The Jew Disraeli & the Construction of the Merchants’ EmpireJulius Evola
In a short text [“Imperium britannicum, ovvero: due diritti”] published in this periodical [La Vita Italiana] at the time of the sanctions (November 1935), we have attempted to characterize the physiognomy of the so-called British “empire” from the point of view of the typology of forms of civilization.
On that occasion, we showed that the British Empire is no more than a caricature and a counterfeit of a true empire. No empire worthy of the name exists except in relation to a supranational organization centered around heroic, aristocratic, and spiritual values. Well, nothing of the sort can be found in the British “empire.” In it, every normal hierarchical relationship has been inverted, properly speaking. In England, there is a monarchy, a quasi-feudal nobility, and a military caste that – at least until recently – presented notable qualities of character and sang froid. But all of that is merely a facade. The real center of the English “empire” is elsewhere – it is found, so to speak, in the merchant caste, in the most general sense of this term, which also encompasses the modern forms of that social category, and manifests itself in the forms of oligarchic plutocracy, finance, and industrial and commercial monopoly. The “merchant” is the true ruler of England: the unscrupulous and cynical spirit of the merchant, pure economic interest, the will to possess and exploit the world’s resources to the extent possible – those are the foundations of English “imperial” policy, and those are the real driving forces in English life, hidden behind the aforementioned monarchical and conservative facade.
Now, as is well known, wherever economic interest predominates, the Jew peeps out and finds a way of quickly rising to every position of command. The infiltration of Jewry into England is nothing recent. The English Revolution and Protestantism opened Great Britain’s doors to it. The Jews, who in 1290 had been expelled by Edward I, were readmitted to England through a petition supported by Cromwell and then approved by Charles II in 1649. From that time on, an intensive immigration of Jews into England began, first and foremost with the so-called Spanish or Sephardic Jews, who brought with them the wealth they had amassed elsewhere through more or less underhanded means, and used it to begin the aforementioned ascent to the centers of command in English life, beginning with the aristocracy and the circles very close to the Crown itself. Less than a century after their readmission, the Jews in this way had come to feel so confident of their position that they requested naturalization, i.e., English citizenship. Here, a very interesting episode occurred: The bill regarding the naturalization of the Jews was approved in 1740. Its authors were mainly members of the upper classes and high dignitaries of the Anglican church – which demonstrates to what degree those elements had already been spiritually Judaized and corrupted by Jewish gold. The reaction against it did not come from the English upper classes, but from the people. The bill of 1740 provoked such an uproar and unrest in the population that it had to be abrogated in 1753.
The Jews then had recourse to another tactic: They left the synagogue and nominally converted to Christianity. Thus, the obstacle was easily sidestepped, and the work of infiltration continued at an even faster pace. It was important for the Jews to maintain their hold on the commanding positions and do away with the religious motives upon which, at the time, opposition against them was principally based: the rest was merely an accessory matter, since the converted Jew remained – in instinct, mentality, and mode of action – as Jewish as before. One typical example – one among many – was the extremely influential Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, who, despite having converted, continued to support the Jewish community and had himself buried in the Jewish cemetery. This same Gideon used his money to buy vast areas of land and the title of Baronet for his son.
This was rich Jews’ favorite tactic in England, beginning in the eighteenth century: They replaced the English feudal nobility by buying its properties and titles and thus, while they mixed with the aristocracy, came closer and closer to the government itself, the natural and inevitable consequence being the progressive Judaization of the English political idea and mentality.
Moreover, already in the period from 1745 to 1749, the aforementioned Sampson Gideon had financed the English government – with money he had accumulated by ignominious methods through speculating on the Seven Years’ War, more or less in the way that Rothschild bought falling stocks at a moment when, apart from his emissaries, no one knew the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. At the same time, in order to gain the influence they wanted, they used intermarriage with the nobility as a method – and if in 1772, with the Royal Marriage Bill, one felt the need to prevent the intermarriage of the English royal family with Jews, this provides a fair idea of how far Jewish infiltration had gone.
By means of this double path, the interests of English imperialism and English capitalism – the latter being intertwined with Jewish capitalism by means of indissoluble and increasingly complex ties – came to coincide in an ever more apparent way. But, aside from imperialism in the broad sense, a little-known fact is that the “British Empire” itself was an original Jewish creation – a Jew’s gift to the English royal Crown.
This Jew was Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister, raised to the noble caste with the title of Lord Beaconsfield. This circumstance is particularly interesting. Previously, no one would have thought of connecting Imperial dignity with the concept of wealth, like the possession of colonies. Even after the Ghibelline Middle Ages, this would have appeared to every Traditional spirit as completely extravagant and as a caricature, since the Imperial idea always involved something sacred, was always linked to a superior function of dominion and civilization, and to a right that was, in a certain sense, transcendent. Only a Jew could have had the idea of “reforming” the conception of the Empire by plutocratizing and transforming it into an imperialistic materialism. And this Jew was Disraeli – Dizzy, as he was nicknamed. It was he who made Queen Victoria into an “empress” – a colonial empress, in other words, of the Indies. He was the determined supporter of the English “imperial” idea as a facsimile of the messianic-imperialistic Jewish idea: as the idea of a people, the power and wealth of which is the wealth of other peoples, which it has appropriated and cynically exploits and controls. In the most violent way, Disraeli always attacked whoever wanted to separate England from those lands across the ocean, in which – in the words of an Israelite historian – the Jews had been pioneers. But the fact of the matter is that Disraeli knew who was hiding behind the England that was to rule over the world’s wealth. And perhaps he was one of those initiates who knew that the last threads of the web went beyond the Jewish-British plutocracy. The following oft-quoted words are, in fact, Disraeli’s: “. . . the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
They say, and say truly enough, What an actor the man is! – and yet the ultimate impression is of absolute sincerity and unreserve. Grant Duff will have it that he is an alien. What’s England to him or he to England? There is just where they are wrong. Whig or Radical or Tory don’t matter much perhaps; but this mightier Venice – this Imperial Republic on which the sun never sets – that vision fascinates him, or I am much mistaken. England is the Israel of his imagination, and he will be the Imperial Minister before he dies – if he gets the chance.
These words were written about Disraeli when he was still only the leader of the Conservative Party. They were written by a critic [John Skelton] who thereby truly demonstrated himself to be possessed by a prophetic spirit. They express the true spirit of “Dizzy”’s actions. The reference to Venice comes from the fact that Disraeli’s family, which hailed from Cento, near Ferrara, had tried its luck in Venice before coming to England: thus, the reminiscence of the “imperial” ideal of Venice nearly reached “Dizzy” through his family, an ideal to which, in intimate connection with the Jewish idea, he wanted to raise England. It was, again, the imperial idea of the merchant, the power of a bourgeois oligarchy founded on gold, commerce, overseas possessions, and trade, the rest being only a means and an instrument. But in order to realize this “Venetian” ideal, given that Venice, at least nominally, was a free republic, England had to be even further disarticulated in whatever it still conserved of the ancient and Traditional spirit. And here we have another characteristic aspect of Disraeli’s activity. We cannot go into an in-depth exposé here concerning the conflicts between the English political parties in Disraeli’s time. In any case, almost every reader will know of the struggle between Tories – the King’s party, conservative and prevalently Catholic – and the Whigs, the protestant aristocracy, jealous of its independence and espousing the causes of the new liberal ideas. Disraeli’s masterstroke was to overcome, to a certain degree, this antithesis and take the helm of a new party, which was simply called the Conservative Party, and conceived in such a way as to neutralize in itself whatever good there was in the two aforementioned parties, by means provided by each opposing party. In other words, in Disraeli’s Conservative Party, the real conservatives were liberalized, while the liberals to some degree became conservatives, since on the basis of the utilitarian ideas they professed, it was easy to show that they had a community of material interests with their adversaries.
Having realized this quid medium with his new party, Disraeli could well be said to have reduced England to an oligarchic republic. His Conservative Party was actually a sort of clique, cemented by the solidarity of common class interests, but inwardly broken, liberalized, and devoid of any ideal. And naturally, in this clique, the Jewish and Masonic influence was far from insignificant.
It seems, however, that Disraeli was aiming even higher. This conclusion can be drawn from his trilogy of books titled The Young England. The novel Sybil or, The Two Nations precisely reflects the ideological tactic already used by Freemasonry to prepare the French Revolution. Here, Disraeli makes no effort to hide his enthusiasm for the lowest classes of society, declaring that it is they who will make history, from the moment they will be guided by their natural leaders: a new, enlightened élite, which will have overcome the prejudices of the past. Similar ideas fired the enthusiasm of a new generation of English nobility, which dreamed of taking on the leading role of “enlightened” aristocrats; in other words, of digging their own graves. In the second novel of Disraeli’s trilogy, Coningsby, the main character is a mysterious Jew of Spanish origin, Sidonia: “. . . a blend of Disraeli and Rothschild, or, to be more precise, just what Disraeli would have liked to be, or what he would have liked Rothschild to be” (André Maurois, Disraeli, 1927).
This Sidonia instructs Coningsby, the symbol of the “young England,” in the doctrine of “heroic ambition”: and once again, the “ideal” of Disraeli’s pseudo-conservatism is reaffirmed. The solution indicated by Sidonia is a government that professes conservative principles, but acts liberally. Essentially, once the English Tory aristocracy had been liberalized and its ideas reduced to mere “principles” devoid of practical consequences, the moment had come to flatter its ambition, so that it would take on the role of the leader of the people – a leader destined, naturally, to be climbed over in the subsequent phase by the elements of subversion, just as had happened to the aristocracy in France that had nursed the new ideas. In this regard, aside from the notions expressed in his books, we should remember that it was Disraeli who introduced universal suffrage in England, albeit in a preliminary form (giving the vote to property-owning heads of families), skillfully presenting it as an intermediate solution acceptable to both the Tories and the Whigs. But Disraeli’s corrosive activity did not limit itself to the field of politics; it attempted to extend into the field of religion. It was there that the Jew completely dropped his disguise. The healthy parts of England, too, had to be undermined in their inner foundation, which was the Christian – and above all the Catholic – faith. And now Disraeli pronounced his famous theory of the convergence and the reciprocal completion of Judaism and Catholicism. Here is what he writes in Sybil: “Christianity is incomprehensible without Judaism, as Judaism is incomplete without Christianity.”
In Tancred; or, The New Crusade, he goes even further, asserting that the task of the Church is to defend, in a materialistic society, the fundamental principles – of Jewish origin – found in the two Testaments. Disraeli made these claims with such rash insolence that Carlyle declared Dizzy’s “Jewish jackasseries” to be intolerable, and asked “how long John Bull would allow this absurd monkey to dance on his chest.”
But in regards to Judaism, Disraeli, who – because he was baptized – called himself a Christian, was uncompromising and unabashed. With every means at his disposal, courting controversy, he argued for an alliance between the outmaneuvered “conservatives” and the Jews. To persecute the Jews would be the biggest mistake the Conservative Party could make, since in doing so, it would end up turning them into leaders of revolutionary movements.
On every sacred day you read to the people the exploits of Jewish heroes, the proofs of Jewish devotion, the brilliant annals of past Jewish magnificence. Every Sunday – every Lord’s Day – if you wish to express feelings of praise and thanksgiving to the Most High, or if you wish to find expression of solace in grief, you find both in the words of the Jewish poets. Yes, it is as a Christian that I will not take upon me the awful responsibility of excluding from the legislature those who are of the religion in the bosom of which my Lord and Saviour was born.
