Expulsion of the "Jews" from England in 1290 and their proposed readmission in 1655
On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:17, Paul Eisen (pauleisen.blogspot.com) wrote:
"...Some years ago, I took part in a rather fractious discussion with an American Jewish activist. At the end of our discussion, and in some exasperation, my interlocutor asked what could one expect from someone who's country had expelled all it's Jews? He was referring to Edward I's Edict of Expulsion in 1290.
"Now, who but a Jew could hold a grudge for seven hundred years, and it is precisely that same never-ending quest for revenge which impels Jewish machers today to chase frail old men to their graves - and for crimes they probably didn't commit.
"By the way, I'm no mediaeval historian but I'd bet the people of Ye Olde England had as much justification for getting rid of their Jews then as the current people of England have now."
To Paul Eisen
Dear Paul
This is the subject of our current Revisionist History newsletter no. 74: the debate over the original expulsion was at the center of the Parliamentary consideration, in December, 1655, of Oliver Cromwell's initiative to readmit the Judaics to England.
Right wing myths about Cromwell and the Puritan Republic, popularized principally by Hilaire Belloc and Capt. Archibald Ramsay (the latter in his book The Nameless War), are debunked in issue no. 74.
A substantial machinery of disinformation developed in the 20th century to obscure the struggle against criminal politics and support the British monarchy, by painting the Puritan Republic which overthrew the king, as irretrievably beholden to the Judaic "Money Power," a charge for which the Kings Charles (I and II) were in fact guilty. How this outlandish myth was propagated and came to gain credibility is a study in a defective psychology, historiography and epistemology which remains as virulent as ever on the non-Zionist Right.
"Justification" for the original 13th century expulsion usually turns on economic crimes such as usury. However, William Prynne, in his important 1656 book The Short Demurrer, states that they were expelled primarily for blasphemy and other insults to Christ and His Mother, back when the defense of Jesus and Mary was incumbent on those who claimed the mantle of a Christian, unlike, say for instance, "Christian" Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who imagines that latter-day blasphemers in the Israeli state are "the best friends of Christians," as he dared to tell a conference of Arab Christians, some of whom survived Israeli carpet bombing of the Christian areas of Lebanon.
Back to English history: the old chestnut about the barons benefiting economically from the expulsion of Judaics in the Middle Ages is a canard: they gladly paid a tax to finance the expulsion. No wonder the "usual suspects" have managed to defame that light-filled epoch as, "the Dark Ages."
Authentic, i.e. revisionist history, is one of the most marvelous adventures the human spirit can undertake!
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
Losers Inc.
On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:54, Ian M. wrote:
Apropos of the latest Hoffman Wire dispatch e-mailed earlier today ("Expulsion of the 'Jews' from England"), here's an article from Counter-Currents (pagan/identitarian site) which again reiterates the Cromwell canard - this article ran today:
It is important therefore to consider the phenomenon of Puritanism which provoked the English Civil War during which America was settled and to notice also the close connection between Christian Puritanism and Judaism. We may recall in this context that the Jews, who had been officially expelled from England in 1290 by Edward I, were allowed by the Puritan dictator Cromwell in the 1650s to return from Holland, where they had been conducting a flourishing financial business, and throughout the Commonwealth the Jews were held in high esteem by the Puritans.
The similarity of the capitalist ethics developed by the Puritans and that of the Jews was noted already in 1911 by the German sociologist Werner Sombart in his work Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben. Sombart maintained that the “Protestant” ethic that Max Weber had focused on in his 1905 work, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, was indeed to be identified specifically as a Puritan one that should be equated to Judaism. For, as Sombart explained, “In both will be found . . . the close relationship between religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the rationalization of life.”
Dear Ian
For a factual view of the Puritan ideas on economics cf. Usury in Christendom, and for a refutation of Sombart's endlessly recycled drivel cf. pp. 314-319 of the same book.
For the real history of Cromwell's readmission initiative, cf. Revisionist History newsletter no. 74, "Right Wing Myths with an Endless Shelf Life."
