|The Jews in England I|
|From NSV Report, A Quarterly Overview of the National Socialist Vanguard, vol. 12, No. 3, Jul/Sep 1994, pp. 4-7|
Introduction – These American articles were inspired by the Dowager Lady Jane Bridwood’s prosecution in London under the Race/Public Order Act in 1991 and 1994. There was an attempt at a third prosecution in 1998, by which time she was 80 years old, but this was abandoned because of her failing health. Defended by Doug Christie at the second trial, she was convicted and given a 3-month suspended sentence for publishing The Longest Hatred.
This information is not authoritative but references are often given to enable the material to be checked. For example, an earlier part claimed that a judge at Southwark Crown Court had pronounced the 1290 Edict of Expulsion to be still in force. Brian Holmes, an American who was living in London at the time, had gone to the Court to return a few hours later claiming to have obtained a hearing there and then. More likely it was just a court official saying something which could be interpreted in the desired way. Nonetheless, these articles provide an interesting insight into the history of the Jews in England and their methods.
Since this particular NSV Report is being sent to a number of Jewish “Holocaust” survivors, journalists and government officials in England, we are providing herein some background history regarding England’s current law (King Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion of the Jews) in the hope that the English people, who are also our people, will have more insight regarding the Jewish expulsion. Obviously, England’s ZOG and our ZOG will do their utmost to circumvent any existing laws in order to have their own way, but if enough potential jurors become knowledgeable enough, smart enough and angry enough, then perhaps a defendant can get more justice in the courts than he now does.
In 1190 AD, Bury St. Edmunds became the first town in England to formally expel the Jew. This example was followed by Leicester in 1231, Newcastle upon Tyne, Wycombe, the County of Warwick and parts of East Anglia in 1234, Southampton in 1236, Northamptonshire in 1237, Berkhamstead in 1242, Newbury with Speenhamland in 1243, Bridgnor in 1274 and Cambridge in 1275. Other towns in England and Wales which expelled the Jews include Beaumaris, Newborough, Canarvon, Criccieth, Harlech, Bala, Conway, Rhuddlan, Flint, Derby, Romsey and Winchelsea.
In an attempt to solve the problem of “anti-Semitism,” King Edward I passed in 1275 the Statutem de Judeismo (Laws or Statutes regarding Jewry), a set of laws commonly known as the “Anti-Usury Laws.” These laws outlawed the lending and borrowing of money for unproductive purposes. Jewish historian Cecil Roth, in his book A History of the Jews in England, admitted that these special privileges were “an amazing concession” because it was probably the first example of “affirmative action” or “positive discrimination.” This set of laws was remarkable because King Edward I did not merely outlaw the lending and borrowing of money for unproductive purposes but granted special licenses to the Jew in order to encourage him to take up farming and any craft. However, the Jew never took advantage of these opportunities, choosing instead to continue with such parasitic practices as usury, clipping the coin (paring the silver off the coins which debased the currency), desecrating the host and ritually murdering Christian children every Passover, as the Jew is instructed to do in the Talmud. If anyone thinks that this was simply a medieval problem, it should be remembered that when Henry Ford was accused of being an “anti-Semite” for having publicized the Jew’s thoroughly unproductive and parasitic nature, he offered a reward of $1,000 (a considerable sum at the time) to anyone who could show him a Jewish farmer. The reward was never collected.
King Edward I permanently banished the Jews from England in 1290. After the Jan/Mar ‘92 NSV Report was published, one of our associates made a trip to the University of Southern California Law School and sent us a copy of the actual wording of King Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion of the Jews in 1290. The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 reads:
“Eodem anno omnes Judei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, et uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sanctorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concedente rege Edwardo, exulantur.”
This is translated by Dir. Cooper as:
“To the same end [in reference to a tax levy in the previous sentence which is not included here] in the year, all Jews, with their goods, children and wives, around the holiday of All Saints [All Saints’ Day is November 1st], are banished from the land of England and of Aquitania [the southwest part of what is now France between the Loire River and Pyrenees Mountains], King Edward having conceded.”
The above sentence says a lot – not only for English history but this situation has repeated itself elsewhere in Europe from the middle ages to the present time. You see, the word “concedente” implies that the king reluctantly yielded to pressure from his advisers and subjects. In other words, the king was not the motivating factor behind the Edict of Expulsion. Most probably, the king was informed in no uncertain terms that unless the Jews were expelled, he would face a violent revolution which would not only result in the expulsion of the Jews but also the execution of the king, his family and loyal backers. So the king conceded to the Edict of Expulsion and thus ordered his Jewish friends, allies, business partners and co-conspirators out of English territory. To ease the pain of his former Jewish associates, the king not only allowed the Jews to keep the money which they obtained from usury and coin-clipping, and any belongings that they could carry (all Jewish owned real estate, synagogues, cemeteries went to the king), but the king also levied a tax onto the English people to pay for the Jews’ transportation out of England. (Note: From the medieval ages to the present time, national leaders always deny a Jewish problem but eventually the people reach a point where they no longer believe the lies of their leaders and proceed to give an ultimatum to these leaders – Jews out or revolution. Faced with such an ultimatum, the leaders almost always yield to the desires of the people.)
Most of the Jews were expelled but a minority chose to remain in England by agreeing to convert to Roman Catholicism. However, it soon became apparent that the “conversos” were not sincere in their desire to convert. So, in 1358, King Edward III needed to re-apply the Edict of Expulsion of 1290. The same situation arose in 1609 when James I was forced to expel the “refugees” from Spain and Portugal whose perfidy exposed them as being Jewish.
It is important to note that the Statutem de Judeismo of 1275, the Edict of Expulsion of 1290 and the Edict of 1596 (issued to prevent negroes from ever setting foot on British soil) are Royal Edicts. They became permanent laws when the monarch at the time exercised the Royal Prerogative. When the monarch exercises the Royal Prerogative, it is like the Pope issuing an Encyclical. The monarch can never be overruled. Any law which is issued through the Royal Prerogative can only be changed by a subsequent monarch, regardless of anything said or done by the House of Commons or House of Lords. There is no “statute of limitations” concerning a Royal Edict. A Royal Edict is a permanent law which must be obeyed to the letter by all people in England forever. Every Jewish history book admits that the Edict of Expulsion is still in force.
The Jew desperately wants the law changed but does not want to publicize the matter for this will draw attention to the reasons why the laws were issued in the first place. As we all know, those reasons are as valid today as they were centuries ago. One would think that the Jew might try to take the hint and act like a normal human being but this would mean giving up the lending of money for unproductive purposes (usury) etc. So the Jew tries to destroy the Royal Prerogative by trying to destroy the national sovereignty of England and every other nation by corrupting and undermining every nation within the bounds of Christendom by instituting a Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG). Those who are naive enough to think that this explanation is a “Jewish conspiracy theory” should be informed that the editorial of the Jewish Chronicle of February 23, 1990, titled “One Europe” stated:
“It is becoming almost a self-evident truth that our future collective security – from economical and ecological disaster as much as from military cataclysm – can be assured only by pushing further and faster for one world. One Europe, in which the Soviet Union and its former satellites are equal partners, or at least close associates, is the first logical step. But time is pressuring faster than nation-states can cope with the notion of change... Can we get there in time?”
It is important to consider the Statutem de Judeismo of 1275 and the Edict of Expulsion of 1290 not as laws passed suddenly to try to solve forever the Jewish problem but rather as part of a series of laws passed throughout the 13th century to deal with the subversive influence of the perfidious Jew. The first set of national laws passed in England was the Magna Carta of 1215 which to this day is the source of all laws in the English-speaking world, including the American Constitution. Of the 63 clauses of the Great Charter, numbers 10 and 11 deal with the Jewish problem: