How Jewry Turned England into a Plutocratic State – Part 2


[Image – click to enlarge] Cover of World-Service 12.6.1940 edition






I. Introduction

II. Outline of the Three Stages of Jewry’s Rise to Power in England


III. Jewish Bribery and Corruption in Promoting the Naturalisation Bill of 1753


IV. Opposition in the House of Commons to the Naturalisation Bill


V. The Passing of the Naturalisation Bill Causes Anger in the People, Resulting in Petitions and Demonstrations in the Streets of London.


VI. Arguments Against the Naturalisation Law Continue in Pamphlets Throughout the Country and in the House of Commons.


How the English Nation Foresaw Jewish Domination — The Bitter Struggle of the English Nation Against the Ever-growing Penetration of the Jews into England Continues.


VII. The True “English People” Succeed in Having the Naturalisation Law Repealed.


VIII. Jews “Convert” to Christianity and Continue Their Infiltration, Seeking Greater Dominance over England.


IX. The Jews Succeed in Conquering England and Creating a Jewish-English Plutocracy that Declares War on Germany.






The Jew uses the lie as his most effective weapon to attain his goal and to conquer the world. Truth is his worst enemy


WORLD SERVICES has taken upon itself the task of enlightening all non-Jewish peoples and of revealing to them Jewry’s sinister intentions and its criminal methods. Recognition of this danger is the first step towards elimination. “WORLD SERVICES” has dedicated itself to truthfully reporting news-items pertaining to Jews and Jewry and thereby safeguarding the liberties of all nations.


Whoever is cognisant of this Jewish danger is requested to communicate with “WORLD SERVICES”, Frankfurt/M P.O.B. 600.


Only through co-operation it is possible to avert the threatening danger.


How Jewry Turned England


into a Plutocratic State


An Historical Survey

[This was taken from an article published in Frankfurt Germany, 1940]



HUME, the classic among England’s historian in his fundamental work. “The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution in 1668”, Vol. II, Ch. X., P 130, (London 1803) writes:

The greater part of that kind of dealing (usury) fell every where into the hands of the Jews; who, being already infamous on account of their religion, had no honour to lose, and were apt to exercise a profession, odious in itself, by every kind of rigour, and even sometimes by rapine and extortion.



How Jewry Turned England


into a Plutocratic State




An Historical Survey







 Jewish Bribery and Corruption in Promoting the Naturalisation Bill of 1753




Even during the Franco-Spanish hostilities from 1742 to 1744 Sampson Gideon was financial adviser to the English government and loaned it money. Through his intervention the Jewish clique in London in 1745, loaned the government 1,700,000 pounds. [23] During the financial crisis in 1749, the same Jewish clique again loaned the government money. In 1755 Sampson Gideon personally owned English government bonds to the value of 200,000 pounds. [24] The Jew Mendez da Costa also was personally interested to equally as big an amount as Gideon. [25]


No wonder that the English Jew wished to abuse the power afforded them by their great wealth to place themselves on an equal footing with the English aristocracy and the English citizens. For this purpose they made use of the old and proven method of bribery, which had been used by the Jews a century earlier in Cromwell’s time, and which they used again after the Whitehall Conference had brought their efforts to nought. From a report dated December 3, 1655 sent to his government by Salvetti, Ambassador of Toskana in London, we read the Jews did their best to bribe their opponents into their way of thinking, and by means of their gold attempted to accomplish their aims. [26] The bribery of important politicians and the intermarriage with the old-established English families were the methods by which the Jews sought to attain their goal. The immorality at court in the reign of George I, and George II, opened the door wide for the Jews. Once having gained a footing in society, the ambition of the English Jews, and their bid for power was directed to acquiring estates and to being ennobled. Concerning such efforts “The Jewish Chronicle” [27] published an article written by the well-known English-Jewish historian, Hyanmson. There we read:


A desire had already arisen among the richer foreign Jews settled in England to obtain for themselves the same status as that enjoyed by their co-religionists who had been born in the country. There was also, despite the many decisions given in favour of the contention of the Jews, considerable doubt whether even English-born Jews were qualified to own estates, and foremost among those who desired this point definitely and finally decided in favour of the Jewish claims was the famous financier, Sampson Gideon, a personal friend of Walpole, and the trusted adviser of the government. Gideon had already acquired the ambition to establish a family among the landed gentry of the kingdom, and the promised legislation, he thought, would contribute valuable assistance to his project.



[23] “The Jewish Encyclopaedia”, Vol. V, p. 662.

[24] Hertz: “British Imperialism in the Eighteenth Century” p. 72.

[25] Hertz: “British Imperialism in the Eighteenth Century” p. 73.

[26] Roth: “New Light” p. 130.

[27] “The Jewish Chronicle” of April 6, 1906: “The Jew Bill of 1753”.


The English Jews in 1775 believed, as those in 1740 had done, that the time had come for them and their brethren in the Diaspora, to furtively and literally behind the backs of the people, obtain new rights. The introduction of the Naturalization Law of 1740 was the cause of an unusually lively influx of Jews into England. According to this law, Jews who had lived in the English colonies in America for seven continuous years could obtain English citizenship without taking the customary religious oaths. During 1737-1753 the Jewish population increased by 2.000. That it was possible to circumvent the Naturalization laws by the Act of 1740 behind the backs of the English nation and even without the direct knowledge of Parliament, is clearly stated by the Earl of Egmont in his speech in Parliament, on November 26, 1753, which reads as follows:


But sir, religion was not the only objection which the people had against this act for permitting the Jews to be naturalized: they likewise looked upon it as a sacrifice of the honour of the nation; for they judged that every Christian, and every Mahometan nation in the world, would hold this nation in contempt, and treat us in the same manner they now treat the Jews: they also judged, that if, in pursuance of this act, a great part of the riches and lands of this kingdom should come to the possession of the Jews, it might be of the most dangerous consequence to our constitution; and if they have never yet shown any discontent with the act for naturalization such Jews as shall reside seven years in our plantations, it is because that part of the act which relates to Jews was passed as it were by stealth, without ever making its appearance either in the votes of this house, or in the title of the act, so that very few of the people know that there is such an act”.


A like effort had previously been made by the Jews in 1751, in that they tried to make use of a Bill which was intended to make naturalization easier for the Protestants overseas. The proposals put forth in this Bill were not passed, and one must accept the fact that intensive activity took place behind the scenes and that leading members of Henry Pelham’s Cabinet (1745-1754) and the most important parliamentarians such as the elder Pitt, the Earl of Newcastle, a brother of Henry Pelham, and Robert Walpole were influenced in favour of the Jews, so that as early as in the Spring of 1753 a Bill was introduced, which was entitled:


To permit persons professing the Jewish religion to be naturalized by Parliament, and for other purposed therein mentioned.


The actual tenor of this Naturalization Bill was, that it would be possible for any person, who preferred the Jewish religion, or who had lived for a continuous period of three years, without a longer absence than three months, in England or Ireland to receive citizenship after having handed in the necessary naturalization papers to Parliament. By the Bill the Jews intended to provide themselves with privileges, as opposed to, or as over and above those granted other nationalities. The promoters of this Bill were the Ministers of Pelham’s cabinet themselves. It was therefore a new Jewish advantage towards extending the Naturalization Laws of 1740 still farther in their favour.


The Jewish historian Hertz, in this connection, writes the following:


The promoters of the measure were no doubt influenced partly by Jewish appreciation of citizenship, and partly by their connection with Sampson Gideon, the oracle of Jonathan’s coffeehouse in Exchange Alley, who had raised loans for the government in 1745 and 1749”.


The Naturalization Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Halifax on April 3, 1753.


The three readings took place on 3, 6, and 16 April, without any opposition. The Bill was laid before the House of Commons for the first reading on 17 April. The second reading took place on 7 May and during the reading it encountered the first sign of opposition.


The promoters of the Bill made use of the help the Jews had rendered the government in 1745. The Bill was accepted after the first reading by 95 to 16 votes. It appeared as if the English Parliament was to be “steamrollered” by the Bill. Strong opposition made itself felt in London City and in the counties from whence the House of Commons were petitioned. The English public wished to make use of the time between the second reading of the Naturalization Bill in the House of Commons and the third decisive reading, to influence Parliament against the Bill. In wider circles of the population the feeling existed that leading members of the Government and the nobility were using Jewish affairs for their own private ends. The discussions with regard to this Bill, at this time, did not only take place in Parliament. The London press and the press in the counties interested themselves in the mater and in the daily as well as the monthly papers articles for and against the Jews appeared.


On this occasion the Jewish question in England was, for the first time, really discussed openly and from every point of view. On May 21, 1753 a petition in favour of the Bill was handed over to the House of commons on behalf of several London merchants. On May 21, 1753 the London Sheriffs also submitted a petition to the House of Commons, in which the Naturalization Bill was sharply criticized. From the open debate on the Naturalization Bill several points of view were brought to the notice of the promoters of the Bill and found expression in an article that appeared in “The Gentleman’s Magazine”.


