Europe’s Scientists and Jewish plutocrats (1)

The Overseas oligarchy’s demand reflects on more freely activity in theories of economic thinkers who are proponents of “free trade” (mercantilist). This activity is also reflected in political thought and it put the principle of “Utility” in foundation of theories of the proponents of activity development of The Overseas oligarchy. Promoters of speculative theories in political and moral thoughts were well known as “Utilitarian”, and their approach was called “Utilitarianism”. The fundamental principle in the approach to the social and political life can be summed up in one sentence: “Only what is useful is good”. This was the new political and social morality which was against value principles and ancient Christian religious morals.
“Edward Herbert” (1583-1648) was emerged in this atmosphere. He was an English politician and landowner; in the years of 1619 to1624, he was named “Baron Herbert of Cher bury” since British ambassador was in France. His brother, “George Herbert”, was a priest and poet and a courtier of James I. Edward Herbert is known for his philosophical literatures, his first book called “De Veritate” (The Truth) was published in 1624. This book is the first philosophical literature written by an English writer. And of course Herbert’s literatures were all written in Latin language not English.
“Edward Herbert” created the concept of “natural religion” against “positive religion”. “Natural Religion” is an intellectual and moral nature which is common in all religions. “Positive religion” is the conventional religions. This was the beginning of a new religious doctrine that was widespread in Europe’s aristocratic circles in 17th and 18th centuries and was named “Deism” or “natural religion”. The word is derived from “Deus” that means God in Latin. “Deists” believed that God is “the first cause” and creator of the world but denied his involvement in the nature and human life. In their opinion, all religions have a unit nature that is intelligible by human reason; all the rest is redundant which was added to the “natural religion” throughout human history. It should be noted to the famous Deists like as “John Locke”, “Lessing”, “Voltaire”, “Spinoza”, “Thomas Paine”, “Thomas Jefferson”, and “Benjamin Franklin”. The comparative studies of religions based on Deist beliefs were started in British intellectual circles in the second half of 17th century.
Many autocratic rulers of Europe, such as “Oliver Cromwell” in England and Frederick II, the King of Prussia (1740-1786), were proponents of these theories and their courts were the centers of subsistence and activity for these thinkers and were the origins of such theories. This intellectual activity was under way in small aristocratic European courts. For example, consider the life of “John Locke”:
John Locke (1632-1704), the British political thinker, was secretary and doctor of Anthony Ashley Cooper’s family from 1667.
Anthony Cooper, who later was called Baron Ashley and then 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, was a famous conspirator of that time. Initially, he was a supporter of Charles I, King of England. Then he joined to the party of “parliament” and became a member of autocrat Cromwell’s private consultants. Then he was among the conspirators who brought Charles II to the throne. Lord Shaftesbury was considered as one of the most influential figures of the court of Charles II and he was the Minister of Finance and Treasury for a long time. Charles II, the king who married with the Portuguese princess “Catherine of Braganza”, had deep links with Amsterdam's Jewish plutocrats, and his court was the center of Jews’ activity. He was deeply indebted to the British East India Company and he conceded the Port of Mumbai, his wife’s dowry, to the above company for an annual payment of ten pounds.
Furthermore, Lord Shaftesbury did not remain loyal to Charles II and followed a treacherous and insidious procedure against him and he was forced to flee to Amsterdam, where he died in 1683. John Locke was also disgraced because of his Lord's treacherous activities, and he moved to Amsterdam in 1684. After shortly (1685), Charles II died at the age of 54 and his brother, James, “Duke of York”, came to the throne. He is the one that old New York City was called “James’ Castle” upon him. James II was also aimed at the machinations of these centers. After a period of conflict and chaos, on June 30, 1688, seven primary British figures wrote a confidential letter to Netherlands’ Prince William of Orange, the groom of James II (husband of Mary Stuart, daughter of James II) and asked him to march to England and take the throne. William landed at the head of an absolute fleet on the south coast of England with concessional lending from Amsterdam’s Jewish plutocrats. James II fled to France and lived in Paris until the end of his life. William of Orange sat on England’s throne as William III. After these developments, John Locke returned to England in 1689. From then until his death, John Locke as the court doctor and political theorist was correlated with the most powerful aristocratic British officials and associations and he was considered as one of the most influential political figures of that time. He was also one of shareholders of Britain's Overseas Company.
“John Yolton”, a professor at York University of Canada and the author of a biography of John Locke, believes that Lord Shaftesbury's “direct impact” on development of political thought of John Locke was “great”. John Locke belonged to an English circle of scholars that had founded “Royal Society” in 1645 and he became a member of this society in 1668. Among this group, it is referred to Locke's close friends like as “Robert Boyle”, Robert Hooke”, “John Wallis”, “John Wilkins”, “Thomas Sydenham”, and “Isaac Newton”. Until now, the “Royal Society” is one of the most important institutions for meeting of modern plutocracy theorists.
The attitude of Europe's Scientists to the phenomenon of “Jewish plutocracy” was not consistent. The group, that had links with the Jews, supported their role in development of Europe’s trade and they were zealously proponents of unifying to the Jewish oligarchy and its complete and authoritative presence within the political structure of Europe. This attitude was started within the cultural activity of the sixteenth century known as the “Renaissance” in the cities of Italy’s government and it continued in intellectual centers of Amsterdam and London in the seventeenth century. It is around half of the seventeenth century that the concepts of “religious tolerance” and “freedom of religion” were seen in the literatures of a group of political Europe’s thinkers. “Roger Williams”, the spokesman of Puritans and the founder of Rhode Island colony in North America, is one of them. In such atmosphere, John Locke issued his famous book, “Letter concerning Toleration”, in 1689 and he defended the concession of full Britain’s citizenship rights to Jews. The year of 1689 is important and memorable in the history of development of modern plutocracy. It is the first year of reign of German-Dutch, orange / Naso, dynasty on England and the beginning of a tradition of German oligarchy ruled over this land. It is the year of Abraham Navarro’s embassy in the court of Aurangzeb and the resurgence of British East India Company in the Indian subcontinent; the resurgence of an activity that was drawn to the disastrous and scandalous impasse because of the “asininity” of Sir Josiah Child and James II. It is the year of deployment of the first important group of Jewish merchants of Amsterdam in port of Surat and the beginning of their lucrative business as the common agents of Dutch and British East India companies. And finally, it is the year that John Locke's letter was issued.
John Locke returned to London in the same year, and in fact, the letter was product of his presence in Amsterdam and the influence of city's cultural and political atmosphere on him. In this letter, Locke attacked to the church and Christianity ties with the government and explained that these ties have not been existed in early and original Christianity between religion and politics. He added: “Pagans, Mohammedans [Muslims] and the Jews cannot be deprived of civil rights in the commonwealth society because of their religious beliefs”. At that time, the participation of Muslims in British society had no relevance and John Locke was actually an effective member of an orchestra that it recommended the immigration of Amsterdam’s Jewish oligarchy to London, mass settlement of Jews in England, accepting them as citizens entitled to all the rights of citizenship and active participation with them. At this time, Amsterdam’s oligarchy had a great prestige in London that Sir Josiah Child, the chief of East India Company, issued a letter calling for the immigration of Jews to England in 1693. He wrote that Netherlands is an instructive example which it shows the “utility” of Jewish settlement in expanding of trade.
The vindication of Jewish presence in the political and economic structure of England was based on the principles of “Utilitarianism” or “natural religion” (Deism) which was accepted for political and intellectual centers of that era.
In 1638, Rabbi “Simon Luzzato” wrote a letter in Italian language upon the Jews in Venice. He argued “utilitarianism” of the Jews in Italy and other European governments and concluded: “wherever Jews attend, trade and business will be flourished”.
In 1714, “John Toland”, the famous English Deist, wrote a letter called “The reasons for naturalizing the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland”. He gave evidences about the utilitarianism of the Jewish presence in the structure of Great Britain’s society that had been obviously adapted from Jewish Luzzato’s letter.
French Montesquieu (1689-1755) was also in this group. He has expressed a positive attitude to Jews in “The nature of laws”. The historians of Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote that Montesquieu indirectly had influence on readers of his impressive book and he suggested that: “the Jewish had an extremely positive role in economic development of European countries”.
German Lessing (1729-1781) wrote a drama called “The Jews” with the aim of presenting a positive image of Jews in 1749. Furthermore, he wrote “The Wise Nathan” In 1779. In this drama, Jewish Nathan is a proponent of “natural religion” (Deism) against “positive religion”. He says to his Christian audience: “I consider neither my people nor your people as chosen ones. I am a human first and then I am a Jew. You are also a human first and then you are a Christian”.
In comparison to the people such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Lessing, those European scientists, who had not any link with Overseas’ business or not interested in, expressed a pessimistic attitude to Jews generally. The groups were not low in number and belonged to the thought contrasting different cliques, from materialist to Deist and devout Christian. The opponents of “free trade” (mercantilism) like as English “Sir William Patty” (1623-1687) were usually incompliant hostiles of the Jewish plutocrats and considered them as nocuous people. Patty’s attitude to the Jews had a direct link with his economic thought. Patty believed that land and work are true sources of wealth not trade. In his famous book, a letter about taxes and duties (1662), he presented “Labor theory of value”.
“Herder” (1744-1803), the famous German philosopher, considered the Jews as “weeds” that are twisted around almost all European countries and intake their sap. Voltaire (1694-1778) writes in his philosophical lexicon under the introduction of “the Jews”:
“Great nations cannot get the laws and beliefs from a small, unknown, and servitor nation…Whoever claims that Egyptians, Persians and Greeks have taken their knowledge from the Jews, it is like that he claims the Romans has taken their industry from menial British people…the Jews’ settlement in Babylon and Alexandria, that granted people the power of wisdom and knowledge, it taught this people only the art of usury…”
What excited the sensitivity of this group of thinkers against Jewish plutocrats was mainly the Jews’ attitude to create closed autonomous societies, tunic denominations with an internal mysterious structure centralized within the new nations. “Holbach” (1723-1789), French philosopher and friend of Voltaire, had also a pessimistic attitude to the Jews. He writes:
“Jews always humiliate the explicit ethical and legal principles of other nations ... They have been commanded to be cruel, inhuman, intolerant, peculator and traitor, and betray to the trust... In a word, the Jews are a plunderer nation. They greed deception and dishonesty in business and we can imagine that if they were more powerful, they would renew the atrocities [during the establishment of Jewish state in Palestine] occurred several times in their homeland …If there are the honest people among the Jews ( which there are undoubtedly), it means that they have rejected their own rules.
“Fichte” (1762-1814), the famous German philosopher, in 1793, called the Jews as “hostile and powerful state” which is constantly fighting against other states and they are violently suppressing citizens in some cases [such as Poland]. “Fichte” did not believe that Jews could become the loyal citizens of their host countries.
We should note that Fichte applied the term of “State” about the Jewish communities in Europe and it reflects his sensitivity to internal political structure of the Jews; the structure of a centralized state but without a land. The historians of Hebrew University of Jerusalem acknowledge that this group of thinkers of the eighteenth century of Europe did not demand Jews to change their religion but only demanded Jews to attract in European society like other citizens. However, the demand of ruling plutocrats over Jewish communities, namely the leaders of this landless state was not same. The permanence secret of Jewish communities (ghettos) in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries should be exactly searched in this demand and nothing else. Jewish oligarchy wanted to preserve its ancient quasi-governmental structure and have a strong institution its own unbounded wealth.
Among the leaders of the French Revolution, there were these two kinds of attitudes about Jewish oligarchy. Some of them differentiated between Judaism as a religion and Judaism as a quasi-governmental structure; they were not opponents with the first one, but they considered the permanence of second one contradictory with national rights. In December of 1789, a debate about the Jews was discussed in National French Assembly. The historians of Hebrew University of Jerusalem have expressed the opinion of this group as follows:
“The word of Juif is not the name of a religious tradition, it is the name of a nation that has its own rules, and it always acted according to the rules and henceforth it would act same. If you call the Jews as the citizen [of French government], it is like that you call English and Danish people as French citizens while they are still the citizens of their own states.
For instance, “Clermont Tonnerre” said in the National Assembly as follows:
“We should not let the Jews form a distinct political body or a class within the state. It is essential that each Jewish individual become a citizen. But it is said they don’t want. Alright! ... We cannot allow a non-citizen group within the state or a nation within another nation, to be present”.
This is that phenomenon we mentioned. The debates clearly delineate that the dissociable life and persistence in tribal-religious structure of “ghettos” is the natural desire of Jews.
“Napoleon”, after taking of power, also treated to Jews as a “nation”, not a religion. The first serious conflict of Napoleon with Jewish plutocrats was started when the residents of Alsace and Lorraine complained of Jewish usurers; and they demanded not to pay the heavy interests of their debts to them. The Jewish usury issue was discussed in the State Council and, by Napoleon’s pressure, the Council approved that the payment of residents of above regions would has been delayed for one year; and in the meantime, the Summit of Jewish French Community would has been held and concerned the issue of Jews’ relationships with government.
Therefore, on July of 1806, Council meeting of “Sanhedrin” was launched in Paris and French government referred 12 most important issues in which the Jewish community’s rules had conflict with French national legislation, to review and respond in this institution. For example, there were the implementations of some Jewish religious rules (such as the authenticity of divorce rulings by French courts), the problem of usury, as well as the scope of authority of political institutions within the Jewish community. Council of “Sanhedrin” presented the proper responses, suggesting the recognition of national laws and the authority of the national government, to the French government.
However, this response did not convince Napoleon; in 1808, he limited the financial activity of the Jews by some commands. Upon Napoleon Bonaparte’s positions, the Jewish plutocratic oligarchy became as his irreconcilable enemy. Shortly after issuing of above commands, an extensive network led by Rothschild’s dynasty was emerged throughout the territories of Napoleon’s Empire and it organized one of the largest and most astounding operations of currency smuggling linked to Britain’s government and army in the modern history of the world. These operations had a determining role in the fall of Napoleon.
To Be Continued…