The Controversy of Zion

by Douglas Reed

p. 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Chapter 21


The Warnings of Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, repeatedly warned Christendom against the world-revolution. Like de Luchet, Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke fifty years before, he saw “the design” behind it; unlike Lord Acton, who fifty years later spoke only of anonymous “managers,” Disraeli identified these organizers as Jews. The century that has passed since he uttered the plainest of these warnings has justified him; whatever its origins, the organized world-revolution was under Judaist leadership by the middle of the 19th Century and continued under Judaist leadership at least until the 1920's (in the present writer's opinion the condition continued after that and prevails today).


Why the Talmudic sect took over the leadership of the revolutionary organization established by Weishaupt, or whether it instigated the original revolutionary undertaking, are two questions which cannot be answered today.


If the ambition of Judaic world domination, instilled through the centuries by the Talmud and even more by the Cabala,[5] is ever to be realized the enslavement of “the heathen” to the Holy Nation will have to be accomplished through some destructive organization like that set up by Weishaupt; the fact that Weishaupt founded his Illuminati at the very moment when the Jewish “centre” in Poland sank from sight, after an unbroken life of more than two thousand years, might be more than a coincidence. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the dominant sect for the purpose of Talmudic fulfilment, took over control of a destructive organization already set up by non-Jews for a different end.


Disraeli's two most significant warnings preceded and followed the revolutionary outbreaks which occurred in many parts of Europe in 1848. Based on the experience gained in France a half-century before, these represented the second of the “eruptions, concocted as occasion shall permit,” and “the periodical explosions” which (as de Luchet and Alexander Hamilton had foretold) the world-revolutionary organization was to bring about. They failed everywhere, possibly because the memory of the French revolution was recent enough for governments and peoples to deal resolutely with them. Their suppression left Disraeli in no illusion about the future. He had described what would happen before it occurred; after it, he foretold the continuance of the conspiracy and the recurrence of the violent outbreaks.


Disraeli wrote novels (with greater success than two later imitators, Colonel House of Texas and Mr. Winston Churchill when young), and depicted himself in them as the aloof, urbane, omniscient, slightly mocking impresario of human affairs. In Coningsby he is the chief character, Sidonia, a Spanish-Moslem Jew, the master financier, power behind all powers and passionless manipulator of




affairs, one who is “assisted by that absolute freedom from prejudice which is the compensatory possession of a man without a country.”


Sidonia remarked in 1846 (the year when Coningsby was published): “That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany and … of which so little is as yet known in England, is developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews.”


Then, after the outbreaks of 1848, Disraeli returned to the subject, telling the House of Commons in 1852: “The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. .. The natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them” (exactly the same thing recurred in Russia, in 1917, that is, seventy years after the 1848 outbreaks).


Disraeli added, “The most skilful manipulators of property ally them selves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen people touch the hands of all the scum and low castes of Europe.” This, he said, was because they wished to destroy Christianity.


The task of research, in such a work as this, is arduous and has few compensations, but acquaintanceship with Disraeli was a solace. The reader has already met some true prophets among the many false ones, during this journey through the centuries, but he will not meet another quite like Benjamin Disraeli, whose liberation from Talmudic bonds gave him this “absolute freedom from prejudice.” His name was significant, for he was of the breed of the Israelite prophets who denounced Judah. He was proud of his descent, and yet was enabled by his detachment to feel a love of England which those of native ancestry often cannot emulate. His ironical comments on public affairs and human events are refreshing to read today, when politicians shun the truth as the devil might shun holy water.


He candidly stated that “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes,” and in these words he publicly affirmed that real government is by the Hidden Hand. All informed observers know that this is the truth of affairs, but any presentday American president or British prime minister would denounce the statement as “witch-hunting.” “I think,” said Sidonia, “that there is no error so vulgar as to believe that revolutions are occasioned by economical causes.” Thus spoke Disraeli; in our day the Lloyd Georges and Woodrow Wilsons, Roosevelts and Trumans have pretended that the revolutions in France and Russia and elsewhere were spontaneous mass-eruptions by “the people,” infuriate, against “tyranny.”


Disraeli practised the teaching of Christianity; he was not merely “a baptised Jew.”




He would not have associated himself, or his country's name, with the Old Testamentary vengeance of Nuremberg, for this is what he said after the Indian Mutiny in 1857, when the spirit of revenge was ravening in the land: “I do without the slightest hesitation declare my humble disapprobation of persons in high authority announcing that upon the high standard of England ‘vengeance' and not ‘justice' should be inscribed … I protest against meeting atrocities by atrocities. I have heard things said and seen things written of late which would make me almost suppose that the religious opinions of the people of England had undergone some sudden change, and that, instead of bowing before the name of Jesus, we were preparing to revive the worship of Moloch. I cannot believe that it is our duty to indulge in such a spirit.”


These words contain an allusion which reaches every Jew and Gentile. Talmudic Judaism is “the worship of Moloch” and Disraeli knew this when he chose the words. The whole dispute between ancient Israel and Judah of the Levites raged round this false deity and his demands, and Israel turned its back on Judah on this very account; this is the root of the controversy of Zion, three thousand years ago and now.


It is reflected in the two most significant passages in the Old Testament: Jeremiah's charge that God had never commanded the children of Israel “to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire unto Moloch … neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin”; and Ezekiel's answer that God had given Israel these “statutes that are not good” and the sacrifice of the firstborn. The god of love and mercy, the god of hatred, vengeance and human sacrifice: that was from the start the issue, and is today, and if Disraeli had lived a hundred years later Christendom might by this scion of Jewry have been spared the stigma of the Talmudic vengeance at Nuremberg.


Similarly, Disraeli cannot be imagined lending himself, his office and his country's strength to the support and spread of the world-revolution, as the leaders of Britain and America lent themselves in the first and second world wars; his whole public life was spent in forewarning his country against the destructive conspiracy which their acts promoted.


In 1955 a Lord Samuel (who in the heyday of Liberalism rose from plain Mr. Herbert Samuel, through various political offices, to ennoblement) proudly stated that he was the first Jew ever to have held Cabinet rank in England. This was presumably a jibe at Disraeli's conversion; nevertheless, the world in the 20th Century might have been the better for more Disraelis. The striking things about Disraeli, studied at the distance of a century, are his habit of speaking absolute truth, his accuracy of prediction, his vast instinctive and acquired knowledge, his deep though unimpassioned love for England, and his Christian charity. In matters of fact he was always right; in those of opinion, he was ever on the side of the angels. His contempt for “Liberals” was great, though delicately phrased




(“infanticide is practised as extensively and as legally in England as it is on the banks of the Ganges, a circumstance which apparently has not yet engaged the attention of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel”). The present writer thinks he erred in one matter, namely, in his opinion that the doctrines of Jesus were the completion, not the repudiation, of Judaism. The contrary seems to me to be true, namely, that Judaism was that very heresy (“the worship of Moloch”) which Disraeli spurned, and which Jesus came to change.


Disraeli was the product both of Sephardic Jewry and of England at that period; he could not, without both of these influences, have achieved that “absolute freedom from prejudice.” His father, Isaac D'Israeli, wrote, “A religion which admits not toleration cannot be safely tolerated, if there is any chance of its obtaining a political ascendancy,” and the Encyclopaedia Britannica says Isaac's reason for withdrawing from the synagogue was that Talmudic Judaism with its rigid laws “cuts off the Jews from the great family of mankind.” His son's biographer, Mr. Hesketh Pearson, says the elders fined Isaac D'Israeli forty pounds when he declined election as Warden of the Congregation stating that he could never take part in their public worship “because, as now conducted, it disturbs, instead of exciting religious emotions.” Isaac would not have been able so to challenge the elders, had he lived in a Talmudic community in Russia or Poland; he would have been outlawed, possibly killed.


Thus the father and the son (who became a member of the Church of England at the age of twelve) were formed by the free air of England at that time. Benjamin Disraeli, was to achieve the removal of the last disabilities put on Jews in England, and then publicly to proclaim that (in the immediate sequence to this emancipation) Jews were taking over control of the world-revolution everywhere. To a man of “absolute freedom from prejudice” the campaign against Jewish disabilities and the candid statement of this result were duties equally inescapable, even though the second development bore out the warnings of the enemies of that Jewish emancipation, which Disraeli had fought to complete.


Before concluding the tale of Disraeli's own warnings, the course of the world-revolution during his time needs to be traced, that is to say, during the century succeeding the outbreak in France. When Weishaupt died in 1830, leaving behind him the plan and the organization first revealed by the discovery of the Illuminati's documents in 1786, Disraeli was 26. The next fifty years were filled with the contest for Weishaupts succession; during this period Disraeli uttered his many warnings. When it ended Jewish control of the world-revolution had nevertheless been firmly established and it had been given the imprint of the Eastern Jews, the Mongoloid Khazars, under their Talmudic rabbis.


The result might have been different, for men of various kinds struggled to succeed Weishaupt, and many of them were Gentiles. At the start there was no single, united revolutionary organization; there were revolutionary secret




societies, not yet coalesced, in various countries. The chief of them, and the one in clearest line of descent from Weishaupt's llluminati, was the Alta Vendita in Italy, some of the papers of which, seized and published by the Pontifical Government, revealed an identity of aim and method with the Illuminati documents of a half-century earlier (as Mrs. Nesta Webster has established from the work of Cretineau Joly.)


In France Freemasonry continued to serve as the cloak used by the revolution, and in Germany the “League of Virtue” (Tugendbund) was directed by lieutenants of Weishaupt.


Various men worked to fuse these, apparently distinct national movements into one, and to assume the leadership, in succession to Adam Weishaupt. Among them were a Frenchman, Louis Blanc (whose name the reader is asked to bear in mind, for a reason which will appear later; at one moment he seemed likely to play the part of Lenin, even before Lenin was born), a Russian, Michel Bakunin, and a Jew, born in Germany, Karl Marx.


The struggle was fought between the last two, for Louis Blanc soon faded from the scene. Michel Bakunin and Karl Marx were as poles apart. Bakunin, “the father of Anarchy,” was “a disciple of Weishaupt,” according to the French revolutionary socialist, Benoit Malon. He represented that early breed of idealist revolutionaries who thought that they had found in revolution an instrument to destroy tyranny. He saw the danger that the confiscatory State, set up on the ruins of private property, would merely reproduce the tyrannical propensities of the private capitalist in gargantuan shape; therefore he looked for ways to reconcile the communal ownership of land and capital with the utmost possible diminution in the powers of the State and ultimately even with the complete abolition of the State. Thus he was the very opposite of Karl Marx, whose similar proposal, for the communal ownership of land and capital, was aimed simply at setting up a super-tyranny in place of petty tyrants.


The ruling passion (and original motive) of all Bakunin's work was a horror of despotism; Marx planned to destroy a ruling class in order to establish such a despotism as the world had never known. This was the profound difference between the two men, and it throws up a question never to be answered: what would the effect on the world have been if Bakunin's Anarchism, instead of Marx's Communism, had assumed leadership of the world-revolution? For Anarchism was opposed to every kind of forcible government, and to the State as the embodiment of the force employed in the government of the community; Communism was the deification of force wielded by the State.


Everything about Bakunin is genuine: his struggle, sufferings and death. Everything about Marx is bogus: his thirty years of incitement from the British Museum reading-room, his comfortable life on Friedrich Engels's bounty, his obviously calculated marriage to a “von,” his genteel funeral with graveside orations; all are typical of the petty bourgeois who so loudly declaimed against




the bourgeoisie. The most bogus thing of all was his Communist Manifesto, which diagnosed an ailment (“The proletarian is without property”) and prescribed suicide as the remedy (“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property”).


This was a plain intimation to the proletariat that it had nothing to gain but chains from Communism, and if revolutionary outbreaks all over Europe followed the publication of the Manifesto in January 1848, the oppressed masses cannot have roused to them by its logic. Within a few weeks of publication, revolts occurred all over Germany, in Austria, Hungary, Italy, France and Denmark. This was proof that the individual “secret societies” in the various countries were fusing together, that some means had been found to co-ordinate and synchronise their outbreaks, and thus, for the first time, to demonstrate world-revolution in action, through simultaneous eruptions in numerous countries.


Probably only one organization, already existing at that time, had at its disposal the international network which could make this synchronization and co-ordination possible, and that was the Talmudic rabbinate in Eastern Europe. Theoretically, the vast organization of the Catholic Church could have been put to the same purpose, but the Church saw its deadliest enemy in the revolution and was not so used; on that point history is clear. What Disraeli had known and stated two years before became historical fact: “that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany … is developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews.” Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto were the outward and visible signs of a significant historic event: Talmudic Judaism had taken over the world-revolution.


Of the three men who at that time appeared to contend for the generalship of the revolution, Louis Blanc quickly fell out of the running. He was a member of the provisional government set up in Paris after the 1848 revolt, and in the capacity of minister seemed to have the opportunity to put his theories into practice. He held that individualism and competition were cancers in the body social and, like Marx, wished to set up the all-despotic State (albeit of the “welfare” kind favoured by the British Soeialists a century later). He was the herald of the “right to work” which, in Russia in the present century, proved to be the State's right to inflict forced labour. In his shortlived office he undertook “to guarantee the livelihood of the workers by work” and was authorized to call together an assembly of workers' delegates to prepare a plan for “full employment.” This body was in form an anticipation of the Soviets, and it represents Louis Blanc's chief claim to be remembered. After the suppression of the revolt he fled to England and only returned twenty-three years later, bereft of importance.


That left Marx and Bakunin. Typically, Karl Marx, expelled from Prussia and France after 1848, settled comfortably in London until he died, thirty-four years




later. Only Bakunin ran to man the “barricades.” Bakunin was by birth a Russian aristocrat and had thrown up his ensignship in a Czarist regiment in 1832 after the suppression of the Polish insurrection of 1830; the spectacle of terrorized Poland inspired in the heart of this young Russian officer the horror of despotism which thenceforth dominated his life. He met Marx before 1848 and left a description of the difference between them: “Marx called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.”


Bakunin was in Paris for the fighting of 1848, and in May 1849 was a member of the provisional government set up by the revolutionaries in Saxony, leading the defence of Dresden until the Prussian troops prevailed, when he was captured while trying to escape (with Richard Wagner). He was sentenced to death, and reprieved, successively by the Saxon and Austrian governments. “He was kept in fetters and chained to a wall for a year and then surrendered to the Russian government. After six years imprisonment he was sent, toothless, scorbutic and prematurely aged, to “the comparative freedom of Siberia,” whence, in 1861, after twelve years of captivity, he escaped to Japan, America and eventually England. Unbroken by his experiences, he at once resumed preaching the spirit of anarchist revolt and in 1864, in Switzerland, founded his International (the Alliance Internationale Sociale Democratique).


About the same time, Karl Marx founded his International (the International Working Men's Association) in London, and the next few years were filled with the decisive struggle between Bakunin and Marx for the soul of the revolution. During Bakunin's long absence in Saxon, Austrian and Russian jails and in Siberia, Marx in London had established his hold on the international revolutionary organization (in several countries he had sons-in-law as lieutenants, on the Napoleonic model), but Bakunin's renown was great and he was deprived of the leadership only by a series of tricks which Marx, through his control of the General Council, was able to use against his rival. In 1872 the General Council called a congress of the International at The Hague, where Bakunin and his friends could not go on account of governmental hostility. At this congress charges were made against Bakunin (reminiscent of those which sixty years later were to be raised against any Communist leaders of whom Stalin wished to rid himself and he was expelled from the International by vote of the Council, packed by Marx's handpicked men.


Broken in health Bakunin died a few years later, and apparently brought on his end by refusing to take food. With him died any hope (if such hope ever existed) that the organized world-revolution might be used to overthrow tyranny and liberate men; from the moment that it came “entirely under the auspices of Jews” (Disraeli) its purpose was to enslave men and to establish an indestructible tyranny. Bakunin's idea was to organize force against oppression, and the worst oppressor of all, in his eyes, was The State. These are his words: “The State is not




society, it is only an historical form of it, as brutal as it is abstract. It was born historically, in all countries, of the marriage of violence, rapine, pillage, in a word, war and conquest … It has been from its origin, and it remains still at present, the divine sanction of brutal force and triumphant inequality. The State is authority; it is force; it is the ostentation and infatuation of force …”


Precisely such a State as that, Karl Marx designed to set up through his international revolutionary movement, and it was to be a world State. Bakunin in 1869, when his contest with Karl Marx was reaching its climax, like Disraeli in 1846 and 1852 identified the leadership of the world-revolution as Jewish and in this he saw the cause of the perversion, as he considered it, of the revolutionary idea. His Polemique contre les Juifs, written in 1869, was mainly directed against the Jews of the International, and from what we have since seen of these affairs we may assume that his expulsion by the Marxist General Council in 1872 became certain at the moment of that publication in 1869.


When Disraeli died in 1881 he had spent between thirty and forty years warning his countrymen and the world against “the secret societies”:


“It was neither parliaments, nor populations, nor the course of nature, nor the course of events, that overthrew the throne of Louis Philippe … The throne was surprised by the secret societies, ever prepared to ravage Europe … Acting in unison with a great popular movement they may destroy society …” (1852). “There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House … I mean the secret societies. It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads … They do not want constitutional government; they do not want ameliorated institutions … they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil, and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments …” (1856).


Disraeli plainly saw, and perhaps was the first to recognize the name, the fraudulent nature of Liberalism: “it is the manoeuvres of these men who are striking at property and Christ, which the good people of this country, who are so accumulative and so religious, recognize and applaud as the progress of the Liberal cause.”


If it were in the power of man, by informed warnings to avert disastrous events, the repeated warnings of this unique authority would have averted the tribulation which the revolution brought on the millions of mankind in the next century. But, “by a divine instinct. men's minds mistrust ensuing danger”; the neglect of Disraeli's warnings proved what all preceding centuries had shown: that human beings will not be deterred from a dangerous undertaking, or aroused from a perilous inertia, by any spoken counsel. Experience alone can in time move them to act, and in that the 20th Century has made them rich.


In the middle decades of the last century Disraeli spoke in vain. He could not be merely defamed as a “witch-hunter,” and therefore was derided with the mien




of affectionate disdain: “it was generally thought” (says Mr. Hesketh Pearson) “that he had a bee in his bonnet on the subject of the secret societies, the existence of which was denied; but we can now see them as the seeds of a movement which, having found a formula, fused and festered into Communism.” That verdict of 1951 is obviously true and agrees with the contemporary one of the revolutionary eye-witness Benoît Malon: “Communism was handed down in the dark through the secret societies of the 19th Century.”


Thus, when Disraeli died the thing he had striven to avoid had come about: the “secret societies” had been welded into one world-revolutionary movement under Jewish control, and this was preparing to blow up the foundations of the 20th Century. He had found the perfect description for this organization: “a network” which covered Europe “just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads.” Informed men began more and more frequently to use this _expression, “the network,” and to speak of “the hidden hand” which ruled governments. In the years before the revolutions of 1848 the former Rabbi Drach, who like Disraeli foresaw what was coming, published his indictment of the Talmud as the source of this disruptive process; his ensuing persecution was described by a Jewish writer named Morel, who among other things said, “what can the wisest measures of the authorities of all countries do against the vast and permanent conspiracy of a people which, like a network as vast as it is strong, stretched over the whole globe, brings its force to bear wherever an event occurs that interests the name of Israelite.”


The sequence of events is significant. In 1772 Poland was partitioned and, after more than 2,500 years, the “centre” of Jewish Government “ceased to exist” (according to Dr. Kastein) or became a secret Jewish government (as the Russian authorities believed). In 1776 Adam Weishaupt founded his Illuminati. By 1846 Disraeli was writing that “the revolution is developing entirely under Jewish auspices.” In 1869 Michel Bakunin, the disciple of Weishaupt, attacked the Jews in the revolutionary movement. In 1872 Bakunin was expelled and the united Communist movement plainly emerged, under Karl Marx (in 1917 it produced an almost exclusively Jewish Bolshevist government).


Such was the result, foretold by Disraeli, of the removal of Jewish disabilities and of a few decades of Jewish emancipation. The lowering of the barriers had not had the effect of amalgamating the Jews in the comity of peoples; its consequences had been to give “the most formidable sect” (Bakunin's words) freedom to work for the ruination of these peoples by revolution. The responses given by the Sanhedrin to Napoleon's questions at the century's start, by its middle-age had been shown to be void of force. Jews would not thenceforward be allowed to involve themselves with other men, in the nationhoods and laws of the lands where they dwelt; on the contrary, identification with the world revolution set them more apart from others than even they had ever been before. The century of emancipation had been turned into a fraud even before it ended.




During the 19th Century (as Dr. Kastein, again, records) the term “antisemitism” was born. As “persecution” could no longer be said to exist, some new word had to be found, capable of intimidating Gentiles and terrifying Jews, the second purpose being more important than the first, and “antisemitism” was invented. “Abracadabra” might have served as well, for the term “antisemitism” is patently absurd in relation to people who are demonstrably not Semites and whose Law commands the extirpation of Semites (the Arab peoples of Palestine; any expression of sympathy with the Semitic Arabs, expelled from their native land by the Zionist intruders in 1948, in time came to be attacked as “antisemitism”).


Presumably the authors of this term desired to keep such words as Jew, Jewish and anti-Jewish out of the public controversy and counted on intimidating the mass-mind by the introduction of an obscurantist word. What the dominant sect meant by “antisemitism” was in fact a combination of lese majesty (offences against the dignity of the sovereign power) and heresy (opposition to the paramount religious doctrine); and by the middle of the present century the mass-mind had to a great extent submitted to this idea; that numerous breed which in earlier times would have doffed its cap at the approach of the squire's bailiff or have crossed itself when the priestly eye turned its way held its tongue and looked respectful when any Jewish affair was mentioned.


The word “antisemitism” was coined at the time when “men of Jewish race,” as Disraeli and Bakunin pointed out, took over the direction of the world-revolution, and the main object of its invention was by intimidation to deter public discussion of that remarkable development; the events of the present century have abundantly proved that, as this book will show. In the recent time, a Jewish authority, Mr. Bernard Lazare, offered a definition of “antisemitism” in a book which bore the word as its title. This definition had nothing whatever to do with the prophet Shem and his tribe, with Semitic blood or speech or stock, or with anything Semitic whatsoever; Mr. Lazare related “antisemitism” entirely to an adverse opinion of the Jewish role in revolution. He wrote:


“This is what must separate the impartial historian from antisemitism. The antisemite says: ‘The Jew is the preparer, the machinator, the chief engineer of revolutions'; the impartial historian confines himself to studying the part which the Jew, considering his spirit his character, the nature of his philosophy, and his religion, may have taken in revolutionary processes and movements.”


What Mr. Lazare clearly meant was that nothing more than “a part” in revolutionary processes might be attributed to Jews, and that a man who said that The Jew is the preparer, the machinator, the chief engineer of revolutions” committed lese majesty and heresy.


However, it is substantially what Disraeli said (who may even have had a drop or two of Semitic blood, and in that differed from the Eastern Jews to whom he alluded): “that mighty revolution … is developing entirely under the auspices of




the Jews,” “the influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle,” “men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them” (i.e., the secret societies).


As he was himself racially Jewish, Disraeli presumably felt no need to labour the fact that many Jews were as stoutly opposed as he to the “mighty revolution” and to “the destructive principle.” In his day this would have been apparent, and he would not have had to armourplate his words against the propagandist who, today, would accuse him of incriminating all Jews by his allusions to “the auspices of the Jews” and “the influence of the Jews” (which by Mr. Lazare's definition would make him “antisemitic”!).


From the French revolutionary period onward (when the long resident Jews of France gave warning against the newcomers from the East who were making trouble in Alsace) the Sephardic Jews of the West strongly resisted the ill wind that was blowing towards them from the East. Emancipation had loosened their bonds; they stood to lose all they had gained if “the destructive principle,” “engineered” by the Talmudic sect and the Ashkenazim in the East, were to prevail over the West.


The warnings of Disraeli were addressed to this, then the dominant section of Jewry as much as to the Gentiles; perhaps more. The Sephardic Jews may also be said to have paid more heed to them than the Gentile masses around them. Their punishment was to be excommunicated; by one of the most remarkable operations ever performed by statisticians on a body of people, the Sephardim were within a hundred years to be pronounced virtually extinct (like the “ten lost tribes” long before).

[5] The Jewish Encyclopaedia says that the Cabala (the oral, traditional lore, in contradistinction to the written law, or Torah) from the 13th century on branched out into an extensive literature alongside of and in opposition to the Talmud, being entrusted only to the few elect ones. Mrs. Nesta Webster, however, quotes another passage from the Jewish Encyclopaedia as saying that “the Cabala is not really in opposition to the Talmud”. (return)