ efforts had failed. One would be forgiven for thinking that they and their supporters must have lost hope forever, especially in view of the fact that even the most diehard supporters of the Jews had to admit that most of the population continued to support, as ever, the House of Lords’ position.” But that was far from the case. With a persistence specific to the Jewish race, a new bill replaced the old one. The plan being banked on was to exhaust the anti-Jewish faction so that at some point they would let their guard down. As we know today, this relentless attack is an intrinsic part of Jewish tactics. (531)

Thesiger 1858: Duty of Government is the Eternal Welfare of the People

• Like Prynne, Thesiger’s highest priority was the people’s welfare.

He reminded his fellow Lords that the maintenance of the Christian religion was ‘the most essential of our legislative functions’ because it was through the Christian religion that the rulers of the nation were consecrated to their duties: ...and what are those duties? Not merely the control and direction of matters of lowly worldly policy, of earthly power, or commercial property; but the eternal welfare of the people is committed to our legislative guardianship. (535)

Earl of Clancarty’s Change of Mind

• Explained why he changed from being pro-Jew to against Jewish power after studying history. He supported religious freedom, but opposed the Jews as a national group. Cited the Magna Carta, which was partially a protection against the Jews.

Let the claims of the latter be admitted upon the principle contended for by the House of Commons in their fourth Reason against your Amendment — namely, that ‘the infliction of disabilities upon any class of Her Majesty's subjects solely on account of their conscientious adherence to their faith, savours of persecution’; and you must admit, also, the Mohammedan, the Hindoo, heathens of every denomination (millions of whom at this moment are dependent upon the kind of government Parliament may impose upon the Indian empire), and the professed infidel, who is commonly quite as bigoted in his own peculiar views as the most superstitious votary of any false system of religion. Religious tests of every kind must be abolished as qualifications for access to the great Council of the Nation, for they could be of no possible value. Nor could you consistently any longer require the Sovereign to make profession of a particular form of religion: the King has as good an abstract right to hold and profess what religious opinions he pleases, as have the King's counsellors: so that, upon the principle contended for by the Commons, in time future government and the guardianship of the rights of a people at present blest with the enjoyment of freedom beyond any other nation in the world, might fall into the hands of a Sovereign of any, or of no religion, and of a godless Parliament.

The House of Commons appears to have fallen into the error of regarding seats in Parliament and offices in the State as the inherent rights of British subjects intended for the individual benefit of the persons holding them. A participation in the government of this great country is, indeed, a great and distinguishing privilege; but it is still more to be regarded as a trust conferred for the benefit of the community…

Looking back to Magna Charta the Barons of Runnymede in that, the first charter, of British liberty, notice the Jews only as money-lenders. History does not record their ever having taken arms in the country's defence, or ever having taken part in, or sought admission to the national councils, they have ever been and sought so to keep themselves in every country where they are found, a nation apart, aliens from all around them in blood, in religion, and in social interests. I believe, that the feeling among them generally is still the same, and certainly, but for the wishes and personal popularity of Baron Rothschild, backed by his enormous wealth and the great political weight of his family, we never should to this day have heard of the Jewish claims. I have not the honour of Baron Rothschild's acquaintance, but from all I have heard of him, I do not apprehend that if he should obtain his seat in Parliament his conduct would be other than that becoming a British legislator... A man so highly esteemed is not likely to do discredit to the choice of his constituents, or to be disposed to damage that free constitution under the protection of which he has preferred to live; but his admission, as a Jew, to the Councils of the nation would be subversive of the great and essential principle of the constitution which connects the maintenance of the Christian religion with the general government of the country. (538-9)

Debate on the “Compromise” Jew Bill of July 1858

• The “compromise” bill would be the Jew bill that would finally pass the House of Lords.
• The bill was passed as a result of Lord Derby’s betrayal.
  • See ‘Why did Lord Derby Change Sides?’ under Quotes.
  • See ‘Lord Derby’ under ‘Conservative Betrayal’ under Themes for a full accounting of the reasons leading to Lord Derby’s betrayal.

Earl of Clancarty’s Heartbreaking Soliloquy

• Regarding the betrayal of Lord Derby

My noble and gallant Friend was the first to go over — he was the last from whom I should have apprehended such an example. I had always regarded him as a man of great determination, and from the gallant profession he belongs to, the least likely to have entertained a thought of yielding or turning; but I am bound to say that in announcing his change my noble Friend did state what at once disentitled the opponents of the Jewish claims any longer to expect his co-operation; nay, he showed conclusively that his vote should always have been given on the other side. (540-1)

• Aldag summarizes:

What [the Earl of Clancarty] found most regrettable was that Lord Derby had not hesitated in declaring that his stance on the issue would remain unchanged, but that he had only surrendered out of expediency. A compromise on one of the greatest principles of the constitution! Inconceivable, for principles will tolerate no compromise and will never change! (541)

Aldag summarizes more arguments against the “compromise” Jew bill

The Duke of Rutland declared that, despite unproven claims to the contrary, the majority House of Commons’ opinion on this matter ‘was no accurate test of the real desire of the country’ and that Jewish emancipation would be ‘repugnant to... the best interest of the people of England’. For this reason alone, the compromise had to be rejected (541) The Bishop of Oxford and the Viscount of Dungannon both declared that in many respects they would prefer a Muslim to a Jew, as they saw the Muslim as closer to the Christian faith. In the words of the Bishop, which were seconded by the Viscount: “The Jew declared that the Central Point of the Christian faith was an imposter, and the Mohammedan at least, admitted our Saviour to have been the second of Prophets. (541)