It's fascinating that the Cryptocracy has sought to conceal the Stuart dynasty's deep ties to Judaic finance and control, and that the Cryptocracy uses Right wing and neo-Nazi networks to assist in this concealment. The goal is to defame the early Puritan revolutionaries, who are not to be confused with their degenerate modern heirs among the "Orangemen" types who hold that Catholics are far more evil than Talmudists, while offering little or no animadversions concerning the latter.
Without a significant readership for our deconstruction of these myths however, they will continue to misdirect Conservatives into demoralizing dead ends - which is the whole point behind these fables - to discourage our people by selling them lies so they will eventually drop out and become "survivalist" hoarders, instead of teachers, activists and campaigners.
One can't campaign on rotten information, any more than one can operate a superb diesel motor car with gasoline. A diesel must have the precise fuel made for it. Campaigners for truth must have factual information in order to succeed and prevail. This is a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who cling to their confirmation bias, while imagining themselves infinitely superior to the dumbed-down "sheeple." Unconscious agents of the Cryptocracy are worse than sheeple.
We have made the revisionist truth available in our latest newsletter (which is actually, for this issue, a 20 page magazine), for those who care enough to pay a few bucks to educate themselves and their children. How many do care enough? Yet they blame everyone and everything for the plight of our nation, except their own voluntary surrender to pessimism and parsimony.
Sincerely, Michael Hoffman
***
Posts
7 comments:
"… the Stuart dynasty's deep ties to Judaic finance and control."
---
… and the Church itself in England which was heavily indebted to Judaic moneylenders for its projects even in the medieval era. Aaron of Lincoln, a 'Rothschild' of his day (his wealth was apparently 3/4 of that of the Monarchy), financed many Catholic 'great works' including Lincoln Cathedral. This came with the same kind of strings attached that we see in our own times. There were medeival versions of Cardinal O'Malley, et al. I have in mind specifically Bishop St. Hugh of Lincoln.
A true shepherd knows that the borrower is slave to the lender and would not put his flock under Shylock's yoke, then defend Shylock from his flock's grumbling.
I'll have the faith. Hugh and Aaron can keep their 'great works.'
Sounds like another very informative newsletter but . .
@ Pinay - Regarding your post concerning Judaic financing of Lincoln Cathedral - I make the following comment and pose 2 questions:
Since Hoffman is in part, pointing out the historical mistakes of Hilaire Belloc . . . (I have not read very many of Belloc's works, but amongst more orthodox Catholics of my parents' age - Belloc and Chesterton are considered beyond reproach) -
Anyhow, I was told that at one point Belloc had made the comment that when he asked a Judaic visitor to England or France what he thought of the great Cathedrals, the allegedly Judaic man responded to the effect that they were 'wonderful AND were built with Jewish money, or finance' words to that effect.
I always wondered what role, if any, Judaic finance had in the building of the great gothic cathedrals and from what I am seeing here - their money had plenty to do with Lincoln Cathedral.
1. Do you have any specific source material for what you attribute to Bishop St. Hugh cutting deals with Judaic money lenders to finance the cathedral.
From the Wikipedia entries on both the Bishop and Aaron of Lincoln - Aaron's wealth may have been greater than the King of England and Aaron made a specialty out of financing abbey construction AND that all his wealth was confiscated by the King upon his death for being a usurious moneylender.
As far at the Bishop - his entry states he put down and stopped mob violence against Jews in Lincoln but nothing about his dealings with Aaron.
2. One further item and this I would be particularly interested in. Did Judaic finance play a role in the construction of France's greatest Cathedrals - specifically Notre Dame de Chartres? Might that have anything to do with particular Masonic and alchemist interest in Chartres cathedral?
If Judaic finance is responsible for such construction, then that history should come out. Both in fairness to those who bankrolled the project and to inform those of us who love the great Cathedrals. This is a another layer of history that should be noted and publicized. If Lincoln Cathedral was built by money 'earned' by a usurer from the backs of the poor - that too should be noted.
this topicThe Real History behind
Dear Dead Reckoning,
This matter needs more attention that I'm able to dedicate at this time. Due to lack of time and focus I've been offering leads more than full reports lately in hopes that others who have the time may flesh them out.
There are extensive records of Aaron of Lincoln's dealings with king and prelate. A search for "Aaron's Exchequer" will get you going.
So I am wondering if you read Eric Nelson's The Hebrew Republic where Oliver Cromwell's Leveller coalition were proud to call themselves "Talmudic Commonwealthsmen"? The beheading of Charles I came directly from the Mishrac tradition.
I don't know how things get confusing but Sir Thomas Symthe titled his study of Tudor government as a "Republic" before Cromwell. He called it "republica Anglorum". How can Tudor government be a republic and Oliver's revolution a republic? How can a "republic" teach two different things on what it means to have order?
To W. Lindsay Wheeler
The absurd thesis of Eric Nelson’s book is that the political freedoms that we enjoy today have their roots in the rabbinic commentaries that "explain” the Hebrew Bible. This notion is straight out of Yeshiva University’s law school. If you want to believe it, go ahead.
Even the title of Nelson’s book is dishonest: if the freedom of a republic is derived from the Talmud and the Midrash then it is “The Aramaic Republic,” since that is the principle language of the rabbis in their texts. A true Hebrew Republic would be strictly Biblical, and contra the Talmud and Midrash, but that truth is heresy in Nelson’s eyes.
Eric Nelson is ceding ownership of the Hebrew Bible to the rabbis, with Christians as late-arriving usurpers of what is rabbinic property.
To claim that the overthrow of the tyrant Charles I was inspired mainly by Puritan consultation of the Midrash, or that anything other than a handful of "Cromwell’s Leveller Coalition” styled themselves “Talmudic Commonwealthsmen” is to be seduced by rabbinic propaganda. On p. 26 Nelson cites exactly one Puritan as alluding to a Talmudic Commonwealth.
If you believe Nelson, then there is no significant Christian understanding of Deut. 17:14 and I Sam. 8 independent of the rabbis that leads to the conclusion that a king can be overthrown and executed. In order to proceed with that stupidity Nelson resorts to the old tactic of omitting key facts and personalities. Most outrageous in this regard is his exclusion of all mention of William Prynne, leader of the anti-Talmudic Puritan coalition.
There is no question that there was a Judaizing, Talmudic influence over some Puritans, just as there was among some royalists. The fact is, contrary to nonsense peddled by people like Ramsay in “The Nameless War,” the Judaizers were rebuffed by the Puritans. Cromwell’s objective of Judaic readmission was crushed by his fellow Puritans.
The dreams of England's Judaizers had to await the “resortation” of King Charles II to the throne; that is when the Talmudic/Midrashic praxis gained firm purchase and not before, as I endeavor to demonstrate in Revisionist History issue no. 74.
I cannot bear to let reports of Christian riots against 'the Jews' stand as they usually are understood, as evidence of some perennial "psychosis of antisemitism."
While I entirely oppose violence against Judaic persons on the grounds of morality and also on the grounds of it being an entirely self-defeating tactic, I seek to understand why these episodes have happened, truthfully. The truth is that we are not descendants of psychotic 'anti-Jewish' savages.
From The Life of Saint Hugh of Lincoln, edited by Herbert Thurston, Hugh is described as facing down an 'anti-Jewish' mob at Lincoln Cathedral as he had in two other instances. Hugh is described as doing so with supernatural zeal and courage. Finally, it is asked what motivation the rioters may have had, and I quote:
---
We may be inclined to ask why the Cathedral of Lincoln became the scene of such a tumult. It is probable that the Jews had deposited there, as the safest place they knew of, the deeds connected with their loans and mortgages. This is what they had done in the case of York Minster, but there the guardians of the Cathedral were compelled by the mob to give up these papers, and allow a huge bonfire to be made of them in the very nave of the church itself. If the rioters had the intention of doing the same at Lincoln, the intervention and the attitude of St. Hugh are sufficiently explained.
---
Now it must be understood that at the same time that St. Hugh and his associate St. Bernard of Clairvaux were defending 'the poor Jews' (in fact usurers who were bleeding the community dry) from violence with, by all accounts, fanatical zeal, they were simultaneously urging crusaders to slaughter.
Please ponder this. I submit that the good old days were not very different than our own.
I was incorrect in having thought I had read that St. Hugh had visited St. Bernard of Clairvaux and or corresponded with him. He was, however a devotee of St. Bernard and did visit Clairvaux shortly after Bernard's death and near the end of his own life.
Post a Comment