by A. S. LEESE



THE future can teach us nothing because it does not exist. Neither can we learn much from the present, because the results of present policies can only be judged in the future. Our experience must come from the past; it may come as instinct; it may come as history.


The object of this pamphlet is to expose a great fraud, part of an age‑long world campaign of Jewish fraud.


We have all been taught that Disraeli was a great man. We accepted the verdict presented to us by history-books. We took it for granted. We are easily fooled as long as we do that.


We know now, that the history taught to us has been distorted. Let those who think that this is impossible, reflect how easily the people are fooled in other respects. Take the following examples:—


1. Consider the Epstein abortion called “Rima” in the Bird Sanctuary near the Serpentine in Hyde Park. Then reflect that not only was a leading national politician prevailed upon to unveil this horror, but that the monument has been there for years and yet remains unsmashed in the centre of the Empire's Metropolis.


2. Consider that the Jew, Rufus Isaacs (now Lord Reading), who was involved in the Marconi scandal and admitted publicly that his action therein was a “mistake of judgment,” became Lord Chief Justice within 3 months!


3. Consider that Mr. Ormsby‑Gore, a Zionist, speaking last year as representative for the British Nation at Geneva, announced to the world that “the cardinal principle of the British Empire was that no person could be debarred from holding office under the Crown by reason of race, colour or creed.” Reflect that no voice, other than that of the I.F.L. has been raised against this dictum which surely must mark the zero hour of democratic ignorance and sheer stupidity; reflect that the British people who are the world's foremost stockbreeders, have almost unanimously accepted the teaching that Race and Blood have no significance when applied to British Politics!


4. Consider the World Depression and reflect that its cause, the planned cornering of Money, the medium of exchange, is unknown to most of the Democratic or Fascist Movements in the world other than ours!


Yes, the people are easily fooled! Is it surprising, then, that when Rima, Lord Reading, Mr. Ormsby‑Gore and the Bank of England have been made acceptable to the Great Majority, Disraeli has been foisted upon the world as a Great Statesman?


The same agency bas been responsible for doing this which bamboozled the public of Britain in regard to the four examples given above; and that agency fooled the world for centuries into believing the Jewish Story of the Creation and the Myth of the Chosen People of God! And what is that Agency? It is





In this foul campaign for Jewish World Supremacy, there is and has been, hardly any limit to what this effrontery can accomplish. The steady Judaisa­tion of the Nordic (“Aryan”), mind, has already corrupted the American and the British standards of citizenship until it is almost a habit to extol brilliant and unscrupulous cunning and to despise the solid Nordic virtues of honesty, reliability and fidelity. That is why we British people still tolerate Dem­ocratic Politicians, the Jews in our midst—and Disraeli-boosting propaganda.


The Jews use the nations to carry out their policies. In Disraeli's time they were using Britain.

And they wanted her strong. They have nearly finished with us now!

The Rothschilds were their Leaders.

Disraeli was the tool of Rothschild Policy.


Disraeli was commissioned to achieve the following principal Jewish objects:—


1. To strengthen the British Nation to carry out Rothschildian policy.


2. To use Britain to oppose the might of the hereditary enemy of Judah, Russia, and to reduce the prestige of the Romanovs.


3. To encourage false ideas of Tory Democracy, i.e., to introduce the poison of Liberalism into the Conservative machine, the results of which policy are now obvious in the attitude of Mr. Baldwin, the “Conservative” leader.


4. To push forward the ideas of democracy by Reform Acts so that Britain would later be an easy prey for Government by Jewish Finance.


5. To further the emancipation of the Jews in Britain.


All these he did.




This can better be estimated from his writings and from his actions than from his speeches. He turned out many novels based on political realities and as he could not suppress a boasting spirit in these works, he gave away much valuable evidence in them which showed exactly where he stood. At the age of 22, he wrote “Vivian Gray” in which he depicts himself as he fancied himself, a cynic, adventurer, careerist and intellectual, a man who climbs to power by taking advantage of the geed and folly of others; “mankind is my great game” says Gray; the spirit of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion themselves! His book “Contarini Fleming” had as its hero a Venetian who had to live in Scandinavia, and it describes how he abhorred the Nordic inhabitants of that region. In “Alroy,” a Jewish Prince of the Captivity conquers the Moslems and establishes a Jewish Empire over them. “Sybil,” published when Disraeli was forty years of age, reveals how deeply he had studied and mastered the true principles of Statecraft, although he never practised them nor intended to do so. Disraeli shows in this novel that he knew the functions of an aristocracy as the natural leaders and protectors of the people, even to the point of “daring to encounter popular passion;” and he realised the hopelessness of Democracy from a national standpoint. Then why did he himself bring in the Reform Bill of 1867?


Because he was working for Judah, not for Britain.


That he knew what he was doing and for whom he was doing it, is revealed in another novel “Coningsby,” written when he was 39; here, under the name of “Sidonia” is described a “superman” of finance, a Jew, who is quite clearly and truthfully the fictional double of the Rothschild of the period. We shall quote from this book later.


Disraeli had all the common characteristics of the Jew:—love of display; shameless bare‑faced effrontery of the type which puts white men who come into contact with it, entirely out of their calculations; a purely materialist outlook; and an intellect trained, as all slave‑races are trained, by observa­tion on the lower aspects of human nature in others. He had Semitic obstinacy, which assisted him in his ambition to shine by his intellect its spite of racial handicaps. Utterly insincere in action, because he had no motives beyond personal advancement and his duties as a destructive Rothschild agent, he turned upon his colleagues as it suited him.


Disraeli was baptised as a Christian when a boy; but he was not religious; he regarded Christianity as a continuation of Judaism, and lumped the two religions together under the obscure phrase, “Semitic principle.” His statue is shoved forward into a transept at Westminster Abbey, so that it is the first thing that meets the eye after one has passed through the doors (where, perhaps by design, is a Warning Notice against Pickpockets).


He was often heavily in debt and never seems to have stood on his own legs, financially. He married a widow 15 years older than himself, but possessed of a large fortune; he was nevertheless always in the hands of money‑lenders.


The men of genius in his novels were always Jews and undoubtedly he regarded himself as a member of a superior race living among a people of whose solid moral qualities he was superciliously aware.


Disraeli's father was a Jew of means and a student, indifferent to Judaism; his wealth gave his son an easy entry into a certain class of fast society in London, where Disraeli associated with many friends of revolutionaries on the Continent, and also with such characters as Count D'Orsay and Lady Blessington. With Lionel Rothschild, Disraeli was intimate in his adolescence, and in his letters to his sister he reveals how Lionel gave him advice and financial assistance.


To gain his ends, he wormed his way into the favours of Queen Victoria, but that Sovereign, although influenced by him very strongly, kept him at a distance, and he was unable to control the great lady as Rasputin in our time controlled the Tsarina.




That Disraeli's political career was that of a cynical adventurer and not that of a British statesman is shown by his record, which we give below under sub‑headings representing some of the chief political questions of the day:—


Party Politics.


He first stood as a “Liberal‑anti‑Whig” candidate or “Reformer;” next, as Independent; then, at Marylebone, he prepared to stand as a Radical, but the vacancy did not occur as expected; next he came forward as an Independent “Tory Democrat” at High Wycombe, and at the time when he did this, he was still a member of the Liberal “Westminster Reform Club,” whose subscriptions he had forgotten to pay; on being reminded of them, he wrote an insolent letter and resigned from the Club; and the Club con­temptuously returned his money! Then he stood as a Tory for Taunton. In none of these elections was he successful. Then at last in 1837 he won an election as a Tory. His policy then was to toady to Peel, his leader, but that politician took little notice of him.


Free Trade and Protection.


In 1842, Peel began to abandon his principles of Protection as regards farm produce, and Disraeli, hoping for favour, supported him. Two years later, finding that Peel did not take him up, Disraeli turned against him, and went hot for Agricultural Protection. Later, when he had became Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lord Derby, he supported a policy of abandonment of Protection and of removing taxes on land instead.


The Reform Acts.


In 1856 he declared, “I hold that to be a Conservative principle which regards the 1832 Act as a satisfactory settlement.”


Eleven years later, he himself brought in a Household Suffrage Bill, an act stigmatised by Lord Cranbourne as “a political betrayal without parallel in our Parliamentary annals.”




In 1857 he not only condemned the annexation of Oudh, but suggested that a Commission should be sent to India to enquire into the grievances of all classes of the population; Mr. Campbell said of this speech that he “had never heard a more unpatriotic or injudicious speech.” (The destructive Jewish influence is still at work; consider the connections between the late Montagu, Lord Reading and the White Paper of Destruction).


When Palmerston tried to do away with the dual control represented by the East India Company and the Government, and to bring India under the Crown, Disraeli opposed him. Soon after this, when his own Party came into power, he himself proposed a Bill to the effect that Queen Victoria should become Empress of India. This has since been described (shades of Clive!), as “presenting the British Nation with India!”




In 1844, Disraeli preached Liberal ideas on Ireland; in 1868, he held Conservative views.


The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 9, p. 565, rightly sums up the qualities of this man as


Brilliant but somewhat Unscrupulous!


Now let us see how Disraeli worked as




During the life of Disraeli, the Rothschilds who governed Europe used England as their principal tool, knowing that her policy had been favourable to Jewish loans and encouraged more. The Jews’ weapons were not turned against England during this period, or, rather, not for her immediate destruction. That is why the name of England stood high among the nations during Disraeli's political career. The poison instilled was a slow one. The might of Britain was brought into opposition to Russia over a miserable dispute on a matter of no concern to us as a nation, a squabble between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics in Palestine. Disraeli, as a Rothschild agent, used his friendship with Napoleon III to bring France and Britain together against Russia, so that the two nations might do the Jews’ dirty work and help to separate the West from Russia. And so Britain was brought into the Crimean War. Even during this War, Disraeli did all he could to embarass the Government until the Prince Consort had to appeal for goodwill in case Constitutional Government failed in the throes of the nation's crisis.


In 1876, the Turks excited indignation in the Western Nations by atrocities on Bulgarian Christians; those atrocities may easily have been excited by the judicious payment of Rothschild money to the Turks; a new war was due, to make profit for the Jews. Disraeli did all he could to “pooh‑pooh” these outrages so as to bring England into opposition with Russia and on the side of the Turk. Russia, the natural protector of the Balkan Christians, went to the relief of the Bulgarians and soon forced the Turks to accept surrender under the Treaty of San Stefano, which allowed for a Greater Bulgaria. Then Rothschild stepped in, and the Western Powers, his agents, forced Russia to confer with them in Berlin. Disraeli himself went there to represent Britain! A Treaty was there enacted, by which Russia's influence was curtailed; the Turk was allowed to use the Balkan defensive frontier, whilst Eastern Roumelia remained under the Turk but with a Christian internal administration.


Had Britain, under Disraeli, not backed the wrong horse, she would not only have gained Cyprus for the Empire, but Egypt and Crete as well.


Let Mr. T. P. O'Connor describe the triumphal return of Disraeli from this Jewish victory for which he received the Order of the Garter:—


“This picture is certainly one of the strangest, if not the saddest. Here were these multitudes of free English Christians cheering the man who had given back more than a million of Christians to the most degrading slavery, as if he had conferred an everlasting honour upon the name of England, and had most at heart the interests of Christendom.


“To those benighted beings, the acquisition of Cyprus and the protectorate of Asia Minor were the great interests of the hour; but to the future historian a little episode, of which these cheering multitudes knew nothing, will probably appear the most interesting.


“Sir Moses Montefiore, at the advanced age of 95, had come out to meet the Premier. Introduced by Lord Henry Lennox, the Prime Minister grasped him warmly by the hand, and seemed delighted with the kindly veteran's welcome. By that small scene the meaning of this apotheosis of Lord Beaconsfield by a Christian people is written to letters of light. That day represented the triumph, not of England, not of an English policy, not of an Englishman. It was the triumph of Judaea, a Jewish policy, a Jew. The Hebrew who drove those crowds to Downing Street was dragging the whole of Christendom behind the Juggernaut car over the rights of the Turkish Christians, of which he was the charioteer.


‘I have brought you,’ he said at Downing Street, ‘peace with honour.’ I think I am anticipating the verdict of a very near posterity when I say that what Lord Beaconsfield that day brought to England was war with shame.”




Disraeli knew that no country can do without a true aristocracy; by in­stilling the Liberal Jewish Poison into the Tory Party he gave it that mortal wound which destroyed it long after his death. As already des­cribed, his was the hand which introduced the measure of More Democracy known as the Reform Act of 1867. Thus he fulfilled his Jewish duty, that indicated by Protocol No. 1.!




Baron Lionel de Rothschild had several times been returned as a Member of the House of Commons, but was not allowed to sit because he would not take the necessary Christian oath. He was Disraeli, under Rothschild influence, who pushed forward with the Emancipation Bill which was passed into law in 1858 and by which Rothschild was at last allowed to take his seat. Disraeli directly supported the Bill, and thus Aliens were at last able to “represent” Britons in the House of Commons. In questions affecting the emancipation of the Jews, says Corti, in his “Reign of the House of Rothschild,” Lionel Rothschild and Disraeli were “so much of the same opinion that the Conservative Minister almost always voted against his own Party.”




Disraeli from an early age had a complete knowledge of the Jew world power and could not help boasting about it. As stated already, his novel “Coningsby” portrays Rothschild under the name of “Sidonia,” as follows:—


“During the Peninsular War, a cadet of the younger Branch of this family made a large fortune by military contracts and supplying the commissariat of the DIFFERENT armies. He had established a brother or a near relative in most of the principal capitals. He was Lord and Master of the Money-Market of the world, and, of course, virtually Lord and Master of everything else. There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar. No Minister of State had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalogue of his acquaintances . . . would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little . . . The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive with the public pretext of transactions.”


After describing how Sidonia meets Jews in key positions in every foreign court he visits, Disraeli puts the following words into his mouth:— “So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”


Should any reader of this pamphlet make the objection that these extracts are not to be taken seriously as coming from a Novel, let us quote from one of Disraeli's works on history, “The Life of Lord George Bentinck” written in 1852; the quotation is as easily applicable in 1934.


“The influence of the Jews,” he writes, “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. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments and men of Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co‑operate with atheists; the most skilful accumul­ators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.”




Disraeli's reputation seems to rest on four acts of his life:—


1. The Treaty of Berlin. This was a Jewish victory over Christian interests.


2. The invention of Tory Democracy. This was the poison which destroyed true Conservatism in this country. Security and Democracy are incompatible terms.


3. “He gave us India.” Clive did that; Disraeli, Jew‑like, simply exploited the gift for his own advancement.


4. The acquisition for Britain of the Suez Canal Shares. This is per­haps the “star turn” of those who have maintained the Disraeli superstition, and deserves a section to itself.




In 1875, the Khedive of Egypt, forced by financial stringency, was anxious to sell his interest in the Suez Canal. Disraeli must have known of this at once through his friend and master Rothschild. A Mr. F. Greenwood, Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, received private advices that the shares might be acquired for England, and patriotically refusing to make a journalistic “scoop” of the information, hastened to Lord Derby with the news. Lord Derby consulted with his Hebrew Prime Minister, and the latter then bought the shares. Parliament was not sitting at the time, and Disraeli borrowed £4,000,000 from his colleagues the Rothschilds, who made a profit of about £500,000, which no doubt earned for Disraeli a considerable commission. It was, of course, to the Jewish interest that Britain should hold the Suez Canal (until the Jews got Palestine out of the Great War). Disraeli had written to the Queen saying, “We have scarcely time to breathe, we must carry the matter through.” He was very, very anxious that Rothschilds should handle the loan! Now, read this extract from a letter from the Hon. G. M. Kinnaird to The Times dated 20th March, 1930.


“When Disraeli announced to the House his purchase of Suez Canal Shares, my father, the Hon. Arthur Kinnaird, M.P. for Perth was seated next to the Governor of the Bank of England. On hearing Disraeli's statement that he had gone to the only people who could have advanced the money, the Governor of the Bank of England whispered to my father, ‘What a lie! I could have given it to him in a minute.’”


Thus, we now know that the money was available all the time at home, and the deal could have been put through without the help of Jewish money at all.




One of the chief agencies through which the Disraeli superstition has been maintained and developed to hoodwink generations of Englishmen has been the Primrose League. It was started by a Jew, who wrote its first rules; his name was Sir H. Drummond Wolff, a “diplomatist” (Rothschild agent?) and son of a Christian Missionary!




That was the motto taken by Disraeli. One who saw through him tran­slated it thus:—“The impudence of some men sticks at nothing.”




The same influences which have allowed the “Rima” monstrosity to stand in London as a memorial to a great British nature‑lover have clothed with a mantle of deception the ignoble figure of this alien Jew Disraeli. Those influences are Jewish Money Power and the immeasurable effrontery of the members of the Jewish Nation.




Disraeli was a Jew and a bad Jew.


“In all that is disputable in Mr. Disraeli's character—his lack of scruple as to the methods he thought permissible is beyond question. He was always making use of convictions which he did not share, pursuing objects which he could not avow, manoeuvering his Party into alliances which although unobjectionable from his own standpoint, were discreditable and indefensible from theirs. It was an atmosphere of pervading falseness which involved his Party as well as himself and which culminated in the cynical audacities of 1867.” Lady Gwendolen Cecil inThe Life of Robert, Marquess of Salisbury.”


“That whole character is complete in its selfishness, the whole career is uniform in its dishonesty. Throughout his whole life I do not find even on a single occasion, a generous emotion, one self‑sacrificing act, a moment of sincere conviction except that of the almighty perfection of himself. I find him uniform in all his dealings with his fellow man, and behind every word he utters I can only seethe ever‑vigilant custodian of his own interest. There is, throughout the same selfishness, calm, patient, unhasting, unresting. Such a man the myriads of this mighty Empire accept as chief ruler; for such a man, millions of pure hearts beat with genuine emotion; to such a man is given to sway, by his single will, your fortunes and mine, and even those of countless generations to come. Which shall a near posterity most wonder at, the audacity of the imposter, or the blindness of the dupe? The immensity of the worship or the pettiness of the idol?” T. P. O'Connor in “The Life of Lord Beaconsfield.”