One could not be more impudent. There was some scandal among the “conservatives,” but with no consequences. The Jewish advance proceeded surely and silently among the English upper classes and within the government itself. Disraeli was responsible for the British conquest of Egypt in 1875 – and with whose aid? Rothschild’s. In 1875, the Khedive of Egypt found himself in financial trouble, and Disraeli found out that he was willing to sell one hundred seventy-seven thousand shares of stock in the Suez Canal. It was a golden opportunity to secure the route to the Indies. The government hesitated. Rothschild did not. The following remarks are from the historical conversation between Disraeli and Rothschild. Disraeli asked for four million pounds. Rothschild asks Disraeli, “What is your security?” Disraeli says, “The British government.” Rothschild: “You shall have it” – and he gives him the four million at a “low rate” of interest. Naturally, the true and important interests of the Jewish clique are on a different and less visible plane . . .
Nor did Disraeli neglect to facilitate the ritual observance of Jewish law for Jews in England. Few are aware that the sabato inglese [“English Saturday,” half-holidays on Saturdays] is nothing other than the Jewish sabbath, the ritual day of rest for Jews. It was introduced in England by Disraeli, under a suitable cover of “social reform.”
Thus, while through various means the old feudal England was being Judaized, and while the old aristocracy was gradually deboned and vaccinated with the ideas that would most make it into easy prey for Jewish and Masonic material and spiritual influences, Disraeli did not neglect his other task, namely that of increasing and reinforcing the power of the new empire of merchants, of the new “imperial Venice,” of the resurgent Jewish Promised Land. He did so in an equally Jewish style. Disraeli was one of the principal promoters of that sad and cynical “English” foreign policy through the proxies of “protected” persons and through blackmail, which today has matured in its ultimate consequences. The most typical example is the Russo-Turkish War. Disraeli had no hesitation about rushing to betray the old cause of European solidarity by putting Turkey under English protection. Turkey, having been defeated, was saved by England: through the well-known method of threats and sanctions, Disraeli was able to paralyze the Slavic advance towards the South without firing a single shot, and even obtained Cyprus as a gift from Turkey. At the Berlin congress, the Russian ambassador, Gortchakoff, had to sadly exclaim, “We have sacrificed a hundred thousand soldiers and a hundred million of money for nothing!” But there is something more serious, from a higher point of view. Through these circumstances which were brought about by Disraeli, Turkey was admitted into the community of European nations protected by so-called “international law.” We write “so-called” because previously, this law, far from being applied to all of the peoples of the globe, was only applied to the group of European nations: It was a kind of defense and internal law for Europe. With the admission of Turkey, a new phase of international law began: the phase in which “law” became a mask, and its “international” scope a pure fiction of democracy, since it is essentially an instrument in the service of primarily Anglo-Jewish interests, and secondarily, French interests. This development led to the United Nations, and ended with the crisis of the latter and the current war.
The last years of Disraeli’s life were not, however, peaceful. The misdeeds of the plutocracy and of the pseudo-conservative cliques began to manifest through their contribution to the general financial, agricultural, and even colonial crisis in the empire of Disraeli’s dreams come true. There was the revolt of the Afghans, the Zulu war, and the prelude to the Boer war. The old Disraeli, having become Lord Beaconsfield and Queen Victoria’s favorite, was in the end no longer able to hold his positions. Gladstone replaced him. Despite everything, this was no more than a changing of the guard. The cabals, the systems, the directives of “imperialist” international politics, the phony conservatism, the Jewish mentality that more and more destroys the last residues of the old ethos of the gentleman and of fair play with the most hypocritical and materialistic praxis – all of that survives and develops, within the framework of the British “empire,” after Disraeli, and never loses the signature of its artificer. Right up to today.
Consecrated by a long tradition, the merchants of the “City,” that den of the Anglo-Jewish plutocracy, have the right to invite the Lord Mayor to a banquet and to receive the confidences of the Prime Minister in a speech. The last of Disraeli’s speeches was once again an extreme profession of “imperialist” faith: “I know that they [the English merchants] are not ashamed of the noblest of human sentiments, now decried by philosophers – the sentiment of patriotism; because I know they will not be beguiled into believing that in maintaining their Empire they may forfeit their liberties.” One could well say that in the battle that England is obstinately and desperately fighting today, the spirit of the Jew Disraeli lives on. And if the English, in order to conform to that spirit, bring not only their “empire” but also their nation to ruin, they owe it to this champion of the Chosen People.
Source: La Vita Italiana, September 1940
 Editor’s note: From Disraeli’s novel Coningsby (1844).
 Singularly, at the Berlin congress, the Jew Disraeli became very friendly with Bismarck, the Prussian and Aryan “Iron Chancellor.” The two got along wonderfully, and Bismarck said, “Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann!” (“The old Jew, that is the man”). Those who have read Malynski and De Poncins’ book, The Occult War, will not be overly surprised by this fact, since they will have a clear view of certain aspects of Bismarck’s activity, which, from a Traditional and truly conservative point of view, are anything but positive.
Remembering Julius Evola (May 19, 1898–June 11, 1974)
Visions of a New Right: Jonathan Bowden’s Right
Metapolitics and Occult Warfare
Richard Mikuláš hrabě Coudenhove-Kalergi a pravda o jeho plánu
Východ a Západ – gordický uzel: kniha Ernsta Jüngera Der gordische Knoten
Correspondence between Gaston-Armand Amaudruz & Julius Evola
A Newly-Discovered Letter from Julius Evola
Very interesting, especially the part about United Nations. Now we are getting the Global Compact for Migration or the GCM “agreement” from the same facade of the same cabal.
Evola’s The Tools of the Occult War should be studied more. People seem to just skim over it, and that’s one of the reasons we still don’t have good enough defence against the subversion.
Samuel is referring to ch#13 of “Men Among The Ruins” a.k.a. “Weapons Of The Occult War”
Disraeli, the first neoconservative.
Laughably bad article, especially the claim that the Tories were prevalently Catholic. The discussion of the Jew Bill is also factually inaccurate; there was a Bill allowing the citizenship of Jews in colonies in 1740, but the Jew Bill itself was passed and repealed in 1753. The highlight though was the claim that before the British empire, empire had nothing to do with money. Is ‘imperial dignity’ what the Romans were concerned with when they extorted hundreds of talents from the Carthaginians and Macedonians or when Pompey plundered the cities of the East? Roman governors were of course infamous for corruptly coercing money from Greeks and Sicilians. Very little concrete criticism or comparison of Britain with other empires, just rambling innuendo. Obviously all empires are about exploiting the wealth and resources of their subject populations, but at least the British Empire restricted itself (with the exception of Ireland) to non-Europeans, unlike the prior empires that Evola admires.
Britain was by far the most moral European great power in its treatment of other Europeans in the 18th and 19th century, in contrast with France, Germany, Austria and Russia, Britain never used her predominant power to try and subjugate other European nations.
Evola should have stuck to writing about sex magic.
‘especially the claim that the Tories were prevalently Catholic.’
He meant in a spiritual sense. Catholicism vs judaised protestantism. The old gentry and agricultural aristocrats who were finally defeated by the merchants were by and large not for free trade etc.
‘Britain was by far the most moral European great power in its treatment of other Europeans in the 18th and 19th century, in contrast with France, Germany, Austria and Russia, Britain never used her predominant power to try and subjugate other European nations’
Im sure the Irish are glad to know that.
There are other Evola articles on this site.You should read them and get a better idea of the man before you innaccurately nitpick
From Hitler’s address to the German Reichstag (26 April 1942):
‘Now we all know that ever since the internal disruption of the European states Britain had entered into a conspiracy based upon a political doctrine which saw in the disintegration of the continent the essential conditions for the prosperity and the growth of the British Empire. No doubt this thought which dominated British policy was in itself very alluring. While Europe was exhausting her strength in numerous internal wars, Great Britain succeeded in building up a world-wide structure with a minimum of sacrifice in blood. The title of “Empire” which was given to this structure deserved to be compared with that of imperial Rome as little as an international business concern for the creation of cultural values.
It is an overestimation of the British statesmanship as well as of the political and military capacities of the British to assume that these are the causes for the decay of Europe. Here the origin of the condition is confused with its exploitation.
