Cabalists Instigated the English Revolution
November 27, 2010Left, Zionist go-fer Oliver Cromwell
"The English Revolution under Charles I," writes Isaac Disraeli, "was unlike any preceding one ... From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution."
by A.M. Ramsay
(from his book, "The Nameless War" 1952)
"It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished."
With these cryptic words Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Earl of Beaconsfield, commenced his two volume life of Charles I published in 1851.
A work of astonishing detail and insight, much information for which, he
states, was obtained from the records of one Melchior de Salom, French envoy
in England during that period.
The scene opens with distant glimpses of the British Kingdom based upon
Christianity, and its own ancient traditions; these sanctions binding
Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and the people in one solemn bond on the one hand; on the other hand, the ominous rumblings of Calvinism.
Calvin, who came to Geneva from France, where his name was spelt Cauin,
(possibly a French effort to spell Cohen) organized great numbers of
revolutionary orators, not a few of whom were inflicted upon England and
Scotland. Thus was laid the groundwork for revolution under a cloak of
On both sides of the Tweed, these demagogues contracted all religion into
rigid observance of the "Sabbath." To use the words of Isaac Disraeli, "the
nation was artfully divided into Sabbatarians and Sabbath breakers."
"Calvin," states Disraeli, "deemed the Sabbath to have been a Jewish
ordinance, limited to the sacred people." He goes on to say that when these
Calvinists held the country in their power, "it seemed that religion chiefly
consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a British senate had been
transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbins": and later "In 1650, after the
execution of the King, an Act was passed inflicting penalties for a breach
of the Sabbath."
CUE THE PROLETARIAT
"Operatives" (the medieval equivalent for "workers" no doubt). Let me quote
Disraeli: "They were said to amount to ten thousand ... with war-like
weapons. It was a militia for insurgency at all seasons, and might be
depended upon for any work of destruction at the cheapest rate ... as these
sallied forth with daggers and bludgeons (from the city) the inference is
obvious that this train of explosion must have been long laid."
These armed mobs of "workers" intimidated all and sundry, including both
Houses of Parliament and the Palace at critical moments, exactly on the
model employed later by the "Sacred Bands" and the "Marseillais" in the
Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and
the French Revolution; Notably in his passages on the Press, "no longer
under restraint," and the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets.
"From 1640 to 1660," he writes, "about 30,000 appear to have started up."
And later, "the collection of French revolutionary pamphlets now stands by
the side of the French tracts of the age of Charles I, as abundant in number
and as fierce in passion."
He goes on, "Whose hand behind the curtain played the strings ... could post
up a correct list of 59 commoners, branding them with the odious title of
'Straffordians or betrayers of their country'."
Whose hand indeed? But Disraeli who knew so much, now discreetly draws a
veil over that iron curtain; and it is left to us to complete the revelation.
To do so we must turn to such other works as the Jewish Encyclopedia,
Sombart's work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, and others. From these we learn that Cromwell, the chief figure of the revolution, was in close
contact with the powerful Jew financiers in Holland; and was in fact paid
large sums of money by Manasseh Ben Israel; whilst Fernandez Carvajal, "The
Great Jew" as he was called, was the chief contractor of the New Model Army.
In The Jews in England we read:- "1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to
England, their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador De
Souza, a Marano (crypto-Jew). Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor."
In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members
had set in violent motion the armed gangs of "Operatives" already mentioned,
from the city. Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as
Disraeli tells us: "Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of 'To your
tents, O Israel'." Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the
Palace of Whitehall. The five members with armed mobs and banners
accompanying them, were given a triumphal return to Westminster. The stage
was now set for the advent of Carvajal and his Jews and the rise of their
WHO FUNDED CROMWELL?
The scene now changes. The Civil War has taken its course. The year is 1647:
Naseby has been won and lost. The King is virtually a prisoner, while
treated as an honoured guest at Holmby House.
According to a letter published in 'Plain English'*** on 3rd September,
"The Learned Elders have been in existence for a much longer period than
they have perhaps suspected. My friend, Mr. L. D. van Valckert, of
Amsterdam, has recently sent me a letter containing two extracts from the
Synagogue at Mulheim. The volume in which they are contained was lost at
some period during the Napoleonic Wars, and has recently come into Mr. van
Valckert's possession. It is written in German, and contains extracts of
letters sent and received by the authorities of the Mulheim Synagogue. The
first entry he sends me is of a letter received:-
16th June, 1647.
From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt.
In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England:
This however impossible while Charles living.
Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not
at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will
have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though
willing to help in his escape.
In reply was dispatched the following:-
12th July, 1647.
To O.C. by E. Pratt.
Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted.
Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape:
His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be
liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences."
*** 'Plain English' was a weekly review published by the North British
Publishing Co. and edited by the late Lord Alfred Douglas.
With this information now at our disposal, the subsequent moves on the part
of the regicides stand out with a new clearness. On 4th June, 1647, Cornet
Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself, and, according to
Disraeli, unknown even to General-in-Chief Fairfax, descended upon Holmby
House with 500 picked revolutionary troopers, and seized the King. According
to Disraeli, "The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at
Cromwell's house, though later Cromwell pretending that it was without his
This move coincided with a sudden development in the army; the rise of the
'Levelers" and "Rationalists." Their doctrines were those of the French
revolutionaries; in fact, what we know today as Communism. These were the
regicides, who four times "purged" Parliament, till there was left finally
50 members, Communist-like themselves, known later as the Rump.
To return to the letter from Mulheim Synagogue of the 12th June, 1647, and
its cunning suggestion that attempted escape should be used as a pretext for
execution. Just such an event took place, on 12th November of that year.
Hollis and Ludlow consider the flight as a stratagem of Cromwell's. Isaac
Disraeli states: "Contemporary historians have decided that the King from
the day of his deportation from Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight
was throughout the dupe of Cromwell."
Little more remains to be said. Cromwell had carried out the orders from the
Synagogue, and now it only remained to stage the mock trial.
Maneuvering for position continued for some time. And it became apparent
that the House of Commons, even in their partially "purged" condition, were
in favour of coming to an agreement with the King. On 5th December, 1648,
the House sat all night; and finally carried the question, "That the King's
concessions were satisfactory to a settlement."
Should such agreement have been reached, of course, Cromwell would not have received the large sums of money which he was hoping to get from the Jews He struck again. On the night of December 6th, Colonel Pryde, on his
instructions, carried out the last and most famous "purge" of the House of
Commons, known as "Pryde's Purge." On 4th January, the Communist remnant of 50 members, the Rump, invested themselves with "the supreme authority."
On 9th January "a High Court of Justice" to try the King was proclaimed.
Two-thirds of its members were Levelers from the Army.
Algernon Sidney warned Cromwell: "First, the King can be tried by no court.
Second, no man can be tried by this court." So writes Hugh Ross Williamson
in his Charles and Cromwell; and he adds a finishing touch to the effect
that "no English lawyer could be found to draw up the charge, which was
eventually entrusted to an accommodating alien, Isaac Dorislaus."
Needless to say, Isaac Dorislaus was exactly the same sort of alien as
Carvajal and Manasseh Ben Israel and the other financiers who paid the
"Protector" his blood money.
The Jews were once again permitted to land freely in England in spite of
strong protests by the sub-committee of the Council of State, which declared
that they would be a grave menace to the State and the Christian religion.
Perhaps it is due to their protests that the actual act of banishment has
never to this day been repealed.
"The English Revolution under Charles I," writes Isaac Disraeli, "was unlike
any preceding one ... From that time and event we contemplate in our history
the phases of revolution." There were many more to follow on similar lines,
notably in France. In 1897 a further important clue to these mysterious
happenings fell into Gentile hands in the shape of the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion. In that document we read this remarkable sentence: "Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands."[Protocol No.3, 14.]
The Elders might have made the passage even fuller, and written, "Remember
the British and French revolutions, the secrets of which are well known to
us for they were entirely the work of our hands."
The difficult problem of the subjugation of both Kingdoms was still however
unsolved. Scotland was Royalist before everything else; and she had
proclaimed Charles II King. Cromwell's armies marched round Scotland, aided
by their Geneva sympathizers, dispensing Judaic barbarity; but Scotland
still called Charles II King. He moreover accepted the Presbyterian form of
Christianity for Scotland; and slowly but steadily the feeling in England
began to come round to the Scottish point of view. Finally upon the death of
Cromwell, all Britain welcomed the King's restoration to the throne of
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
The chief figure amongst those who deserted James at that crucial juncture
was John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. It is interesting to read in
the Jewish Encyclopedia that this Duke for many years received not less than
6,000 pounds a year from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.
The real objective of the "Glorious Revolution" was achieved a few years
later in 1694, when the Royal consent was given for the setting up of the
"Bank of England" and the institution of the National Debt. This charter
handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal prerogative of minting
money; converted the basis of wealth to gold; and enabled the international
money lenders to secure their loans on the taxes of the country, instead of
the doubtful undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the
security they could previously obtain.
From that time economic machinery was set in motion which ultimately reduced all wealth to the fictitious terms of gold which the Jews control; and
drained away the life blood of the land, the real wealth which was the
birthright of the British peoples.
The political and economic union of England and Scotland was shortly
afterwards forced upon Scotland with wholesale corruption, and in defiance
of formal protests from every county and borough. The main objects of the
Union were to suppress the Royal Mint in Scotland, and to force upon her,
too, responsibility for the "National Debt." The grip of the moneylender was
now complete throughout Britain. The danger was that the members of the new
joint Parliament would sooner or later, in the spirit of their ancestors,
challenge this state of affairs.
To provide against this, therefore, the party system was now brought into
being, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the wire-pullers to
divide and rule; using their newly-established financial power to ensure
that their own men and their own policies should secure the limelight, and
sufficient support from their newspapers, pamphlets, and banking accounts to
carry the day.
Gold was soon to become the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount
deposited. In other words, 100 pounds in gold would be legal security for
1,000 pounds of loan; at 3% therefore 100 pounds in gold could earn 30
pounds interest annually with no more trouble to the lender than the keeping
of a few ledger entries.
The owner of 100 pounds of land, however, still must work every hour of
daylight in order to make perhaps 4%. The end of the process must only be a
matter of time. The moneylenders must become millionaires; those who own and work the land, the Englishman and the Scotsman, must be ruined.
It has been hypocritically camouflaged by clever propaganda as helping the
poor by mulcting the rich. It has been in reality nothing of the kind. It
has been in the main the deliberate ruination of the landed classes, the
leaders among the Gentiles, and their supplanting by the Jew financiers and