Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1

Andrew Joyce

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

                           Charles Mackay, 1841[1]

Shortly after his election to Parliament in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), a famous historian and one of Britain’s leading men of letters, took up the cause of removing Jewish “civil disabilities” in Britain. In a succession of speeches, Macaulay was instrumental in pushing the case for permitting Jews to sit in the legislature, and his January 1831 article Civil Disabilities of the Jews had a “significant effect on public opinion.”[2] Professing Jews residing in Britain at that time were unable to take seats in the House of Commons, because prior to sitting in the legislature one was required to declare a Christian oath. In addition, Jews were “excluded from Crown office, from corporations, and from most of the professions, the entrance to which bristled with religious oaths, tests, and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4] Ursula Henriques states that because of the resolute opposition of the British people to the involvement of Jews in British political life, since their readmission in the 17th century “the Jews had remained quiet.”[5]

However, buoyed by the granting of political emancipation to Protestant Dissenters and Catholics in 1828 and 1829, British Jews began to agitate for their own “emancipation,” and this agitation was augmented and spearheaded to a great extent by Thomas Macauley. Within thirty years the British elite had capitulated; not only had all Christian oaths been abandoned, but six unconverted Jews sat in the House of Commons. Within fifty years, Britain had sixteen Jewish Members of Parliament, and a Jewish Prime Minister who espoused a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority — Benjamin Disraeli; and under Disraeli Britain would pursue a foreign policy dictated to a large extent by what future Prime Minister William Gladstone called “Judaic sympathies.”[6] This foreign policy would include support for the Ottomans who were friendly to Jews and were massacring Christians in Bulgaria. And it would include waging of war on the Boers in a move highly beneficial to Jewish mining operations in South Africa.[7] How and why did such a dramatic change in circumstances occur? And how did the Anglo-Jewish elite repay Britain for its act of ‘justice’?

Advertisement - We Need You

Let us first return momentarily to Macaulay. An in-depth survey of his life reveals no Jewish ancestry and no clear links to Jews. Son of a Scottish colonial governor and abolitionist, Macaulay seems at first glance to be something of a weak-kneed liberal idealist, and in addition he appears to have had very little knowledge of Jewish history or culture. He saw the Jewish agitation for entry into government as being primarily a religious issue, and perceived Jews as being, in his own words, “victims of intolerance.”[8] Macaulay prided himself on his knowledge of Greek literature,[9] and yet we can but wish he’d spent more time on his Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato who condemned ” those who practise justice through timidity or stupidity,” and opined that “if justice is not good for the just man, moralists who recommend it as a virtue are perpetrating a fraud.”[10]

However, a complete reading of his 1831 article on Civil Disabilities of the Jews would leave us feeling slightly less antagonistic towards this would-be emancipator, and his article reveals much about the extent and nature of Jewish power and influence in Britain at that time. Macaulay, it seems, viewed emancipation as a means of ‘keeping the Jews in check.’ For example, he insisted that “Jews are not now excluded from political power. They possess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate property, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made between civil privileges and political power, is a distinction without a difference. Privileges are power.”[11] Macaulay was also aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilised society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet.”[12] Macaulay further responds to Christian claims that “it would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament” by stating bluntly that “a Jew may make money, and money may make members of Parliament. … [T]he Jew may govern the money market, and the money market may govern the world. … The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be worth more than the word of three kings, or the national faith of three new American republics.”[13]

Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out. Nonetheless, I wish to take Macaulay’s article as a starting point. What was it in the nature of British Jewry at that time that so alarmed Macaulay, and provoked such a rash response on his part?

The Cousinhood.

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16] Todd Endelmann attributes the lack of conversion to the fact that “conversion was not as useful, in general, to English Jews as it was to Jews in Central and Eastern Europe.”[17] The Cousinhood exercised control over the Jewish community through its leadership of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization which would later become one of the chief engines of the move for Jewish emancipation.[18]

The other means through which the Cousinhood maintained control over English Jews was its practice of “systematized philanthropy.” The Cousinhood largely refrained from involvement in Jewish religious life but heavily devoted itself to founding and leading the Anglo-Jewish Association — “the principle arm of Anglo-Jewish political and education aid” to global Jewry.[19] Endelmann notes that these communal institutions “determined the tenor and the agenda of the public side of Jewish life in London.”[20]

To illustrate the extent of blood and financial ties of this network of families, let us consider the following: in 1870, the treasurer of the London Jewish Board of Guardians was Viennese-born Ferdinand de Rothschild (1838–1898). Ferdinand had married his cousin Elvina, who was a niece of the President of the London United Synagogue, Sir Anthony de Rothschild (1810–1876). Meanwhile, the Board of Deputies was at that time headed by Moses Montefiore, whose wife, a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, was related to Nathan Meyer Rothschild. Nathan Meyer Rothschild’s wife was also a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, and thus Montefiore was uncle to the aforementioned Anthony de Rothschild. In addition, Anthony was married to a niece of Montefiore, the daughter of Abraham Montefiore and Henrietta Rothschild[21]…et cetera, et cetera. In financial terms, the houses of Rothschild and Montefiore had united in 1824 to form the Alliance Insurance Company, and most of the families were involved in each other’s stock-brokering and banking concerns. Endelmann notes that in these firms “new recruits were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the family.”[22]

Working tightly within this ethnic and familial network, the Cousinhood amassed huge fortunes, and in the years before World War I, despite comprising less than three tenths of 1% of the population, Jews constituted over 20% of non-landed British millionaires.[23] William Rubinstein notes that of these millionaires, all belonged to the Cousinhood.[24] It is worth noting that this wealth was derived exclusively from the fields of “banking, finance, the stock markets and bullion trading.”[25]

By virtue of this incredible level of wealth, the Cousinhood enjoyed a certain degree of political influence. Endelmann provides evidence that the group had “used its economic power to insinuate itself into the different sectors of the political establishment: the political parties, both Houses of Parliament, and even the government.”[26] Endelmann further states that the  Cousinhood’s influence was wielded in the pursuit of “ethnic sympathies, family tradition, and group self-interest,” and it was this influence that so alarmed Thomas Macaulay.[27]

The Move Into Parliament.

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature. Between 1830 and 1836 no fewer than four Bills were tabled for the removal of Jewish ‘disabilities,’ and all failed to win the support of elected officials. Frustrated that their influence was proving ineffectual, the Cousinhood decided to directly confront Parliament by putting Lionel de Rothschild up as a Liberal candidate for the City of London constituency, and funding him to an extent that almost ensured victory before the campaign even began. Although the Cousinhood had, as Endelmann noted, backed all parties when it was in their interests, they settled on the Liberals because they were broadly supportive of religious liberty. By framing Jewish interests in a religious context, de Rothschild sought to “bring the issue of Jewish emancipation into the broader Liberal agenda of civil and religious liberty, and he was determined that Liberals should adopt Jewish emancipation as a cause.”[28]

De Rothschild came third in the 1847 General Election but won enough votes to take a seat in Parliament. Lord John Russell, then Whig Prime Minister, immediately set about introducing a Jewish Disabilities Bill which would do away with the Christian oath. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons, but resistance proved strong, and it was thrown out by the Lords twice in 1848, and again in 1849. A remarkable but quite unsurprising detail about this time concerns the complicity of Benjamin Disraeli in lobbying members of the opposition party for support of the Bill. The quintessential ‘damp Jew’, Disraeli had been baptized a Christian at age twelve but never ceased to support Jewish ethnic interests, and became notorious for espousing a repugnant Jewish supremacism in his novels Coningsby (1844), Sybil (1845), and Tancred (1847). Although a member of the Tory party since 1837 — a party which was ostensibly dedicated to supporting Christianity in the form of the Established Church of England — correspondence in the official Rothschild Archive reveals that Disraeli was actively working “behind the scenes” to generate Tory support for the removal of the Christian oath.[29] Even taking into account Barbara Kaplan’s dubious and ill-evidenced claim that while Disraeli “lauded the Jewish people” (an understatement to say the least) he “claimed that Christianity was the superior religion,”[30] we can only conclude that in acting to undermine the Christian oath, for Disraeli Jewish ethnicity trumped any feeling he may have had towards Christianity. In a letter marked “Private”, Disraeli wrote to de Rothschild in December 1847:

My dear Lionel,

I find that 18 men, now Peers, voted against the Jews in the Commons 1833, & only 11 in their favor! I agree with you, therefore, that we must be cautious in publishing the lists of the divisions, & rather give a précis of them, calling attention only to what is in your favor….Writing to Lord John Manners today, I particularly mentioned the anxiety of the Court that the bill should pass, as this will be conveyed to the Duke of Rutland who is a great Courtier….My friend thinks that a good petition from King’s Lynn would nail Jocelyn’s vote for the second reading.

Ever yours faithfully


The diaries of Louise de Rothschild, sister-in-law to Lionel, further reveal that Disraeli had become a regular dining companion with members of the Cousinhood, and that during one evening with the Rothschilds in November 1847, Disraeli had argued that “we [my italics] must ask for our rights and privileges, not for concessions.”[31] This bravado proved ineffectual in the House of Lords, where hereditary, non-elected nobles continued to reject the Jewish Disabilities Bills for another decade. This obstruction was only ended in 1858, when a change in government allowed Disraeli himself to become Leader of the House of Commons, a position which allowed him to secure a measure “allowing each House to make its own rules about the form of oath” — thereby side-stepping the second chamber as well as established British democratic precedent altogether.[32] Lionel took his seat at the end of 1858, and was joined by his brother a year later. By 1865 his son also had a seat in the Commons, and numerous relatives began to follow. Just as in business, politics was a family affair.

Go to Part 2.

[1] C. Mackay, Extradordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London: Bentley, 1841), p.xv.

[2] P. Mendes-Flohr (ed), The Jew in the Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p.136.

[3] U. Henriques, “The Jewish Emancipation Controversy in Nineteenth-Century Britain” Past and Present (1968) 40 (1): 126-146 (p.126).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] R. Quinault, “Gladstone and Disraeli: A Reappraisal of their Relationship” History (2006) 91 (304): 557-576.

[7] C. Hirschfield, “The Anglo-Boer War and Jewish Culpability” Journal of Contemporary History (1980) 15 (4): 619-631 and A. Saab, “Disraeli, Judaism, and the Eastern Question,” The International History Review (1988) 10 (4): 559-578.

[8] M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3 ,pp. 667-75.

[9]  W. Williams (1993). “Reading Greek Like a Man of the World: Macaulay and the Classical Languages” Greece and Rome, 40 (2) , pp 201-216

[10] P. Foot (ed) Theories of Ethics: Oxford Readings in Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.99.

[11] T. Macaulay, “Civil Disabilities of the Jews” in M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3, pp. 667-75.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Politics and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.5.

[15] Ibid.

[16] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), pp.491-526, p.491 & 495.

[17] Ibid, p.514.

[18] Ibid, p.494.

[19] K. Macdonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Lincoln: Writers Club Press, 2002), p.151 & T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p. 495.

[20]Ibid, p.495.

[21] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.496.

[22] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.519.

[23] Ibid, p. 519.

[24] W. Rubinstein, “The Jewish Economic Elite in Britain, 1808-1909,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Available at:

[25] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Economics, Politics, and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.8.

[26] Quoted in Gutwein, The Divided Elite, p.8.

[27] Ibid, p.10.

[28] The Rothschild Archive: Available at:


[30] B. Kaplan “Disraeli on Jewish Disabilities: Another Look,” Central States Speech Journal, 30 (2), pp.156-163, (p.158).

[31] Lady de Rothschilds Diary:

[32] R. Blake, Disraeli (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1966), p.261.


  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

35 Comments to "Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1"

  1. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    September 3, 2012 - 7:51 pm | Permalink

    @Karen Toffan:
    I agree, there is a change in the air. We owe a lot to Dr. MacDonald.