Thus, primarily England herself has not been able to cause the disintegration of the continent for as a state she was at that time far too unimportant but she did succeed in profiting from the resulting disintegration of Europe. Thanks to her insular position she acquired only a minimum of strength combined, however, with a maximum of cleverness to continue to maintain the impotence of Europe and with her own scarcely diminished strengths to conquer another world which was partly unexplored or at least culturally and militarily inferior, and partly exhausting itself in continuous internal struggles.
In spite of all her efforts, she failed to prevent the unification of the Italians, and in spite of all intervention the German Empire, through the will of the German peoples, and thanks to the endeavor of its great heroes, arose from its former ruins in the moment when it appeared in the superior genius of a Bismarck, not as something to mature with the years to come, but as a completely developed and powerful state. The more firmly the European peoples became established in statehood and convinced of their own worth, the more difficult the maintenance of the European situation was bound to become, which as the so-called balance of power no longer was in accordance with the true power relationships.
This mistaken belief in her ability to keep the European nations continually divided and to stir them up against one another by means of stupid tricks and nonsensical arguments was condemned to ever more drastic failure. Consequently, England was compelled to exchange her role of comfortable beneficiary of a given state of affairs for that of defender, or even of permanent maintainer. As a further consequence, however, the art of negotiation came to an end and in its place came the necessity of doing her own fighting, for which she lacked not only the will but also the ability.
This ability, however, is affected by the consideration of the tremendous and ever-increasing burden laid on the Empire on the one hand and of the ever-increasing sacrifices of blood required to maintain the desired disintegration in Europe on the other.’
‘The title of “Empire” which was given to this structure deserved to be compared with that of imperial Rome as little as an international business concern for the creation of cultural values.’
The Roman empire was infamous for the corruption of its governors and officials in plundering provinces. It was far worse morally than the British empire and resulted in the deaths of millions of Europeans and annihilation of their native cultures.
‘Thanks to her insular position she acquired only a minimum of strength combined, however, with a maximum of cleverness to continue to maintain the impotence of Europe and with her own scarcely diminished strengths to conquer another world which was partly unexplored or at least culturally and militarily inferior, and partly exhausting itself in continuous internal struggles.’
Not only did Britain in fact play virtually no role in causing conflict between the other Great Powers (in fact she generally tried to avert them, as with the Eastern Crisis) but the hundred years from 1815 to 1914 were not, as is absurdly stated a period of ‘continuous internal struggles’, but the most peaceful in modern European history.
‘In spite of all her efforts, she failed to prevent the unification of the Italians, and in spite of all intervention the German Empire,’
This is ridiculous, Britain tacitly supported both unifications. ‘in spite of all her efforts’; lol
‘This mistaken belief in her ability to keep the European nations continually divided and to stir them up against one another by means of stupid tricks and nonsensical arguments was condemned to ever more drastic failure.’
Noticeable how not a signle actual instance of this is actually given
What of the corruption of the aristocracy? It is disturbing that the best of us were lowered and degraded.
English Reader is basically the eternal Anglo, who thinks Britain which had the white dutch boers genocided in South Africa by Cecil Rhodes on behalf of the Rothschilds, Barney Barnato and the Oppernheimers for a bunch of Diamonds. Which had the Irish genocided in a massive potatoe famine on behalf of the white-hating-Jew Disraeli. Which basically started the whole multicultural mess by integrating third world shitholes like India into their Empire and later granting their inhabitants equal rights thinking that Sikh Turbans thus somehow magically become part of british culture. Which had their own kinsmen in Rhodesia betrayed by the evil Anglo Boomer Witch Margarethe Thatcher for a bunch of Niggas.
Is still: “somewhat by far the most moral European great power”.
For those of you too lazy to read the entire article, here’s Evola’s TL;DR: “Anglos are basically spiritual Semites”.
LOL; ye olden days alt-right memes!
Shame on the aristocrats who intermarried with the merchant underclass, and on the ones who didn’t and yet were unable to stop the advance of the religion of money. Which to this day is still the root cause of our predicament.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment