Financial aristocracy and the Revolution of 1848 - 4

It is necessary here to add an explanation about current text of class war book in France:
This work was originally written in German in 1895, twelve years after the death of Marx, and it was published in the form of book in Berlin. This book was used as the basis of translation into various languages, including English. However, at the same time that was published in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Frederick Engels translated a chosen part of these articles into English and published them in the Democratic Review newspaper, in London. These two texts have differ-ences that English translators and publishers of this book have not mentioned its reason. In the original English text (ex-cerpts of Engels from articles by Marx) everywhere the term "Jewish plutocracy" is used clearly but in reprinting articles in the form of book this interpretation is deleted and replaced by the words "financial aristocracy "and" wolves of finance ". For example, we read in the translation of Engels about the friendly behavior of interim government arisen from the February Revolution of 1848 to the Jewish plutocracy and its adverse effects on the people:
[Wavering] the public confidence was because of that the government allowed to be misused by the Jewish plutocracy.
The former government had been fallen and the revolution was above all against the financial aristocracy.
The above sentence in the text published in book form was as follows:
[Wavering] of public confidence was due to the fact that government allowed to be exploited by the wolves of finance.
As a hypothesis, we know that this manipulation is likely to be done by Eleanor Marx, daughter and secretary of Karl Marx. Eleanor, unlike his father, was interested in Judaism and she knew herself as a Jewish. After his father's death, she was accompanied by Engels and she had a major role in the release of works of Marx. Therefore, the manipulation of El-eanor Marx and removing the biting references to Jews and Rothschild is possible.
However, the study of these two texts proves this point: In Marx's view, as an example of European political journalist of that time, at least until 1850, the concepts of "financial aristocracy" was the same with "financial Jewish " (plutocracy Jewish) and also concepts of "the wolves of finance "or" market wolves" are the same with the concept of" tax Jewish "or" exchange Jews " and her foremost of these concepts was the Rothschild.
During the reign of Louis Philippe in France, except two brief periods, Lord Palmerstone, stood at the head of British di-plomacy. One of this two sessions is in December 1834 that Sir Robert Peel took power from the Tories in a short time and Lyngton became the foreign minister. The other one was in the years of 1841- 1845 in which again Peel became the prime minister and Earl Aberdeen was his foreign minister. Prime ministers of Whig in this period are: Earl Grey (1830-1833), Viscount Melbourne (from July to November of 1834), again Melbourne (April 1835- September 1840) and Lord John Russell (1846-1852).
Viscount Palmerstone, the third belongs to the family of the Temple and his name is Henry John Temple. Palmerstone finished his education in two main British focal elite centers, high school of Harrow and University of Cambridge, a mix-ture of wealth and power and ancient communications of Temple family and his personal ability helped him to climb the pyramid of bureaucracy in the United Kingdom. According to Britannica’s writing, when he was young, he had date with the Princess Lyon, Lady Jersey and Lady Cooper. After the Lady Cooper was widowed, married with Palmerstone. For this reason, young Palmerstone was known as
"The Lord of love".
When he had 22 years he was appointed on the Minister of Admiralty position with the support of James Harris (Earl Malmsbory) and a little later (1807) he entered the House of Commons as the representative of Tory. Since then he was the representative of House of Commons for 58 years. When Palmerstone entered the British policy, it was coincided with the first round of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of hysterical anti-Napoleonic George Canning and his policies. At age 25 he became secretary of war, and in spite of the rise and fall of five Tory governments (Spencer Percival, Liverpool, Canning, Gadrych, Wellington) he remained in this position for 9 years (1809-1828). During this period he had an important role in providing the money and weapons of Wellington in the Iberian Peninsula and financial-data operations of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and John Charles Harris. In all these years, Palmerstone was a member of the Tory (Con-servative) party. In 1828 he resigned from the cabinet of Wellington, shortly after it he joined the Whig party (liberal) and he attacked hardly to Wellington, for his support from Don Miguel. As a result, in November 1830 in the government of Earl Grey, from the Whig Party, he became the Secretary of State and he remained in that position for 11 years. Palmerstone was a decisive fan of continued English smuggling of opium to China, and in this period it is his authority that the war of UK and China, known as the "First Opium War" (1839), began. In the same year the attack of Muhammad Ali Pasha to northern Syria occurred and created a story in which Palmerstone wished to achieve the establishment of the "Republic of Jews" in Palestine. The 55-year-old Palmerstone At the same time (1839) married to Lady Cooper (Emily Lamb), the sister of Lord Melbourne, the wealthy Prime Minister of that time.
With the ascent of Tory government in 1841, Palmerstone joined the ranks of the Wig opposition. In 1846, Lord Russell again became Secretary of State in the government and he was in that position until 1852. In this era of Directorate of General Palmerstone on the British diplomacy, the event of Hainaut and the adventure of Don Pacifica (1850) took place. Palmerstone performance in all these events represents his deep bond with the Jewish plutocracy.