Earl of Harrington

• One of “the most impassioned orator of the anti-Jewish faction” during the compromise debates.
  • Reported that Jews are money-lenders, even and especially to despots, force the whole world to keep standing armies, get into debt

My next reason for opposing the admission of Jews into our Parliament is, that they are the great money-lenders — the great loan contractors of the world. It may be said that they do lend to all alike, that they are more free-traders in money. Yes; it matters not to them whether they lend their money to support a good or a bad cause; to support liberty or despotism; to further the great ends of their own country, or to lend their money to a nation directly opposed to it. Hence it follows, that the despotic nations of the world, now unfortunately in the ascendant, are enabled to keep up large standing armies in times of peace, and to make other nations, and to make England do so likewise, because they do well know, that when the occasion requires it, either to put down the rising spirit of reform in their own countries, or to act against other states, they can call on these loan contractors for the sinews of war. The consequence is, that the nations of the world are groaning under heavy systems of taxation, and of national debts... It may be said, why persecute the many on account of the misdeeds of the few? Why persecute the whole Jewish race, some 30,000 in this country, on account of certain loan contractors, who have lent, or may lend, their money to despots — who make use of this Jew wealth to destroy the liberties of Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, or other nations? Why, for the reasons just stated, and because ‘the many’ are the great contributors — not only here, but in every other country to these loans, and but for their contributions, these loans would with difficulty be carried out. Besides, these millionaires, these loan contractors, are the very men who would stand on your public hustings and make their impassioned, their sweet orations in favour of public liberty — whereas, they have ever been the greatest enemies to freedom. Why, I would ask, and for what have they been ennobled? Is it, or is it not, for having lent their gold to despots? My Lords, these loan contractors are the pets, the Poloniuses of arbitrary Courts. (542)

• Regarding why Jewish elected officials couldn’t be trusted

Yes, but the constituencies are not Jews — they would not elect these loan contractors. My Lords, I would not trust them. I do well remember that some few years back, it was in 1853, not less than sixty constituencies were accused of corruption, and as many election committees sat for months investigating these matters, and by their investigations pointing out certain remedies for the future. Above thirty of these constituencies were found guilty. Would you then again open the flood gates of corruption? My Lords, I contend that a loan contractor, be he Christian or be he Jew, who would lend his money to support despotism, would not deserve the proud honour of a seat in the House of Commons. My Lords, I would rather see a good Mohammedan, or Hindoo, sitting in the House of Commons, than I would a Jew loan contractor. In point of fact, would it not be far more natural, more just, that 180,000,000 of British subjects should have a representative in the House of Commons, to point out how the tax screw pauperises and tortures... than that a few Jews should have their representatives there? Why there never was a few men in any great State who possessed such a mighty influence as these Jews do here at this moment. Have they not a considerable body of this House voting for them? Have they not a majority in the House of Commons? Add to this a portion of the Press — the most powerful political engine that ever existed, all supporting them. (Hear!) Yes, but there is a power still stronger than all these combined, and that power is the moral and religious people of this country, who, however seemingly apathetic, are decidedly opposed to the admission of Jews into Parliament. (542-543)

• Aldag summarizes Earl of Harrington’s arguments about why Jewish loan-lending was different than the Gentile variety:

In a bid to counter such strong statements, Lord Derby replied that there were also Christian 383 usurers. Earl of Harrington responded that he had long predicted the regrettable result of all of these parliamentary battles. ‘He, however, ventured to remind the noble Earl [the Earl of Derby], and the House, that during the last Crimean war, large sums of money were sent by Jews and others from this country to Holland, as contributions to a Russian loan.’ This loan was then used by Russia, England’s bitterest enemy, to aid in prolonging the war against England and her allies. ‘An Act was subsequently passed, making it a misdemeanour for any British subject to subscribe to a loan raised by the enemy. Could then, the loan contractor, the head and front of the offending party, be deemed a proper subject to sit in Parliament. (543)

Earl of Galloway

• Presciently predicted that there would soon be a Jew in the House of Lords, against the will of its members (543)

Charles Newdegate in the House of Commons

• The “compromise” bill was debated in the House of Commons after it was passed through House of Lords.
  • At the same time, they debated the bill that the House of Commons had previously passed but had been rejected by the House of Lords. (544)

• Charles Newdegate was the main defender against the Jew bills in the House of Commons during these debates.

I desire not to speak disrespectfully to this House when I say that I am firmly convinced — more firmly convinced perhaps than I have ever been — that those who advocate the admission of the Jews to Parliament do not truly represent the feelings of the people of this country; I say this because, that since it has been felt that this change in the law is now, I fear, inevitable, I have seen no indications of satisfaction on the part of the people in whose name the change has been urged. I therefore feel entitled to assume that the measure has been forced upon the country; for, so far as I can observe, the only feeling which the probability of its passing has caused throughout the kingdom is one of disappointment, enhanced, perhaps, by the fact that the proposed change is to be effected by the powerful aid of one from whom such a measure was little to be expected. Hon. Members opposite can show me no demonstrations of satisfaction to prove that, in seeking to abrogate the Christian character of Parliament, they are acting thoroughly in accordance with public opinion.

[...]

I can regard this as no settlement whatever. It marks our first entrance upon a new phase of political existence for the country. It is the first step in a course which I myself view with the greatest apprehension; and I very much doubt whether many hon. Gentlemen on the other side have weighed the extent of the change which they are about to effect; but of this I am confident, that wherever in a State this principle has been introduced, where-ever a State that was Christian by its constitution has ceased to be so, the freedom of that State has not been long maintained; and I challenge hon. Gentlemen to produce me an instance to the contrary. (544-545)

Why did Lord Derby Change Sides?

• Aldag Summarizes
  • Lord Derby’s stated reason for the treacherous “compromise”: the Jews were forcing a constitutional crisis, putting entire government at risk.

[Lord Derby] declared that he had not changed his opinion in the slightest. Nevertheless, it was necessary to end the prevailing conflict between both Houses, which threatened to gravely imperil the entire political system. It was only because of this threat that he felt compelled to lend his support to one of the bills, which was why he stated his preference as being that of Lord Lucan. (540)

• Disraeli’s Influence
  • Newdegate explains that, whatever his faults, Lord Derby was pressured into the “compromise” by the Jew Disraeli, who is thus primarily to blame.

I do not defend the conduct of Lord Derby, who has agreed to a measure contrary to his principles, because I think he ought to have appealed to the country. I see, in the form of this measure, that it is the intention of its framers to give this House time to reflect, which, in reality, is a recognition of the fact that the country ought to have been appealed to. I cannot say anything in condemnation of the principle of this Bill, and of its tendency to destroy the Christian character of this House, that I have not already ventured to state; but when the conduct of Lord Derby is assailed, I cannot bear all the imputations which are heaped upon him, without calling attention to the difficulties of his position. Now, who has been the main promoter of this infraction of the Christian character of Parliament on this side of the House? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Disraeli]. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer — himself of Jewish extraction — fosters towards the Jewish race feelings which one can trace in almost every work of fiction which he has written. Especially do we find that feeling honestly and frankly declared in the chapter which he has interpolated in his biography of Lord George Bentinck. He claims as the right of the Jewish race the government of the other races of mankind, and claims for them this supremacy, whilst they remain in the present state of rebellion against their own true King... When, therefore, I see sitting on these benches, and taking a leading part among the members of this party, one holding these opinions, who has declared them, and uses his influence to carry them into effect, I will not hear Lord Derby's difficulties underrated in regard to this question. I have seen several leading Members of the Conservative Party brought over to his opinions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And when the noble Lord at the head of the India Board seceded from his noble father's opinions on this question, and joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I felt that Lord Derby's position, sooner or later, might become intolerable, and that there was great danger that by degrees he would be forced from the high position which he has held for many years, as leader of the great party whose pride it still is to be the defenders of the Christian character of Parliament and of the State. In my anger I will have justice — I will not hear Lord Derby's difficulties undervalued; and although I lament that he has succumbed, I see in this a manifestation of a weakness, which is natural, however much it is to be deplored. (545-546)

• Aldag speculates further about Lord Derby’s motivations

Perhaps his reasoning can be explained from the perspective of a desire to keep his position at all costs, or because pressure had been exerted on him by the Jews or the Jews’ supporters. Disraeli was part of his cabinet, as during that period he had risen to become the leader of the Conservatives, so he would have been able to undermine the ancient bastion against Judaism from the inside. It was not for nothing that some newspapers wrote that the Conservative Party had had to surrender itself to a Jew, in order to get new ideas. In these bitter words there is a lot of truth, because it is only this way that it has come to be possible that within the English Conservative Party today one finds theories that can only be Jewish in origin. (554)

• Aldag had previously speculated that the power of the press could have been the largest factor, as the Jews, forcing a constiutional crisis, could have destroyed the government, or even provoked a French Revolution style attack on the House of Lords.

What today is not wished to be seen in most spheres of England, threatened to happen: an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In the most irresponsible way, the Jews and their friends fanned the flames in their newspapers against the House of Lords and demanded more or less openly a violent intervention into the rights of the Lords, whose undignified fate can be partly explained by this. (446)

• See ‘Lord Derby’ under ‘Conservative Betrayal’ under Themes for a full accounting of the reasons leading to Lord Derby’s betrayal.

A Firsthand Report of Jewish London Life in the 1840s

• From the Translator’s Appendix to Volume 6 (558)
• Reports that the Jews were behind coin clipping and especially prostitution rings

...for this the current coin of the realm is clipped, and ingots and sovereigns perspire: for this the pander [pimp] entraps, and the bawd [madam] opens wide the gates that lead to everlasting death, trafficking in Christian flesh for purposes worse than the worst of slavery… we see the daughter of a Christian man patrolling the streets, decorated in the trumpery properties of a Jewish brothel, while the devil’s dam, in the shape of a hideous Hebrew hag, follows the poor unfortunate, like the shadow of death, to clutch the wages of her shame, we really think a Christian government might, without any hazard of public odium, string up at the doors of their own dens, Mother Abrahams, Mother Isaacs, and Mother Jacobs. But, after all, perhaps it is better as it is: if this abominable traffic must be connived at, it is better that those should have the monopoly who have nothing in common with us, save that which the weasel has in common with its prey: those who have made a god of mammon, worshipping the golden calf with the tenfold idolatry of their fathers. (559)

Blue Book of 1877

• Evidence of Jews controlling British Foreign policy
• Aldag:

This Jewish success was due to prior secret negotiations that had gone on for over ten years, which is revealed in a Blue Book published by the English government in 1877. From this book it can be deduced that for years the representatives of international Jewry and the English government were in constant correspondence about the treatment given to the Jews in Romania and Serbia. The Foreign Minister was overwhelmed with reports and telegrams regarding the persecutions which targeted the Jews. Representatives of international Jewry, such as Baron Rothschild, Sir F. Goldsmid, Sir M. Montefiore, the chief rabbi and other influential Jews demanded that the Foreign Office give instructions to their representatives in the countries concerned to make it very clear to the authorities of those places, and even to their sovereigns, that their treatment of Hebrews up to the present time was contrary to the norms of the civilised world and that the Romanians and Serbians could not expect to receive support for their aspirations of independence, as long as they did not treat the Jews more kindly. But it was not only the influential Jews of England who demanded an intervention from their government in favour of their ethnic kinsmen abroad — the President of the Alliance Israélite Universelle in France also addressed the British Foreign Minister with the same desires. That this request was from an international association did not mean that the Foreign Minister thought fit to abstain from dealing with the matter personally. On the contrary, perhaps it was precisely the fact that this came from international Jewry was what induced him to take the stance he did. Every Englishman should read this collection of official correspondence, in order to begin to understand once and for all how the government of that time intervened in favour of the Jews, without this bearing the slightest relation to any English interest. A study of the Blue Book likewise leads to a recognition of how so much time was wasted in giving the Romanian and Serbian governments rules of conduct regarding treatment of the Jews. The consuls, the consul generals and every class of diplomatic representative had to draft long reports, while the ministers had to personally and forcefully admonish the sovereigns every so often and, in the case of these admonitions not being heeded, threaten them. All of this took place not to safeguard British interests, but to satisfy the desires of international Jewry. The sheer number of these interventions is clear from the fact that the Blue Book contains no less than some 400 printed pages, with 357 letters, reports, telegrams, etc. (577)

• See ‘Blue Book Document’ under Evidence.

Disraeli Fundamentally Changed Tory Party and England

• Especially in destroying the peasantry

Disraeli is the founder of the modern Conservative Party, which governs today. With Peel’s departure from the Tories a new structure emerged, a product of Disraeli’s ideas. In a short time he managed to drag the majority of his supporters into dishonourably changing all of their positions, despite his being a Jew and the party he led blocking Rothschild from entry to Parliament year after year. But ultimately it was the Conservative government under the orders of Lord Derby and Disraeli which assured the final Jewish triumph; with the call of the blood being undoubtedly the decisive factor for Disraeli…

All of this certainly contributed to the gradual imposition of his leadership on the Conservatives. But this seems to have only been possible because the Tories’ previously fundamental ideals had outlived their usefulness, or because the Tories were already so far removed from these ideals that there was virtually nothing left of the true conservatism of the age of Charles I. But be this as it may, it cannot be denied that the ideals of the Conservative Party found their representation in a man who until his dying moment always proclaimed that he was, and would always be, a Jew. In other words, he was a foreigner who, as Raymond underscores, ‘often made gross mistakes’ when he ‘attempted to think in English terms’. Therefore we believe, alongside O’Connor, that under Disraeli’s leadership the Conservatives distanced themselves considerably from the ‘national ideals of the real Englishman’ and that these politicians ‘were not Englishmen or Conservatives, but strictly Disraelites.’

But not only had the principles of the Conservative Party been changed, but those of England. The general social situation found itself in the throes of transformation. With the abolition of customs tariffs on grain, agriculture was ruined, a situation which is still the case to this day, as we shall see further on. Before the days of Free Trade the peasant was all-important; after it, he was nothing. The introduction of Free Trade saw the perishing of a healthy peasantry that had been the pride of England. From that point onwards, the whole life of the country has been ruled solely from the point of view of money. (580)

Late 19th Century Opposition to Jews

Professor Goldwin Smith

The age is propitious to the operations of the Hebrew: the use of force, as we have said, is by our present civilisation forbidden, while the use of unscrupulous cunning is permitted and protected by the law. Rob a man on the street, and you will go to prison; fleece a thousand on the Stock Exchange, and you will dwell in a palace with an aristocracy at your feet. The power of wealth and of things which wealth can buy is immense. Stock-jobbing is rife, and financial craft, by dealing with the circulating medium, transfers to itself, on a large scale, the product of honest labour. By the decay of religious belief the moral sinew of society has for the time been weakened, and the strength of resistance to anything which assails us on the side of material interest has been proportionately reduced. Party divisions present fatal openings for Hebrew Opportunism; international quarrels lend themselves to the action of a Cosmopolitan Ring, playing off one nation against another for the advancement of its special interests and the accomplishment of its designs... Above all, there is the Press — at once the great benefactor and the great peril of society at the present day — the anonymous organs of which are fearfully liable to fall under the secret influence of moneyed intriguers, and to become in their hands the means of fabricating public opinion on all questions, political, social, and personal, as well as commercial. It is needless to dilate on the fell ascendancy which may thus be gained. No one who has not specially inquired can be aware to what an extent the Newspaper Press in all countries, as well as the agencies for the transmission of intelligence, are becoming Jewish: not only are the relations often indirect as well as confidential, but the Jewish journalist seems to be fond of assuming a Christian name. (590)

MP Sir Tollemache Sinclair

I think I have established that the Jews are not, and never have been, worthy of our esteem and regard, and that they are the eternal and implacable enemies of the Christian; consequently, it would be madness to follow their advice to go to war with Russia, but wisdom always to take the opposite course to that which they recommend. (591)

If a man falls into the hands of a Christian money-lender, he contents himself usually with bleeding him, as it were, in a single vein, while the Jew, who is hostis Gentili generis, bleeds every vein and artery, and leaves you penniless, like a squeezed orange, or like the stock-meat which a cook makes into a transparent jelly by pressing out the whole of the juice, so that even the dogs will not eat the tasteless fibre which remains. [insert citation]

Sir Richard Burton

In every age Jews are found to be receivers of stolen goods and owners of gambling dens. They deal in obscene literature ‘calculated to pervert the mind of youth. (591)

• See ‘Sir Richard Burton’ under Quotes.

Jewish Historian Simon Wolf on Jewish Power

We all know that the first bankers in the world — Rothschilds — are Jews; we know that they control not only the money market, but also the political destiny of the European world. [...] The Press of Europe is mostly controlled by Jews; the leading editors are Jews. [...] The revolutionary feeling in Europe owed its life and stimulus to Jews... (598)

A Cabal of Jews Killed the Aliens Bill of 1904

On May 20, 1904, which is to say, some four weeks after the second reading of the latterly withdrawn bill, a delegation of leading Jews, consisting of Lord Rothschild, Leopold Rothschild, Sir Samuel Montagu, Member of Parliament Mr. Samuel and others, paid a visit to the Home Secretary. They presented him with a long complaint about the bill being debated in Parliament, as it would impose undue hardship and likely restrict immigration, and which could only be detrimental to England, which had so far greatly benefited from Jewish immigrants. They also made a commitment to ensure that no Jewish newcomer would be a burden on the state for the first two years of his stay, and that they would also, on their own initiative, work to exclude criminals.

In a leaflet distributed to the public, they reiterated their position and emphasised that the proposed legislation would be to the detriment of those persecuted for religion and politics and might even make it impossible for them to enter England. According to Charles Emanuel:

The pamphlet showed that the Bill as drafted would enable old-established foreign settlers to be forcibly ejected from their homes in this country without compensation, that it gave power to eject those who arrived without an official passport or certificate of character, which would include all those fleeing from persecution in Russia or Roumania, and that it gave no right of appeal to be rejected.

What was the success of these efforts? Let Emanuel answer as an authoritative source:

A deputation from the Board waited on the Home Secretary and stated its objections to various provisions in the measure, and he promised that their view should be considered. The bill was subsequently withdrawn.

What was it Arnold White had been quoted as saying on August 16th, 1903? ‘No measures whatsoever could be taken without the consent of Jewish leaders’? Events have been shown to prove him right. (618)

Limerick Uprising of 1904

• A microcosm of the Jewish life-cycle
• Aldag summarizes, includes a quote from Father Creagh

Both parties knew that the abandonment of the 1904 bill did not in any way resolve the situation. Rather, the opponents of immigration had become even more agitated, as demonstrated by, among other things, an incident in Ireland. In Limerick, the Catholic population had protested against their exploitation by the Jews. They were led by their clergy, in particular the charismatic and eloquent Father Creagh, a holy monk of the Redemptorist Order, whose gifted preaching incited the populace to a holy crusade of collective action. As he told his flock: ‘It would be madness for a man to nourish in his own breast a viper that might at any moment slay its benefactor with a poisonous bite. So it is madness for a people to allow an evil to grow in their midst that will eventually cause them ruin.’ While there had been hardly any Jews there at the end of the 19th century — in 1871 only two Jews were counted in the Limerick census — they had now settled in larger numbers, with at least thirty-five families present, and had quickly taken over trade. Soon a large part of the farmers were in debt to them, against whom the Jews acted ruthlessly as soon as payment became due. This angered the population so much that they refused to sell any food to the Jews and even began a complete boycott against them. Jews could barely be seen in public without having to fear for life and limb. Attacks were not uncommon and stones were thrown at them when they showed their faces in public. This situation lasted for a good while, and led to the ruin of the Jews, who, given the nature of the siege, would likely have starved to death in their homes if some Protestant gentlemen had not rendered assistance, which was done in utmost secrecy for fear of ‘drawing down upon themselves the pious wrath of the Redemptorist monks and of the six thousand brethren of the Confraternity of the Holy Family’. However, after a press campaign had roused public opinion in England, the government was forced to intervene and charitable associations hastened to the Jews’ relief. (621)

Jews Were Offered Other Land, Demanded Palestine

• The Jews didn’t have to colonize Palestine because they were offered other areas by the British government.