  2. Karen Toffan's Gravatar Karen Toffan
    September 3, 2012 - 7:26 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller, I sincerely believe that the game is just beginning, why, only 10 years ago the topics discussed on this forum were taboo and many books now available from sources as mainstream as Amazon were not to be had.

  3. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 30, 2012 - 11:50 am | Permalink

    @Razvan: Nowadays, I find myself putting virtually everything to the Jewish/Gentile touchstone before any other analysis. I cannot even imagine how I missed certain things in the not-so-distant past.

  4. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    August 30, 2012 - 5:02 am | Permalink

    Yes indeed. It was an extraordinary moment when I saw it. Everybody took a glimpse at it, but nobody seemed to observe the flag (including my wife). It was incredible. Guess we are educated what to see and what to not see. I’m sure there is some kind of neurological explanation for this strange behavior. It is not only to know it is also to “see” what’s around you. Thank you too.

  5. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    August 29, 2012 - 8:51 pm | Permalink

    @Tanstaafl: P.S. By the way Tanstaafl, forgive me for bringing this up now, I meant to add it earlier but got interrupted. YOU WILL NOTICE THE SECOND PART OF THIS ARTICLE—AND THE “ANGLO” JEWISH COUSINHOOD.

  6. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 29, 2012 - 8:01 pm | Permalink

    @Razvan: Here’s the painting of the siege of Mallorca to which you referred in some other comment. Thanks. Note that narration makes no mention of the flag over the battlements.

  7. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    August 29, 2012 - 4:18 pm | Permalink

    @A swain:

    Yes, they will employ the USA Inc Government which they control as well as the Maxist minorities and masses of illegals to try to accomplish that goal when the time comes. This is why I (and others) have referred to what is coming up as the “perfect storm”.

  8. A swain's Gravatar A swain
    August 29, 2012 - 2:29 pm | Permalink


    “Their last step (as usual) will be an attempted physical genocide much like what they did to both Germany and Russia.”


    For the moment, however, they are using non-White invaders to effect that end, but only for the moment.

  9. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    August 29, 2012 - 5:19 am | Permalink

    There is a beautiful fable about a young priest preaching in a poor village, full of lazy, drunk and dumb people. The priest started to visit every family to teach them how to be good, and honest, to work hard and so on. After few month of hard preaching the people started to avoid the priest. They were running off from him. Then the priest opened his eyes and saw that his house was collapsing, his boots were destroyed, his wife hungry and angry. Things were disastrous. So he stopped preaching others and started to work for himself – because he also knew how to do many things. When the villagers saw something like that, they started to imitate what the priest was doing. In twenty years the village was rich, full of smart, healthy, hard working people.

    People want something easy, proved and guaranteed to work.
    Those millions of whites are following proved solutions. Once you demonstrate that something works on a small scale i.e. yourself – your family and friends, there will be many to follow. Because it will be better and easier for them.

    No matter how well are they financially motivated by the system, it is happening for shorter and shorter periods of time. And they can not pretend anymore that they are not seeing what the system is doing to them and their kids. So they are already motivated in a certain degree. Along with the message they need solutions.

  10. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    August 29, 2012 - 3:45 am | Permalink


    All the boycott ideas are fine, but these are strategies for how you wield power once you have it. If we had millions of Whites listening to us, we could do many things. The key is to FIRST make them receptive to a pro-White message.

  11. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    August 29, 2012 - 3:39 am | Permalink

    The Chinese goods can be boycotted too. They are usually ugly, crappy and too expensive for their utility and useful life. I am repairing myself everything that can be repaired, I maintain everything exactly as it is recommended and even better. If I don’t have the money to buy something European or US made right now I wait until I can. Anyway I can live perfectly well without the last cell, tablet or laptop produced in Asia.

    It is not easy but can be done. At least everything improved around me and the costs decreased significantly.

    So I am sure that the same tactic of avoidance can be implemented against every hostile group. At first we need to minimize our loses and clean up the clutter (things we don’t really need or like, false friends, dumb people, bad habits) around us.

    No matter how tough might be, once you have some success other will follow your steps. It is tough, you may risk everything, especially when your family doesn’t understand you. But slowly they will follow. In few years you can change a lot. It is excellent if they will read a book instead watching jews on TV. You offered them something better.

    This way you can boycott even the jews. Even they control the money not everything is to be sold or bought – so their money will be rendered worthless.

    Even if it will only chip away it is still some progress and it will harden us and annoy them.

    Even they will have the money they won’t have what to buy. Even they talk there will be no one to listen to them. Everything because we already know that their money are phony and their talk a long, convoluted lie.

  12. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 28, 2012 - 9:27 pm | Permalink

    @C. C. Conrad:I recommend if you seriously believe there was any systematic move to kill Jews under Hitler’s regime.

  13. August 28, 2012 - 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Jews know instinctively what is good for them, and follow that instinct. Generally, this leads to them convincing others that what is good for the Jews is good for others. Whites, being the others, suppress their instincts and acquiesce to the Jews. I believe that the vast majority of them believe that they cause or do us no harm.

    As for Macaulay, the pattern of including others, who may be deemed objectionable is deeply ingrained in the British mindset. I believe this arises from the old noblesse oblige concept of the gentry. Shaw’s Pygmalion was written a century ago, and pokes fun at the notion. When Glasgow made the decision to clear The Gorbals slum area 50 some years ago, many were relocated to the new high rises in different areas in the city. The belief was that by diluting the “bad” influences, the “good” influences would raise the level of the bad. The exact opposite happened. Tidy blocks of flats were trashed, and the children became less literate and more ill-behaved.

    The Jews have played this trick on us countless times. Fifty years ago, there are no areas in my city where I feared to go after dark. Now I feel unsafe in some areas in daylight hours. Needless to day, those are the “darkest” areas of the city.

    The US will continue to suffer, as long as the sheeple continue to vote for the Repulocrats and the Demicans. Vote for the non-Jewish controlled candidate, regardless of the political affiliation, that has the best chance of defeating the candidates of the two headed party.

  14. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 28, 2012 - 8:53 pm | Permalink

    @Rick Rohrbach: Hülsmann on honest money. Internet, at least, offers competition to Samuelson and his ilk.

  15. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 28, 2012 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

    @ Andrew Joyce:
    Great article, thanks.

  16. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    August 28, 2012 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

    @Tanstaafl: I’ve read many of your profound writings.(no , I;m not trying to butter you up, I’m sincere.) Never trust whites was not my main message. It was never trust whites, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE. Tanstaafl, you cannot belive how many times doing that has BURNED ME. NO MORE

  17. m's Gravatar m
    August 28, 2012 - 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Many white folk honestly believe that negroes are just like them, only darker. And when negroes don’t behave like whites, they are wont to blame themselves for the negro’s failures.

    So imagine how these same whites must view members of the tribe, who actually look like they do, more or less? It is the perfect disguise. And add to it the fact that their religion tells them that these aliens are “chosen people.” Their god’s favorite.

    Scary, when you think about the naivete of many whites.

  18. August 28, 2012 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

    The more that I learn about the Jews the more diabolical and evil they seem to be. The Jews are an intelligent people with many skills. If they would just use their intelligence for the benefit of the nation that they live in instead of injuring the nation they would not need Israel. They would not have so many enemies. Everybody would beg them to come & live in their country.
    But the more that I read, the more I realize that Hitler’s crime was not that he tried to kill off the Jews, but rather that he did not. A sad statement, I know, but what else is left. They are after all, the ones behind OUR genocide.

  19. August 28, 2012 - 4:55 pm | Permalink

    You are so right. The truth is that there is no reason that we cannot do the same thing to them. There is just no reason that a minority of 3% should so dominate & control any white nation.

  20. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    August 28, 2012 - 3:35 pm | Permalink

    After reading part 1 it should be obvious to everyone that the Christian oath itself was the barrier they needed to break in order control the lives of Whites through the British Crown’s Government (the throne of David today). Since then it has been all down hill for England and her Colonies.

    True Christianity- Christ is the solution- not the problem because in true Christianity the truth that white Christians are the real physical and spiritual Israelites/Judaites is affirmed.

