Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A Brilliant Early Defender of Palestine – Book Review

(Colin Andersen, Balfour in the Dock. J.M.N. Jeffries and the Case for the Prosecution. Bloxham, Oxon: Skyscraper Publications, 2017)
Reviewed by Jeremy Salt | Palestine Chronicle | April 18, 2018

J.M.N (Joseph) Jeffries was an outstanding British journalist whose book Palestine: The Reality (1939) is described by Colin Andersen as ‘a masterwork of history and a scathing indictment of British policy in Palestine from 1914 to 1938.’

George Antonius’ seminal work, The Arab Awakening, had been published only the year before but it is a more general account of British betrayal of the Arabs, whereas the value of the Jeffries book lies in his single-minded focus on Palestine and the force of his arguments. Few copies of the book were printed, and it is now almost impossible to find even in libraries. By Edward Said and many others, however, its value as an early exposure of British perfidy has long since been recognized.

Zionism itself was a wicked idea from the start. Herzl was not ignorant of the realities on the ground in Palestine. In the form of the people, he wanted to remove them and in the form of the land he wanted to turn Palestine into something else. Chaim Weizmann was no better. He lied, deceived and dissimulated as a matter of course. By 1914, with one exception, Zionism had no support anywhere. The Ottoman sultan, the Kaiser, and the Tsar’s government had all turned their backs on it. By Jews around the world, the Zionists were regarded as cranks, fanatics, and heretics but the one exception was critical. In Britain, the seed of imperial support for this mad idea had been sown by Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, when in 1903 he backed Zionist settlement in East Africa.

By 1917 Zionism had been absorbed into British imperialism. The motive was not gratitude for Weizmann’s chemical research in support of the war effort or anything as fanciful as sympathy for a persecuted people bent on returning to their ancient homeland but the recognition that Zionism was a tool Britain could use. The chief villains of the piece, in Jeffries’ reading, were the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, and his Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, both of whom, to use a term now current, ‘weaponised’ Zionism, first to bring the US into the war and then to turn Palestine over to their Zionist proxies, much as the US, Britain, France and their ‘allies’ have tried hard over the past seven years to put Syria in the hands of their takfiri proxies.

It was Jeffries, an outstanding correspondent for the London Daily Mail, who in 1923 exposed the deception deliberately built into Sir Henry McMahon’s correspondence with the Sharif Husayn of Mecca in 1915. The Sharif had outlined the area in which the Arabs were to be granted independence in return for supporting the British war effort. McMahon made specific exceptions for Mersin and Alexandretta (Iskanderun) and ‘portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, which cannot be said to be purely Arab.’ The excluded region had a substantial Christian percentage, but in line with its imperial tactics of divide and rule Britain chose to regard only Muslims as ‘Arab’ despite the role Christians played in the formulation of the Arab national idea.

This region ‘west of Damascus’ was the coastal littoral Britain intended to allocate to France in Sykes-Picot the following year but on no map, can Palestine be found west of Damascus. Homs and Hama are mentioned but not Jerusalem, for the obvious reason that the British knew that the Sharif Husayn would never agree to its exclusion from the area set aside for ‘Arab independence.’ Although Antonius is given the credit he deserves for exposing the depth of deceit in the McMahon letters to the Sharif Husayn, it was Jeffries, in articles written for the Daily Mail in 1923, based on a copy of the text he had been given by King Feisal, who first brought this deception to the attention of the British public.

The Husayn-McMahon correspondence was followed in 1916 by the treachery of Sykes-Picot and in 1917 by the further treachery of the Balfour declaration, a pledge not just made to the Zionists but largely written by them. Behind the caviling and declarations of nothing but good intentions, Jeffries knew exactly what they were up to the formula of a ‘national home’ was adopted for the time only because pressing for statehood would be regarded even by the British government as too provocative. The ‘country without a people for a people without a country’ was a brazen lie which the Zionists pretended to believe because they did not want the Palestinians to be there. They were being wished away psychologically long before they could be removed physically. As Jeffries was to write, they were nobodies who would eventually ‘vanish like mist before the sun of Zion.’

Behind his lofty, somewhat detached philosophical exterior, Balfour was as remorseless as the fanatics whose cause he was promoting, not in their interests, as they undoubtedly realized, but Britain’s.  Zionism, he wrote in 1919, right or wrong, good or bad, was rooted in traditions, present needs and future hopes of ‘far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.’ Crucially, the words ‘now’ and ‘inhabit’ point to what Balfour, the British government, and the Zionists, colluding, had in mind: Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians, they were only ‘inhabiting’ it and only for ‘now.’ In the same statement Balfour, in a rare moment of truth, wrote that insofar as Palestine was concerned ‘the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.’