During the 1848 revolution and the rise of Louis Bonaparte in France, Palmerstone, stood at the head of British diploma-cy. In the years 1852-1855 he was the Interior Ministry in the government of Earl Aberdeen and finally, in 1855, he be-came the British Prime Minister. During this period he won the Crimean War, which began shortly before, with the help of Rothschild liquidity. Palmerstone role in the Crimean War obviously marks his "Jewish connection". In the words of Edgar Fvkhtvangr, Palmerstone in the events of the Crimean War became the "hero of day" of British society he became a hero in front of the Tsar. Palmerstone resigned in late 1858, but later, with the fall of the Conservative government of Earl Derby (1859), once again he became the prime minister. This is the first government in the history of British gov-ernment that was officially called "liberal" (not "Whig"). This period of Palmerstone chairmanship on the British gov-ernment continued until his death (October 18, 1865).
Palmerstone is one of the greatest statesmen in modern history of West that had an important role in turning the Britain into Europe's top power of the nineteenth century. He was familiar with Latin, Greek, French and Italian and he was very prolific. Palmerstone is the founder of British diplomacy of the 19th century. He believed the British political system was the model for all European nations and his policies was in such a way that was known as the "missionary diplomacy". He had called the spread of English model and establishing the rule of "pro-British" as the "spreading liberalism and civiliza-tion". The Cambridge history of UK foreign policy writes many kings and statesmen in Europe know Palmerstone as the "dangerous plots, stubborn intervention and promoting the chaos".
Palmerstone mentioned only two powers of France and Russia, and primarily Russia, as an external threat to the UK. Palmerstone strategy was to prevent the union of Russia and France against England. With the ascent of Louis Philippe in France, of course, a danger in this respect is not the British colonial threat. Therefore, during the chairmanship of Palm-erstone, Russia was the main threat against the British Empire in the country's diplomacy and it was the central place of threat and the "Russian threat" was an excuse to expand the territories of the British Empire in the Ottoman domination and East. A group of politicians and government functionaries of Indian British had the major role in the emergence of such waver around oligarchy Jewish / colonial London and specifically the House of Rothschild and Wellesley.
Palmerstone is known as the founder of the "doctrine of the balance of powers" that in the late decades stood at the base of British diplomacy. Palmerstone had a great interest to India, and this caused the British war against Afghanistan and Iran.
Deep ties of Baron James de Rothschild and a Jewish plutocracy with the monarchy of Louis Philippe, in describing the European powers in the changes in the years 1830 -1848 in the Middle East, especially Egypt and Iran, seriously matters.
This is a phenomenon that is not usually considered in Iranian contemporary historiography. In simplistic conventional image that is dominant on our official historiography, the role of "French" in the developments of Iran in the Qajar period is usually "yes" and it is regarded as an obstacle against Britain and Russia introducing. This analysis is mentioned about the presence of US and some other western centers in Iran. According to this view, there is no distinction between the French government and the French private centers, and between different states and governments of France in the eight-eenth, nineteenth and twentieth-century. This simplistic picture with its all misleading and dangerous consequences is resulted from unfamiliarity of the elites of Iran with the mechanism of power and political centers and the developments of the contemporary West, at the time of the accident and even after it. This is true about the reign of Louis Bonaparte (Napoleon III).
France under Louis Philippe reign is a colonial power that began a severe mobility, especially in North Africa and in the Middle East and in the process, follow the teachings of the pattern of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the in-vestment and active cooperation of Jewish plutocracy.
Palmerstone, British Foreign Secretary, in a speech explained the distinction of colonial policy of Britain and France hypocritically:
The progress of our troops in the East and the actions of our neighbor, France, is now in Africa but there are differences that should be proud of. The Characteristic of development of the British army in Asia is the strict attention to justice, sacramental respect for property rights, and to avoid anything that might hurt people's feelings and dogma ... the French in Africa have adopted different systems that have very different results. I am sorry to say where the French army is notorious for its actions. They trample people and villagers who are unaware, anyone who cannot get away from their shot, and women and children are captured. (Shame! Shame!) All cattle, sheep and horses are being plundered and they destroy or burn everything that could not be plundered. Harvest grain on land and in the warehouse are burned. (Shame!) What is the result? While in India our officers, unarmed and alone go among the wildest tribes, no French in Africa could show his face...
During the reign of Louis-Philippe in France (1830-1848) coincides with the end of a four-year reign of Fath Ali Shah and all of the reign of Mohammad Shah Qajar in Iran (1834-1848). Homa Nateq in the investigation of the incidents of Iran does not mention the colonial oligarchy relation of London with France in Louis-Philippe time, and she has not men-tioned the status of the Jewish plutocracy. Nevertheless, she writes:
The government still believes that it can revive Napoleon's France-Iran relations, settle political and military alliance and frighten the enemies. It was an imaginary and false thought. As the ambassador of France said, it was clear that the Irani-ans were not familiar with developments in the West. The French now live in the era of colonialism of African nations. In the beginning of the reign of Muhammad Shah, only four years passed since occupation of Algeria...
Thus, in the reign of Mohammad Shah the movement of French in Iran was in an unprecedented top.
... French government could first extend its influence through cultural ways and thereby achieve the economic and politi-cal benefits. The field was ready ... so our relations with France and the reign of Mohammad Shah was the establishment of schools, sending students to France, building the Catholic Church and supporting the Christians in Iran, the right of property in Iran, Training the Corps, achieving the political and economic benefits.
If we know the reign of Mohammad Shah and Prime Minister of Haj Mirza Agassi and the role of Jewish plutocracy and oligarchy colonial of British in the events of that time, we will find that the rise of scrambling French in Iran during the era of Muhammad Shah was not in contrary to their will.