The British government offered the Zionists El Arish, part of so-called Egyptian Palestine, as a replacement for Palestine. A joint commission was sent out to examine settlement options. However, the report that was produced was not even published and the project was quietly dropped. This is said to have been a great disappointment for Joseph Chamberlain who, on one of his trips to the African colonies, thought that he had found a suitable place for the Jews in a part of Uganda. He immediately reported this to Lord Lansdowne and Lord Percy, who were also enthusiastic about the plan. In a 1903 letter from the Foreign Office to the Zionists, Lord Lansdowne announced that he had ‘studied the question with the interest which His Majesty’s Government must always take in any well-considered scheme for the amelioration of the position of the Jewish race’. He then went on to detail the government's proposals for the scheme in British East Africa, which were ‘the grant of a considerable tract of land, the appointment of a Jewish official as the chief of the local administration, and permission to the colony to have a free hand in regard to municipal legislation, and as to the management of religious and purely domestic matters, such local autonomy being conditional upon the right of His Majesty’s Government to exercise general control.’ The Zionists withheld their decision on this offer until after their leading members all over the world had been consulted. When, after two years, no final position had been taken, Joseph Chamberlain's successor, Lord Alfred Lyttelton, made the proposal again. Due to opposition from Jews who wanted Palestine or nothing, the British government's plan was rejected some time later. (663)

... 20th May, 1917, Weizmann, who was Chairman, explained in his opening address that the Zionist Movement was ‘never built... on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere’. Rather, the cause of Zionism was the ‘ineradicable national striving of Jewry to have a home of its own — a national centre, a national home with a national Jewish life. (666)

Historian and British Insider Harold Temperley on the Balfour Declaration

Support of Zionist ambitions, indeed, promised much for the cause of the Entente. Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers... the German General Staff desired to attach Jewish support yet more closely to the German side. With their wide outlook on possibilities they seem to have urged, early in 1916, the advantages of promising Jewish restoration to Palestine under an arrangement to be made between Zionists and Turkey, backed by a German guarantee... In fact in September 1917 the German Government were making the most serious efforts to capture the Zionist movement.

Another most cogent reason why the policy of the Declaration should be adopted by the Allies lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda; by 1917 they had done much in preparation for that general disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry in the same way, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed, further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. (668)

Historian Hilaire Belloc on the Jews during the 19th Century

Britain as Attack Dog

• • Concerning the British government as the attack dog of the Jews
    • “Specially Jewish institutions, such as Freemasonry (which the Jews had inaugurated as a sort of bridge between themselves and their hosts in the seventeenth century), were particularly strong in Britain, and there arose a political tradition, active, and ultimately to prove of great importance, whereby the British State was tacitly accepted by foreign governments as the official protector of the Jews in other countries. It was Britain which was expected to interfere, within the measure of her power, whenever a persecution of the Jews took place in the East of Christendom: to support the Jewish financial energies throughout the world, and to receive in return the benefit of that connection.” (677)

Victimhood Convention

• Regarding the absurd convention that the Jews are always innocent victims

A convention arose that in the clash between the Jews and the English of the Middle Ages the Jews were invariably right and the English invariably wrong. Where the struggle was between the Jew and the non-Jew abroad, the historian exceeded all bounds. The European hostile to the Jew was a senseless monster, and the Jew hostile to the European was a holy victim.

The whole story of Europe and of this country, in so far as it was affected by this very considerable factor, was distorted through suppression, and false emphasis and quite exceptional lying.

The general reader of history neither knew what part the Jewish question had played nor the claims that could be advanced for his own race in the conflict. And as historians live by copying one another, the legend was established in every school and college. (677)

Jewish Totalitarianism

• Explaining the totalitarian Judaization of the government, press, City

Every English Government had (and has) its quota of Jews. They had entered the diplomatic service and the House of Lords; they swarmed in the House of Commons, in the Universities, in all the Government offices save the Foreign Office (and even there representatives of the Jewish nation have recently entered); they were exceedingly powerful in the Press: they were all-powerful in the City. No custom unsympathetic to their race, from the duel to popular clamour, survived. (678)

Beverley Nichols: England No Longer Cares about England

The position is one of extreme danger. On the material side we have the prospect of an undisciplined nation with a declining population in possession of an utterly unreasonable proportion of the world’s riches. This nation, which is led by a committee of dreamers and grandfathers (whose faltering steps are hampered by an irresponsible and ignorant opposition), finds itself confronted by new nations of immense strength, led by young and ruthless men, whose fingers are itching to pick out pockets.

England, it would appear, no longer cares about England. With equanimity the majority of the population has witnessed the destruction of London, and its transformation into the shoddiest capil in theworld. With hardly a protest we have assisted at the desecration of the countryside, till every other village is an advertisement of the fact that we are not only a nation of shopkeepers but a nation of usurious vandals.

With sang-froid we tolerate slum conditions which the authoritarian states, with their empty treasuries, would not tolerate for a month. With indifference we accept a chaotic and antiquated road-system, which is paralysing our transport and filling our cemeteries.” (678)

• See ‘General Desolation’ under Parallels.

Anthony Mario Ludovici on Britain’s Judaization and Misery

"The Harsh, Ugly, Unhealthy, Vulgar, Nervous, and Spiritless Life of Modern Times"

And when I look around me to-day, and perceive the harsh, ugly, unhealthy, vulgar, nervous and spiritless life of modern times; when I see the seething discontent in all grades of society, and especially in the women of north-western Europe, it seems to me by no means extravagant or even fantastic to suppose that at this present moment we are witnessing the final unfolding of the bloom, the finest flower and the most perfect product of that religion of gain and greed, of trade and so-called liberty, of uncontrolled capitalism and unscrupulous exploitation; of the contempt of beauty, health, vigour, sexuality and high spirits, whereof the hygiene, the diet, the moral principles and the whole outlook on the world are to be sought and found in the general attitude of [puritanism] (219-220)

England Unrecognizable

...at bottom, the nation is really unrecognizable. The age-long rake-off of the transformed ruling or possessing classes — whether Jews or Englishmen — who have considered profit rather than service, quick and clean sources of income rather than production, has left the people and their soil not only disintegrated but exhausted. Everywhere in plant, animal and human being there are signs of generations of ruthless exploitation, systematic devitalization. The people no longer even care for the greatness on which their ancestors squandered their blood and treasure. They are no longer interested in their own ascendancy, in maintaining their own strength against the world. So incapable have the majority become of any self-assertion or productive work requiring initiative and spirit that even the production of their own entertainment is a thing of the past, and the practice of passively receiving entertainment or of having some distracting or diverting process performed upon them, preferably while they are sitting in a chair, has become a national addiction and habit. Meanwhile, the whole of Western civilization marches swiftly on towards Communism… (680, 798)

Judaization of England

Modern English life is bristling with evidence of the victory of the Judaized Englishman and of Jewish values. What sense, then, would there be in so empty a gesture as excluding the ethnic Jew and retaining his Gentile understudy? What purpose would be served in excluding the Jew and in continuing to worship at the shrine of his idols? No exclusion of the Jews from the administrative or cultural life of England, therefore, could be more than a piece of shallow, hysterical patriotism, if it did not contemplate and include the far more fundamental but infinitely more difficult task of freeing the country of its wrong values. And all bodies of Englishmen who seriously wish to recover English civilization at this stage cannot be regarded as any more than emotional and hysterical flag wavers if they do not see the compelling need of that infinitely difficult task — the task of accompanying any gesture of organized reform by a frontal attack upon the Judaized elements in their kith and kin and their own Judaized values… But such a transformation and wholesale demonetization of established values is a stupendous undertaking, and although none other offers any hope, it may be questioned whether at this stage in our history we still possess the energy, the fire and the will which alone could be adequate to carry through such a fundamental and far-reaching change. (680)

The Jew as Inherent Enemy of Gentiles

To own property without responsibility, to own industrial interests without performing any function in regard to industry, these are two of the developments which ever since the Commonwealth have done most to bring discredit upon Capitalistic organisation; and, in the sense that they are inseparable from the purely usurious character of the modern financial control of trade, we are justified in at least formulating the question of whether the return of the Jews in large numbers, ever since 1656, may not have had something to do with this un-English development of the country’s economic organisation. There is, moreover, this serious view to be taken of the Jewish question — a view which, to the best of my knowledge, does not appear to have been stated elsewhere — namely, that since the Jew approaches the society in which he resides, more or less as a stranger, he and those he influences will naturally strive to break down as far as possible all the barriers in that society which tend to perpetuate his strangeness, or to bar his access to complete citizenship. This means that the Jew’s form of power — wealth — will find itself opposed to all other kinds of power, such as Gentile aristocratic lineage, Gentile aristocratic character and prestige, hereditary honours of all kinds, and, above all, national solidarity (by this I mean loyalty between the various classes), which are all things that cannot be bought, which have no market price, and which the Jew cannot get possession of, or form part of, no matter how rich he is. Now where the Jew becomes powerful, it will be found that these things tend to fall ever more deeply into disrepute, and the tendency will be to make rank, status, citizenship, nationality and prestige depend entirely upon purchasable symbols, or outward signs — whether these happen to be titles, honours, a reputation for charitable or patriotic munificence, valuable old masters, or expensive horses and cars. Hence the inevitable association of Jews in Germany, France, England and elsewhere, with a Liberal plutocratic order of society, standing opposed to a proud hereditary aristocracy struggling to uphold tradition, lineage, the national character and inter-class loyalty. The fact that anarchy is always next door to a Liberal plutocratic order of society, lends a note of gravity to this view of the Jewish question, which it is only prudent to appreciate at its proper worth, without the exaggerations either of emotional bias or panic. And those who see in the last eighty years of English political life, a tendency to depreciate all those symbols of honour and prestige, which cannot be bought or acquired by wealth, and who find even powerful Gentiles in the land now advocating and promoting this tendency, might do well to enquire into the influence of the Jew, and the benefits ultimately reverting to him through the success of this development. (681-682)

The English People under Mind Control

We have mass-thought and opinion imposed on the population, in the same way as are their standardized manufactured boots… and any attempt at raising them from their hypnotic condition, by stating truths that are incompatible with their standardized intellectual pabulum, is to earn the reputation of insanity or crankiness. (790)

Ludovici regarding National Socialist Germany's Flourishing

• The same author, Ludovici, wrote the following regarding the Germans under Adolf Hitler:

“For something akin to a new religious zeal has spread throughout the land, making the people wistful, but strangely light-hearted and confident in their earnestness. It is as if they had been not only raised from the dust, but also shown a star or ball of fire which will lead them to the fulfilment of their destiny… everything is reserved, serene, almost reticent, as if beneath the inexpressible joy that everyone feels there stirred the constantly sobering reflection that the defeat, the humiliation and the shame of yesterday was a judgment, a penance for the mistakes of the older generation… The Nazi movement, however, has united the country as no country has been united since the Renaissance. It has not merely destroyed the barriers between the states, it has obliterated the demarcations of factions. There are no parties today in Germany. Nor should there be in any so-called "nation".” [Hitler and the Third Reich]

The Power of the Cinema in Britain

• Influence of cinema during the early to mid 20th century

The ‘enormous significance’ of cinema was recognised by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon, at a dinner of the British Kinematograph Society, held at London’s famous Trocadero Restaurant on February 8th, 1939. The Times gives the following report of his address to those present:

Proposing the toast of “The Society’, Sir John Simon said the enterprise in which its members were engaged was one of enormous significance and importance for the community and the State. He doubted very much whether there was any other way of informing and influencing public opinion which was likely in the future to be so important — important to the statesman, important to the publicist, important for the future of liberty and democracy, decency and taste and judgement.

To an increasing extent the cinema was forming and directing public taste and judgment. There was therefore a great responsibility resting upon the cinema industry that it should use its enormous influence in the most worthy way. That was one of the reasons why he rejoiced so heartily that they were developing an authoritative British cinema industry. (750)

Sassoon Family and Art/Propaganda

It is also only fitting that we should mention the Sassoons, namely, Alfred, David, Flora and Siegfried. Of the four, the last in particular has become known for numerous works in poetry and prose, with notable examples being: Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man, Vigils, The Old Century, Sherston’s Progress and War Poems. The war poetry is of a repugnance that can only be typical of a Jew. There is nothing in them of sacrifice for one’s comrades, nor a sense of sacred cause in the duty of the front-line soldier. One only needs to read his poems ‘Suicide in the Trenches’, ‘They’, ‘Return of the Heroes’ and ‘The Hero’ to get an understanding of his sentiments. (763)

• Note: Jews discourage warlike sentiment in their host nations and spread propaganda to make Gentile enemies into defeatists and pacifists. On the other hand, the Jewish people in Israel are perhaps the most militarized people of all time, even posing with guns at their own weddings. [1] [2] [3] [4]

• According to Jewish sources, Jews carry weapons everywhere in public the way white women carry tumblers handbags. [5] Even Klingons would blush at this level of militarization, but one supposes that an Israeli needs a gun at all times in case they run across a Palestinian child to murder.

Jewish Furniture Industry

• The industry was “almost entirely in the hands of Jews”. (777)
• Famous for miserable working conditions, which gave rise to British Fascism
• From Jewish Chronicle

“A Trade Union official told me that among some of the rank and file of the furniture workers there was a strong latent anti-Semitic feeling, and it is no mere coincidence that the Blackshirts are strongest in Bethnal Green and Shoreditch, districts which have always been the centres of the furniture trade. A large outward movement has taken place to districts like Tottenham, Ponder’s End, Slough and Wembley, and again it is no mere coincidence that there is a strong anti-Jewish feeling around Angel Road, Tottenham, where Jewish manufacturers maintain large establishments employing 95 per cent. non-Jewish labour. The truth is that some Jewish employers in the furniture trade have made antisemites of their employees because of the bad conditions of work.” (778)

• National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association

  “Records will prove that an extraordinary proportion of those in the furniture trade. It is a known fact that furniture manufacture and distribution is controlled almost exclusively by Jewish employers; Fascist propagandists, because of the low wages and excessive hours of employment prevailing in factories, find such vicious exploitation a fertile ground for anti-Semitism.” (778)

The Patriotism of the Jew is a Cloak

• Aldag summarizes and relates Jewish quotes that relate to their identity as and loyalty to the Jewish nation, as opposed to host countries like Britain.

“A letter from ‘B. Felz’ to the Jewish Chronicle of December 8th, 1911 (p. 38), proves that this understanding of things is no mere theory. Writing of the unhappy Jewish reaction to Mr. Chesterton’s lecture at the West End Jewish Literary Society, Mr. Felz admits: ‘The patriotism of the Jew is merely a cloak he assumes to please the Englishman, and so when Mr. Chesterton is shrewd enough to detect the Jew beneath the Englishman’s clothing, the masqueraders become exceedingly angry.’ The self-confessed ‘Jew of the younger generation’ also ends his letter by saying: ‘I think it can be laid down as a general law, that the more Jews become Englishmen, the less they become Jews. That does not imply any moral censure; it is simply a statement of fact, and Jews who pretend that they can at once be patriotic Englishmen and good Jews are simply living lies.’ [reproduced verbatim from original source].

This in turn agrees with the words of the Jew M. Wodislawski, who declared: ‘I am a British citizen, but first and foremost I am Jewish.’ After the Great War, the Hebrews noted with satisfaction that between the Jews of the various countries there had never been a state of war or even hostility, and in the Jewish Chronicle of August 26th, 1927, we read that ‘the Jews are international. Denying this or pretending that it is not the case does not change this established fact.’ [Translator’s note: The quotation in this form could not be found, and appears to the author’s (accurate) gloss of the transcript of the speech given at the Zurich Conference on Jewish Rights by Rabbi Dr. Stephen S. Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress, pp. 17-18 of source.]

According to another Jewish admission: ...it is a regrettable fact that the debauchers, the instigators of crimes and the people with all types of bad traits in business are generally Jews. If we could deny it, we would. We would even keep it a secret if we could. But we can neither deny it nor debate it away.” [insert citation]

• One is forcefully reminded of Goebbels’ famous quote, which says that Jews are unfazed by being called anything except a Jew because only their Jewishness constitutes their core identity.
  • Goebbels:

“The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: ‘I’ve been found out.’” [6]