In Palestine: The Reality Jeffries traced Balfour’s declaration from inception through gestation to birth. As Colin Andersen writes, far from being a pure and lofty initiative of the British government, the declaration was in its drafting ‘very much an Anglo-Zionist-American affair.’ The process began ‘in earnest’ in June 1917, when Weizmann, Lord Rothschild, and Sir Ronald Graham, assistant undersecretary at the Foreign Office, visited Balfour, who had just returned from a five-week visit to the US, where he met the leading US Zionist, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.  The question of a declaration on Palestine was discussed and after seeing Weizmann and Rothschild back in London, the drafting began, as Jeffries was to write, ‘on both sides of the Atlantic.’

It remains very worthwhile to consider how these drafts changed. As documented by Jeffries, in its first draft, prepared in July 1917, the British government spoke of Palestine being recognized as ‘the National Home of the Jewish people’, with the conditions of their ‘national life’ being determined with representatives of the ‘Zionist Organization.’ There is no mention of the theme dwelt upon by Balfour and others in the government of historical Jewish suffering and the need for a refuge and neither is there any mention of the majority of the population – Arab – actually living in Palestine.

On July 18 the Zionists produced their amended version in which Palestine would be ‘reconstituted’ as the national home of the Jewish people. In August Lord Milner, a senior figure in the government prepared a draft removing ‘reconstituted’ and referring to ‘a’ Jewish national home ‘in’ Palestine. This was approved by Balfour but opposed by Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India, both Jewish and anti-zionist, who described Zionism as a ‘mischievous political creed’, who said there was no Jewish nation and even argued that Zionism should be declared as illegal ‘and against the national interest.’ By longing for the day when he could ‘shake British soil from his shoes’ and go to Palestine, the British Jew would have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and admitted that ‘he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain or to be treated as an Englishman.’ At a Cabinet meeting on October 4, Montagu again objected vigorously, with the support of Lord Curzon, who asked ‘How was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?’

In Washington on October 13, President Wilson approved to have the British draft, clearly without spending much time thinking about it. Back in London, a reworded draft referred to the British government viewing with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish ‘race’, a phrase as bereft of any logic, historical or otherwise, as the Jewish ‘people’ or ‘nation.’ This time, however, the draft referred to the civil and religious rights of ‘existing’ non-Jewish communities in Palestine – the Palestinians, 90 percent of the population- as well as the rights of Jews elsewhere who were content with their existing nationality ‘and citizenship’, Balfour added.

This draft was also approved by Wilson. Alterations at the behest of Louis Brandeis led to further rewording, especially ‘people’ instead of ‘race.’ The reference to the rights of the ‘existing non-Jewish communities’ raised objections from the Zionists. How could anyone think that they could be damaged by the establishment of a national Jewish home? After all, did not Jewish religious tradition prescribe that the stranger must be looked after? In their inverted world, it was the stranger, themselves, who owned the land and the true owners, individually and collectively, the people of Palestine, who were the strangers, not that the  Zionists had any intention of looking after them or even sharing the land. They wanted to get rid of them.

The final form of the declaration was approved by the War Cabinet on October 31 and issued on November 2. It ends with Balfour’s request to Lord Rothschild to bring the declaration to the notice of the Zionist Federation. Nothing more cynically humorous had ever been penned than these two lines, wrote Jeffries, seeing that the Zionists had collaborated in drafting the declaration: in its final form it would never have been issued without their approval. Jeffries describes the document as the most discreditable produced by a British government in living memory.

He follows a trail spotted with lies and deceit to where it led after the war, to a mandatory administration of Palestine top-heavy with Zionists and Palestine resistance to the Anglo-Zionist occupation of their land. By 1937 the Peel report was recommending partition and transfer of part of the Palestinian population, a solution which the Zionists wanted not in part but full but part would at least be a start. Wrote Jeffries: ‘How can anyone suggest that about a quarter of the Arab population should be removed by force from the land which they and theirs have occupied for centuries?’

Colin Andersen, blending original material from Palestine: The Reality and Jeffries’ other writings with his own analysis and interpretation, has produced a book that no student of Britain’s deceits from Husain-McMahon to the Balfour Declaration should leave unread. There is a broader context, of course. In 1917, as the Balfour Declaration was being prepared and the world was reacting to the Bolshevik revolution, Lloyd George was giving assurances to the British labor movement that territorial annexation was the last thing the government had on its own mind.

The British were sick of war and the government was alarmed at the effects of the Bolshevik revolution, at a time it needed to ‘comb out’ more working-class men of fighting age to send to the front. They had to be deceived. In December 1917, addressing trade union leaders, Lloyd George asserted that ‘our one object in the war was to defend the violated public law of Europe, to vindicate Treaty obligations and to secure the restoration of Belgium.’ The release by the Bolsheviks of the contents of Sykes-Picot on November 23 had been an embarrassment but the Labor Party could still issue a statement praising Lloyd George, whose speech had revealed ‘a government and a people seeking no selfish or predatory aims of any kind, pursuing with one unchanging mind, one unchanging purpose: to obtain justice for others so that we thereby secure for ourselves a lasting peace. We desire neither to destroy Germany or diminish her boundaries: we seek neither to exalt ourselves nor to enlarge our empire.’

The immense harm which has been done to the Palestinians also has to be set in a broader regional context. The partition of Arab lands was of a piece with the planned partition of Anatolia, where the powers planned to establish a Christian Armenian ‘protectorate’ in eastern provinces where the population was 80 percent Muslim. In 1919 Lloyd George was the principal architect of the Greek invasion of western Anatolia, which was not to end, after great loss of life and massive destruction, until 1922. In the same year the British government launched the ‘war of intervention’ against the Bolsheviks: in the 1930s it launched the war of non-intervention against the republican government of Spain as well as enabling the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the Japanese invasion of China. Class and money interests of the British establishment took precedence over national interests (not that by this same establishment they were seen as being any different).

We can see continuity in the leading role Britain has played in the destruction of Iraq and Libya and the devastation of Syria by armed proxies over the past eight years, up to the missile attack of April 14. The record of lies, deception, intimidation, and aggression all the way since 1915 is practically seamless. We can only imagine what a journalist of the caliber of J.M.N Jeffries would have made of all this.

– Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California Press).

April 22, 2018 - Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , ,

2 Comments »

  1. “Palestine: The Reality” is available as a reprint in paperback from amazon et al. for about £17 .

    Like

    Jont's avatar Comment by Jont | April 23, 2018 | Reply

  2. ISRAEL WAS CREATED BY GODLESS SABBATEAN-FRANKIST JEWS

    Sabbatean-Frankism as the Paradigm of the Modern Left

    Introduction: Sabbatean-Frankist Paradigm

    What do all these influential intellectuals all have in common?

    1. Communism (Marx)
    2. Sexual depravity (Freud)
    3. Corporate Leftism (Bernays)
    4. Multiculturalism (Horace Kallen)
    5. Deconstructivism/Critical Theory (Walter Benjamin)
    6. Frankfurt School (Adorno)
    7. Radical jurisprudence (Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Cardozo)
    8. Large-scale, non-selective immigration (Israel Zangwill, Emma Lazarus)

    They are all linked to Sabbatean-Frankism, a distinct quasi-Satanic schism within Jewry. The extraordinary prevalence of Sabbatean-Frankist influence among top Jewish intellectuals from 1850-1950 makes it statistically impossible to deny its role because of the impossible coincidences.

    The Sabbatean-Frankists sought to invert traditional Jewish-Christian values, including the 10 Commandments, restrictions on debauched sexuality, man’s dominion over the environment, etc. Further, given Sabbatean-Frankism’s apocalyptic nature, the modern Left is riven with irrational destructive impulses.

    This general thesis has been explored by historians Paul Johnson and Gershom Scholem, but never in such detail. There are several implications of this thesis:

    The failures of the contemporary Left do not represent “good faith” secular humanist efforts gone wrong. It is very possible that Freud, Marx, and other Sabbatean-Frankist intellectuals purpose-built their ideas to destroy the West.
    The US Supreme Court was heavily influenced by Sabbatean-Frankists. Their impact help cause a revolution via court fiat in the 50s-70s that undemocratically imposed decadent/anti-Judeo-Christian (i.e. Frankist) values on the country.
    Since the Left is fundamentally a quasi-Satanic movement devoted to destroying traditional Judeo-Christian civilization, it is a natural ally with like-minded Islam, despite superficial differences (feminism, gay rights). Islam and the Left will seamlessly cooperate to destroy the West as they cooperated to topple the Shah in the Iranian Revolution.
    Any civilization will eventually grow contemptuous of its stern founding virtues. Sabbatean-Frankism’s resonance is part of a cycle where civilizations grow complacent and ultimately self-destructive.

    Count Radetzsky, who defeated both Napolean and the Frankist-inspired rebels of 1848, appears to have understood the nature of the Left, which isn’t secular humanism or mere nihilism, but destructiveness as an end-in-itself.

    Soldiers! Open your eyes to the abyss that opens at your feet; everything is in flux; the mainstays of the social order have been destroyed; property, morality, religion are threatened with destruction. Everything that is holy and dear to man, everything on which the state is based and which it upholds, people are determined to destroy. That, not liberty, is the aim of every rabble-rouser who wants to drag you down to your ruin and shame.

    If Frankism is an ideology of destruction, how does it animate the Left? Saul Alinksy tells us by dedicating his work to Lucifer. Note the famous quote from Milton’s Paradise Lost “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” The Left seeks to preside over bringing Hell on Earth.

    2. Definitions

    2-1. “Sabbatean”: Follower of Sabbati Zevi. Sabbati Zevi was a false Jewish messiah who spawned a large movement (estimates range from 100,000 to 1MM followers) in 1666. Zevi’s teachings can be summarized by the maxim: “what is holy; unholy, what is unholy, holy”. The theology of Sabbateanism represents an “Achilles Heel” in Judaism. In traditional Jewish theology, cumulative acts of righteousness will eventually bring the Messiah. However, the Sabbatean interpretation uses isolated Biblical quotes to support the opposite conclusion. As if following the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Sabbateans reason that it would be easier to accelerate the flow of chaos to utterly destroy civilization than to perfect it. Once they debauch the Judeo-Christian faiths and ruin the world, God would be forced to start the Messianic Age to save it.

    Orthodox Rabbi Emden (1697-1776) tried warning Christians of the existential Sabbatean menace:

    And if they are truly Christians, they will observe their faith with truth, and not allow within their boundary this new unfit Messiah Shabbetai Zevi who came to destroy the Earth.

    2-2. “Frankist”: Jakob Frank came 100 years after Zevi and claimed to be his reincarnation. As Gershom Scholem described: “Frank will always be remembered as one of the most frightening phenomena in the whole of Jewish history”.

    Frankism is a distinct system from Sabbateanism (it has less mysticism and more radicalism and is more primed as a political movement). Frank is notable for innovating ideas such as contemporary feminism and Labor Zionism. Notoriously, Frankists engaged in orgies, pedophilia, adultery, wife-swapping, murder, and all manner of sin, ritualistically.

    Schisms in Judaism between decadent rejectionists and traditionalists are age-old.

    2-3. “Neo-Frankist”: Following the death of Jakob Frank in 1791, his movement fell apart. About a century later, “Neo-Frankism” and related Jewish mysticism became common among Jewish intelligentsia. As German fascists found spiritual energy in neo-Paganism, the radical Jewish Left found its muse in Sabbatean-Frankist thought. Although they don’t technically practice Frankist custom and ritual, clearly they are linked to the ideas and sub-culture of the Frankist movement, including marrying fellow Frankist.

    Marx, Freud, Israel Zangwill, and the Frankfurt School, among others, all appear to be “neo-Frankists”.

    We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.

    –Karl Marx

    The bizarre Frankist cult should have been a historical footnote, but they were able to capture the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and Western culture in the chaos following WW1 and WW2. Gramsci’s Long March allowed nearly all institutions of the West (religious, political, and corporate) to be taken over by neo-Frankism.

    2-4. “Sabbatean–Frankists”: references Sabbateans, Frankists, and Neo-Frankists, collectively.

    2-5. Frankist Paradigm: The “Frankist Paradigm” is the set of neo-Frankist beliefs that have now metastasized across Western culture. These ideas find resonance in a multi-cultural society, where animosities brew under the surface and politics becomes a proxy for ethnic warfare. Without traditionalism, society becomes insipid and narcissistic, finding itself attracted to radical politics as a catharsis and a sadistic release. Without unity, society divides into warring factions. The Frankist Paradigm weaponizes these conflicts, producing a society of malcontents more interested in destruction and animosity than collective progress.

    Inception provides an introduction to Kuhnsian paradigms.

    3. Methodologies: How to Identify Sabbatean-Frankists

    Sabbatean-Frankists rarely reveal their interest in Zevi or Frank (Israel Zangwill was an exception). Frankists were commanded: “a believer must not appear as he really is”. They went so far as to destroy all public and personal records to conceal their prior association. Why would they hitch themselves to discredited apocalyptic messiahs with bizarre sexual proclivities? Indeed, the entire modern Leftist project to destroy the West would be undermined if its hidden roots in apocalyptic quasi-Satanism were uncovered.

    Sabbatean-Frankists were deeply cynical and relish deception. So, instead of saying that they were influenced by Frank, they make up risible hagiography-worthy stories of their profound altruism and humanity (Marx claiming that he was inspired to Communism by seeing unneeded scrap wood not being shared to help keep the German locals warm).

    To identify Sabbatean influence, Gershom Scholem used geographic loci to determine a Sabbatean relationship. For example, if the Haskalah (the Jewish Enlightenment) popped up in a region known as a nest of Sabbatean behavior, he drew a causal connection between the Haskalah and earlier known Sabbatean activity. Thus, there is a pattern of Sabbatean-Frankists linked to a few regions, such as Prague, Posen, and Frankfurt. Jewry lacked a strong centralized governance, meaning that heresies could thrive in isolated communities.

    As Scholem demonstrated, there are techniques to identify potential linkages between an individual or an activity and Sabbatean-Frankism. The “art and science” of identifying Sabbateans has been going on for over 350 years and it’s a hit-or-miss affair.

    Sabbatean-Frankists were anything but your “typical Jew”. They were distinctive with unique backgrounds and commonalities. Using these patterns, we can determine if a given intellectual could be characterized as “Sabbatean-Frankist”.

    3-1. Frankist Dynasty
    If a given intellectual or activist comes from a family of Sabbatean-Frankists, this is a red flag that he could be one as well. The Rothschilds and Jacob Schiff descended from Frankists. Marx’s father was rumored to have been one. Brandeis came from a high-profile Frankist family and Felix Frankfurter’s mother was one. Supreme Court Justice Cardozo (and his cousin Emma Lazarus) were Sephardi Jews from the same dynasty as the Sabbatean prophet, Cardoso. These dynasties produced extraordinarily talented men, akin to Galtonian eminence.

    Frankist families often did not revert to Judaism, but remained an endogenous community where they regularly inter-married and maintained their distinct history and values. Further, Orthodox Jews didn’t want the murdering pedophiles back in Judaism.

    Capture2

    3-2. Khabbalist Allusions
    One of the easiest ways to identify a Sabbatean-Frankist is if they use allusions from the Khabbalah, their holy book (while concealing the source).

    a) Israel Zangwill’s famous “Melting Pot” metaphor appears to have been taken from a scene from the Zohar where at the end of times all people’s meld into one. Zangwill recreated this scene in his play, to which Teddy Roosevelt boomed (unknowingly) “That’s a great play, Mr. Zangwill!“.

    b) Freud’s innovative ideas about the subconscious are similar to concepts already in the Khabbala. Freud’s sexual morality is simply a copy of Jakob Frank’s, where sexual repression is damaging and sexual desires should not go unfulfilled. Freud’s peculiar focus on incest and pedophilia was distinctly Frankist. Further, extensive study has been made of Freud’s innumerable allusions to Sabbatean thought.

    c) Frankfurt School member Walter Benjamin’s Deconstructionism appears related to the kabbalistic “shattering of the vessels”. Deconstructionism underlies the core Cultural Marxist concept of Critical Theory.

    d) According to historian Paul Johnson, Marx’s concept of history was taken from Khabbalistic theories from Nathan of Gaza, the mentor of Sabbati Zevi.

    3-3. Intellectual Cabals
    Statistical evidence can conclusively establish linkages between Sabbatean-Frankist ideas and Leftist thought. For example, the first three “Jewish” Supreme Court Justices, Cardozo, Frankfurter, and Brandeis, all came from Sabbatean or Frankist Dynasties. This coincidence is statistically impossible since a tiny minority of Jews had such lineages. Frankist Jews in the late 19th century were said to constitute a majority of the lawyers in Prague and Warsaw. This would have terrible consequences as their subversive Frankist Jurisprudence would ultimately turn the secular West’s greatest asset, its rule of law, into its most subversive. Ultimately, through court fiat, most Western nations can now be fairly described as Frankist theocracies.