    After the “Jews” got control of England they set their sights on America. In 1860 they formented the “Civil” War which allowed Lincoln to create a secret Corporation called the UNITED STATES Inc. This was registered in Pennsylvania in 1871and is the de facto Jewish controlled Corporation that rules in America out of DC today.

    Then as everyone knows, their Corporation “Fed” Reserve was put in place in 1913. Even by having all this behind the scenes power including Media, they were unable to have practical control over the American Government, so after they funded their “Jew” terrorists to take Russia and murder the Christian Tzar they used this foothold as a battering ram against American Christendom. The murder of the Christian Tzar was a reprisal for Russia parking their Navy off of San Fransisco and New York in 1865. The Christian Tzar did this so that the now completely usurped Throne and Jewish Bankers (City of London Corp) in league with the French could not militarily invade and take back a divided America from both Mexico and Canada where their troops were stationed.

    What was their solution to taking practical control of America? The so called Jews decided to use Russia as their anti Christ foothold as to play yet another hegelian dialectic game “Cold War”. In doing so they could consolidate their power until Christianity in America was uprooted and overturned.

    As you can see, it is Christ and Christ’s law- Christian morality that they wanted to destroy. Without destroying this they could never even hope to have practical control in America over the white population.

    In the “culture war” which was really no more than a Jewish War against American Christendom, these 45 goals of theirs were discovered.

    Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

    Do a search on this above. Did the “Jews” accomplish these 45 goals and destroy Christendom in America? Pretty much but not completely. Their last step (as usual) will be an attempted physical genocide much like what they did to both Germany and Russia.

  21. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    August 28, 2012 - 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Remember when we were all taught never to blame the victim? it seems that Rachel Corrie brought it all down on herself.

  22. August 28, 2012 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Avoiding all contact with, or dealings with, Jews, reminds me of boycotting Chinese goods. You might say, it’s too late to pull that off, even if it would be a good idea.

    MAYBE it’s just that I live in the second-largest Jewish city on the East Coast, but my own strategy (motivated by similar views to yours) is to do with Jews what I do with politicians – that is, seek the best of the lot, and support/deal with those as much as possible.

    Come to think of it, that’s a good policy to follow with ANY ethnic/racial group, INCLUDING one’s own.

  23. Rick Rohrbach's Gravatar Rick Rohrbach
    August 28, 2012 - 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Re Mari’s comment:

    The 1st commandment, or proverb, of the Money Power (including the biblical moneylenders under Mosaic Law) is “every man has his price” (BRIBERY). The 2nd commandment is “there’s a sucker born everyday” (IGNORANCE). The 3rd commandment is “thou shalt steal everything in sight in the land of milk and honey” (the Promised Land). The 3rd commandment is fulfilled (by “God,” of course) after the Money Power imposes its Monetary Law (USURY of one sort or another–today fractional reserve banking) on the unsuspecting local population. So the progression is to bribe “leaders” at the top (usually ignorant themselves), keep everyone else ignorant of the “secrets of the temple” by controlling economics and the press, and then proceed to dispossess the locals.

  24. Rick Rohrbach's Gravatar Rick Rohrbach
    August 28, 2012 - 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Reminds me of a statement by Meyer Amschel Rothschild: Allow me to create and control a nation’s money and I care who not writes its laws. Or the economist Paul Samuelson’s wordplay on Rothschild’s words: I don’t care who writes the nation’s laws if I can write its economics textbooks. Samuelson’s textbook “Economics” was a staple in American universities for decades.

  25. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    August 28, 2012 - 10:54 am | Permalink

    @Heather Blue:
    A “boycott” of the Jews would only be partially effective. You could start by not watching TV or films anymore or no more reading their publications or shun Jewish businesses, but they still control the money supply and hence politics. Keep in mind also that most people still believe their media lies.There is no other way than to remove them from power through politics but they control the political process itself. Either a mass revolution or a conspiracy could have any success.

  26. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    August 28, 2012 - 10:07 am | Permalink

    You need to understand that they are some crazy, lying, sadistic bunch. No contact at all, no selling, no buying, no talking. This is the only reasonable policy. Razvan

    The solution in a nutshell.

  27. August 28, 2012 - 3:29 am | Permalink

    @Bobby: Here’s a story of jewish cohesion and conspiracy, against White interests, and the lesson you want us to see in it is “White are our own worst enemies” and “never trust Whites”.

    That’s insane.

  28. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    August 28, 2012 - 2:58 am | Permalink

    No business with them at all.

    They are perfectly happy because you lose; even they lose too it doesn’t matter (usually they are able to sustain the lose while you can’t) as long as your lose is bigger than theirs. The fact that you are down and under, for them might be the greatest joy.

    Look how much the jews gained in US. And so what, they are destroying the country even they are loosing big time.

    You need to understand that they are some crazy, lying, sadistic bunch. No contact at all, no selling, no buying, no talking. This is the only reasonable policy. Otherwise you’ll get hurt.

  29. Mark White's Gravatar Mark White
    August 28, 2012 - 1:59 am | Permalink

    The British Empire 19th Century = American Empire 20th and 21th Centuries.

  30. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    August 27, 2012 - 10:54 pm | Permalink

    @Fenria: THAT IS CORRECT!!!!!!!! Never trust a white person because he/she is white. Sorry, not good enough, considering how many are back stabbing little traitors. Make the prove they are on your side. How do you do that? It’s very simple. You always enter any dealing with them, in such a way that if YOU LOSE, ……THEY LOSE!!

  31. Fenria's Gravatar Fenria
    August 27, 2012 - 10:41 pm | Permalink

    We whites have been our own worst enemies, again and again.

  32. R2D2's Gravatar R2D2
    August 27, 2012 - 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Great article. Keep em’ coming.

  33. ps79's Gravatar ps79
    August 27, 2012 - 9:01 pm | Permalink

    “Race Culture and Anarchy” By Michael O’Meara

    “But Arnold also believed the “Saxons’” moral earnestness, especially in orienting them to money-making and individual salvation, had a tendency to make them one-dimensional — dull — and that this dullness was starting to take a toll on English national life.”

    “Englishmen Hebraised in an evangelical Protestantism may therefore have been morally resistant to the reputed “lubricity” of Continentals, something every earnest Victorian prized, but they were also, Arnold saw, “narrow, harsh, unintelligent and unattractive.” The prevailing coarseness and vulgarity of the evangelicals reflected, moreover, a deeper ailment associated with Jewish self-righteousness: Der Engländer, as Goethe put it, ist eigentlich ohne Intelligenz.”

    Race Culture and Anarchy

  34. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    August 27, 2012 - 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Macauley’s fault was that he thought that evil can be “tamed” by making it part of the official system, which is naive in the extreme.

    As can be seen from this article, Jewry’s prime source of power is finance. That should have been tackled in the first place.

    As for the loyalty of the “Christian” Disraeli, well after all we have read about this tribe of hereditary swindlers, that doesn’t surprise at all.

  35. mari's Gravatar mari
    August 27, 2012 - 6:48 pm | Permalink

    I wonder how much of a bribe Thomas Babington Macaulay got when he arranged for jews to be given civil liberties?

    Cromwell got millions when he let them into England after 400 years of sell deserved exile. Queen Eleanor had more masculine attiributes and Engalnd’s welfare at heart than Cromwell and Macaulay. She also exiled them from her Province of Aquaitain, the western third of France. Due entirely to their crooked lending and mortgage practices, they had stolen thousands of square miles of land in less than a century. So she did what a good ruler would do; she exiled th jews rather than taking bribes from them as so many European rulers did.

    400 percent interest rates with all sorts of balloon payments and equally liable co-signers, what’s wrong with that? It benefits the jews and their worshippers it must be good.

    Ever read all those 17th 18th and 19th century English novels?
    All those evil moneylenders who put victims in debtor’s prisons were jews. The infamous Fagin of Oliver Twist was a real well known criminal, a German jewish immigrant named Fagel. After the girl pickpockets turned 12 or so they became prostitutes, a tradition carried on in jewish occupied Palestine today

Comments are closed.