Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, part 1
by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
“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and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4] Ursula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’?
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
D
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.
To be continued
Notes
[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: http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/21930.
[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: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2aJourney.
[29] http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bDisraeli
[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: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bLoudiary.
[32] R. Blake, Disraeli (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1966), p.261.
* * *
Source: Occidental Observer
For further reading:
The modern era of history is based on a new kind of deception by the chosen tribe. The deception isn’t usury but moral deception where the Jews and the Liberals declare only one morality and get everyone to agree to that morality through a combination of emotion, reason, and lies. Because White People have so many enemies mostly due to colonialism said morality begins to apply to all of these enemies, and White People themselves fall for this morality as well which induces White guilt and self-hate along with a belief in potential world peace because of the apparent horrors committed by White people against the rest of the world.
no such thing as chosen or etc, cultish.
The Jews are an incestuous people by and large, not just their leadership. Disgusting.
the most of our european nobility + kings were oppressors + traitors
to their people misguiding them for their wargains . church + bishops
took part in it to keep the people stupid . the jews gave them credit
and sometimes gave their daughters to the nobility . the children of
this mariages were automaticly jews to their law . so we can assume
that half of european nobility is judaized, at least british + italian
nobility + the vatican !
There is money and there is credit. The Jew’s creation of credit as a surrogate for money has given them the power. Take away credit and the Jew falls. But for some reason, the white man does not seem to understand this fundamental sleight-of-hand and even participates eagerly in the demise of his own people including his own posterity. Amazing, but true.
Without the power of government, taking away the parasitical power of usury away from anyone is impossible. We aim to gain state power to address this and so many other ills afflicting White societies but need help in many ways. It’s why we ask you to commit to joining us. http://www.natall.com/join-us/
Not so for when systems built by men fail as they always seem to do the people resort to barter as proved by man’s history. So why not just jump to the end which is a barter tool? The current federal regime acts like a salesman in most ways in regard to the individual States. The States voluntarily take the feds “money” and that’s how the salesman gets their hooks in. So what is stopping the individual States not from seceding but voluntarily stop taking the feds “money” and find alternative ways of commerce and to take responsibility for themselves? I would say the only thing stopping the States is the willpower to say no to DC. It’s not hard to legally reverse the property the States have seceded to… Read more »
You speak of states seceding or doing this or that. Who guides those states is what I’m talking about as well, these corporate entities don’t just run themselves, they require people to operate them. I’m pointing out that educating our people within the NA so they use a better moral compass can someday provide the people for running a state entity. We’re not too far apart here, Mr. cas! As for bartering, it’s available to all, I agree.
Question or two for you to ponder. I don’t need a reply. How do you guard against “secret societies”? I learned recently from a surviving relative of JWW2, that the “grand member” of their clan was “Oberstleutnant” or higher and a member of the masons.( not all peon masons are enemies, but are under delusion imho)
Look at what the freemasons have done to this country’s “constitution” leaving loopholes the size of texas (see contract clause and debt clause) which allowed the jews to use their double-speak(legalese) in while publicly denouncing the jews as did George Washington and others. Just as George Washington led the troops to kill and plunder a group’s liberty in the “whiskey rebellion”.
Question for you, Mr. cas: If you’re in an organization whose focus is on the eternal and a few of your fellow members have no interest in that, isn’t it best to inform your leaders about these members?
Thank you for your reply.
Yes,but in a supportive way in which all of White men involved can grow. Both the eternally minded and the more “narrow minded”(physically speaking). As for me these bodies are but stardust.For if some of the current scientific theories are true that is the truth of the physical and energy realm. It will be turned to stardust via supernova. So eternally; technically speaking all is UNITY naturally speaking. I will note that i currently subscribe to the working hypothesis that the jews and possibly all none “aboriginal” Nations were possibly “kicked out of heaven/space” via some ancient space war.See Vedas and other texts. It explains their hostility and contempt and hatred toward the White Nation and All Nations for that matter.
Kol Nidre – the jew license to commit any crime, atrocity, plunder. Samson Option nuclear blackmail. Whites watch/support jew-owned nigger sports, buy jew products, shop jew stores, worship jew in the sky, watch jew media, grovel for jew “candy wrapper” (Putin) currency, send children to jew “schul”, visit jew doctors, gobble jew drugs, max out jew usurious credit cards, “invest” in jew ponzi stocks-bonds-banks, etc. Whites may just be slave cattle, goyim. Oy vey!
(PS: whites are now a minority in the JEWUSA under 18 age group. Will the last white please turn out the lights?)
Why the projected negative outcome, friend? Don’t you believe that Whites can come together as we already are, implement solutions Dr. Pierce outlined, and put at least a portion of our race back on the path to godhood? Are you admitting defeat in advance of the Jews’ projected fact?
Interesting you chose to quote Charles Mackay a most probable freemason. The freemasons claim to have started in the times of nimrod or before. The freemaons make the claim they built the “temple of solomon”- that should be enough to steer any White away no?. That Benjamin Disraeli pose is also a “secret society” deal. For they communicate between themselves through symbols as proved by the works of Bill Cooper who read on air for the entire earth some of secret societies own published books that most freemasons don’t even read. I learned the other day from a survivor of that war of another freemasonry in the army of Germany during Hitler’s day.
How is Mackay a freemason? What is a freemason to you anyway, just another retarded religious Christian-Jewish sect to me, which of course, gives the Whites no favours.
His quote is most favourable by mine. He’s also given good insight on the Tulip Mania etc. Whether “Freemason” or not, you’ve got to learn to take the information that’s still good information.
Yep, he’s doing the “hidden hand” routine like in that famous portrait of a seated Karl Marx. Here’s a contemporary photo of Prince William doing a more exotic one: “…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,”….” a fatal error by the then Establishment of confounding incomparable classes of people – the former being racially homogeneous to all intents and purposes, but the latter not – as Revilo P. Oliver was wont to point out eloquently, as in his Christianity – a Religion for Sheep (under pseudonym: Ralph Perier): https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/06/christianity-a-religion-for-sheep/ And another: “…By framing Jewish interests in a religious context, de Rothschild sought to “bring the issue of Jewish emancipation into the… Read more »
There is absolutely no historical or archeological evidence for either Salmon or his supposed temple. The only evidence is found in the Bible and as that book was written by lying Jews, that is no evidence at all. In fact, evidence for these claims is so glaringly absent outside the Bible that the Jew Oded Golan took to creating fake Solomon Temple artifacts in his Tel Aviv basement, like the stone pomegranate he claimed topped one of the Temple’s columns.
I think Andrew Joyce has been a bit too kind to Macaulay because he was the archetypical, obnoxious, bleeding-heart liberal who made it possible for the Jews to take control of the European nations, particularly in England, that accursed island, the cradle of Liberalism, Capitalism (in its most cruel, rapacious form) and Freemasonry, that pestilential organization which lay the spiritual foundations of the French Revolution. One of Oswald Spengler’s most accurate observations was that “Napoleon contaminated Europe with English ideas” because the ideological root of the French Revolution was English. The French revolutionary leaders and many of the degenerate (liberal) nobles who initially supported them, were intoxicated with the English ideas of “freedom”, “parliamentary government”, “tolerance”, etc. None of them realized that such a system was based on a wealthy… Read more »
The Jews frequently received titles of nobility in England, especially since the long reign of Queen Victory, to such an extent that investigators have shown that most of the titles of Earl, Marquis, Viscount and Lord are presently in the hands of Jewish ennobled families or of ancient aristocratic English families linked with Jewish families. Dukedoms have been Judaized by means of marriages of Jewesses and ancient Dukes, and those
P20 Jewesses, with the help of the powerful Israelite communities, have secretly initiated in Judaism the eldest son of that marriage, this is to say, the new Duke. It is not strange, then, that the international Judaism is not in a hurry to overthrow the English monarchy, which is controlled by the Israelite imperialism.
https://archive.org/details/chinese-communism-and-chinese-jews-by-bakony-itsvan-z-lib.org
THE JEWS AND THE BRITISH EMPIRE. 1935 -Streams of British blood have flowed, countless British lives have been Sacrificed but meanwhile Jewish coffers get fulller andfuller,fill to overflowling ; the Bank of England is their Counting-house and theBritish carry to and fro the precious bullion acquired and stored by Jews . . .After the Napoleonic Wars England has laid all her possessions at thefeet of Nathan Rothschild.Henceforth, Britain will do the bidding of her real masters; she hasbecome the tool of the schemers against all she holds dear, namely, herfaith, her patriotism, traditions, civilisation. She grants the” returned’ aliens equality of civil rights; they may and do become mayors overChristian population, and within a short time ,Britain is ruled by aJewish Prime Minister, Disraeli, first and foremost a Jew and… Read more »