    Further, the three most significant immigration activists of the Victorian Era: Israel Zangwill, Emma Lazarus, and Horace Kellen, are similarly all linked to Sabbatean-Frankism. They even had a secretive Sabbatean-style Zionist organization where Horace Kallen, Stephen Wise, and Brandeis operated.

    3-4. Intellectual Evolution Linkages:
    An FBI RICO approach can define a systematic conspiracy. Given enough individuals and institutions acting in concert, an underlying conspiracy becomes evident. The sheer weight of circumstantial evidence, over hundreds of years, creates a compelling narrative showing the evolution of the Left’s ideas as rooted in Sabbatean-Frankist thought.

    3-5. Hatred of the Traditional Judaism
    Sabbatean-Frankists were prototypically non-practicing Jews (or Jews that practice a far-Left version of Judaism). Yet, they were well-versed in Jewish theology because they often descend from Rabbinical dynasties.

    Horace Kallen, the inventor of “multiculturalism”, is a good example. He insisted on meeting his secret Zionist society on Friday evenings, during the Jewish Sabbath. This infuriated many Jewish members, but he refused to relent and reschedule. This inexplicable anecdote makes Mr. Kallen a suspected Sabbatean (he has numerous other red flags).

    3-6. Obsession with Destruction
    Further, the Sabbatean-Frankists often held psychotic narcissistic fantasies of the West’s destruction at their hands: Marx’s “Revolution” and Satanic poetry of destruction or Freud fancying himself as Hannibal, conqueror of the West. This obsession with destruction, as an end itself, stands in contrast to traditional “gentile” Leftism. Unitarians oppose traditional Christian values, yet they do not seem obsessed with destroying all sane, rational order.

    Sabbatean-Frankists cynically feigned “secular humanism”, but they represent a distinct ideology from, say, Robespierre, who sought a form of rational order. Even Marquis de Sade is viewed as a satirist by Camille Paglia. But, there is nothing satirical about Freud or Marx.

    3-7. Labor Zionism
    In 19th century Judaism, Zionism was widely viewed as Sabbatean (Herlz was even accused of being one). Sabbatean Zionists sought control over the Holy Land to use the leverage of Jerusalem to establish hegemony over all of Judaism (know that Zevi’s 17th century movement was ultimately squelched by the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem calling him a fraud).

    The Sabbatean-Frankist obsession with Zionism is similar to Islam’s obsession with conquest over the Holy Land. The Holy Land holds no real connection to the Islam, yet both faiths works tirelessly to establish hegemony over it to defile and humiliate the Judeo-Christian faiths. In this sense, both faiths, Islam and Sabbatean-Frankism, share a common ideal of destruction.

    This “Labor Zionism” shouldn’t be confused with “Religious Zionism” (Jewish #NRx) or “Revisionist Zionism” (Jewish Alt-Right), which are the opposite. In Israel today, “Labor” represents the intellectual remnants of “Labor Zionism”, and Netanyahu’s government represents a coalition of Religious and Revisionist Zionists. So, in Israeli politics, the Left’s relationship with its Sabbatean roots is more clearly defined.

    3-8. Misanthropy and Disorders
    Sabbatean-Frankists engaged in patterns of behavior hostile to conventional norms of the time (homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, drug addition, encouraging promiscuity). In the case of Marx, knocking up his housekeeper, then kicking her out on the street. Freud, similarly, was cocaine-addicted and preyed on his patient’s mental problems. Zevi himself appears to have suffered from severe bipolar disorder.

    3-9. Rabbi Ancestors
    For whatever reason, many high-profile Sabbatean-Frankist intellectuals descended from families of rabbi’s. The combination of their oppositional defiant personalities and their descendancy from rabbi’s produces an implacable hatred of religion. This is similar to Nietzsche, whose father was a priest.

    3-10. Germanic Jews
    The Sabbatean-Frankists were nearly always Germanic Jews. Germanic Jews comprise a tiny portion of global Jewry (even before the Holocaust). As mentioned earlier, modern neo-Frankists often had origins in specific areas historically known for Sabbatean-Frankist activity: Posen, Warsaw, Prague, Vienna, Frankfurt. This regionality strengthens the argument that this is a distinct intellectual movement.

    Germanic Jews were uniquely-prone to Frankism. Wealthy, narcissistic, and brilliant, the German elite was embarrassed by their Jewish roots and traditions. Felix Mendhellson was so ashamed of his Jewish background that he played under a Christian name. They sought to forge a new identity for Judaism and to establish dominion over Israel through their Zionist project. They won more Nobel Prizes per capita than any group (by far). Like the similarly hubristic and talented ancient Greeks, their success was merely a flash and they left the world stage as quickly as they entered.

    Great Germanic-Jewish composers include Mahler, Mendelssohn and even Josef Goldmark’s brother, Karl.

    3-11. James Bond Villains
    Sabbatean-Frankists were charming, narcissistic, brilliant, and natural leaders, often acquiring a cult-like following. The result of their conspiratorial minds and implacable hatred was a larger-than-life cartoonish “James Bond villain” personality full of megalomaniacal scheming.

    Jacob Schiff undermined the Tsar (funding the Japanese navy in their shocking victory and later Russian revolutionaries). Josef Goldmark led the Vienna Revolt of 1848, lynched the Austrian Defense Mister, fled to the United States where he fortuitously built a munitions factory a year before the Civil War, and then he ultimately toppled the United States via Frankist revolution-by-fiat through his son-in-law SCOTUS Louis Brandeis.

    3-12. Millions Dead
    Any large-scale catastrophe is an indicator of Sabbatean-Frankist mischief and should arouse suspicion.

    100MM dead stemming from Marx’s polemic incendiary communist writings: the Cultural Revolution in China, the Khumer Rouge, etc.
    The Donmeh, a Turkish Sabbatean cult, may have been behind the Armenian genocide.
    The Holocaust appears linked to FDR’s Sabbatean Court Jews passive-aggressively blocking the emigration of Jews from Europe, and thereby consigning them to their inevitable deaths.
    The Revolt of 1848 (Josef Goldmark).
    The overthrow of the Tsar was funded by Frankist-descendant Jacob Schiff.There are many more than this list, but they start to delve into conspiracy theory.

    Secular humanists struggle to understand truly evil and irrational (demonic) personalities. Fiction like James Bond villians and the Rolling Stones fills the void.

    4. The Inexplicable Left

    To show that the Frankist Paradigm explains the startling rise of the Left in the 20th century, it is implicit to show that conventional theories are unsatisfactory. To quote Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

    The Left of 2017 is raw demonic madness: roving savages of Antifa, unlimited and unqualified Islamic immigration, 9-year old transgendered children, decriminalization of Jihadi rape of teenage white girls, etc. This is self-evidently not a rationalist movement, and therefore it must be a quasi-theological one, rooted in radical anti-nomianism (inversion of moral rules).

    Further, none of the existing theories from the Right can account for the equally Satanic nature and peculiarity of the Left’s dominant Jewish intellectuals.

    4-1. Christian Left
    Many adopt a “Christian” version of the Sabbatean-Frankist thesis and blame the left-wing Jesuits and Unitarians. While there is no doubt that these groups promoted far-left ideas and had the power to promote them as left-wing Protestants controlled the Ivy League, the Christian Left is marked by pathological altruism and naiveté. They have historically applied a more left-wing interpretation of the Gospels, but this is hardly the ideology of today’s violent apocalyptic Antifa. The Christian Left has typically acted more like useful idiots than prime movers.

    In the 2010s, however, Pope Francis appears to be taking the mantle in leading the spread of subversion by using the power and credibility of the Papacy as a weapon to destroy Christianity and the West.

    4-2. Frankfurt School or “Cultural Marxism”
    Another explanation, promoted in Mein Kampf and accepted by the Paleocons, is that Freud, Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School (Cultural Marxists) put forward a series of ideas that formed the basis of the modern Left. To accept this argument, you have to believe that a fully-formed intellectual/political movement somehow spontaneously developed from 1900-1933 and then managed to sweep the West, utterly, within a few decades.

    Further, the Frankfurt School itself was heavily influenced by Sabbatean-Frankist thought. So, the Frankfurt School is significant as the first major openly subversive Frankist institution, but not as the originator of the Left’s ideas.

    4-3. “Jewish Interest”
    Kevin MacDonald, the guru behind the AltRight, explains the 20th century Left’s astonishing ascension as “Jewish Interest”. Jews act in a “group evolutionary strategy”, and that’s the real reason why Western Civilization is in ruins. While MacDonald may be correct that Orthodox Judaism is an “evolutionary strategy”, this ended with the collapse of the Rabbinical order as a result of Zevi, Frank, and the French Revolution.

    The Left was developed by neo-Frankist intellectuals, meaning that they were promoting the inverse of traditional Talmudic/rabbinical Jewry. Indeed, neo-Frankists like Marx were rabid anti-Semites and Jakob Frank rallied the Catholic Church against Orthodox Jewry, culminating in Talmud burning. So, the radical Left seeks to manipulate Christians as patsies against Orthodox Jewry.

    Once Jewry became dominated by neo-Frankists, Jews went from being “history’s greatest survivors” under the Rabbinical order, to being repeatedly on the cusp of extermination. Since 1900: (a) Jews have been largely removed from Europe and slaughtered by the millions, (b) Stalin was given the atomic bomb by Jewish communists and could have destroyed New York, home of post WW2’s surviving Jewry, (c) Stalin further sought to exterminate Soviet Jewry before he died, (d) Feminism obliterated secular Jewish birth rates, and lastly, (e) Israel’s Sabbatean Leftists repeatedly pushed their nation to the brink of ruin.

    One of the most shocking revelations in this series is the peculiar passive-aggressive attitude of Sabbatean Rabbi Stephen Wise before and during the Holocaust. The most powerful rabbi of the 20th century did nothing to help heavily Orthodox Eastern European Jewry and actively sabotaged anyone who tried. So, the bête noire of the AltRight, “Organized Jewry” (which is mostly neo-Frankist front groups) hardly acted in the generalized “Jewish interest”.

    Ironically, by describing radical Jewish Leftists as being riven with ethnic fidelity, MacDonald is buying into their risible rhetoric. Following Occam’s Razor, subversive Jewish intellectuals serve the interests of their fellow subversive Jewish intellectuals or subvert their fellow Jews. In sum, MacDonald’s Culture of Critique becomes cogent when you call the modern Left a “Jewish Neo-Frankist Intellectual Movement”.

    4-4. Managerial Class
    Like MacDonald, James Burham (the inspiration behind National Review) also describes the decline of the West in rationalist and not theological terms. He blames a dysfunctional technocratic managerial elite. The problem is that corporate or governmental rationality isn’t suicide, and that’s the direction where they are leading us. Corporate and governments push the immigrant invasion, debt, and debauchery to the point of destabilizing the West. Their self-destructive actions ensure an eventual reckoning. So, these parties aren’t acting in anything resembling a rational fashion to account for where we are today.

    Further, who exactly are our Elites? They were handpicked and screened by Frankfurt School dominated Ivy League universities. France and the UK have similar gatekeeper elite institutions fully-captured by the radical Left. The Elite are systematically indoctrinated for years (perhaps up to 10). Anyone not agreeing to the propaganda doesn’t get promoted and is thereby excluded from the Elite. Conservative students and professors learn to either submit or remain in hiding.

    4-5. Capitalism
    Similar to the “managerial class gone wrong” is the argument that capitalism inherently promotes Leftism. Modern corrupt/left-wing Corporate, however, was defined by Sabbatean Jews. The Rothschild dynasty turned high-finance into an industry of hyper-corruption. Sabbatean Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays innovated left-wing public relations where companies could profit by shilling for subversive causes.

    tabooyBernays famously shattered the taboo of women smoking with his orchestrated “Torches of Freedom” march for a cigarette company. Prior to this, Corporate was decidedly conservative.

    Although many industries specifically want to degenerate values, such as pharmaceutical companies pushing birth control, the free market also provides avenues to express conservative ideals. Trump’s campaign leveraged social media to achieve victory. Social media may end up being a reactionary force as it allows the formerly “silent” majority to express their opinions.

    4-6. Sabbatean-Frankists
    The various theories above may have seemed plausible until just a few years ago. However, the Left of today has been given full control of the culture and the organs of power. We can now see the full depth of their madness: genocide of the West via immigration and unlimited cultural degeneracy (e.g. gay marriage and transgender rights). Among the subversive intellectual movements, the Sabbatean-Frankists are the only suspect with this level of destructiveness and irrationality, i.e. a subversive cult. If the conventional theories can all be dismissed, then the Sabbatean thesis, however improbable, must be accepted.

    Like

    Buddy Silver's avatar Comment by Buddy Silver | May 24, 2018 | Reply


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

« Previous | Next »