According to this article, the aim of the Naturalization Bill was to persuade the rich Jews living in other lands to immigrate to England. As a further argument in favour of the Bill the promoters brought forward the following: The Jews having no country of their own, the possibility of their return to a fatherland does not exist, consequently there is no question of English trade being diverted to such a country.


Under these circumstances the entrance of rich Jews into England from abroad, bringing their wealth with them, was to be welcomed, for they could then trade with overseas countries, thereby increasing the shipping, which in its turn would make itself felt by increasing the export of English wool and various manufactured articles; it would also increase trade in manufactured goods of the kingdom, which the Jews had already for years been exporting in large quantities.


These fools therefore directly advocated that the Jews should take possession of English trade.


We notice that the Jews have become the bankers and advisers of the English government. We also see that the Jews have been accepted into English society, and that it is now their aim, according to the example set by the old, established, aristocratic families, to acquire large estates. They cleverly took advantage of the fact that they had loaned the government large sums of money. They made it quite plain to the English statesmen that in consequence of these loans, they were obliged to grant the Jews the same privileges the old established landed gentry possessed. Soon the plutocratic poison, introduced into England by the Jews, began to take effect. The Jews however could only accomplish their ends by further circumventing the English laws. But as they feared the resentment of the English nation, this had to be done behind the backs of the people. This circumvention of the laws was carried out by a small clique of influential Jews working in conjunction with a Jew controlled, corrupt government, against the will of the people, and from behind the scenes. Hand in glove with these endeavors, there are further attempts on the part of Jewry to circumvent the English immigration, and naturalization Laws.


As the naturalization laws of 1740 had granted citizenship to Jews who had resided in an English colony in America for seven years, so the Bill of 1753, if passed, was to grant citizenship to Jews who had lived in England or Ireland for a continuous period of only three years without a longer absence than three months.


It is significant that the Naturalization Bill was unanimously passed by the House of Lords and only met with opposition when it came before the House of Commons.






 Opposition in the House of Commons to the Naturalisation Bill



Let us hear what the two antagonists of the Jews had to say in their speeches in the House of Commons at the time of the second reading of the Naturalization Bill on May 7, 1753. From the speeches of Sir Edmund Isham and Sir John Barnard, the leader of the Opposition, we now give several striking passages, which prove, that in the England of the 18th Century, there were reasons enough why, partly because the Jew was known, and partly instinct, it was considered dangerous to grant the Jew in England any further rights. Sir Edmund Isham in his speech said:


I must therefore, Sir, look upon this Bill to be in effect a Bill for a general naturalization of the Jews; and considering what infinite numbers of them are spread over the face of the earth, I am persuaded their numbers will increase so fast in this country, and they will get such a considerable part of our land estates into their possession, that they will soon contend for power as well as property. Let us consider, Sir, that the Jews are not like the French refugees, or German protestants: these in a generation or two become so incorporated with us, that there is no distinguishing them from the rest of the people: their children, or grandchildren, are no longer French or German, or of the French or German nation, but become truly English, and deem themselves to be of the English nation. But the unconverted Jews can never incorporate with us: they must forever remain Jews, and will always deem themselves to be of the Hebrew not the English nation”. [32]


[32] “The Parliamentary History of England”. London 1813. Vol. XIV, pp. 1379/1385.



From this question from Isham’s speech we see that although at the end of his speech Isham differentiates between baptized and un-baptized Jews, an instinctive glimmer of the truth breaks through: that, as far as the Jew is concerned, one is dealing with a totally different race, and that the Jew will never become assimilated in England. Sir Edmund Isham further explained in answer to a pro-Jewish speech by another member:


When I consider this account, when I consider the numbers of them that are here already, and when I consider the numbers that will flock hither in consequence of this Bill, I do not wonder at the alarm taken by the peoples without doors: I am amazes how it has been possible to prevent its breaking into this House. The noble lord has endeavored to appease this alarm, by telling us, that the parliament can put a stop to the naturalization of any more Jews, if their numbers should increase so much as to become dangerous. But if those of true English blood have not now the power to prevent opening this 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 in the kingdom?” [33]


The actual leader of the anti-Jew party and leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Sir John Barnard, an enemy of Sampson Gideon and his Jewish clique, and impugner of the Walpolian corruption, also made a remarkable speech in the House of Commons against the Naturalization Bill on May 7, 1753, from which we give a few interesting extracts:


The Jews, Sir, are, and always have been, the most professed enemies to Christianity, and the greatest revilers of Christ Himself: They are the off-springs of those that crucified our Saviour, and to this day labor 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 the master of both me and my roof; and how the hon. gentleman who spoke last, could imagine, that the possession of a land estate should have an influence upon a man’s religious principles, I cannot comprehend …

As landowners they will be choosing most of the members of this House, and may themselves be chosen. Whatever some gentlemen may think, if we consider their numbers, and the vast estates they have acquired in this kingdom within these last 50 or 60 years, this will appear to be no chimerical apprehension”. [34]


[33] “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XIV, pp. 1379/1383.

[34] “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XIV, pp. 1387/1393.


Then Sir John Barnard turns his attention to the assertion of the Jews-friendly, that the Jews could benefit English trade. Considering this assertion he says:


For the origin of trade in all countries is manufacturing; 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. No instance can be given, Sir, of the Jews having been the beginners of trade in any country, but many to the contrary. In Poland there have been multitudes of Jews for many ages, yet no man will say that Poland is a trading country. The truth is, in those countries where there is little or no trade, they deal mostly in usury, or in collecting the taxes: and where a trade has been already established, some indeed of the richer sort may engage in foreign currency, but the poorer deal only as brokers, peddlers, or hawkers”. [35]


Concerning the international character of Jewish wealth: John Barnard says the following:


The estate got by an Englishmen we are sure will remain here: but a Jew, though naturalized, may be here today and gone tomorrow: When he has got an estate here, he may go and live upon it in a climate which he thinks more agreeable to his constitution. But, Sir, both in our foreign and domestic trade the transferring of a part of the profits from the Christian to the Jew, is not the only bad consequence we have to fear from this Bill: securities of all kinds, especially the Jews, are more zealous and diligent in recommending one another, and in playing into the hands of one another, than those of the establish Church.

By this means they may in time render it impossible for any Christian to carry on any trade, either foreign or domestic, to advantage: Jews may become our only merchants and our only shop-keepers. They will probably leave the laborious part of all manufactures and mechanical trades to the poor Christens, but they will be the paramount masters, as the merchants and shopkeepers in every country must always be: Thus, Sir, the Bill, instead of being of advantage, may probably be fatal to our present land-holders; and whatever esteem some gentlemen may have for the Jews, I doubt if our English farmers would like to have Jews for their landlords. From all which I must conclude, that there is no rank of men in the kingdom, to whom this Bill, if passed into law, can be of any advantage.

And as to the advantage it may be of to the state, by supplying our ministers with money in case of a war, or by enabling them to reduce the interest payable upon our public funds, in case of the continuance of peace, I must observe, that if the Jews cannot get an equal interest and security any where else, they will let us have their money without being naturalized; and if they can get a higher interest and equal security any where else, they will not let us have their money, even though we should naturalize the whole Hebrew nation at once”. [36]


[35] “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XIV, pp. 1387/1395.

[36] a) “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XIV. pp. 1391/1393.

b) “Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle”, Vol. 23. pp. 477/481.


After the third reading of the naturalization Bill in the House of Commons, the Opposition introduced a motion, by which, through an amendment in the Naturalization Law, the original purpose of the Bill would be cancelled. This amendment was defeated in the House of Commons by 93 to 16 votes. Then a motion was Introduced calling for the adjournment of the debate to a later date. The Earl of Egmont, speaking in support of the motion in the House of Commons, said:


Sir, it is equally chimerical to propose any advantage from the manufacturers or labor of the Jews, which have been both idly mentioned: whence are these manufacturers, these laboring Jews to come? I question whether any number of Jews at this time exercise any manufacture, or follow any laborious profession in any part of the known world; and in truth, from their obstinate superstition, and the total difference of their custom in every circumstance of life, it would be utterly impossible for them to mix with our people. Sir, if we flatter ourselves with any notion of this kind, we do it in opposition to all experience, both of ancient and modern times.

The trade of the Jews, as it appears by the oldest of our histories, and the earliest records both here and in other countries, was usury, brokerage, and jobbing, in a higher or lower degree. By this traffic, in former ages, they distressed and ruined the Christian subjects in such numbers every where, as to draw upon them from time to time the resentment of all nations, and in this traffic they have improved so far in this age, as now to ruin whole kingdoms instead of individuals, by adding ministers to beggar the states they serve, by which traffic also they have greatly aided to plunge this nation into a debt of near eighty millions.

For in truth, it will not be found, that of all the immense fortunes made by the Jews now subsisting among us, any one has been otherwise acquired than by contracts, subscriptions, commissions, and correspondences, and all kinds of jobbing, with the necessities of the public in the late war….

I am to suppose that this Bill must have this effect that the Jews who are now here, or who are to come here, will lay out vast sums of money in land. Now, Sir, if this should not be the case, what has been, already said proves the Bill will have no effect, which is about sufficient reason why it should not pass: but if it should have this consequence, I do maintain it to be the most formidable and highly dangerous measure that ever was pursued: for it directly tends to the ruin, and even annihilation of the present landed interest of England.

Of what importance is it to England, that the price of land in England should be raided, to this end, only, that by this advance of the price of the people may be tempted to throw those lands for ever into the hands of the Jews? The present English generation, who have now possession of the Landed estates of England, are for once, indeed, to have the insidious advantage of being bought out of them at an advance price: but nationally they and their posterity, for ever after, are to be deprived of their inheritances here, and the Jews are to remain for ever the landholders of Great Britain, and for ever after to enjoy our titles to this kingdom.

In whatever degree this Bill is to operate by the sale of our land to Jews, it operates more or less to turn the tables upon the Christians in favor of the Jews, — to put the Jews upon the ground of the English, and the English upon the present footing of the Jews. And suppose this Bill should only have an extensive operation of this sort, which it must have, and not an universal operation which it may have in length of time, yet great estates in all the counties of England will of necessity fall, and that very soon too, into Jewish hands; then let me ask, whether it is possible that great estates should not give great influence?

Let me follow it with another question whether great influence in whatever hands, will not be called upon to exert itself by the ministers of this country in all future elections? Let me pursue it further with a third, whether this influence so acquired, so called upon to exert itself, will not be exerted”? [37]


From the convincing speeches of the leaders of the Opposition, Sir Edmund Isham, Sir Jorn Barnham and the Earl of Egmont in the House of Commons, it is plain that all three quite clearly saw the Jewish danger threatening their country. These three men describe the Jews as a parasitic, non-assemble element in the English nation. They describe the Jews as being averse to manual labor and as being exploiters of English trade. They deny the assertion that the Jews are the promoters of trade. They prove that the Jews accumulated their wealth by exploiting the nation, and by speculation, brokerage and usury. Because that had placed the Jew in the position of “indispensable middle man and broker” in trade, they had unnecessarily increased the prices of goods. By this byway of “middleman trade” step by step, the Jews tried to get control of all English trade and also to control prices, to corner all English business and to degrade Englishmen into the position of second-class handymen, who were only good enough to serve in the capacity of common laborers in a Jew controlled Great Britain.


From the speeches of the three Opposition leaders in the House of Commons it is quite plain that they realized that the Jews would one day be the absolute masters of the British Empire. Already the Jews aimed at gaining possession of large estates and in doing so to supplant the landed gentry. In penetrating warnings the leaders of the Opposition, as the true parliamentary representatives of the English people, pledged themselves to defeat these Jewish efforts. In vain they pointed out the dangers, which would result from these new Jewish attempts to conquer England. Already the power of Jewry and its work behind the scenes in Parliament was too pronounced. In vain the three Opposition leaders pointed out the enormous debt into which the Jews had plunged the English nation and that they, through the rights which they would obtain by the adoption of the Naturalization Bill, would increase their power to such a degree that they would ruin the whole kingdom and place themselves upon the Throne as the rulers of England. In vain these representatives of the people opposed the endeavor of the Jews to turn England into a plutocratic State. Their prophetic words fell upon deaf ears in Parliament.


[37] “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XIV. pp. 1418/1431.





Version History & Notes


Version 1: Published Jun 13, 2015





* Cover image is a faithful reproduction of the original, except for the use of colour.




Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at KOINEN’S CORNER


Note: This document is available at:






PDF of post. Click to view or download (1.1 MB). >> How Jewry Turned England into a Plutocratic State – Part 2 (Ver 2)



Version History


Version 2: Jun 15, 2015 — Added Contents page


Version 1: Published Jun 13, 2015
This entry was posted in England, Europe, Germany, Jew World Order, Jews, Plutocracy, Race - Mixing, Revisionism, Rothschild, The "City of London", The International Jew. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to How Jewry Turned England into a Plutocratic State – Part 2

  1. hampshirehog says:

    Reblogged this on hampshire Hog and commented:
    Nazi propaganda.

  2. John Engelman says:

    This is another example of an anti Semite blaming Jews for social and political developments he dislikes. Anti Semites also blame Jews for developments in their own lives they dislike. They are angry failures who feel the need for hate targets.

  3. katana17 says:

    John, you are sounding like a broken record, telling endless lies.

    • John Engelman says:

      What have I said that is not true?

      There is no legitimate reason for hating Jews. Jews should be admired because of their intelligence and their success.

  4. Anonymous says:

    A breath of fresh air.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *