[Image – click to enlarge] Cover of World-Service 12.6.1940 edition
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 The True “English People” Succeed in Having the Naturalisation Law Repealed.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
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.
This picture [see below] is taken from a pamphlet printed in 1755, i.e., at the time of the bitter struggle of the English nation against the ever-growing penetration of the Jews into England. The statue of Queen Ann has been thrown from its pedestal and a statue of the Jew, Sampson Gideon in its place. Gideon is leaning on the Ten Commandments, and with the Queen’s crown on his head, raised up in its stead. This is how the pamphleteers saw the matter a hundred years later in 1853. They therefore foresaw the domination of England by plutocracy, embodied in the person of the Jew Sampson Gideon in 1753. For what was the position in England about a hundred years later? A descendant of the Jew Sampson Gideon, H. C. F. Childers, became Gladstone’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in 1868 the Jew Disraeli became Prime Minister.
It is also interesting that the pamphleteers chose to use the statue of Queen Ann, before St Paul’s Cathedral, for their cartoon. The Jew’s in Cromwell’s time tried to purchase St Paul’s Cathedral from the English government, for the sum of 500,000 pounds, for the purpose of converting it into a synagogue. (Robert Monteth of Salmonet: “The History of the Troubles of Great Britain”, London 1739, p. 473; also, “Anglia Judaica” or “The History of Antiquities of the Jews in England” by Tovey, (James Fletcher, Oxford, 1738.)
This picture was taken from the “Jewish Chronicle” of April 6, 1906.
[Image — click to enlarge] “A Scene of Scenes for the YEAR 1853.”
One of the numerous satirical prints issued at the time of the “Jew Bill” controversy (1753), indicating the artist’s conception of events as they would be a century later. The scene is outside St. Paul’s. It will be noticed that the statue of Queen Anne is cast down and that of Sampson Gideon raised in its stead. [a]
[Reproduced from the unique Collection of rare contemporary Engravings in the possession of Mr. Israel Solomon]
In the same pamphlet the wandering Jew was described in the following manner:
“There is, it is well-known to the Learned, a certain Person, commonly and emphatically stiled the wandering Jew, who although already upwards of 1,700 Years old is, however, sure of living several hundred Years longer, indeed quite up to the very Time in which not only this, but all the other Nations in the World are to become Vassals to him and his Brethren. Now if this strange old Vagrant should chance to be tired of his present peddling way of Life, and choose to take advantage of this Act (which by the by it will be impossible to prevent, as he is not personally known to any one Man now living) what alas! may not be apprehended from a Man in his extraordinary Circumstances?
From one who must have acquired such a prodigious Knowledge of the World, who is probably possessed of immense Sums, under a thousand different Names, in all the public Funds and Bankers Hands in Christendom, and whom it would be quite ridiculous to think of hanging, or even imprisoning, if he should be guilty of the most treasonable and detestable Practices.
Short-sighted People may indeed imagine, that the Vagrant kind of Life to which he is condemned effectually secures us from all Danger with regard to him; as if after he was possessed of half the landed Estates in this Kingdom, he would not be full as much at liberty, as any of our present Nobility and Gentry, to ramble all over the World, or, if he should not choose to cross the Water again at his Time of Life, to be at least perpetually moving about from one Place of public Diversion to another.” 
Up to this time it was only the recognised Corporations that opposed the granting of citizenship to Jews, but now the English nation itself gave expression to its indignation against the Jews by numbers of pamphlets.
In all these pamphlets the same fears are expressed. The English nation very clearly sees a time coming when the Jews, against whose expansion, facilitated by the passing of the Naturalisation Law, there is now no more barrier, will take complete possession of England. It sees the day coming when the Jews will be members of Parliament and in this way use their political influence to the detriment of the English nation. With the natural, healthy instinct, which the English nation then still possessed, it sees the time coming when the Jews will secure positions too near the Throne, and when they will even dominate the Throne itself. The English nation at that time still possessed a healthy instinct, although Jewry made use of Puritanism, chiefly based on the Old Testament, to work on the religious feelings of the people. How great this influence already was is best seen from the attitude taken by the higher Clergy of the Church as regards the Naturalisation Law. The English nation feared that the Jews would one day convert the British Empire into a Jewish Empire, and that the Jews would be successful in making vassals of every other nation. We hear the warning voice of the anti-Jewish Englishmen of the 18th Century speaking with unmistakeable clarity.
How great the bitterness of the English people was at that time, we best see from the fact, that they do not hesitate to attack the dignitaries of the Church. In this campaign regarding the Naturalisation Law, the higher clergy fought for the passing of the law and therefore on the side of the Jews, while the lesser clergy took the field in defence of the nation and against the Jews. We therefore see that the dignitaries of the High Church, who today are the most enthusiastic protectors of the Jews, are merely following an old tradition.
[a] The seated figure (far left in scene) of Sir William Calvert, a strong advocate in favor of the naturalization of the Jews, is being circumcised on the steps of St.Paul’s Cathedral, while several bishops and judges impatiently await their own turn.
(Anti-Semitic Stereotypes: A Paradigm of Otherness in English Popular Culture by Frank Felsenstein, p. 143)
The True “English People” Succeed in Having the Naturalisation Law Repealed.
The Opposition among the Parliamentarians and the wave of indignation in the English nation made such an impression upon the government, that it saw the necessity of introducing a Bill, according to which the Naturalisation Law was to be repealed. Immediately after the opening of the new session on November 15, 1753, the Duke of Newcastle, brother to the Prime Minister, Henry Pelham, presented the Bill, which dealt with the repeal of the Act, to the House of Lords.  Parliamentarians and Ministers feared to lose their seats, as in 1754 the customary general election was due. The Members of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and Ministers were aware of the anger and resentment of the people with regard to the Jewish policy of the government and had to reckon with the fact that they would not be re-elected at the next general election.
Secker, Bishop of Oxford, Drummond, Bishop of St. Asaph, and the Lord Chancellor Hardwicke spoke in defence of the Jews. Earl Temple also championed the Jews and protested against giving in to the dictates of the mob, and appealed to the lords to oppose the prejudice and assertions of the “very lowest people.” 
The Bill, after having passed the House of Lords, was introduced into the House of Commons. There the Earl of Egmont on Nov. 26, 1753 once more addressed the House. The following extract from his speech, in which he attacked the Jew-friendly members, is of special interest:
“They do not complain of the synagogues which the Jews, by a suspension of the penal laws relating to religion, are allowed to have openly and avowedly in London: they do not complain of the fine houses and gardens which the Jews, by a suspension of the penal laws relating to aliens, are allowed to possess: nor have the people as yet begun to complain of the land estates which some Jews have of late purchased. But I would advise the Jews, and other Dissenters, too, to be satisfied with the indulgence they now meet with; for if the people should once begin to think that, by this indulgence, the established church may at last be in danger of being overturned and persecuted, a real high-church persecuting spirit will take hold of them; for in all countries, and as much in this as any other, the spirit of the people is but too apt to fly from one extreme to another. If the people be really in the wrong, Sir, they will sooner, and more probably find it out, by your leaving them entirely to their own serious consideration, than by your positively insisting upon it, that they have been imposed on.”
“But, Sir, religion was not the only objection which the people had against this act for permitting the Jews to be naturalized: they also judged, and rightly 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.” 
In another part of his speech the Earl of Egmont denied the statement made by the supporters of the Jews that the Jews would bring money into England to be expended for the good of the nation.
Against the statement made by many supporters of the Bill, that much wealth would be brought into the country, the Earl argued in the following words:
“The maxim I mean is, that money does all things, and that therefore the bringing of money into the nation is to be preferred to every other consideration. But I wish that those gentlemen would reflect upon another maxim, I believe much less exceptionable, that money is the root of all evil; for whoever does reflect upon this, will be against bringing any money into the nation that may probably be hereafter employed against us.” 
The Bill, in which the Naturalisation Law was repealed, was passed by the House of Commons on December 20, 1753, and received the royal assent.
 “The Jewish Chronicle”, April 6, 1906, p. 24.
 “Coxe’s Memoirs”, Vol. II, pp. 291, 467, 483, 484, 485.
 “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XV, pp. 92 – 94 and Vol. XV, pp. 99—103.
 “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XV, pp. 155 – 159.
 “The Parliamentary History of England”, Vol. XV, pp. 155 – 159.
To what extent the people had been aroused by the emancipation efforts of the Jews, and how clearly they had recognised that important politicians had been bribed by the Jews, is evident from the songs that were sung in the streets of London, and from which we quote one or two verses:
“But Lord, how surprised when they heard of the News That we were to be servants to circumcised Jews, To be negroes and slaves instead of true Blues, Which nobody can deny.” 
“Our Rulers have dar’d the Decree to revoke, Which was in the Judea so frequently spoke T’incorporate with us that fugitive Tribe:
But what is it Britons won’t do for a Bribe?
Sing Tantarara, Jews all! Jews all!” 
In the liberalist, historical account of events the cause of this indignation of the English people, which arose from a healthy instinct of self-preservation against the Jews has naturally been misrepresented and belittled.
The best proof of this is seen from the Memoirs of the well-known historian and member of the House of Commons, Horace Walpole.
We read on page 111, that Walpole remarks that the English Parliament, which met on Nov. 15, 1755, busied itself until the end of the year with a matter, which proved, that that period known as the “enlightened age” was governed by the most brutal and most common prejudices; that in the previous year a Bill in favour of the naturalisation of Jews was passed by Parliament; that the Bill passed without attracting much notice, as Sir John Barnard and Lord Egmont put up a very weak opposition, so that they could retain the favour of the London and Westminster crowd.
Walpole further states that bishops helped to dispel the foolish differences, which branded and chained down subjects of the Empire, who were loyal, rich, and so useful in trade. A new general election was on hand: a few unimportant people, who perhaps needed money to buy themselves seats in Parliament, or for renting public places where they could agitate, had attached themselves to this Bill. In a few months the whole nation was inflamed with Christian zeal which everybody believed had died a peaceful death in the time of Queen Anne and Sacheverel.
Walpole adds that this religious fervour took hold only of the masses and the lower clergy: all these took the wise sayings, which prophesied the misery and eternal banishment of the Jews so sorely to heart, that they seemed to fear that it really could be stopped by an act of Parliament; and nothing could satisfy their zeal but to petition Parliament to determine its fulfilment. The village priests preached against the bishops, saying that they had become untrue to their calling; and aldermen got drunk in county clubs in honour of Jesus Christ, as they had once clone in honour of King James. And the cabinet gave way to this unreasonable clamour and condescended to withdraw the Bill for the purpose of carrying through the general election.
The attitude of this English historian is explained by the fact, that Horace Walpole belonged to the same corrupt and Jew-controlled clique of aristocrats to which Sir Robert Walpole belonged. He was a brother to Edward Walpole, whose mistress was a Jewess, the sister of the Jewess Hannah Norsa, the mistress of Robert Walpole. Horace Walpole, therefore, befriended Jewry and for this reason he deliberately misrepresented historical events.
 “Jewish Chronicle”, of April 6, 1906.
 “Jewish Chronicle”, of April 6, 1906.
The liberalist English historians of the 20th Century have, to a great extent, relied upon such and allied sources of information, for the exposition of the history of England in the 18th Century.
The English nation was still at that time stronger than the Jews and the government dependent upon them.
It emerged from the battle against the Naturalisation Law as victor. In powerless fury Jewry had to retreat before the sovereign English people; feeling very small, the corrupt Jew-controlled government was forced to carry out the wishes of their subjects. Without being able to defend themselves, the debt-laden English government had to endure the charges of bribery made against them by their subjects. They had to suffer the charge, that by the Naturalisation Law they wished to incorporate Jewry the with English nation. The English people had once more saved the situation. Its leaders in Parliament knew the dangers which threatened the English by way of the Jew. They instructed the public regarding these dangers with great logic and forceful conviction.
It is specially interesting to note that the Earl of Egmont saw quite clearly what a danger international Jewish finance-capital meant to the English nation. He knew the curse that accompanied Jewish gold. He knew that this Jewish gold, which would in the future swamp his country, would be used against England, and would become a curse to his people.
The English nation had triumphed once more over the Jews and the corrupt, Jew-controlled plutocracy. But it was to be its last victory. In spite of all, the Jewish fight for the conquest of England continued unchecked.
Version History & Notes
Version 1: Published Jun 16, 2015
* Table of Contents and Chapter heading are not in the original text.
* Alphabetical footnotes are not part of the original document.
* 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: